Mickey Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Allawi now says that the ambush of those 49 Iraqi national guard trainees was due to "great negligence" by US Forces and the Times interprets his comment as "major neglect". Either way, he is blaming us. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it a fact that basically we don't know what the $%$@# happened and are investigating with an eye towards the possibility of the guard being infiltrated? Unless Allawi has some factual information that hasn't been shared with the US or the Press, where does he get off making this accusation? On a political note, do those of you on the right who were kissing his butt when he was praising Bush during his recent visit here have a little different view of him now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Allawi now says that the ambush of those 49 Iraqi national guard trainees was due to "great negligence" by US Forces and the Times interprets his comment as "major neglect". Either way, he is blaming us. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it a fact that basically we don't know what the $%$@# happened and are investigating with an eye towards the possibility of the guard being infiltrated? Unless Allawi has some factual information that hasn't been shared with the US or the Press, where does he get off making this accusation? On a political note, do those of you on the right who were kissing his butt when he was praising Bush during his recent visit here have a little different view of him now? 86508[/snapback] You would think we would get more from a hand picked interim leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Or is he simply playing the role of a sly politician? He can get a lot of mileage at home by blaming the US (even if US wasn't responsible) I don't think that he should fear a strong reprimand from DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Or is he simply playing the role of a sly politician? He can get a lot of mileage at home by blaming the US (even if US wasn't responsible) I don't think that he should fear a strong reprimand from DC. 86701[/snapback] That scenario makes the most sence on its face. Alawi is a handpicked guy and the world knows it. He is widely rumored to be an ex-CIA operative or colaberator and by making a few statements that show some independence from the U.S. or displeasure, no matter how contrived, it may help him to survive, (not only politically), in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 That scenario makes the most sence on its face. Alawi is a handpicked guy and the world knows it. He is widely rumored to be an ex-CIA operative or colaberator and by making a few statements that show some independence from the U.S. or displeasure, no matter how contrived, it may help him to survive, (not only politically), in Iraq. 86713[/snapback] Of course, another scenario is he is saying what he believes to be true and is fed up with what he percieves to be "great neglect" on our part. Even if it is just a ploy, you have to wonder why it is that inorder to be popular with his own people, he has to attack and blame the US. I thouhgt the Iraqi people were by and large pro-US but that the demon networks refuse to report it that way. *Gasp*, could those reports be true? Could the Iraqi's be blaming us for their misery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Of course, another scenario is he is saying what he believes to be true and is fed up with what he percieves to be "great neglect" on our part. Even if it is just a ploy, you have to wonder why it is that inorder to be popular with his own people, he has to attack and blame the US. I thouhgt the Iraqi people were by and large pro-US but that the demon networks refuse to report it that way. *Gasp*, could those reports be true? Could the Iraqi's be blaming us for their misery? 86746[/snapback] Sorry, Boomer doesn't live here anymore, so your rationale won't incite. Even though it's been represented that the Iraqis' views of the US are not as bad as we think it is, no one is delusional that most Iraqis don't want the US out of there. Sevestojan, if 50% of Americans blame Bush for their problems, why shouldn't a higher percentage of Iraqis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Of course, another scenario is he is saying what he believes to be true and is fed up with what he percieves to be "great neglect" on our part. Even if it is just a ploy, you have to wonder why it is that inorder to be popular with his own people, he has to attack and blame the US. I thouhgt the Iraqi people were by and large pro-US but that the demon networks refuse to report it that way. *Gasp*, could those reports be true? Could the Iraqi's be blaming us for their misery? 86746[/snapback] Alright that tears it Mickey!!! We were met with flowers, hugs and kisses by the Iraqi people after the invasion, Mr. Cheney said so and me, the President, and Richio believe it!!!! All evidence to the contrary we refuse to listen to. Seriously he has a choice as I see it. He can begin real quick to, at least make the appearance of, disagree with the U.S. and be somewhat critical in an effort to gain some legitimacy among the Iraqi people and the Arab nations that surround him. Or he can become another Karzai who is totally propped up by the U.S., is almost (for his own safety), totally isolated from his own people, has no control outside of Kabul and will eventually be disgarded by the U.S. when it is no longer convenient or necessary to keep him around. Regardless of if we're talking about Diem in Viet Nam, Pinochet in Chile, The Junta in Argentina, the Shah in Iran, or Noriega in Panama ex-CIA types have a history of being given up when we don't need them. Maybe this guy is trying to break the trend by trying to distance himself now so that when we do withdraw our support for him he can still survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Alright that tears it Mickey!!! We were met with flowers, hugs and kisses by the Iraqi people after the invasion, Mr. Cheney said so and me, the President, and Richio believe it!!!! All evidence to the contrary we refuse to listen to. Seriously he has a choice as I see it. He can begin real quick to, at least make the appearance of, disagree with the U.S. and be somewhat critical in an effort to gain some legitimacy among the Iraqi people and the Arab nations that surround him. Or he can become another Karzai who is totally propped up by the U.S., is almost (for his own safety), totally isolated from his own people, has no control outside of Kabul and will eventually be disgarded by the U.S. when it is no longer convenient or necessary to keep him around. Regardless of if we're talking about Diem in Viet Nam, Pinochet in Chile, The Junta in Argentina, the Shah in Iran, or Noriega in Panama ex-CIA types have a history of being given up when we don't need them. Maybe this guy is trying to break the trend by trying to distance himself now so that when we do withdraw our support for him he can still survive. 86790[/snapback] If a middle east leader, inorder to gain legitimacy with his people, has to be anti-US, we are losing the part of the war that leads to fanatics with box cutters even though we are defeating armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Sorry, Boomer doesn't live here anymore, so your rationale won't incite. Even though it's been represented that the Iraqis' views of the US are not as bad as we think it is, no one is delusional that most Iraqis don't want the US out of there. Sevestojan, if 50% of Americans blame Bush for their problems, why shouldn't a higher percentage of Iraqis? 86767[/snapback] The idea that the majority of Iraqis do not want us there is not a meaningless distinction. It is the difference between being an occupying force and a liberating force. What would you call our troop presence there? Honestly, I am not sure what to call it. The press uses the phrase "coalition forces stationed in ......" or refer to the Iraq war as if it isn't finished. The war is over, our occupation is what goes on. You don't hear that phrase in our media "the occupation" but isn't that what we are doing now, occupying? I am not passing judgment on the wisdom of the war or the occupation, I am just suggesting that we call it what it is. "The American Occupation of Iraq" Not a very attractive image is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDad Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 If a middle east leader, inorder to gain legitimacy with his people, has to be anti-US, we are losing the part of the war that leads to fanatics with box cutters even though we are defeating armies. 86819[/snapback] That's my point and that is why, from before the war, I was against us invading Iraq. That's why I will vote for Mr. Kerry in one week. Mr. Bush has stated that if elected... we will see more of the same and I am tired of it. Do I wish there was another FDR, JFK, WJC in the ranks to blow this administration out? Of course but some times we have to play the hand we're delt and that's Mr. Kerry. Is he my ideal candidate? Of course not but he is a better choice than four more years of the same bs that we have been through. Many here and elsewhere accuse people like myself as being ABB voters, (that was an acronym I saw in another post which stands for "Anybody But Bush"), and to the extent that, for me, Kerry is not the ideal choice that is acurate. However the implication that because Mr. Kerry is not the ideal candidate for many of us somehow drops him down to the level of competence of Mr. Bush is a very big stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Interesting how this statement gets made about the same time as the explosives bonanza. Anyone recall my comments about folks doing things in their own self interest? Politics? Power? Never trust anyone. You'll be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Interesting how this statement gets made about the same time as the explosives bonanza. Anyone recall my comments about folks doing things in their own self interest? Politics? Power? Never trust anyone. You'll be disappointed. 86875[/snapback] I trust my dog and that is about it. Good ol' Rufus. Pity he can't hold office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I trust my dog and that is about it. Good ol' Rufus. Pity he can't hold office. 86880[/snapback] At least the State of the Union would feature the actual sniffing of butts instead of just the proverbial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I trust my dog and that is about it. Good ol' Rufus. Pity he can't hold office. 86880[/snapback] I'd probably vote for Rufus. Then again, if you recall, he should be named Kirby or Hoover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The idea that the majority of Iraqis do not want us there is not a meaningless distinction. It is the difference between being an occupying force and a liberating force. What would you call our troop presence there? Honestly, I am not sure what to call it. The press uses the phrase "coalition forces stationed in ......" or refer to the Iraq war as if it isn't finished. The war is over, our occupation is what goes on. You don't hear that phrase in our media "the occupation" but isn't that what we are doing now, occupying? I am not passing judgment on the wisdom of the war or the occupation, I am just suggesting that we call it what it is. "The American Occupation of Iraq" Not a very attractive image is it? 86832[/snapback] I'll trade you "occupation" for "insurgents." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts