Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (84559)	9/15/2008 12:20:35 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540936

We don't know what she meant, and I think that's the problem. One of the really disturbing and provocative things Bush did leading us into war was imply a connection between Iraq and and 9-11. So it would seem prudent to be very careful with language that could allow for that implication again.

To: Katelew who wrote (84559)	9/15/2008 12:23:26 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540936

Al Qaeda In Iraq is not the group that flew planes into the buildings, it is an entirely separate group that adopted the name for branding purposes.

To: Katelew who wrote (84559)	9/15/2008 12:38:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540936

Granted, they weren't there before we invaded, but they are there now. I ran that angle up the flagpole yesterday. It got shot down. siliconinvestor.com Given subsequent discussion, it seems likely that that is, indeed, what she meant. The disagreement in retrospect seems to be mostly over whether or not it was "reasonable" or not to interpret it that way. <g>

To: Katelew who wrote (84559)	9/15/2008 1:17:27 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 540936

Why can't her statement be nothing more than a reference to Al-Quaeda in Iraq?Granted, they weren't there before we invaded, but they are there now. Some distinctions: yes, people affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaeda went to Iraq. Some Iraqis undoubtedly were also inspired by them. But they were always there in small numbers, even if they were responsible for a greater percentage of the violence than their numbers. But--their success, such as it was, was dependent on the vast majority of Sunnis who were insurgents against the US. There are about 4-5 million Sunnis in Iraq. Estimates of numbers of foreign fighters were never greater than 1,500-2,000. Maybe another few thousand Iraqis joined them as a matter of ideology (I am pulling the latter number out of my butt--but from all reports I have read, it wasn't very many that became "true believers"). The Al Qaeda people overrreached, and tried to take control of the insurgency, but failed to get that Iraqi Sunnis are overwhelmingly secular and wouldn't put up with it, and also failed to grasp that without the help and protection of the natives, they would be as powerless as the Americans. The Iraqi Sunnis turned against the Al Qaeda affiliated people, and decided that an alliance with the Americans would help them get rid of them. That was the "Anbar Awakening." The Al Qaeda people have been decisively defeated at this point. The US has helped the former insurgents who now compose the Anbar Awakening forces with money, weapons and military support. The violence in Iraq has dropped--especially in terms of US deaths, but also Iraqi deaths--both because Iraqi anger and fighting turned against the Al Qaeda people, and because the Shia militias, including the militia that followed al Sadr, called a cease fire against killing Americans and Sunnis. There were never all that many Al Qaeda people to kill. Although Bush Backers say that the reason Sadr called the cease fire was because his militia sustained heavy losses. But another interpretation is that Iran--which backs both Sadr and Maliki--decided it was very nice of the Sunnis to kill each other and it was very nice of the Americans to train and arm Shia fighters whose allegiance would be to Shia--both the Iraq govt and Iran. Shia fighters no longer had to kill the Sunni. Plus given the democratic rhetoric of the Bush admin and the impending end of the UN mandate for American forces to remain in Iraq, it would be easier to get rid of the Americans by having Maliki negotiate for them to get by a date certain. Further, the Maliki govt didn't have to incorporate Sunni fighters into the military as the Americans wanted them to. Just stall until the Americans had to leave. The Americans would not start a war with an elected Iraqi govt, and they could scream all they wanted--it wouldn't and doesn't matter. The Shia outnumber the Sunni by about 3-1. They have control of the govt, the military and large oil revenues. They have been trained by the US, and have access to plenty of weapons. However ferocious the Sunni may fight, they don't have an air force or many tanks, they don't have a port where they can easily get weapons, and they wouldn't stand a chance against the Shia without US support. After the Americans leave, the Sunni will basically be at the mercy of the Shia. Now, tell me, who is Track or Trick or whatever his name is, fighting? Who is the US fighting? What are we doing there? What have we actually accomplished with this war of brilliance?