Iraqis: life is getting better

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Fewer SECTARIAN attacks, and is that because we defeated the rival militias slaughtering civilians? No, its because they are waiting, they have all the time in the world, things are still falling apart, just more slowly now

Many militias death squad leaders fear if the US leaves under Democratic pressure, they won't be able to hide under them like they have been, so temporarily halting, again thank the Democrats

Fewer SECTARIAN attacks??? that is pretty much the only types of attacks there have been lately. I mean that is unless you know of some hidden full blown battles that haven't been written about.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

They aren't getting credit for the good news because they haven't done shit except talk up a storm. Tell me exactly what have they done that that is the reason for the better news coming from there?

Put pressure on the Iraqis to perform via their non-binding resolutions and proposed legislation to have a goal-oriented time-table

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

Fewer SECTARIAN attacks??? that is pretty much the only types of attacks there have been lately. I mean that is unless you know of some hidden full blown battles that haven't been written about.

I guess the 7 US soldiers killed today mean nothing

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Put pressure on the Iraqis to perform via their non-binding resolutions and proposed legislation to have a goal-oriented time-table

But as you keep saying in other threads they haven't passed anything cept for the non-binding resolution which means dick anyway.

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I guess the 7 US soldiers killed today mean nothing

Well that story is also saying how Iraqi's got killed too. So was the attack aimed at US troops or Iraqi's? Or was it an attack against both due to opportunity?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

Well that story is also saying how Iraqi's got killed too. So was the attack aimed at US troops or Iraqi's? Or was it an attack against both due to opportunity?

An IED followed up by small arms fire and you think they were targetting shia civilians...right

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

But as you keep saying in other threads they haven't passed anything cept for the non-binding resolution which means dick anyway.

I was saying you can't go around finding what one house rep says and go 'OH THAT'S THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN' or find one house rep and go 'OH DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN'

It is certain, however, that Democrats are putting more pressure on the Iraqis than the GOP did, and that would improve the situation, but we're in such a hole it's doubtful its enough to win it

I think the resolution sent a clear signal to the Iraqis

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I was saying you can't go around finding what one house rep says and go 'OH THAT'S THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN' or find one house rep and go 'OH DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN'

It is certain, however, that Democrats are putting more pressure on the Iraqis than the GOP did, and that would improve the situation, but we're in such a hole it's doubtful its enough to win it

I think the resolution sent a clear signal to the Iraqis

right..... that resolution sent a signal to the insurgents that if they step it up we will leave because of the liberals intent on pulling us out. The increase in troops has lowered the violence and not some petty non-binding resolution.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

right..... that resolution sent a signal to the insurgents that if they step it up we will leave because of the liberals intent on pulling us out. The increase in troops has lowered the violence and not some petty non-binding resolution.

Only sectarian violence in Baghdad has gone down, they just moved to another place...there's no victory in capturing an empty building

The sunni insurgency is as strong as ever, and they're killing US soldiers as fast as they ever have

The shia death squads are as strong as ever and sitting back, perfectly confident whether the US stays or leaves, they'll control Iraq, they don't need to kill 100 sunnis RIGHT TODAY

Violence has actually increased in other provinces, meaning the insurgents simply moved, its not hard

So short term success, thanks to Democrats, but long term failure thanks to Bush

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Only sectarian violence in Baghdad has gone down, they just moved to another place...there's no victory in capturing an empty building

The sunni insurgency is as strong as ever, and they're killing US soldiers as fast as they ever have

The shia death squads are as strong as ever and sitting back, perfectly confident whether the US stays or leaves, they'll control Iraq, they don't need to kill 100 sunnis RIGHT TODAY

Violence has actually increased in other provinces, meaning the insurgents simply moved, its not hard

So short term success, thanks to Democrats, but long term failure thanks to Bush

my bad i didn't realize that you possess inside intel on the insurgent practices and their strategies.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

my bad i didn't realize that you possess inside intel on the insurgent practices and their strategies.

Sadr told his men to stand down, common knowledge watch the news

There are no large insurgent deaths, common knowledge watch the news

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The sunni insurgency is as strong as ever, and they're killing US soldiers as fast as they ever have

The shia death squads are as strong as ever and sitting back, perfectly confident whether the US stays or leaves, they'll control Iraq, they don't need to kill 100 sunnis RIGHT TODAY

yeah i've seen them announcing this all over the news. Sadr told his men to stand down due to troop surge not because of the resolution.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by smokie700

yeah i've seen them announcing this all over the news. Sadr told his men to stand down due to troop surge not because of the resolution.

Proof?

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Proof?

well where is your proof that they are standing down due to the nonbinding resolution?

I will try to dig up the new stories that show how sadr told his militia to stand down because of the surge.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 01/13/2007 | Mahdi Army lowers its profile, anticipating arrival of U.S. troops
Mahdi Army lowers its profile, anticipating arrival of U.S. troops

By Leila Fadel and Zaineb Obeid

McClatchy Newspapers


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Mahdi Army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival of U.S. reinforcements.

"We have explicit directions to keep a low profile . . . not to confront, not to be dragged into a fight and to calm things down," said one official who received the orders from the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Sadr heads the Mahdi Army, Iraq's largest Shiite militia, headquartered in Najaf.

The official asked not to be named because he was not authorized to reveal the militia's plans.

Militia members say al-Sadr ordered them to stand down shortly after President George Bush's announcement that the U.S. would send 17,500 more American troops to Baghdad to work alongside the Iraqi security forces.




ABC News: Al-Sadr Looks to Lie Low, Outlast U.S.
BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 10, 2007 (AP)— Their rhetoric is still stridently anti-American, but Mahdi Army militiamen are tucking away their weapons and blending into civilian life. Their leaders are keeping out of sight.
In the streets of Sadr City, the strategy of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite militia leader, is clear: Lie low, avoid a showdown and hope to emerge even stronger after the Americans leave.
Gathered for pray



SADR TELLS THUGS TO LIE LOW IN BAGHDAD By NILES LATHEM Post Correspondent - Worldnews - New York Post Online Edition

WASHINGTON - Dangerous Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his fanatical Mahdi Army to stand down during the U.S. security crackdown in Baghdad so that his organization can live to fight another day, The Post has learned.




I'll find more when i have time.

[Thorgrim]

avoid a showdown and hope to emerge even stronger after the Americans leave

Little to do with the surge, were what, 140,000...now there are 160,000...the Green Zone was right infront of them for years

I believe he probably told his captains that the Americans were coming in to sweep the sunnis and to steer clear and let the Americans do some of the heavy lifting for them...has nothing to do with stablizing or losing control of any region

He's forced the Americans out of Sadr City before, he could do it again, its a small issue

The larger issue is whether to prop up Maliki or not, which as of now they are doing, Sadr wants someone he has power over to be the PM, maybe he'll drop Maliki but as of now he's keeping him because of the risk of a Badr man coming to power...the last thing they want is a Badr-Mahdi showdown all over Iraq, which in the past wouldn't mean much but with Democrats in power, they'll say its a 3-way civil war and demand we leave, who knows we might leave if that happened

Sadr can not take on the Badr Corp and the Sunni insurgency at once...vice versa with Hakim and the Badr Corp...the last thing the Badr Corp wants is the US to leave, they'd have to fight Sadr and the Sunnis at once, they are much happier getting arms from Iran, arming up and letting the US take on Sunnis...they had hoped to do this for a decade or more, until the US had worn down the sunni insurgency and they could tell the Americans to leave through the Shia government and then wipe out the Sunnis

If we leave now, with the Sunni insurgency intact, they'll actually have to COOPERATE or some other path they'd hate to take

Right now they are using us like a cheap (actually free) hooker

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Little to do with the surge, were what, 140,000...now there are 160,000...the Green Zone was right infront of them for years

I believe he probably told his captains that the Americans were coming in to sweep the sunnis and to steer clear and let the Americans do some of the heavy lifting for them...has nothing to do with stablizing or losing control of any region

He's forced the Americans out of Sadr City before, he could do it again, its a small issue

The larger issue is whether to prop up Maliki or not, which as of now they are doing, Sadr wants someone he has power over to be the PM, maybe he'll drop Maliki but as of now he's keeping him because of the risk of a Badr man coming to power...the last thing they want is a Badr-Mahdi showdown all over Iraq, which in the past wouldn't mean much but with Democrats in power, they'll say its a 3-way civil war and demand we leave, who knows we might leave if that happened

Sadr can not take on the Badr Corp and the Sunni insurgency at once...vice versa with Hakim and the Badr Corp...the last thing the Badr Corp wants is the US to leave, they'd have to fight Sadr and the Sunnis at once, they are much happier getting arms from Iran, arming up and letting the US take on Sunnis...they had hoped to do this for a decade or more, until the US had worn down the sunni insurgency and they could tell the Americans to leave through the Shia government and then wipe out the Sunnis

If we leave now, with the Sunni insurgency intact, they'll actually have to COOPERATE or some other path they'd hate to take

Right now they are using us like a cheap (actually free) hooker

He provided you with the proof you asked. Assumptions of how someone thinks things happened in Iraq doesn't outweigh the reality. Because of the troop surge Sadr told his men to stand down. We can all make up reasons for it, but the reality is it happened.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He provided you with the proof you asked. Assumptions of how someone thinks things happened in Iraq doesn't outweigh the reality. Because of the troop surge Sadr told his men to stand down. We can all make up reasons for it, but the reality is it happened.

We never had permission before to sweep Sadr City the way we are now, this is something Sadr and Maliki hammered out together

We didn't need 28,000 extra troops to sweep Sadr city, especially while the British are leaving because they are saying parts of the country are done as far as occupying is concerned


Sadr's forces were not fighting US forces all over Iraq before this started, so why should they now? Unless we have the arabic source and an Iraqi cultural expert, there is no evidence he did anything beyond saying "We aren't fighting the Americans now, so don't attack them when they enter Sadr City"

These third hand accounts are the same which told he was in the southern marshes of iraq, no iran, no karbala, no iran again

Unfortunately the only number we can trust 99.9%+ is American deaths, and those have not gone down