Al Qaeda in Iraq Is at Its Weakest

[namvet]

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Al Qaeda terror group in Iraq appears to be at its weakest state since it gained an initial foothold in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion five years ago, the acting commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Wednesday in an Associated Press interview.

thye need more women and children to do their killing. because their male animals are running away.
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357084,00.html"]story[/URL]

 

[rayboyusmc]

So when do we turn it over to the Iraqis and bring our troops home?

I will believe the "light at the end of the tunnel" when it happens. What is really the shits is that this war never needed to be fought, and now we have no idea of when it will end. If however, you criticize, then you are told to tell US how to end this piece of shit that Bush started. If I fuck something up, no one but me is responsible for fixing it.

What a piece of crap.

 

[jreeves]

So when do we turn it over to the Iraqis and bring our troops home?

I will believe the "light at the end of the tunnel" when it happens. What is really the shits is that this war never needed to be fought, and now we have no idea of when it will end. If however, you criticize, then you are told to tell US how to end this piece of shit that Bush started. If I fuck something up, no one but me is responsible for fixing it.

What a piece of crap.

It appears now is the time.

Gen. David Petraeus told an admiring Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that the improving security situation in Iraq will likely allow him to recommend further U.S. troop reductions this fall, beyond the planned drawdown to about 140,000 in July.

Petraeus, currently the commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and now nominated by President Bush to take over as head of U.S. Central Command, appeared before the senators for a confirmation hearing. But the gathering quickly turned from his job qualifications to a progress report on Iraq.

His comments were markedly more optimistic than his last update to the committee only six weeks ago.

Petraeus reported that recent attempts by Iraqi security forces to secure parts of the nation -- including Basra, Mosul and the sprawling Shiite slum known as Sadr City in Baghdad -- with diminished U.S. military involvement have proven successful.

The general also said the U.S.-backed central government was enjoying more support among the Iraqi people, after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki showed his resolve to attack not only al-Qaida in Iraq, but also Shiite militia groups.

He said the recent move by Iraqi forces into Sadr City, much of which had been controlled by Shiite religious leader Moqtada Sadr's militia, was met with little resistance and was openly welcomed by some Iraqi citizens. Petraeus said the U.S. military had played only a support role in the operation.

Petraeus pointed to other positive developments and predicted that Sunni factions that had quit the Iraqi central government would return, aiding the reconciliation process.

The general's comments were in sharp contrast to those he made before the committee just six weeks ago, when he declined to predict when or if any further troop drawdowns could be made after those already planned leading up to July.

The mood among senators from both parties was also markedly more optimistic than it was in April, when the senators expressed skepticism about the war's progress.

"Tough fights and hard work lie ahead," Petraeus told the committee. "Nonetheless, I believe that the path we are on will best help achieve the objective of an Iraq that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, (and) that is an ally in the war on terror."

Petraeus, who, if confirmed, will command U.S. military forces in the CENTCOM region, covering 27 nations in the Middle East and Central Asia, including both Iraq and Afghanistan, appeared with Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, his current deputy, who has been nominated to succeed him as commander of the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It appears now is the time.

Gen. David Petraeus told an admiring Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday that the improving security situation in Iraq will likely allow him to recommend further U.S. troop reductions this fall, beyond the planned drawdown to about 140,000 in July.

Petraeus, currently the commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and now nominated by President Bush to take over as head of U.S. Central Command, appeared before the senators for a confirmation hearing. But the gathering quickly turned from his job qualifications to a progress report on Iraq.

His comments were markedly more optimistic than his last update to the committee only six weeks ago.

Petraeus reported that recent attempts by Iraqi security forces to secure parts of the nation -- including Basra, Mosul and the sprawling Shiite slum known as Sadr City in Baghdad -- with diminished U.S. military involvement have proven successful.

The general also said the U.S.-backed central government was enjoying more support among the Iraqi people, after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki showed his resolve to attack not only al-Qaida in Iraq, but also Shiite militia groups.

He said the recent move by Iraqi forces into Sadr City, much of which had been controlled by Shiite religious leader Moqtada Sadr's militia, was met with little resistance and was openly welcomed by some Iraqi citizens. Petraeus said the U.S. military had played only a support role in the operation.

Petraeus pointed to other positive developments and predicted that Sunni factions that had quit the Iraqi central government would return, aiding the reconciliation process.

The general's comments were in sharp contrast to those he made before the committee just six weeks ago, when he declined to predict when or if any further troop drawdowns could be made after those already planned leading up to July.

The mood among senators from both parties was also markedly more optimistic than it was in April, when the senators expressed skepticism about the war's progress.

"Tough fights and hard work lie ahead," Petraeus told the committee. "Nonetheless, I believe that the path we are on will best help achieve the objective of an Iraq that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, (and) that is an ally in the war on terror."

Petraeus, who, if confirmed, will command U.S. military forces in the CENTCOM region, covering 27 nations in the Middle East and Central Asia, including both Iraq and Afghanistan, appeared with Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, his current deputy, who has been nominated to succeed him as commander of the U.S.-led Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Don't bother with facts, Col Mustard will just claim you do not know what you are talking about. The lefts usual tactic is to believe every thing the enemy says and NOTHING the US says, ever, Our troops will be home for years before these retards quit belly aching.

 

[Paulie]

Don't bother with facts, Col Mustard will just claim you do not know what you are talking about. The lefts usual tactic is to believe every thing the enemy says and NOTHING the US says, ever, Our troops will be home for years before these retards quit belly aching.

Regardless of rayboy's typical posting habits, isn't this just a wee bit unnecessary?

 

[jreeves]

Regardless of rayboy's typical posting habits, isn't this just a wee bit unnecessary?

It's frustrating Paulitics, our troops kick ass and the left fails to acknowledge facts that the situation has improved.

 

[Paulie]

It's frustrating Paulitics, our troops kick ass and the left fails to acknowledge facts that the situation has improved.

I think it's mostly because the left doesn't agree with the occupation to begin with. Certain "successes" that occur do not mean much to the left, as they don't agree with us having been there in the first place. I'm certainly not a lefty by very many standards, but I don't agree with the original invasion either. If we would have let Saddam run rampant and sell his oil in whatever currency he wanted to, we'd be complaining about a lot more than $4 gasoline at the pumps right now.

Although, I will give credit where it is due, and I am always glad to see improvement and less death.

 

[AllieBaba]

What does success have to do with whether or not you agree that we should be there?

THat makes absolutely no sense....

 

[Paulie]

What does success have to do with whether or not you agree that we should be there?

THat makes absolutely no sense....

When you don't agree with being there to begin with, how does a handful of less deaths constitute anything to be elated about?

The word "success" here is relative.

Beyond that, I refuse to get into yet another argument about Iraq.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, "success" isn't fewer deaths, but fewer enemies. And it isn't subjective at all, it's a fact and it's a good thing, i.e., evidence that the campaign, whether you think it's right or not, is successful.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When you don't agree with being there to begin with, how does a handful of less deaths constitute anything to be elated about?

The word "success" here is relative.

Beyond that, I refuse to get into yet another argument about Iraq.

Rayboy will never admit we will ever leave, even after we leave. Why? Because we will remain there with garrison troops at the beheast of the Government. The goal has always been to get our troops out of combat by training the Iraqi military and police to do the Job. Evidence of that is not even enough to shut up Col Mustard and his followers.

Everyone with half a fucking brain understands whether you think we should have gone or not became MEANINGLESS as soon as we went. It became even less then meaningless the minute we disbanded the old army and the cops did not come back to work. It does not matter one whit if we SHOULD have gone. That is done, we can not change what w DID DO. Whining insisantly about "we shouldn't have gone" as some salve for wishing our failure is ignorant and retarded.

Signs of progress are ignored, not because they aren't really but because people like Rayboy want to cry about " we shouldn't have gone" as if that helps us get the conditions right to end our troops involvement in combat there. The "surge" which before Bush did it, the Dems DEMANDED , then when he did it they were against, showed and continues to show GREAT progress. Rather than admit that and admit we are getting close to the point we can cease direct Combat patrols people like Rayboy want to poo poo any success with the whine " We never should have gone"

Even a five year old can grasp the concept that once you do something the consequences are there to be dealt with and can not magically disappear by crying over and over " we shouldn't have done it" THAT does not help, it does not solve any problems and it causes dissent and problems in this country. Even when Bush is no longer President, whining we should not have gone won't change the fact we have to finish the job. And it STILL won;t help get that job done.

 

[Paulie]

Rayboy will never admit we will ever leave, even after we leave. Why? Because we will remain there with garrison troops at the beheast of the Government. The goal has always been to get our troops out of combat by training the Iraqi military and police to do the Job. Evidence of that is not even enough to shut up Col Mustard and his followers.

Everyone with half a fucking brain understands whether you think we should have gone or not became MEANINGLESS as soon as we went. It became even less then meaningless the minute we disbanded the old army and the cops did not come back to work. It does not matter one whit if we SHOULD have gone. That is done, we can not change what w DID DO. Whining insisantly about "we shouldn't have gone" as some salve for wishing our failure is ignorant and retarded.

Signs of progress are ignored, not because they aren't really but because people like Rayboy want to cry about " we shouldn't have gone" as if that helps us get the conditions right to end our troops involvement in combat there. The "surge" which before Bush did it, the Dems DEMANDED , then when he did it they were against, showed and continues to show GREAT progress. Rather than admit that and admit we are getting close to the point we can cease direct Combat patrols people like Rayboy want to poo poo any success with the whine " We never should have gone"

Even a five year old can grasp the concept that once you do something the consequences are there to be dealt with and can not magically disappear by crying over and over " we shouldn't have done it" THAT does not help, it does not solve any problems and it causes dissent and problems in this country. Even when Bush is no longer President, whining we should not have gone won't change the fact we have to finish the job. And it STILL won;t help get that job done.

I actually agree with you for the most part. Except, with that logic, the government can do anything wrong that it wants to with the fall-back of no one bitching about it after the fact, because it was already done.

At some point, you need to hold them accountable, regardless of whether or not anything's been undertaken.

I liken it to the mortagage mess. The damage is done, so now should we stop complaining about the failures and instead just insist on bailing everyone out because it already happened and it's in the past?

 

[jreeves]

I actually agree with you for the most part. Except, with that logic, the government can do anything wrong that it wants to with the fall-back of no one bitching about it after the fact, because it was already done.

At some point, you need to hold them accountable, regardless of whether or not anything's been undertaken.

I liken it to the mortagage mess. The damage is done, so now should we stop complaining about the failures and instead just insist on bailing everyone out because it already happened and it's in the past?

I think these are 2 different issues, one has to do with national security while the other has to do with economic policies. There is a difference, we shouldn't be hoping for failure in Iraq, to prove some silly point.

 

[Paulie]

I think these are 2 different issues, one has to do with national security while the other has to do with economic policies. There is a difference, we shouldn't be hoping for failure in Iraq, to prove some silly point.

The national security part is debatable. You believe Iraq was about terrorism, and I believe it was about the petrodollar. Both of us can make a good case for our side, and it may very well be a combination of both.

But overall, the concept is the same. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, given the hindsight issue. There were no WMD's, and also, if Iraq wants to sell oil in Euro, it's their perogative. Either way, we had no business invading. Now, we're baby sitting. We also shouldn't have artificially lowered interest rates to entice potential home buyers, and even NON-potential's, into taking on more debt. Now, we're baby sitting.

If we don't give criticism where it's due, and hold the government accountable for its actions, they will always have the incentive to make unfavorable decisions with the protection from people claiming we should just grin and bear it.

 

[jreeves]

The national security part is debatable. You believe Iraq was about terrorism, and I believe it was about the petrodollar. Both of us can make a good case for our side, and it may very well be a combination of both.

But overall, the concept is the same. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, given the hindsight issue. There were no WMD's, and also, if Iraq wants to sell oil in Euro, it's their perogative. Either way, we had no business invading. Now, we're baby sitting. We also shouldn't have artificially lowered interest rates to entice potential home buyers, and even NON-potential's, into taking on more debt. Now, we're baby sitting.

If we don't give criticism where it's due, and hold the government accountable for its actions, they will always have the incentive to make unfavorable decisions with the protection from people claiming we should just grin and bear it.

I believe we were in fact, justified in invading Iraq. We gave Saddam ultimatum after ultimatum....with little to no cooperation. We couldn't allow Saddam to develop WMD's and support terrorism which was held as fact before the war started. Yes, in hindsight it does not appear that he had an active WMD program, but you can't make decisions in hindsight. Saddam did support terrorism......

The mortgage crisis was caused by people trying to live beyond their means and companies not scrutinizing potential buyers well enough.

 

[Paulie]

I believe we were in fact, justified in invading Iraq. We gave Saddam ultimatum after ultimatum....with little to no cooperation. We couldn't allow Saddam to develop WMD's and support terrorism which was held as fact before the war started. Yes, in hindsight it does not appear that he had an active WMD program, but you can't make decisions in hindsight. Saddam did support terrorism......

With that logic, we should be invading a host of other countries right now, instead of supporting and subsidizing them for playing ball economically.

The mortgage crisis was caused by people trying to live beyond their means and companies not scrutinizing potential buyers well enough.

The federal reserve holds much of the INITIAL blame for artificially tampering with interest rates to try and "fix" the dot-com bubble, while ultimately creating another one, the housing bubble. I mean, just about everyday I see little ads on webpages screaming at you to go buy a house because the Fed "lowered rates again!!!". That's just a small example, and you know damn well people fall for it because that's why it's on the webpages to begin with. You want to talk about intervention, and free markets, the Federal Reserve is about as bad as it gets.

That's our government (debatably), creating a problem where there just shouldn't have been one, and instead of just washing its hands of it and moving on, it is getting even MORE involved, and making us pay for it with our tax dollars.

 

[AllieBaba]

Just because we should be doing it more often doesn't mean we're wrong when we do....

 

[jreeves]

With that logic, we should be invading a host of other countries right now, instead of supporting and subsidizing them for playing ball economically.

What countries are you talking about?[/QUOTE]



The federal reserve holds much of the INITIAL blame for artificially tampering with interest rates to try and "fix" the dot-com bubble, while ultimately creating another one, the housing bubble. I mean, just about everyday I see little ads on webpages screaming at you to go buy a house because the Fed "lowered rates again!!!". That's just a small example, and you know damn well people fall for it because that's why it's on the webpages to begin with. You want to talk about intervention, and free markets, the Federal Reserve is about as bad as it gets.

Proof please?[/QUOTE]
That's our government (debatably), creating a problem where there just shouldn't have been one, and instead of just washing its hands of it and moving on, it is getting even MORE involved, and making us pay for it with our tax dollars.

I would like to see proof that the Fed's intervention caused the housing bubble?

 

[Paulie]

What countries are you talking about?

Lebanon, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Authority, Yemen, to name a few. Just because they aren't on the State Dept's list of State Sponsors, doesn't mean they haven't been aiding and funding terrorism, directly or indirectly. Saudi Arabia is probably our biggest ally among those I mentioned, and it's a known fact the kingdom funds terrorists. But we wouldn't invade them, because they are the world's leading oil exporter, and they sell it in USD.

I would like to see proof that the Fed's intervention caused the housing bubble?

How COULDN'T it have? The fed funds rate was at a more suitable 6.5% in 2001. That rate does not typically entice very much home buying, or any debting at all for that matter. It dropped to 2% in only a year, and then to 1% in just one more year, and stayed no higher than 2% for 3 straight years. All of this to keep credit moving and "ease" the pain of the dot-com recession, because debt is the only thing keeping this country afloat economically. It made the cost of credit artificially low, and as we are seeing now, it caused many unsuspecting people to bury themselves.

Most of those people probably shouldn't have been buying houses and signing mortgages. Most of them wouldn't have, had the rate been at 6.5% where it probably SHOULD be, and we just naturally let the market correct itself after the dot-com fiasco.

Let's also not forget about the rampant inflation that comes with these drastic rate cuts, which also caused much of the pain during this housing mess. Cost of living has been increasing dramatically, making it tougher on these people to pay their bills.

Of course, it's back down to 2% again, to artificially keep credit moving and keep people spending, as if Americans need to be spending even another damn dime they don't even have right now.

 

[jreeves]

Lebanon, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Authority, Yemen, to name a few. Just because they aren't on the State Dept's list of State Sponsors, doesn't mean they haven't been aiding and funding terrorism, directly or indirectly. Saudi Arabia is probably our biggest ally among those I mentioned, and it's a known fact the kingdom funds terrorists. But we wouldn't invade them, because they are the world's leading oil exporter, and they sell it in USD.

No proof that the Saudi government actually funds terrorism other than speculation.How COULDN'T it have? The fed funds rate was at a more suitable 6.5% in 2001. That rate does not typically entice very much home buying, or any debting at all for that matter. It dropped to 2% in only a year, and then to 1% in just one more year, and stayed no higher than 2% for 3 straight years. All of this to keep credit moving and "ease" the pain of the dot-com recession, because debt is the only thing keeping this country afloat economically. It made the cost of credit artificially low, and as we are seeing now, it caused many unsuspecting people to bury themselves.
This your opinion it's not fact.
Most of those people probably shouldn't have been buying houses and signing mortgages. Most of them wouldn't have, had the rate been at 6.5% where it probably SHOULD be, and we just naturally let the market correct itself after the dot-com fiasco.

Let's also not forget about the rampant inflation that comes with these drastic rate cuts, which also caused much of the pain during this housing mess. Cost of living has been increasing dramatically, making it tougher on these people to pay their bills.

Of course, it's back down to 2% again, to artificially keep credit moving and keep people spending, as if Americans need to be spending even another damn dime they don't even have right now.

Rates have been low before, wonder why it hasn't spurned a similar housing collapse?