Article

2004-06-26 Iraq-Jordan

Unity urged, anti-US rhetoric aired, in final pre-June 30th sermons

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-06-26 1:19:08 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The anti-US content of the Friday sermons also underlines the failure of the United States to win the goodwill of most Iraqis, despite the United Statesâ ridding the country of Saddamâs dictatorship. âAmerican soldiers are infidels,â said Youssef Khodeir, a Sunni sheik and imam of the Saad Bani Moaz mosque in Baqouba, scene of the heaviest fighting Thursday. âThe blood that is being shed every day is because we are not closing our ranks. The source of all power comes from adhering to the Quran.â
Let's leave this dump. Puhleaze, I've had it up the wazoo listening to GWB talking about the peace loving Iraqi people. Say what? And then in another article posted here from Newsmax.com it looks like the WH and Congress are going to implement the draft. Forget about that noise. No more young boys sacrificed on the altar of some wild eyed idiotic experiment in implementing democracy with these savages. This is useless. We can arm the Israelis and the Kurds to the nth degree and let's call it a day. We can buy oil from Canada and Mexico, we can stop immigration from these hellholes, let's bring our boys home now!!!!

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:09:17 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:09:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 As usual, AP quotes copiously from the ranks of Sunni preachers and of Shiite preachers in Sadr City, which is allied with Sadr. Is there any doubt left that AP's Baathist stringers are still distorting news on Iraq in the same way as they did while working for Saddam?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 3:32:45 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-26 3:32:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The AP keeps quoting anti-American hatred from the Sunnis and Shiites...and how unfair is that sampling??...the Sunnis and Shiites make up the significant majority in Iraq...so that means that the AP is giving representation to the majority sentiment ie. the Iraqis who are hell bent to kill our GI's.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:38:26 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:38:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 There is not going to be any draft.

Furthermore, this particular article only has a small part of the story. In reality, Friday may have marked a major event: Iraqis are turning against Zarqawi who they see (rightly) as trying to take over their country...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5299369/

Foes of U.S. in Iraq criticize insurgents
Clerics and militiamen decry violence

------

Remember what the goal is: to turn the people away from terrorism, especially terrorism that is turned towards US. If Al Queda becomes unpopular, and it clearly is in Iraq, that is a victory...a large victory.

This is EXACTLY what we want. The strategy is working...beautifully.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-06-26 3:41:37 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:41:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 After we leave, I am thoroughly going to enjoy watching these idiots kill each other. Out of all the ungrateful bastards we've shed blood for, these guys take the cake.

Posted by Destro 2004-06-26 3:47:30 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:47:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 One step forward and 6 steps back. The majority of Iraqis are losers and they would kill us in a heart beat. Now we know why Saddam had to use brutality and legions of military to control these morons. In fact, if Uncle Saddam had not got too full of himself and invaded Kuwait, he would have been just fine to rule Iraq.

There is no strategy in Iraq, please. It's been fly by the seat of your pants since we took Baghdad. Strategy went out the door when Tommy Franks retired. Why do you think Israel and the Kurds are allying themselves with one another? Because they see no strategy in Iraq, just expediency.

You bet there will be no draft, because there will be millions of American parents protesting at Capitol Hill. These 26 million savages are not worth one GI's life and democracy in the ME was a DOA idea.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:57:37 AM|| 2004-06-26 3:57:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sorry, Rex, what six steps back?

The strategy has been clear and plain from the very start: minimizing and eliminating the threat of terror attacks against the U.S.

Step one: Destroy their safe haven and training grounds in Afghanistan. Mostly accomplished.

Step two: Strike a massive blow in their heartland, eliminating a major supporter of terrorism and a government that has shown great willingness to develop (and use) WMDs.

Step three: establish a self-governing, representative democracy in the Middle East that serves as an example to the region that there IS a better way than living in oppressive states that breed terrorists.

Al Queda has done us a great favor by coming to Iraq. They are showing the people, directly, that they are NOT their mystical saviors, that they are, in fact, as bad as what they had before and that what they REALLY want is dictatorial power.

The veil has been ripped away. Al Queda will kill anyone that gets in their way...including other Arabs and Muslims who only want to govern themselves freely.

The flypaper aspect of the war is turning out great. Not only are we attriting the hell out of the terrorists, they are isolating themselves by their own behavior.

And by the way, there is NO evidence whatsoever that the "majority" of Iraqis will "kill us in a heartbeat.

Are the groups in Iraq jockeying for power? Sure they are, so what? So long as that country doesn't become a training and safe haven for terrorists, which it will not, we achieve a significant victory. Plus we keep Iran and Syria off balance, plus the people in Iraq are opponents of international terrorists.

What's not to like?

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-06-26 4:47:33 AM|| 2004-06-26 4:47:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 rex: The majority of Iraqis are losers and they would kill us in a heart beat. Now we know why Saddam had to use brutality and legions of military to control these morons.

That's pretty silly. The Baathist minders still working for the media are continuing to pump out Saddam-era propaganda. And you're falling for it. The same people who were used as props before the war to show how popular Saddam was are now being used as props to show unpopular the US is in Iraq. And it's all a bunch of Baathist BS which happens to suit the tastes of the media, which sees the US as the root of all evil. I'm encouraged by the fact that the polls in the Sunni triangle, which is about as anti-American as it is possible to get, because of Saddam's past sponsorship, are starting to turn in favor of the new government, even as Sunni triangle residents remain mostly anti-American. Fine with me.

rex: These 26 million savages are not worth one GI's life and democracy in the ME was a DOA idea.

That's kind of silly. Democracy or not, Saddam had to be taken out as a warning to terror-sponsoring Muslim regimes. Once he was toppled, Uncle Sam needed to put someone else in his place. Better an uncontrollable democracy subject to checks and balances than an uncontrollable replica of Saddam. The alternative was a new Saddam or a new Khomeini- or Taliban-style Iraq.

And casualties in Iraq are pretty light. In 1991 during Desert Storm, the US sustained 350 dead in one month of fighting. To date, after a year in Iraq, US dead are only about 800 (600+ KIA). Those who say that the continuation of guerrilla warfare shows a lack of planning do not know what they are talking about. Occupying territory that has not been completely destroyed beforehand has seldom been easy. The German and Japanese occupations were peaceful because by the end of the war, 12% and 5% of their populations respectively had been killed off. The US did not kill 1 million Iraqis during this campaign, so guerrilla resistance was to be expected.

People who say that better planning could have destroyed the resistance well within a 1-year time frame are full of it. Technology is not a panacea. We have sent a man to the moon, but it still takes 4 years to go through college. And all college students are doing is memorizing passages from books, passages that don't evolve or start trying to actively resist comprehension. Whereas guerrillas in Iraq, armed with Saddam's billions, are learning all the time and evolving their tactics to fight the occupation. In the long run, they are doomed, but fighting guerrillas remains a time-intensive occupation, no matter what resources are put into it. Here's my personal bet - Chechen terrorists in Russia will remain a fighting force long after Iraqi terrorists are wiped out.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 4:58:07 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-26 4:58:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Read this article and see if you are still thinking everything is coming up roses in Iraq:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6583-2004Jun25.html
"Iraqi Insurgents Are Surprisingly Cohesive, Armitage Says" By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 26, 2004; Page A15

Everything is a surprise or a puzzle to the chief architect of the Iraq War, Wolfowitz, and ditto for his side kicks in the State Department. One year later, and Mr. Charlemagne in a pin-striped suit does not know who the enemy is, where the enemy is coming from, or how many numbers of enemies there are[infinite, like the Muslim birth rate perhaps?] or how long our troops will stay in Iraq[indefefinitely ???].

These people in the War Room know nothing from nothing, so how come you are so clear and confident, #7 ???

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 5:05:51 AM|| 2004-06-26 5:05:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Here's my personal bet - Chechen terrorists in Russia will remain a fighting force long after Iraqi terrorists are wiped out.
See this is where you make your mistake, #8. You assume there are a finite number of jihadists and as soon as we kill X number, we reach the bootom of the pit. Muslims are recruiting jihadists every single day. We will never get to the bottom of the pit. Oh sure, they may not have the hi-tech training of our military but they are willing to be suicide bombers orto set bombs in the path of our GI's, which are highly effective albeit crude ways to kill our boys.

And no I'm not being silly about Uncle Saddam-he did the job-he was up to the task of subduing these savages. That polls show deep resent ment for the US is okay by you, but you are not in Iraq, of course that does not bother you. Duh. And I thought one of the benefits of removing Saddam was to make Iraq more pro-US...well if the majority hate us how id that okay? As we have recently learned, removing Saddam was not necessary. The CIA information was faulty and the CIA Director got fired for this screw up.

We're not wanted, we did what we set out to do[removed Saddam] we should not be nation building in a country that was not thoroughly subdued. It is dangerous to our GI's. Whether we lose 100 or 1000 GI's each of those men are someone's brother or husband or son. They may be "acceptable" losses to you but their deaths in a war that was not necessary represents a huge loss. I don't think we should be so cavalier about continuing to keep our men in danger in Iraq. It compounds one error with another.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 5:22:14 AM|| 2004-06-26 5:22:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 rex: Everything is a surprise or a puzzle to the chief architect of the Iraq War, Wolfowitz, and ditto for his side kicks in the State Department. One year later, and Mr. Charlemagne in a pin-striped suit does not know who the enemy is, where the enemy is coming from, or how many numbers of enemies there are[infinite, like the Muslim birth rate perhaps?] or how long our troops will stay in Iraq[indefefinitely ???].

This is just silly. The reporter in question is either ignorant or trying to put out a portrait of confusion where there is none. When Armitage says we don't know how many of them there are, he's saying we don't know if there are 2,000 or 10,000. There are definitely not 500,000 of them out there. (If there were, we'd carrying out a lot more aerial bombing missions).

This stuff about the Muslim birth rate is also silly. This seems to imply that all of Islam is against us. It's not. If that were the case, we'd be conducting a lot more bombing missions, leveling entire cities. (Many may not like us, and that's fine with me - I don't like 'em much either. As long as they're not either financing terrorists or joining terrorist groups, they are not our enemy).

rex: These people in the War Room know nothing from nothing, so how come you are so clear and confident, #7 ???

The War Room? You've been reading too many Clinton memoirs. The reason I'm confident is because WaPo, which like all the major media, has been wrong about Afghanistan and Iraq from inception to now. It is the people at WaPo and the major media who know nothing from nothing, and, more importantly, don't want to hear that Iraq is perhaps the most successful occupation ever. This far into the occupation of Japan, the Japanese were struck by famine. This far into the occupation of Germany, the Germans were living amidst piles of rubble, waiting for a reconstruction that began only 2-3 years after the war's end.

The campaign in Iraq is going well by all historical indices. The major conventional battles ended with the loss of 200 men, less than in 1991's Desert Storm, in spite of a hazardous drive into Iraqi cities. The guerrilla war has claimed 600 lives in total over the course of 14 months, less than a typical month in Vietnam. The enemy is so weakened that he has to resort to attacking civilians, which garner headlines in the short run, but will lead to his destruction in the medium to long term, as they start ratting on his hideouts and his weapons stores.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-06-26 5:49:00 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-06-26 5:49:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Well said Zhang! The 'Iraqi resistance' is either stunningly inept or only attracts miniscule support based on its performance to date. They seem to manage about 5 to 10 bombs a month. By way of comparison the IRA managed 5 bombs a day for years in an area 500 times smaller and with a similarly smaller population base.

Repeat after me - the media is the problem.

Posted by phil_b 2004-06-26 7:32:15 AM|| 2004-06-26 7:32:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Seems like just about everyone has good,valid points today.
You old War Dogs know"No battle plan survives the first few Minutes of combat".Things are not going as good as they could,but they are getting better(reference the MSNBC link).
If the Iraqis are turnning on the Foreign Fighters then +/- 30%of the battle is over.

On a side note,For the last few days I have to keep writing my name every time I post.Cookies are enabled.
Any suggestions?

Posted by Raptor 2004-06-26 9:00:52 AM|| 2004-06-26 9:00:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I haven't changed anything...

Posted by Fred 2004-06-26 10:01:10 AM|| 2004-06-26 10:01:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 After reading all the posts.....I've come to one inescapable conclusion. Rex, you're a goddamn idiot.

Posted by Halfass Pete 2004-06-26 12:16:58 PM|| 2004-06-26 12:16:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Congratulations, Pete. Based on that insight you are promoted to Fullass.

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-06-26 1:29:44 PM|| 2004-06-26 1:29:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Rex' problem is shortsightedness. He can't be criticized too harshly ("silly" is about right), because the dominant analysis of the war on terror is based on shortsightedness. This is going to be a decades-long war. We have barely gotten of the starting line. But history will recognize that we got off to a blazing start. Taliban: gone. Saddam: gone. The end goal is reforming the middle east, ostracizing militant islam/jihadiism and making it unacceptable among the large majority of muslims. That is a war of world-views. The best way to accomplish it is to pave the way for democracy, free expression, and tolerance/liberalism in the middle east. Hell of a job, but we are making amazing strides. Rex needs to step back a bit, realize there are going to be setbacks, and stop being such a chicken little when the bad new is amplified by the media while the overall good news is either ignored or not even recognized.

Posted by sludj 2004-06-26 2:12:35 PM|| 2004-06-26 2:12:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Thank you, Mr. Davis. I put thought into my posts and it would be nice if #15 would do me the courtesy of offering a thoughtful, reasoned rebuttal instead of Wa, wa I don't like what you are saying wa, wa.

As for my alleged short sightedness, #17, you are wrong. I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan and I think it is being handled well.

As for the invasion of Iraq, I think it was not necessary, but once we went in there, we should have patted ourselves on the back for removing Saddam, started up a skeleton government, and then we should have left.

We have over-stayed our welcome and we are irritating Iraqis each minute we are there. At the very latest, we should have no troops in Sunni/Shiite Iraq as of the day after the January elections. To have an "indefinite" withdrawal date is sheer madnes and is very similar to the madness of Vietnam.

Posted by rex 2004-06-26 3:11:47 PM|| 2004-06-26 3:11:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 See, now, Rex, its that kind of thinking that justifies calling you silly (although not a "goddamn iddiot"). once we went in there, we should have patted ourselves on the back for removing Saddam, started up a skeleton government, and then we should have left.
What do your really think would have happened if we had done that? Your recommendation is a prescription for anarchy, civil war, and the possible emergence of another mullahcracy. See, we dont' want that, and I don't think you want that, but you are not thinking very far down the road, or very responsibly. You can't seem to keep the end goal in mind. Join us at the grown-ups table when you have an idea that relates to long-term success in beating islamist terrorism. (b/t/w, I don't think we will ever totally abolish islamist terrorism (terrorism is so easy that a few nuts with guns or dynamite can still cause ripples), but I do think we can win the war of ideologies over time among most muslims and can prevent the existence of elaborate, capable, terrorist structures with the ability to do tremendous harm in the US).

Posted by sludj 2004-06-26 3:28:24 PM|| 2004-06-26 3:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Thanks Sludj for providing a more concise description of the strategy and context for Iraq and the war than I have.

America has to keep its collective eyes on the long-term goal and avoid being discouraged by short-term reverses or the latest outrage. Terrorists cannot win unless we and the Iraqis allow it. We're clearly beating the pants off of them right now. These attacks in Iraq aren't going to stop anything...and they keep alienating the very people the terrorists need to pursue their fight.

You cannot wage a successful guerilla war without broadbased support. You need safe haven, hospitals, training facilities, etc., etc., and without the support of huge sectors of the population you've got no chance...indeed, we've seen the reality: Iraqis are supplying us with information. That is a terrible sign to the Islamofacists. And now the leaders of the Iraqi groups that oppose us are turned against Al Queda. They want their own country and that country is NOT going to be a theocracy.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-06-26 5:16:59 PM|| 2004-06-26 5:16:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Dog bites Rex?

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-26 8:47:35 PM|| 2004-06-26 8:47:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 One wonders how the Iraqi people would act if these Islamic loonies weren't there screaming every Friday. Part of the tribal mentality of Islam means that thinking for yourself unless you're in a position to do so is a no-no. You're not the big man, so you don't have the "right" to say that. And if you do, you'd better have some powerful protectors, since the leader's gonna liquidate you for daring to be an individual. So unless we can somehow neutralize these mullahs, they're going to continue to think for the community.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-06-26 9:39:25 PM|| 2004-06-26 9:39:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 rex - sludj and RMcLeod tore your argument a new one - concrete answers and alternatives (join the futures club) or put the speculative pessimism up for ridicule. A tough road we hoe to coment, neh?

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-26 9:44:57 PM|| 2004-06-26 9:44:57 PM|| Front Page Top

17:53 Frank G
17:47 Mrs. Davis
17:32 lex
17:25 Mrs. Davis
17:23 Anonymous6473
14:36 Bomb-a-rama
22:02 Zenster
14:16 .com
13:59 Aris Katsaris
11:51 Frank G
11:39 Aris Katsaris
11:12 Anon1
10:58 Jen
10:52 Aris Katsaris
10:45 Jen
10:36 Aris Katsaris
10:15 Anon1
10:08 Larry Everett
10:05 Shipman
10:04 Jen
08:25 Aris Katsaris
08:22 Aris Katsaris
05:32 Bomb-a-rama
04:06 Anon1