Well, it seems that the US wants to arm people that have formerly killed American soldiers, even it comes at a risk that those weapons will be used against them and others (and here I don’t mean Al Qaeda):
[quote]
U.S. arming Sunnis in Iraq to battle old Qaeda allies
By John F. Burns and Alissa J. Rubin Published: June 10, 2007
BAGHDAD: With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
So much for the ‘you are either with us or against us’ crap (it should now be “you can be against us and we will support you”) and another “great” plan that is doomed to fail.
The smell of desperation is in the air, and it’s getting stronger by the day.
Sunnis are battling the al Qaeda terrorists in several areas already. Ridiculous to think they aren’t going to get the weapons they need without us. If we arm them then we know who they are. Let them fight for their country.
Too bad you can’t use the original titles of the articles you post. I was getting ready to post the same article.
Fred – that’s a non-sequitor you’ve posted, but I’ve gotten used to seeing that whenever you have no real response. Rascal’s point is fair – the Brits and Americans have seen these efforts to arm locals backfire in previous counterinsurgencies and so there are valid concerns.
TC – What are these? 4 sentences with 4 completely unconnected thoughts?
Some Sunnis have chaffed at the bombings of al Qaeda terrorists in Sunni areas. Thus, there has been some fighting and the U.S. hopes to drive a wedge between these groups.
Sure, there’s plenty of weapons there. Is this a general comment on the availability of weapons? That our help is simply not necessary?
What, like we’re going to issue out M-16s in day-glo colors?
Problem is that some of them have thought “fighting for their country” has involved fighting us … and if you read the articles it seems apparent that they definitely consider it to include fighting the Shi’ites. :homer:
The original title has been quoted in the first post. If you are referring to the subject of the thread I am under no obligation to use the headline of the article, and certainly I am not the only one that uses catchy titles. However it is also factually correct, so there shouldn’t be any reason to object.
Perhaps the title shouldn’t read “US to arm terrorists in Iraq” but should read “US arming terrorists in Iraq.”
[quote]Report: Pentagon lost almost 200,000 weapons in Iraq
Nearly 200,000 U.S.-supplied rifles and pistols meant for Iraqi security forces are unaccounted for in Iraq, according to a report to Congress.
Loose record-keeping caused the Pentagon and the U.S. command in Iraq to lose track of about 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols provided to the new Iraqi national police and army, the Government Accountability Office told Congress.
The investigative arm of Congress, the GAO also found that 250,000 pieces of body armor and helmets can’t be accounted for.
The report also says a review of the 2007 property books shows continuing problems with missing and incomplete records.
The report, issued July 31, follows an October accounting by the Defense Department’s special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, which put the number of weapons missing at close to 500,000.
Auditors were unable to determine whether the weapons – which included heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers – were stolen, being used by insurgents or still in the hands of Iraqi units. . . [/quote] cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons/
Fred, I hope you realize that screaming tabloidism
is regarded as jumping the shark among agit-prop professionals. Once you resort to them you lose all credibility as a source of legitimate information.
Thanks for your concern Belgian Pie. It is nice to know that you are worried first and foremost about the safety of US troops trying to bring peace to Iraq as well as the innocent civilians there who are being targeted by terrorists and insurgents. That was your MAJOR concern wasn’t it? Or were you trying to laugh at the US?
Seriously, however, there are very few accounting and monitoring procedures in place. Just because they cannot account for 200,000 guns is not an indication that it goes without saying that they have ended up completely loose and available on the street. Keep that in mind…
Thats it Fred, you keep brainwashing yourself that nothing is wrong. If the US military has lost track of the arms then it is more than logical to assume that they are back in circulation. After the debacle of the unfortunate lacking of accounting procedures in Iraq, you would have thought that the US would learn, but maybe that is expecting to much.
Hahahahaahha hohohohohohohohho Blind Frog. No, this was the key supplier of Saddam in the leadup to the First not Second Gulf War, but the technology and know-how remained regardless of what was destroyed. Anyway, hohohohohoh hahahahahahahh heheheheeheh but your own French intelligence and your own prime minister and your own foreign minister were on record as stating that Saddam was in possession of wmds. That was NOT the reason why France was against the invasion. Back to you… hwohwohowhowhaohahahahahaahha
Any clue why they believed that? There couldn’t have been any evidence of the existence of WMD’s because, well, the WMD’s didn’t exist, so it wasn’t a fact-based process.
What’s the intellectual process by which you conclude that something exists without having any evidence of its existence?
Maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s like Donald Rumsfeld said: shit just happens and sometimes it’s better not to even try to figure out why.
Again, Spook, they were wrong but if even the French were wrong (and they are so smart about these things having some of the best intelligence agents of any nation in the Middle East), why is it so incredible that Bush and his team were wrong.
Also, this leap to Saddam did not have wmds ERGO he was not a threat is a false one. Saddam was a threat. He is gone. The Bush administration knew that there would be trouble. Hard not to with the full Bush I team there to advise. Remember why and how Bush I decided not to go all the way to Baghdad in 1991? There is more trouble than any of us expected but that does not mean that Iraq is a loss. I am very confident that we will win. Anyway, this always was going to be a generational fight ala the struggle against communism. I recall with mirth that the same arguments about the US being prone to war, the crushing of “people’s movements” because of US arms sent to some Banana Republic dictator, the weeping over lost rights etc. were in full swing during the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s and hell even the 1940s. That is why I continue to treat the concerns of the Left over “illegal” wiretapping, the “evil” Patriot Act, the “barbaric conditions” at Guantanamo with the contempt (not even “contempt”) that they so richly (deliberate) deserve…
[quote=“fred smith”]Again, Spook, they were wrong but if even the French were wrong (and they are so smart about these things having some of the best intelligence agents of any nation in the Middle East), why is it so incredible that Bush and his team were wrong.
Also, this leap to Saddam did not have wmds ERGO he was not a threat is a false one. Saddam was a threat. He is gone. The Bush administration knew that there would be trouble. Hard not to with the full Bush I team there to advise. Remember why and how Bush I decided not to go all the way to Baghdad in 1991? There is more trouble than any of us expected but that does not mean that Iraq is a loss. I am very confident that we will win. Anyway, this always was going to be a generational fight ala the struggle against communism. I recall with mirth that the same arguments about the US being prone to war, the crushing of “people’s movements” because of US arms sent to some Banana Republic dictator, the weeping over lost rights etc. were in full swing during the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, 1950s and hell even the 1940s. That is why I continue to treat the concerns of the Left over “illegal” wiretapping, the “evil” Patriot Act, the “barbaric conditions” at Guantanamo with the contempt (not even “contempt”) that they so richly (deliberate) deserve…
Love
Frederick P. Smith V.[/quote]
No clue, eh? Me either. I could understand how you could suspect that something exists without any evidence but concluding without any evidence whatsoever? That’s what’s got me. How does that work?
The reason I ask is because this is actually a fairly common practice in certain circles and even happened just the other day, Friiday, August 6th at the White House.
Since you’re an expert on President Bush maybe you can explain where the following conclusion came from, just what sort of intellectual process begat it because I suspect it’s the same thought process that begat the WMD conclusions earlier:
" . . . Secondly, it’s up to Iran to prove to the world that they’re a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon. . . . "