Very Mixed News With Al Sadr

[Kathianne]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq



Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr reorganizes militia

By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 38 minutes ago

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered most of his militiamen to disarm but said Friday he will maintain elite fighting units to resist the Americans if a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is not established.

The statement — read to worshippers during Friday prayers in Baghdad's former militia stronghold of Sadr City — is in line with details revealed earlier this week and appears to be an extension of plans he announced in June aimed at asserting more control over the militia.

"Weapons are to be exclusively in the hands of one group, the resistance group," while another group called Momahidoun is to focus on social, religious and community work, Sadrist cleric Mudhafar al-Moussawi said.

He said the announcement was particularly aimed at members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been blamed for some of the worst violence against American troops and rival Sunni Arabs.

Thousands of worshippers streamed out into the streets after the Islamic service, burning an American flag and shouting: "No, no to America. No, no to occupation."

The cleric has linked the reorganization of the Mahdi Army to U.S.-Iraqi negotiations over a long-term agreement that would extend the American presence in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year. Al-Sadr and his followers want the deal to include a timeframe for an American withdrawal and have warned they may not suspend operations without such a clause.

Several cease-fires by al-Sadr have been key to a sharp decline in violence over the past year, along with a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a U.S. troop buildup. But American officials still consider his militiamen a threat and have backed the Iraqi military in operations to try to oust them from their power bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

The fighting cells will be "small and limited" and will only launch attacks under direct orders from al-Sadr in case of "dire necessity," the cleric's spokesman Sheik Salah al-Obeidi told The Associated Press in the holy city of Najaf.

He also ruled out attacks on Iraqis and claimed Mahdi Army members had shown interest in making the program a success...

[retiredman]

Sadr remains a powerful force, and he remains a popular Iraqi shiite leader. He will be a thorn in our sides until we leave, and then, when we do, he will be a driving force to strengthen the alliance between Iraq and Iran... which I have always believed is the elephant in the living room that the republican party refuses to acknowledge, let alone talk about.

[red states rule]

Sadr remains a powerful force, and he remains a popular Iraqi shiite leader. He will be a thorn in our sides until we leave, and then, when we do, he will be a driving force to strengthen the alliance between Iraq and Iran... which I have always believed is the elephant in the living room that the republican party refuses to acknowledge, let alone talk about.

Mr Defeatest still hoping things will fall apart in Iraq. Damn, you gotta love the support the far left shows the troops and their own country

[Kathianne]

Sadr remains a powerful force, and he remains a popular Iraqi shiite leader. He will be a thorn in our sides until we leave, and then, when we do, he will be a driving force to strengthen the alliance between Iraq and Iran... which I have always believed is the elephant in the living room that the republican party refuses to acknowledge, let alone talk about.

Then again, like so many of your prognostications you could be wrong again.

[retiredman]

Then again, like so many of your prognostications you could be wrong again.


so many? can you tell me many that I have been wrong about?

and what will YOU do if I am right? What will your party do when it becomes crystal clear that the biggest result of our extended war in Iraq is an alliance between Iran and Iraq, when such would not have been possible if we had kept our eye on the prize and fought Al Qaeda instead of Saddam.

[red states rule]

Then again, like so many of your prognostications you could be wrong again.

Like the surge was a waste of resources? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

so many? can you tell me many that I have been wrong about?

and what will YOU do if I am right? What will your party do when it becomes crystal clear that the biggest result of our extended war in Iraq is an alliance between Iran and Iraq, when such would not have been possible if we had kept our eye on the prize and fought Al Qaeda instead of Saddam.

Your main answer to the Iraq war has been proven wrong

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3587219/2/istockphoto_3587219_white_flag_with_clipping_path. jpg

[Kathianne]

so many? can you tell me many that I have been wrong about?

and what will YOU do if I am right? What will your party do when it becomes crystal clear that the biggest result of our extended war in Iraq is an alliance between Iran and Iraq, when such would not have been possible if we had kept our eye on the prize and fought Al Qaeda instead of Saddam.

November should clear that fog up. It's not mine to do. My guess, presidency is now up for grabs. Dems win in Congress. Some compromise will be necessary, though hardly what you are advocating regarding drilling.

[retiredman]

November should clear that fog up. It's not mine to do. My guess, presidency is now up for grabs. Dems win in Congress. Some compromise will be necessary, though hardly what you are advocating regarding drilling.

where are the many prognostications that I have missed?

[red states rule]

where are the many prognostications that I have missed?

The US was losing the war

The surge was a waste of resources

The US needs to surrender and cut and run

The troops are occupiers and infidels

[retiredman]

where are the many prognostications that I have missed?

::: crickets chirping :::

still waiting

[red states rule]

::: crickets chirping :::

still waiting

Afraid to respond to my answer?

Kathianne is not online. You are such a tough guy when the person you repsond to is not around to answer

[retiredman]

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.

I get the sense that you seem to be unaware of this. I am holding fast to that status and will continue to do so as long as you are unwilling to apologize and CEASE your attacks on my patriotism and my service. I have no idea what you are saying, but, given my history with you, I have no doubt that your posts immediately following mine are, in some way, a response to those posts. Please understand that I am not reading them, nor will I EVER respond to them until such an apology via PM is forthcoming.

[red states rule]

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.

I get the sense that you seem to be unaware of this. I am holding fast to that status and will continue to do so as long as you are unwilling to apologize and CEASE your attacks on my patriotism and my service. I have no idea what you are saying, but, given my history with you, I have no doubt that your posts immediately following mine are, in some way, a response to those posts. Please understand that I am not reading them, nor will I EVER respond to them until such an apology via PM is forthcoming.

You are reading them. Everytime I post a new thread, or make a post, I see you checking it out on the "Who's Online" screen :laugh2:

If you choose not to repsond that is your choice.

[retiredman]

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.



maybe you didn't understand me the first time. I really do not read your posts and recommend that you reply to folks who will engage you in conversation. I will not.

[red states rule]

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.



maybe you didn't understand me the first time. I really do not read your posts and recommend that you reply to folks who will engage you in conversation. I will not.

You are reading them. I know it for a fact

[retiredman]

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.

[red states rule]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/Rokketmania/ksmjk0.jpg

[semi liberal girl]

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.

So when did you sign the surrender papers giving up to RSR?

I would have loved to been at the ceremony :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Sadr remains a powerful force, and he remains a popular Iraqi shiite leader. He will be a thorn in our sides until we leave, and then, when we do, he will be a driving force to strengthen the alliance between Iraq and Iran... which I have always believed is the elephant in the living room that the republican party refuses to acknowledge, let alone talk about.

your point? and you are wrong about the republican party refusing to acknowledge this. flat out wrong.


so many? can you tell me many that I have been wrong about?

and what will YOU do if I am right? What will your party do when it becomes crystal clear that the biggest result of our extended war in Iraq is an alliance between Iran and Iraq, when such would not have been possible if we had kept our eye on the prize and fought Al Qaeda instead of Saddam.

what if, what if......are you that hard up?

[bullypulpit]

Mr Defeatest still hoping things will fall apart in Iraq. Damn, you gotta love the support the far left shows the troops and their own country

Given the already close ties to Iran forged under Nouri Al Maliki, it would seem far more likely that Iran will send in troops at Al Maliki's request should the shit hit the fan after we leave. But you never have been a big-picture kind of person...Have ya Red.

[bullypulpit]

The US was losing the war
The war against Iraq was handily won. It's aftermath, however, was a fuck up of monumental proportions.


The surge was a waste of resources

The whole invasion and occupation of Iraq was a waste of resources, as Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. The REAL enemy, Al Qaeda...in case you've forgotten, was allowed to regroup and rebuild thanks to the Bush administration's diversion of resources to working off Chimpy's woody for Saddam.


The US needs to surrender and cut and run

SO it's wrong to cut one's losses and and get out? I wanna play Texas hold 'em with you.


The troops are occupiers and infidels

The US troops in Iraq ARE occupying forces. Have been since Chimpy declared "Mission Accomplished!" on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. As for infidels...well that's a religious point of view and would normally be irrelevant except for the fact that most of the Muslim world views America under the Bush administration as a limb of Satan.

I know I'm belaboring the obvious here, but you are an idiot.

[Yurt]

ullypulpit;282800]The war against Iraq was handily won. It's aftermath, however, was a fuck up of monumental proportions.

maybe, given history, the time to bring iraq into a modern government is not that bad. surely, you have studied history, WWII come to mind.



The whole invasion and occupation of Iraq was a waste of resources, as Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. The REAL enemy, Al Qaeda...in case you've forgotten, was allowed to regroup and rebuild thanks to the Bush administration's diversion of resources to working off Chimpy's woody for Saddam.

at first blush, maybe. then again, you sit safe and sound typing your words.



SO it's wrong to cut one's losses and and get out? I wanna play Texas hold 'em with you.

bring it on, but i don't think you really play texas hold 'em given your posts.



The US troops in Iraq ARE occupying forces. Have been since Chimpy declared "Mission Accomplished!" on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. As for infidels...well that's a religious point of view and would normally be irrelevant except for the fact that most of the Muslim world views America under the Bush administration as a limb of Satan.

are US forces in Germany and Japan OCCUPYING forces? yes or no.



I know I'm belaboring the obvious here, but you are an idiot.

such a statement is a sure sign of a fool....hope you enjoyed typing it

[semi liberal girl]

The war against Iraq was handily won. It's aftermath, however, was a fuck up of monumental proportions.



The whole invasion and occupation of Iraq was a waste of resources, as Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda. The REAL enemy, Al Qaeda...in case you've forgotten, was allowed to regroup and rebuild thanks to the Bush administration's diversion of resources to working off Chimpy's woody for Saddam.



SO it's wrong to cut one's losses and and get out? I wanna play Texas hold 'em with you.



The US troops in Iraq ARE occupying forces. Have been since Chimpy declared "Mission Accomplished!" on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. As for infidels...well that's a religious point of view and would normally be irrelevant except for the fact that most of the Muslim world views America under the Bush administration as a limb of Satan.

I know I'm belaboring the obvious here, but you are an idiot.

I have seen my once pround party that did what was needed to defend America, to a party of worthless cowards, smear merchants, and political hacks

You sir, and I use that term loosly, are a perfect example of why I am leaving the Democrat party that I have been a member of for my entire life. You trun away when high ranking Democrats insult and smear the brave men and women fighting in Iraq

You look away as the progress is being reported, and instead of cheering the results, you move the goal posts further back

You dismiss the success surge you opposed and call it a waste of resources (like another well known liberal hack who posts here and runs away from people who humilate him with facts) I guess this is as close to a thank you the troops will get from you

You still support surrender in Iraq, even though the troops have crushed AQ and other terrorists. Is your desire for political power so intense you would lose a war and give a victory to AQ to secure that power?

You are a sick twisted political hack of the worst kind; and an embarassment to the party I am still a member of

[retiredman]

I have seen my once pround party that did what was needed to defend America, to a party of worthless cowards, smear merchants, and political hacks

You sir, and I use that term loosly, are a perfect example of why I am leaving the Democrat party that I have been a member of for my entire life. You trun away when high ranking Democrats insult and smear the brave men and women fighting in Iraq

You look away as the progress is being reported, and instead of cheering the results, you move the goal posts further back

You dismiss the success surge you opposed and call it a waste of resources (like another well known liberal hack who posts here and runs away from people who humilate him with facts) I guess this is as close to a thank you the troops will get from you

You still support surrender in Iraq, even though the troops have crushed AQ and other terrorists. Is your desire for political power so intense you would lose a war and give a victory to AQ to secure that power?

You are a sick twisted political hack of the worst kind; and an embarassment to the party I am still a member of

don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Our tent may be big, but not that big!:laugh2:

[semi liberal girl]

don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Our tent may be big, but not that big!:laugh2:

and this is the "change" the party is talking about? This is the unity I keep hearing about? Is this how you treat those who dare speak out with other POV's?

I canot be like you - a party hack how cares only about power and control. I can't sell out my country and the US military to win an election.

[retiredman]

and this is the "change" the party is talking about? This is the unity I keep hearing about? Is this how you treat those who dare speak out with other POV's?

I canot be like you - a party hack how cares only about power and control. I can't sell out my country and the US military to win an election.

a few quick points, RSR... If you are not happy with the democratic party, you have two reasonable choices: become involved in democratic party politics at the local level (as I have done) and attempt to change it... or leave and go somewhere where your views are more in keeping with the thinking of that new party. Speaking out like you do on an internet website will do NOTHING to change the democratic party, and I think that you are well aware of that. Next... I care about my country. period. I have NEVER sold my country out and I have NEVER sold out the US Military. I happen to believe that my party offers the best hope to improve my country. The minute that I no longer believe that, I will leave my party and search for other ways to advance my views for the improvement of my country.

[semi liberal girl]

a few quick points, RSR... If you are not happy with the democratic party, you have two reasonable choices: become involved in democratic party politics at the local level (as I have done) and attempt to change it... or leave and go somewhere where your views are more in keeping with the thinking of that new party. Speaking out like you do on an internet website will do NOTHING to change the democratic party, and I think that you are well aware of that. Next... I care about my country. period. I have NEVER sold my country out and I have NEVER sold out the US Military. I happen to believe that my party offers the best hope to improve my country. The minute that I no longer believe that, I will leave my party and search for other ways to advance my views for the improvement of my country.

So now I am RSR? :laugh2:

I thought you SWORE NEVER TO RESPOND TO RSR :laugh2:

[retiredman]

So now I am RSR? :laugh2:

I thought you SWORE NEVER TO RESPOND TO RSR :laugh2:

I have RSR on ignore. and will keep him there. If you are admitting what most of us have taken for granted for a long time - that you are indeed RSR, then I will put you on ignore as well.

And how did you know that I had sworn to never respond to RSR, especially when I don't think I ever said that? Do you have a link to one of my posts where I said that?

p.s. it was a pretty weak response to my post, btw. more convincing evidence that you are, in fact, RSR ;)

[semi liberal girl]

I have RSR on ignore. and will keep him there. If you are admitting what most of us have taken for granted for a long time - that you are indeed RSR, then I will put you on ignore as well.

And how did you know that I had sworn to never respond to RSR, especially when I don't think I ever said that? Do you have a link to one of my posts where I said that?

You just called my RSR - so you thought you were responding to him

How do I know - Hell check out post # 13 on this thread :laugh2:

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.

I get the sense that you seem to be unaware of this. I am holding fast to that status and will continue to do so as long as you are unwilling to apologize and CEASE your attacks on my patriotism and my service. I have no idea what you are saying, but, given my history with you, I have no doubt that your posts immediately following mine are, in some way, a response to those posts. Please understand that I am not reading them, nor will I EVER respond to them until such an apology via PM is forthcoming.



Had enough? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I would love to hang around and toy with you some more, but time to open the shop. Have fun ranting about Pres Bush, RSR atacking your "patriotism and service"; even though you lecture me on how I will not change anything - you seem to think YOU will :laugh2:

[retiredman]

You just called my RSR - so you thought you were responding to him

How do I know - Hell check out post # 13 on this thread :laugh2:

This message is hidden because red states rule is on your ignore list.

I get the sense that you seem to be unaware of this. I am holding fast to that status and will continue to do so as long as you are unwilling to apologize and CEASE your attacks on my patriotism and my service. I have no idea what you are saying, but, given my history with you, I have no doubt that your posts immediately following mine are, in some way, a response to those posts. Please understand that I am not reading them, nor will I EVER respond to them until such an apology via PM is forthcoming.



Had enough? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

I would love to hang around and toy with you some more, but time to open the shop. Have fun ranting about Pres Bush, RSR atacking your "patriotism and service"; even though you lecture me on how I will not change anything - you seem to think YOU will :laugh2:
I knew I was responding to an internet identity who called "herself" semi-literate girl. I happen to believe that the posts made by that internet identity are made by the same person who also posts under the internet identity of Red States Rule. I did not swear to NEVER respond to RSR, only to refrain from responding until he apologized to me.

and I am not trying to change anything by posting on here. I am quite happy with MY party's platform and I remain opposed to the platform and direction of the republican party. You complain about a party you are supposedly a member of.... to THAT position of yours, I say, quit bitching on the internet and either do something to change the party or leave it.

[red states rule]

I knew I was responding to an internet identity who called "herself" semi-literate girl. I happen to believe that the posts made by that internet identity are made by the same person who also posts under the internet identity of Red States Rule. I did not swear to NEVER respond to RSR, only to refrain from responding until he apologized to me.

and I am not trying to change anything by posting on here. I am quite happy with MY party's platform and I remain opposed to the platform and direction of the republican party. You complain about a party you are supposedly a member of.... to THAT position of yours, I say, quit bitching on the internet and either do something to change the party or leave it.

Lets see, you respond to ME in a post - when did I apologize? :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

maybe, given history, the time to bring iraq into a modern government is not that bad. surely, you have studied history, WWII come to mind.

I have studied history, but Iraq is not analogous to ANY situation in WWII, unless you're counting the German invasion of Poland. Which incidentally, was know as "the 1939 Defensive War" in Germany. Hmmm...A defensive war against a nation which posed no imminent, or otherwise, threat.



at first blush, maybe. then again, you sit safe and sound typing your words.

"At first blush..."? Al Qaeda and the Taliban reconstituted in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan...US forces stretched to the point where there can be no effective response to any other crisis...war profiteers making billions off of unbid contracts...An increasing body of independently verified evidence that the Bush administration lied the nation into a war of aggression.



bring it on, but i don't think you really play texas hold 'em given your posts.

You'd be surprised. But more to the point, why isn't Red responding to this, or is he simply incapable of doing so, leaving his fellow travelers to take up the slack.


are US forces in Germany and Japan OCCUPYING forces? yes or no.

No.


such a statement is a sure sign of a fool....hope you enjoyed typing it

Indeed, it was foolish of me to belabor the obvious in stating that Red is an idiot. Oh darn it! There I go again.

[red states rule]

Condensed version of BP and MFM's posts of this thread


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/3/3598180_2811bc5099.jpg?v=0

[bullypulpit]

Condensed version of BP and MFM's posts of this thread


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/3/3598180_2811bc5099.jpg?v=0

So...Ya wanna debate the issues or engage in silly posturing? You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer anyways.

And BTW, you are an idiot.

[retiredman]

So...Ya wanna debate the issues or engage in silly posturing? You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer anyways.

And BTW, you are an idiot.

all he's got is pictures, cartoons, cut and paste op-eds, and Limbaugh one liners. He has NEVER been able to string five sentences together of his own creation and never will be.

[red states rule]

So...Ya wanna debate the issues or engage in silly posturing? You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer anyways.

And BTW, you are an idiot.

and when I do debate the issues you and your daddy MFM dismiss them as cut and paste rants, the source is biased, you dismiss the facts out of hand, and go back to your anti America, anti Pres Bush rants