 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Realizations about Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:31 PM I support the war in Iraq but years ago I told my wife that they should divide it into three parts. Now I realize that I was right. That place needs to be separated into a northen country for the Kurds, a western country for the Sunnis, and a southeastern country for the Shia. Baghdad would probably go to the Shia part. The northern country, Kurdistan, would probably be annexed to Turkey which is somewhat Democratic and that would be good. The western country, Sunnistan, Would probably fall under Syrian control which is not too good. The southeastern country Shiastan or New Iran Would turn into the same shitpile that Iran is. I am wondering if Iran used us to get rid of Saddam for them through Chalabi and his band of "defectors" and their tails of WMDs. Then with Saddam gone they are free to stir up shit in Iraq and keep a government from forming. I am telling you, Iran is pure, nasty as horseshit, evil. They clearly want to dominate in the middle east. If they get nukes, the entire world is in for a bad time for quite some time. If they keep messing with Israel they might become the nuked instead of the nuker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:39 PM "I am telling you, XXXX is pure, nasty as horseshit, evil. They clearly want to dominate in the middle east. If they get nukes, the entire world is in for a bad time for quite some time." Some people might believe this about the USA... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:41 PM Well, it all depends which side of the line you were born on most of the time...but there are a few nonconformists everywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:54 PM "Iran is pure, nasty as horseshit, evil." Old Guy I have several very good Iranian friends. You don't often meet more loving, funny, gentle people than they. Two are B'Hai, the other is Muslim. None of them is related to the others. Maybe you are saying only that the current government of Iran is "pure, nasty as horseshit, evil". If so, I might agree with your opinion if you agree that that phrase defines the current USA government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 21 Aug 06 - 09:57 PM Yeah, Fucking idiots that preach genocide might believe that. Shitheads that deny the Holocaust ever happened might believe that. Jellobrain, idealistic, jellobrains might believe that. Several countries have nukes so why is the US the singled out as "cause" of the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:19 PM I don't think Turkey would like your 'bright' idea, Old Man. While you're at, why not create a Palestinian State. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:27 PM Sure Why not? A second one would be good. They can't run one so two would be even better. Then they can piss and moan twice as loud about how all theur self inflicted problems are someone else's fault. Now tell us all about Turkey. The country that is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:28 PM There is one. It's called Gaza. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Jon Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:47 PM What the hell is Old Guy on? An overdose of Fox News? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:00 PM If there is a Palestinian State called Gaza, I guess that means when Israeli tanks crossed the border today, they were invading another country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:04 PM Guess what you want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM "Israel has carried out repeated brief incursions into Gaza over the past six weeks, since launching an operation in late June to rescue a soldier captured by Palestinian militants and to stop rocket fire from the strip into Israel. Earlier separate Israeli air strikes targeted houses in Jabalya, a district of Gaza City, in the northern part of the strip, and the southern Gaza town of Rafah, but there were no immediate reports of any casualties or damage. Witnesses said residents had been warned to leave the buildings ahead of the strikes, which they said appeared to target the homes of members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two militant groups. Gaza, a narrow coastal piece of land that is home to 1.4 million Palestinians, was occupied by Israeli troops until August last year, when soldiers and about 8,000 Jewish settlers pulled out after nearly 40 years of occupation. A week ago, armed men kidnapped two journalists from the Fox TV network, an American and a New Zealander, as they were working in Gaza City. There has been no word on their whereabouts or any claim of responsibility for the act since. While kidnappings have not been uncommon in Gaza in recent years, most abductions are resolved in a matter of hours without any harm being done." Or read the news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: bobad Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:08 PM Gaza will become like Lebanon Head of the Israel's General Security Services Yuval Diskin warned in the Cabinet meeting yesterday that if Israel does not take care of the strategic problem of the increase in terrorism in Gaza, she will face a situation similar to the one in Lebanon within three to five years. "The details are already known today. There is no need to wait and conduct inquiries in retrospect like we are doing in Lebanon today," said Diskin. He added that lately, huge amounts of weapons and explosives were smuggled across the Philadelphi route. According to Diskin, we are talking about tons of explosives. Hamas is continuing to smuggle money into the Gaza Strip. Only a few days ago, the Palestinian Minister of Agriculture smuggled $1.5 million in his suitcase. In addition, explosives experts from Iran and Hizballah have been able to penetrate Gaza. Diskin claims that the Egyptian supervision of the Philadelphi route is ineffective and does not leave Israel with any choices but to reopen the security agreements signed with Egypt last year. Diskin also said that Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has become a national hero in the eyes of the Palestinian terrorist groups. He warned that they will import Hizballah fighting tactics from Lebanon into Gaza which include the use of anti-tank missiles and building subterranean bunkers. Hizballah is exploiting the admiration it has in the Territories and is flooding them with weapons and explosives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:32 AM Old Guy - You're starting to think like an Arab. "I am wondering if Iran used us to get rid of Saddam for them through Chalabi and his band of "defectors" and their tails of WMDs." The trouble with the U.S./Britain/Israel is that since they have the big guns, they think they don't have to come up with effective strategies. They apply their line of logic to an enemy that doesn't think the way they do. Thats what happens when you invade a country you know nothing about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,walt Date: 22 Aug 06 - 04:15 AM ToDianavan "Starting to think like an arab"....................that is absolute racism . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:51 AM Did anyone see the news last night? In a press conference, a reporter asked Bush, "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11"? Bush answered with one word, "NOTHING" Old Guy, I predicted two years ago that Iraq would have a civil war and it would be partitioned just as Yugoslavia was. Are you one of those people who needs to believe that it's all the other guy's fault? and that we are Mr. Clean? It reminds me of the one about the little boy who comes home with a black eye. When his father asked him how he got it, the kid said "It all started when he hit me back." Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: sian, west wales Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:04 AM "Kurdistan, would probably be annexed to Turkey which is somewhat Democratic and that would be good." Good grief. Do your homework. The Kurds in Turkey might have another opinion. sian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Paul Burke Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:12 AM You actually read his posts, sian? Not worth it; like most of USAian good ol' boys, profound ignorance is combined with absolute certainty. They are entitled to bury their heads, I just wish they wouldn't fire off their guns at random while doing so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Aug 06 - 08:50 AM Peace, There already EXIST a "Palestinian" state- JORDAN. Please look st the San Marco Conference, various treaties 1923-1927, and the decisions of the British about the disposition of Mandate Palestine EAST of the Jordan River. And THEY are at PEACE with Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Paul Burke Date: 22 Aug 06 - 08:57 AM Unfortunately Jordan is not the Palestinian state of the Palestinians who lived in Palestine when that bit of Palestine was turned into Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Aug 06 - 09:11 AM oooo Paul, stop it - you'll make their heads hurt ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM Paul, Unfortunately Israel is not the Jewish state of the Jews who lived in Arab countries when that tiny fraction of Palestine was turned into Israel. And Pakistan is not the Moslem state of the Indian Muslims who lived in India when that bit of India was turned into Pakistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Scoville Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:29 AM I know a bunch of "Arabs" and none of them think like that, and if someone accused them of it they would probably point out that one of the problems in the US today is that people think that Arabs think like that and feel free to abuse them accordingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:43 AM "There already EXIST a "Palestinian" state- JORDAN. Please look st the San Marco Conference, various treaties 1923-1927, and the decisions of the British about the disposition of Mandate Palestine EAST of the Jordan River. And THEY are at PEACE with Israel." Right you are. Kinda makes those who say Israel doesn't want peace with its neighbours just a bit of egg on their faces, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Aug 06 - 12:23 PM Ok I screwed up about Turkey. I see now where the Kurds aad Turkey do not get along. Maybe Kurdistan can stand on it's own. Anyway I don't see how the three basic groups can get along with Iran stirring the shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:18 PM How Long Do We Have? About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 y ears, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. >From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage " Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million; Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000 States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29 Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the l and owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. If the Senate grants Amnesty and citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye USA in less than 5 years. Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. What do we know about this? I've read something similar years ago but don't remember where or when. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:20 PM You might enjoy this article, Old Guy... We'll Miss Saddam by Charley Reese When they finally hang Saddam Hussein, we'll probably miss him. He has, after all, been an obsession of American politicians since 1991. Since the Washington media obsess over whatever the politicians obsess over, Saddam's face has adorned our television screens for 14 years. He bears a strong resemblance, by the way, to the late actor Walter Matthau. Saddam, without a doubt, has gotten more air time and more ink than any dictator in the post-World War II world. Never before has so much attention been lavished on a man who, on the world stage, has always been so insignificant. Iraq, being a relatively small country, with a population of about 25 million people divided into three quarreling groups, never in its history posed a threat to the world. The demonization of Saddam has always been political bull. The only country Iraq ever conquered was Kuwait, which is a postage stamp of a country. The Kuwaiti leadership fled in their Mercedes, Rolls-Royces and Cadillacs at the sound of the first shot. I've never forgotten an anonymous quote in a Wall Street Journal story. The reporter had asked someone, apparently a Kuwaiti leader, why he was not fighting for his country. "That is what we have our American slaves for," he is quoted as saying. The Iraqis fought Iran, much to the glee and with the assistance of the United States, but they lost. And Iraq was never a significant factor in any of the Israeli-Arab wars, all of which Israel won. So Saddam's record was only 1-1, assuming you want to call the invasion of Kuwait a victory. It started in the morning and was over by the afternoon. The fact that Iraq developed and used chemical weapons in its war with Iran is not significant at all. Those weapons were developed in World War I and were used by both the Allies and the Germans. Iran also used them in the 1980s war. It should be noted, as further proof of the basic dishonesty of the American government, that when the chemical attack so often cited by the Bush administration as proof of Saddam's evil actually occurred, an official U.S. government investigation blamed it on the Iranians. Now Saddam is entertaining us again with his phony trial. "Hey, you with the glasses," he shouted recently, referring to the judge. He asserts that the trial is illegal because our invasion was illegal, and therefore, from a legal standpoint, he is still the president of Iraq. What's funny is that he's right – not that that will save him. But it really is true that our invasion of Iraq was illegal. Iraq was not at war with us, was not preparing to go to war with us and was not a threat to us. Furthermore, Iraq had complied with United Nations resolutions and gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction, despite the torrent of lies to the contrary that the Bush administration unleashed. We committed what international law forbids – a war of aggression. And it is true that American invaders are, in effect, trying Saddam. The law and the courts were set up during the occupational government, and the judges were trained by Americans. Saddam was arrested by Americans and is being held in prison by Americans. It will go down in history as an American-sponsored kangaroo court. Nobody should misconstrue any of this as a claim that Saddam is not a killer and a thug. He most certainly is. He was known as the Butcher of Baghdad even in the days when the United States government supported him. The U.S. government has supported a lot of killers and thugs, and if it continues its imperialistic foreign policy, it will keep on doing so because our foreign policy completely lacks any morality. The irony is that a two-bit dictator in a six-bit country has provided American politicians with the opportunity to forever soil America's reputation. We are now considered by most of the world as a rogue nation. Thus Saddam, as he steps up to the gallows, can take perverse pleasure in the fact that he was the cause, though inadvertently, of great and lasting damage to the United States. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM Kendall, I think you're teetering on the cusp of #8. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 22 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM "Profound ignorance combined with absolute certainty. . . ." What a great phrase! Explains a lot about what's going on in the world these days, unfortunately. Thanks for posting that article, Little Hawk. That's it in a nutshell. And germane to the last paragraph in the article, I heard a commentator a few days ago remark that ". . . terrorists know perfectly well that they can never bring a country down through direct action. What they do is create a fear of future attacks, and in response to that fear, the country destroys itself from within." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:09 PM Why is the takedown of a dictatorial regime considered agression when the vast majority of the residents want to get rid of the dictator? Saddam surrendered to American forces, not captured. He new what his fate would be if he was captured by Iraqis. Now they are squabbling in Iraq about where he is to be executed. At the risk of being ridiculed, on the day that Sadam was found I said that as long as he is alive, the possibility exists that he might come back in to power. http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040216_Arabs_Saddam.html Dr. Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, the editor in chief of the Egyptian quarterly Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya magazine and board member and advisor to the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, published a column in the most recent issue of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. The article praised the capture of Saddam Hussein and denounced Arabs and Muslims who lament it and propagate conspiracy theories surrounding it. The following are excerpts from the article, as it appeared in the original in English: 'Saddam Surrendered in this Docile Manner Because He Knew His Captors Were Americans' "The discovery of Saddam Hussein, the arrogant, cruel, and luxury-loving leader, hiding in an underground hole - bringing to mind the tale of the Thieves of Baghdad - and his surrender to his captors in a docile and cowardly fashion, was indeed something of a farce. But, the 'Mother of all Farces,' to borrow Saddam's famous idiom, is that Arabs and Muslims fail to grasp the true implications of the rise, and fall, of Saddam Hussein. "Saddam Hussein is a true example of the despotic leader as described by the great Arab intellectual Abdel-Rahman Al-Kawakbi in his famous treatise 'The Nature of Despotism' more than one hundred years ago: 'Once seated on his throne ... the despot regards himself as a man who has become a God... The despot is no more than a traitor and a coward who needs to be surrounded by a band of thugs to aid and protect him.' "There is no doubt Saddam knew what his fate would be if captured by the Iraqis; he would have been killed and mutilated as other previous Iraqi leaders, less brutal than him, were. In this instance, Saddam might have preferred suicide - not out of honor, but in fear of torture and violent death. It is most likely that Saddam surrendered in this docile manner because he knew his captors were Americans... "Saddam's viciousness towards his own people was matched only by his inability to stand up to foreign powers - despite what his propaganda apparatus maintained. His arrogance to the Arabs, meanwhile, was revealed by his refusal to heed any advice from Arab leaders. His disregard for the repeated pleas from President Mubarak, before the war in Kuwait and again before the invasion of Iraq, are a case in point, as was the lackluster reception extended to Arab emissaries to Baghdad during this last crisis." "Yet the farce of Saddam's surrender is nothing compared to the ridiculous interpretations of this event circulating among Arabs and Muslims. The first of these interpretations regards the manner of Saddam's capture as a deliberate and unprecedented insult to all Arabs and Muslims. This point of view implies that Saddam is in some form a symbol of Arabs and Muslims, a 'legitimate' leader, whose actions were a true reflection of the aims and aspirations of Iraq and the Arab world. This cannot be further from the truth. Saddam never had any real legitimacy - his decisions and policies were in flat contradiction to Iraqi, Arab, and Islamic interests. Saddam's arrest - the arrest of any criminal, anywhere - is neither an insult nor a humiliation, but a sign of civility and respect for the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:16 PM I too have a number of friends from old Persia, or Iran, most of whom fled it because it became a totalitarian state. They are intelligent, warm and decent people. Lik emost decent people they seek good survival for their families and peaceful relationships with the people around them. Do not confuse the people of the country with its government; they are very different. It would be like confusing the war on terror with overthrowing a tinpot dictator in a third world country with no serious connections to the terrorism one was combating. SHotsighted, possibly catastrophically so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:23 PM I said "the vast majority of the residents want to get rid of the dictator" which means that they do not support him or his policies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: jeffp Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:48 PM So I suppose that if the people of the United States want another President, it would be alright with you if Canada invaded us to accomplish that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Scoville Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:52 PM Which doesn't mean that yanking the rug out from under them in any way improves their situation. Our government leaders started this without any understanding, and without caring at all that they didn't understand, of the social structure of the country. It's not a nation. It never was a nation and the dictatorship was what was holding it together. Civil war was inevitable, and, as far as I'm concerned, it was unpardonable for our government to go in there without knowing or caring what they were starting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Scoville Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM And as far as I can tell, Israel only wants peace with the neighbors who play by Israel's rules and give her absolute control. I'm not saying Israel doesn't have a legitimate beef, but I don't see how we can blame Palestinian civilians for the evils of Hezbollah any more than we can blame any of a growing number of dissenting Americans for the idiocies of the Bush administration (I voted against him both times, I've never supported the war, and he doesn't act or speak to my condition, but I, as an American, get blamed along with him for every moronic thing committed by the government). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM Yep. Canada, Bring it on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: jeffp Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:06 PM Or any other country of course, using whatever weapons they decide to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:32 PM The pending Canadian invasion of the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM So, Old Guy, that validates the 9/11 (11th September) attack? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:51 PM Give him a break, Richard, you'll bring on a migraine. vide 'total ignorance and absolute certainty', above |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 22 Aug 06 - 08:00 PM Old Guy, We tried that in 1812...got our asses kicked too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Aug 06 - 08:40 PM ... and the White House... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 22 Aug 06 - 09:42 PM Just as the fire was really taking hold, the heavens opened up and it poured rain putting the "enemy" to flight and killing the fire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Aug 06 - 09:42 PM Yeah, bring it on world but expect to meet some resistance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:40 PM Hey! The Canadians could replace Bush with Red Green! Bound to be a major improvement! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:16 PM The world, Old Guy, would be most happy to leave the USA alone if the USA would leave the world alone. We're still waiting for that to happen, but have seen no sign of change. (too much money at stake, obviously) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:22 PM Once a martyr is created, it's really difficult to kill him again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Scoville Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:24 PM I'd vote for Red Green. Oh, wait--I'm not Canadian so I wouldn't get a vote. Well, I wouldn't complain. Of course, we've got Kinky Friedman running for governor and I suspect there isn't a whole lot of difference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:26 PM Hell, Scoville, you want to vote in Canada, be our guest. We are not that formal here. Besides, we haven't discovered Diebold yet. When we do, you can vote as often as you wish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:26 PM Which martyr are you referring to, Peace? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM Any martyr. Killing someone the first time is relatively easy. Soon as they hit 'sainthood', it's a SOB to kill 'em again. They achieve more in death than they did in life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:45 PM Saint Ronald Reagan, for instance. He's still destroying the U.S. and he's been dead these two years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:45 PM If my shakey memory serves me right there was Alexander the Great that messed with other countries, Attila the Hun, Erik the Red, Ghengis Kahn, The Romans, Portugal, Spain, the Dutch, Jolly Old, Japan, Russia, Germany etc. I woulnd't say the US stands alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 06 - 11:58 PM Agreed, Peace. Martyrs are unkillable once they're dead. Old Guy, you are quite right. The world's list of conquerors is very long indeed, and it includes most nations and peoples at one time or another. Before Alexander there was Persia. Before Persia there was Assyria. And so on... It just happens that the USA is on top right now in that respect. Such conquering powers are never very popular with most of their neighbours, that's for sure, but they all enjoy their day of glory while it lasts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 23 Aug 06 - 01:41 AM Old Guy - "I am wondering if Iran used us to get rid of Saddam for them through Chalabi and his band of "defectors" and their tails of WMDs." This is what I meant when I said he was thinking like an Arab. ...and Scoville said, "Our government leaders started this without any understanding, and without caring at all that they didn't understand, of the social structure of the country." Exactly! The trouble is that Americans/Israelis/ Brits only apply Western logic and conventional wisdom. Arabs are smarter and I say that with admiration. They are able to think outside the box and manipulate other nations to do exactly what they want. They know us much better than we know them. Walt - How can I be racist when, in fact, I am of the same race as Arabs? Quite frankly, I think the Saudis have manipulated all of the events beginning with 911 and they are laughing all the way to the bank. How can you win a war if you don't even know the face of our enemy? How many years do you think it will take to find bin Laden? Don't hold your breath, it ain't a gonna happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:31 AM I see on the news where they are calling up large numbers of Marine and Army reserves as more cannon fodder. Strange how he waited until after his election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:47 AM "The Saudis have manipulated all the events beginning with 911". Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory? Does the manipulation include attacks in Saudi Arabia itself? If we're going to have credibility against the Bushites, we have to start thinking more clearly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Aug 06 - 06:59 AM However, here's a fact--from the Wall St Journal, of course--gemane to "realizations about Iraq". From the WSJ 22 Aug 2006---"Iraq was pumping about 2.5 million barrels a day of crude oil before the 2003 invasion. Production remains about 500,000 barrels below that level." So much for Bushite blithe assurances about all the "progress which has been made in Iraq". And the brain drain--which is one of Iraq's most serious problems--continues. Again from the Journal article: "Of the top 100 or so managers running the Iraqi oil ministry and its branches in 2003, about 2/3 are no longer at their jobs, according to current and former Iraqi officials and outside analysts." And fear appears to be a major reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:00 AM "germane" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Aug 06 - 07:15 AM Obviously, when in 2003 the WSJ is referring to would play a major role in this. If it refers to the period before the invasion, probably all the high-ranking officials in Saddam's regime would have been Baathists--and all removed after his fall. I deduce therefore that the reference would be comparing late 2003 to now. But fear is definitely precipitating a huge brain drain in Iraq-- a bloodletting of talent, in addition to the literal bloodletting-- which shows no signs of abating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:04 AM I understand a lot of the oil is being "stolen" and does not show up on the books. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 23 Aug 06 - 05:50 PM Yes, quite a lot is being stolen in Iraq. This is the true meaning of "Mission Accomplished". The corporate buddies of the administration no doubt know where some of the billions (yes billions) in un-accounted-for reconstruction money really are. And I doubt that if large scale theft of oil is occuring, it's not just ordinary Iraqis involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:12 PM October 06, 2004 What's worse is that a large chunk of the oil revenues is not accounted for because of graft, theft, mayhem and the near-total absence of transparency within the transitional government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, according to aid agencies, which say they cannot see where the money is going. Oil traders go further. They say large amounts of oil are being stolen and smuggled onto ships, with Iraqi officials and traders splitting the returns. The Iraqi people and economy see no "trickle down" effect. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6359%20 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:37 PM Old Guy-- Oct 2004 was a while ago--anything more recent? With source, naturally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 23 Aug 06 - 10:41 PM I am afraid it wouldn't satisfy you no mater what. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Aug 06 - 11:07 PM Au contraire--just give a source and we can all judge how valid the information is. And it's certainly possible that not all the oil is on the books--it's just that without a source, such an assertion is perilously close to hearsay. And since facts are obtainable, why not try? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 24 Aug 06 - 12:02 AM Hell, there's massive theft here in Alberta, an oil exporting province. Presently, we are paying 1.14/liter at the pump for regular gas (petrol to the UKers). We produce the stuff here. What the fook is that about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Aug 06 - 06:28 AM We are paying AUD$1-30 or so at the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 24 Aug 06 - 06:46 AM $2.89 a gallon here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Aug 06 - 06:56 AM Oz = price per litre - gallon - about 4 and a bit litres |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Aug 06 - 07:05 AM It's around £1 a litre here. According to a currency coverter, at the moment, £1 = $1.89US A conversion table gives me 1 US gallon = 3.79 litres. So to compare with Kendall, $7.17 a gallon here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Aug 06 - 07:10 AM I get FT's to $3.76 in US terms. (And FT, a US gallon is smaller than an imperial gallon which is about 4.54 litres) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Aug 06 - 07:25 AM I knew that Jon... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Mohammed Date: 24 Aug 06 - 07:36 AM Yes, Old Guy, you are correct. We set you up so that you will drop nuclear bombs on us so we can achieve martydom. M():-> |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 24 Aug 06 - 02:16 PM I gave the source but you question the statement because of the date. Are you withholding facts that prove that the oil is not being stolen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 24 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM So now Turkey is also into the Iraq battlefield which, of course, will draw Iran into the whole mess in an effort to protect the Kurds. Why do I have to find obscure new reports? Why isn't this being reported by the mainstream news media? http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/4945833.asp?gid=74 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Aug 06 - 03:35 PM "which, of course, will draw Iran into the whole mess in an effort to protect the Kurds." Last I heard, the Iranians were shelling Kurds in Northern Iraq.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Aug 06 - 03:43 PM The GUARDIAN which is quoted is mainstream media. These news are a couple of days old: Kurds flee homes as Iran shells Iraq's northern frontier Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Aug 06 - 03:49 PM Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory. (from the GUARDIAN link) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 24 Aug 06 - 05:45 PM Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that since it was Iran who potected the Kurds from Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, they would now do the same. I can understand why Turkey is afraid of the PKK but why would Iran bomb the PKK in Iraq? It doesn't make sense to me. It also doesn't make sense that Turkey and Iran are co-ordinating their forces. Can someone unravel this latest turn of events for me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 24 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM O.K. Now I get it. The PKK was carrying out terrorist attacks in Iran and Turkey or so the story goes. btw Old Man, here's a dose of reality about Iraq: From the Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_murray/2006/08/iraq_time_for_plan_b.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 24 Aug 06 - 08:06 PM Jaysus, don't confront Fat Old Woody with REALITY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: bobad Date: 24 Aug 06 - 08:17 PM They are killing Americans now, if they pull out they will be killing each other - a rock and a hard place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 24 Aug 06 - 08:56 PM BBC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Aug 06 - 09:38 PM "Realizations about Iraq" 1. "When you are up to your arse in alligators, it can be difficult to remember that your original mission was to drain the swamp." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Aug 06 - 09:41 PM 2. Wasn't the first release of this movie called "Vietnam"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 24 Aug 06 - 09:41 PM Yes, bobad, you are right about that. As mean and nasty as Saddam was, he was the only one mean enough and nasty enough to maintain any kind of stability in Iraq. I'm afraid that we will only see another nasty dictator who kills anyone who is a threat or we will see Iran become the guiding force in Iraq. Importing democracy is not an answer. If you had a choice between rule by the Iranian theocracy or rule by secular dictatorship, what would you choose? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Aug 06 - 10:16 PM Mr. Guy--(Familiar name-"Old") You need not be so paranoid--it's not a question of "withholding information". It's just that the more current the info, the more valuable. Lots has changed since 2004 in Iraq--mostly not for the better. Among other things, Allawi is no longer in charge. What is the situation under Maliki about oil being stolen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 24 Aug 06 - 11:50 PM Are you too lazy to look or do you just like to order people around as if it makes you "better"? Like a typical liberal, your only talent is critisim. I found it. If you don't like it find something better or something that disproves it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 25 Aug 06 - 12:28 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600774.html Corruption Cited in Iraq's Oil Industry By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 17, 2006; Page A12 U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker told Congress last week that "massive corruption" and "a lot of theft going on" in Iraq's government-controlled oil industry is hampering the country's ability to govern itself. "It took me about, you know, a second and a half to realize that, obviously, there was massive corruption going on, because the numbers just didn't add up," Walker said, referring to a trip he took to Iraq this year in which he was shown figures on oil production and revenue. Walker, who heads the Government Accountability Office, made his remarks at a House Government Reform subcommittee meeting last Tuesday called to examine implementation of the Bush administration's 2005 "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." He said one of the failures of the U.S. program was related to the prewar assumption that Iraq would be able to pay for its reconstruction "in large part through oil revenues." He said about 10 percent of Iraq's refined fuels and 30 percent of its imported fuels are being stolen, in part because the subsidized Iraqi price of gasoline, about 44 cents a gallon, is less than half the regional price of 90 cents a gallon. "That provides a tremendous incentive to be able to steal these fuels and be able to sell them for whatever purposes, corruption or otherwise," Walker said. Walker noted that oil production, which was to provide prime support to the new government, is below prewar production and distribution levels, complicated by the insurgency and difficulties in maintaining the aging oil infrastructure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 25 Aug 06 - 03:41 AM So now what's the U.S. going to do about it? What about the difficulties with reconstruction and maintenance that Halliburton was paid to do? Why hasn't it be done? Those are your tax dollars. Where's the money gone? Yes, sad but true. War is very profitable for a handful of upper echelon criminals. Why did the U.S. think it would be any different in Iraq? Funny how U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker so easily pointed the finger at corrupt Iraqis but didn't mention Halliburton or any of the businesses linked to the Bush administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:07 AM U.S. built major Iranian nuclear facility By Sam Roe Tribune staff reporter Posted August 23 2006, 9:56 PM EDT In the heart of Tehran sits one of Iran's most important nuclear facilities, a dome-shaped building where scientists have conducted secret experiments that could help the country build atomic bombs. It was provided to the Iranians by the United States. The Tehran Research Reactor represents a little-known aspect of the international uproar over the country's alleged weapons program. Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility—fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:16 AM Freda, I'd laugh if it wasn't so potentially serious... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:24 AM freda, "Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility—fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms. " So, your point is that we made a major mistake NOT supporting the Shah, back in the late 1970s? Perry gave the Japanese ( as a gift) a colt pistol back in 1849- Are you going to claim that we armed Japan to attack Pearl Harbour? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:28 AM :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Aug 06 - 07:38 AM "Perry gave the Japanese ( as a gift) a colt pistol back in 1849- Are you going to claim that we armed Japan to attack Pearl Harbour? " Ah, but by bullying Japan to 'open up' the the rest of the world (the US - and Britain - thought they would make heaps by exploiting Japan), you may just have found the 'turning point' in history... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 25 Aug 06 - 01:17 PM Poor ol' Uncle Sam! He's trying to walk around on a pair of feet that are full of bullet-holes that he managed to put there himself over the past several decades. The big problem is, he has no way of knowing when one—or several—of those many bullet holes is going to get infected and give him some major grief. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 25 Aug 06 - 04:28 PM And while we're realising things about Iraq, Nuremberg prosecutor says Bush should be on trial excerpts.. A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq. "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place. He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war. Which wars should be prosecuted? "Every war will lead to attacks on civilians," he said. "Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes." ...Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:28 PM Old news (July 1oth first in AlterNet) and its author by now must curse his bad luck that he has spelt Ferencz correctly about one dozen times or more in the original article and that the only time his finger slipped and he spelt Ferenccz was the first time that name appeared in the article. Since then all left/liberal/NGO publications around the web repeat the content of that article and that error. Even Wikipedia's site about Bush now has the wrong spelling. Ferencz's Website (with a link to the original article) Wolfgang (in 'Ghandi alert' mood) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Aug 06 - 05:32 PM Even McGrath's Google test is not helpful in this particular case though it usually helps. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: freda underhill Date: 25 Aug 06 - 08:22 PM good piont, wolfgang! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 25 Aug 06 - 09:01 PM "...no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council." That's exactly why Bush was wrong to take unilateral action. He should be tried for war crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Aug 06 - 11:55 PM At the very least he should be consigned to the circle of Hell (must be close to the lowest) for people who started unnecessary wars by choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:30 AM The Iraq war, as even you should know, Mr. Guy, was sold to the US public on the basis of the WMD which were never found--and the specious link between Saddam and 9-11 which the Bush regime pushed for over a year. Why do I think we've been over this ground before? Since you must be somewhat slow--once more with feeling: it does you no good to quote UN resolutions on Iraq. If they are UN resolutions it is up to the UN to authorize the enforcement of them by military means. This the UN emphatically did not do--it never gave Bush the green light to use force. Also, hope you heard what was said at the press conference this week: When asked what the connection between Saddam and 9-11 was, Bush said "Nothing". A far cry from the propaganda campaign the US was privileged to experience in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion. Remember for instance the 2003 State of the Union "Before 9-11 many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained" Gee, I wonder why Saddam and 9-11 were linked that way. I repeat--Bush belongs in the lowest circle of Hell for starting an unnecessary war--and marshalling support for it by a despicable propaganda campaign. Would you care to join him there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:39 AM Mr. Guy: Also: regarding the stolen oil in Iraq: Temper, temper, little man. I've given plenty of info--and not by wasting untold amounts of bandwidth posting stuff which has marginal significance or can easily be found elsewhere. Sorry, I don't feel in the least bit guilty about asking a civil question about updated info on the oil question-which you were gracious enough to post. Thanks for that--though I'm surprised you accept the Washington Post as a source. I would think you might consider it a pinko leftist rag--after all, Mr. Limbaugh has little use for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:59 AM You keep beating that Bush/Saddam/911 drum big guy but the fact is that Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 911. He said Saddam supported terrorisim and had dealings with Alquaeda. WAPO is a leftist pinko rag but I figure you libs can't argue with it. Like I said nothing satisfies you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 26 Aug 06 - 02:45 AM Guy - Please do your research before you embarrass yourself, further. The information rcvd. by Bush about the connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and 911 was obtained by interrogation of an al Qaeda commader from Afghanistan. He later recanted his statement. That was two years ago. Get with it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30909-2004Jul31.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Aug 06 - 07:37 AM "Bush never said Saddam had anything to do with 911" I seem to recall opinion polls that stated that the US public had that idea - just where the hell did the public get that delusion? And just how hard did Bush and his cronies try to disillusion anyone of that idea? And did any Bushites HERE claim "Saddam was responsible for 911"????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Aug 06 - 11:19 AM Yes, I recall those polls. I don't know why so many people tought that. I didn't. I guess it shows a lot of people can be wrong or polls can be wrong. If you can show where he said it you can substantiate your claim. Otherwise you are pissing in the wind. I think some people misinterpreted a sentance by GWB that had 9/11 and Saddam in it. The sentance used 9/11 as an example of the results of terrorisim and Saddam as helping terrorists. Some peopl took it as GWB was saying that Saddam was involved in 9/11. There is a whole website dedicated to examples of the Saddam / Alqaeda connections. Can you find it or are you afraid it might prove you are wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:08 PM Mr. Guy-- "Some people..."--your naivete never ceases to amaze me. If you don't think Bush connected 9-11 and Saddam on purpose in the 2003 State of the Union speech, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you. Pay no attention to the fact that I've already sold the same bridge to Teribus. In fact, Mr. Guy, (can't I just call you Old?)--we've had more than one thread on the Bush regime's spectacularly successful--(Goebbels would have been proud)--propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war. I believe one of the threads is over 700 posts. I'm not about to repeat that, even for a slow learner--like your good self? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:14 PM But here's a "realization about Iraq" for the late lamented Teribus and any other giant intellects of his persuasion. Again from the well-known leftist rag I like to quote--the Wall St Journal: today-- 26 Aug 2006: "Iraqis thoroughly looted a base the British departed in a province judged pacified". Hope Teribus, wherever he is, is happy. Sounds like we have an indication of what to look forward to as the Iraqi army takes on more responsibility and the wonderful "Coalition of the Willing" gradually turns over functions to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 26 Aug 06 - 12:43 PM It's kind of pointless for someone like Old Guy to try to rewrite recent history (as in, say, the past five years) because there are too many people around who remember vividly and can back it with mountains of current documentation, which, in itself, is easily verifiable. When someone insists on being an excuse-maker for the likes of the Bush administration, it's really kind of sad. Cocker spaniel-like loyalty is sort of unbecoming in a human being who is presumably capable of thinking--if he chooses to. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Aug 06 - 08:45 PM "I think some people misinterpreted a sentence by GWB that had 9/11 and Saddam in it." That wouldn't have been INTENTIONAL on the part of him and his minders?... before you answer - then why, in spite of people trying to get a response, was there no official statement before NOW to correct any such delusion? It was bloody helpful for Bush and his policies, wasn't it? "the late lamented Teribus" Grieve not! Either... 1) he just changed handle to fool us! 2) he's the NEW Govt employee being paid YOUR tax dollars to bullshit YOU! He doesn't pull the wool over my eyes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:50 AM You were full of shit then and you are full of shit now. You try to needle people who dissagree with you into submission. You are welcome to your arrogant, asshole, better than thou attutude. It suits you well. Fact is you have an anal rententive personality that just can't admit that Bush won TWICE. Just needle me all you want. Let'er rip. That's what you are best at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realisations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Aug 06 - 04:39 AM "can't admit that Bush won TWICE." Isn't he the _US_ President? he's not MY President, and never will be! I'm a bloody AUSSIE! We got our OWN wankers HERE mate! "You were full of shit then and you are full of shit now [snip] You are welcome to your arrogant, asshole, better than thou attutude [snip] you have an anal rententive personality " Ho! Ho! The foul mouth ad hominen attack signifies that you KNOW you have lost the real argument... you're the sort of bullying wanker who called me "four-eyes" at school... "you have an anal rententive personality" ... but many people think that is better than an anal diaheorreatic personality... "You try to needle people who dissagree with you into submission." If I was only a woman, then you could hit me ... and your intellect goes out the door when anyone disagrees with you, so that you can only try bullying and foul mouthing with those who do not knuckle under to you... so go sit in the dunce's corner with your friend Farty Marty and play with yourselves! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:12 AM ... a human being who is presumably capable of thinking... Apparently not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:41 PM "ad hominen attack" against Whom? Will the real arrogant, anal rententive, better than thou, asshole stand up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Aug 06 - 01:44 PM "Iraqis thoroughly looted a base the British departed in a province judged pacified". What are the implications of this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:00 PM Mr. Guy--- Use your head, for once. What do you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:19 PM "Ho! Ho! The foul mouth ad hominen attack signifies that you KNOW you have lost the real argument... you're the sort of bullying wanker who called me "four-eyes" at school..." Wheteher the language is foul or not, the attacks known as 'ad hominum' are coming from many people on this thread, from both sides of the issue. And attack doesn't have to say "you are a dickhead" to be adhominum. It can also simply repeat words taht are NOT 'foul' and still be ad hominum. BTW, I think the use of the term 'ad hominum' sucks. Just can't stand it. Use an English expression. Ad hominum makes me feel like I'm in a southern diner waiting for some kind of grits. It's kinda like calling hamburger "Salisbury steak". It's hamburger for krissake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:31 PM Sorry about the misspellings. Just couldn't be arsed to proof the stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Aug 06 - 02:39 PM I would rather hear what you have to say first so I can engage in your favorite practice of debating by pick everything apart. You offer nothing about what it means. Evidently you don't know what it means but it sounds like something a Lib would want to hear so mention it as if it is self explanitory and intelligent people should know what it means. If you are intelligent, tell me what it means. Otherwise it means nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Aug 06 - 03:40 PM The British leave. Some Iraqis loot the base. Is this a good thing? Is this why the wonderful "Coalition of the Willing" is in Iraq? I repeat--use your head for once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 27 Aug 06 - 05:32 PM --use your head for once. A truly forlorn hope, if ever there was one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Aug 06 - 09:58 PM "debating by pick everything apart." That's the normal way - as opposed to "debating by 'believe all what I tell you'? "Will the real arrogant, anal rententive, better than thou, asshole stand up? " I thought he was... "BTW, I think the use of the term 'ad hominum' sucks. Just can't stand it. Use an English expression." Well, 'Real English' as spoken by 'The Real English' has a long history of latin expressions in formal discussions (as a precise expression rather than the vagaries of 'common english') - something to do with The Great Roman Empire... I can well understand why the American (with their own corrupt version of 'English') Emulators of the Great Roman Empire would prefer their own expressions... "It's hamburger for krissake" Hamburg is in Germany... and is where the word came from... :-) "If you are intelligent, tell me what it means. Otherwise it means nothing. " I love to watch that movie about the elephant with the big ears - he can fly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:14 PM What do you use your head for? Seems to me that Iraqis have a penchant for looting like in Kuwait in 1990. Part of the mentality. News flash: King Tut dies and locals loot his tomb. This provides ample evidence of the failure of the Tut administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:25 PM "US soldiers rape and murder Iraqi family" This provides ample evidence of the failure of the Bush administration. Can I share your songsheet Old Guy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:38 PM I guess murder and rape are in the special Iraq version of the manual. And has any of this been proven? Or are you prejudging them? Did anything like this happen under the wonderfully sucessful Clinton administration? 1996: 3 U.S. soldiers convicted in a rape case in Okinawa "Mudcatters try to stiffle old guy for personal and political reasons. Old Guy survives." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:42 PM ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 27 Aug 06 - 11:56 PM "Well, 'Real English' as spoken by 'The Real English' has a long history of latin expressions in formal discussions" This discussion ain't formal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 28 Aug 06 - 07:57 AM Is that a formal decision? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 28 Aug 06 - 08:29 AM I am wondering if Muslims can handle freedom. Give them freedom and they can't handle it. They either steal everything they can get their hands on, from their fellow muslins even, or they try to kill anybody they can. Maybe it is Allah's way of letting the strong survive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: kendall Date: 28 Aug 06 - 01:48 PM Old Guy, Kuwait was part of Iraq. It was taken away. Our Republican ambassador told Saddam that we didn't care what he did over there, so he decided to take Kuwait back. Why not? We gave him the green light. Those animals who raped and murdered those Iraquis are being court marshalled by the marine corps. There is no question that they did it. Funny how history repeats itself; Truman's secretary of state, Dean Atcheson, told the North Koreans that we had no interest in southeast asia, so they invaded south Korea. They were quite surprised to learn that we damn well DID care! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Aug 06 - 11:01 PM Old Guy-- Iraqis "have a penchant for looting". Of course I'm sure it has nothing to do with the approximately 40% unemployment rate. The "realization", if you haven't figured it out yet, is that this thorough looting of "Coalition" bases-- regardless of the cause-- sounds like it may be what we have to look forward to as more bases are turned over to Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Aug 06 - 11:16 PM Which shows just one of the wonderful ways US funds are being used in Bush's war. Must be all part of the "victory" celebration--remember, we've already won the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 28 Aug 06 - 11:18 PM Maybe so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 29 Aug 06 - 12:10 AM "There is no question that they did it." Somebody thinks they are the judge and jury too. Listen to this Marine's tale: Loitering at the back gate of his base, mingling with locals, Boudreaux says he scribbled "Welcome Marines" on a piece of cardboard and gave it to some kids, who then posed with him, smiling, for a snapshot... ...The image made its way to the Internet and fell into the hands of bloggers -- Boudreaux says he doesn't know how -- except that the sign had been altered to say, "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad, then he knocked up my sister."... ...By this point, Boudreaux, 25, was back in his hometown of Houma, Louisiana, after his Iraq tour, and he found out about the tempest only when a fledgling Marine brought a printout of the "killed my dad" picture to the local recruiters' office where Boudreaux was serving. Soon after, he learned he was being investigated by the Pentagon. He feared court-martial. It would be months before he would learn his fate.... ...he Marine who found himself denounced by his local paper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, as having embarrassed "himself, the Marine Corps and, unfortunately, his home state." The Marines conducted two investigations last year, both of which were inconclusive. Even experts with the Naval Criminal Investigative Services couldn't find evidence to support or refute claims of manipulation. http://edition1.cnn.com/2006/TECH/07/13/popsci.digital.photos/index.html Is there any question that he did it judge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 29 Aug 06 - 08:17 AM Clever "cut and paste" editing Old Guy. I read the WHOLE original article. Your job application for Fox News has been approved - you start next week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:15 PM Excerpted from: The Progress Report by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin October 20, 2006 IRAQ The Turning Point Overwhelming bipartisan disapproval with the current Iraq strategy "will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking," the Washington Post reports today. According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. military is already "in the midst of a re-evaluation of its Iraq strategy," with top commanders from each of the armed services convening at the Pentagon "for 60 days to generate options for how the U.S. might shift its counterinsurgency strategy." The message is clear: the U.S. has reached a turning point. "Stay the course" is no longer a credible strategy even among the most strident war supporters. Even President Bush, who has consistently rejected comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, acknowledged this week that he believes the current spike of violence in Iraq could be the "jihadist equivalent" of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which was "widely credited with eroding support for President Johnson" and turning the American public against that war. LOSING BAGHDAD: In July, Bush "stood next to visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki" and "announced plans to shift thousands of additional American forces" to Baghdad. Operation Forward Together was meant to show that as "conditions change" in Iraq, the administration would be "facile enough to change with [them]." Gen. William Caldwell, the military's chief spokesman in Iraq, gave "an unusually gloomy assessment" of the campaign's effectiveness. Caldwell called the 22 percent spike in attacks over the past three weeks "disheartening," and said the U.S. would be "working closely with the government of Iraq to determine how to best refocus our efforts." "In the void forged by the sectarian tensions gripping Baghdad, militias are further splintering into smaller, more radicalized cells, signifying a new and potentially more volatile phase in the struggle for the capital." Elsewhere in Iraq, our troops are "still forced to play a game of whack-a-mole with the insurgency and militias, because it cannot dominate the country enough to secure every city and hamlet." Despite the fact that the U.S. military "has not conducted any major operations" in October, this month is on track to be the third-deadliest of the war for our troops. PROBLEMS START AT HOME: In November 2005, President Bush said the training of Iraqi security forces was "critical to victory in Iraq." Yet a recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that his administration has not dedicated enough resources to training the U.S. advisers whose job it is to train Iraqi troops. "Internal Army reviews and interviews with dozens of advisers," the paper reported, "show that, thus far, the Army hasn't treated the advisory program as a priority." Lt. Col. Nick Demas called the instruction given to the group of advisers he led a "phenomenal waste of time." "In my 28 years of military service I have never seen such an appalling approach to training," he wrote in a report to superiors. On the Army's grenade training for Iraqis, Demas remarked, "The same training effect could have been achieved by throwing baseballs over a parked mini-van." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 06 - 12:54 PM But on Thursday, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, announced that the American-led crackdown on violence in Baghdad had failed and said U.S. commanders were consulting with the Iraqi government on a new approach. "It's clear that the conditions under which we started are probably not the same today, and so it does require some modifications of the plan," Caldwell said. "The violence is indeed disheartening," he noted. "Gen. Caldwell's admission is yet another indication that the enemy is winning," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a centrist think tank in Arlington, Va. "Commanders in the field are beginning to suggest a lack of success." Caldwell's assessment came as the military announced the deaths of three U.S. troops in Iraq, raising the number of American military deaths in October to 74. Car bombs, mortar fire and small-arms fire across Iraq killed at least 66 people -- including the police commander of the volatile Sunni Anbar province, who was shot to death in his own house -- and wounded 175. Growing frustration with the continuing drumbeat of bad news from Iraq has driven political debate in the final weeks of the congressional election campaign. As Americans have become increasingly opposed to the war, some of the staunchest Republican supporters of Bush's foreign policy, such as the influential Virginia Sen. John Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska have joined the Democrats in calling for a new Iraq strategy. "This is not about Democrat versus Republican anymore," said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on Iraq and the senior vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy think tank. "It's serious, senior people across the political spectrum saying this strategy has failed." Richard Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, said Thursday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding." It is unclear whether this means that Bush -- who so far has steadfastly resolved to "stay the course" in Iraq, is getting ready for a different approach on the conduct of the war. "You always have to be skeptical of statements made by politicians on the eve of an election," Thompson warned. "Bush's comments may be purely tactical, and they may not offer any insights into his long-term plans." (From SFGate) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 20 Oct 06 - 01:18 PM Abu Isama al Iraqi, the self-proclaimed leader of the jihadis (non al Qaeda Islamic terrorists) in Iraq, wants al Qaeda to shape up. Al Iraqi has asked Osama bin Laden to repudiate the leadership of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, because of various "un-Islamic" things it's been doing, like targeting civilians, attacking mosques, etc. Al Iraqi has threatened to take action against Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq if Osama doesn't bring it to heel. This could be a good thing, since this means Islamic terrorist factions are threatening to fight each other over tactics. Al Qaeda is still killing lots of Iraqis, but believes that, because these civilians are Shia Arabs, it doesn't count as counter-productive. But your average Iraqi doesn't like all these suicide bomb attacks on civilian targets. Even when you target Shia, you're going to get a few Sunni (unless you are bombing a Shia mosque, but mosques, in general, are supposed to be sacrosanct.) Abu Umar al Baghdadi, the Amir (leader) and spokesman for the new "Islamic State" that's been proclaimed by some of the jihadis recently, has been a source of interesting gossip on who's threatening who inside al Qaeda. The main goal of all Islamic terrorists is supposed to be the maintenance of this "Islamic State" safe zone, in western Iraq, for Islamic terrorists. But it isn't working out that way, since most of the Sunni Arab tribes have signed a deal with the government, to help hunt down Islamic terrorists. This has driven many of the Islamic terrorist groups into Baghdad, where they are on a major killing spree. So we can expect some interesting spin out of al Baghdadi, at least for as long as he survives in the wild. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 20 Oct 06 - 02:51 PM First I get bitched at for long cut and pastes and then I get bitched at for editing cut and pastes. There is no way to satisfy crybaby Liberals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Oct 06 - 07:59 PM "Crybaby" is the language of the playground. "Nyaah, nyaah you smell!" This is about people killing and being killed, and about a situation of appalling suffering. People disagree about what has happened and what should happen. But it deserves better than that level of argument. (From either side.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 20 Oct 06 - 09:01 PM Well, well, well... Yeah, I purposely haven't said anything on this thread because when Old Guy fired it up he was eatin' up my Mudcat alotted time on Katrina and didn't think Ihad the time to delve into another charged thread but... ...with that said, I agree with parts of Old Guy's original thought and it's appearing more and more likely that the only solution, if one can call it that, is seperatin' the warin' factions... Old Guy and I will probably disagree on how this can be accomplished but I keep thinking of the Saudi Proposal that the Bush folks shot down at the time but I'm sure he and every Repub running for re-election today wished Bush had listened to... It was a framework and with a little dustin' off it could apply to Iraq as well as finding a framework for the Isreali/Palestinain situation... Yeah, and it puts the load right where it belongs: on the countries of the Middle East!!! But Bush would have to figure a creative way of accepting a proposal that he refused to "endorse" that would have prevented Iraqmire in the first place... But Bush's days are numbers and he hasn't really done anything other than rip off the country and make his rich friends richer so maybe there's a part of him that knows that he has bought himself a 1st Class trip to Hell so, hey, stranger things have happened... But, for the record, "stay the friggin' course" is what Einstien had in mind when he obsereved that repeating a behavior expecting a different response is INSANITY"!!! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 20 Oct 06 - 10:06 PM The US and the 'Coalition' divvying up the region into discrete parts would be crazy making. It is what the western world has done far too often and it seldom is a final fix. Look at South and North Korea, at South and North Vietnam, among a host of others. The only arbiters of a region should be the countries involved. Sure, if an altercation gets out of hand- if civil war turns genocidal- then the countries of the world have to take action. Even then, in my opinion, that doesn't give them the right to divide the warring factions into artificial constructs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 20 Oct 06 - 11:05 PM Well, I ann't in lockstep with Bush. Looks to me like Iraq needs to be whacked up three ways. They just can't get along and are not capable of governing themselves. But that don't mean leaving before something is worked out. What galls me is that Iran will come out ahead, No Sadam and influence over a big hunk of Iraq. The hunk with the oil that should be shared with all of the citizens of Iraq. The Sunnis shure screwed themselves. What I mean by a Crybaby Liberal is one that complains about everything like a spoiled kid. They can't take the breaks life deals out. they think some meanie did this and that to them. They have an idealistic and impractical way that they think the world should be. They are never grateful for what they have. It should be better if it wasn't for that old mean so and so. Grow up. Be a glass half full person instead of a gless half empty type. You will be happier and better off. You can laugh at the unhappy, half empty types. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:57 AM No, the Sunnis didn't screw themselves, Oldster... The US screwed them by destabilizing their grip on power... I knida think of the Sunni's as the Halliburtons/Exxon Mobiles of the US... You know, the upper 1% who have been Hell-bent on shreading the middle class and taking more-than-their-fair-share of the wealth that we all create... That's not just an opinion but a fact... The upper 1% have never had it so good.... Never!!! So if the US were to have it's upper 1% who purdy much hold the power ion the US destabilized by an outside force then they might find themselves thinking purdy much like the Sunnis are feeling now... Greed is a terrible thing, be it Dick Cheneys or Sunni... As for the "crybaby liberal" thing??? Your definaition fits exactly what I think of Bushites... And there will come a time when you Bushites won't be in the winner's circle and when that occurs you all will be cryin' yer hearts out... Heck, the tears still haven't evaporated for all the cryin' you all did during the Clinton years... There is a newspaper in Washington, D.C., if you can call it a "news"paper called the "Washington Times"... During Clinton's administartion it ran crybaby headlines every single day wailin' against poor ol' Slick Willie... And I mean ****every day****... It was almost comical... But this was the Repub rag and all the Repubs bought it so they could have a good cry every mornin' with their their coffee... Yeah, Olster, when it comes to cryin', you folks wrote the book... And, for the record, why is it that Bushites think that the upper 1% deserves the lion's share of the wealth??? Like why is it that 53% of all stocks, bonds and treasury notes are owned by the upper 1%, or that the minimum wage has lost 42% of it's spending power since 1969??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:00 AM UN refugee experts believe that some 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country in the last three years. Nearly all of these have been Sunni Arabs. At the same time, some 200,000 Shia Arabs have returned from exile in Iran, while over 100,000 Kurds and Shia Arabs have returned from exile in several other countries. Several million Shia, Sunni and Kurds have moved inside Iraq, to avoid religious and ethnic violence. Nearly all the Sunni Arabs are fleeing retribution from the families of Kurds and Shia Arabs who were killed by Sunni Arabs during the last three decades of Sunni Arab tyranny. Those murders did not stop with the overthrow of the Sunni Arab dictatorship in early 2003. After about eight months, the Sunni Arab death squads were back in business, this time with the assistance of foreign terrorists from al Qaeda, and other anti-Shia groups. Neighboring Sunni majority nations looked the other way as Sunni Arab terror groups used their territory for bases, to support the continued Sunni Arab terrorism in Iraq. But this time, the Sunni Arab terror failed to cow the Kurdish and Shia Arab majority. Now the victims are fighting back, both officially in the form of army and police counter-terror operations, and unofficially as vengeance seeking death squads. In the last month, the Sunni Arabs have switched their efforts to American troops, hoping to influence the November elections in the United States. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:22 AM Dave- Please read what you have just written: "unofficially as vengeance seeking death squads" (sic). That's the crux of it. And of course, that just causes more vengeance-seeking death squads. And as long as that continues, the situation worsens. Maliki has not been able to carry out his announced intention to purge the police of death squads, much less to disarm all groups but the police. It's fairly obvious that you are a bit too eager to blame the Sunnis for the violence. And now we have turf battles between Shiite groups. Not even Sadr has control of all Shiite fighters. Also, please give sources for your information. One of the main reasons Herbert Bush did not try to conquer Baghdad and "let Saddam go" was US fear of casualties in Baghdad street fighting. So now what do we have? US troops involved in Baghdad street fighting--and US casualties, as predicted, are rising. Wall St Journal 21 Oct 2006: "Sectarian fighters showed their disdain for Baghdad's authority. Sadr's Shiite militia briefly seized the southern city of Amarah in an apparent warning against any government crackdown on death squads as Sunni insurgents brazenly paraded in western towns, some within a mile of a US base." "Iraqi leaders convened a conference of Sunni and Shiite clerics in Mecca to issue fatwas against sectarian violence, but hopes don't appear high". It's time for you to take off your rose-colored glasses. Nobody likes the horrific bloodshed now going on in Iraq--but your upbeat assessments don't fit the facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 21 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM Don't have such glasses, been involved in war and take it very seriously Ron. I'm not being upbeat about anything, just stating that some things are not the fault of the US as the press likes to make out. Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) will have to sort out it's own mess and stop blaming everyone else for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM I think Dave has a grip on what is really happening. "will be cryin' yer hearts out" I though you said the Bushites are crybabies now. Which is it? In any case you don't and won't hear any crying from me. I know the pendulum has to swing back sooner or later. And please note, I am for people making more money. For raising the minimum wage for legal citizens and dropping it to zero for illegals so they have to become citizens and pay taxes. I am for making ALL retailers to pay more benefits, Not just singling out the biggest animal in the heard with the most meat. And I am aginst corruption in government and lobbyists. Terms should be limmited. I heard today that the Congressmen that are convicted fellons still get all of thier pensions and medical benefits. They get to keep all of the campaign contributions. If they stood to loose all that maybe they would be less likely to go crooked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:45 PM The war is lost. It's done. In the end, we will hand Iraq over to Islamic radicals that will imprison men without beards and shut women away from all public life. And whether Dave and can accept it or not, the US is by far the ones to blame for it. But even worse, we're going to lose Afghanistan--have already lost it. We can't stay in either country much longer. When you leave a place worse than you found it, Dave and Old Guy, it's YOUR fault and those who say it is your fault are right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 02:49 PM No. It's your fault for letting GWB win the election. Your guy would have done a much better job even though he said "I would have done the same thing" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 21 Oct 06 - 05:56 PM Worse than Saddam???? worse than the Taliban??? You need to think about that very carefully mate..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:57 PM >>No. It's your fault for letting GWB win the election. Your guy would have done a much better job even though he said "I would have done the same thing"<< You need to understand I'm not arguing with that. You're probably right. I'm saying the war is lost--both Iraq and Afghanistan--and the United States is to blame for it. It's our war and we lost it--now who else do you blame? >>Worse than Saddam????<< Worse than Saddam. Under Saddam, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, no suicide bombers, no drive-bys, no IEDs, no gas shortage (in a country sitting one of the largest known oil reserves), plenty of electricity and running water, and women could drive, go to school and work. In fact, people had work to go to unlike today. As for Saddam's tortures and killings--how is it any worse than thousands killed every month in Sectarian violence and 3 dozen more bound, tortured bodies turing up in another Baghdad field? >>worse than the Taliban???<< The problem is the Taliban have come back. We had something good going there but we let it go and now the Taliban you hate so much are back and have taken over entire regions of Iraq and have upped opium production to levels not seen before. These were the people whomade women wear burkhas and beat thm in public if the wind lifted their clothing. These were the people who blew up ancient Buddha statues for no good reason. They're back. With only 22,000 troops in Afghanistan, whose fault is it? >>You need to think about that very carefully mate..... << I already have and would urge you to do the same. As soon as you say quit blaming the US, I already know that you see that we are at fault but don't want to accept it. Well, accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Oct 06 - 06:58 PM I don't think there is much doubt that Iraq today is a lot worse than it was before the invasion. And that is something that really does deserve thinking about very carefully - how that has been achieved, considering how bad it was before. Saddam's was a monstrous regime, and had done some terrible things - the worst of these being during the years when he was being backed by the USA, most notably his war of aggression against Iran during which millions were butchered, and the genocidal slaughter of Kurds within Iraq which took place as a side effect. In the pre-invasion years the Kurdish areas of Iraq were in practice independent, and out of Saddam's reach. The enforced no-fly-zone was an important factor in this. It continued to be a repressive regime, with torture and death being common for people identified as a threat. The Shiites majority had their freedom of action very much limited. But most of the time people could go round in relative safety, live and work and play. Women could work and study and dress more or less as they wished. The Christian minority was not persecuted or treated as enemies. Public services such as electricity, water, transport worked pretty well. And there was no war going on in the streets with suicide bombers and death squads in and out of uniform. And no Al Qaeda. That has all changed now. Devastated public services, terror on the streets, inter-communal slaughter, oppression of women, oppression of religious minorities, hundred of thousands driven into exile, hundreds of thousands dead... And looking ahead all the signs are that rather than get better things are only too likely to get even worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: akenaton Date: 21 Oct 06 - 07:03 PM The Iraq war has now reached the stage where all the apologists in the media , in government and here on Mudcat are scrabbling to find any means to excuse their Neocon ideology. An ideology, which to our eternal shame has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents and the body count will continue to accelerate as the conflict descends into all out civil war. As Matthew Parris writes in today's Times, "They are building a lifeboat for their reputations. The task is urgent. It is no small thing to find oneself on the wrong side of an argument when the debate is about the biggest disaster in British foreign policy since Suez; no small thing to have handed Iran a final, undreamt-of victory in an Iran-Iraq war that we thought had ended in the 1980s; no small thing to have lost Britain her credit in half the world; no small thing — in the name of Atlanticism — to have shackled our own good name to a doomed US presidency and crazed foreign-policy adventure that the next political generation in America will remember only with an embarrassed shudder." The current lifeboat is "The principle was good but we fucked up the execution".This is another lie in a long line of lies,the reason we have been defeated in Iraq is simply that the decision to illegally invade was a very bad decision...a criminal decision which, if you ignore more Neocon lies, has made the world and specifically UK/USA much more dangerous places to live. It is also a decision which chains our young men inside a butchers shop where they will be slaughtered as they were in Vietnam, while our leaders saw, hammer and screw as they attempt to build the boat which will save their political careers......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Oct 06 - 07:23 PM And please note - Matthew Parris, the journalist quoted there, is a former Conservative MP. The suggestion that the only people who thought this Iraqi adventure was crazy and immoral, even before it turned out tio be disastrous in practice, were "crybaby liberals" is woefully far off-target. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 06 - 08:52 PM Well, here's what I don't get... Bush says, "yeah, we've made some mistakes" but won'tr say what mistakes he made... Yeah, easy to say "We've made some mistakes" but I want details... Yeah, I want Bush to have to answer the very arguments that the anit-war folks made durin' the run up to the invasion... We said that the Iraqis were cooperatin' with the inspectors so why the big hurry??? We siad that the links to Osoma weren't there so why is it that you, Mr. Bush, continue to use the word "terrorists" to describe Iraqis who are either caught up in a civil war or are resisting our occupation??? Is there any greater level of terror fir a younf US marine in Baghdad than a Iraqi family havin' that same kid bust down their door and stickin' an M-16 in their faces??? We said that an invasion would destabilze the region yet Bush and Co. haven't addressed that concern... And where the Hell is that weizel, Teribus??? He was the biggest of the pre-war creeps who told us we were wrong... Yeah, I want Teribus... Screw Bush... Bush is incapable of ever admitting a screw=up... I want Teribus to answer these questions... Teribus owes us that!!! And more... Nevermind... I don't want Teribus afterall... He'll jus' blame Bill Clinton or the UN or Donald Duck... Beam me very angry butt up... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Donuel Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:47 PM Yet we can all realize and agree: If we cut (our losses) and run ($3 Billion/month for our infrastructure) the whole country of Iraq will be over run by Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,282RA Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:52 PM One mistake he won't admit appears to be putting Rumsfeld in charge of the war. Notice how the press is talking about Bush meeting with his generals behind closed doors to discuss tactical changes. Meeting with Bush?? What happened to Rumsfeld? He's running the war, aren't his input and insights needed?? Where is he? Why wasn't he invited to sit in? It should be mandatory. Because he's a fuck up and Bush can no longer rely on him or give the public the perception that he is leaving it up to Rumsfeld because the public no longer trusts the asshole. Bush now must look like he's hands on. The problem is that Bush's image has never been one of being hands on. He was more of a let-Cheney-form-policy-and-Dubby-will-carry-it-out-and-sell-it-to-the-public kinda guy. Indeed the public doesn't really trust Bush as a hands-on guy because of his image as a well-meaning buffoon--good at PR, bad at policy. So where's Cheney? Again, these men have failed in the public's eyes. They are no longer to be trusted and Dubby can no longer afford to be seen taking their counsel. He has to look like HE is getting handle on this thing INSTEAD of relying on advisors with bad advice and woefully shortsighted and incomplete policies. So we're doomed because it should be obvious Bush isn't smart enough to think his way out of broken condom much less reverse our fortunes in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 06 - 09:54 PM I think you're right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Donuel Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:28 PM I recall how Hitler became a hands on military general for the Reich. The predictable military solution for Iraq was a bad idea from the outset. The president says the 600,000 dead civilian Iraqi number is a lie. ...we did not include the depleted uranium deaths of the unborn and infants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 06 - 10:44 PM Who else is to blame is Liberal crybabies that fall for terrorist propaganda and make American resolve weaken and fade away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 22 Oct 06 - 12:00 AM Jesus, OG, are you as sick in the head as you sound? Or are you just trolling? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 12:29 AM Well I gues Amos is Ok cause he tested hiself with the E meter recently and re-read Dianetics. Amos is it true that Dianeics teaches us : anything equals anything equals anything. This is the way the reactive mind thinks, irrationally identifying thoughts, people, objects, experiences, statements, etc., with one another where little or no similarity actually exists. Everything is everything else. Mr. X looks at a horse knows it's a house knows it's a schoolteacher. So when he sees a horse he is respectful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:24 AM And while we are on the subject, we keep hearing Bush say that the goal in Iraq is "victory"??? Like what would constitute a victory??? I mean, the goal posts have been moved so many times that the word "victory" has become completely meaningless other than to mobilize very stupid people to vote for Repubs... Yeah, maybe the Oldster would like to take a stab at defining "victory"??? That oughtta be interestin'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:22 AM Crybabies weaken our resolve to do......? Please fill in the blank for us. And if the answer is "win", please tell us what constitutes a "win". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:31 AM Win: v. To make (one's way) with effort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:06 AM Make one's way where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:17 AM Are you lost? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 22 Oct 06 - 01:47 PM OG: It is clear that if anyone around here is unmoored and has no bearings, it is thine own nasty self. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: ard mhacha Date: 22 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM Teribus please give your oul mucker a pull out, he is being hammered here, tell all of us how Bush and co performed wonders, how they brought democracy and stability to Iraq, and also made the world a safer place, hurry up Teri old boy, before Old Guy is deluged by those awful liberals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 06 - 02:19 PM Winning involves succeeding in doing what you set out to do, get where you wanted to get to. Sometimes it turns out that this is just not possible. In those circumstances you adjust your plans, and settle for achieving something easier to achieve, or getting to somewhere easier to reach. But that isn't "winning", at best it is reducing the cost of defeat. Damage limitation. "Winning" in Iraq would have meant cheering crowds welcoming the liberators, and a new society that would be democratic and also be friendly towards America. The first part wasn't achieved; the second part is pretty evidently not going to be achieved. Whatever happens will, at best, be damage limitation. When politicians or their spin doctors call it "victory" that is just is a hollow joke. It doesn't even fool the people who say the words, let alone the overwhelming majority of people who listen to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM Thoughtful response MOG. Funny how I did not get one from OG. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 03:44 PM You got one. It is just not the one you want. Here is one for you: How do you satisfy a Liberal Crybaby? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 03:50 PM Tell us how Clinton mastered the situation in Somalia. What is Amos's response on Dianetics? Any anybody that ever believed that horse shit has no credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 22 Oct 06 - 03:57 PM What has Dianetics have to do with Iraq? Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. That's baby stuff. Whats worse, a whiner or a tattle-tale? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 22 Oct 06 - 04:03 PM You, Old Guy? Indulging in ad hominem attacks after protesting so loudly about others attacking you! Oh, say not so! I'm so disillusioned!! By the way, if you have the stomach for it: Clicky. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 04:43 PM You put that on another thread. Is that all you have? So someone who exposes the truth is a tattle tale? Can Amos explain how I am nasty? He is the one that uses nasty words to describe his "enemies" I think Amos is smart but he is a crusader that has a history of not not being able to separate fact from fiction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 22 Oct 06 - 04:46 PM ...and you, Old Guy, have a history of ignorant comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 22 Oct 06 - 05:02 PM Yes, I did put it on another thread, Old Guy, but it definitely isn't all I've got. I just want to be sure that people see it. Feeling a bit pressured, I take it? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Oct 06 - 05:30 PM The question was: "what constitutes a win?" Your answer was: "Win: v. To make (one's way) with effort." So, that's the answer you gave me, but I didn't like it? Oh no fella. I like that answer just fine. Tells me all I need to know about your capacity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM More playground stuff. What's the point? You have a case to be argued, Old Guy, so why not try to argue it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Oct 06 - 07:33 PM Old-- Just tell us when you're willing to actually discuss issues--not just engage in name-calling. And "crybaby"?-- is it the first or second grade you're still in? It must be one of them. Though you may not believe it, Iraq is a topic which is worth discussing on a somewhat higher level. Certainly hope you're capable of doing so. But if not, at least we know why we're in the current situation--with you as a typical Bush supporter. For starters, it seems reasonable that you should be able to tell us what "victory" in Iraq would look like, from your perspective. It's a reasonable request. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:14 PM Yo, Ron... All the Oldster is lookin' for now is yet one more little meaningless factoid that he will throw up in defense of his hero, George Bush... But not to fear, he will come up with something however irrelevant and he'll hitch his star to it... This is Oldster's MO... He did the same thing in his defense of Bush's handlin' of Katrina... It came down to a "prove it" debate... So here's the kind of thing that he is apt to say: "Well, the Martians were gettin' ready to attack Iraq so we had to get in there first to protect the Iragis from the Martians, didn't we???" Then when you point out that there is no proof that there is intellegent life on Mars the Oldster will challenge you to "prove it"?!?!?!?!.... This is the Oldster's M.O. and the way he thinks.... And given that he is a died in the wool Bushite, this expalins alot about the messes that Bush has created that soemone else will have to come in and clean up.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 06 - 11:58 PM I sad the Korean nuke loving, Chevista Bobert didn't have to prove it. I just asked him if he believed what he was insinuating. He chickend out and keeps saying I want him to prove it. Still claims I am supporting Bush with his handling of Katrina even though I have said he was right several times. Dianavan has a history of not answering. She just ignores the question and jumps to another thread claiming I do not answer questions. DF posts the same stuff in two threads so he can cry in one or the other that I didn't answer something. Perhaps RD can answer a previous question if it is not too much trouble and if he is capable. Tell us how Clinton handled the situation in Somalia. Take your time. And I say Liberal crybabies can never be satisfied. No matter what answers you give them they continue to cry piss and moan like little kids. I am sorry if that offends you. You have my sympathy. When I started this thread I said Iraq needs to be split up in three parts. The government ther is not up to the task and the people are not capable of handling freedom and democracy. Has anybody got anything to say about that other than whining, and crying? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Oct 06 - 07:05 AM You're still doing the playground stuff, Old Guy. It just distracts from the argument and is taken as a reason for other people to come back in the same way. If that's the best you can do... ......................... Iraq being split into three parts - it may come to that. If it does though, it won't be any kind of "victory", just the very bad best of a very very bad job. Iraq is an artificial country. So was Yugoslavia. So is the USA. So are many other countries. In many/most of these countries there have been times when the differences have led to massive killing and division, permanent or temporary, into separate warring parts. I am sure there have been people who would have said in all these cases that this demonstrated that "the people are not capable of handling freedom and democracy". The big problem with separation in Iraq (as was the case in Yugoslavia) is that millions of people live in areas which are mixed in together. This is particularly the case for Sunnis and Shias in central Iraq, including Baghdad. Massive "ethnic cleansing", with all its horrors, is almost inevitable. So far as the Kurds are concerned there is also the problem that neighbours, especially Turkey are going to be wholly opposed to the setting up of an independent Kurdistan, because of the likely impact on their own Kurdish population. Military action by Turkey against an independent Iraqi Kurdistan is a very real possibility It's a mess. It's a mess that has been made vastly worse by the invasion and by the way things were handled in the wake of the invasion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 06 - 09:29 AM If you haven't seen the DVD "Iraq for Sale" I highly recommend it. It reveals the blundering and the greed of our military-industrial complex at work. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 23 Oct 06 - 07:49 PM Ye$, IRAQmire ha$ been very, very good to for the folk$ who have bought the White Hou$e for their puppet... Very good... Very, very g$$d... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 23 Oct 06 - 08:00 PM "DF posts the same stuff in two threads so he can cry in one or the other that I didn't answer something." Once yet again, Old Guy, the Shinola is the shoe polish, not that other stuff. As I said, I posted the Olbermann commentary in a couple of places to be sure people were aware of it. I know this isn't good for your ego, but you had nothing to do with it. I've long since given up expecting any kind of answers from you. Now, back to our regular programming. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 06 - 10:35 PM Bobert: Do you believe your insinuations or not?? Bobert: "Old Guy??? I doubt you have... Well, you might wanta research it before comin' in here with yer usual stink bombs." Bobert: "Now, don't gey me wrong. Some is purdy cool, ahhh,, like Amos, Little Hawk, Bee-Dubya, Kendall, Jerry Rassmussen, Nicole, CarolC and JtS, but most of collectively add up to a big ol, ahhhh, snore! Except the big jerks like Teribus, troll and DougR, who think that George Junior is God.... Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Oct 06 - 11:42 PM Gee, Old, didn't you know I've copyrighted the phrase "if it's not too much trouble"? My attorneys will be contacting you soon about your copyright violation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 06 - 11:58 PM Well, I guess I have it coming. I will use the term "If it does not cause undue stress." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:32 AM That guy says, "The government ther is not up to the task and the people are not capable of handling freedom and democracy." What makes you think they are any more capable of handling freedom and democracy if Iraq becomes three countries? What kind of solution is that? Its the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq in the first place. Are you capable of thinking beyond the short-term? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:19 AM From the NY Times today: For every additional second we stay in Iraq, we taxpayers will end up paying an additional $6,300. Nicholas D. Kristof. On the Ground So aside from the rising body counts and all the other good reasons to adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, here's another: We are spending vast sums there that would be better spent rescuing the American health care system, developing alternative forms of energy and making a serious effort to reduce global poverty. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Donald Rumsfeld estimated that the overall cost would be under $50 billion. Paul Wolfowitz argued that Iraq could use its oil to "finance its own reconstruction." But now several careful studies have attempted to tote up various costs, and they suggest that the tab will be more than $1 trillion — perhaps more than $2 trillion. The higher sum would amount to $6,600 per American man, woman and child. "The total costs of the war, including the budgetary, social and macroeconomic costs, are likely to exceed $2 trillion," Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist at Columbia, writes in an updated new study with Linda Bilmes, a public finance specialist at Harvard. Their report has just appeared in the Milken Institute Review, as an update on a paper presented earlier this year. Just to put that $2 trillion in perspective, it is four times the additional cost needed to provide health insurance for all uninsured Americans for the next decade. It is 1,600 times Mr. Bush's financing for his vaunted hydrogen energy project. Another study, by two economists at the American Enterprise Institute, used somewhat different assumptions and came up with a lower figure — about $1 trillion. Those economists set up a nifty Web site, www.aei-brookings.org/iraqcosts, where you can tinker with the underlying assumptions and come up with your own personal estimates. Of course, many of the costs are hidden and haven't even been spent yet. For example, more than 3,000 American veterans have suffered severe head injuries in Iraq, and the U.S. government will have to pay for round-the-clock care for many of them for decades. The cost ranges from $600,000 to $5 million per person. Then there are disability payments that will continue for a half-century. Among veterans of the first gulf war — in which ground combat lasted only 100 hours — 40 percent ended up receiving disability payments, still costing us $2 billion each year. We don't know how many of today's veterans will claim such benefits, but in the first quarter of this year more people sought care through the Department of Veterans Affairs than the Bush administration had budgeted for the entire year. The war has also forced the military to offer re-enlistment bonuses that in exceptional circumstances reach $150,000. Likewise, tanks, helicopters and other battlefield equipment will have to be replaced early, since the Pentagon says they are being worn out at up to six times the peacetime rate. The administration didn't raise taxes to pay for the war, so we're financing it by borrowing from China and other countries. Those borrowing costs are estimated to range from $264 billion to $308 billion in interest. Then there are economic costs to the nation as a whole. For example, the price of oil was in the $20- to $30-a-barrel range early in this decade but has now shot up to more than $50, partly because of the drop in Iraq's oil exports and partly because of war-related instability in the Middle East. Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes note that if just $10 of the increase is attributable to the war, that amounts to a $450 billion drag on the economy over six years. The bottom line is that not only have we squandered 2,800 American lives and considerable American prestige in Iraq, but we're also paying $18,000 per household to do so. We still face the choice of whether to remain in Iraq indefinitely or to impose a timetable and withdraw U.S. troops. These studies suggest that every additional year we keep our troops in Iraq will add $200 billion to our tax bills. My vote would be to spend a chunk of that sum instead fighting malaria, AIDS and maternal mortality, bolstering American schools, and assuring health care for all Americans. We're spending $380,000 for every extra minute we stay in Iraq, and we can find better ways to spend that money. " I made very similar arguments to these over a year ago, and added that the social cost of traumas brought home from Iraq and then dramatized (secondary insanity as a side-effect of post-traumatic disorders) has not even begun to be counted. It is just as traumatic to shoot as to be shot at, to some people. And the families and close associates of returning vets will have a significant price to pay in broken relationships, dysfunctional connections, and possible violence in CIvvy Street, judging from the history of Vietnam Vets. All of this should have been better estimated, but George really wanted to play cowboy with the dogs of war, and gave no thought (something he excels at--giving no thought) to the matter. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:20 AM What makes you think that three countries will not function better that one country? Or if you prefer, why do you think one country would function better than three countries? You can give us the long and short term results and benefits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:03 PM The Times editorializes, in part: This page opposed a needlessly hurried and unilateral invasion, even before it became apparent that the Bush administration was unprepared to do the job properly. But after it happened, we believed that America should stay and try to clean up the mess it had made — as long as there was any conceivable road to success. That road is vanishing. Today we want to describe a strategy for containing the disaster as much as humanly possible. It is hardly a recipe for triumph. Americans can only look back in wonder on the days when the Bush administration believed that success would turn Iraq into a stable, wealthy democracy — a model to strike fear into the region's autocrats while inspiring a new generation of democrats. Even last fall, the White House was dividing its strategy into a series of victorious outcomes, with the short-term goal of an Iraq "making steady progress in fighting terrorists." The medium term had Iraq taking the lead in "providing its own security" and "on its way to achieving its economic potential," with the ultimate outcome being a "peaceful, united, stable and secure" nation. If an American military occupation could ever have achieved those goals, that opportunity is gone. It is very clear that even with the best American effort, Iraq will remain at war with itself for years to come, its government weak and deeply divided, and its economy battered and still dependent on outside aid. The most the United States can do now is to try to build up Iraq's security forces so they can contain the fighting — so it neither devours Iraqi society nor spills over to Iraq's neighbors — and give Iraq's leaders a start toward the political framework they would need if they chose to try to keep their country whole. The tragedy is that even this marginal sort of outcome seems nearly unachievable now. But if America is to make one last push, there are steps that might lessen the chance of all-out chaos after the troops withdraw: Start at Home For all the talk of timetables for Iraq, there has been little discussion of the timetable that must be handed to George W. Bush. The president cannot leave office with American troops still dying in an Iraq that staggers along just short of civil war, on behalf of no concrete objective other than "get the job done," which is now Mr. Bush's rhetorical substitute for "stay the course." The administration's current vague talk about behind-the-scenes agreements with Iraqi politicians is next to meaningless. Americans, Iraqis and the rest of the world need clear, public signs of progress. Mr. Bush can make the first one by firing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. There is no chance of switching strategy as long as he is in control of the Pentagon. The administration's plans have gone woefully wrong, and while the president is unlikely to admit that, he can send a message by removing Mr. Rumsfeld. It would also be a signal to the military commanders in the field that the administration now wants to hear the truth about what they need, what can be salvaged out of this mess, and what cannot. The president should also make it clear, once and for all, that the United States will not keep permanent bases in Iraq. The people in Iraq and across the Middle East need a strong sign that the troops are not there to further any American imperial agenda. ... Hmmmm.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:18 PM I think the problem, OG, is that to make three countries you will have to arbitrarily displace populations who have lived among each other for centuries. I mean primarily the Shiite and Sunni populations. The Kurds have a distinct territory, which could be a separate country, with a little generosity from Istanbul. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:31 PM As I understand it, if Iraq were to be divided according to where the majority of the Sunnis and the Shi-ites live--the old tribal boundaries before they were arbitrarily welded into one nation by Europeans early in the 20th century--the Shi-ites would get all the oil and the Sunnis would simply be cut out. That idea doesn't go down too well with the Sunnis. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:43 PM Maybe it would clear the air a bit if the people who carried out the invasion, and the people who backed them, could apologise for making a total cod's arse out of it all. If you get the builders in, and they wreck your house, you might want them to accept responsibility for putting things right - but you certainly wouldn't want to employ them to carry out the work involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 06 - 05:02 PM Cod's arse, is it, old fruit? What a ripping expression!! Ten points! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 24 Oct 06 - 07:25 PM The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the "war on terror," other than as a very effective recruiting tool for more terrorists. I heard the following (The Long War: Part I) today on the radio. NPR, or more properly, Public Radio International. You won't hear anything like this on the main-stream media, and certainly not on Fox News Service, but if you actually want to know what's really going on, this is where you'll find it. This was not written by some twerp sitting safely in an office in New York or Washington, D.C., the reporter was on the scene, and this particular scene is in Pakistan. Click You can either read the report, or if you have Windows Media Player, you can listen to it by clicking on "Listen to the report." Not in my name! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 06 - 10:59 PM The problem in Iraq now is: we can talk about 3 countries, one country or the price of tea in China. We will have little impact on any of the above. The fate of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. Iraq will break up--it was an artificial country to begin with, as I've been saying for many months. De facto Kurdistan is as good as gone. Only question is whether the Shiite south will follow. If it does, the Sunni areas will not take it lightly--since, as I've said for at least a year--they cannot afford to be left with just an oil-poor area. If there is no provision for Sunnis to share in oil revenue from areas outside their region --which includes Baghdad (mixed area), the civil war will explode. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 Oct 06 - 11:22 PM It would be interesting if they could have a United States of Iraq, with three culturally separate and geographically separate states. It would be something like New York, Georgia and Alaska forming a union. Would it last? Who knows. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 06 - 11:31 PM And in fact, as far as being artificial countries, Iraq qualifies much more than most--it did not grow "organically"--but was put together by outsiders. As Kendall has pointed out, the closest parallel is Yugoslavia. But as I recall, it's even worse with Iraq--since one part--the Kurdish area--never had the slightest desire to be part of another national state--their goal was always a Kurdistan. I don't believe there was as strong resistance in any component of Yugoslavia to the very idea of Yugoslavia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 06 - 01:30 AM Amos: Even though you have mixed ethnicitiesor sects in the three areas, There will large majority that will have control in each area which should calm things down. Baghdad will continue to be a trouble spot. It is a shame the the fertile plain between the tigris and euphrates, the cradle of civilization should end up in such a mess. I said years ago that Iraq will probably end up in three parts. The english made arbitrary [knotheaded] decisions about where the borders should be which has caused problems ever since. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Durand Line. drawn in 1893 by Sir Mortimer Durand, then foreign secretary in British India, and was acceded to by the amir of Afghanistan that same year. This boundary, called the Durand Line, was not in doubt when Pakistan became independent in 1947, although its legitimacy was in later years disputed periodically by the Afghan government as well as by Pashtun tribes straddling the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. On the one hand, Afghanistan claimed that the Durand Line had been imposed by a stronger power upon a weaker one, and it favored the establishment of still another state to be called Pashtunistan or Pakhtunistan. On the other hand, Pakistan, as the legatee of the British in the region, insisted on the legality and permanence of the boundary. There should have been another country between them for Pashtuns but the line goes through their territory and divides them. It is a shame the the fertile plain between the Tigris and Euphrates, the cradle of civilization should end up in such a mess. I agree with RD that It's the Model T Ford made the trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 25 Oct 06 - 03:13 PM The other night I listened while a guy- a former ambassador, I think - was being interviewed on television. This guy has written a book on the middle east and seems well versed and knowledgeable. Like Old Guy, he espouses three separate countries. Kurdistan, he said, is already a coherent country: it has its own government, its own municipalities, its own mission statement, its own plans for the future. It also has a lot of the oil. The south of Iraq, he said, needs to be its own country, with the Shi'a in control of their destiny- and their oil. The Sunni in the north, he said, will have to have a clearly laid out and understood, enforceable share of the oil revenues. For that matter, he said, it is not established that the north does not have oil; it probably does, he said. But FIRST, he said, the US has to retreat from Iraq, although it can be quartered in neighboring countries. Their presence IN the country, he said, would preclude any progress. He said he believes that there will be civil war for a long time but that eventually the three entities will - and must - see where the future lies. He was asked about the current 'government'- will they be abandoned and left in the cold? The current 'ruling body', he said, is not governing at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 06 - 05:50 PM I think it is an interesting possibility because it would rerstore recognizable form to what is now painfully chaotic. I have reservations because drawing such lines from afar has never worked really well. Inherent organizational dynamics such as clan lines and tribal links can be forced underground by political overlays imposed from outside. But they do not go away and the minute the suppress comes off, they re-appear. It is an appealing picture, I agree; I just think there is a good chance it would ony wor if the gerrymandering was done by the Sunnis and the Shiites. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 25 Oct 06 - 07:57 PM Like I have said, yeah, I agree with Old Guy in principle but I also agree that the Iraqis are going to be the ones who are going to have to come to this realization and. like Ebbie pointed out, the US needs to get out of their way... The Bush invasion only insured that Iraq would eventually fall into a civil war... Many of us here predicted this very scenerio would occur and now we arwe there... The US cannot stop it... It's like Pandora's box an there's no fixin' Bush's screw ups now... What we need is a realistic policy that acceptes that the Iraqia are going to have to go thru some very painfull growing pains here while bringing in "Saudi Proposal" thinking that involves all the other countries in the Middle East... Einstien says that "a problem cannot be solved with the sme consciencness that created it" so I'm not too confident that Bush and his folks can pull anything off... Plus they have spent whatever political capital they had from 9/11 and I guess that means that the US is going to need the Dems to step up to the plate... Biden has been talkin' about the things I've mentioned here so, hey, maybe a danged Dem can do somethin' positive... One thing for sure is that Bush doesn't have a clue and Karl Robve doesn't know anything about foriegn policy either so... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:28 PM "One thing for sure is that Bush doesn't have a clue and Karl Robve doesn't know anything about foriegn policy either so..." You're right about that but Cheney sure knows how to turn a fast buck when the time is ripe. Bush is stupid. Rove just wants to be part of the 'in crowd' and Cheney is laughing all the way to the bank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:43 PM The political capital was counterfeit in the first instance, I believe. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:12 PM If America pulls out the Sunnis and Shia will be fighting for control of everything worse than they are now. The current govern ment does not show strong leadership. It is my oppion that these people need a strong leader, like a Saddam, to be controlled. They do not have the ability to get along. They cannot handle democracy. It is too new to them. Democracy there is possible, look at Turkey and Algeria. Just not so soon. I am also afraid that as long as Saddam is alive, there is a chance that he will come back into power. So in short The US Army should not pull out. Thing change very quickly there. Muqtada al-Sadr could or any insurgent leader could be killed anyday and things could change drasticaly. Or someone like Muqtada al-Sadr could take control of the government and tell The US Army to leave. It is too volatile for anybody, experienced expert or not, to say what will happen but I do think it would be better to split it up and it will be tough titty for the Sunnis. They are the original troublemakers and they have screwed thierself. They had a chance to let things go smoothly but no, they wanted a bigger and bigger share. ...The US government dreamed that the three groups would compete peacefully, peacefully accept the results of the elections, and share power peacefully. Nonsense. The Sunnis judged that they were likelier to get a bigger share of power through bullets than through ballots. It is essential to note that the Sunnis have fought the elections not because they are rigged, but precisely because they are not rigged... Exerpt from http://www.milnet.com/mid-east-news/The-Mideast-08.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 25 Oct 06 - 11:33 PM Well, since the Sunni are so outnumbered it is not surprising that they would resort to chicanery. By the way, the Sunni approach to government may more closely resemble what we in the US consider appropriate. I am not fond of the Shiite ayatollahs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:02 AM Well at least we have some vibes going here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:03 AM The Sunnis judged that they were likelier to get a bigger portion of the government "through bullets than through ballots". What complete hogwash. This is supposed to be a reliable source? 1) "The Sunnis" does not exist, anymore than "the Shiites" do. It's patently absurd and incredibly ignorant to make statements like that. There are gradations of political views among "the Sunnis". Anybody who actually believes such garbage is, I'm afraid, not worth discussing Iraq with. 2) Sunnis who live in the part of Iraq where they are most populous have 2 extremely legitimate concerns. A) At this point the "Iraqi police" is riddled with Shiite militias. B) Sunnis in the" Sunni area" of Iraq need to be guaranteed access to more oil than is found just in their area. That is why they object to the federation of Iraq--which is already proceeding in the north with "Kurdistan"s de facto independence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:00 AM DF: Where is your reliable source? I see and hear referencs to the Sunnis and Shia constantly. You are saying all that is wrong? From the maps I saw there is no oil in Sunni, or whatever you want to call that group, territory unless I am mistaken about where that territory is. There is some in the north. stretching down, east of Baghdad to the Kuwait border. In fact, Saddams justified invading Kuwait because he claimed they were pumping more that Iraq was from a field that is in both countrys. It you look at the article the excerpt is from, you will see it is dated 1/30/2005. It does not cover the present situation but it illustrates my position on how and why the Sunis would not co operate earlier which lead to the current situation. And why do the Sunnis deserve any oil at all if it is not in their territory? See Map - Green is oil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Face the truth Date: 26 Oct 06 - 04:15 AM I can`t ever imagine the Sunnis, Shi`tes or the Kurds ever being concerned about US political parties, in other words get to hell out and leave other nations alone, the world`s bully boy the USA and it`s awful ally Britain have left the Muslim world with utter contempt and hatred for both nations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:37 AM It is my opinion that these people need a strong leader, like a Saddam. So hundred of thousands dead, including thousands of Americans, and a country devatstated, terrorism guven an enormous boost , and now it turns out it was all a big mistake... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM Maybe we should have elected someone with some knowledge of the world. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:09 AM Maybe we should have elected somebody. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:46 AM I was wrong. There are oil deposits in areas where Sunnis are in the majority. They should have no objections to having their own country or state or whatever it would be called. When I say a strong man like Saddam, I don't mead a murderous theiving crook that steals the wealth if the Iraqis and feeds them crumbs. As long as he is alive and there are no real leaders that can control things, He could come back into power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:09 AM And if Saddam comes back into power the first door he is going to be knocking on is Kim Jong-il's door for some nukes. Seriously, these assholes with the oil have the free world by the gonads. We need to go after the oil that we have right here in the US, conserve energy and stop depending on other countries for oil. Let them and the Chinese or India duke it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:02 PM Old Guy: I agree 100% with the remarks on oil in your post. Is this a milestone, or what? :D I would add that we really need to configure our energy system as a whole, using different sources such as biomass, tidal, wind and solar energy. That way we can rely on the planet itself, instead of the loonies who own one or another part of it. Unless a new Enron shows up and makes another psycho monopoly out of it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:09 PM If Saddam came back to power it would mean the White House had decided he was their man once again. It'd turn out that all the nasty stuff - the massacres and the torture and so forth - had been the fault of bad advisers, the way it generally turns out with White House mistakes. (Monica was the exception, because there wasn't any possibility of shuffling off the blame on anyone else.) I think a fresh face as strong man is a lot more likely - though to be viable he'd really have to be someone who hadn't been directly involved with the invasion or with the subsequent occupation backed regime. Ideally someone who had fought agauinst the invaders, but subsequently made peace with them. But it is pretty likely that the similarities to Saddam would extend to the kind of stuff that Old Guy referred to - "a murderous thieving crook that steals the wealth if the Iraqis and feeds them crumbs". That's pretty standard stuff for "strong men". Though maybe he could get by with delegating that kind of thing to private companies and their mercenaries, which works quite well in some places as a way of massaging the public image. Never forget - when Saddam was doing the very worst of his crimes he was being supported up to the hilt by the White House. There's no reason to think it'd be all that different with a new "strong man". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:33 PM now it turns out it was all a big mistake... Not a mistake- it was a put-up job from the first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Oct 06 - 03:21 PM A put-up job, but a botched put-up job. It wasn't meant to turn out like this, it was supposed to be a successful operation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 26 Oct 06 - 07:44 PM Screw the oil!!! Hey, what percentage of the oil that the US consumes comes from The Middle East??? Pick one... 50% ________ 25% ________ 15% ________ And as fir the Sunnis... Hey the are like the folks who own the Republican Party... They are a small minority who somwehow did what the upper 1% does in the US... That is control 50% of the wealth... If I were an Iraqi I'd be purdy danged p.o.'d against the folks who used to screw me over just as I am purdy danged p.o.'d over the upper 1% who are screwing me and my country over... (But, BObert... Are you saying it's okay for the Shittes to kill off the Sunni's???) Well, no, but guess what folks??? It' gonna happen and Bush ain't gonna be able to stop it... When the US leaves the civil war will take its course... Now we can just stay they until we've lost 56,000 Americans and then say, ""hey, this ain't workin'..." or we can just say, "This ain't workin'" now and get with gettin the heck out odf the mess we have created but cannot fix... And I would sincerely hope that the next time America feels the need to elect (even if Bush wasn't actually elected...) that they would remember that cowboys and governin' don't mix... That is my one hope outta this quagmire... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,282RA Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:38 PM >>Tell us how Clinton mastered the situation in Somalia.<< He pulled everyone out before it turned into a hopeless quagmire. Surely you remember that Bush I started that one not Clinton. Or are you people so stuck on blaming Clinton for everything that that little fact slipped your little minds? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 26 Oct 06 - 09:22 PM My point is... part of the message the US sends out to the world about Democracy is derived from the the health of it's own... And if it sets an example that is confused about the veracity of it's own elections, paddling uncertainly about with the reputed spectors of 'hacker enhanced' vote accountability, and low voter turnout... well then, who are we to preach and teach Democracy? Seems to me that true Democracy is best delivered by the faith encouraged by a healthy and effective example... (delivered, BTW, to an ifrastructure that is 'already there', or at least visualized and agreed upon by it's constituants...) I believe that is you and me, and everyone of the citizens of this incredible American experiment in Democracy... each and everyone of us thinking for ourselves about all of us staying informed... perhaps insisting on verifiable elections and voter reciepts, so we may recount through an independent tallying service without hinderance. The requisite pride a Democratic Nation needs to be strong in it's convictions is not possible without the sanctity of it's elections being guarenteed and provable. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: TIA Date: 26 Oct 06 - 10:55 PM Nick Kristoff pointed out in his column this morning (sorry no clicky) that Iraqmire (my word, stolen perhaps from Bobert?) has now cost us 4X the cost to provide health insurance to every man, woman and child in the USA. Where the fuck are our priorities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 26 Oct 06 - 11:36 PM Bobert: Stick to what you do best and tell us a funny story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:14 AM I am glad Amos and I have some common ground but I am afraid that where we would disagree is that I support drilling everywhere there is oil. Under a caraboos ass or 46 miles from Cuba. I can't under stand why people want to block project to give us more energy and then complain about the high price of oil. For example Kerry and Kennedy oppose building windmill electric generators off the coast of Mass where they can hardly be seen from shore, will not pollute and consume no fuel. Norway does it so why not the US? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml Or why Bob Graham opposes drilling for oil off of the coast of Florida where the China and India will drill. This is self defeating. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09drill.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM This is thread drift of course, drifting on to a threat to the world that is vastly greater than any terrorists could ever pose. But it doesn't matter where the oil comes from - it's still poisoning the world when it gets burnt up, like any other fossil fuel. What Americans call "a high price" is what people in Europe would call dirt cheap. A high price for oil is the only way people are going to stop doing that, and move to saner alternatives, which might give our grandchildren a chance in this world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 27 Oct 06 - 11:24 AM Old Guy, I have tried to find so much as a shread of humor in the Bush foriegn policy but can't so... ...just gotta call it the way I see it... Maybe you can put a humorous spin on Iraq but with the emmense suffering, upwards of 600,000 deaths and the complete chaos that Bush has created here you'll be hard-pressed to say anything humorous that won't get you blown outta this joint... But have at it, if you will... ttr, You are entirely correct... The sad thing is that it's hard for folks to saty "informed" when so much of our tax dollars are being spent to brainwash us... And recently I read where major madia news departments are being gutted in the name of corporate profit??? Hmmmmmmm??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:11 PM Seems to me they should come up with a viasble alternative instead of just saying "No." I appreciate them not wanting to uglify the coastline, really, and I understand the risk of oil spills along the Florida coast could be a real issue for some. But we need to integrate our efforts to get OFF foreign oil first and then OFF oil altogether in our voracious hunger for energy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Oct 06 - 12:38 PM Logically shouldn't efforts to get off oil altogether come first, rather than being a matter of "and then"? I mean, do that and you've already achieved the less important goal of getting off foreign oil - do it the other way round and you haven't even begun to do anything at all about reducing the use of oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 27 Oct 06 - 01:29 PM I was thinking in terms of a gradual; transition. Obviously the ultimate goal, getting off oil altogether, will encomapss the nearer-term target. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Oct 06 - 09:22 AM WSJ today 28 Oct 2006 "Iraq and the US deny rising friction under pressure for progress" "After a week in which Premier Maliki bridled at US talk of a timeline to improve security, he and the US envoy issued a joint communique affirming 'good and strong ties". But actually the Bush regime's real attitude is probably much closer to a WSJ editorial on 27 Oct--"If Sadrist forces ask him (Maliki) to choose between them and his obligations to a unified Iraq worthy of US support--as the Sadrists appear to have done with this kidnapping (of the Iraqi-American soldier)--he should know there will be consequences for picking the wrong side." Indeed, he does know, I'm sure. He is only unclear about which is the wrong side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Oct 06 - 09:30 AM One more thing from the WSJ: A letter to the editor, in response to a column on other Iraq strategies than the "Coalition" is now pursuing in Iraq: also 27 Oct 2006: "In effect, we need to be more brutal than the enemy and the Iraqi populace must be left no room for doubt as to which force is more lethal and more powerful and of which force it must be more afraid." I wonder how widespread this view is in the Bush regime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:41 PM "we [the U.S.] must be more brutal..." Yessir! Winning hearts and minds. Now where are the fatuous asses that keep asking "why do they hate us?"- it isn't likey that its 'cause they "hate freedom", eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:43 PM Greg--BINGO! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: harpmaker Date: 28 Oct 06 - 01:52 PM Where is Iraq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:01 PM I suppose it depends what is meant by "more brutal than the enemy". It wouldn't be hard to make a case that the occupation forces are already in the lead, going by the number of people killed. That's normally the situation with all miitary occupations which face significant resistance - American, British, French, Russian,German. It's built into the situation, the same way it's built into the situation that people fighting an occupation are likely to do some terrible things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Old Guy Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:37 PM Right on Amos. We can't just "get off oil". We have to wean ourselves off of oil. We have autos, trucks, buses air liners, ships, home furnaces etc. that run off of oil. Are we just going to junk them and walk? The first step is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling for more of own oil and conserving energy. We need to transition to alternative forms of energy like solar windmill, hydro, and hydrogen powered vehicles. I am not too sure about the hydrogen powered airliner though. However change requires a few sacrifices like some windmills on the horizon. Norway gets 20% of their electricity from offshore windmills nowand they plan to get to 50% soon. Who is smarter, Norway or us? Will the Chinese and India not have any oil spills when drilling off of Florida? Drilling will always result in some spills. Shit happens. just deal with it. If I had a choice between being a target of Jihad and oil spills, I'll take the oil spills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:58 PM On January 12, in the Kristof Blog section of the New York Times, the following was posted: January 12, 2007, 9:41 am This is Classified! Or it was. Back in 1999, the U.S. military conducted a secret report on what a military intervention in Iraq would look like, and what should be done to minimize the risks. Documents about the effort, conducted by Centcom and called Desert Crossing, were recently declassified and can be found on line at the National Security Archive — and they make fascinating reading. By and large, the intel guys got it right. They understood that ousting Saddam might lead to sectarian warfare, instability, and power grabs by neighboring countries. They concluded that even an intervention by 400,000 U.S. troops might leave Iraq a mess (makes you wonder about the usefulness of 20,000 extras). Their suggestions are all sober and aren't that different from those of the Iraq Study Group — for example, engage neighboring states like Iran and Syria. Alas, when the administration was preparing to invade Iraq, it completely ignored Desert Crossing. The declassified documents are here." This is a real eye-opener, because it redoubles the instinctive perception many have had that Bush and Rumsfield embraced intentional ignoral of all advice and qualified information in their lack of planning for their reckless invasion and by doing so, demonstrated incompetence of the first order, causing unnecessary death and destruction by their ineptitude. The argument that "no-one could have known how it was going to turn out" is groundless--the analysis was at their fingertips. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM See also this remarkable interview with a far-sighted General who was fully aware of the earlier evaluation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM Thanks, Amos. It's truly fascinating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Nickhere Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM Old Guy:"I am telling you, Iran is pure, nasty as horseshit, evil. They clearly want to dominate in the middle east. If they get nukes, the entire world is in for a bad time for quite some time" AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, IT APPEARS THAT THE USA (NOT IRAN) IS THE ONE WITH ITS TROOPS, TANKS AND BOMBERS SWARMING ALL OVER THE REGION - ON TWO BORDERS WITH IRAN ALSO. HOW DO YOUB THINK AMERICANS WOULD FEEL IF IRANIAN TROOPS ETC., WERE OCCUPYING CANADA AND MEXICO? "If they keep messing with Israel they might become the nuked instead of the nuker" USING THE NUKES EVERYBODY KNOWS THEY 'DON'T HAVE' OF COURSE! "Several countries have nukes so why is the US the singled out as "cause" of the problem?" I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS ONE. IT MIGHT BE THAT A) THE USA WAS THE FIRST TO HAVE THEM B) THE USA HAS BEEN THE ONLY ONE TO ACTUALLY USE THEM ON CIVILIAN POPULATIONS SO FAR (KILLING A QUARTER OF A MILLION PEOPLE IN JAPAN) C) THE USA HAS MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY (RUSSIA IS A CLOSE SECOND I BELIEVE) D) THE USA HAS SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM AGAIN - WITNESS THE 'NUKE AFGHANISTAN!' TALK BACK IN 2001. The problem, Old Guy, is that old clown G.Bush has rasied the nuclear stakes enormously with his warmongering in recent years. Countries that don't have nukes look around and see that the USA treats countries with nukes, with respect. They realise that if they get a few bombs quickly enough, they'll be talked to instead of bombed. Ok, so it's not guaranteed, but they have less chance without them. If my country had US troops massing near its borders, it'd probably be nervously thinking about acquiring a few nukes too. Thank God we have no oil. "Yeah, Fucking idiots that preach genocide might believe that" My apologies in advance if I wrong you here, but I suspect you yourself might be only a step or two from preaching genocide too - against Iranians (they are people too, even though many have big beards and they speak a different langauge). Re. a Palestinian state: "A second one would be good. They can't run one so two would be even better. Then they can piss and moan twice as loud about how all theur self inflicted problems are someone else's fault" Oh, come on! I'm sorry, but I just can't let this pass. Where do you get your information? You really must have no idea what is happening in the occupied West Bank. I'll try and elucidate for you, as there are perfectly good reasons why the Palestinians can't 'run' their state, as you put it: First of all, it has been official Israeli policy to settle the West Bank - Palestinian land - with Israeli Jewish settlers (as opposed to Israeli arabs / muslims etc., who make up part of the population also). This has happenmed under all Israeli Prime Ministers since 1967 without exception. It has reached new high levels since around 2000, a year, which unsurpisingly enough coincides with the Intifada (uprising). So how this works is that the Israeli governemnt select a spot where they want to build a new town. It doesn't matter that Palestinains might have their homes or their farms there, or even that it's someone else's country. The bulldozers arrive in, the houses are demolished. The olive trees are uprooted, the farms destroyed. The Palestinains are turned out of their homes at gunpoint -literally. Then a new town is built there for the Israeli settlers. Where these towns are not provided with a proper sewage system (not always an easy task in a semi-arid region) the waste and effluent is simply allowed to escape into the surrounding Palestinian land - with dire consequences for health and agriculture. A network of roads is then built to link the various settlements. Palestinians are not allowed to travel on these roads, only Israeli Jews. Since I know you are going to find it difficult to appreciate the racism involved, jut try to imagine the situation were reversed. Israel controls all the borders / exits to the West Bank, including those bordering with Jordan. Any Palestinians wishing to export their produce - olives, oranges, whatever, must go througha bewildering maze of bureaucratic procedures to acquire the correct permit from the occupying Israeli authorities. By the time these permits -often witheld at whim - are granted, it's usually too late and the produce has gone rotten and is no longer fit to export. This has the effect of severely damaging the Palestinian economy (the effect desired by the Israelis, since it encouarges the Palestinians to leave). Curently the Palestinain authorities are under a boycott because the Palestinians decided they wanted Hamas to represent them. Now before you might rush to state the obvious, that Hamas wants to see Israel 'wiped off the map', just remember that a) Israel wants to see Palestine wiped off the map, the Palestinians expelled and Palestine annexed to form a part of Israel and b) of the two countries, Israel has far more of the resources with which to do it: Hamas don't have anywhere near the number of soldiers, guns, rockets etc., and none of the tanks, planes. So the chances of Hamas wiping Israel off the map are pretty slim, whereas Israel is already starting to wipe Palestine off the map by settling it and driving off the Palestinian natives. Now, I'm sure you can understand that easily enough, it's how the USA was settled. Most of these settlers are decent enough souls, economic necessity makes the obnoxious choice of taking someone else's land less repugnant. The Israeli government provides many incentives to settlers. Many of these might much prefer not to be forced into such an unjust situation if they had the choice financially (which still doesn't excuse it - we are all free agents at the end of the day). But some settlers - the religious fundamentalists - are different. These believe in their 'divine right' to take over what they see as the Promised Land (though this is actually Samaria - not historically even part of Judea). These actually attack Palestinians, shooting up and petrol bombing their houses (e.g the town of Hebron) safe in the knowledge that the Israeli Army is standing by to protect them. The Palestinians are put under random curfews, which might last for any length of time. One ex-Israeli soldier told of how one night he was on patrol, heard a noise like drilling in a house. Calling a colleague, he went to investigate. He found an Israeli settler knocking a hole from his living room into the shop of a Palestinian next door (it was in the middle of the night). This settler entered the shop, threw all the stuff out on the street and changed the locks on the door. Thus he had just enlarged his sitting room! I could go on and on.... but I think you get the picture. No one could 'run' a country under such conditions of Occupation and settlement. You also mentioned money being 'smuggled in' by Hamas etc., (and I guess your implication is that all this money will be diverted to 'terrorism'). Don't forget that the current Palestinian authorities - Hamas - have been under sanctions and so no money / aid is getting to Palestine (though money flows quite freely to the Israeli state that's occupying them, but hell, who said this is a fair world??) so that's another reason the economy's not doing so well. The 'smuggled' money is mainly to pay salaries, run hospitals and schools etc., all of which have been hard hit by the Occupation. The final nail in the coffin is the so-called security wall which snakes all round the bigger settlements, effectively making some 40% of Palestine / West Bank a part of Israel. Thus it is unlikely Palestinians will ever have a state of their own, as successive Israel governemnts have worked hard to make facts on the ground ensure otherwise. I know this has gone a bit off the thread on 'realisations on Iraq' but I couldn't let that comment on Palestine pass, it's deeply unfair and ignorant (and I use the word only in the sense of 'not being educated on a topic' and not as an insult, which I hope you appreciate). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 21 Jan 07 - 04:04 AM Nickhere FYI: Declared nuclear weapons states Country - No. of Warheads active/total - Year of first test United States- 5,735/9,960 - 1945 ("Trinity") Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) - 7,200/16,000 - 1949 ("RDS-1") United Kingdom - <200 (shortly to be reduced by 48) - 1952 ("Hurricane") France - 350 - 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue") People's Republic of China - 400 - 1964 ("596") India - 40-50 - 1974 ("Smiling Buddha") Pakistan - 24-48 - 1998 ("Chagai-I") North Korea - 0-10 - possibly one in 2006 (unconfirmed) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Nickhere Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:42 PM Nice one, Teribus, thanks for the list, very informative. I half suspected Russia might have more, though I presume this figure includes former Soviet satellite countries as well. Obviously one exception on the list is Israel, since they've never officially admited having any, though it's a kind of open secret. The big problem as I see it, is that nuclear weapons are seen as deterrents - if you have them, people won't mess with you. If you increase the levels of aggression and war in an area, you make nuclear weapons all that bit more desireable, especially to nations that are outclassed on more conventional weaponry. The best way to wind down the nuclear threat is to back up a step or two and ease the tensions. Then get back to work on reducing the existing nuclear stockpile worldwide. I think we all know by now a nuclear war will be one with no real winners. There is a deep irony in India naming its warheads after Buddha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:09 PM "Israel wants to see Palestine wiped off the map, the Palestinians expelled and Palestine annexed to form a part of Israel" Now I understand. It is a good thing we have people that are smart enough to figure this out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:18 PM Good article, Amos. The measure of success is "...what we leave behind." I think that means that the Bush invasion of Iraq looks like a very big failure at this point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:33 AM See also this remarkable interview with a far-sighted General who was fully aware of the earlier evaluation. ..Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to "regain momentum" as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraq:Glimmer of Hope From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:15 PM A telling article in the LA Times describes one local tribal leader whp is determined to rid Anbart of violence. My hat's off to him. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 29 Jan 07 - 07:28 AM So many different Iraq threads to add this link to. I choose this for no particular reason. We Probably Gave Powell the Wrong Speech (Interview of DER SPIEGEL with the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, Tyler Drumheller) ...never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,heric Date: 29 Jan 07 - 01:06 PM In the first poll conducted for Newsweek since the State of the Union last Tuesday, 58 percent of respondents said "they wish the Bush presidency was simply over." CNN 1/29 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: 282RA Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:20 PM Yeah, and at least half of them voted for the bastard in 04. I'll say it again, it is the American people who are at fault here. They voted for Bush KNOWING he lied to get us into Iraq, KNOWING he had no plan to get us out, KNOWING he had never made a single promise to pull troops out...and now they're mad because he won't pull troops out and it looks like he lied to get us into this mess. And they're even breathing down the democrats' necks: "Fix this or else!" Now I don't like defending politicians but it is unfair to place the blame for this state of affairs on them when we voted them into office. And it is unfair to expect a group who was virtually excluded from all the decisions that got us into this mess to now just fix it--especially since they were excluded because the American people WANTED them to be excluded. But if they don't fix it, it will be their fault. But, we say, YOU CAN'T DISS OUR BRAVE BOYS AND GIRLS FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOMS BY CUTTING OFF FUNDING! THAT'S UNAMERICAN!! DON'T EVEN THINK IT IF YOU WANT TO BE REELECTED!!!! Then we get mad because all they're doing is passing some weak-assed non-binding resolution. Folks, Bush and Cheney know FULL WELL that the ONLY way they can be stopped is by cutting funding and Congress has been largely forbidden by the people from doing that because we have this unbelievable guilt that we are doing nothing to help in this war while only a tiny class of Americans are being forced to sacrifice for it. So we foolishly place these people on the level of inviolable saints who must be praised from teh ground up and never ever shown anything that might even resemble disrespect. Bush and Cheney know this and are milking for all it's worth. It's ridiculous. We elect a new Congress to fix the mess and promptly tie their hands and then get mad because they aren't cleaning up this mess. Hey, folks, the mess might be easier to clean up if you'd quit making it so goddamned huge before you decide it needs to be cleaned up. And it might help if you give the cleaners you hired the power to do what they have to to clean up that mess instead of telling them, "We want this cleaned up but you can't use buckets, mops, brooms, dustpans, cleaners or trahsbins." God we're so damned stupid!! And the last people I am interested in hearing from is someone who wants to scold me with: "It's not my fault, I didn't vote for him." Doesn't matter. We're all Americans, we all share the blame. We let this happen. Maybe there wasn't much we could do to stop it but if we don't then who will? France? Iran? Russia? Who? It goes on us all. And maybe if we could quit pointing fingers and blaming everyone else but ourselves and start blaming ourselves for the part we have played in this (and we all have), maybe we can find a way out. And more importantly put legislation in place that will never allow anything like this to happen again. But I doubt it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:29 PM 282, my opinion is that a bit less than half of them voted for Bush last time, and in the previous election. I believe there was voting fraud in effect in both elections. I watched the thing on election night and I watched a site on the Internet that was monitoring the exit polls and projecting which states would go which way. Exit polls in Ohio and Florida indicated the Democrats were winning, right up to late in the evening. That would have meant a win in the electoral college for Kerry. Sometime around 1:00 AM that Internet site went down....permanently. Someone shut it down. The official results said that the Republicans won in those 2 states. The exit polls said otherwise. And I saw it happening. It gave me the creeps, frankly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: 282RA Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:52 PM I don't really care about that. If the election hadn't been so close, voter fraud wouldn't have made a bit of difference. If there was fraud, it succeeded because the race was close enough that juggling a few numbers here or there allowed it to work. It should NEVER have been that close. It should have been an easy slam dunk on George Asshole Bush and his lousy, lying, incompetent administration. So, fraud or no, it still goes on the American people. Maybe I didn't vote for the sonofabitch but whatever I did do, it wasn't enough. The bottom line is, I failed. Maybe I should have done more. And maybe if everyone who didn't vote for that dumbshit had done more we wouldn't still be plagued by his presence. We failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Nickhere Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:02 PM Well the good news is that (unless he crosses the Rubicon and declares himself 'dictator for life') Bush can't run for a third term. But I'd keep a watchful eye on his brother Jeb in Florida. He'll probably make a go for president the next time or the one after that....keeping it in the family, nice little dynasty. After that, I'd advise bearing in mind that Bush is little more than a ventriloquist's dummy and you need to look behind him to see who's got the real power. As Cicero would say "Qui Bono?" - Who benefits? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:07 AM Here's an interesting new twist -- the Iraqi government is hoping to get the Sunni and Shiite miltant groups to come together to drive out the Al Queda from Iraq, bringing them together against a common, alien enemy. Brilliant stroke, and I hope it works. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:18 AM Once again, my enemy's enemy is my friend. Interesting. Do you think it will then lead to something more closely resembling unification, or will they then 'sort out their differences' when the common enemy is dealt with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:34 AM I don't think that they can sort out their differences until their common enemy is driven out first. We are the biggest hinderence to peace & unification! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM Iraqi VP warns of chaos if U.S. withdrawal premature Thu Mar 22, 5:56 AM ET TOKYO (Reuters) - Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi warned on Thursday that his country could be thrown into chaos if U.S.-led coalition forces withdrew before his national troops were ready to handle security on their own. "We need the coalition forces to stay in Iraq until our national troops are qualified enough to look after security," Hashemi told a think tank seminar in Tokyo, where he is on a four-day official visit. "They are, at the time being, not." His comments come as U.S. Democratic leaders predicted that the House of Representatives would pass a war-funding bill that sets a strict timetable for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Under the House Democrats' bill, U.S. combat troops would have to be out of Iraq by September 1, 2008. The White House has warned that President George W. Bush would veto any bill with deadlines for withdrawal, but Democrats are anticipating that and are already eyeing other bills to which they could attach similar language, while building pressure for an end to the war. Hashemi, speaking in English, welcomed a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. forces but said it needed to be coupled with a clear reform plan of Iraqi national forces. "If we say that we need one year, one and a half years or even two years to go into a detailed, comprehensive reform for MOD (Ministry of Defense) and MOI (Ministry of Interior) units, we need the coalition forces to stay until this job has been fulfilled," he said. "If the American troops pull out, withdraw, before we complete this plan, there is a possibility that the country might slide into chaos and the chaos could lead to a civil war," he said, adding that it could also lead to regional unrest. Hashemi, who is set to meet Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday, also said he wanted Tokyo's air force to expand its activities in supporting the coalition forces in Iraq, although he did not elaborate. Abe said earlier this week that Tokyo planned to extend for another two years a law allowing its air force to fly support missions to Iraq. Japan withdrew its 600 ground troops last year after a non-combat mission lasting more than two years, but about 200 air force personnel remain in Kuwait, where they airlift supplies to the U.S. military in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:47 PM I am with you there Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:54 AM from the Washington Post: One Choice in Iraq By Joe Lieberman Thursday, April 26, 2007; Page A29 Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school. If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism. Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost." And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq. This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there. What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face. In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency. This progress is real, but it is still preliminary. The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington. Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us. Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission. In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery. That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war. The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat. When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent. Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation. But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish. Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it. Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated. The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight. To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win. The writer is an independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:27 PM Taliban: Bin Laden plans Iraq strikes POSTED: 12:41 p.m. EDT, April 25, 2007 (CNN) -- A Taliban military commander says Osama bin Laden helped plan the deadly suicide car bombing outside Bagram Air Base targeting a "very important American official," apparently referring to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mullah Dadullah was interviewed by the Arab-language network al-Jazeera, which identified the official as Cheney. The network aired the comments on Wednesday, but did not say when the interview was done. Dadullah said al Qaeda leader bin Laden also is involved in planning attacks in Iraq. He offered no proof for his statements. The vice president was more than a half mile away from the site of the February attack in Afghanistan, which Afghan police said killed more than 15 people and wounded 20. Secret Service agents briefly moved Cheney, who was unharmed, to a bomb shelter away from the base. He returned to his room when it was safe to do so. Cheney said he was told the base's main gate had been attacked. Referring to bin Laden, Dadullah told the Arab-language network al-Jazeera, "Praise be to God he is still alive, and we have information about him and praise be to God he orchestrates plans in both Iraq and Afghanistan. "You may remember the martyrdom mission in Bagram which targeted a very important American official. No Afghan can reach the Bagram base. "This operation was a result of his blessed planning. He's the one who planned the details of this operation and guided us and the operation was successful," Dadullah said. Bagram is about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of the capital, Kabul. On March 1, Dadullah told Britain's Channel Four that his forces were poised for a spring offensive against NATO-led coalition troops in Afghanistan, and that he was maintaining a regular line of communication with bin Laden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:59 PM I say send Prince Harry there with every soldier and every piece of military hardware that can be found and use him a bait. Put him in an area that al-Qaeda does not control to put them at a disadvantage and Surround him with massive abush teams to pick off the terrorists. Keep the corrupt, infiltrated Iraqi army and police out of it. Have several Harry's to keep them confused and disorganized. Say he is dead one day and say that was a mistake the next day. Exploit the terrorists' eagerness to die for Allah as a weakness instead of an advantage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:01 PM bb - "Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission." I doubt if its as clear as Lieberman thinks it is. In fact, al qaeda shares the Sunni Muslim belief system. Why would they want to terrorize them into submission? Its far more likely that (although some of the tribal Sunnis are turning against al Qaeda) Sunni militants and al Qaeda have the similar goal of overthrowing the majority Shiite, Iraqi govt. Bush is right in there cheering them on because he knows that it will be much easier to deal with a Sunni govt. than a Shiite govt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:09 PM Eh, dianavan the Sunni Arabs originally followed the advice give to them by Zarqawi and found/came to realise, that advice and that course of action, was leading them nowhere. Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq then went on the rampage and tried it's damnedest to foment civil war in Iraq between the Sunni Arabs and the Shia Arabs. When that did not work they then started out lashing out at everybody, they still want the "civil war" that they have been unable to get kicked-off but they are now having to terrorise their erstwhile supporters into line to keep their game plan on track. They will fail. Why? Because they have absolutely nothing to offer anybody. And guess what dianavan, even the most obdurate Sunni Arabs in Iraq are beginning to realise that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:16 PM Teribus- Don't know how many times we have to tell you--al Qaeda never had the last word in Iraq. It was always a political problem. ( So your crowing may make you feel good-- hope it does--but unfortunately not much more than that.) And the Iraq problem--or complex of problems-- doesn't look any closer to solution. Once more with feeling: the Sunnis have to be guaranteed that 1) they can trust the police and 2) they will be guaranteed more oil than would accrue to the "Sunni parts" of Iraq. Maliki talks a good game. But follow-through is lacking----probably since there are powerful forces in Iraq-- (not al Qaeda)-- who are totally against both of these. For one thing, "Kurdistan"--with its oil--and including Kirkuk----is as good as gone. And the Bush regime is already planning on that as its fallback position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 27 Apr 07 - 03:35 AM Sorry Ron but lots of observers and middle-east experts, plus Arab Sunni leaders in Anbar Province itself, have commented upon the influence exerted by Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and the foreign "Jihadists" on the Sunni Arab population after the fall of Saddam, and upon its detrimental effects to what they perceive as their best interests: - Non-cooperation with the CPA (Understandable) - Boycott of elections for Interim Government (Instructions followed that the Sunni Arab leaders even to this day bitterly regret having followed) - Support for the insurgents and the launching of sectarian attacks in an "as-yet" failed attempt to ignite a civil war in Iraq (Failed to produce the civil war desired by Al-Qaeda but caused a large number of Sunni Arab deaths to absolutely no purpose) But counter to all your chatter, things are actually improving in Iraq. Trouble with most anti's on this forum, you all expect instant solutions and results when it suits your arguement, then harp on about your predictions of quagmire when that happens to suit your case. I have always predicted that if the US went into Iraq they would have to be there for the long haul - same in Afghanistan. NATO troops are just now in the process of leaving Bosnia, nowhere near as messy for them as Iraq, but they are only now leaving 15 years after they first entered the country - 15 years Ron, care to explain why you lot believe that Iraq should have been all sweetness and light within months? If there has been one thing learned from Iraq it is that politically things take time, but once decisions have been taken, the government tends to stick with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 27 Apr 07 - 02:59 PM teribus - You say that Zarqawi's advice and course of action, was leading them nowhere. In fact, there has been no decrease in the level of violence and attacks against US and allied troops since Zarqawi's death. "Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq then went on the rampage and tried it's damnedest to foment civil war in Iraq between the Sunni Arabs and the Shia Arabs." - teribus I have seen no evidence to support your statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:10 PM "...you all expect instant solutions and results..." Four plus years is hardly an "instant". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 27 Apr 07 - 05:00 PM Very interesting realizations about Iraq from one who darn sure speaks with authority on the subject… "For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war. These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress. …" From the Armed Forces Journal of all places, by By Lt. Col. Paul Yingling (Deputy Commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq). http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM When the military brass starts asking Congress to intervene, they better start listening. It seems they don't care when the American public demands impeachment, maybe they'll listen to the military. Maybe its going to take a military coup to get rid of Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:02 PM 15 years, Teribus? Not likely. Notice how enthusiastic the UK is about the assignment you have given the West. The US is not much more eager. And, as I have noted, if "Kurdistan" goes its own way--not de jure, but de facto--"Iraq", which was an artificial construction from the start, you may remember-- will never be reconstituted as it was before 1990. Particularly since the southern Shiites will want a similar arrangement. Also note how much progress Petraeus--- who is a bit more realistic than you, to say the least--is claiming. Precious little. Funny you should cite Bosnia--that is exactly the model here. Now, tell me, has Yugoslovia been re-established? And this is at the end of your 15-year period. It might help if you actually read what you yourself write. It's time for you to wake up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: TIA Date: 28 Apr 07 - 11:35 PM No. Time alone will get rid of Bush. And I pity his successor. What a godawful mess to clean up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 10:10 AM Australia honours US army's Iraq leader Megan Doherty 15 May 2007 Retired American General John Abizaid the commander of US forces in the Middle East until March this year added another medal to his collection yesterday, the Order of Australia. Governor-General Michael Jeffery last night appointed General Abizaid an honorary officer in the Military Division of the Order of Australia for "distinguished service to the International Coalition Against Terrorism as Commander of US Central Command". The citation read that General Abizaid's "distinguished leadership has promoted security and stability in an area that is key to Australia's national interest and long-term security". General Abizaid was "deeply honoured" by the recognition. His investiture at Government House was witnessed by his wife Kathleen, Australian Defence Force Chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and United States ambassador Robert McCallum Jr. "I'm honoured to be here. We've been together with the Australians in a lot of difficult places during my command," General Abizaid said. The 56-year-old general of Arab descent said after last night's ceremony that the war in Iraq was still winnable. "I think it is. It requires a lot of patience and a lot of courage but it is winnable, of course."..... http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=584784&category=General |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: TIA Date: 15 May 07 - 10:23 AM And what will constitute a "win". What, specifically, must be accomplished for us to declare a "win"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 02:57 PM Win: To overcome difficulties and attain a desired goal or end. To reach with difficulty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: dianavan Date: 15 May 07 - 05:13 PM So, Dickey, what is the desired goal this week? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 06:22 PM For Libs, the goal is always failure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 15 May 07 - 06:25 PM Dickey: You are such a liar, your assertions look more and more ridiculous every time you open your gob. Name one "Lib", as you so spitefully call them, whose goal is falure. Or shut the fuck up and go post your exagerrated hatefulness elsewhere. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 06:40 PM Dirty Harry Reid is a corrupt hypocritical, condescending Liberal blowhard who is invested in defeat. Amos is the hate monger extraordinaire that spreads the word of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 15 May 07 - 06:47 PM Amos is one helluva good guy and one helluva good friend. Best you double check what you say, Dickey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 15 May 07 - 07:12 PM The defeat of a wrongful political cause is not a defeat, in my opinion. It is a victory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 15 May 07 - 07:55 PM Why, Dickey -- do I detect a note of rancor? I apologize if this thread has made you angry. It is possible, though that your anger is, itself, an issue needing to be faced up to. See, in order to have the kind of Grand Victory we had over Germany and Japan, you have to have an enemy capable of surrendering. And, you have to have a very clear cause. In the present case Mister Terror is not going to surrender and the best Bush can hope for is to make the Government of Iraq strong enough to suppress it. Now, BEFORE the invasion, the government of Iraq was strong enough to suppress it, but he was not at all nice about it either. So everyone agrees he was a bad guy and better off out of there. But by doing a completely amateur job of managing that task, and by presenting false grounds for doing it, your guys on the Hill screwed the job up so badly it became a quagmire. The key ingredient for a Glorious Victory is competence. The other High Purpose of the invasion, one of the handful presented one after another, was to impose democracy on the people of Iraq. But there again, the lay of the land was ignored. I am sure there are many Iraqis who would enjoy having a democracy, but the number of them willing to take up arms NOT to have one using religious or tribal rationales, is considerable, and a good deal more than Bush ever reckoned on. Bush's words are quite idealistic, but when you take them together, and add in the ground truth and the fruits of his thought and action, it doesn't look anywhere near so good. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 15 May 07 - 09:31 PM Like I've said over and over... This war was ********lost******** the day the Republican appointed Supreme Court abdocated its constitutional duties and appointed George Bush as president... Period... The rest is history, except the part where hundreds of people are still being killed in Iraq every week because of the Supreme Court's unwise tampering with the electorial process... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 10:59 PM Why, Dickey -- do I detect a note of rancor? You got what you asked for. Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos - PM Date: 15 May 07 - 06:25 PM Dickey: You are such a liar, your assertions look more and more ridiculous every time you open your gob. Name one "Lib", as you so spitefully call them, whose goal is falure. Or shut the fuck up and go post your exagerrated hatefulness elsewhere. A Amos: Fuck FDR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 15 May 07 - 11:34 PM Why don't you provide specifics to support your wide-spread venemous generalizations? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 15 May 07 - 11:44 PM Hey Dickey--after you wipe the foam from around your mouth, maybe you could actually find time to answer the question you've dodged so adroitly : Exactly what would constitute "winning" in Iraq? Since you obviously believe that we can and should stay until we "win". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 11:53 PM Study: Insurgencies like Iraq's usually fail in 10 years By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Insurgencies, such as the one the United States is fighting in Iraq, last an average of more than 10 years, according to a study commissioned by the Defense Department. For the United States, the good news is that rebels lose more often than they win. Chances for stopping an insurgency improve after 10 years, the study shows. Stopping the violence in Iraq will take years, Pentagon leaders have said. However, there have been few efforts to analyze and quantify insurgencies in order to draw conclusions about Iraq and Afghanistan. "The violence in Iraq is going to go on a minimum for at least three or four more years and in reality another five plus years," said Christopher Lawrence, director of The Dupuy Institute, which is conducting the study. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-08-insurgency-report_N.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 15 May 07 - 11:56 PM Dickey-- That doesn't answer the question. Gee, I wonder if the question is too hard for you to answer. But have fun trying. Sweet dreams. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 15 May 07 - 11:58 PM FAWK! "WASHINGTON — Insurgencies, such as the one the United States is fighting in Iraq, last an average of more than 10 years, according to a study commissioned by the Defense Department." Commissioned by the Defense Department? Oh, yeah, I'll trust their studies. So uh, only five or so more years to go. Whoopee. I am fuckin' thrilled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 15 May 07 - 11:58 PM Win: To overcome difficulties and attain a desired goal or end. To reach with difficulty. As I see it, the desired goal or end in Iraq is a decrease of violence and a stable government. I consider "wide-spread venemous generalizations?" as a statement of hate. Wht specifically do you want to know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 16 May 07 - 12:00 AM Without fuckin' up the general tone of this thread, I want to know who put the bomp in the bomp shuh bomp shuh bomp . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 16 May 07 - 12:02 AM Well, Dick, here's an example. Someone posted to this very thread the statement "For Libs, the goal is always failure." I asked for a specific to this venemous generalization. Having received none, I can only conclude it was uttered in spite. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 16 May 07 - 08:15 AM Winning = decreases violence and stable government??? Hmmmmm, Dickey, how many decades are you willing to stay in Iraq??? Since Briton pulled out in 1926 there has been violence at the hands of this guty or that guy... Now the this or that guy is George Bush... BTW, sending more guns and bullets to decrease violence is ciounter-productive... It only make Iraq more vulnerable... I haven't really seen the Bush administartion chenge it's conscientousness (thought processes, culture, etc.) that will have to occue before any progress can be made in Iraq... It is still repeating old behaviors expecting different results which, BTW, is Einsien's definaition of "insanity"... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 16 May 07 - 08:43 AM Name one "Lib", as you so spitefully call them, whose goal is falure. Or shut the fuck up and go post your exagerrated hatefulness elsewhere. A Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey - PM Date: 15 May 07 - 06:40 PM Dirty Harry Reid is a corrupt hypocritical, condescending Liberal blowhard who is invested in defeat. Amos is the hate monger extraordinaire that spreads the word of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 May 07 - 08:49 AM The questions was "What, *****specifically****, must be accomplished for us to declare a "win"?" The answer (such as it was) came back "a decrease in violence and a stable government". Under Saddam Hussein, there was far less violence, and the government was quite stable. So, Dickey, why did we not declare a WIN before the invasion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 16 May 07 - 09:37 AM OK, Dick. So we subtract the nattery negative hyperbole, and you propose that Harry Reid has failure as a goal. At least, now, we have a proposition to look at. What evidence supports the idea that Harry Reid's goal is failure? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 16 May 07 - 11:11 AM His statement that the "war is lost" is ample evidence that he is invested in failure. Even Chuck Schumer had to jump in with damage control for the Democratic party. And I repeat again "As I see it, the desired goal or end in Iraq is a decrease of violence and a stable government." I don't consider the Saddam government stable or free of violence. If you do, why was it attacked by the Clinton administration? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 May 07 - 11:51 AM Ya know they are in a corner when they start chanting "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 16 May 07 - 12:04 PM His statement is ample evidence that he is willing to call a failed tactic a failed tactic, and an unworkable strategy unworkable. It has no bearing on your assertion he has failure as a goal, which I find to be wholly untrue. Contrariwise, it may be that the only path to success in the Middle East will have to start by noticing strategies which don't work and doing something different. Don't get me wrong. I would be delighted if those sub-cultures in Iraq who have the will and the arms and the recruits to go blow up their fellow man in bursts of fanatic glory would take down their tents and sneak off into the night. But I have seen no evidence, really, that the current military strategy does anything to defuse their motivation, deny their logistics, or demoralize their recruits. This convinces me that our strategies of "kill them" are probably not the optimum solution to the problem. For some people, "kill them" is the ONLY solultion they can imagine. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TTJ Date: 16 May 07 - 12:15 PM There are a lot of ways to look at this issue. A lot of people in Iran probably think the U.S. is evil. As people, we have to consider their view, even though we might disagree with it. The problem is when governments talk to each other they often don't consider all the moderating views of their citizens. This applies to the U.S. and to Iran alike. So we get a lot of distortion. But the fact is, war is an outmoded way to deal with differences of opinion. There are too many people and the technology of war has become too deadly; thus there are too many lives at stake. I agree with Dianavan. Indeed, what does anyone win when there is more violence from any side? Nothing, just more dead bodies. The whole definition of "winning" has changed from the past when it was still possible to get capitulation from an enemy. We as citizens must demand that our governments "win" peace. That "fight" may involve actions that are non-military and non-threatening in nature. That's what we really need to consider when talking about Iran, Iraq and the Middle East in general. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 16 May 07 - 01:32 PM Well said, and welcome, TTJ. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 16 May 07 - 06:31 PM So, I read today in the Washington Post that fater some hald a dozen retired generals turne3d Bush down for the "War Czar" job he finally has s new "yes man"... My problem is that if you have a "War Czar" doesn't that mean you have to have wars to go along with the job description??? I mean, why not find a ***Peace Czar**** and try to find a way outta of Iraqmire??? What Bush is doing is trying to run out the clock and pass Iraqmire on the the next guy... Well, I guess if there's any silver lining one would have to say that it is eveident that Bush has had just about enough of playing president so we don't have to worry about Rove declaring martial law and keepin' Bush in power... The boy is worn slam out and has had enough... That is quite evident... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 16 May 07 - 08:06 PM Bobert Speaking of Generals CBS doesn't think much of them even if in their employment (see below from MoveOn.org. Who who be an idiot to take the job in the first place. 1st you're not gonna win the war, 2nd you will be scapegoated, 3rd your name will end up Mudd, 4th it's all gonna be your fault, no matter what, 5th guess who's gonna be your loser boss, 6th your future's in the shit hole before it's about to begin, 7th the last Black General who became part of this administration got the raw & rear end dealt to him be his own administration, 8th you may in the future open yourself up to a charges of crimes against humanity & war crimes, 9th retirement's a bitch with reporters asking you from here to eternity "how it feels to be a fuck up" & "what do you think that you did wrong", to which you can only reply thtat you toofk the job, & !0th you knew you were an idiot to take the job when you took it & you still took it & you knew it would haunt you for the rest of your life. Really, now, anyone who takes that job position with that job discription is subject to be analyzed! From MoveOn.org Remember when shock-jock Don Imus used racist and misogynistic terms to refer to a women's college basketball team? Well, it took CBS two weeks to fire him for that but it only took them TWO DAYS to fire a respected General from Iraq for speaking out against the president on the war. CBS shouldn't be censoring or firing people for speaking their mind. I signed a petition urging CBS to re-hire General Batiste -- can you join me at the link below? http://pol.moveon.org/batiste/?r_by=10329-7942996-i8QoqI&rc=confemail There's more information on the firing on that page, too. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 16 May 07 - 08:26 PM When has winning gone from a win, win situation to a no win situation? We were never in a winnig situation to start with. It was an illeagle move from it's start, unjustified & unsupported by other nations. Say what you want but we were all lied to. Was there ever a winning situation to start with. I don't believe so. Not from my view. To push on with an ideal on winning for it's own sake is to spite the face by cutting off the nose. Sure it'll be beyond any pre concived expense & will continue to drive us into bankruptcy not to mention the cost in blood & sure it'll cost us our ____ name & reputation not that we want or care about a good name or rep & sure it's embrassing to lose after pre declaring victory but what the hell "waist deep n he big muddy & the big fool says to push on" so lets keep at it, and when a majority of those in power & the majority of the public says & demands call to home just act the fool & not listen to the votes & the calls. When will it be time to turn? After the nation's so upset that the public feels that they are mute because their nation is deaf & they are no longer reresented or listened to or that the only why to be heard is through some form of revolution. Will it take another revolution before we can be heard again? Is this a win, win situation or should we cut our losses & get out? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 16 May 07 - 08:45 PM Yer absolutely right, Barry.... When I got the call askin' if I was availbale to be the "War Czar" I told 'um to "Stuff it"... Told 'um that if they ever wanted to get around to ending Iraqmire by hirin' on a "Peace Czar" then to call me back... So far the phone ain't rung??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 07 - 09:33 PM Sorry to say, Dickey, you've blown it yet again--"decrease in violence and a stable government"--another good dodge--there's a place for you in the (wreckage of) the Bush regime. You're going to have to be more specific if you actually intend to be taken seriously--(but perhaps you don't). What do you mean by a "stable government"? Exactly what are the marks of a "stable government" as you see it? Also, according to you, there is already a decrease in violence. Yet somehow, the Iraqis are not impressed. Gee, I wonder where you went wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 17 May 07 - 07:31 AM Truth be known is that the most stable governemnt that Iraq has had since 1926 was the one under Saddam??? This is no joke... The worst part about this war is that Saddam was one of "our guys" who just needed some attention, you know like when Donnie Rumsfeld took him all those goodies, including a gold plated M-16 (or whatever rifle it was) back in the 80's... And this, BTW, ***after*** Saddam had gassed the Kurds??? But, no, rather than load up a plane full of goodies and go over and appeal to Saddams ego and vanity, Karl Rove & and the neocons came together for different reasons and talked Bush into invading Iraq... The neocons for oil... Rove for pure politics as it was looking as if Bush wouldn't be able to get re-elected without a shiny new war... Well, look where this has gotten us??? Oil prices thru the roof... Hundreds of people being killed every week... Half a trillion dollar$ in debt just for the war... Instability in the Middle East like we haven't seen since the '67 June Wars... and worse than that... ...no end in sight with the same stupid thinking people making decisions... And now, rather than send a message that the US is willing to find a way out of Iraqmire, we sent the wrong message with the appointment of a "War Czar"???? Beam me up, Scotty... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 May 07 - 07:45 AM Scotty's not answerin'. Capn... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 17 May 07 - 08:36 AM "Truth be known is that the most stable governemnt that Iraq has had since 1926 was the one under Saddam???" If the Saddam administration was so great and did not need to be changed, Why did the Clinton administration see the need to attack??? Democrats for Regime Change From the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies. by Stephen F. Hayes 09/16/2002 "in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq. Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." " http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp?pg=2 You know they are on the ropes when they deny any paralells between Bush and Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 May 07 - 09:14 AM The only rope I am on is the one gradually forming around Georgie's neckbone, Dick. There was a threat in '98. There was no threat in 2001-2. Why do you not see the difference in your blind-eyed, misguided lust for parallels with Clinton? Why are you desperate to find someone to blame Bush's follies on, other than Bush himself? Are you seriously proposing that Clinton's information is to blame for Bush's irresponsibility? Isn't that kinda nutty? Clinton did not take military action against Iraq AFAIK, aside from the no-fly zone and taking out an occasional anti-aircraft station. I may be wrong about that. As I recall, Clinton ALSO suggested to Bush that Osama bin Laden was a serious threat. That must be why 9-11 was such a surprise. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 May 07 - 12:20 PM A sparking declamation concerning the fatal flaws of poor generalship in the prosecution of Iraq (and similarities to Vietnam) can be found here in the Armed Forces Journal . An excerpt: "Failures of Generalship in Iraq America's generals have repeated the mistakes of Vietnam in Iraq. First, throughout the 1990s our generals failed to envision the conditions of future combat and prepare their forces accordingly. Second, America's generals failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq. Finally, America's generals did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq. Despite paying lip service to "transformation" throughout the 1990s, America's armed forces failed to change in significant ways after the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In "The Sling and the Stone," T.X. Hammes argues that the Defense Department's transformation strategy focuses almost exclusively on high-technology conventional wars. The doctrine, organizations, equipment and training of the U.S. military confirm this observation. The armed forces fought the global war on terrorism for the first five years with a counterinsurgency doctrine last revised in the Reagan administration. Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems. The most commonly used tactical scenarios in both schools and training centers replicated high-intensity interstate conflict. At the dawn of the 21st century, the U.S. is fighting brutal, adaptive insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq, while our armed forces have spent the preceding decade having done little to prepare for such conflicts. Having spent a decade preparing to fight the wrong war, America's generals then miscalculated both the means and ways necessary to succeed in Iraq. The most fundamental military miscalculation in Iraq has been the failure to commit sufficient forces to provide security to Iraq's population. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) estimated in its 1998 war plan that 380,000 troops would be necessary for an invasion of Iraq. Using operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as a model for predicting troop requirements, one Army study estimated a need for 470,000 troops. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. These leaders would later express their concerns in tell-all books such as "Fiasco" and "Cobra II." However, when the U.S. went to war in Iraq with less than half the strength required to win, these leaders did not make their objections public. Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. However, inept planning for postwar Iraq took the crisis caused by a lack of troops and quickly transformed it into a debacle. In 1997, the U.S. Central Command exercise "Desert Crossing" demonstrated that many postwar stabilization tasks would fall to the military. The other branches of the U.S. government lacked sufficient capability to do such work on the scale required in Iraq. Despite these results, CENTCOM accepted the assumption that the State Department would administer postwar Iraq. The military never explained to the president the magnitude of the challenges inherent in stabilizing postwar Iraq. " Heckuva job, there, Donnie... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 17 May 07 - 08:54 PM Clinton didn't ever tell Bush to attack Iraq... Might of fact, Clinton never said he was for attacking Iraq... What Clinton said was that he thought a regime change was needed in Iraq... Lotta difference, Dickey... Think "silver bullet" here rather than a half a trillion dollar invasion and the killing of upwards of a half million or so people.... Bobert p.s. I don't/didn't agree with Clinton on much either... Best pure Republican the Repubs have had since, ahhhhh, maybe never... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 May 07 - 09:37 PM Dickey: Looking back over this thread, I realize I have said some things in anger which were probably painful. For this, I apologize. Although I get wound up over Bush's flaws, I see no reason i should act nasty to you just because you see things differently. I hope you can pardon me for my frailty in letting my upset with what I see as a misguided war leak into my dialogue here. I cannot promise it won't happen again, but I cana t least acknowledge that it was less humane than I woud like to be. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Lepus Rex Date: 17 May 07 - 10:40 PM Oh, quit defending Clinton, you schmucks. He's a murderous, warmongering cunt, and so's his wife. The only good thing I can say about him is "he killed fewer people than Dubya." By defending the likes of him, you fall right into Dickey's trap. Jesus. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 17 May 07 - 10:50 PM Dickey-- Still waiting patiently for you to tell us what defines a stable government. As a good Bushite, you've certainly mastered the art of dodging the question. But unfortunately, that tends to raise the suspicion that you cannot answer it--which shows the bankrupcty of your position. And I'm sure you wouldn't want that suspicion to arise, now, would you? Since we've already established, that, contrary to scurrilous suggestions, you are by no means an amazingly credulous right-wing fool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 17 May 07 - 11:08 PM Amos and Bobert: I see the unfolding of events in the middle east as a continuous thing that was passed from administration to administration. You guys seem to think history begins at midnight Jan 1 2001. Look at what a sorry assed job Carter did. Ever heard of the Carter Doctrine? He set government policy that is still in effect today. Now according to you historians, everything was fine in Baghdad until GWB attacked but then why was this law passed unanimously? October 31, 1998 Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. Today, October 31, 1998 is a great day for the Iraqi people. Today President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The American people have given their support for the end of dictatorship and for democracy in Iraq. And why did Clinton attack in 1993, 1996 and 1998? US launched cruise missiles June 26 1993 against Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad due to plot to kill former Pres. George Bush. Some say it was becuase Saddam was behind the WTC bombings. U.S. warships launched 27 cruise missiles into Iraq Sep. 3 1996 due to Saddam's attacks on the Kurds. Desert Fox air attacks began Dec. 16 1998 against Iraq for failing to allow access to weapons inspectors; 300 cruise missiles fired in 4 days destroyed weapons plants. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST Date: 18 May 07 - 04:08 AM Oh - That was me. I guess I dropped a cookie. dianavan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 18 May 07 - 04:51 AM Why are my posts being deleted? dianavan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 18 May 07 - 06:07 PM D, Maybe because they are intellegent??? Aww' jus' funnin... No, not about your intellegence but the conspircay theory that would have me wonder why your posts have been dropped... Dickey, Let's just say that we don't see things the same way... I don't see an all out invasion of Iraq as a continuation of Clinton's policies any more than I see the Bush policies toward the Isrealis and Palestinians as a continuation of Clinton's policies... No, what I see (and saw) was an very arrogant administartion that stole its way into power and then did a 180 on anything that Clinton was doing or believed... No, this mess is on Bush and his people... Clinton was a shmo but he didn't order up Iraqmire... Quite the opposite... When Pearle and Wolfy presented the same plan to Clinton the the early 90's Clinton showed them the door... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 18 May 07 - 11:29 PM "Clinton showed them the door", attacked Iraq 3 times and signed a law advicating a regime change. Has that law been changed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 18 May 07 - 11:41 PM Ron: I see you are still unable to control you anger when someone gives an answer you do not want them to give. Have you demanded an explanation from Bobert or Dianavan about what "stable government" means? Are you having difficulty with the term? Perhaps a trip to the library will bring you up to speed. "Let me say this. I think the Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone, if they can have a stable government," says Mr. Clinton. "There have been more terrorists move into Iraq in the aftermath of the conflict. I still believe, as I always have, that the biggest terrorist threat by far is al Qaeda and the al Qaeda network. And that the biggest long term destructive threat is the significant volume of chemical and biological agents all over the world that are not yet secure." I agree with Bill on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 19 May 07 - 05:58 PM Another nice dodge, Dickey. But a little tired. Do you really have no answer to anything except "Clinton started it"? You're the one who mentioned a "stable government". So it's a reasonable conclusion that you have an idea of what that might look like. Otherwise, we might possibly be forced to the conclusion that when you say it, it's nothing but meaningless pablum (look it up). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 19 May 07 - 06:00 PM Look on the bright side, Dickey--at least you're being educated--finally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 May 07 - 07:02 PM Awwwk, Clinton. Awwk, Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 20 May 07 - 02:28 AM Ron: Are you actually admitting that you don't know the meaning of stable government? Take a trip to the library if you still don't know. Or are you demandingt some sort of statement for the purposes of more bullying tactics required by your damaged ego? By the way did you notice how Clinton said "more terrorists"? What does that tell you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 20 May 07 - 02:34 AM Bobert: "did a 180 on anything that Clinton was doing or believed" Does "anything" include the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that Clinton enacted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 20 May 07 - 04:11 AM Dickey - Your idea of success or victory in Iraq is, "...a decrease of violence and a stable government." Why do you think it is the responsibility of the U.S. to invade a country and try to set up a government that they consider 'stable?' Don't you think this is a bit condescending? Out of the goodness of his little ol' heart, Bush decides that by sacrificing the lives of thousands, he is up to the task. My, my. He's had four years to set up and support a stable government but its not the government he had in mind so the violence continues. ... and now that Bush is an obvious failure, you try to blame it on Clinton. Grow up! Clinton is accountable for his actions and Bush is accountable for his actions. No amount of finger pointing will change this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 20 May 07 - 09:01 AM Regime change = all out invasion??? I think not... Quite a stretch there, Dickey, quite a stretch... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 May 07 - 09:58 AM If you read the entire interview from which dickey is cherry-picking, it is quite clear that Clinton says the invasion of Iraq was a big mistake. And the word "more" that he thinks is so significant? ANY amount is more than zero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 20 May 07 - 10:59 AM Seems like most people in Congress thought regime change required an invasion so they voted for it. Now they want to weasel out of their vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 20 May 07 - 11:35 AM I repeat, Dickey. You said a "stable government" would be a result of "winning" If you cannot describe what a stable government in Iraq would look like, it will unfortunately be obvious that you have no idea. And then the suspicion might arise that you plan for the US military to stay in Iraq-- in close to its current numbers-- for the forseeable future. In that case, I suggest that you volunteer on behalf of yourself and your family for Iraq duty. If you are unwilling, exactly why? Many of the rest of us do not feel an open-ended commitment in Iraq is a good idea. Look for instance at how many members of the Bush and Cheney families are stationed in Iraq. Interesting that you think the sacrifice is worth it. As long as it's others who sacrifice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 21 May 07 - 11:41 AM This is typical trap that Ron uses to attack people with: "I suggest that you volunteer on behalf of yourself and your family for Iraq duty. If you are unwilling, exactly why?" First he makes a atatement then he demands that someone must argue with him about his statement. Ron: Please explain why a decrease in violence and a stable government would not be a win in Iraq? Perhaps you can convince me with reason and logic rather than bullying me into agreeing with you. I am not going to threaten you but just ask you courteously and kindly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 21 May 07 - 11:49 AM The Iraq Liberation act of 1998 authorized the President to support regime change in Iraq, not to use military force or invasion. It is a far cry from Rove and Wolfowitz' program. "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations. Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria. Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law. Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 21 May 07 - 05:52 PM they need to divide iraq into different states and call it the United States of Iraq. Southern Iraq will be represented by Trent Lott from Mississippi. Hillary Clinton can rule over Northern Iraq as soon as Karl Rove sends for her. Blackwater can become the new Imam and Jerry Falwell will finally get to meet the Virgins. F. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 21 May 07 - 07:37 PM Dickey: There is no question that it would be a good thing if the violence in Iraq were to go down and the government there become stable. There's nothing wrong with the ideal. But let me just point out that at no point in his promotion of the war, before he began it, did Bush or any of his minions tell us that these were why we were going to send American troops into harms way and spend a trillion bucks. Furthermore, the reduction of violence in Iraq might well begin with the removal of American troops. The real problem that breeds this violence appears to be the power styruggle between the Shiites and the Sunnis, multiplied by the influences of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Al Qeda. Seems to me these guys need to share up some responsibility among themselves and figure out how to build a state. At this point it seems unlikely they will take advice from Bush's crusaders. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 21 May 07 - 09:18 PM Dickey-- Yet again, you were the one who talked about "winning"--a meaningless term in the "war on terror"--you may possibly recognize. This is a trap you diligently set for yourself. Then we finally squeezed out of you that you thought it meant a "stable government" in Iraq. Another meaningless statement--since you know Iraq will not be a Western democracy in the near future. So, if not a Western-style democracy, you need to tell us what you will be satisfied with in Iraq as a "stable government". Since we will not sign on to an open-ended commitment--there has to be a measurable goal. If you consider this bullying, my heart bleeds for you. If you can't stand the heat.. If you plan to defend the Bush stupid--and tragic, since needless-- war in Iraq, which has caused many people more grief than "bullying"--and for which you, in common with the other pro-war giant intellects, have not exactly sacrificed much, it will behoove you to answer questions directly. Or perhaps you would like to tell us how much you and your family have suffered due to the Iraq war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 21 May 07 - 09:31 PM Dickey, You must think that everyone here was born last night... The entire Congressional resolution was so much framed in the post-9/11 hysteria that historians will surely see Congress as in a blackmailed state-of-mind... It is almost unbelievable that there was any resistence at all given the PR machine that Bush had workin' 24/7 that, in essence, if you were agianst anyhting that the Bushite's wanted that you were for the terrorists... I mean, do you deny this??? If you do then it proves how out of touch you really are with the realities of the real world.... Now, after all the PR wranglings and folks finally braking the chains that bound them to unending "Yes, yer majesty, of course you are right" we arrive at the elusive "victory"... Nisxon told us that if we didn't stop the North BVietnamese than we'd be eventually be fighting them here and now we hear the same thing from the Bushites... Hmmmmmmmm???? Thay say the history repeats itself.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 May 07 - 10:31 PM Oh puhhleeze. Many in congress voted to authorize force only as a last resort. Bush promised (fingers crossed as we now know) to exhaust all diplomatic efforts first. The reluctant were called cowards and traitors and terrorist sympathizers. This is not Congress' war. This is Bush's war. And yours. Many of us here are not exercising hindsight. This was all predictable, and predicted (props to Jim Webb for that quote). Much of it was predicted right here on Mudcat. Go read some Bobert or Amos, or many others from 2002 and early 2003. But its not just Mudcat (which I doubt Bush reads). One can easily find quotes and intelligence reports that predicted there would be NO stable government if Saddam was overthrown by outside invaders. Yup, that's right. There was an NIE saying just exactly that. Given to Bush before the invasion. And he not only ignored it - he suppressed it. You have claimed it is an extension of Clinton policy. Yeah, right. Clinton explicitly rejected this exact war plan in 1998 when the Bush neocons tried to sell it to him. Your defense of this war would be comical if real soldiers and civilians weren't dying because your dear leader and your crew cannot admit and begin to fix an abhorrent mistake. You have claimed that a "win" is defined as a stable government? Oh please again. Saddam's was a stable government. This is just the latest justification (we've heard at least fifiteen). Please find me the pre-invasion speeches where this war was sold as necessary to produce a stable government in Iraq. You will go to the grave unable to admit that you have been fooled and used. And many brave people in the service will go to the grave precisely because you and your people want to preserve your egos to the grave. Sleep well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 22 May 07 - 01:31 AM Bobert: I am in touch with the world enough to know that the average apartment is not $1300 per month like you claimed. It is not germain to this discussion but it is germain to your claim that you are more in touch with reality that I. It appears you may have been born this morning. You can Quote Nixon with out being ridiculed by the Bush Bashers and try to blame Vietnam on him but in fact a previous administration started it an Nixon ended it. Kennedy (awk awk) started a secret war that congress was not even aware of. It is true that the Liberation act did not call for military action but it did set US offocial policy on regime change for Iraq. Bill Clinton (Awk Awk) did carry out three military attacks on Iraq without warning or consulting Congress at all.(Awk Awk) "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces...Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.(Awk Awk) Was that a violation of the Constitution? And Carter (Awk Awk) made the Carter Doctrine ( which was based on the Trueman Doctrine) US policy which provided for military action to protect American Interests (oil) in the middle east. Remember the big gas shortage back then? Bill Clinton (awk awk)had the spying program Eschelon, also used by the UK, Canada and the free world for that matter. It was not revaled to the public until 2000. It has roots going back to 1948. Was that a violation of the constitution? (awk awk) After 9/11 Congress was quick to rally behind GWB lest they look like they were soft on defense and lose votes. Now they do a 180 like Bobert claims GWB did and claim they were duped. Are they stupid or something? No, it is all about votes. Yeah, I can get more votes by bashing Bush than I can by standing by my original position This immigration reform bill will be used the same way. Might I also point out that the main beneficiary of that the Iraq Liberation act, Chalabi, had his funds cut off abruptly by Bush when he was found out to be a fraud? Who was that blamed on, Bush or Clinton? (awk awk) And how many military deaths occured during the first four years of the Clinton (awk awk) adminstration during his "peacetime"? Hint more than have died during Bush's "illegal war" Even during Mr. peace prize Carter's (awk awk) administration, there were 2,392 military deaths in 1980. Yup. So go ahead and take your cheap shots. The Ol' PR machine is working 24/7/365 Bashing Bush and covering up any similar historical actions that might put things into context. Yeah, history does repeat itself. And Ron, there are people here that know how to respond in a more civilized manner. I suggest you quit moping, dry your little eyes and take their lead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 22 May 07 - 02:13 AM What a really good post Dickey, I look forward with interest to see some of the responses, providing those that do respond to the content. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 May 07 - 07:05 AM Unsurprisingly, those statistics are incredibly misleading and ripped out of context and neglect to discuss the relative numbers of persons serving in the military yer-by-year. The fact is that the number of deaths per 1,000 serving are way up under Bush. And the number of deaths (per 1,000 serving) due to hostile action are through the roof relative to previous administrations. Nice try Dickey, but you either do not understand statistics, or foolishly tried to pull one over on people who are perfectly capable of getting and understanding the facts. Now go find another reason to blame this all on Clinton. Because the numbers here http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates1.pdf wreck your last argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 22 May 07 - 08:16 AM The number per thousand killed due to hostile action while serving is irrelevant Guest TIA. The only true indicator is the actual number killed due to hostile action while serving, and at the times referred to by Dickey, the US was not engaged in any war was it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 22 May 07 - 12:03 PM yes, Teribus, the number killed is irrelevant for the sanguinary supporters of the Iraq occupation. Let's play with the stats shall we? Human lives are obviously not important here. Dickey, Nixon ended nothing. That is pure propaganda. He kept the war going as long as he could only to be stopped by the threat of impeachment. (awk awk) Kennedy did start a secret war which Nixon supported. Nixon and Kennedy were friends. Regime change in Iraq could not be accomplished by anything except military action. Bill Clinton's policies against Iraq were implemented by Bush Jr. Actually, Sadam did cooperate and the UNSCOM did their job efficiently. Bush lied about that and said that the Iraqi government refused to cooperate. (Awk awk) Was a preemptive strike on a foreign country that did not threaten us unconstitutional? Love to hear what the Founding Fathers would have to say about that. Who says that oil in the Middle East was what Carter had in mind in the Doctrine? As I recall he said that we needed to be less dependent on foreign oil and seek alternative energy sources. Yes I remember the gas hikes and they were because the Cartel complained about not making enough money (awk awk). Bush (awk awk) loves spying programs and would like to peek into your bedroom. Is this a violation of the constitution? Bush doesn't have to be bashed. He has proved his incompetency to the American people who can't wait to get him out of office. 911 was Bush's "Trifecta" and gave him the "wag of the dog" that he needed to hoodwink congress and the poor deluded workers in the Ground Zero. Immigration reform bill is another corporate ruse to gain cheap labor. Chalabi is not out of the picture and is being supported by the Bush Administration. (awk awk). I see that you have kept tallies of the deaths in Iraq with some trumped-up stats by right-wing blogs. You seem to know all about how many military deaths have actually occurred in Iraq by listening to Bush's minions. (awk awk). The megaphone PR machine is working on the major networks of the US taking it's orders from Karl Rove. The only decent news is coming from alternative sources..eg Jon Stewart. Yes, Fox News and it's copycats are working 24/7/365 bashing anyone who doesn't drink Bush's Kool Aid. This also happened during Reagan's destruction of the country and yes history does repeat itself. Oh but they're bashing bush (awk awk) when he's bashing himself. Civilized arguments do not employ such perjorative (awk awk's) which BTW rhyme with "hawk hawk". Instead of crying about Bush bashing, dry your eyes and observe this Frankenstein for what he is. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 22 May 07 - 12:22 PM X number of people have died in this illegal war. (awk awk) Total numbers do not men anything (awk awk) Awk Awk) x number of people have died in this illegal war. (awk akw) Do not try to fool us with total numbers (awk awk) X number of people have died in this illegal war. (awk awk) Kennedy did start a secret war which Nixon supported. Nixon and Kennedy were friends.(awk awk) Nixon ended nothing.(awk awk) Nixon is guilty (awk awk) Kennedy is innocent (awk awk) There is no double standard (awk awk) X number of people have died in this illegal war. (awk awk) total number of military deaths by the DOD ar really trumped-up stats by right-wing blogs(awk awk) Do not try to fool us with total numbers (awk awk) Frankenstein is real (awk awk) From: GUEST,TIA - PM Date: 19 May 07 - 07:02 PM Awwwk, Clinton. Awwk, Clinton. Others can use awk awk but dickey can't (awk awk) There is no double standard (awk awk) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 22 May 07 - 12:41 PM Jaysus, Dickey, you're drifting so far into puerility you are about incomprehensible. What, exactly, does "awk" mean in this context? Are you just kinda sticking out your tongue, cyberwise? Is it a sort of variant on "nyah, nyah, did too, did not"? Do you, yourself have an opinion about what the dynamics between Sunni, Shi-ite, Iran, Saudio Arabia and Al Queda would evolve into if American forces were removed from Iraq? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 22 May 07 - 02:01 PM Ask Tia. She is the one that initiated the use of the term. Yes I have an opinon beyond "chaos". I think it is perfectly obvious what would happen but none of the anti-war mongers want to admit it. Anti-warmongers will start their personal attacks (stupid etc) but here it is. al-Qaeda would establish another base in the Sunni areas and be eternally fighting to take over the Shia areas to control the oil. Iran would try to defend those areas and fight back at al-Qaeda to control the oil. It would be a bloodbath. Kurdish areas might be able to defend themselves but Turkey or Iran or al-Qaeda would want to take control for the oil. Oil is the real power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 22 May 07 - 02:16 PM Sorry, Dickey. The liberals here only believe that the US will trade blood for oil, not the "noble savages" who are only fighting for the right to inflict their own religious rules on their neighbors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST Date: 22 May 07 - 03:36 PM Dickey - "Might I also point out that the main beneficiary of that the Iraq Liberation act, Chalabi, had his funds cut off abruptly by Bush when he was found out to be a fraud?" Big deal. Chalabi provided the so-called evidence for weapons of mass destruction and it was Bush who tried to install him as the new leader of Iraq. Trouble is, nobody wanted him. Not Iraq or Turkey or Jordan He was (and probably still is) pals with Wolfowitz and the girlfriend. Believe it or not, he still has his face in the politics of Iraq and is the champion of the surge. Whether or not he is being paid directly from U.S. govt. funds or not, he is still the darling of Washington. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 22 May 07 - 03:38 PM oops - me again above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 22 May 07 - 07:48 PM Where were these "religious savages" in Iraq before Bush invaded, BB??? Hmmmmmmmmm??? And, my, my, my.... How quickly do some forget the PR campaing in the post 9/11 days to sell any danged Bushite policy to not only Congress but the American people at large??? Every stupid policy, regardless of its relavence to 9/11 was ***sold*** with violins, the flag and 9/11 draped around it... "Well, Ralph, yer either with us or your with the terroists..." This crap became the center piece of every danged thing the Bushites wanted to do... If you deny this then you deny being alive during those times... I mean, if you can deny this then you are beyond just ordinary-every-day ignorant... No you are in a category of ignorant that defies logic... And, BTW, did I say that Nixon started the Vietnam War??? No, I din't so for Dickey to make such a clain is a case of either bad reading or complete and toatl ignorance... What I ***did*** say was that Nixon used the same worn out logic in trying to scare the American people that Bush is now using in telling the American people that it was to stop them ***there*** of fight them ***here***... That is the way it went down then and is the way it is going down today... Do you deny this, Dickey??? Yes______ No ______ Don't go changing the subjest... Do you deny this??? Face it, folks, this war ***is*** lost... Not because I say so but because it ***is***.... And guess what??? Give up??? It ain't Clinton's fault... (Oh geeze, BObert, of course it's Clinton's fault because blah, blah, blah...) Nope... This one is on Bush and all yoy Bushite followers... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 May 07 - 09:34 PM "Ask Tia. She is the one that initiated the use of the term." WTF DickeyBird? If I had a clue what you're talking about, perhaps I could loan you one. Lord knows you need it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 22 May 07 - 09:39 PM Amos. here is some pueril: Once upon a time, long long ago, a caveman named Bush Wun discovered fire, and the wheel.. Bobert: I did not claim you said Nixon started the Vietnam War. Some joker said Nixon did not end it and he was a good buddy with Kennedy as if Nixon was guilty and Kennedy was innocent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 23 May 07 - 06:56 AM Bobert, You idiot! YOU quoted "Where were these "religious savages" in Iraq before Bush invaded, BB???" I SAID "not the "noble savages" who are only fighting for the right to inflict their own religious rules on their neighbors. " NOT the same thing at all. SOME here might even understand WHY I put the term in quotes. IFG you continue to make false statements as to what I said, and to be an asshole, I will have to reduce the respect that I have for your musical talent and intelligence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 23 May 07 - 07:49 AM LOL, Bruce... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 23 May 07 - 09:02 AM Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA - PM Date: 19 May 07 - 07:02 PM Awwwk, Clinton. Awwk, Clinton. I still wasn't finished with Bobert: Bobert said "Nisxon told us that if we didn't stop the North BVietnamese than we'd be eventually be fighting them here and now we hear the same thing from the Bushites" He gives Nixon no credit for ending it as if Nixon is responsible for Vietnam and Iraq both. He can crack open one eye far enough to see something in history that he might use to bash Bush with but if it is not something he can use against Bush, His eyes are wide shut. Cherry picking his facts in total denial disregard of history. Here's the facts Bobert. Robert "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty" Kennedy started a war in Asia and Congress or the American people did not even know it was going on. Lyndon "Shit! Diem's the only boy we got out there" Johnson got the American military into the Vietnam war bigtime with questionable claims of US ships being attacked, (much like Remember The Main). Nixon inherited it and ended it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 23 May 07 - 10:07 AM Johnson got the American military into the Vietnam war bigtime with questionable claims of US ships being attacked, (much like Remember The Main) Or, for that matter, WMD. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 23 May 07 - 10:18 AM Awk, there is Kool Aid out there that claims that Nixon ended the war. He ended it kicking and screaming because the American public woke up and realized they had been hoodwinked just like the have been under Bush's war. It took threats of impeachment to get him out of Vietnam. Nixon and Kennedy were friends. There is a book written with that in the title that explains their relationship. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 23 May 07 - 10:37 AM Do you deny this, Dickey??? Yes__X___ No ______ First I don't recall Nixon saying that. Please provide the date and the quote. In USA Today it says: "During Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson said we can fight them there or fight them here" Second as to the charge of scare tactics, if the threat of terrorist attacks were true and the administration did not tell us it would be an evil cover up or malfeasance. Note all the headlines about Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen or that he should have known about and warned us or he ignored the warnings. After being charged with all that, he says yes there is a possibility of terrorist attacks in America and then he is told there is no terrorist threat and attacked for using scare tactics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 23 May 07 - 04:46 PM Dickey, he is not saying there is a possibility of terrorist attacks in America. He is saying there WILL be terrorist attacks on America and implying they are conditional on us not "winning" in Iraq as if there were hordes of bolshvist suicide bombers waiting to climb into boats and land in Florida, only being held at bay by our valiant fighting men. It is not the case that these things are causally dependent but his rhetoric implies strongly that it is. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 23 May 07 - 08:11 PM Nison didn't end jack, Dicky... His "secret plan" was "Vietnamazation" or some such crap... Sound familiar??? Just as the "benchmarks" that Bush is talking about, Nixon's "secret paln" failed miserably... What ended ther Vietnam war ws Congress finally cutting off the $$$... That is the way it went down so, pleeeeze, don't try rewriting that part of history as if most of us weren't around taking notes back then... 'Ccause most of us were there and most of us, maybe not you, know what really went down... Ahhhhh, BTW, do you really beieve the crap you write??? Yes _____ No ______ Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 24 May 07 - 10:06 AM Bobert: When I ask you if you believe this thing or that thing that you said and you refused to answer. Now you ask me to do what you won't do. Howcome? On 15 January 1973, Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords on 'Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam' were signed on 27 January, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Bobert said "Nisxon told us that if we didn't stop the North BVietnamese than we'd be eventually be fighting them here and now we hear the same thing from the Bushites" LBJ: "If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 24 May 07 - 10:09 AM "What ended ther Vietnam war ws Congress finally cutting off the $$$" Why doesn't the brave congress we have now do the same? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 May 07 - 10:13 AM The answer to that question is here: http://www.mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2058702 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 24 May 07 - 12:26 PM "Dickey, he is not saying there is a possibility of terrorist attacks in America. He is saying there WILL be terrorist attacks on America and implying they are conditional on us not "winning" in Iraq ....." - Amos I would have thought that according to the very clear and very public statements made by the self declared enemies of the United States of America the prediction that the USA WILL be subject to terrorist attacks is a fairly reasonable thing to say. As for the rest well here's a fairly good example - Abu Musab al-Zarkawi Trained in Afghanistan where he met one Osama Bin Laden in 1989 Set up his own training camp in Herat (Western Afghanistan) with the full support and backing of Al-Qaeda and OBL. Fought against Northern Alliance Forces after 911 and was wounded. Went to Iraq where he was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. Instructed by Al-Qaeda/OBL? in 2004 to form groups for attacks within the United States. Now Amos, where was he killed? - Iraq. Perhaps you and few others here would have preferred it if he had been killed in the US, but for that to fit with all the bogus ideas of "fair play" that everybody seems so concerned about, that would have to have been after he had successfully carried out his attack. For myself, I prefer it the way it did happen - i.e. many leagues distant, where he had begun to impress upon the locals exactly what a rabid piece of excrement he was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 May 07 - 04:13 PM teribus, etc. - If the U.S. is so damned worried about terrorists(specifically al Qaeda), why don't they invade Pakistan? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 24 May 07 - 05:20 PM Dianavan, it's because the Bushies need a "Terror" boogey-man to keep the fear high and the enemies to focus on. A lot of this fear talk is just Right-Wing megaphone hype and we have a lot more to fear about our Constitutional rights being taken away from us. "We need to fight them here, so we won't have to fight them there." Guess what? We have reason to fight them here because they are in our government. But for me, fighting doesn't get it. Voting and activism does. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 May 07 - 07:27 PM John Kerry writes about the current Iraq funding bill and the lousy compromise it presents, and why he opposes it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 24 May 07 - 08:18 PM Well, I don't think it really matters if LBJ used some of the same crapola as Nixon... It wasn't LBJ who ran an entire presidential campaingn on havin' a ***secret plan*** to end the Vietnam War... It was Nixon... Here's where the rub is, Dickey... Now, to wit, here we are still getting the company fight song from T-Bird who suggests that Al-Qeada-Iraq has a desire and ability to attack the US??? This flies in the face of the US's own interllegence folks who think it very unlikely... But, like Dick Cheney, T-Bird is willin' to parrot this as if it has substance??? Perhaps T-Bird knows sowmthing that is beyond the reach of the US's intellegence community??? Heck, maybe T-Bird is actually an agent of Al-Qeada in Iraq and therefore privildged to information that our own intellegence community is locked out of? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 24 May 07 - 10:18 PM Excuse me Bobert, who was it that attacked the World trade Centre in 1993? Who was it that blew up two of your Embassies (Sovereign US Territory)? Who was it that attacked the USS Cole (Sovereign US Territory)? Who was it that attacked the Wolrd Trade centre and the Pentagon in 2001? Hey Bobert wake up and smell the coffee, it ain't T-Bird who is suggesting that Al-Qeada has a desire and ability to attack the US, the desire and intention were clearly and specifically declared way back in the late 80's and their ability has been more than adequately demonstrated in the instances given above. Any questions? Do you have any problem focusing on those facts Bobert, or do you deny that any of the above ever took place??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 May 07 - 10:38 PM Who was it that blew up two of your Embassies (Sovereign US Territory)? Who was it that attacked the USS Cole (Sovereign US Territory)? Who was it that attacked the Wolrd Trade centre and the Pentagon in 2001? It sure as fuck wasn't Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 May 07 - 11:41 PM teribus - Going after al qaeda in Iraq is going in the wrong direction. Al qaeda is present throughout the Muslim world and the only reason they are now in Iraq is because of the U.S. invasion. The more often the Muslim world views the U.S. as the aggressor, the more recruits al Qaeda will have. If the U.S. really wanted to go after al Qaeda, they would concentrate their efforts on the Afghan/Pakistan border where they train their recruits. Why is the U.S. in Iraq and not in Pakistan? "While U.S. leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the United States as being at war with Islam," reports Steven Kull, principal investigator in the study and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org. That mentality sheds some light on why al Qaeda, dispersed and under U.S. assault, can continue to draw recruits. "Our research does show that anti-American feelings do make it easier for al Qaeda to operate and to grow in the Muslim world," says Kull, a leading analytical pollster of international trends." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070523/23muslims.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 24 May 07 - 11:43 PM Bobert: I am willing to accept your or Amos's or Dianavan's guarantee that there will be on terrorists attacks in the US. "I don't think it really matters if LBJ used some of the same crapola as Nixon" It mattered when your were trying to blame it on Nixon. You got that from some left wing, spread this all over the net and people will believe it, talking points source. You parroted it without checking and then you ask me if I beleive the crap I post. You still won't say that Nixon actually said it. Here is another of your left wing fairy tales: "What ended ther Vietnam war ws Congress finally cutting off the $$$" Congress. In December 1974, it passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government. There was already a cease fire in place since Jan 17 1973. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 25 May 07 - 12:15 AM What ended the war in Vietnam was (a) high-level ineptitudfe in the prosecution of the war and (b) a large number of souls protesting that we were in such a dirty war in the first place -- so many that it became a national groundswell of protest. Remember the terrible consequences we were promised if the North Vietnamese won the war? The domino theory of nation after nation toppling to the wicked empire of the Soviet Union? Communism Ramapant? What happened there? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 25 May 07 - 12:46 AM Something to ponder. These are the people at the sharp end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 25 May 07 - 02:31 AM Dickey - I've never said there will be no more terrorist attacks in the U.S. What I have said is that the U.S. should have done their job in Afghanistan and found bin Laden. They should be concentrated on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of making Iraq a battleground. The U.S. has spread their troops too thin. Thats what happens when you decide to go it alone. In case you don't realize it. Al qaeda was never in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. They came after the U.S. in Iraqi territory. That means the U.S. is on the defensive. The U.S. should withdraw and if need be fight al qaeda on their own soil or in Afghanistan instead of drawing the whole Middle East into a conflict between the U.S. and al Qaeda. Why should the Iraqis die for a war they never asked for? Oh - I get it. Bush was never really after al Qaeda. He just uses them as an excuse to rip off the resources of another country. Everytime he needs support, he just pulls scary old al qaeda out of his bag of tricks. Human life means absolutely nothing to Bush. Money is his God. Peace - That a very lovely link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 25 May 07 - 08:43 AM "decide to go it alone" Plus South Korea Romania Georgia El Salvador Czech Republic Azerbaijan Latvia Mongolia Albania Lithuania Armenia Bosnia Estonia Macedonia Kazakhstan Moldova Bulgaria |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 25 May 07 - 09:03 AM "Al qaeda was never in Iraq before the U.S. invasion" Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda By ELI LAKE September 14, 2006 WASHINGTON — A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate's intelligence committee. In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis' lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 25 May 07 - 09:50 AM Thanks, Dianavan. However, I can't take any credit for finding it. Info about it was sent to me by another Mudcatter. All I did was make the link. It is very touching and a good reminder that these damned politicians got them there on behalf of the American people and these politicians damned well better get them home, PDQ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 25 May 07 - 01:19 PM Dickey - Don't be so foolish. You know what Bush meant when he said he would, "Go ot alone." As to the Iraqi (Kurdish) official who made that statement, if you read the whole article there is not a shred of evidence to support it. I repeat, Al qaeda in Iraq had no power in Iraq until after the U.S. invasion. You'll have to do a little more homework, Dickey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 25 May 07 - 09:39 PM Seems pretty much spot on according to the tesimony of one Mullah Krekar who currently resides in Norway and who was the Boss of this outfit who were allowed to set up shop in Iraq to attack the Kurds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 25 May 07 - 11:25 PM I think it is foolish to claim it was go it alone when 19 countrys were involved. I think it is foolish to claim al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the invasion and when shown claims to the contrary you have to CYA and shift your statement to say they never had any power like a slippery, slimy eel. Home work to you is rocking back and forth while chanting some liberal anti-war propagnda that has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with interpretations of what somebody meant. Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. "It is about radicalizing people," (using stupid people) he said in an interview. "You hook into a movement that exists - in this case the antiwar movement - and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism," http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=2955§ionid=3510101 Party for Socialism and Liberation, World Workers Party, ANSWER, good anti-war people right? In 1956, WWP supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary, claiming the Hungarian striking workers were "counterrevolutionary" in response to the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, WWP charged that protesters had launched "violent attacks on the soldiers" provoking the military's actions. During the Bosnian war in the 1990s, WWP portrayed reports of atrocities and mass rape by the Serb forces as "imperialist lies" and supported Slobodan Milosevic in his battle against war crimes charges at The Hague. Ramsey Clark, the visible leader of the International Action Center, is a founder of ANSWER and the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, and has also provided legal representation for some accused of participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide and volunteered for Saddam Hussein's legal team. http://www.warresisters.org/nva1105-1.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 26 May 07 - 12:25 AM Dickey: With all respect, I don't think anyone gives a shot about the socialists of the Internationale. The fact that some marginal mouth says he is hooking into the antiwar movement to use the stupid people therein in no wise has any bearing on the quesion of the rightness or wrongness of war. Nor does it in anyway indicate anything about the people he SAYS he is using, nor any bearing on the intelligence of any individual in that group. It's just a bunch of talk, see? I suggest, as regards the "go it alone" that you do a pie chart of the amount of funds and troops each of that huge, but really hollow, list of "willing" allies contributed in fact since 2000. I think you will find that the cowboy brag of going it alone is pretty close to the mark, aside from England. The claim that someone makes upthread about Al Queda in Iraq is unsubstantiated, and is inconsistent with everything known about the secular government of Iraq under Saddam. So it requires some sort of substantiating evidence to be taken seriously, not just a "he said, she said" sort of claim. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 26 May 07 - 12:25 AM That's good, now rock back and forth and chant "Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault..." Okay OldGuy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 26 May 07 - 03:11 AM The United Nations has 192 member states. 1990/1991 - "Desert Storm" - Coalition of 34 countries of which 12 sent forces to the theatre of operations. 2003 - Invasion of Iraq - Coalition of 43 countries of which 33 sent forces to the theatre of operations. Forces from 22 countries are still deployed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 26 May 07 - 10:59 AM Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed Senate Panel Releases Assessments From 2003 By Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page A01 Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world. The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development. More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic. Other predictions, however, were less than accurate. Intelligence analysts assessed that any postwar increase in terrorism would slowly subside in three to five years, and that Iraq's vast oil reserves would quickly facilitate economic reconstruction. Full article here is worth a read. It seems to me to make a clear case of deliberate ignoral on the part of the Resident and his cronies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 26 May 07 - 02:32 PM May 4, Editor and Publisher mag carried this interesting tidbit, which stands in marked contrast to "everyone believed" partyline about the ignoral of intell: "Prescient Pre-Iraq War 'Doonesbury' Strips Reprinted By E&P Staff Published: May 04, 2007 12:25 PM ET NEW YORK The newspapers that have been publishing "Doonesbury" reruns this week because of a Garry Trudeau vacation are giving readers a prescient look at what would go wrong with the Iraq War. This week's reprints are from October 2002, during the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq that would occur five months later. The strips predicted major post-invasion violence between Shiites and Sunnis, and high death tolls in Iraq. "The possible outcomes I was describing five years ago did not spring wholly from my imagination," said Trudeau, as quoted in today's Dallas Morning News. "I'm just not that smart. But a lot of other people are, and anyone open to countervailing arguments about the wisdom of invading Iraq could have found their warnings easily enough."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 26 May 07 - 05:20 PM Ummm, yer good with numbers, T-Bird... How about giving us what percentage of this coilition comprises the 22 nations that aren't the US or UK??? See, stats can get the heck in the way of reality... Oh, BTW, seein' as you are so good with numbers perhaps you'd like to revist Gulf I and give us the percentages of troops in that one, as well??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 26 May 07 - 07:50 PM Interesting thing Bobert, but when the United States of America entered the First World War after having sat on the sidelines for the best part of four years, Winston Churchill simply stated that on landing in France that all that was required to get America 100% behind the Allied war effort was for one single American soldier to be killed in action on the first day. Lesson, numbers and percentages don't matter it's who's there that counts because politically that is what is counted. It still doesn't alter the fact that in 1991 the UN backed coalition had 12 countries that actually provided forces whereas GWB's coalition building efforts managed to round up 33 country's of which 22 are still deployed in theatre. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 26 May 07 - 09:01 PM Yes, numbers ***do*** matter... Ask and military scientists... For you to state that there are 22 countries in the current coilition and 99% of them come from the US and UK then the rest aren't there because they are ***deeply*** commited but there because they have been strong armed... If they actually were commited then they would send more people and the US and U&K wouldn't being doing the heavy lifting... Even Bush has said as much when he talks about trying to get other countries involved in getting his butt out of the fire... So if Bush says that the numbers ain't sufficient, with all his "coilition BS" then you can bet that, regardless of what T thinks about numbers, they matter... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 27 May 07 - 01:01 AM No Dianavan, I am going to sit steady, upright and say "terrorist's fault" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Peace Date: 27 May 07 - 01:06 AM Here's a link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 27 May 07 - 01:15 AM Hey Mr. no stats cause I don't need um, what was the percentage at the beginning? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 27 May 07 - 01:33 AM NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 27 May 07 - 10:43 AM "deployed in theatre"--gee, Teribus, you're so impressive with your oh-so-professional military jargon. Why don't you tell us again how the Sunnis deserve "no consideration"? And how about another of your greatest hits--the Sadr "army" 's "chain of command"? I won't even go into a contrast of your earlier views, contrasted with, say, those of Bobert. Sorry, your track record on Iraq is, shall we say, not the best. If I didn't know you were a highly respected foreign policy analyst, I might be tempted to think, as some irresponsible individuals have suggested, that you're a clueless Western military fossil who can't grasp anything outside his narrow experience. Unfortunately, the evidence would tend to support this evaluation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 27 May 07 - 01:37 PM HA HA Ron, Ask Bobert about the "heads on sticks" and the 3,000 Patriot missiles. Take a look at Anbar Province Ron - Heart of the "Sunni Triangle" - local tribal leaders HAVE changed their minds about support for the insurgency and are now backing the Government - Just like I said they would do. A senior political aide to Mr Sadr, Abd al-Mahdi al-Mutairi, told the BBC how the cleric's organisation was now seeking a compromise with moderate Sunnis. He said Sadrist representatives met a group called the Anbar Awakening Council with the aim of preventing "sectarian sedition". Abd al-Mahdi al-Mutairi said, "We signed with them a pledge charter which we hope will be the nucleus of future agreements with other brothers, whether Sunni, Kurdish or otherwise." Now as far as his "Chain of Command" goes Ron (Look it up) Davies, lets just see what happens. Once upon a time in the dim and distant past I seem to recall that you thought Al-Sadr had considerable influence, more influence than Al-Sistani the most senior cleric in Iraq, of course he didn't but it illustrates your grasp of the realities. Now then Ron care to explain how influence can be exerted without some form of organisation to implement the desired course of action within the rank and file members of the Mehdi Army. While I do have some relevant experience Ron it would appear you have damn all. Just an observation Ron, but I have noticed that the "personal attack" content of your posts increasingly outweighs your attempts to inject anything of note or substance to the debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 27 May 07 - 02:29 PM O Master of Misquote, Mr. Fossil Teribus, your honor. Please be so good as to give a direct quote to support your contention that I said Sistani had no influence. I will have no problem finding your quote that the Sunnis deserve "no consideration". As I recall, you compared them to hardcore Nazis in 1945. And the marriage of convenience between Sunnis and the US forces in Anbar is nothing more than that--as any reasonable person--perhaps that excludes you-- would see. It is not, as you predicted, the result of the Iraq government refusing concessions, but of al Queda overplaying its hand. And it sure is good to know you've always been above personal attacks. So the postings in an Iraq thread--propaganda thread, as I recall--, to the effect of 8:29 AM Ron Davies Fuck-All absolutely nothing (and several more in that pattern)--was an imposter using your handle. Funny thing it was not a guest posting. I'm not complaining in the least--I was glad to see you show your true colors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 29 May 07 - 08:29 PM Oh geeze... "Headn on sticks", T-zer.... Hmmmmmm??? Hard to believe those days... Do you rmebere the other things I predicted??? Actually, the "heads on a stick" reference was figurative and no literal but, geeze louise, the figurative part has sho nuff come to haunt Bush at night... Not too sure how well you sleeep but, if I were in yer shoes, I'd probably be doing a lot of reaccesing these days unless, like in Vietnem, you have rationalized you poor decisions, are willing to live with them and then when everyobe sles sees that you were wrong, like in Vietnam, you will grow old a bitter person thinking that ***if only*** the Iarq war had been allowed to go on for, ahhhhhh, another 10 or 20 years then certainly your side would be shown to be on the correct side... Well, T, you were and are wrong... Okay, the heads aren't literally on the sticks but they are very much in wooden boxes... But that's like yer usaul, T-zer... Splitting hairs.... or heads... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 29 May 07 - 10:20 PM Any fool with a keyboard can go back and review Ron and Bobert's predictions about Iraq pre-invasion and match them up against contemporary reality. So, go ahead fools. Do that, then come back and report. On second thought, never mind. You'll find a way to spin it into proof of how brilliant you are and how naive Bobert is, and how nasty Ron is. So, F your opinion. Let's let history decide. And you can go to your graves with your egos intact. And fingers in your ears. Humming loudly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 30 May 07 - 06:42 PM If memory serves me correctly Ron the "Ron Davies Fuck-All absolutely nothing" was to do with you not providing any instance whereby a member of the Bush administration had EVER stated that Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 911 - you still haven't. The "Sunni Arabs" in Iraq who are tacitly supporting the insurgency and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq do not deserve any "consideration". Fortunately for the "Sunni Arabs", their leaders have now seen that the insurgents and Al-Qaeda can deliver them nothing except death and destruction, and they are shifting ground to support the government of Iraq. That shift in policy on their part earns them "consideration", they do not get by pointing a gun at the elected government of their country. I see that you are up to your old tricks of putting words in peoples mouths again Ron(look it up) Davies: "Please be so good as to give a direct quote to support your contention that I said Sistani had no influence." - Ron(Look it up) Davies. What I actually said - "Once upon a time in the dim and distant past I seem to recall that you thought Al-Sadr had considerable influence, more influence than Al-Sistani the most senior cleric in Iraq, of course he didn't but it illustrates your grasp of the realities." Now then Ron, displaying your masterly misquoting skills and demonstrating your enormous skill at english comprehension. Exactly where in that quote of mine does it state that I believed that you said that Al-Sistani had no influence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 30 May 07 - 07:07 PM whereby a member of the Bush administration had EVER stated that Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 911 - you still haven't. T-Bird, you either haven't been listening, opr you don't parse English very carefully. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 07:39 PM No, Amos. In THIS case, he is correct- there has never been a statement BY THE ADMINISTRATION that "Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 911 - you still haven't." The statements HAVE been made by opponents of the administration, saying that the administration had said so, but those were lies: The administration pointed out that IF Saddam developed WMD and then gave them to terrorist, that would be a bad thing. Od course, you are entitled to disagree- but I have never seen you state that it would NOT have been a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 30 May 07 - 07:56 PM The following list was published in The Chicago Tribune on 4 September 2003 in a commentary titled "Utter nonsense: Open mouth, insert foot" by Molly Ivins. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." --President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002 "The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that would be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using the UAVs for missions targeting the United States." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen'--his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 "We know for a fact there are weapons there." --Then-White House spokes-man Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003 "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." --Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003 "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." --Bush, Feb. 8, 2003 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." --Bush, March 17, 2003 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly." --Fleischer, March 21, 2003 "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." --Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003 "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." --Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board, March 23, 2003 "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." --Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003 "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." --Bush, May 3, 2003 "I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." --Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003 "U.S. officials never expected that we were going to open garages and find weapons of mass destruction." --National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 12, 2003 "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." --Rumsfeld, May 27, 2003 "We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the--our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind." --Bush, July 17, 2003 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 08:00 PM dianavan, As I said, the Bush administration has never said "Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 911 " Your quotes do not seem to address this statement at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 08:05 PM Either you haven't been listening, or you don't parse English very carefully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 30 May 07 - 08:10 PM Thanks, d... BB hasn't been paying attention... Oh sure, it's okay for Dick Cheney to say just about anything he wants about the links between Saddam and al-eada but when it comes to havibng to own up to the ***intent*** of those statements, the Bushites run like rabbied dogs.... How blind--or deaf-- can one group of "True Belivers" be??? It is absolutely mind boggling!!! What, do they think that everyone else here, except them, was not around for the last 6 years??? One would think so by their indignant proclamations aginst those of us who, contrary to their wishes, were not only here but paying attention... Make me sik to think that people can be so steeped in Bushite politics that they will say anything but didn't I start this post about talking about one of their super-heros, D. Cheney, who has made it a living saying anything he wants, regardless of fatcual basis... Like they say, garbage in, garbage out.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 08:13 PM "How blind--or deaf-- can one group of "True Belivers" be???" And IMO YOU have demonstrated all the signe of being a true believer. Try argueing the facts of the matter, instead of attacking, like "a rabid dog", those you disagree with. "Like they say, garbage in, garbage out...." THIS I can agree with- without any supporting facts, your statements qualify. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 08:14 PM Sorry, a rabid dog should NOT be in quotes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 30 May 07 - 09:14 PM "Here in America we are living in the eye of a storm." Sorry, there are storms and this ain't it. "Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny.'" "Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America."" quoted here "n a televised address marking a year since the U.S. handover of sovereignty in Iraq, Bush urged Americans not to "forget the lessons of September 11." Speaking before a military audience at Fort Bragg, North Carolina Tuesday, the president set out his strategy for victory against the insurgency, including foreign groups such as that led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He also pledged that American troops would stay in Iraq until their job was done and that the U.S. would not "yield the future of the Middle East" to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror network. In a bid to shore up flagging domestic support for the war, Bush said the war against terror had "reached our shores" on September 11 and that sacrifices in Iraq were "vital to the future security of our country."" From here. B"ush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09 President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said. The finding of the commission's staff led Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), to escalate his accusations that Bush deceived both the Senate and the American public about the rationale for war in Iraq. "The president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts," Kerry told reporters at the Detroit airport. "That is the finding of this commission."" From here "The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator ``had long established ties with al-Qaida.'' The bipartisan commission issued its findings as it embarked on two days of public hearings into the worst terrorist attacks in American history. The panel intends to issue a final report in July on the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the World Trade Centers in New York and damaged the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth plane commandeered by terrorists crashed in the countryside in Pennsylvania." From here. "President George W Bush used the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war yesterday to warn that US withdrawal would unleash a "contagion of violence" that could spark a repeat of the September 11 attacks. Although he conceded that there would be "bad days ahead", he insisted that there had been "good progress" in Iraq and there were "hopeful signs" that the influx of 30,000 additional troops would stabilise Baghdad." From here. "Bush warns 9/11 was only start of terror against U.S. By Deb Riechmann, Associated Press New London, Conn. | President Bush portrayed the Iraq war as a battle between the U.S. and al-Qaida on Wednesday and shared nuggets of intelligence to contend Osama bin Laden was setting up a terrorist cell in Iraq to strike targets in America." From here. "Abstract: More than 70 percent of Americans supported the recent war with Iraq. According to most theories of public opinion, support for this war should have been extremely low, yet support was very high. We suggest that the reason for such high levels of support was that the Bush administration successfully convinced the American public that a link existed between Saddam Hussein and terrorism generally, and between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda specifically. We suggest that framing the war on Iraq in this way made this war intimately connected with September 11th in the eyes of the American people, leading to levels of support for this war that stretched nearly as high as the levels of support for the war in Afghanistan. To investigate the way in which the Bush administration framed the war, we undertake a content analysis of George W. Bush's speeches from September 11, 2001, to May 1, 2003. We find that from September 12, 2002, to May 2003, the subjects of terrorism and Iraq were intertwined on a regular basis. Thus we find the administration consistently connecting the Iraq War with terror, terrorism, 9/11, and al Qaeda. In order to accept this "Iraq as War on Terror" frame as legitimate, the American people had to hear it, understand it, and be faced with no other convincing frames. To evaluate the information flow during the months preceding the Iraq War, we analyzed New York Times coverage of major Bush speeches from September 11, 2002 to May 1, 2003 for the two days following each of the speeches analyzed. We expected news coverage of the Bush speeches to be negative, and thus provide an alternative frame. We find that almost no debate occurred within the Times' news coverage over the framing of the conflict in terms of terrorism, making the "Iraq as War on Terror" frame by far the most important influence on public attitudes. To track the way the public responded to this rhetoric, we analyze polling data from multiple sources. We find support for the war high, strong, and largely unconditional. We posit that the public heard the Bush administration's rhetoric and responded with high levels of support. We find that those who regularly heard the Bush administration's rhetoric were more likely to think that there was a strong connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism, and we also find that the stronger a respondent's perceived link between Iraq and terrorism, the more likely that respondent was to support the war. We demonstrate the causal relationship between hearing the rhetoric and supporting the war by making use of data where respondents changed from not supporting the war to supporting the war and credited certain administration speeches as the reason for their transition. Other panel data supports these results. We then examine alternative explanations, and discuss why the data make these stories less probable. In particular, the public's support did not seem related to whether Iraq had WMD." From here. "Iraq & 9/11 The Bush administration repeatedly has constantly tried to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks. In fact, Bush submitted the following certification to Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq: I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Quoted here. Despite the doubts of many intelligence analysts, the five Administration officials regularly asserted that there was a close relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example: • In a November 7, 2002, speech, President Bush stated: Saddam Hussein is "a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint." 100 • In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, President Bush stated: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."101 • In his February 5, 2003, remarks to the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated: "what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."102 • In remarks on May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, President Bush stated: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda."103 Vice President Cheney's statements on this topic repeatedly cited reports of a specific alleged Iraq–al Qaeda contact: a meeting between Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, and a senior Iraqi official in Prague a few months before September 11, 2001. For example, Vice President Cheney stated on September 14, 2003: With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.104 The Vice President's assertions about this meeting omitted key information. He did not acknowledge that the CIA and FBI had concluded before the war in Iraq that "the meeting probably did not take place";105 that Czech government officials had developed doubts regarding whether this meeting occurred;106 or that American records indicate that Mr. Atta was in Virginia Beach, Virginia, at the time of the purported meeting.107 Assessments following the war further highlighted the tenuous nature of the Administration's assertions about an Iraq-al Qaeda alliance. According to the New York Times, "Since American forces toppled the Hussein government and the United States gained access to captured Iraqi officials and Iraqi files, the C.I.A. has not yet uncovered evidence that has altered its prewar assessment concerning the connections between Mr. Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, officials said."108 From The Waxman Report I am sure there are many more but my fingers are getting tired... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 30 May 07 - 09:24 PM "A. President Bush President Bush made 55 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 27 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 55 misleading statements by President Bush, 4 claimed that Iraq posed an urgent threat; 14 exaggerated Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 18 overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 19 misrepresented Iraq's links to al Qaeda." (Waxman Report, cited above) B. Vice President Cheney Vice President Cheney made 51 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 25 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 51 misleading statements by Vice President Cheney, 1 claimed that Iraq posed an urgent threat; 22 exaggerated Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 7 overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 21 misrepresented Iraq's links to al Qaeda. (Ibid) Secretary Rumsfeld made 52 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 23 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 52 misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld; 5 claimed that Iraq posed an urgent threat; 18 exaggerated Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 21 overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 8 misrepresented Iraq's links to al Qaeda (Ibid) D. Secretary Powell Secretary Powell made 50 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in34 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 50 misleading statements by Secretary Powell, 1 claimed that Iraq posed an urgent threat; 10 exaggerated Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 32 overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 7 misrepresented Iraq's links to al Qaeda. E. National Security Advisor Rice Ms. Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 16 separate public statements or appearances. Of the 29 misleading statements by Ms. Rice, 17 concerned Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 6 overstated Iraq's chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 6 misrepresented Iraq's links to al Qaeda. (Ibid) "(T)these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq. In 125 separate appearances, they made 11 misleading statements about the urgency of Iraq's threat, 81 misleading statements about Iraq's nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq's chemical and biological capabilities, and 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. Ibid. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 30 May 07 - 09:25 PM Yeah, okay, BB, I'll bite... Just who it is that you think I follow/worship??? Ted Kennedy??? Jessie Jackson??? Nanci Pelosi??? Come on... Who??? Ain't to hard to figurate who you follow, though... Not hard at all... One thing about "true believers" is that they *****all****** are ******followers********... Now just who, again, is it that you think I am "following"???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 09:26 PM Amos, All your quotes fail to show that the administration claimed "Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 911 " They do show that, from the intelligence available at the time, there was certainly reason to suspect that Saddam WOULD IN THE FUTURE, if not prevented, provide further support to terrorists. Having just seen how vunerable the US was to terrorisrt acts, it would have been malfeasance for Bush NOT to have taken action against Saddam. I know the difference is subtle, but I expect one of your intelligence woud see it, and stop trying to confuse the issue with comments that show that Saddam DID support terroists, in the general case. THE CLAIM that Saddam supported the specific acts of 9/11 is what has been presented as a strawman arguement here by those who would rather browbeat others into agreeing with them than to determine the truth of the matter. "The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 09:31 PM Bobert, You have yjoined the vast group of Bush-haters, that will not even consider that perhaps the decision to remove Saddam from power, however poorly handled, was the correct decision based on whart was know at the time, and the risk that had been proven to exist by the events of 9/11. THAT is NOT a link of Saddam to 9/11- it is a link of the DANGER of terrorist acts against the US from multiple sources. "*****all****** are ******followers********...", as you have demonstrated countless times by attacking anyone who disagrees, rather than debating the facts of the matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 09:37 PM As I have said, the ADMINISTRATION DID NOT state that " Saddam had anything to do with 911 " They HAVE stated that Saddam may have provided some support, at some time , to Al-Queda. NOT THE SAME THING They HAVE claimed that, from the information available at the time, SADDAM's programs of WMD DEVELOPEMENT was a threat to the US. So did the UN and the rest of Europe, if you bother to read the UN reports. They HAVE claimed that Al-Queda is part of the present opposition we are fighting in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 30 May 07 - 09:39 PM BB: Now you're being disingenuous, which does not become you. Bush's rhetoric STROVE to conflate Al Qeda, 9-11, and Iraq over and over. It was intentional, an effort to impose associative logic between entities that should not have been associated, and it was done for the purpose of manipulating the mind-set of the listening populace to bring about a frame of mind amenable to Bush's intentions to unseat Saddam. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 May 07 - 09:48 PM Amos, YOU have failed to see that the truth does not support your striving to conflate Bush's statements that 9/11 showed how vunerable were are to terrorist acts: Saddam had in the past supported terrorist acts: Saddam's programs of WMD ***DEVELOPEMENT*** were a threat to the US: Al-Queda would benefit from a US defeat in Iraq: into a statement that was NOT made???????????????? Are you prepared to state that any of the above are false, or even misleading???? You're being disingenuous! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 30 May 07 - 11:29 PM Bruce: The administration stated over and over that Al Queda and Iraq were linked; that Al Queda caused 9-11; that the war in Iraq was, if I may paraphrase, vital to prevent another 9-11. If you are going to insist now on accepting only the literal version of their words, rather than their context, subtext, intent and rhetorical effect, then yu are being disingenuous. While you point to a number of facts that ARE being conflated, I am not the one doing the conflation --the conflation of Al Queda ==> Iraq <==>9-11<==>terrprism is a thread that runs thorugh all the major statements from Cheney, Bush, Rice, Rumsfield and lesser lights. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 30 May 07 - 11:48 PM We have had two whole threads on this in the past year or so. If BB still doesn't get it, he won't. Actually, I suspect that he *refuses* to despite the fact that deep down he knows he is frantically doging and weaving to avoid admitting an error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 31 May 07 - 02:37 AM "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said. Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places." Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 31 May 07 - 07:42 AM Teribus-- Interesting that you no longer claim to hold the higher ground of no personal attacks. It's obvious why. Any number of posters could destroy your assertion easily with copious quotes by you. Re: Sistani At one point, Sadr did indeed have more influence than Sistani--as I pointed out. Sorry if you don't like facts. Sistani's pan-Islamic tolerance was swamped by Sadr's fiery sectarianism. It was unclear why Sistani was saying very little publicly--but a reasonable guess that it was that he realized that if he did say something he would not be heeded--which would further undercut him. It is in fact still unclear which of the two attitudes prevails in Iraq. A good argument can be made that sectarianism still rules. Re: Sunnis--Sorry, I was the one who kept hammering away at the necessity for Sunni concerns to be addressed. It took you quite a while to admit that--for a long time you lumped all Iraqi Sunnis together, saying they should just admit they were no longer in charge. So sorry to point out that if you want to put down an insurgency, you have to give potential supporters of that insurgency reason to believe you will address their concerns. But I'm sure you know better--after all, your solution of force and refusal to address concerns worked so well in North America circa 1775-1783. Re: Iraq propaganda campaign:---so sorry your ego still prevents you from acknowledging the obvious. You are invited to peruse the voluminous threads on that topic. And I never said that a Bush spokesman had stated that Saddam caused 9-11----just that the Bush regime sought--with wonderful success--to link the two in the mind of the US public. Especially by predicting that Saddam would be supplying the next 9-11 style attack with his WMD. Again, so sorry that you don't like facts-- but as a Bush supporter, it's not surprising. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 31 May 07 - 07:49 AM Yeah, TIA, you are absolutely correct... Those who *still* worship George Bush will go to their graves with the same opinions that they hold today... After the Iraq war is *officially* lost and the US pulls out these folks will say the same things that the Nixonite's say about Vietnam whcih is, "If we'd only stayed longer we would have won..." BTW, the US intellegence agency has gone on record of saying that it is "highly unlikeley" that al-Qeada of Iraq poses any danger to our homeland.... So much for Bush's "War on Terrorism" as it has been highjacked by Bush's unilaterial decision to go after Saddam... His own Treasury Secretary said as much in describing the Bush priorities well before 9/11??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: TIA Date: 31 May 07 - 08:49 AM And now Bush says we may be in Iraq for 50 years "like South Korea". Funny, I remember being told "six days, six weeks...I don't think six months." {Rummie, 2003} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 31 May 07 - 01:09 PM Oh Ron, please don't misunderstand, I have got absolutely no qualms whatsoever in making personal attacks against such likes as yourself. Whenever anybody (specifically you) enters into a discussion on something that somebody (GWB, et al) has said and opens with declaring that he (Ron) never actually bothers to listen to what was said or read what was actually said, but instead relies on what was reported, my immediate reaction is that that person (Ron) must be a complete and utter tosser. Little wonder Ron that your take on things is so misinformed. The ONLY time that Al-Sadr EVER tried to play his hand in Iraq Ron was when he waited for Sistani to leave the country for medical treatment. Sistani came back and Al-Sadr wound his neck back in, very quickly, and that has been where it has remained ever since. There are far, far more Shia clerics throughout Iraq follow the teachings and advice given by Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani than listen to the likes of Al-Sadr, that is Al-Sistani's power and influence, he does not have to appear infront of the media frothing at the mouth and calling down death and destruction - that he could achieve with a whisper. And No Ron, you are the one who lumps ALL Iraqi Sunni's together. Take a wade through our posts where they are mentioned. I tend to differentiate between Arab Sunni Iraqi's and Kurdish Sunni Iraqi's. You on the other hand tend to refer to the population of Iraq as being Shia, Sunni and Kurds, possibly through ignorance, or possibly due to denial that while Kurdish Sunni and Shia seem to live together quite peacefully, Arab Sunni and Shia cannot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 07 - 02:57 PM Bobert, You forgot to add that Those who *hate* George Bush will go to their graves with the same opinions that they hold today... In both cases, the facts are not considered. I neither worship nor hate: In SOME cases, I think Bush made correct decisions, in others I feel he did not, from what information is available to me. As more information becomes known, MY opinion is subject to change, unlike a number of people here who have decided regardless of ANY facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 07 - 04:17 PM Amos, You stated: "The administration stated over and over that Al Queda and Iraq were linked; that Al Queda caused 9-11; that the war in Iraq was, if I may paraphrase, vital to prevent another 9-11. " Did Al-queda cause 9-11? I have been given information to think that they did. Am I misinformed? Was Saddam in the past a supporter of terrorist groups? I have been told that he had, in several instances. Am I misinformed? Had Saddam demonstrated that he was willing to use WMD against civlians and in combat before? You can ask the Kurds he gassed. Would Saddam have been a threat to the US if he continued, in violation of the UN Resolutions, his WMD DEVELOPMENT programs? According to the UN reports, yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 07 - 04:33 PM The questions one SHOULD ask are Are we safer now than we would have been if we had not attacked Saddam? THAT is a debate: One must consider both the increased risk due to animosity, the decreased risk due to the ending of the WMD DEVELOPMENT efforts, the increased/decreased risk due to the fear of other nations about what the US is willing to do. At this point, the discussion has not been started. The same discussion should be made about Iran: What is the increase of risk IF we attack vs. the risks if we do not, given the failures of diplomacy? How many will die in a global thermonuclear war (if we allow Iran to use WMD) vs, how many will die in a conventional invasion ( if the UN takes military action) vs. how many will die in a limited strategic strike ( if the US or Israel decides it is in danger of attack). Of course, the chance of a limited strike leading to GTW is high. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 31 May 07 - 07:40 PM Well you see Bruce it was the UN weapons inspectors engaged by UNSCOM that told the world exactly what, according to their investigations, Saddam Hussein may, or may not have had. Oddly enough the world, including the USA and the UK, believed those weapons inspectors reports. They went to great lengths to explain them before the United Nations Security Council in January 1999. Note the date people. GWB did not invent any stories in relation to what Iraq and SH had, all he was doing was quoting from the UNSCOM Report. The previous administration's evaluation of the threat to the USA, to it's interests and to it's allies did not differ one jot from the line adopted by the first term administration of the current President of the United States of America - hardly surprising exactly the same people were involved. Main difference being that 911 happened on GWB's watch, while WJC could prevaricate and dither, given the same threat evaluation GWB could not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 31 May 07 - 08:00 PM What the Hell is this??? A tag team wrestling match??? Nevermind... Ahhhhh, BB... This may come as a big shock to you but I like Bush... Wouldn't mind throwin' down a few pretzels (wink, wink) with him... He's a nice guy with a great sense of humor... Life of the party, etc... No, as I have said over.... and over... and over.... I don't hate Bush... I hate his terribly failed policies which I don't belive have furthered our nation's collective interests but set them back... Everywhere I look with what he and his people have done I see nuthing but failure and a genuine lack of common sense thinking... I also see how money has overly influenced his administartion making it perhaps the corrupt administartion of our times... These are observations and should not be confused with... ...hate, 'cause I'm just not programed to hate... Bad (good) parents, I guess... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 31 May 07 - 08:09 PM I would be happy to have George Bush as owner of my town's baseball team anytime. And he looks quite trim and nice in his suits too. Hell of a great guy all around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 31 May 07 - 08:23 PM Now, I wouldn't want him as owner of my beloved Washington Nationals but that's more of his poor tarck record with the Texas Rangers which went downhill with Bush as the owner... The Nationals are having enough problems without Bush... But I agree that he's a "great guy all around" (except runnin' companies... or countries...) B+) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 31 May 07 - 08:34 PM "which I don't belive have furthered our nation's collective interests but set them back." I can respect your beliefs, without agreeing with them. You are entitled to your own opinion: Why do you keep verbally abusing all those who don't share that opinion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 31 May 07 - 10:58 PM Sorry, Teribus--your record, as usual, betrays you. Over and over you told us the Sunnis should just accept that they no longer ruled Iraq. And I told you--for months--that you--and Maliki--needed to take Sunni concerns into account. Specifically that the Sunnis must be able to 1) trust the police and 2) be guaranteed more oil revenue than would accrue to the "Sunni parts" of Iraq. Which part of this do you deny? Even your remark about "Kurdish Sunni" shows your unchallenged status as Western military fossil somewhat out of his depth outside Europe. In fact "Sunni" doesn't mean much to many Kurds--they are Kurds first--and many are quite secularly oriented--don't even play the sectarian game. You may want to do a bit more reading. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 01 Jun 07 - 12:59 AM Who reported, or relayed, that crap to you Ron, that you swallow it up and regurgitate it so willingly? Shia and Sunni "labels" refer to religion Ron. The ethnic composition includes: Arab, 70–74%; Kurdish, 22-24%; Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%. The religious composition includes: Muslim, 97%; Christian or other, 3%. Two estimates of the Muslim proportions of the population are: Shi'a as much as 60%, Sunni about 40% (source: Britannica, Religion section of Iraq article). Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37% (source: CIA World Fact Book). The Shi'a are mostly Arabs some Turkmen and Faili Kurds almost all are Twelver school. Sunnis are composed of Arabs, Turkmen who are Hanafi school and Kurds who are Shafi school. Over and over I have told you that the Arab Sunni's have to abandon their support of the insurgency and for Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq in order to have their "concerns" addressed - That Ron they are now doing. As for my experience of life Ron, well you haven't really got a clue have you? But then knowing absolutely nothing about a subject has never stopped you from making assinine remarks related to it before, has it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 01 Jun 07 - 10:12 AM To your corners, gentlemen; bell has rung. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 01 Jun 07 - 11:44 AM Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press Writers Thu, May. 31, 2007 BAGHDAD -- U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to a councilman and other residents of the Sunni district. The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces. Three more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in combat, raising the number of American deaths to at least 122 for May, making it the third deadliest month for Americans in the conflict. The military said two soldiers died Wednesday from a roadside bomb in Baghdad and one died of wounds inflicted by a bomb attack northwest of the capital Tuesday. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. He said the battles raged Wednesday and Thursday but died off at night. Although al-Qaida is a Sunni organization opposed to the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, its ruthlessness and reliance on foreign fighters have alienated many Sunnis in Iraq. The U.S. military congratulated Amariyah residents for standing up to al-Qaida. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. A U.S. military officer, who agreed to discuss the fight only if not quoted by name because the information was not for release, said the Army was checking reports of a big al-Qaida enclave in Amariyah housing foreign fighters, including Afghans, doing temporary duty in Iraq. The heaviest fighting came at 11 a.m. when gunmen - identified by residents as al-Qaida fighters - began shooting randomly into the air, forcing people to flee into their homes and students from classrooms. http://www.sunherald.com/311/story/66573.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Jun 07 - 12:01 PM The insurgents are the Iraqi people which are comprised of many different religious persuasions. Al Quaeda can't be quantified because no one really knows who is a member or acts on a specific directive. The stats being offered in this thread have no evidencial substance because those doing the punditry have not been in Iraq for any length of time or at all. The best sources on Iraq are not the AP or the right-wing megaphone. There are some reliable sources who have written news based on their experience either as Iraqis or those who have observed the carnage first hand. These are few. Mostly what Americans and Brits hear are propagandized stats and polemics based on flawed international policies such as violent coercion and ideological short-circuits. When someone rambles on about what they think they know, it is most certainly suspect as to its accuracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 01 Jun 07 - 02:55 PM Its taken how long for the U.S. to realize that they should be targeting al Qaeda and not the Mahdi Army? I hope the Sunnis continue to distance themselves from al Qaeda and that Sunnis and Shiites will realize that peace will occur when al Qaeda and the U.S. leave the governing of Iraq to the Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:00 PM Its taken how long for the Mahdi Army to realize that they should be targeting al Qaeda and not the U.S.? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:16 PM The US will gladly leave it to the Iraqi Government, when they are capable. al Jazeera: Iraqi group 'splits' from al-Qaeda Al-Shammari: Al-Qaeda has a different agenda from that of the Islamic Army in Iraq [Al Jazeera] One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. "In the beginning, we were dealing with Tawhid and Jihad organisation, which turned into al-Qaeda in Iraq," he said, his identity obscured for security reasons. "Specifically after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members." Al-Shammari said al-Qaeda in Iraq was in pursuit of a different agenda to that of the Islamic Army in Iraq "They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/37A1B44F-F804-40C5-BF5E-9699FD1B67E3.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:18 PM "When someone rambles on about what they think they know, it is most certainly suspect as to its accuracy" Does this apply to you as well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 01 Jun 07 - 11:17 PM Gee, Teribus, sounds like you're not too happy. As the Pope would say, I'm so sorry if you took offense at anything I said. Sounds like I may have struck a nerve. Pobrecito. Don't forget--losing your temper is the surest way to lose an argument. Just a bit of advice. You need not thank me. Now you were going to tell us which part of my statement you deny: 1) that you told us repeatedly that the Sunnis should just accept that they no longer ruled Iraq, and 2) that I said repeatedly that Sunni concerns must be addressed--and I specified those concerns. Can't imagine how it could have slipped your mind to actually answer the question. Though it does seem to be a common Bushite failing. Still waiting patiently. Perhaps, as I said earlier, you'd also like to regale us with the success your strategy--no concessions to insurgents or potential supporters, but use of force instead--had in North America circa 1775-1783. Especially before Saratoga--when negotiation had a chance. After Saratoga and the French entry, incentive for the colonies to remain colonies went down, you may be aware. Or perhaps not. By the way, are your figures lies, damned lies or statistics? Just curious. And if you don't think the Kurds in "Kurdistan" are becoming progressively more Western-oriented--and more secular, then, as I said, you need to do a bit more reading. Might I suggest the Economist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 01 Jun 07 - 11:22 PM Dickey-- Thanks so much for your article about Amariyah. Can't imagine why you left out part of the story--that the mayor of Amariyah said "But if the Americans interfere, it will blow up because they are the enemy of us both and we will unite against them and stop fighting each other." (Per Washington Post.com) You couldn't possibly have left this out since it undercuts your Pollyanna posting. Not you. You'd never do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 02 Jun 07 - 04:35 AM "Over and over you told us the Sunnis should just accept that they no longer ruled Iraq." - Ron (Look-it-up)Davies Quite correct Ron I have said that over and over again. Guess what Ron? The Sunni Arabs even acknowledge that reality these days, but for some reason Ron Davies does not. The Sunni Arab minority have known for sometime now that they can no longer dictate to the rest of the country what goes and what doesn't. That Ron, is what one would call political reality. For a while they thought that they could foment a general insurrection with the help of foreign groups - that failed. Then under advisement from those foreign groups they attempted to instigate a civil war in the country - that too failed. They (the Sunni Arab leadership) are now turning against the insurgents and the groups of foreign backed fighters (Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, et al) as the path that they wish to lead people down goes nowhere. In order to have any of their "concerns" addressed, Ron, the Sunni Arab minority of Iraq have to abandon the insurrection and enter the political process, another thing that I have stated over and over, and something that they (the Sunni Arab leadership) have been turning to in varying degrees since the elections of 2005. North America 1775-1783? Exactly what relevance has that got to what is under discussion here? By the bye, Ron (L-I-U) Davies, sources were given for the figures in my previous post. If you doubt them please provide figures of your own backed up by a credible source. My opinions on the Kurdish population in Iraq and in the region in general are irrelevant to this discussion. That does not alter the fact one iota that Sunni and Shia Kurds have managed to live together harmoniously, while for some reason their Arab counterparts cannot. For a long time the Kurds in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia did have a common uniting force - Saddam Hussein - he didn't care how many of either religious sect he persecuted, tortured, maimed or killed. But neither he, nor his sons, nor his odious regime can do that any more Ron, can they Ron? So the Kurdish population of Iraq quietly get on with their lives and are prospering. Maybe the fruits of their example will permeate through to the Arab population of Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Jun 07 - 10:04 AM Uh, Teribus. Good to see you finally acknowledge that you did say "the Sunnis" should just admit they are no longer in charge in Iraq. Too bad you somehow have missed the fact that I never said they should not. My point was that you, for a long time, were sloppy enough to talk of "the Sunnis" having to admit this--when actually very few of them had any intention of asserting they were in charge. After all, Sunnis who spoke out against Saddam or were seen as rivals suffered under him, just like other Iraqis. And somehow you've left out the second part of my statement--that the Sunnis must be assured their interests are taken into consideration. Specifically--once more with feeling--they must be 1) able to trust the police and 2) assured of more oil income than would accrue to just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq. Must be that old Bushite failing of bad reading--otherwise I'm sure you would have admitted the truth of what I say. Good to see, however, that you've simmered down a bit--managing to keep your temper in check. Perhaps you've not such a disaster as a debater after all. You're learning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 02 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM "Perhaps you're not" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 02 Jun 07 - 10:29 AM The part that RD left out of the same article for some "unknown" reason: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18950252/ John Ward Anderson Washiungton Post "I think this is going to be the end of the al-Qaeda presence here," Abdul Khaliq said of the fighting Wednesday and Thursday, which began over accusations that al-Qaeda in Iraq had executed Sunnis without reason. The Baghdad battle is evidence of a deepening split between some Sunni insurgent groups and al-Qaeda in Iraq, which claims allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Although similar rebellions occurred in Diyala province earlier this year, the fighting this week appears to be the first time the conflict has reached the streets of Baghdad...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:05 AM U.S., al-Qaida battle in Iraq American troops aid Sunni residents in Baghdad district Associated Press, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times Posted: June 1, 2007 "I think this is going to be the end of the al-Qaida presence here," said the mayor of the Amariyah neighborhood, Mohammed Abdul Khaliq..." http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=613389 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 07 - 04:53 PM Yo, bb, Just for the record, my observation that the Bushite's here will go to their graves thinking that invading Iraq was the right thing to do... That is an observation and not "verbal abuse"... You might not agree with my observations but, geeze, pal, "verbal abuse"??? B;-> |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:29 AM The defeatiists here will go to their graves thinking surrender was the right thing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:49 AM Surrender? To whom? Surrender to the Iraqis? There is no surrender involved. All the U.S. has to do is go home and give Iraq back to the Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 03 Jun 07 - 05:06 AM Unless I have missed something dianavan Iraq was given back to the Iraqi's at least two years ago. The MNF currently present in Iraq are there at the specific request of the internationally recognised, elected and duly constituted government of Iraq backed by an equally specific Mandate issued by the Security Council of the United Nations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 07 - 09:10 AM Fine, T... Them why are we still over there killing people and getting killed... Surrender, Dickey???? Yeah, it's time for Bush to surrneder to the wishes of the people... That's what democracy is all about... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:35 AM Surender to al-Qaeda is Bobert's advice. Law enforcement is loosing the war on crime. More and police officers are being killed. Should we withdraw? Should we withdraw for the war on drugs? Poverty? Let's withdraw and let the poor, the drug dealers and the crooks sort it out themselves. Americans See Troops in Iraq When Bush Leaves June 2, 2007 (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States believe the coalition effort will still be active when the second term of their current head of state expires, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive released by UPI. 93.3 per cent of respondents think U.S. troops would still be in Iraq when U.S. president George W. Bush leaves office...." http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15960 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 03 Jun 07 - 02:08 PM Teribus - Then you agree that Dickey is an idiot for assuming that surrender is even possible. Dickey needs to realize that withdrawl does not mean surrender and that al Qaeda has no reason to be in Iraq except to target the U.S. If the U.S. goes, al Qaeda will stop their attacks. If the U.S. goes, the Mahdi Army will also stop attacking the U.S. That leaves the Iraqi govt. to sort out their own problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 03 Jun 07 - 06:59 PM "Teribus - Then you agree that Dickey is an idiot for assuming that surrender is even possible." - Dianavan On the contrary dianavan, Dickey is one of the more rational contributers to these threads. He states his case supported by relevant fact and logic as opposed to emotional claptrap, myths and half truths. Now let's take a look at the remainder of the twaddle "Dickey needs to realize that withdrawl does not mean surrender" Oh yes it does dianavan, the troops constituting the MNF are there at the request of the Iraqi Government and the UN. If the Dems instigate a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the consequences for the US armed forces would be nothing short of disasterous. "al Qaeda has no reason to be in Iraq except to target the U.S." They were already in Iraq dianavan, Saddam invited them and allowed them to set up bases to kill Shia Kurds. For Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organisation to be successful they have to dictate the ground they fight over, they have to dictate tactics and strategy, they have to pick their targets. In both Iraq and in Afghanistan they have been sucked into a fight that is not on their terms. In Afghanistan they are losing and losing badly. In Iraq those who up until recently supported them are now turning on them, in 2006 alone in Iraq they lost over 4,000 men. "If the U.S. goes, al Qaeda will stop their attacks." Now where on earth does this piece of inspired nonsense come from? Al-Qaeda was attacking the US long before Afghanistan or Iraq became a news item. What planet are you living on? What on earth induces you to make that statement? Al-Qaeda's track record flies in the face of it. "If the U.S. goes, the Mahdi Army will also stop attacking the U.S." I do not believe that the Mehdi Army is attacking the US. The US and Iraqi Security Forces are attacking militia groups in general, but Al-Sadr has obeyed the wishes of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani and kept his men off the streets. The Iraqi government is sorting out their own problems. In Bosnia it took 15 years, in Iraq it might take a bit longer. I think if you look up some of my previous posts you will find that I predicted at least 15 to 20 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 03 Jun 07 - 07:46 PM "That is an observation and not "verbal abuse"... You might not agree with my observations but, geeze, pal, "verbal abuse"???" OK, I can continue to call you a bigot for your opinions of those who disagree with you, and you can continue to call me a "Bushite". Or you can stop the use of that term, that I have stated that I find it to be offensive and unjustified. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 03 Jun 07 - 08:11 PM "If the U.S. goes, al Qaeda will stop their attacks." That should read "...stop their attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq." If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no U.S. troops to attack in Iraq. "If the Dems instigate a premature withdrawal from Iraq, the consequences for the US armed forces would be nothing short of disasterous." What consequences? Its already a disaster. The longer the U.S. is in Iraq, the more soldiers will die. Bring them home, now! I agree, the Mahdi Army is not targetting U.S. soldiers, in general. They are mostly involved in reprisal killings. This can, however, involve kidnappings or death if a U.S. soldier kills a Shia. Where do you get the idea that al Qaeda were already in Iraq at Saddam's request? That was Bush propaganda (along with WMD's) that he used as a reason to invade Iraq. Since then, we now know that al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. You already know all of this, teribus, take your head out of the sand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 07 - 08:15 PM Bushite = abuse??? Okay, bb, seein' as you are one of the staunchest Bush suppo9rters in this joint, what term would like??? True believer??? Blind follower??? Idiot??? Geeze... People who tend to agree with your positions didn't mind labeling Clinton supporters, of which I was not, as Clinton"ites"... Was that verbal abuse??? Geeze Loiuse... If you think I'm abusing you verbally for using a term that came right out of the Republican "play book" with the "ites" behind their heros then there's only one thing I have to say and that is... ...bite me... Jus funnin' But let's get real here for just one dangedf second... How many times have you come here and called me a "liar"... That, in my book, is over the line...Especially since ***you*** are the one who most folks fu7lly understand has no problemn with inventing things that you wished the other person had said and then attacking that made up thing they said... You've been called on this by several members here in Mudville over the years and, okay, I'll give you credit for having tryed to real it in, it doesn't exactly make you the Knight in Shining Armor when it come to integrity... (Oh, BObert, that's verbal abuse...) Bull!!! That's just not letting Bully Bruce stick a label on me that I ain't earned... So back to the releavent question... What does one call a Bush "follower" if these same "followers" don't like being called Bushites after 8 years of labeling Clinton "followers" as Clinton"ites"??? Seems there is more than a little hypocrisy going on here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 07 - 08:19 PM BTW, bb, before you get on your high horse and deny being a Bush "follower", how about providing a few of your old posts where you have broken with any of his policies or positions... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 07 - 07:54 AM Bobert, "has no problemn with inventing things that you wished the other person had said and then attacking that made up thing they sai" Care to give an exanple?? As long as there is no further objection to me calling those I disagree with "Democraps" and terms of that ilk, you may use whatever label you wish- BUT be sure that *I* have actually made the comments that you want to attribute to me. "How many times have you come here and called me a "liar"" Many times- WHENEVER I have found you making statements that were shown to be untrue, pointed out as untrue to you with the supporting sources, and YOU then repeated the falsehood. THAT is what a lie is. I have repeatedly stated that I did not agree with the execution f the war in Iraq- I DID, and continue to, feel that the reasons for the attack, given what was known at the time, was correct. There have been other occasions where I have stated by dislike of some particular policies: NOT because they were presented by Bush, as most here seem to rely on for what they support, but because *I* did not think that THOSE policies would be effective, or produce the desired result. But in the last election, the Democrats offered nothing other than "not-Bush" : When they bother to have a candidate who is running ON something, I will consider him/her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 07 - 08:29 AM Eccuse me, that should be Bully Bobert, I guess... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 04 Jun 07 - 10:26 AM Viva la Revolución ! Hopefully the evil dictator in Iraq will have been replaced by a dipolomaticaly elected government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Jun 07 - 11:16 AM "dipolomaticaly elected government." One run by US industrialists, mercenary soldiers, hegomonic politicians and military bases including the largest US installation in the Middle East. Democracy in Iran? Good luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 07 - 08:36 PM From the Washington Post: Stay-the-Course Plus Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on Steroids By Fred Hiatt Monday, June 4, 2007; Page A15 You might expect the candidates in this presidential election to want to lead the nation in radically new foreign policy directions. The incumbent, after all, is widely perceived to have driven the country off a cliff. You might expect a retreat to humility and pragmatism after George Bush's wildly ambitious, and thus far stymied, freedom agenda. You might also think, given the bitter partisan divisions in Washington, that the two parties would offer programs differing radically from each other. And you might figure that, if anyone is positioned to strike out in such new directions, it would be Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, neither of whom is burdened by much foreign policy history on the national stage. Now those two candidates have laid out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released last week prior to publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find: (1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other. (2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy. (3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is an operative word for both of them. Obama begins: "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew." Romney writes: "In the aftermath of World War II and with the coming of the Cold War, members of the 'greatest generation' united America and the free world around shared values and actions that changed history. . . . Our times call for equally bold leadership." The two differ in some respects, of course. Romney puts more emphasis on combating radical Islam and less on promoting freedom. Obama dwells more on Bush's failures and the value of diplomacy and endorses a "phased withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. But even there, the differences are not as stark as the candidates would like them to appear. Obama would maintain in Iraq enough troops "to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda." And the similarities dwarf the differences. Both want bigger, not smaller, armed forces: Obama calls for an additional 92,000 ground troops, Romney for 100,000. Obama calls for a doubling of foreign aid; Romney wants a Marshall Plan-like "Partnership for Prosperity and Progress" that would support schools, microcredit, the rule of law, human rights, health care and the free market in Islamic states. Romney says that "the jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation," as real as the threat that was posed by Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, and he promises an appropriately sized response. Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." Both want to revamp domestic bureaucracies, intelligence agencies and institutions far beyond post-Sept. 11 reforms. Romney would pool the civilian agencies of the government, assign to each region of the world a civilian leader equivalent to the powerful regional military commander and make him or her responsible for promoting U.S. interests and "building the foundations of freedom, democracy, security and peace." Strikingly, both want to reinvigorate existing multilateral alliances and to create new ones. Both point to flaws in the United Nations but say the United States should work to cure them rather than pull out. Both want renewed attention to securing loose nukes around the world. Each of their calls for change carries criticism of the Bush administration, implicit in Romney's case, explicit -- and eloquent -- in Obama's. The United States cannot promote its values abroad unless it lives by them at home, Obama says, pledging an end to secret prisons and other abuse of detainees. A president cannot sell an active foreign policy, he says, unless he "can restore the American people's trust" at home. But in both cases, the criticism is not that Bush took on too much but that he accomplished too little. "We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership," says Romney. Agrees Obama: "We can be this America again. . . . [A]n America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more." If Iraq-weary voters are looking for someone who will call on America to "come home," they won't find that candidate here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 04 Jun 07 - 09:10 PM Oh... It's okay to call people liars because you don't happen to agree with them, bb??? Yes _____ No ______ As for you assetrtion that I have told ***lies*** when it comes down to it it has always come down to you ***believing*** your right winged Bushit sources over my sources... You have never proved that I have lied... You have ***proclaimed*** that I have lied... Big difference... I think history is on my side... You ahve supported the Iraq war since the very beginning... One Bushite assertion/supposition/statement of fact that your side ahs put forth has been proven to be wrong... Yet, you call me the liar??? And, beyond that, you say I am verbally abusive??? Go figure... Yer side has been shown to be on the wrong side of the truth equation and I'm the bad guy for not allowing you to call me a liar at wiil... And when I protest being called a liar by someone who has been wrong so badly on every aaspect of the Iraq war you accsue me of being werablly abusive because I call you a Bushite... You and yer folks didn't mind callin' folk Clintonitesm did ya??? Tell ya what, bb... You are showing your creepy side and so as to not ***********verabally abuse*********** you ever againI will ignore you hypocritical, self righteous, word twisting, proectionistic, borish, blow-hardish and dishonest self... Good, the heck, bye, Creepo... Have a nice little psychotic life... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 04 Jun 07 - 11:57 PM Ah Bruce, from your exchange with Bobert it would seem that you have encountered the "BOBERT FACT", i.e. some line of tripe that he comes out with time after time despite it having been shown to have been incorrect, or just plainly untrue. Bobert believes that if he repeats it often enough people will get tired of correcting, or challenging him on it and after a while it gets accepted as being true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:49 AM "dipolomaticaly" -Ooops- Democratically elected government |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:58 AM Yes, the sooner the U.S. leaves Iraq, the better. They have just solidified their Kurdish support which means they will now be involved in battles with Turkey and possibly Iran while trying to defend themselves from within Iraq. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_turkey_06_04.asp Who are these idiots who insist on digging themselves deeper and deeper? They are practically surrounded and still they continue to act as if they have the upper-hand. Even I can see that they should retreat to Kurdish territory and evacuate. Maybe they should move the troops to Afghanistan so they can find bin Laden. Hint: he's hiding out on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Probably somewhere near Kashmir. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 05 Jun 07 - 09:45 AM Dianavan: Do you know that Bin Ladem is alive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:41 AM These guys just amaze me. A hundred thousand dead bodies killed in an arbitrary and unnecessary war, and they just go, oh, oops, well, they probably deserved it anyway and besides we have to respond to the terrorist threat... Your terror, sir, knows less conscience than those you assign it to. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 05 Jun 07 - 01:40 PM Dickey - Do you know that bin Laden is dead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:23 PM "Oh... It's okay to call people liars because you don't happen to agree with them, bb???" MY STATEMENT: "Many times- WHENEVER I have found you making statements that were shown to be untrue, pointed out as untrue to you with the supporting sources, and YOU then repeated the falsehood. THAT is what a lie is." I stand by THAT statement- NOT your warped view of accepting what you want to believe without ANY backing, and demanding that all others accept it as well, but denying that ANYTHING you disagree with can be true, even when hard facts are presented to support it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:25 PM Oh, MR. SCREAMER is back... Ho hum... SCREAMING does not = truth but have at it... BTW... ...liar, liar. liar, pants on fire... B! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:35 PM Entered your second childhood, have you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:04 PM Dickey-- Still waiting, with the patience of Job, for you to tell us what a "stable government" in Iraq would look like. Your whining about "Clinton's fault" just doesn't answer the question, it hurts me to tell you. It is a totally legitimate question, since, as I said earlier, a "stable government" in Iraq is a main objective, according to you, and a means of determining we have "won". And, as a respected poster who is by no means an amazingly credulous right-wing fool, you have a good answer, I'm sure. I do not intend to let you go without a sensible answer, though your question-dodging skills are indeed impressive. As I said earlier, there's a place for you in the (wreckage of the) Bush regime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:06 PM Dianavan: Why can't the US Military find Bin Laden? Come on now, when I ask a question it indicates that you are supposed to know the answer and if you don't answer it the way I want it answered or if you don't answer at all it proves that you are wrong about something. Of course you can ask an opposing question to try to prove you are still right but neither action proves anything. Proof consists of actual facts, not questions, insinuations, rhetoric and personal attacks. Debate is not a put down contest. Now getting back to the debate, you assert that UBL is "hiding out on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan." That indicates to me that you know he is alive. Is that correct or am I in for more personal attacks and counter questions in lieu of an answer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:24 PM Teribus-- "The Iraqi government is sorting out their own problems. In Bosnia, it took 15 years, in Iraq it might take a bit longer"--3 June 2007 6:59 PM. Clever moving of the goalposts. Too bad we saw you do it. One little problem. You're right that it has taken about 15 years in Bosnia. But, sorry, o brilliant analyst-- (I wouldn't want to say "clueless Western military fossil"--perish the thought)--it was not Bosnia that broke up. It was Yugoslavia. Now, tell us, has Yugoslavia been restored? Only if Yugoslavia, after 15 years, had been restored, would your happy drivel about "sorting out their own problems" have any relevance.. Instead, your bright and chipper-- (did I say airhead?--surely not)--analysis is predicting that at the end of 15 years "or a bit longer", not Iraq, but "Kurdistan", and the Shiite territory of southern Iraq, etc., will have worked out their problems--as several new states made up of the wreckage of Iraq-- (just as new states--or indeed old states-- came out of Yugoslavia). And you may have noticed--but perhaps, based on your powers of observation, you haven't--that this is not the goal Mr. Bush is now trumpeting. It might help if you actually read what you yourself write. Perhaps checking to see if it made sense? And didn't destroy your own argument? It doesn't seem much to ask. Just a bit of advice--if you want to be taken seriously. But perhaps you don't. Though it pains me to say it-- (you can be sure it does)-- you are becoming progressively more of a self-parody. But entertaining, I hasten to add. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 06 Jun 07 - 01:44 AM Ron, You demonstrate your lack of skills in comprehension admirably, or if the kindest interpretation is put on your last deliberately in order to distract. The comparison being made was not that Iraq is like Bosnia, quite the opposite. Read again what I have written then actually take the time to think about it. As you correctly state it was Yugolavia that broke up, Bosnia didn't. Even then the international peace-keeping/stabilisation force in Bosnia had to remain in place for 15 years. With that as a relatively recent example, in a fairly "simple" situation, why is that the anti-Bush, anti-war chatterers wail that Iraq, a much more complex situation, is not all light and roses within four years - totally unrealistic. Oh and before any of you come out and quote Rummie (6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months), that as you all know referred to the fighting required to overcome Saddam Hussein's forces. On that particular prediction he was right on the button. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 06 Jun 07 - 02:49 AM If the U.S. were looking for bin Laden, they wouldn't be in Iraq. I certainly do not know where he is but we know al Qaeda has training camps there and that he has been seen there. The point is, the U.S. is more interested in oil than finding bin Laden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 07 - 07:21 AM Well, well, well... There was an article in the Post a couple days ago where someone grom the Bush administartion compared Iraq not to Vietnam but to Korea??? Now here's a scarely thought... Lets see... We went to Korea in like, ahhhhhh, '52.... 2007 - 1952 = 55 years???? Hmmmmmmm??? Don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell ya that if the US is still in Iraq even 40 years from now that the US will be bankrupt... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 06 Jun 07 - 11:28 AM "Where do you get the idea that al Qaeda were already in Iraq at Saddam's request? That was Bush propaganda (along with WMD's) that he used as a reason to invade Iraq. Since then, we now know that al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion." - GUEST,dianavan - 03 Jun 07 - 08:11 PM. I take it dianavan that you have not heard of this character before then: Najmuddin Faraj Ahmad, commonly known in the western media as Mullah Krekar, born July 7, 1956. He is an Iraqi Kurd who came to Norway as a refugee from northern Iraq in 1991. His wife and four children have Norwegian citizenship, but not Krekar himself. He speaks Kurdish, Arabic, Norwegian and English. Krekar was the original leader of the Islamist armed group Ansar al-Islam, which was set up and commenced operations in Iraqi Kurdistan while he had refugee status in Norway. Krekar claims, however, not to have had foreknowledge of the various terrorist attacks performed by the group he was leading. Since February 2003 he has an expulsion order against him, which is suspended pending Iraqi government guarantees that he will not face torture or execution. (In Norway it is illegal to expel someone if he is in risk of death or torture). Authorities in the Kurdish Regional Government in Northern Iraq have repeatedly asked for Ahmad ("Krekar") to be extradited from Norway. The death penalty remains on the books in the Kurdistan region. Most death sentences have been changed into life sentences since the Kurdish authorities took power in 1992, the exception being that eleven alleged members of Ansar al-Islam were hanged in the regional capital of Arbil in October 2006. While Krekar has not been found guilty of anything, a number of his opinions have met little sympathy; he was once recorded claiming that Osama bin Laden is the "jewel in the crown of Islam", and that he was proud of what Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "has done and that he has become a martyr". Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar became the leader of the merged Ansar al-Islam, which opposed an agreement made between IMK and the dominant Kurdish group in the area, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Ansar al-Islam fortified a number of villages along the Iranian border, with Iranian artillery support. The local villagers were subjected to harsh sharia laws; musical instruments were destroyed and singing forbidden. The only school for girls in the area was destroyed, and all pictures of women removed from merchandise labels. Sufi shrines were desecrated and members of the Kakkai (a non-Muslim Kurdish religious group) were forced to convert to Islam or flee. (Please note dianavan while Mullah Krekar wants everybody else to live under Sharia Law, he does not seem to wish the same fate for his own family - must have learned that from Tosser Arafat) Ansar al-Islam quickly initiated a number of attacks on the peshmerga (armed forces) of the PUK, on one occasion massacring 53 prisoners and beheading them. Several assassination attempts on leading PUK politicians were also made with car bombs and snipers. Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Soviet-Afghan War (Now then dianavan, any chance that they were some of Osama Bin Laden's boys on the lam from Afghanistan??), and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq. According to the United States, they had established facilities for the production of poisons, including ricin. The U.S. also claimed that Ansar al-Islam had links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. Mullah Krekar denied this claim, and declared his hostility to Saddam. Many local Kurds believe Saddam was happy to see an armed opposition engaging the PUK. Scholarly consensus is, however, that no formal links existed, though Baathist intelligence probably had infiltrated the group. OK dianavan take a good look at the dates, then tell me that such a group was nor present within the boundaries of Iraq prior to the invasion of March 2003. For any group of 300 men to enter a country and impose their rule of law over a certain area without the tacit approval and support of the regime in power is laughable. MGOH once tried to explain that they had set up shop in a Kurdish section of the country beyond the reach of Saddam, unfortunately geography was against that contention and the area was in a part of the country south of the boundary of the Northern No-Fly zone, i.e. firmly under the control of the Ba'athists in Baghdad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 06 Jun 07 - 12:08 PM Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam has no formal links to al Qaeda and there are allegations connecting al-Islam to Saddam but there is no proof that al Qaeda was operating under Saddam. At most, the Baathists may have infiltrated al Ansar al-Islam while Saddam was in power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 06 Jun 07 - 02:34 PM Tell me dianavan, who was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi again? Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001, it was formed by 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Soviet-Afghan War. Now can anybody think why in December 2001, 300 seasoned Islamic warriors should flee Afghanistan and set up shop in Iraq? Again please note the date dianavan December 2001. Remember your contention was that Al-Qaeda personnel did not enter Iraq until after March 2003. Could it possibly have anything to do with any of the following factors: 1) Taleban and Al-Qaeda had just recently received the biggest shock in their miserable lives - ousted from power in Afghanistan and now on the run literally for their lives. 2) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's training camps funded by one Osama bin Laden (Head of Al-Qaeda) were located in and around the Afghan city of Herat dianavan. Look at a map dianavan you will find the city of Herat in the west of Afghanistan near the Iranian border. 3) In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001, dianavan, who was the only national leader to publicly applaud the attacks and praise the attackers? Rhetorical question dianavan, you have no need to answer - it was Saddam Hussein of Iraq matter of record. 4) Where were Ansar al-Islam allowed to set up shop in Iraq dianavan? Was it anywhere close to the Iranian border? There was some mention of their camps being within range and cover of Iranian artillery. Saddam let them set up shop to act against the Kurds that he couldn't touch, but that would not predispose the membership of Ansar al-Islam to necessarily trust Saddam. So dianavan, in December 2001 they set up shop inside Iraq within easy bolting distance of Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Jun 07 - 02:45 PM "1) Taleban and Al-Qaeda had just recently received the biggest shock in their miserable lives - ousted from power in Afghanistan and now on the run literally for their lives." Taleban have not been ousted from power in Afghanistan. They are taking control again in spite of American attempts to curb them. "3) In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001, dianavan, who was the only national leader to publicly applaud the attacks and praise the attackers? Rhetorical question dianavan, you have no need to answer - it was Saddam Hussein of Iraq matter of record." but the jump to conclusions is that Saddam had anything at all to do with 911. There were a lot of malcontents who rejoiced in that terrible incident but they were not all Al Queada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 06 Jun 07 - 05:04 PM "Taleban have not been ousted from power in Afghanistan. They are taking control again in spite of American attempts to curb them." - Frank Hamilton aka Stringsinger OH yes they have Frank, they are getting the tanning of their lives in the very places where they swore that they would gather and slaughter NATO Forces sent against them. "There were a lot of malcontents who rejoiced in that terrible incident but they were not all Al Queada." - Frank Hamilton None of them were National Leaders or Heads of State. Now as an Al-Qaeda man on the run what sort of signal did Saddam's public rejoicing send. We know how it was received Ansar al-Islam set up shop in Iraq in December 2001. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:26 PM Even the US Intellegence Agency has dismissed the idea that al_Qeada in Iraq has much in common with bin Laden, otheer than this generalized jahidist common denominator... Hey, these are Bush's guys talking here since it seesm that whatever the Bushites want the beaurocrats to say the6 just lean on them until they say what the Bushites want them to say... Hmmmmmmmmm???? Sounds a whol;e liee the renditionin' of so called "enemy combatants" who are sent off to be tortured "offshore", doesn't it, 'cept these are governemtn employess??? Go figure???... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 06 Jun 07 - 10:22 PM "The implication that Zarqawi helped justify the war was thoroughly debunked last year by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Bush loyalist Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS.) It found: Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and...the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]" http://uruknet.info/?p=m33465&s1=h1 or http://zionweekly.blogspot.com/search/label/Abu%20Musab%20al-Zarqawi This is also about Zarqawi. "He first appeared in Iraq as the leader of the Tawhid and Jihad insurgent group, merging it in late 2004 with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm Before that, Zarqawi was in Iraq but he was not connected to al Qaeda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 07 Jun 07 - 02:13 AM Dianavan: I assume that you believe that UBL is alive, the US military is not searching for him and that is wrong because what they really want is oil. Correct? Or are you merely implying all that without actually saying so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 09 Jul 07 - 11:36 PM Subject: On going bad reporting by US Press on the "Surge Successes" Our rotted press corps, a division of "Camp Victory" Glenn Greenwald On June 22, the BBC -- under the headline: "'Al-Qaeda gunmen' killed in Iraq" -- reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/ 6230234.stm), along with virtually every major American media outlet, the following claim, without any challenge or questioning: US helicopters have killed 17 gunmen with suspected al-Qaeda links in Iraq's Diyala province north of Baghdad, the US military says. But unlike the American media outlets which mindlessly reported these "Al Qaeda kills," the BBC at least followed up on this story and found that there are substantial grounds, to put it mildly, for believing those claims were false. In a follow-up article -- prompted by protests from residents of the village where the "Al Qaeda kills" occurred -- the BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/ 6239896.stm): A group of villagers in Iraq is bitterly disputing the US account of a deadly air attack on 22 June, in the latest example of the confusion surrounding the reporting of combat incidents there. . . On 22 June the US military announced that its attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen who had been trying to infiltrate the village of al-Khalis, north of Baquba, where operation "Arrowhead Ripper" had been under way for the previous three days. The item was duly carried by international news agencies and received widespread coverage, including on the BBC News website. But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled. Minutes before the attack, they had been co-operating with an Iraqi police unit raiding a suspected insurgent hideout, the villagers said. They added that the guards, lightly armed with the AK47 assault rifles that are a feature of practically every home in Iraq, were essentially a local neighbourhood watch paid by the village to monitor the dangerous insurgent-ridden area to the immediate south- west at Arab Shawkeh and Hibhib, where the al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed a year ago. According to local witnesses, then -- none of whom were interviewed by the media outlets obediently reciting the U.S. military's dramatic narrative about "17 Al Qaeda fighters killed" -- those who were killed by the U.S. strikes had absolutely nothing to do with "Al Qaeda," but instead were guarding their own villages against the very Sunni insurgents whom we now call "Al Qaeda." UPDATE: As Chris Floyd pointed out (http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/Slandering_the_Dead% 3A_The_American_Massacre_at_al-Khalis/) in writing about this BBC investigation, that the 17 individuals we killed had nothing to do with "Al Qaeda" means, of course, that this incident -- as part of our Glorious War of Liberation, to Win Hearts and Minds -- is yet another "horrific massacre of Iraqi civilians." That is simply true by definition. And as Floyd notes, the media's mindless recitation of the military's Al Qaeda narrative here is particularly pitiful given that "al-Khalis is a largely Shiite village, on the side of the American-backed Iraqi government." From a correspondent to the IP List. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 Jul 07 - 11:58 PM Halberstam - "the first casualty of war is _______" ? Perhaps Dickey et. al. should fill in the blank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:30 AM To the Editor: I have passionately opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. When I wasn't marching or standing in candlelight vigils, I was busy writing to my Congressional representatives, the White House and the media. Yet I have been very uncomfortable with the many "plans" for ending the war. I have absolutely no idea the amount of time and effort it would take to transport our troops and their equipment out of Iraq. That is why I support your editorial to "leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." Regardless of our feelings about the military, they are the only ones with the experience and personnel to organize an orderly withdrawal. Our responsibility is to change the political direction to end this fiasco. The exact timeline and logistics of the withdrawal should be left to the military, with strong, independent civilian oversight. It is also important, as your editorial states, to aid the four million Iraqis who have been displaced by the war. It is our moral responsibility to provide assistance to the war's refugees if we are ever to recover any international credibility. They have fled their homes as a direct result of the actions of the Bush administration. Carl Anderson Tacoma, Wash., July 8, 2007 • To the Editor: "The Road Home" (editorial, June 8) is an admirable overview of the issues we face in withdrawing our troops from Iraq. With luck, the administration accepts that the era of foreign military bases in the Middle East is over and that after Iraq, we will be fortunate if we can retain what access to regional facilities we still enjoy. A clear statement that we do not seek permanent bases in Iraq would be helpful. Iraqis and others are convinced that we intend to use our bases to remake the map of the Middle East and dominate the region. We should end our continuing construction of major military facilities in Iraq, which only adds credibility to that assumption. Richard W. Murphy New York, July 8, 2007 The writer was assistant secretary of state for the Near East in the Reagan administration, 1983-89. • To the Editor: As the mother of an active-duty United States marine, I am conflicted by your editorial. While I applaud your bold stance — "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq" — it is clearly too little, too late. You admit to putting off this conclusion, hoping against hope that the feckless George W. Bush would have the vision or means to pull off a miracle in Iraq, while much of your reality-based readership foresaw the disaster, having already discounted the war-mongering propaganda well before the ill-fated invasion four years ago. My son is scheduled to return to the lost cause of Iraq next February. It will take much more than a lengthy editorial in The Times to bring the troops home by then, or any time in the foreseeable future. Lives, limbs and treasure will continue to be lost and spent in this endless quagmire, this nightmare of Kafkaesque proportions. Donna J. Anton Hayle, England, July 8, 2007 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:33 AM "The exact timeline and logistics of the withdrawal should be left to the military, with strong, independent civilian oversight." I think everyone except the present Democratic congresscritters and candidates can agree with this statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:34 AM 500! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 10 Jul 07 - 06:21 PM "I think everyone except the present Democratic congresscritters and candidates can agree with this statement" I would assert that the present Democritters and candidates would agree with this as well. Has any one of them ever said that the military should *not* handle the logistics and exact timeline? And I believe that the need for *independant* oversight is almost exactly what the 2006 midterms were about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: George Papavgeris Date: 10 Jul 07 - 06:50 PM I just visited this thread to read the first and last posts. My, what a difference a year makes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 07 - 09:44 PM Funny thing has happened here.... Okay, not so funny afterall but... ... the Bushites have been all but proven to be wrong... They were wrong in the manipulated intellegence used to sell this war... They were wrong about about being greated as liberators... They were wrong in thinking that they could instill democracy in Iraq which, BTW, was never given as a reason for invading Iraq... Every where one looks, they were, and ***still are***, wrong... I think we need to keep this in persepctive as the Bushites beg for just one more chance to prove that they were right... They are betting chips which turn out to be body bags... What we really need is a paradyme shift where we actaully start listening to other folks beefs and quit tryin' to jam our set of misguided priorities and values down their throats... This is the best way to fight terrorism... The 9/11 Comission said so... The Iraq Study group said so... Time to listen to someone other than a Bushite... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jul 07 - 07:28 AM Teribus-- Sorry I must have missed your reply. You are the one who, as usual, chooses to disregard the meaning of his own words. Very impressive. You must be a drowned rat by now from spending so much time in the river of denial. So, a little quiz for you. 1) Has Yugoslavia been restored? Yes or no. 2) Is Bosnia part of the former Yugoslavia? Yes or no. I fervently hope these questions are not beyond your comprehension. So sorry if you've answered them before, but you demonstrate an amazing ignorance as to their significance. I will, yet again, point out that it is you who brought up Bosnia as a model. Using your model, therefore: you are saying we should be happy since after 16 years part of Yugoslavia is now stable. Fine, my heart is appropriately gladdened. Continuing your own analogy, we should be happy if after 16 years part of Iraq is stable. But for some reason this is not what Mr. Bush is saying. He is saying that at some point in the future, not part of Iraq, but all of Iraq will be stable. However, your model is actually much more likely. After 16 years, a part of Iraq may be stable. But not the entire country, which will have shattered beyond repair. Like Yugoslavia. Let me again compliment you, as I said before, on your perceptive analysis----and on destroying your own argument for remaining in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:54 PM Bobert- nothing...NOTHING...pains the local Bushies more than the fact that l'il ole you were right, and they were f'ing wrong. They will twist, and spin, and divert, and quote utter horsecrap to avoid admitting this obvious truth. Now duck, 'cause here come the Bushies... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 12 Jul 07 - 12:31 PM 1) " The Iraqi government is sorting out their own problems. In Bosnia it took 15 years, in Iraq it might take a bit longer. I think if you look up some of my previous posts you will find that I predicted at least 15 to 20 years." – Teribus - 03 Jun 07 - 06:59 PM 2) "You're right that it has taken about 15 years in Bosnia. But, sorry, o brilliant analyst-- (I wouldn't want to say "clueless Western military fossil"--perish the thought)--it was not Bosnia that broke up. It was Yugoslavia. Now, tell us, has Yugoslavia been restored? Only if Yugoslavia, after 15 years, had been restored, would your happy drivel about "sorting out their own problems" have any relevance.." - Ron Davies - 05 Jun 07 - 11:24 PM Lesson in English Comprehension for Mr.Davies: Ref 1) – First sentence The Iraqi government is sorting out their own problems. A plain statement of fact indicating that the duly elected government of the Republic of Iraq is currently dealing with the problems associated with the running of their country. Ref 1) – Second sentence In Bosnia it took 15 years, in Iraq it might take a bit longer. A plain statement of fact coupled with an opinion. Please note the following Mr. Davies - At no time have I said that Iraq is like Bosnia, or anywhere else. Subsequently all comparisons were introduced by yourself - Putting words in peoples mouths again Ron? History lesson for Mr. Davies regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina: The 1990 parliamentary elections led to a national assembly dominated by three ethnically-based parties, which had formed a loose coalition to oust the communists from power. Croatia and Slovenia's subsequent declarations of independence and the warfare that ensued placed Bosnia and Herzegovina and its three constituent peoples in an awkward position. A significant split soon developed on the issue of whether to stay with the Yugoslav federation (overwhelmingly favored among Serbs) or seek independence (overwhelmingly favored among Bosniaks and Croats). A declaration of sovereignty in October 1991 was followed by a referendum for independence from Yugoslavia in February and March 1992 boycotted by the great majority of Bosnian Serbs. The turnout in the independence referendum was 63.7% and 99.4% voted for independence. The controversy lies in the fact that the referendum failed to surpass the constitutional two-third required majority, so legally it failed too. But Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence nevertheless Following a tense period of escalating tensions and sporadic military incidents, open warfare began in Sarajevo on April 6. Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence on 1st March 1992 and were formaly recognised by the international community on 6th April 1992. International recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina increased diplomatic pressure for the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) to withdraw from the republic's territory which they officially did. However, in fact, the Bosnian Serb members of JNA simply changed insignia, formed the Army of Republika Srpska, and continued fighting. Armed and equipped from JNA stockpiles in Bosnia, supported by volunteers and various paramilitary forces from Serbia, and receiving extensive humanitarian, logistical and financial support from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Republika Srpska's offensives in 1992 managed to place much of the country under its control. By 1993, when an armed conflict erupted between the Sarajevo government and the Croat statelet of Herzeg-Bosnia, about 70% of the country was controlled by Republika Srpska. Note to Mr.Davies at this point: Remember you said Ref 2) –" You're right that it has taken about 15 years in Bosnia. But, sorry, o brilliant analyst-- (I wouldn't want to say "clueless Western military fossil"--perish the thought)--it was not Bosnia that broke up." Let's see Ron, a country that declares Independence on 1st March 1992 and which is recognized internationally on 6th April, 1992, by 1993 had disintegrated to such an extent that 70% of the country was controlled by the Bosnian Serbs while the remaining 30% was being contested by the Bosniacs and the Croats. Don't know about you Ron, but that looks pretty much like the break-up of a country to me! Now to continue the tale for Mr. Davies edification: In March 1994, the signing of the Washington accords between the leaders of the republican government and Herzeg-Bosnia led to the creation of a joint Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The signing of the Dayton Agreement in Dayton, Ohio by the presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Yugoslavia brought a halt to the fighting, roughly establishing the basic structure of the present-day state. On 14th December, 1995 the General Framework Agreement for Peace (GFAP) was signed in Paris, after it had been negotiated in Dayton, Ohio. On 16th December, 1995 the Alliance's North Atlantic Council launched the largest military operation ever undertaken by the Alliance, Operation Joint Endeavour. Based on UN Security Council Resolution 1031, NATO was given the mandate to implement the military aspects of the Peace Agreement. A NATO-led multinational force, called the Implementation Force (IFOR), started its mission on 20 December 1995. IFOR was given a one-year mandate. After the peaceful conduct of the September 1996 elections, IFOR successfully completed its mission of implementing the military annexes of the GFAP. However, it was clear that much remained to be accomplished on the civil side and that the political environment would continue to be potentially unstable and insecure. On 25-26 September, one week after the Bosnian elections, at an informal meeting in Bergen, Norway, NATO Defence Ministers concluded that the Alliance needed to re-assess how it might continue to provide support for the establishment of a secure environment after the end of IFOR's mandate in December. They agreed that NATO should organise a Stabilisation Force (SFOR), which was subsequently activated on 20 December 1996, the date the IFOR mandate expired. The role of IFOR (Operation Joint Endeavour) was to implement the peace. The role of SFOR (Operation Joint Guard / Operation Joint Forge) is to stabilise the peace. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1088 of 12th December, 1996, SFOR was authorised to implement the military aspects of the Peace Agreement as the legal successor to IFOR. A ceremony in Sarajevo on 2nd December, 2004 marked the historic conclusion of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the launch of the European Union's follow-on EUFOR. In the spring of 2007 EUFOR stated that it will commence withdrawal of troops from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country which declared independence on 1st March, 1992 and which came to the agreements made internally and with it's neighbours in Washington and Dayton in 1994 has survived intact Ron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 12 Jul 07 - 02:23 PM Sorry Ron & Dianavan, I forgot my question to the pair of you: The presence of a multinational forces in one form or another was required in Bosnia for a period of twelve years out of the first fifteen years of that states existence. By what reasoning do you think that the MNF should have accomplished the same result in Iraq in less than a third of that time? Oh Frank, "the jump to conclusions is that Saddam had anything at all to do with 911." - Only by those who didn't listen to what was being said, and who didn't read what was actually written, by those responsible for providing leadership. Now then Frank, I'll set you the same challenge that Ron Davies ducked - Give me one example where George W Bush, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Administration ever stated that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with 911. If you can't, then place the blame for all those people jumping to the wrong conclusion at the correct doorstep - the media - they were the one's who reported the interviews and speeches in the way they did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 12 Jul 07 - 04:08 PM "Give me one example where George W Bush, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Administration ever stated that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with 911. If you can't, then place the blame for all those people jumping to the wrong conclusion at the correct doorstep - the media - they were the one's who reported the interviews and speeches in the way they did." Very slimy. The administration manipulated the media and, as a result, the public to believe that Saddam was responsible for 911. In fact, Bush also attempted to manipulate his staff into finding links that did not exist. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all instrumental in using 911 as an excuse for invading Iraq. The Bush administration was far more concerned about defense contracts and oil than the threat of bin Laden and terrorists in Afghanistan. Google Tenet and Clarke. btw teribus - Why is it so important to you to justify the actions of the current U.S. administration and absolve them from any blame in starting a war that has no benefit to anyone other than the neo-cons? Here's a question for you. Who has benefitted from the invasion of Iraq? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 07 - 04:48 PM Cheny asserted the connection between the government of Iraq and al Queda in the full knowledge that it would extend in the minds of listeners to linking 9-11 to Iraq. The data he asserted was false. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Jul 07 - 07:11 PM Teribus-- Still drowning in the river of denial, I see. And vying for the title of most bandwidth wasted. The best things in life don't change. Well, perhaps if I go slowly you may understand. You brought up Bosnia as a model. From your collected works: this thread: 3 June 2007 6:59 PM: "The Iraqi government is sorting out their own problems. In Bosnia it took 15 years, in Iraq it might take a bit longer." Now read the second sentence slowly: In...Bosnia.. it...took...15...years...,..... in... Iraq...it...might...take...a...bit....longer. Starting to understand yet? "In Bosnia....in Iraq"---you are the one who compares Bosnia to Iraq, inviting us also to do so. As you know, I always try to be agreeable, so I believe you when you tell us to compare Bosnia to Iraq. After all, you're the master analyst. And you're absolutely right--it did take about 16 years to stabilize Bosnia. I even complimented you on your sagacity. But, unfortunately, Bosnia is not Yugoslavia--as you may have noted--but perhaps, based on your powers of observation, you haven't. So based on your own analysis, in 16 years we can look forward to, not the whole country of Iraq, but just a part, being stable. And you're absolutely right. (And it's obvious which part that will be--"Kurdistan"---which has already been designated as the US fall-back position)--as I've noted earlier. So by equating Bosnia to Iraq, as I've pointed out before, you've destroyed your own argument for staying in Iraq--which is allegedly to preserve the nation of Iraq. Bush says that at some point in the future Iraq will be stable. But he's wrong--and you're right--it will just be a piece of Iraq. Iraq will be shattered beyond hope--like Yugoslavia. Regardless of anything we do. Well done, good job. It seems that by now you've shot yourself in the foot so many times, it would be a miracle if you can walk. And just think, all you'd have to do is actually read what you write before you hit "send". Then you might well avoid some of your more embarrassing missteps. Just a friendly suggestion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 12 Jul 07 - 08:02 PM OK Ron, one more time: "You brought up Bosnia as a model." Eh, no I didn't Ron, I brought it up as a fact, I brought it up as an example. You converted it by implication into a model, surely you are old enough and wise enough to know that no two situations, in real life, can ever be identical, no solutions are standard, we are talking about life, not mathematics. "In Bosnia....in Iraq"---you are the one who compares Bosnia to Iraq, inviting us also to do so." Em, no Ron, as I clearly explained in my previous mail, "In Bosnia it took 15 years... (for the Bosnian Government to work things out to such an extent that the MNF could leave)" That is a statement of fact, supported by both the Bosnian Government and the Commander of EUFOR. "in... Iraq...it...might...take...a...bit....longer." my own stated opinion, nothing more, nothing less Ron. Can you please explain to me why it is that you simply just cannot take anything said at face value? Oh, by the bye Ron, Yugoslavia, does not enter into the equation, no matter how much you try to drag it in. You now explain to us anything that is incorrect in what I previously pointed out to you: "Note to Mr.Davies at this point: Remember you said Ref 2) –" You're right that it has taken about 15 years in Bosnia. But, sorry, o brilliant analyst-- (I wouldn't want to say "clueless Western military fossil"--perish the thought)--it was not Bosnia that broke up." Let's see Ron, a country that declares Independence on 1st March 1992 and which is recognized internationally on 6th April, 1992, by 1993 had disintegrated to such an extent that 70% of the country was controlled by the Bosnian Serbs while the remaining 30% was being contested by the Bosniacs and the Croats. Don't know about you Ron, but that looks pretty much like the break-up of a country to me!" Yugoslavia is your "Red Herring" in this debate Ron, and I am simply just not buying it. Perhaps you can tell us exactly when Yugoslavia started to break up Ron (i.e. ceased to exist) and compare that date to 1st March, 1992. Now Ron instead of your usual personal attacks and endless repetition of irrelevant twaddle - come up with something concrete to base your rather subjective and highly biased opinions on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 12 Jul 07 - 08:27 PM OK people: "Give me one example where George W Bush, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Administration ever stated that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with 911." Please note that over the course of the last four years NOBODY has ever been able to come up with one single example of what has been requested above. Being completely unable to come up with one single example, Dianavan now contends: "The administration manipulated the media and, as a result, the public to believe that Saddam was responsible for 911." Now how did it do that Dianavan? How did the Administration manipulate the media? This is sort of like your other favourite and equally incorrect hobby-horse about the US stealing Iraq's Oil. In both cases it never happened, because neither are possible. Amos - 12 Jul 07 - 04:48 PM "Cheny asserted the connection between the government of Iraq and al Queda in the full knowledge that it would extend in the minds of listeners to linking 9-11 to Iraq. The data he asserted was false." Now Amos, the very man you are talking about clearly stated on MSM broadcast to America and the world the exact opposite on at least two occasions. Now you prove different, and I said prove Amos, don't flood this thread with "cut 'n paste" opinion and supposition. That, Amos is why neither Cheney or Bush will be impeached. By the Bye, by all means Google Clarke and Tenet, see what they were recommending to President William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, totally unaffected by neo-con influence. To any of you who can't be bothered to look it up, their advice to President William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, was exactly the same as it was to President George W Bush in 2001, in the aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001 - Iraq, a known sponsor of international terrorists, under it's present leadership, if left unchecked, represents a threat to the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America, the region (Middle-East) in general and to allies of the United States of America within that region. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 12 Jul 07 - 08:44 PM As I know that Ron is a bit slip-shod about answering direct questions, the answers of which tend to conflict with his rather dearly held beliefs, here's the answer to a question I put to him earlier - I know that he would never answer it directly: Question: "Perhaps you can tell us exactly when Yugoslavia started to break up Ron (i.e. ceased to exist) and compare that date to 1st March, 1992." Answer: Yugoslavia describes three political entities that existed one at a time on the Balkan Peninsula in Europe, during most of the 20th century. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1 December 1918–April 17, 1941), also known as the First Yugoslavia, was a monarchy formed as the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" after World War I and re-named on 6 January 1929 by Alexander I of Yugoslavia. It was invaded on 6 April 1941 by the Axis powers and capitulated eleven days later. The Second Yugoslavia (29 November 1943–25 June 1991), a socialist successor state to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, existed under various names, including the "Democratic Federation of Yugoslavia (DFY)" (1943), the "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY)" (1946), and the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY)" (1963). It disintegrated in the Yugoslav Wars, which followed the secession of most of the constituent elements of SFRY. Dear Ron please note the dates, particularly the latter, 25th June, 1991. The Yugoslavia you are prattling on about Mr. Davies ceased to exist, nine months BEFORE Bosnia and Herzegovina's declaration of Independence - TRUE??? The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) (April 27, 1992–February 4, 2003), was a federation on the territory of the two remaining republics of Serbia (including the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija) and Montenegro. The Union of Serbia and Montenegro was formed on February 4, 2003 and officially abolished the name "Yugoslavia." On June 3 and June 5, 2006, Montenegro and Serbia respectively declared their independence, thereby ending the last remnants of the former Yugoslav federation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 07 - 11:48 PM Teribus: I have seen Cheney do so. I have no interest in dancing to your windbag; you may look it up yourself. The conflation of 9-11 with generalized fear and with Iraq was persistently presented by Bush, by Cheney, and by Rice in rhetorical flips and suggestions designed to establish the relationship. How else do you explain the fact that by survey at the peak of Bush's saber rattling, over 45% of the US believed there was a link between them? Slip-sliding with broad generalizations is one of the Bush administrations major kit pieces. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 07 - 12:21 AM Leading article: Mr Bush pays the price for this fatally ill-judged war Published: 13 July 2007 White House spin-doctors did their utmost to put a positive gloss on it, and President Bush added his own two-penn'orth worth in an unusual morning press conference. But there was little any of them could do to relieve the pervasive sense of gloom. The security situation in Iraq clearly remains extremely bleak - and threatens to become bleaker still. In the words of the report released yesterday, the situation is "complex and extremely challenging" - diplomatic language for as bad as it gets. This was an interim report, compiled by the White House after consultation with the commander on the ground, General David Patraeus, and the US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. The final version, which is required by the US Congress in mid-September, will be the make-or-break document. As President Bush stressed yesterday, it will be crucial in determining what Washington does next. Yet the release of the interim report had a significance of its own. That these provisional conclusions saw the light of day at all is testimony to the pressure Mr Bush now finds himself under, not only from the Democrat-controlled Congress, but from American public opinion. Opinion polls show Mr Bush to be as unpopular as Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal, and seven out of 10 Americans surveyed this week favoured a US withdrawal from Iraq by next April. The conjunction of these two forces could speed Mr Bush towards withdrawal, whether he would choose it or not. Under the US Constitution, of course, a US President cannot be forced from office other than by impeachment. He can, however, be rendered effectively impotent, if Congress withholds money and his party forsakes him. This is the humiliation confronting Mr Bush a full 18 months before he is due to leave office. At his press conference yesterday, Mr Bush said that on the 18 benchmarks set by Congress, Iraq had been graded "satisfactory" on eight, "unsatisfactory" on eight, and "mixed" on the remaining two. In theory, that made the score neutral. The trouble is that in practical terms the failures vastly outweigh the successes. The successes - stumping up the requisite cash for training Iraqi troops and police, for instance - tick the boxes, but mean little if those troops and police are unable to combat the insurgency. The failures - no progress on local elections and no law on dividing up oil revenue - remain just that, failures. Mr Bush offered two points in mitigation. First, he said, it was only last month that the final contingent of US troop reinforcements had arrived to complete the so-called "surge", so it was too early to write that effort off. And second, the failures were by and large on the political side, while the successes were concentrated on the security side. Progress in security, he argued, was a precondition for political progress, therefore the indicators could be described as positive. These arguments are at very least questionable. There was a time, after all, when political advances - national elections and the rest - were lauded as a necessary prelude to improved security. The "surge", meanwhile, has had less impact on the violence than had been hoped, while upping the US casualty rate to a level that is passing the limits of the American public's tolerance. All that Mr Bush could realistically offer yesterday, citing the report, was that things were likely to get worse before they got better, with the likelihood of an increase in al-Qa'ida-inspired attacks through the summer. (Independent) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 13 Jul 07 - 04:51 AM "Give me one example where George W Bush, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Administration ever stated that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with 911." Please note that over the course of the last four years NOBODY has ever been able to come up with one single example of what has been requested above. Now from Amos (12 Jul 07 - 11:48 PM) we get "Teribus: I have seen Cheney do so. I have no interest in dancing to your windbag; you may look it up yourself." How coy Amos, I would have thought with your penchant for "cut 'n paste" if what you said above was true it would have been blasted all over this forum years ago. Please note readers, as yet, still no single example of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, or any member of the Administration ever stating that Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi Government had anything to do with 911. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM "BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq," he said, "were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home." It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq. But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership. There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be "the principal short-term threat to Iraq." But while American intelligence agencies have pointed to links between leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the top leadership of the broader Qaeda group, the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon. They believe the membership of the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And many of its most ardent foes are close at home, namely the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them. "The president wants to play on Al Qaeda because he thinks Americans understand the threat Al Qaeda poses," said Bruce Riedel, an expert at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and a former C.I.A. official. "But I don't think he demonstrates that fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq precludes Al Qaeda from attacking America here tomorrow. Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation." Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who became the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, came to Iraq in 2002 when Saddam Hussein was still in power, but there is no evidence that Mr. Hussein's government provided support for Mr. Zarqawi and his followers. Mr. Zarqawi did have support from senior Qaeda leaders, American intelligence agencies believe, and his organization grew in the chaos of post-Hussein Iraq. "There has been an intimate relationship between them from the beginning," Mr. Riedel said of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the senior leaders of the broader Qaeda group. But the precise relationship between the Al Qaeda of Osama bin Laden and other groups that claim inspiration or affiliation with it is murky and opaque. While the groups share a common ideology, the Iraq-based group has enjoyed considerable autonomy. Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top deputy, questioned Mr. Zarqawi's strategy of organizing attacks against Shiites, according to captured materials. But Mr. Zarqawi clung to his strategy of mounting sectarian attacks in an effort to foment a civil war and make the American occupation untenable. The precise size of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not known. Estimates are that it may have from a few thousand to 5,000 fighters and perhaps twice as many supporters. While the membership of the group is mostly Iraqi, the role that foreigners play is crucial. Abu Ayyub al-Masri is an Egyptian militant who emerged as the successor of Mr. Zarqawi, who was killed near Baquba in an American airstrike last year. American military officials say that 60 to 80 foreign fighters come to Iraq each month to fight for the group, and that 80 to 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq have been conducted by foreign-born operatives of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. At first, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia received financing from the broader Qaeda organization, American intelligence agencies have concluded. Now, however, the Iraq-based group sustains itself through kidnapping, smuggling and criminal activities and some foreign contributions. With the Shiite militias having taken a lower profile since the troop increase began, and with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia embarking on its own sort of countersurge, a main focus of the American military operation is to deprive the group of its strongholds in the areas surrounding Baghdad — and thus curtail its ability to carry out spectacular casualty-inducing attacks in the Iraqi capital. The heated debate over Iraq has spilled over to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as well. Mr. Bush has played up the group, talking about it as if it is on a par with the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. War critics have often played down the significance of the group despite its gruesome record of suicide attacks and its widely suspected role in destroying a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February 2006 that set Iraq on the road to civil war. Just last week, Mr. Zawahri called on Muslims to travel to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia to carry out their fight against the Americans and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, an umbrella group that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has established to attract broader Sunni support. The broader issue is whether Iraq is a central front in the war against Al Qaeda, as Mr. Bush maintains, or a distraction that has diverted the United States from focusing on the Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan while providing Qaeda leaders with a cause for rallying support. Military intelligence officials said that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia's leaders wanted to expand their attacks to other countries. They noted that Mr. Zarqawi claimed a role in a 2005 terrorist attack in Jordan. But Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said that if American forces were to withdraw from Iraq, the vast majority of the group's members would likely be more focused on battling Shiite militias in the struggle for dominance in Iraq than on trying to follow the Americans home." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 13 Jul 07 - 03:53 PM "Al Qaeda, both in Iraq and globally, thrives on the American occupation." "Mr. Bush has played up the group, talking about it as if it is on a par with the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks." "The broader issue is whether Iraq is a central front in the war against Al Qaeda, as Mr. Bush maintains, or a distraction that has diverted the United States from focusing on the Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan while providing Qaeda leaders with a cause for rallying support." Thanks, Amos, these few snippets may serve to enlightern teribus and a few others who seem to have the blinkers on but somehow I doubt it. In plain language - Al Qaeda is worldwide. It is not an organization that was or is funded by the Iraqi govt. There was no reason to hunt Al Qaeda in Iraq because until the U.S. invasion, Al Qaeda was mostly in Pakistan. It is the U.S. occupation of Iraq that has resulted in the increase of Al Qaeda operatives. Since no WMD's were found, it was necessary to use the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq as a reason for the overthrow and occupation of Iraq. Bush has tried to make a causal connection between 911 and Iraq but there is only a correlation. Bush (and his handlers) have sought to deceive Congress and the citizens of the U.S.A. He has used the media as tool for his propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 13 Jul 07 - 05:52 PM Amos asked the question as to why 45% of Americans thought that Iraq had something to do with 911. The answer to that is simple 45% of Americans do not know how to read to a level to which they are capable of understanding what is being said. Now just to prove me wrong dianavan go away and read about Iraq's WMD. Read what UNSCOM said about them. Read what the UN Security Council Resolutions relating to all aspects of them stated. Read exactly what UNMOVIC's terms of reference and mission statement was. Then come back and tell us all whether or not WMD had to be found. If you do do that reading and if you do actually take the time to understand exactly what was being said (None of it by the US), the answer will surprise you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: George Papavgeris Date: 13 Jul 07 - 07:43 PM "...45% of Americans do not know how to read to a level to which they are capable of understanding what is being said." That is of course unsubstantiated moo-poo, said in an attempt to counter Amos' data-backed statement. It's actually quite offensive too. And even if it were true, these folks vote. We have all of us heard the various pronouncements, announcements, read the articles and watched the videos, for 6 years now. It's silly to say to anyone "...read about Iraq's WMD. Read what UNSCOM said about them. Read what the UN Security Council Resolutions relating to all aspects of them stated. Read exactly what UNMOVIC's terms of reference and mission statement was." Hey, we've all been there and done that. We all heard the same things. The difference in our viewpoints does not stem from any difference in the information we had available, but only in our own interpretation of that information. Truth has a habit of coming out over time, though. And increasingly more and more people subscribe to the opposite interpretation to yours, Teribus. The trend is clear. Yet you cannot be persuaded. Asking again and again for information while avoiding the blindingly obvious has its charm - for a while. The it gets annoying, and finally it's just boring. The last converts to the truth will not be run over, pushed aside or re-educated. No, they'll just be passed by and left behind. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 07 - 08:28 PM I read a Henry Kissinger op-ed last week in the Washington Post where he argued that seein' that the American people were behind the invasion of Iraq that they were now responsibile to see it thyru to its competion... What a joke??? Like if the American people were told the friggin' ***truth*** they wouldn't have been so supoortive of invading Iraq... Might of fact, if the American people had been told that ***truth*** I'd venture a guess that the same laim-brained 28% that now support Bush would have been the ***only*** people in the intire universe who would have supporting invading Iraq... This is the real deal... No matter how many trumped up UN resolutions, which BTW will get yoyu a cup of coffee at your local 7/11, the bottom line is that this a bogus war being founght for bogus reasons... When the dust settles, the historians will get this one right... Completely bogus... We tried to tell you Bushites but you were so steepeed in yer own little politics that the ***truth*** meant nuthin' to you because it didn't fit into yer tidy little brain washed thinkin'... That, sadly, is the whole ***truth*** and nuthin but the ***truth***... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Jul 07 - 10:59 PM "Please note that over the course of the last four years NOBODY has ever been able to come up with one single example of what has been requested above." Please note that over the course of the last four years NOBODY has been able to demonstrate that Teribus is a silly ass-hat who knows full well that he defends the indefensible, yet cannot bear to admit a mistake. And NOBODY would ever accuse him of actually believing the incredibly obtuse position that he continues to defend in a mindlessly repetetive manner despite the fact that it harbours zero logic. Of course, it would be totally inappropriate to ask whether he behaves like this out of stupidity or stubborn egoism. I cannot make any of these claims here today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 14 Jul 07 - 04:30 AM "Well, I really think he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all!" - Rep. Charlie Rangel, after being asked his opinion of President George W. Bush I think that applies equally to his "followers". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:08 AM United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) Mandate: The Commission's mandate is the following: to carry out immediate on-site inspections of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities; to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; and to monitor and verify Iraq's compliance with its undertaking not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified above. The Commission is also requested to assist the Director General of IAEA, which, under resolution 687, has been requested to undertake activities similar to those of the Commission but specifically in the nuclear field. Further, the Commission is entrusted to designate for inspection any additional site necessary for ensuring the fulfillment of the mandates given to the Commission and IAEA. United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC): The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC replaced the former UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and continued with the mandate to verify Iraq's compliance with its obligation to be rid of its weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological weapons and missiles with a range of more than 150 km), and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification to ascertain that Iraq did not reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council. Now George, et al, read through the above and tell me where it says that either organization has to find anything. Read through the above and tell me where it says that either organization has to search for anything. The mandate issued to both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC was agreed and written by the United Nations, UNMOVIC was composed of UN employees. The mandate was written on the firm understanding that both bodies were to receive full and pro-active support from the Iraqi Government. Dianavan says – "Since no WMD's were found, it was necessary to use the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq as a reason for the overthrow and occupation of Iraq." This is a gross over simplification designed to deceive. It paints a completely false picture. There were a whole raft of outstanding resolutions stacked against Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime, WMD happened to be just one of the subjects covered. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 covered all previous resolutions and their subject matter. For anyone to latch onto one and then state that that was the only reason is preposterous. But go back and take a look at how the media covered it. Oh but wait a minute George says – "We have all of us heard the various pronouncements, announcements, read the articles and watched the videos, for 6 years now. It's silly to say to anyone "...read about Iraq's WMD. Read what UNSCOM said about them. Read what the UN Security Council Resolutions relating to all aspects of them stated. Read exactly what UNMOVIC's terms of reference and mission statement was." Hey, we've all been there and done that." – Unfortunately George you apparently have not. A similar misunderstanding exists with regard to "The Axis of Evil". If polled most would say that "The Axis of Evil" referred to Iraq – Iran - North Korea, they would be wrong, but again that is down to how it has been reported. The Axis of Evil actually refers to the combination of Rogue State – WMD – International Terrorism. At the time Iraq, Iran and North Korea were the leading, but not the only, contenders for the "Rogue State" part of the equation. Oh and George as for: "increasingly more and more people subscribe to the opposite interpretation to yours, Teribus. The trend is clear." George if that interpretation is wrong is does not matter one jot how many people share it - it is still wrong irrespective of what the "trend is". Trends are followed - mostly by sheep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: George Papavgeris Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:50 AM Actually, you are wrong Teribus. Sheep don't follow trends, they follow the shepherd, who generally knows better. The "only sheep follow trends" statement is a witticism - not to be confused with actual wit - and not, I repeat, not a piece of folk wisdom. Here is an actual piece of folk wisdom instead: "If two laugh, they know something - if one laughs by himself, he's a fool". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: George Papavgeris Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:59 AM Oh dear, Teribus - you just made my point: You ask "read through the above and tell me where it says that either organization has to find anything". Well, all over the text actually. A mandate to inspect includes findings (positive or negative) and reporting back. What did you think - that it was simply a mandate to strut there, look around and come back? And a mandate to "verify compliance" and "operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification" again contains within it the concept of findings to verify or otherwise such compliance. It's there. But you made my point: It's not the information that differs, it's our interpretation of such information. And so we'll never persuade each other. But I only popped into this thread after a year to see where it had got to. Tell you what, you stick with it; me, I'm moving on. See you in another year perhaps - perhaps not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 14 Jul 07 - 09:37 AM I am growing weary of the lack of progress om the Iraqi side. I say give THEM a deadline and tell them if they don't meet the deadline, we will bust it up into three parts and get the hell out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 14 Jul 07 - 01:04 PM Oh, so you are willing to start yet another war, Dickey, with Turkey invadin' Kurd(istan)??? I'm not saying that this may one day happen... I am saying that the US is not capable, nor should it, dividing Iraq into 3 parts... I mean, the reality of what it would take to do this would insure that the US continue to occupy Iraq witha large force, maybe even larger than the existing one, for year, maybe decades to come... Right now, the Iraqis are going to have to figure this political stuff out on their own and just recieve humanitarian help from other nations along the way... It's really not in any other country's interst to be hands on players in this civil war... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 14 Jul 07 - 04:09 PM Teribus-- You're very slippery--but your own words betray you. " In Bosnia...in Iraq" is obviously a comparative constuction--equating the two. And it's not only your idea--but you're right. Good try in backing off from it. But as they say, a card laid is a card played. In 16 years Iraq will be as much a unified country as Yugoslavia is now. As I said, "Kurdistan" is already de facto independent from "Iraq". They don't even want the Iraqi flag flown. They make their own oil deals--including with Turkey, and that is what may quiet the current friction. "Kurdistan" is the obvious fallback position for the US--as I said last year, having read it in the WSJ. The Kurds obviously have oil--and will have more, with the Kirkuk area, by the end of the year. They are positively inclined towards the US--at this point, anyway, having benefited since 1990 from the Western support and defense against Saddam. They are progessively more Western-oriented, trying to attract well-heeled tourists from all over. They even have gated communities--as you might imagine, not cheap. And they have no objection to US forces close by, in case Turkish relations should decay drastically, despite economic incentives. Regardless of what else happens, the US will still stay in "Kurdistan". And the Shiite south will watch with interest--and an eye towards a similar arrangement regarding oil, though not regarding US troops. Dickey doesn't need to worry about when the US should break up Iraq. The Iraqis are doing a fine job of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 14 Jul 07 - 04:11 PM "progressively" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 15 Jul 07 - 07:28 AM Still not answed the question Ron, here it is again: The presence of a multinational forces in one form or another was required in Bosnia for a period of twelve years out of the first fifteen years of that states existence. By what reasoning do you think that the MNF should have accomplished the same result in Iraq in less than a third of that time? George there are five different meanings for the the verb "to find". When dianavan came out with, "Since no WMD's were found, it was necessary to use the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq as a reason for the overthrow and occupation of Iraq.", it was perfectly plain what she meant. The mandate given to both UNSCOM and continued by UNMOVIC never required either organisation to physically search for, or uncover WMD. What they had to do was inspect and verify that Iraq no longer had any, monitoring and supervising the destruction of any remaining that the Iraqi's were supposed to hand over to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 15 Jul 07 - 10:36 PM Point is, Teribus--and it's your point--congratulations on realizing it--that in 16 years, not Iraq, but just a part of the wrecked state that used to be called Iraq, will likely be stable. This is not what Mr. Bush is promising. Sooner or later he will have to realize the obvious--that "Kurdistan" is the only part which is both pro-West and likely to be stable--perhaps even before 16 years. And if he doesn't realize it, Congress will stick his head in it--sooner rather than later. It's his final mistake in his failed Iraq adventure--a big part in his strong bid for worst president in the history of the US. And the troop allocations will reflect this--whether he likes it or not. He's the lamest duck we've seen in some time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 16 Jul 07 - 12:02 AM Still refusing to answer my question Ron. As for lame ducks, there is none lamer than that of your political system at present the United States of America at present is politicaly paralysed across the board at a time when your armed forces are engaged in combat operations and at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 16 Jul 07 - 01:15 AM teribus - Many, many people have been sounding the alarm since the U.S. and its allies entered Iraq. Most of us knew that the U.S. would become "politicaly paralysed" and we feared, not only for the U.S. and and its allies, but for the people of Iraq as well. Why didn't you listen instead of digging in your heels? Why didn't you join the voices of protest? I fail to understand why anyone would risk so many lives just to prove a point. I hope the soldiers in Iraq can get out sooner than later and that they return safely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Dickey Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:33 AM Bobert: Isn't Turkey a member of NATO and trying to join the EU? I think that would prevent them from invading Kurdistan. Looks like Turkey is being invaded by the PKK. If Turkey fights back, it would be with them, not against northern Iraq as a whole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:40 AM "Iraq is nothing like Vietnam." THEN NOW the draft redeployment escalation the surge Viet Cong Al-Quaida in Iraq NVA Al-Quaida Cong, Charlie, etc. Insurgents boobytraps IEDs M16A1 M16A2 Saigon Green Zone Ho Chi Minh Trail Syrian and Iran borders napalm depleted uranium Agent Orange Roundup etc. etc. The words have been changed to protect, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:22 AM THEN - Poorly trained, and badly led disinterested conscripts. THEN - With the above the US Forces in Vietnam were always on a hiding to nothing. No chance of success whatsoever. NOW - Highly trained, professional soldiers, well motivated, well equipped and well led. NOW - MNF in Iraq are beginning to face down the insurgents, and are receiving more and more help from the Iraqi people. Every chance of success provided the political process moves along inside Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:32 PM Teribus-- Are you not familiar with the US political term "lame duck"? It has a specific meaning--and fits Mr. Bush absolutely perfectly. And he has richly earned it. Would you like to tell us why my observations about "Kurdistan"--as both the model and the agent of the breakup of Iraq are not accurate? And that it will be the US fall-back position. If you don't agree, we'd be curious to hear your predictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 17 Jul 07 - 01:58 AM Another day in Iraq by other media than the US. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:02 AM No Ron, what I would like to here from either yourself or dianavan why you think that the MNF in Iraq should have achieved in four years what it took the MNF in Bosnia fifteen to do. All things considered I believe that that is a reasonable question. As for the expression "lame duck" - I couldn't give a flying fig what the expression means in the US - the perception over this side is as follows: - You have a President and an administration that is basically being deliberately hamstrung, while your country is under attack. - You have a Congress that is attempting to force an issue by threatening to withhold funding from US Forces in the field who are currently engaged in combat operations. - You are about fifteen months away from an election and because of the current political climate and situation all your prospective candidates are running around absolutely shit scared to say anything of any substance on what their position is for fear of jeapordising their chances of sitting in the White House. - None of the above will change until after January 2009 Now that is what I would call a truly "lame duck" situation for a political system that purports to be the envy of the free world. It must remind Putin, the Russians and the Chinese, of the good old Jimmy Carter days. They must be laughing their socks off at the internal workings of the "leaders" of the free world. Collectively your politicians couldn't lead a well trained dog on a leash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,The Droop Date: 17 Jul 07 - 04:21 AM The "Surge" by the Americans is now in reverse, destruction and death of innocent civilians is a daily occurrence. The invasion against UN wishes has been a disaster, the American forces according to reports in `The Nation`, are guilty of war crimes, murdering innocent civilians. Surely it is now time to get out, as the longer the United States forces remain the harder it will be to withdraw with a little dignity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:21 PM "- You have a President and an administration that is basically being deliberately hamstrung, while your country is under attack." WTF?!? For the last five years, hasn't GWB gotten absolutely everything he has asked for? How exactly is he hamstrung? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:45 PM "You have a President and an administration that is basically being deliberately hamstrung, while your country is under attack." Please state the specific date and time that Iraq has ever attacked the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:59 PM There are troops in the US facing their fifth deployment, and they are starting to object. President Bush is losing the support of his own Party. His popularity stands at about 32% -- and Congress' at about 26%. Bush can no longer "reward his friends and punish his enemies" and thus has little actual political power: he is a "lame duck," and the vultures are gathering both in the US and internationally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:24 PM He may be a lame duck but that will no prevent him from attacking Iran with the help of Israel. Bush will not leave power without an attempt to undermine Iranian influence in the Middle East. Cheney is pressuring Bush to take military action before his term ends. As far as Iraq goes, the U.S. military continues to target Shiites in Sadr City and elsewhere while most of the insurgents enter Iraq from Saudi Arabia via Syria. On the surface, Bush appears to support the Iraqi govt. but behind the scenes, he actually supports the Sunni insurgency in an attempt to undermine Iran. If he falls back on Kurdistan, the Middle East will erupt and Turkey will be drawn into the battle. The U.S. should leave the Middle East altogether. Its not our battle and never has been. Teribus, the U.S. is not under attack. It is the people of Iraq who are under attack. They are being attacked by al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency and U.S. forces. The Iraqi govt. is predominately Shiite and is supported by the Mahdi Army and Iran. This should be obvious by now. The U.S. presence in Iraq has nothing to do with threats to America. It has all to do with economic interests. Apparently you think its O.K. for our young military men and women to die in an effort to secure the vast fortunes of American Neo-cons (not to mention the vast slaughter and displacement of Iraqi innocents). Whats in it for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:51 AM Still got no answer to my question then dianavan? But there again I don't believe that you ever will answer it will you - too inconvenient. Now let's see what the latest completely and totally unfounded/incorrect out-pouring from you says: 1) "He may be a lame duck but that will no prevent him from attacking Iran with the help of Israel. Bush will not leave power without an attempt to undermine Iranian influence in the Middle East. Cheney is pressuring Bush to take military action before his term ends." Now the evidence we have for this is what dianavan? Wait a minute though, no point in asking you. You, unlike most sane and rational people, do not require any basis to start throwing accusations about. But just for the record over the course of the last three decades the USA has NEVER threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran - matter of record. 2) "As far as Iraq goes, the U.S. military continues to target Shiites in Sadr City and elsewhere". Really dianavan, I have not read any such reports or heard them broadcast on radio or television. Must be a secret operation eh? 3) "On the surface, Bush appears to support the Iraqi govt. but behind the scenes, he actually supports the Sunni insurgency in an attempt to undermine Iran." How exactly does supporting Sunni Arabs in Iraq undermine the majority non-arab Shiia muslims in Iran? What proof do you have that "Bush" is actually supporting the "Sunni insurgency"? I would suspect that you have none. 4) "If he falls back on Kurdistan, the Middle East will erupt and Turkey will be drawn into the battle." OK dianavan, I take it that when you wrote this you might not have been aware of the geography of the region. I take it that you are totally ignorant of what the steps and requirements of a major force withdrawal are. The scenario you predict is preposterous. 5) "The U.S. should leave the Middle East altogether." Very bad international move when the area is linked so closely to the interests of the United States of America and so many of her allies. 6) "Its not our battle and never has been." Oh yes it has dianavan, every since certain bilateral treaties were signed way back in 1948. 7) "Teribus, the U.S. is not under attack." Oh yes it is dianavan, and has been under constant threat of attack since 1990 - Some of those attacks have proved successful, most fortunately have not. Entirely down to efforts of this current Administration the USA is considered, by Al-Qaeda, as being the hardest target they have. Their last "spectacular" was when, and where dianavan? 8) "It is the people of Iraq who are under attack. They are being attacked by al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency and U.S. forces." I certainly know that the people of Iraq are under attack by Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and by an ever diminishing number of Sunni Arab insurgents. But where are the U.S. Forces attacking the Iraqi people dianavan? I have not read any such reports or heard them broadcast on radio or television. Must be another of those secret operations that you and you alone know about. 9) "The Iraqi govt. is predominately Shiite" No shit Sherlock!! The population of Iraq is predominantly Shiite. 10) "The Iraqi govt. is predominately Shiite and is supported by the Mahdi Army and Iran. This should be obvious by now." Only to you dianavan in the context that you wish to project. The Mehdi Army is more or less neutral, Al-Sadr has just ordered the lifting of the boycott on political activity for members of his political group and members of the government. Iran supports nothing in Iraq except instability, Iran meddles from a safe distance. 11) "The U.S. presence in Iraq has nothing to do with threats to America. It has all to do with economic interests." The U.S. presence in Iraq has everything to do with the potential threat Iraq under Saddam Hussein posed. This threat was defined and evaluated as being real during the second term of Bill Clinton's Presidency, by the Intelligence Services of the United States of America - simple matter of record. It is not the job of the President to safeguard the security and national interests of the United States of America? If its not his job dianavan whose job is it? Must be done by someone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:34 AM From austinbay.net, some possible scenarios: "Here are seven "scenarios" sketching "potential outcomes" of a quick withdrawal from Iraq. They are not mutually exclusive. They could well "blend." In fact, an amalgam of the first six could occur. These are speculative dramas. The US and the Iraqi governments have their own scenarios. I am certain that Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria and Turkey have also analyzed potential outcomes and made plans accordingly. THE SCENARIOS (1) THREE NEW COUNTRIES: Kurdistan in the north becomes an independent country – and immediately begins to wrestle with Turkey over the Kurdistan Workers Party (the PKK) which is waging a secessionist struggle in southeastern Turkey. Kurdistan has oil. Southern Iraq—a predominantly Shia – area, becomes a Shia state—with oil. Parts of Anbar province become a Sunni state (Iraqi Sunnistan) – which has few oil fields. But what becomes of Baghdad? Does it divide like a desert Berlin into Shia and Sunni sectors? Baghdad remains a source of continuing conflict. (2) REGIONAL SHIA-SUNNI WAR: Iran sees a chance to recover not only the Shaat al Arab region – the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates, but a chance to extend its border into the economically productive areas of southern Iraq. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait immediately react to Iran's drive into southern Iraq. Iraq has served as a "buffer" between Sunni Arabs and Shia Iranians, and the buffer is dissolving . Jordan and Egypt prepare for action. The War Over Mesopotamia could last for weeks, it could grind on for years. (3) TURKEY EXPANDS :Turkey reclaims control of territory all the way to Kirkuk, creating a new Southern Turkey: The Ottoman Empire once controlled Mesopotamia. Turkey has a lingering claim to areas of northern Iraq. For almost two decades Turkey has fought with the Kurdistan Workers Party – a Kurdish secessionist group in Turkey which has bases in northern Iraq. Turkey could conclude the way to end the war with the PKK would be to absorb Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey would pay a huge political price. It would lose all chance of joining the European Union. Ties with the West would deteriorate –and as a resultTurkey might become less secular and more Islamic in both identity and in political orientation. The Iranians would be glad to see their "Kurdish issue" disappear, but would be wary of a militant Turkey. (4) SHIA DICTATORSHIP: Shia Arabs conduct an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Sunni. They create a condominium state with the Kurds. Iranian influence increases . Iraq's Sunnis either die (a genocide) or flee to other Sunni controlled states – or move to the US. (5) CHAOS: The region becomes a cauldron. Iraq shatters into ethnic enclaves, a few "new Mesopotamian city states" managing to control oil fields. Iran and Turkey exert "regional influence" over eastern Iraq and northern Iraq, respectively, but concerned about confrontation between themselves or provoking sanctions from Europe and the US, neither send their military forces in large numbers beyond current borders . Terror attacks and intermittent fighting afflict neighborhoods throughout Iraq. Local warlords rule by fear and make money either smuggling oil, drugs, or arms. This tribal hell is a perfect disaster—the kind of disaster that allows Al Qaeda to build training facilities and base camps for operations throughout the Middle East and Europe. (6) "GANG UP": Shia Arabs in Iraq are numerous, well armed and increasingly well organized – at least enough to expel all of the Sunni Arabs. The Shia and Kurds, who are now over 80 percent of the population, decide to eliminate their main enemy, and the source of most of the terrorism—the Sunni community. Neighboring Sunni Arab nations are kept out with the threat that Iran will intervene. Arguably, this scenario is already happening, though in slow motion. (7) SURPRISE—THE IRAQI CENTER HOLDS: The democratic government proves to be resilient and popular. The assumption behind this scenario is that Iraq's new democratic government is just responsive enough and its security forces are just strong enough to withstand attacks by extremists and give Iran pause. After several months of brutal warfare, the Iraqi Army destroys insurgent groups. Out of seven possible "rapid withdrawal" scenarios only one –number seven– clearly benefits the majority of Iraqis. And the US. And the civilized world." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 18 Jul 07 - 02:51 PM Never threatened Iran...? Or, this, from a Seymour HErsh piece in the New Yorker: "The Iran Plans Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? by Seymour M. Hersh The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred. There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be "wiped off the map." Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' " A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they smoking?' ..." Oh, sorry...you meant "literally and officially in writing threated the Republic of Iran", I guess. Does this mean you are naive enough to believe that when the public media go into a flurry of speculation about Bush's plans to drop the bomb on Iran, that the Iranian government will not feel threatened? Strikes me as a bit disingenuous, that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 18 Jul 07 - 05:49 PM Amos, the public media can go into what ever flurry they like, they have done so many many times before. They still, however, do not speak for the Government of any country when it comes to any matter regarding foreign or domestic policy. This I believe the government of Iran fully realises. In the last three decades the Government of the United States of America has NEVER threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you believe that it has please post your usual cut 'n paste of the Government Document detailing such a threat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 18 Jul 07 - 07:05 PM OMG...this is too easy. I'll handle it. April 18, 2006: QUESTION (to GWB POTUS): "Sir, when you talk about Iran and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for? THE PRESIDENT: "All options are on the table..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 18 Jul 07 - 09:56 PM Teribus-- As I've said before-and it's actually your own observation--why don't you take credit for it?--based on the Bosnia model, at the end of 16 years, not Iraq, but a part of the wrecked state that used to be called Iraq, may be stable. Re the "MNF"--does anybody but you call it that?--reminds me of Tom Lehrer and MLF--anyway, the "MNF" casualties from Bush's Iraq debacle already dwarf those of the involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Would you mind telling us how many deaths (non-"Yugoslav" ) there have been in the involvement in the former Yugoslavia? Especially how many UK and US deaths. I venture to say that had casualty rates been similar, the "MNF" participation in the former Yugoslavia would have been cut short long ago. So your parallel, as usual, is worthless. And these casualties in Iraq are fated to not result in as stable Iraq, but a split Iraq--no matter what we do. If this is not so, exactly why? Those who predict an officially independent Kurdistan are also wrong--for the reason I cited months ago. It will remain de facto, not de jure, independent. And Turkey will therefore not attack except in raids against the PKK--as it is already doing. So those who predict a wider war because of Kurdistan are wrong. And the US will stay in "Kurdistan"--with the enthusastic support of the "Kurdistan" unofficial government. Regarding the pitiful state of US foreign policy now----Bush is reaping what he sowed. Couldn't happen to a nicer despicable worm, incompetent at anything but propaganda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:10 PM You will recall of late, T, the dispatch of a United States aircraft carrier detachment to perform exercises near Iranian waters. Of course, this sort of showboat diplomacy is not actually a threat. Just the sort of hint of the possibility of one. Sheeshe. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 18 Jul 07 - 11:08 PM Dispatch of a carrier detachment for maneuvers is not a threat at all. And, I must repeat, Teribus is certainly not a thorough dunce utterly incapable of understanding the difference between literal and implied meanings. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this particular charge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 19 Jul 07 - 01:11 AM The question is simple Ron, why do you believe that the Multi-National Forces in Iraq should have accomplished in four years what it took the Multi-National Forces in Bosnia 12 years to achieve? The term Multi-National Force is what the UN call them, all contingent parts are after all operating in Iraq at the specific invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq and in accordance with a duly issued United Nations Security Council Mandate. Still got your "red herring" on the line I see Ron. As the former ruler of Mesopotamia maybe I should introduce the Ottomans into the equation, but I won't. You are still trying to put words into my mouth Ron - Your "model" Ron, your "parallel", certainly not mine - and I am still not buying any of it. Still nothing but personal attack then TIA, keep it up it weakens whatever point you are attempting to make. In any situation TIA "All options" are always on the table until agreement is reached. Amos mentioned in his post: "Does this mean you are naive enough to believe that when the public media go into a flurry of speculation about Bush's plans to drop the bomb on Iran, that the Iranian government will not feel threatened?" When the public media go into a flurry of speculation, I take it for being exactly what it is - a flurry of speculation - I do not take it as being fact, or any indication of the future intention of any of the parties involved. The public media should restrain its wilder excesses and report the news impartially and factually. Should they ever stay into the realms of speculation they should make it very plain. This is important, because people such as Ron, self admittedly, never reads, or listens, to speeches direct from source, he always relies on reports of those speeches by others. Which can lead to the reporters speculation being mistaken for part of the original text, when of course it is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 19 Jul 07 - 01:17 AM Oh, I forgot, the third US Carrier Group could be a whole raft of explanations for that, the most likely being rotation, the US Navy has kept two such groups in the area since 2003. Throughout that time there will have been three, or possibly four, involved. On a much smaller scale, when Wilson's labour Government engaged on that completely pointless naval exercise Known as the Biera Patrol, to keep two ships on the patrol line at all times required the Navy to use ten ships to continually maintain the patrol. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Jul 07 - 02:28 PM That was not a personal attack. It was a clear statement of support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Cluin Date: 19 Jul 07 - 06:16 PM Everybody go home and leave everybody else alone now. Mommy and Daddy want |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Donuel Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:50 PM Its ok its just a teribus sighting. Until Iraq makes a new oil law that sells its oil interests to certain multinational oil companies, there will not be enough progress to pull out troops. Yet even if the law is passed there are not enough troops to guard all the pipelines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 19 Jul 07 - 07:55 PM Last pipeline was attacked when Donuel?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 19 Jul 07 - 10:44 PM Ignorance is no excuse. Google Sadr city. You also know that the U.S. has armed Sunni tribesmen. Iraq has never attacked the U.S. The Mahdi army is hardly neutral. They have wanted the U.S. out of Iraq for as long as I can remember and do not ever recall any support for Sunnis. How can you call them neutral? I'm still waiting for an answer to my question? You obviously refuse to consider bringing the troop home from Iraq. Whats in it for you? What do you have to gain? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 19 Jul 07 - 10:49 PM Teribus-- Deny it all you want--you were the one to use the construction "In Bosnia......in Iraq...". I know you'd like to take it back. But as I said, all you have to do is read before you hit "send". Maybe you'll do it next time. It's your parallel--and you're right. Now, since you've had your little mention of the "MNF", would you like to tell us why my predictions regarding "Kurdistan", and its effect on the Iraq situation, are wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:01 AM Still no answer Ron? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jul 07 - 07:11 AM Teribus-- So, you don't think your question about taking less time in Iraq than it took in Bosnia has been answered. Well, try this. I never have expected it would take less time to sort Iraq out than to sort Bosnia out. In fact if you'd read what I've written, you'd know this. Yes, I realize this is an unreasonable requirement--you don't even read what you yourself write--otherwise, it's likely you wouldn't shoot yourself in the foot quite so often. You don't need to thank me--only your friends will tell you what you need to hear. Actually I think it will take more time to sort out Iraq--in fact forever---it will never be sorted out. As I've said more than once, Iraq will break up--regardless of anything we do. As, you might note, Yugoslavia has done. Only if after 16 years Yugoslavia had been restored would your question have any meaning whatsoever. Bosnia is stable now. Sorry, I'm underwhelmed. Is Yugoslavia? Perhaps the Sun or your other great sources have told you that Yugoslavia is now one country again. If so, you should consider consulting other sources. Bush promises that at some point in the future, Iraq will be a unified country. Sure it will--just like Yugoslavia. I also note that for some reason you've neglected to provide the information I asked for as to number of deaths of UK and US soldiers as a result of our involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Then compare to UK and US deaths in Iraq. Gee, I can't understand why you don't want to discuss that issue. As I said, you counsel patience in staying in Iraq. Tell me we would have stayed 16 years in Bosnia had casualty rates there been comparable to what they have been in Iraq. And perhaps you've forgotten that the vast majority of "MNF" (in your meaningless designation) casualties have occurred since the "victory" in 2003. Now, how about answering my question, which far from meaningless, is absolutely crucial: why do you not think that "Kurdistan" will never submit to the authority of the Maliki government--and in fact is determined to continue its de facto independence--including control of oil within its borders--even making separate oil deals without regard to the Maliki government? (And with the addition of Kirkuk and its oil, their power will increase.) Secondly, why do you not think this approach will be seen as a model by Shiites in the south? One more thing--you're cordially invited to stow your absurd "MNF". Just how "multilateral" is this force? Which country has contributed the most troops after the US? And is this country increasing or decreasing its involvement? How many countries' troops are providing the current "surge"? That's how "multilateral" this force is. As I've said earlier, Bush is reaping what he sowed. And it couldn't happen to a nicer despicable worm, incompetent in anything but propaganda. It's only too bad that the US population has to be associated with him--and his tragically stupid policies--at all. But it seems that in the US a lot of sheep--susceptible to his propaganda-- vote. I still haven't met one thinking being who voted for Bush--and is not sorry he or she did so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 20 Jul 07 - 12:07 PM MNF = Multi-National Force Ron, now how "multilateral" do you think 26 is. The original number of participants in the "coalition of the willing" in March 2003 outnumbered of participating countries that made up the "coalition forces" in 1990 (43 compared to 34 IIRC). But Ron, your question is irrelevant, UN forces who fought in Korea were predominantly from the US, that still does not alter the fact one jot that the action fought on the Korean Peninsula was a UN action and not an American War. Likewise in Iraq the MNF is a UN Force operating under a UN Mandate. Still see that you are attempting to introduce your "red herring" into the equation Ron. Yugoslavia ceased to exist nine months before Bosnia-Herzegovina declared independence. The peoples of the former Yugoslav Republic practiced their right to self determination long before Bosnia came into being, therefore there was never any attempt to hold Yugoslavia together. Mention of it therefore becomes irrelevant to what is being discussed. Glad to see that you admit that it is still early days in Iraq and that the MNF should be given time to achieve what a similar UN force achieved over the past fifteen years in Bosnia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Jul 07 - 03:13 PM Taking the title of the thread - it seems the cost of the war so far is around $100,000 million dollars. I never realised it had cost that much. Did you Teribus? Would you honestly reckon you have had value for money so far? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Jul 07 - 03:13 PM So sorry - that was per year of course not in total....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 20 Jul 07 - 03:32 PM From that sum Folkie deduct the cost of the Armed forces of the United States of America currently serving in Iraq. The US tax payer has to pay for them regardless of where they are - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 20 Jul 07 - 04:40 PM "Both Ankara and Tehran have made it clear that they see Iran as a potential partner for the EU and US-backed Nabucco gas pipe-line project, which was conceived as a way to diversify gas supplies to European markets." http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8604280163 The U.S. doesn't seem to like this agreement. When will it occur to you, teribus, that the U.S. is the odd-man out in the world of Middle East politics. It is obvious that it is time for them to pack up and go home. If not, they may find them holed-up in Kurdistan, surrounded by enemies. In other words, there is no way the U.S. will ever win this ill-conceived war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:02 PM "The term Multi-National Force is what the UN call them, all contingent parts are after all operating in Iraq at the specific invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq and in accordance with a duly issued United Nations Security Council Mandate." I thought that the forces in Iraq were called the "Coalition of the Willing." In fact, Kofi Annan called the invasion of Iraq, illegal. "The United Nations has been deeply reluctant to work in Iraq since 23 of its top people were killed by a bomb at its Baghdad headquarters in August 2003." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001625.html It seems that under new leadership, the U.N. will probably take a major role in re-building Iraq but to claim that the U.N. has somehow whole-heartedly supported the invasion of Iraq is deceptive and dishonest, teribus. The invasion of Iraq and the resultant loss of life in that country is the responsibility of Mr. Go-it-alone Bush. Your defense of his administration and his policies makes you one of the "willing'. At least most of us have protested every step of the way and tried to appeal to reason. Unfortunately, there will always be those who believe in might over right. Accountability is obviously not one of your strong points. Once again, I ask, whats in it for you, teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:13 PM From that sum Folkie deduct the cost of the Armed forces of the United States of America currently serving in Iraq. The US tax payer has to pay for them regardless of where they are - True? Well according to the National Priorities website that spending is forecast to reach $446 billion in September 2007 ".........only includes incremental costs, additional funds that are expended due to the war" - so no it is simply extra spending. It does include the costs of reconstruction - it doesn't include the costs of post war medical care..... No human costs for lives lost, families destroyed etc etc. I am amazed you learnt nothing from Vietnam...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM Let's have that list, by country, of the numbers of "MNF" boots on the ground in Iraq. And, are the numbers (of countries and/or personnel) going up or down? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:48 PM Anyone else notice that every day the Bushites push back the date that ***The Surge*** will work??? Seems like it's been moved back twice this week from Septmeber to next summer??? At that rate, give the Bushites another week an' it will be sometime in the next century... Face it folks... The surge ain't gonna work... This is a civil war we are now in the middle of... We ain't gonna win this one... Might of fact, this is alike rootin' for the home team late in the 4th quarter and down by 4 touchdowns... Yeah, I think we can all relate... Yeah, we hope that we just get one more touchdown but understand that the game is lost... Iraq is lost... The folks sayin', "Oh geeze, we just can't afford to loose" won't change this very simple truth... Iraq is lost... Better just dig in, bite the bullet and make the most of it... So I would think the question at hand isn't about whether or not the war can be won but what to do now... That involves a major paradyme switch... There are things that a militarially defeated US can do... Lot's of them... BUt they can't do them until they give up this false hope that **the surge*** will bring victory, or stability... That won't happen... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 20 Jul 07 - 09:06 PM Calling the invasion and subsequent actions in Iraq a UN action is like calling a whorehouse a domestic escort and cleaning service. You can argue the semantics, but no-one with two braincells left will buy it, because they will recognize it for meretricious and specious rationalization, the fervent effort to cover up the unjustifiable by clouds of loosely jointed explanations without merit. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jul 07 - 09:36 PM Teribus-- Feeble defense even for you. You and I both know Yugoslavia broke up when the leader holding together its fractious components passed from the scene. Exactly the same thing is now happening in Iraq. Or if you disagree, who is now the leader holding Iraq together? I'm afraid Maliki (who didn't want the job anyway) is presiding over its dissolution. I also note you somehow have forgotten--now how can that be?--to compare statistics on UK and US deaths in the former Yugoslavia and in the soon-to-be-former Iraq. I wonder if it slipped your mind because it points out the huge difference in sacrifice required by the West in the two situations. And therefore points out the absurdly out-of-touch nature of your blithe suggestion that we should just be patient in Iraq. When you return to reality, perhaps you might note there's a huge difference when your death toll is over 3,000 in 4 years, as opposed to a tiny fraction of that over 16 years. And at the end of the 16 years, as I believe I may possibly have pointed out before, not Yugoslavia but just a piece of it, appears to be stable. That is indeed also what we can expect after 16 years in "Iraq"--a stable piece of the wrecked state formerly called Iraq--but it's not what Mr Bush is promising. And you also forgot to tell us why my predictions on "Kurdistan", both as a model and agent of Iraq's breakup, are wrong. You even forgot to tell us if the country contributing most troops, after the US, to the "MNF", is increasing or decreasing its participation. And how many countries, members of your vaunted "MNF", are contributing troops towards the "surge". You sure are getting forgetful in your old age. I'm sure that's what it is- it couldn't possibly be refusal to answer awkward questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Jul 07 - 12:30 AM I think the Empire Island of Tonga is rethinking their position in it's support of the willing in Iraq. They getting tired of shippng coconuts & seeing no returns. Their loss will be tidal. All kidding aside we'll probably end up patroling 3 DMZ lines from now until doomsday, somewhat like Korea. If ya can't split a nation in two, split it in three. This is a US lead action, to call it anything else is absurd. Except when it comes to sharing the debt, then it's a UN problem to be shared by all. I'm glad there were some fools out there willing to help pick up the tab, otherwise if we had gone it alone the US would be gone the way of Russia, a bankrupt state that wouldn't have had a pot to piss in trying to feed itself off it's former states. But let's stick it out for another 6 or 7 years & see the how the state of the nation fairs. It's now poor, split, stupid with no direction or leadership worth a fig. China has our last 2 nickles & thy're rubbing those together. We're being dumbed down & our bodies & souls are too sick for our health care system to revive. We are now more of a threat to ourselves & have become a nation that terrorizes others, we have become the enemy & are tearing ourselves apart. So where does that put US in a few more years if we "SAY THE COURSE"? The ship of state is sunk! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:56 AM Simple question for you Amos - The MNF currently serving in Iraq does so under the authority of a United Nations Security Council Mandate and at the specific request of the Government of Iraq. True or False? Please note the use of the word "currently", you have introduced the "invasion" of Iraq, I on the otherhand never mentioned it, and, while I believe that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was perfectly justified, I do not believe that I have ever stated that the invasion in 2003 was backed or supported by the UN. "You and I both know Yugoslavia broke up when the leader holding together its fractious components passed from the scene." - Ron Davies. Partly correct Ron, but everybody reading this thread does know when Tito's Yugoslavia ceased to exist right down to the exact date, which was nine months before Bosnia-Herzegovins declared independence. Therefore to say that actions taken by the UN in Bosnia-Herzegovina were in any way, shape, or form an attempt to reconstitute the former Yugoslavia is patently ridiculous - You know that Ron and so does everybody reading this thread. As for your comparison of "body counts", I would suggest that you look up the UN web site, at its Charter, and find out under what circumstances the UN will put "Peace-Keepers" into any conflict situation - then the answer to your question becomes self explanitory - or do you want somebody else to read it for you and send you a report? Dianavan, while we are on the subject of the UN Charter. You mentioned Kofi Annan - you seem to value his take on things - how exactly did he describe what happened in Rwanda (He was the UN official in charge of that) at the time. Once he became General Secretary of the UN how did he describe what happened in Kosovo and what did he do about it? How did he describe what was, and still is, happening in Darfur and what did he do about it? The words that adequately sum up Kofi Annan and the organisation he represented are weak and ineffectual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST Date: 21 Jul 07 - 02:31 AM teribus - The new secretary general of the U.N. is Ban Ki-Moon. What I think of Kofi Annan is really beside the point. Thank goodness for Iraq that the U.N. exists. Why do you think the newly formed govt. of Iraq requested their help? It certainly was not because they thought they could trust the fate of their nation to the U.S. In fact, the world needs the U.N. to be there as witness to the U.S. occupation. The U.S. decided to go it alone and invade Iraq and formed a "coalition of the willing." As usual, the U.N. has had to go in after the U.S. and try to clean up the stinking mess. When the Iraqi govt. requested a U.N. presence in Baghdad, the U.S. had no choice but to support a U.N. presence. They simply bit off more than they could chew. Why do you think the U.N. is in Iraq, teribus? Where do you think the U.S. would be without the support of the U.N.? Where would Iraq be without the support of the U.N.? I think we should buy teribus a one-way ticket to Iraq so he can show us all how he would, "go it alone" and win the war. Don't be such a pompous ass, old guy. Your bluster never impressed anyone. You have become a cartoon character.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 02:44 AM Guest - dianavan? - The reality is exactly 180 degrees from your apparent position. The question in the real world is - "Where would the UN be without the United States of America?". My "bluster" as you call it is usually backed up by fact and some rational thought. I tend not to buy into wild misrepresentations, myths, half-truths and lies that you seem so keen to espouse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 07 - 11:15 AM "First as tragedy, then as farce, such are the repetitions of history. I can think of no more stunning demonstration of Marx's dictum than Zalmay Khalilzad's entirely unironic plea for the internationalization of the Iraq catastrophe: after running roughshod over the United Nations, voicing contempt for Old Europe (with its quaint institutions), and boasting that to the victor go the spoils, now the Bush administration wants the international community to come to its rescue. How does one respond to such hubris? I'd like to believe in the redemptive value of laughter, but as far as I can see, this tragedy gives way only to more of the same. Jonathan Feldman Los Angeles, July 20, 2007" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:29 PM "Where would the UN be without the United States of America?". The UN would be far better off with out the US as a member. We (the US) refuse to pay our dues but still demand they act as our puppet. We refuse to listen to or abide by their mandates, judgements & spirit. We'd rather go it alone than partner up with them. We've done everything in our power to make the UN useless untill we needed them to help foot the bill & clean up the mess. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 21 Jul 07 - 10:07 PM At the last reckoning the UN owed the US rather a large sum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 22 Jul 07 - 01:13 AM Sorry. I didn't mean to be anonymous. I just forgot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 22 Jul 07 - 07:20 AM And there was me thinking that because the US Administrations have long hated the UN, that the US owed the UN vast amounts. i must have been ill-informed. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 07 - 08:51 AM Now why does that not surprise me Ivor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 22 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM I'll go with this one.......... http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=475727 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 22 Jul 07 - 11:13 AM "...rational thought"..., T-zer... Surely you jest... B;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Jul 07 - 11:45 AM Teribus-- You're still just as forgetful as ever. Perhaps you want to adjust your meds. 1) What about the hugely different casualty rates between US and UK involvement in the former Yugoslavia and in the temporarily current Iraq? What exactly are the numbers? Why don't you think the discrepancy can--and should---play a role in determining UK and US involvement in the two situations? 2) Why do you not think "Kurdistan" will be both the model and the agent of Iraq's breakup? 3) What country has provided the second-highest total of troops in the Iraq war and is this involvement increasing or decreasing? 4) What countries (members of your vaunted MNF) have provided troops towards the "surge"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 22 Jul 07 - 03:56 PM I just cannot do the blue clicky thing yet - following the instructions to the letter gets me nowhere, so Teribus try www.digitaljournal.com/article/198205/united , which is the third hit on page 2 if you google "what does the US owe the UN". Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 22 Jul 07 - 04:45 PM http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/198205/united is the blue clicky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 22 Jul 07 - 08:50 PM teribus - You are a wealth of misinformation. Where do you get your facts? In the world 'according to teribus', the U.S. no longer owes $1.6 billion in UN dues. You must have a magic eraser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 02:07 AM i think the answer must be that you and I, Dianavan, are ill-informed. Hold your hat, this may be a bumpy ride. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Jul 07 - 04:10 AM "Where would the UN be without the US?" Answers: Richer. Unimpeded in carrying out its role. More impartial. Trusted more. More effective. Less busy, not having to mop up after the US. And so it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:56 AM I have no doubt whatsover that the US may owe the UN 1.6 or 1.8 billion$. This is worked out on a tariff system whereby the US pays, or is supposed to pay, 25 cents per dollar of UN expenditure. When it comes to UN actions the US is supposed to pay 31 cents per dollar. Now while the US may owe the UN 1.8 billion, what has happened to the 6.6 - 9 billion the US expended on UN actions in the period 1990 to 1997? At what point does that enter the equation? Or will the UN just be allowed to conveniently forget that, just as they did with the 100 million US$ paid in by Clinton in 1998 without Congressional approval. The obstacle to clearing the 580 odd million$ that the US has agreed to pay is the US Congress (Note Congress not the current Administration) is that while a broad agreement has been reached the UN refuses to keep it's side of the bargain. The agreement reached was as follows: - Revision of tariffs (Nothing has been done on this after the UN agreed to do so. If the US pays less it means others have to take up the slack and pay more - now we all know that that is not going to happen) - Transparency with regard to the UN's financial dealings, i.e. UN's books open to US (GAO) audit (Nothing done on that either) - UN debt pursued uniformly across the board. The audit thing will probably never happen, as too many snouts would have to be ripped from the trough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:59 AM T: This is interesting, and I had not been aware of the agreement you cite. Is it documented somewhere? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:05 AM Never mind the agreement - who authorised the expenditure cited? Just because the USA goes gung-ho into a country does not mean the expenditure has been authorised. Now Teribus I cited my source with the blue clicky - the United Nations Association of America. Just like I cited the source of my estimate of the cost of the war being EXTRA expenditure, not the cost of employing the forces anyway. Now your sources are....................? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:47 AM From here: http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-15-98.html + more from global policy forum site which do not seem to want to translate to links. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:51 AM Beg pardon, dianavan, looks like we might have been reasonably well-informed after all. Sooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmebody may have just changed the rules. I hope I'm right to say the US always stick to the rules, always pay their dues, never pick and choose what to support, alays keep their thumbs off the scales. But who can tell? And no doubt we'll be charging into Burma (as was), Indonesia, Zimbabwe and other places where undesirables are running their countries. Ivor Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 23 Jul 07 - 11:58 AM Teribus - your source is dated 1998. Mine is dated June 2007. I know which I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 01:13 PM Didn't look up the Global Forum then Folkie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: heric Date: 23 Jul 07 - 02:54 PM I just had a realization about Iraq. They didn't want to set up an example of an Islamic nation with secular government, as a shining example of democracy. Anyone can look to Turkey if they are so inclined. Damn I am so slow! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 23 Jul 07 - 02:57 PM Since the March 2003 invasion, the US-UK occupation of Iraq has utterly failed to bring peace, prosperity and democracy, as originally advertised. This major report assesses conditions in the country and especially the responsibility of the US-led Coalition for violations of international law. In twelve detailed chapters, brimming with information, the authors provide a unique and compelling analysis of the conflict, concluding with recommendations for action. Among the topics covered are: destruction of cultural heritage, killing of civilians, attacks on cities and long-term military bases. The report has been written and produced by Global Policy Forum and co-published by thirty NGOs. http://www.globalpolicy.org/ Excellent source - thanks. Each chapter seems to destroy everything you have said. I don't know where to start........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 06:21 PM Such as Folkie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 07 - 06:23 PM Not looked at the UN stuff then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:14 PM Screw the UN and the horse it rode in on... Whata friggin' joke of an organization since the US decided a long, long time ago to marginalize it by, ahhhhhh, not paying it's dues... Heck, it took Ted Turner offering to anty up in order to get the US's attention to pay it's friggin' dues... Now let' do a little review of the facts... George Bush came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq... This was reported by ***his own*** Secretarty of the Treasury... Then came 9/11 and he and his bud, Dick Cheney, went on a PR campaign to tell the American people that Iraq was involved... (BTW, this is all review, here...) so the American people got all lathered up for what they thought weould be a mop up operation against a 3rd rate military thinkin' that this would certianly make up for that bad taste they still had in their mouhts for the last war the US lost in Vietnam... Yeah, their were aluminum tubes, an' WMD's, and uranium cakes... (BTW, who in the Hell would eat one of them things...) and all kinds of scarey stuff... Ptroblem was, at the time there were plenty of people in the intellegece community saying "bullsh*t" but the Goerge and Dick Show went rolling on with mushroom clouds and flag waving an' used their reliable stooges in the South to make going to war a guage of one's Americanism... (Hmmmmm??? Remember Germany in the 30's and the brownshirts???) So then there was "Shock 'n Awe" while the worlds strogest military wiped out a minor league military and Southern Man was so proud ridin' 'round in his pickup truck with half a dozen "Support the Troops" magnet stickers on his truck to show how American he was an' then... Hmmmmmmm, a couple misfires and a completely screwed up idea met reality... Lets call this phase "Shock 'n Awe, Phase II" which we have been in now since George told us that the mission had indeed beeen accomplished... Problem is that the "Shock 'n Awe" is the look on any politican's face who bought all this bullsh*t in the first place... Oh, somewhere in between the mission and the reasons for the war have bounced like a silly ball from "Saddam was a badman who gassed the Kurds" (with our gas and later given gifts from the US) to Democracy will save the Middle East (heck, it ain't doin' too well here...) and now our mission id to train up even more secritarian folks so they can better fight a civil war... No, we don't say thet is our mission... Might of fact, our mission changes almost daily... But here we currently think that if we could just train more folks to kill then all be would fine??? I mean, let's get friggin' real here!!! We don't have a mission... What we have is a bungled chapetr of American history (with the Brits and few others dragged into our mess...)... Ther is no mission... Their are plenty of George and Dick smoke 'n mirror shows but no mission other than so kinda "victory" which they themselves can't define... This is purdy much where we find ourselves... The Teribus's of Mudcat have lost this one, too... There is no "Rational thinking" in their camp anymore... Actaullu, never has been... You can't have "rational thought" if you are stuck repeating behavior expecting a different result... Einstein defined that as insanity... Insanity and rational thought don't mix... And in the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." Get the Hell outta Iraq NOW!!! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:24 PM Oh, and BTW, those UN Resolutions that T-Bird is about to repeat for the 100th time ain't worth the paper they are written on... So, please, T-zer, spare us the academic exercise... We know what they worth... Nuthin'... That's what... The only reason that George 'n Dick went to the UN at all was to placate Colin Powell who thought that history might shine brighter on this screwed up decision if it had the sanctions of a totally marginalized organization... So, please, no more of that line of arguement, T, 'cause not only doesn't that dog hunt but that dog is comotose... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Alba Date: 23 Jul 07 - 10:09 PM Realizations about Iraq...... For the most part, people that supported this War have now realised this Nation was lied to and this administration has sent and keeps sending men and women over to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a war against .....the very war that was started by lies and that has now caused a war within the war that was started by lies ............! The people that opposed this war from the first lie have now realised that.....their worst fears have came true. Bring Home the Troops. They are still dying and Bush is still lying. On this, the 1,545th day since the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" was made by the GWB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:49 AM My realization about Iraq is that the U.S. military men just want to come out of it alive. There is no longer a mission. There is only fatigue and despair. They are tired and disgusted. They want to come home. The U.S. soldiers in Iraq have disassociated themselves from the U.S. administration and Congress. They have no faith in the decisions being made about their lives or the lives of the Iraqis. They are doing what they have to do but there is no longer any reason. Bobert is right. You cannot reason with the insane. The war in Iraq is illogical, therefore there is no reason. Bush and Cheney should be committed to a hospital for the criminally insane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: ard mhacha Date: 24 Jul 07 - 04:24 AM I don`t agree Dianavan, Bush and his string pullers should all be tried as war-criminals, evil men with the blood of countless thousands on their hands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Folkiedave Date: 24 Jul 07 - 04:39 AM Such as Folkie? Teribus, you asked me to look at the Global Policy Forum. As it happens I did, and I found a report on the war on Iraq. Your recommended source. So I presume you agree with much of what it details since you recommended it!! Here's what the opening introduction says: On March 20, 2003, the United States, the United Kingdom and a Coalition of allies invaded Iraq and overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. They claimed to bring peace, prosperity and democracy. But ever since, violence, civil strife and economic hardship have wrecked the land. Thousands of innocent people are now dead and wounded, millions are displaced, several of Iraq's cities lie in ruins, and enormous resources have been squandered. I didn't bother checking what it said about the UN. That was enough for me for the purpose of this thread. Up-to-date, authoritative, well-studied. But I did note your linked source was ten years out of date. I accept that that may not be the best you could have done - what I can't understand is why you bothered in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 07 - 11:53 AM A well the global policy forum did have some very good coverage of the financing tussle, explaining the positions of the US and the UN. As for much of the rest of it, I would generally tend to disagree with their take on things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:13 PM Bobert: Petraeus and company, in liaison with the US Ambassador to Iraq, have actually been working on a definition of their mission and a path toward execution of it which should carry on into 2009, at least, involving estabslishing regions of safety and security and then joining the regions into a net of safe, secure areas. Sounds great on paper, but I can;t really say I see how they think it is going to work. So it is not the case they have NO mission. The real question is whether they should have such a mission, at all, and if so why, based on facts rather than fear-mongering. Can't say I am persuaded. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 24 Jul 07 - 02:21 PM teribus, i would tend to disagree with your take on things. I will defend your right to say them, tho' not 'to the death'. you are selective - we all are you chop and change - yea, i like doin' that. That way we'll get nowhere. i'd be interested to know if anyone has ever said on Mudcat, "I can see that I've been mistaken; I would like to say that my view has now altered." And I wonder if and when we'll really, really, really know what the invasion was about? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 07 - 09:28 PM Amos, I agree whole-heartedly, my friend... This is a war that should have never occured... Period... And, BTW, shouldn't "the mission" be a collective decision of a population??? Seems that the original "mission" was to gdeal with WMD's... Rememmeber them??? Well, none were found so "war over"... Right??? That's my point... There was nevr a"nission" that was based on facts so since then George and Dick have wnadered aimlessly in "Missionburg" shopping for something saleable... Problem is their ain't nuthin' on Missisonburg's shelf that anyone, 'cept a couple knowheads here in Mudville, would buy... They are all junk missions... Way passed their shelf life... The American people are so way beyond buying any more of George 'n Dick's snake oil... Looks like T-Bird is still buying it but his orders ain't keepin' the company healthy... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: SINSULL Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:18 PM I agree, bobert. It should not have happened. And with the new President, we will pull out. We will leave behind a country in ruins, thousands of fatherless children and bitter widows who will carry on the terrorist war against the US (rightfully so). It is another Viet Nam. I am ashamed of my country's participation in it. baby bush and those who supported his war have blood on their hands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 25 Jul 07 - 02:04 PM And how long will it take Iraq and the Iraquis to recover historically and psychologically from the scars. 'bout 650 years? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Amos Date: 26 Jul 07 - 11:36 AM HEy, the main thing was avenging George's dad, right? That was accomplished when the hidey-hole headlines hit. Or when the hangman said Salaam. The only thing left to do is to manage Iraq so as to stabilize OPEC, for the greater glory of industrial might everywhere, especially the oil-fired variety. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees how terribly terribly important this is, because some people ALSO have human values, and a different sense of perspective. So the damn ragamuffins aren't cooperating, and Bush's Boyos were too goddamn stupid to predict what would happen based on the lessons of almost two thousand years of history. George's major. Tsk. Perhaps he wasn't studying for comprehension? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 26 Jul 07 - 05:12 PM The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. after Hegel. (The swine ) Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 26 Jul 07 - 08:54 PM And look at the PR campaign that is coming outta the Bush/Cheney war room... "If we leave there will be chaos" is purdy much the compnay fighjt song... And what is there now??? Hmmmmmm??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 27 Jul 07 - 04:31 AM bobert - What now? Bush says the U.S. is fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. That's the latest. But George, if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place, al Qaeda wouldn't be in Iraq! Maybe you should listen when Iraq says it doesn't want to be your battleground. If you want to win your war on terrorism, you'll have to destroy their training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malayasia, the Phillipines and the Sudan. Maybe this war will continue until the U.S. stops trying to be the Corporation of the World. How do you win a war when your war-like actions, breed cells of resistance throughout the world? This isn't just the Iraq war, it will go down in history as the War of Greed. Thats why I wish people would stop dividing into racial/cultural/sexual camps and start to recognize the real enemy - Greed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 27 Jul 07 - 05:50 AM Now what's that econo-political system that tends to thrive on and therefore nurture Greed. Damn, it was on the tip of my tongue. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 31 Jul 07 - 10:15 AM Doesn't anyone know? Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:18 PM Yeah, I know, but I'm too busy making money right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: autolycus Date: 31 Jul 07 - 05:46 PM LOL Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Jul 07 - 06:19 PM Here are some more...ummm...realizations about Iraq: Iran vs. Iraq - Ali G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 31 Jul 07 - 06:23 PM Yeah, d, the new story is the same one, "Either we fight them there or we fight them here..." What a load of carp... Al Qeada of Iraq, even by the best estimates of our own intellegence community, has no interest in creating cells here... What they want is to fight ASmericans on Iraqu soil... Might of fact, the sdame intellegence reports say that they are only loosly connected with the bin Laden group... So, like I've said all along... Get the heck out... There is no justifiable reason for being there regarless of Al Qeada in Iraq... Just get out... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Aug 07 - 05:20 AM I do not believe that when we leave Iraq, the al Qaeda fighters there will cease hostilities against the West. When the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, the al Qaeda fighters did not go back to farming. They drew immense strength and kudos from their victory and extended their operations. There is no basis for negotiation with these people. They hate us. We will have to fight them somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 03 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM Why not fight them where the one's who attacked us are??? That, BTW, ain't Iraq... Iraq has only produced more terorism... Not less... Plus, Iraq has weakened our ability to hold down Al Qeada in both Afganistan and Pakistan... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Nickhere Date: 03 Aug 07 - 09:04 PM Nice article on what Iraq's all about..... Iraq and the US Dollar |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:11 AM Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Stuck in the middle with a forlorn hope somebody might be interested in making sense. Actually, Bobert's last post has it nailed. No conspiracy theory necessary. And it'll be a moot point anyway soon. The largest Sunni group has withdrawn from the cabinet, one of their concerns being, as I may possibly have told Teribus before, perhaps more than once, that the militias be purged from the police. There doesn't seem to be much love lost between Sadr, whose group is a state within a state, and Maliki. Maliki didn't want the job to begin with. Sadr may want it--or may just want power. And if he doesn't feel Maliki is sufficiently in his pocket, he may direct his representatives to withdraw from the government--again. The Kurds never wanted to be part of "Iraq" since it was cobbled together in the 1920's by the British. (As I think I mentioned earlier, Churchill's description of trying to control Iraq at the time was " living on top of an ungrateful volcano.") They only want "Kurdistan" and have done enough for the Baghdad government that they can call in their chits on that score. "Kurdistan" is already de facto independent. They're smart enough not to insist on de jure--though they will insist on the referendum on Kirkuk--with its oil--which they're bound to win. So either the Maliki regime will just fall from lack of support, or "Kurdistan" will progressively cut itself off from "Iraq"--and the south will see this as a great model. And that will result in the de facto partition of "Iraq". See the Yugoslav model. It's just a question of which of these happens first. No need for anybody in the West to agonize over how we should or shouldn't partition Iraq. Don't worry, the Iraqis will do the partitioning. And though Bush refuses to admit it yet, "Kurdistan" is in fact the fallback position for the US. US troops will stay there, regardless of what else happens. Not only oil, but the Kurds actually like the idea--as a bulwark against possibly Turkish rash moves-- like a full invasion, as distinguished from raids. Not likely, but possible--except if US troops are there. If I had to guess, I'd say the first option-- the Maliki government will fall soon. Regardless of anything the West could do. And that will put paid to Mr. Bush's excellent adventure. And clinch his title as the all-time worst US president. After all, he's done his best to win the trophy--and succeeded brilliantly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:16 AM "possible Turkish" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Aug 07 - 11:54 AM WSJ: 17 Aug 2007; "In Baghdad political leaders formed a fresh alliance to save the government, but it included no Sunnis". As I've told Teribus for months, if not years, this approach will never work. Irony is there were reports some of the Anbar Sunnis now working with the Americans against al-Qaeda would be invited to join the government--but Maliki now says his government never intended this. That closes the last door to avoiding full-scale civil war. Unless Maliki changes his mind on this point, his government is now doomed--by his own actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: bobad Date: 26 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM A glimmer of hope? NY Times article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 07 - 07:28 PM This op-ed is famous (infamous?) is some circles. It's also not current. 30 July, as I recall. Heard a fascinating radio interview with Mr. O' Hanlon. He admitted that the military progress, such as it is, is essentially worthless absent political progress--which is of course as you know the raison d'etre of the "surge" The op-ed begs the most important question: will Maliki actually allow Sunnis to participate meaningfully? He blows hot and cold on this. We'll know soon enough. Supposedly there are--quite a few-- Sunnis who have been vetted to be part of security forces in Baghdad. Also, if they are accepted, will they be seen as dangerous opponents--who need attention--by the Shia militias still in the police? If either Maliki either finds excuses to not accept these Sunnis, or is forced by Shia groups to withdraw the acceptance, the game is up. Sunnis will continue to work with "the surge" in Anbar, etc.--with an eye to another opponent when the Americans start to withdraw. And actually, the chances for "victory" in Iraq are still slim to none, even with Sunnis in the police--unless "victory" can mean the end of Iraq as a unified state. As has been noted before, "Kurdistan"--with Kirkuk--is as good as gone. It's likely that Shia in the south will see the "Kurdistan" approach as a good model. If so, what state will Maliki or his successor actually rule? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:50 AM From the Washington Post: Bush's Lost Iraqi Election By David Ignatius Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A21 Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections. "Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not," Allawi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us." Behind Allawi's comment lies a tale of intrigue and indecision by the United States over whether to mount a covert-action program to confront Iran's political meddling. Such a plan was crafted by the Central Intelligence Agency and then withdrawn -- because of opposition from an unlikely coalition that is said to have included Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then House minority leader, and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser. As recounted by former U.S. officials, the story embodies the mix of hubris and naivete that has characterized so much of the Iraq effort. From President Bush on down, U.S. officials enthused about Iraqi democracy while pursuing a course of action that made it virtually certain that Iran and its proxies would emerge as the dominant political force. The CIA warned in the summer and fall of 2004 that the Iranians were pumping money into Iraq to steer the Jan. 30, 2005, elections toward the coalition of Shiite religious parties known as the United Iraqi Alliance. By one CIA estimate, Iranian covert funding was running at $11 million a week for media and political operations on behalf of candidates who would be friendly to Iran, under the banner of Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The CIA reported that in the run-up to the election, as many as 5,000 Iranians a week were crossing the border with counterfeit ration cards to register to vote in Iraq's southern provinces. To counter this Iranian tide, the CIA proposed a political action program, initially at roughly $20 million but with no ceiling. The activities would include funding for moderate Iraqi candidates, outreach to Sunni tribal leaders and other efforts to counter Iranian influence. A covert-action finding was prepared in the fall of 2004 and signed by President Bush. As required by law, senior members of Congress, including Pelosi, were briefed. But less than a week after the finding was signed, CIA officials were told that it had been withdrawn. Agency officials in Baghdad were ordered to meet with Iraqi political figures and get them to return whatever money had been distributed. Mystified by this turn of events, CIA officers were told that Rice had agreed with Pelosi that the United States couldn't on the one hand celebrate Iraqi democracy and on the other try to manipulate it secretly. Ethically, that was certainly a principled view. But on the ground in Iraq, the start-stop maneuver had the effect of pulling the rug out from under moderate, secular Iraqis who might have contained extremist forces. (Asked about the withdrawal of the intelligence finding, spokesmen for Rice and Pelosi declined to comment.) "The Iranians had complete command of the field," recalls one former U.S. official who was in Iraq at the time. "The Iraqis were bewildered. They didn't understand what the U.S. was doing. It looked like we were giving the country to Iran. We told Washington this was a calamitous event, from which it would be hard to recover." Allawi, in a telephone interview Tuesday from Amman, Jordan, confirmed that the United States had shelved its political program. "The initial attitude of the U.S. was to support moderate forces, financially and in the media," he said. "This was brought to a halt, under the pretext that the U.S. does not want to interfere." Allawi said the American decision was "understandable" but ceded the field to Iran and its well-financed proxies. Allawi said he is trying to gather support for a new coalition of Kurds, Sunnis and secular Shiites as an alternative to the Shiite religious coalition that installed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power. Some commentators see Allawi's recent decision to hire a Washington public relations firm as a sign of the Bush administration's support, but the opposite is probably the case. If Allawi had U.S. government backing, he wouldn't need the lobbyists. Future historians should record that the Bush administration actually lived by its pro-democracy rhetoric about a new Iraq -- to the point that it scuttled a covert action program aimed at countering Iranian influence. Now the administration says it wants to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq, but it is probably too late. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:42 PM Ayad Allawi is a scoundrel who has very little support in Iraq. Nobody trusts him. He has a long history of dirty deals and bad company and in spite of secular support has been unsuccessful politically. His only hope is the support of the U.S. but they already tried that and failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 30 Aug 07 - 07:41 PM Ahhhhh, looks as if we are being served up another order of bad intellegence... Allawi??? Chalibi??? When will they ever learn??? This was a major danger in getting involved in Iraq... These folks lie... It is a honored skill... I learned it in dealing with the Kuwaitis during Gulf I and Saudis afterwards... The US will never get it becasue of major cultural differences... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Sep 07 - 09:37 AM Similarity between the Holy Roman Empire and Maliki's National Union government: Both none of the above |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Bobert Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:19 AM Yeah, Ron... And now we are hearing that we are getting ready to be fed a bunch of half-truths and outright BS on the post-"Surge" level of violence in Iraq... Oh, boy... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:00 AM What amazes me is how the dwindling few Bush true believers--like the WSJ editorial page--are still spinning the success in Anbar, for instance, as success for Iraq. More sober observers, like the WSJ's own reporters, realize that the link between the Anbar Sunnis and the Americans is just more confirmation that Iraq, as I 've been saying for months, is splitting up. Rather than "ground-up" (the new buzzword) reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites, we're getting closer ties--and more dependency between US forces and Sunnis--and fewer ties--and more tension-- between between the US and Sunnis on one side and the so-called national government on the other. The US had hoped that it could undercut the Shiite militias as it has done al-Qaeda forces-- though that was only courtesy of al-Qaeda's own overrreaching. But, far more than al-Qaeda, the Mahdi army in particular is a state within a state--with its own rogue elements, to be sure, but with a history of providing security and other services which the Iraq "national" government" has never been able to provide. And that means loyalty on the part of many ordinary Iraqis which al-Qaeda never even had a prayer of getting. And the Mahdi "army" has its own rivals, the Hakim Badr Corps--a competition which further clouds the situation. And of course the Shiite militias are entrenched in the Iraqi police--a situation, which, as I've been trying--unsucessfully--to explain to Teribus, for years, it seems, the Sunnis can never accept. And on top of that, the continuing example of "Kurdistan" which for all practical purposes is no longer part of Iraq, though officially it still is. And now the brilliant new idea, it seems, is that the US role will evolve into a military advisory capacity. Fine, except for the little problem of trying to "train" sectarian hate, reinforced by all the continuing sectarian killings, out of the forces we are to teach. It's patently obvious to anybody following the situation that the US will wind up retreating to "Kurdistan". The only question is when. So nobody will be happy--neither the Left, which wants a complete withdrawal from Iraq, nor the Right which wants "victory", whatever that is this week. Nobody will be happy except the Kurds, who will get protection from possible ill-advised Turkish moves--and there will be some oil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:16 PM Ambassador Crocker's answer to Senator McCain's question about Crocker's level of confidence that the Maliki government would take the necessary steps for reconciliation: Crocker: "My level of confidence is under control". Classic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Sep 07 - 09:26 AM The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing (Interview with SEYMOUR HERSH) Q.: If the Iraq war does end up as a defeat for the US, will it leave as deep a wound as the Vietnam War did? Hersh: Much worse. Vietnam was a tactical mistake. This is strategic. How do you repair damages with whole cultures? On the home front, though, we'll rationalize it away. Don't worry about that. Again, there's no learning curve. No learning curve at all. We'll be ready to fight another stupid war in another two decades. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Realizations about Iraq From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Mar 08 - 07:22 AM Washington Post: Fantasies on Iraq Political speeches on the war's anniversary have in common the promise of the impossible. THE FIFTH anniversary of the invasion of Iraq prompted a flurry of speeches from President Bush and the Democratic candidates who hope to inherit the White House next year. Sadly, what they had in common was their failure to grapple with hard realities -- beginning with the elusiveness of any clear or quick path toward Mr. Bush's promise of "victory," or that of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to "end this war." Mr. Bush's address dwelt on the success of the initial military campaign of March 2003, then skipped ahead to the "surge" of the last year. The president deservedly claimed credit for launching the latter campaign, which has drastically reduced the level of violence in Iraq. But he went on to claim that, more than turning "the situation in Iraq around," the surge "has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror." That sounded at best premature, given the tenuousness of the security gains and the slowness of Iraqi leaders to strike political deals that could truly stabilize the country. The president at least recognizes, from "hard experience," how quickly progress in Iraq can unravel. Yesterday he pledged not to order troop withdrawals beyond the five brigades due to return home by this summer unless "conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders" warrant it. That means that if Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton become president, he or she will be the commander in chief of at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Yet their speeches suggest an understanding of the conflict and the stakes for the United States that is as detached from reality as they accuse Mr. Bush of being when he decided on the invasion. Barely acknowledging the reduction in violence, the Democratic candidates insist that U.S. troops are, as Ms. Clinton put it, "babysitting a civil war." In fact, the surge forestalled an incipient civil war, and U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq don't hesitate to say that if American forces withdrew now, sectarian conflict would probably explode in its full fury, causing bloodshed on a far greater scale than ever before and posing grave threats to U.S. security. BOTH Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton propose withdrawing U.S. troops at the most rapid pace the Pentagon says is possible -- one brigade a month. In the 16 months or so it would take to remove those forces, they envision the near-miraculous accomplishment of every political goal the Bush administration has aimed at for five years, from the establishment of a stable government to agreement by Iraq's neighbors to support it. They suppose that the knowledge that American forces were leaving would inspire these accords. In fact, it more likely would cause all sides to discount U.S. influence and prepare to violently seize the space left by the departing Americans. With equal implausibility, the Democratic candidates say they would leave limited U.S. forces behind to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing bases. They assume that an Iraqi government that had just been abandoned by the United States would consent to the continued presence of American forces on its territory. In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets. If there was a glimmer of sense in Mr. Obama's speech, it lay in his acknowledgment that "we will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met and to make sure our troops are secure." Ms. Clinton conceded that "the critical question is how we can end this war responsibly" and added "it won't be easy." In fact it will be terribly hard -- and it can't be done responsibly in the way or on the timeline the two Democrats are proposing. We can only hope that, behind their wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric, the candidates understand that reality. |
