BS: Realizations about Iraq

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.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:16 AM

"possible Turkish"

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: autolycus
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 05:46 PM

LOL





    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 - 10:15 AM

Doesn't anyone know?






      Ivor

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 06:23 PM

Not looked at the UN stuff then?

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: 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: 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: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 01:13 PM

Didn't look up the Global Forum then Folkie?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.