BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq

Subject: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,MM
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 08:38 PM

Considering that "immediate" withdrawal from Iraq will never resemble anything close to immediate, how do all here vote?

I cast mine for immediate. And not to Kuwait. Home.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: pdq
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 08:45 PM

The Democrat position is that the US should withdraw from Iraq in stages over the next six months. However, if the situation gets dire, we could stay up to one year .

The Republican position is that we should withdraw from Iraq in one year. However, if things go very well, things could be stepped up and we would be out in six months.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 08:48 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:03 PM

Immediate withdrawal....

The politicians tell us that if we withdraw immediately there will be a "bloodbath"
If the US had any sort of news media, they would know that Iraq is already a "bloodbath". One which we created.

The only question left to ask, is.....Do we want to preside over our "bloodbath"???.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:13 PM

Well, yeah, I've been one of the most vocal critic of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq but even I can't go for an immediate withdrawl...

But what I can live is a timetable to be announced shortly after a Middle East Summit and an attempt to revive something that looks like the original "Saudi Proposal" that I put forth in the made-dash-to-Iragmire....

It is now very much in everyone's interests that some level of stability be preserved while the Iragi's fight it out and that is going to take a more comprehensive agreement that deals not only with Iraq but also the Isreali/Palestinian situation, Iran and other regional conflicts... And it's gonna involve talking directly with Iran and Syria...

Yeah, revive the "Saudi Proposal" and see what it has to offer the region is the first step....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:15 PM

Withdraw when Iraqi security forces can provide the necessary security, and not until.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:26 PM

Anyone who knows shit from shinola knows that you don't do "immediate" withdrawals. You provide covering forces, leapfrogging as you withdraw (i.e., retreat). Anything less becomes a slaughter of the retreating forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:28 PM

Come on Bobert, do you think there will ever be peace as long as we need to export our culture and hypocritical "democracy"?

If we want our economic system to survive, we must continue to export our culture. The leaders of militant Islam may be demented,but they quite rightly despise what we have come to stand for.
I see no easy solution, other than getting all our boys back home, lock the doors, draw the curtains and get heads under blankets...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: MaineDog
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:29 PM

In order to prevent a blood bath in Iraq, we need to find a strong leader that all the factions will follow, either out of respect, or out of fear, if necessary, until the situation improves. If we could find one and dust him off a bit, then we could get out with honor.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:37 PM

Oh, it'll have to be a staged withdrawal. The US forces must either be replaced by Iraqi forces...or by international forces that did not participate in the original invasion. Since the latter mission is quite unlikely to attract any willing volunteers to put their people at risk, I guess it will have to be the former. Figure a year to disengage. I'd be surprised if they could manage it sooner than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:39 PM

Our Supreme Leader has said this is a perpetual war against terrorim and American troops will be in Iraq at least 20 years. Hillary has seconded that stance. Enough said. Persist in this discussion at your own peril.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: number 6
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:44 PM

"leapfrogging as you withdraw"

It's going to be one Hell of a leapfrog, let me tell ya.

Certainly wouldn't want to be in the last platoon leaving Bagdad.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,MM
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:52 PM

Funny Bobert, you don't seem to have it on your radar that right wing hawks like Pelosi's boy Murtha, and left wing progressives like Kucinich and Feingold, both support immediate withdrawal.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:53 PM

"Immediate withdrawal. I hear the bishop coming.", as the Sister said to the choirboy.
Seriously though, an orderly pulling back to Kuwait might be saner, remembering what happened the last time we promised freedom to those Iraqis who would stand for it, and then did not back it up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,MM
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 09:54 PM

oh, and pdq, there is no "official Democrat position" regarding Iraq. The party is split on immediate vs phased. The only thing they do agree on is it is time to bring the troops home. If that isn't their position after last Tuesday, it will be by January. Cuz if it ain't, they'll get their asses whipped in '08.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: number 6
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:03 PM

Anyone ever read "Retreat from Kabul: The Catastrophic British Defeat in Afghanistan, 1842" by Patrick MacRory.

Good reading concerning the topic of this thread ... a few similarities.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:56 PM

I've yet to hear anyone advocate immediate withdrawal. The closest anyone has yet come is for a "phased" withdrawal, with the (otherwise undefined) phases to begin as soon as early in 2007. The most intelligent proposal I've heard is for internal security to be rapidly phased into a police operation, primarily run by Iraqis, with the US and other international forces keeping jihadis outside the borders of the country.   One of the (many) mistakes we made from the beginning, and I'm talking about 9-11 and before, is treating what is basically a gang of murdering criminals as a military enemy (as in "the War against Terror") and going after them with soldiers rather than police.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:24 PM

"if things go very well" or "when Iraqi forces can supply the necessary security".

Dream on.

How many centuries do you envision this will take? I'll clue you--it'll be a while.


In fact, Iraq is busily drifting in the wrong direction--if not rushing in the wrong direction.



I've just heard--you may have also--that one of the top Sunnis, head of one of the most prominent parties in Iraq, is now to be arrested.

Short cut to real civil war.

And there ain't too awful much we can do about it.

As I've said before, our leverage is--severely--limited.

For Maliki, it's a Catch-22.   To undercut the insurgency he has to do the same 2 things I've been talking about for over a year---assure the Sunnis that they will have more oil income than would accrue to just "their" parts of Iraq, and, even more urgently, make sure that Sunnis can trust the police--which they emphatically cannot now. But one of the main supporters of his government, al Sadr, refuses to accept real purging of the Shiite militias now in the police--which is the only way Sunnis could trust them.

Nobody likes the horrendous--and worsening--bloodshed---but the first step to dealing with a situation is recognizing reality.

The perfect Pollyanna attitude, as illustrated by "if things go very well" or "when Iraqi forces can supply the necessary security" is not helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 02:43 AM

Immediate, now, tomorrow, yesterday & if we throw Israel into the bargin, to become a new part of Iraq, the Iraqi's will be so busy dividing Israel up that they will forget about civil war & the rest of the mid east would be so overjoyed with the new road maps that they'll make the peace keep it's self. And all's well that ends well.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 03:55 AM

There's no good way out. It was a tragic and stupid case of fools rushing in. Stay, and the slaughter goes on without end. Leave, and there will be mass slaughter, ethnic cleansing and partition.

Given that you can't turn back the clock, and put Saddam back, and come to an agreement with him (doesn't that sound so simple now?), the balance must go towards as quick a withdrawal as can be managed, replacement by a "peacekeeping force" drawn from Islamic countries, and expect the worst. To get a Sunni/ Shia balance, Syria and Iran will have to be included in this force, but also include anyone else that can be persuaded, from Morocco to Indonesia.

Perhaps the Kurds would prefer a more mixed occupation for their bit, with European elements, since their problem is more likely to be with Turkey.

And the US and Britain to pay for the replacement force. It will be cheaper and more humane than staying.

At the same time, do something about the problem that underlies the whole thing. Israel must return to the 1967 borders, and compensation must be given to the descendants of the Palestinians displaced in 1947. The Palestinian economy must be rebuilt, and water issues addressed. Unless that part of the jigsaw is attended to, expect to find Iraq settle down relatively quickly once the allies withdraw, as the militants take the war against them elsewhere.

Most wars end not in victory but in negotiation. If the war against terror is ever to end, it will end that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 11:07 AM

Staying on is fairly obviously pointless, because it's the occupation that fuels the insurgency, and the forces of regime propped up by the occupation that are largely responsible for much of the inter-ethnic violence. But pulling out just like that in present circumstances would also be liable to have terrible immediate consequences for the population. (Leaving aside the danger to the occupation forces themselves, which, while very important indeed, should be a secondary consideration.)

The best option would be negotiate rapidly with a view to handing over directly to the Iranians so far as working with the Shi'ites is concerned, and handing over to the Syrians for working with the Sunni. And being ready to stick around, if requested, in the Kurdish area to provide direct backup for the Kurds in keeping the Turks and others at bay.

It wouldn't be neat, since there are the Shi'ites and Sunni aren't neatly divided off, especially in the Baghdad area. They used to get on reasonably well but there's been a lot of inter-communal violence since the occupation began. However there's a reasonable chance that Syria and Iran could work out some solution, once the Americans were out of the picture.

It'd be reasonable that the Americans and British should cover the cost of all this, on the grounds that the people who made the mess should have the responsibility for making good the damage insofar as possible.

But that won't happen. It would involve an official recognition that what has been done to Iraq was a grotesque blunder. There may be a consensus that this is the case, but it won't be admitted, any more than it was in Vietnam.

What will probably happen is a precipitate withdrawal at some future date, after a good deal more killing, in circumstances that will ensure a disastrous civil war, in the course of which the Iranians and the Syrians, and maybe other neighbours will move in and partition Iraq between them.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 01:39 PM

Yo, GUEST, MM...

As much as I respect Dennis Kucinich, he doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to think...

Doug R,

Training scurtioy folks may not be thr smartest thing to do as many of these folks ure using this training to better kill folks they don't much like...

Others,

Yeah, I'm stickin' with a Middle East Summit to be held ASAP, like yesterday, with a framework similar to the "Saudi Proposal" (Mitchell Proposal) as a starting place...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 01:45 PM

Part of the idiocy of the intiial unilateral invasion is failing to understand where free societies come from, which is not from external invasions. There have been som empires which successfully integrated conquered nations and made a going concern -- the Incans come to mind -- but they are few. Bush's posture of "Vee haff vays off makink you free" is jejeune and pretentious, as well as being irrational and unrealistic.

The Shiites and Sunnis have demonstrated that they are unwilling to rise above their differences unless they are suppressed into doing so in the style used by Saddam Hussein. Because of their unreasoning tribal loyalties, they have declared for something other than freedom -- the right to dramatize us against them.

Until their is an indigenous demand and some local heros and leaders to focus and crystallize that demand, the ingredients for a freedom-based society are absent. Freedom is not an absence of oppression, so much as it is an insistence on sovereignty. Very few voices coming out of Iraq seem interested in insisting on their own sovereignty as a nation. They want tribal and clan sovereignty, leaving them free to wage war on anyone outside those small cliques they so love.

As far as I know even in the wildest days of our wild western expansion, the biggest problem in bringing law and order was unruly individuals and a few loosely affiliated gangs. There were turf wars of sheep versus cattle, and water wars, but mostly the sides were individuals and thier ranches.

Bringing law and order in a country where the lawmen routinely use their uniforms to mask crimes committed along clan lines is not a workable proposition. No demand for a rule of law, and no demand for freedom, leave us with the uncomfortable conclusion that Saddam may have been right in choosing the iron fist as his management style, a disgusting thought.

It occurs to me that there may be an entirely different button that could serve as a unifying and liberating ralllying cry for both Sunnios and Shiites, much in the way that the notion of "liberty" and "no taxation without representation" rallied the American colonies. A different answer to what these people really, deeply want. Not an exported off-the-shelf answer from a weak minded emperor.

Wish I knew what the hell it was, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Grab
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 04:51 PM

But if Syria, Saudi and Iran all get involved and the religious leaders of both sides say "don't do it", things might calm down. When the religious leaders of both sides are just saying "death to America and its supporters", you're screwed, especially since "supporters" from both groups get killed in the crossfire.

For me, that's one of the strongest signs that they never went in there looking for a long-term solution. A long-term solution means a peace that'll hold with the other neighbouring countries and with the religious leaders of both sides. If your first action after invading is to say "fuck off Iran or we'll have you too", you're not going to get much co-operation!

Phased is certainly the only way, but also with assistance from other countries. And yes, a peacekeeping force that's not "contaminated" by having done the invasion would be a good place to start, espccially if it comes from countries that have respect in those parts, like Syria.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

If the suggestion Amos is making is that the Sunnies and Shi'ites are pretty screwed up and it's natural to them to hate each other because the are different from us, I can't buy that. The inter-communal violence there is no different in principle from that which has happened between different groups of Christians in places like Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia, Ruanda, the United States.

In times of disruption differences which have been no barrier to neighbours getting along together can turn into something very different, for all kinds of reasons. And you always find there are some people working to accentuate the differences, and thus fan the flames. In the case of Iraq, some of those people are at the heart of the occupation and the occupation backed regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 02:35 AM

U.S. forces should withdraw into Kurdistan and evacuate from there.

Let Iran handle the Shittes and Syria can control the Sunnis.

Israel should return to their 1967 borders and the Palestinian people should be helped, Internationally, to re-build their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 05:20 AM

It's amazing the number of people here who think we still have any control over the situation.
We have no control. Our forces are largely confined to fortified positions and we are politically impotent.
We have nothing the Middle East wants, and they have everything that we want.

Outright piracy has failed. We need to get to fuck out now, imprison those who led us to this conclusion...Blair Bush and all their acolytes.....Then work out how we are to survive for the next couple of centuries as the "have nots" of this world......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 11:45 AM

Sounds kind of like Vietnam, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: skipy
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 11:49 AM

Home - NOW!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 06:12 PM

No, no, no! It's NOT like Vietnam! Rumsfeld and Bush have both said so! And if you can't believe them who can you believe?

Besides, the mission has been accomplished, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 08:39 PM

I am sure we are all in favor of an immediate phased withdrawl when the mission is complete with all deliberate speed.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 08:49 PM

As long as we stay the course, of course, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Nov 06 - 11:17 PM

So waiting until Iran and Israel Nuke each other into glass*, and then deciciding that being in the middle isn't a sensible option then. I had money on that one in the office sweepstake....




* I would have said back into the stone age, but a) it would appear that in the most important respect, their way of thought, they haven't moved on since then, and b) It's the Neolithic , or Mesolitic, or Paleololithic, not stone age!

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 02:12 AM

Unlikely, Bunn. Possible, but unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 05:19 AM

It always pisses me off when folks contrast the cultures of primitive peoples badly against the mess that "progress" has produced.

Humanity has moved so far from nature, and the human brain has become so distorted, that we are now a virus which is surely destroying everything of real value in the world...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 06:05 AM

I'm in sympathy with a lot of that Ake which is why just because politicians say something,e.g."If we withdraw immediately,there'll be a bloodbath," I don't feel obliged to think they know what they're talking about.

Nor would I let the voters off the hook that easily. Bush,Blair and co. are there because of voters.

In fact, all these matters, Iraq, war,voting,oil, mortgages,religion, power, money,fear, violence all hang together in a single web that we are all part of.

Which takes me back to the deeper matters that give rise to all of this web, not just the Near Eastern mess that we are all party to.

Nice cars, holidays,fashion,vast bank accounts, houses to show off are merely the lovely upside of the horrible downside of Iraq,yobs,murder, and all the rest of our dark side.

So I don't think there is an obvious solution, tho' I'd like to think Dianavan has got a good one,as well as Ake. I'm too ignorant to know if Dianavan's solution can be got to from where we are realistically. I hope so.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 07:38 AM

Iran to handle the Shiites and Syria to control the Sunnis?   Only problem is neither group wants to be "handled" or "controlled". Nor should they. People don't seem to realize that co-religionists don't necessarily want to be "handled" or "controlled" by another state.

Negotiations involving these 2 states, fine. But don't forget to include the actual Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. There's already been enough dictating by outside parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Joe Richman
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 10:52 AM

Iraq's situation under Sadam Hussein wasn't a long-term answer to building a nation either. Sooner or later, his minority regime would have collapsed either from within, or more likely from intervention by a neighboring state. I don't think the death rate in Iraq today is all that different from when Sadam was in power, only that the communities suffering death are more fairly distributed now than then. It was like a well-shaken beer bottle, and it's not surprising that the ones who popped the top got a little bit wet.


A man at my work who is from there says that his Brother reports to him that the economy is better now, but the security situation is worse. (He is from the Shia faith and lives in Baghdad now, although the family is from Basra.) Those who benefited from Sadam's kleptocracy aren't into giving up the big slice of pie without a fight.   Many Iraqis blame the Western Powers and Russia for keeping Sadam in power for all of those years, and that feeling hasn't gone away completely. Shi'ites might say 'thanks for eliminating Sadam, now get lost' if we try to dictate democracy (oxymoron intended).


I sometimes wonder what would've happened in South Africa if the Afrikaaner minority had decided to fight it out, or if Mandela had been like Mugabe.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 10:59 AM

Ake, it wasn't my intention to imply they are primitave people in the Middle East and we are not. Too many Westeners have had progress bypass their minds too....

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 11:13 AM

Iran to handle the Shiites and Syria to control the Sunnis?   Only problem is neither group wants to be "handled" or "controlled".

Agreed - which is why expression I used was "work with", which doesn't mean either of those things. And it is something that the USA and the UK can never really hope to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 02:30 PM

Bunnabhain...I recognise that you were not inferring that the Middle Eastern peoples were "primitive"
Persia being the centre of the civilised world at one stage!!

Your inferrence was that primitive cultures were inferior to modern ones and that the madmen of Islam and Christianity have a superior "thought process".
The huge organised religions which cause so much death and destruction,as well as being a handy tool for the power hungry, are a thoroughly modern invention.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 03:08 PM

When I said, "Let Iran handle the Shittes and Syria can control the Sunnis," I meant that Iran (being predominately Shiite) and Syria (being predominately Sunni) should take more responsibility for the radical members of their sect. The ties are already there. It would make more sense for Iran and Syria (jointly) to maintain control in Iraq after the withdrawl of U.S. forces into Kurdistan.

If they cannot maintain order in Iraq, then Iraq will have to be divided but I don't think thats the ultimate solution. I do think that the U.S. would have to have a military presence in a separate Kurdistan to protect the Kurds from any fall-out in Iraq.

There is no perfect solution to the problem of how to withdraw but our best chances of saving U.S. troops from being slautered is to retreat into Kurdistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 05:59 PM

Well, today the 'sainted' Henry Kissinger, architect if the VietNam catastrophe, said that military victory in Iraq is impossible.

So, what are the U.S. troops still doing there? Sampling the cuisine?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 07:04 PM

The priority is indeed likely to be "stopping US troops being slaughtered", rather than stopping Iraqis being slaughtered - and that in itself is an indication of the hypocrisy involved in the pretence that this operation has been for the benefit of Iraq.

Though in reality the priority isn't either of those things, it's the goal of saving face for Bush and his cronies. A completely impossible goal at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Joe Richman
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 09:44 PM

dianavan:

The Syrian government is controlled by Baathist members of a small Shi'ite sect known as the Alawites. Not likely that they could wield influence over the Sunnis except maybe over some Sunni Baathists. I'd look at SAUDI ARABIA as being more of an influence over the current troubles in Iraq. Iran has both friends and enemies in the ruling coalition.   The friends of Iran are already working with them and the enemies are trying to do the opposite. The smaller minorities (Armenians Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc)and the Kurds are the pro-American faction, but the Kurds are afraid we'll betray them to the Turks.

Greg F.:

In fairness to Kissinger, he inherited Johnson's mistakes in Viet Nam and he did work on getting America out, and on dealing with China as a separate issue. I'm sure he gave Iraq a great deal of thought before coming out with a statement like that.


McGrath:

America owes nothing to people who aren't allies. An ally isn't just someone with a common enemy. Think of the USSR in WW II. However, I share your concern that our government will do something dirty to the groups that do support us there in order to weasel out. And that includes Congress as well as the White House.

Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 09:59 PM

Same crap we heard about View Nam...now that we're there, we can't pull out until they can defend themselves. Bring all the troops home, give Bush & Blair fair trials then hang them.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 10:07 PM

The USSR wasn't an ally in World War Two? That certainly wasn't how it was seen by people in Britain at the time. In fact I don't think there has ever been any popular feeling here that the Russians have been real enemies, in the sense that the Germans have been. Or even the French. The Russians weren't real enemies, they were friends with whom there had been a falling out.

For example it's striking the difference between the way the tabloids - reflecting what they see as popular feeling - play up things with football matches when they are against Germany and France, on the one hand, when it tends to be seen as quasi-war, and when the opponent is Russia, when it's just a match.
............................................

"America owes nothing to people who aren't allies." I think there is something owed to its victims as well. And I believe civilian deaths should always be seen as even more intolerable than military deaths.

My worries here aren't particularly for the people involved in the current regime, it's for the ordianry people.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 11:22 PM

Joe Richman:


Inherited Johnson's mistakes my ass. One word: Cambodia.

If fairness were applied to Kissinger, he would be in jail or executed for war crimes.

Then there's the other 'Once de Septiembre'......

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Nov 06 - 11:35 PM

"However, there's a reasonable chance that Syria and Iran could work out some solution"--that sounds suspiciously like immediate partition. Let's make it clear that the Shiites and Sunnis now in Iraq--as distinguished from those in Iran and Syria--have places at the table all the way through. They are not simply extensions of Iranian and Syrian foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:01 PM

You're right about Saudi Arabia being closer to the Iraqi Sunnis. Seems to me that Saudi Arabia should also step up to the plate and help solve the problems in Iraq.

In the best of all worlds, the present Iraqi govt. would be able to hold on to power but...

Seems to me that it is a Muslim problem and should be solved by Muslims. The idea of America importing democracy was absurd from the beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:16 PM

Labels like Sunni and Shi'ite aren't the whole story. (After all Kurds come in both denominations, and others.)

A lot of Sunnis in Iraq are fairly secular in their attitudes, which was reflected in the fact that under the old Sunni dominated regime, for all its horrors, there were far fewer restrictions on what women could do than is now the case. That's very different from the way it is in Saudi Arabia, and much closer to how it is in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Joe Richman
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:48 PM

McG- true [about secular Sunnis], and a lot of those secular Sunnis were very much tied into the Baath party. But the sheiks and imams who promote the insurgency aren't Baathists and aren't secular. That's why I differentiated between the factions in my original post. Good to have that expanded upon.

As to the Soviet Union and WWII, Harry Pollett (sp?) was removed as secretary of the British Communist Party in '39 for supporting the British Government in its war on Hitler. Anyone who doesn't think that order didn't come from Moscow is naive. When Hitler double crossed Stalin, Pollett was reinstated. Also American airmen who crashed in the SU were interned under very bad conditions. Not what I'd expect from an ally. Of course we benefitted from the eastern front against Hitler in a big way, but that was due to the sacrifices of the Russian people more than to the Communist leadership. Lots of Americans have family ties to the republics of the former SU. (I know I do.) And no doubt there are a few in Britain with the same ties.

All on Kissinger:

I didn't say he didn't do the wrong thing morally in Viet Nam, all I said was he wasn't the first or only one to screw up royally there. Agreement and recognition of ability aren't the same thing. I don't think highly personally of Deng Tsio Ping, but I recognize his ability. I think that Kissinger will have a lot more influence on the way American involvement in Iraq is handled from now on than any of us will.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:41 AM

You're right about Kissinger, Joe.

He's definitely a backroom boy, regardless of administration.

He's also a criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:53 AM

Regarding the Harry Pollet thing Joe...that was Realpolitik at the time. Nothing unusual at all. The Russians were getting along fine with the Germans in '39, and expected to continue to do so for some time. If they pulled strings to get Harry sacked, they did no differently than the USA or Britain would do and have done in similar situations. All major powers behave that way.

Example: The USA loved Islamic fundamentalists and the forerunners of the Taliban in the 80's as long as they were killing Russians for them (during the last days of the Cold War), and they loved Saddam when he was killing Iranians for them. Is that any better? It's the same kind of cynical, self-serving behaviour that you are so disturbed about when Communists do it. ;-)

The Russians treated interned American airmen badly? Yeah, I bet they did. The Stalinist regime treated ALL internees badly, including their own people. They had not grown up with the niceties of western society, and no one who dealt with them expected any mercy. They killed (eventually, by bad treatment or execution) most of the hundreds of thousands of Germans whom they took prisoner.

Allies in a war are not necessarily one's allies because they are "nice people" or because they share one's cultural leanings...they are allies out of pure necessity and that is all. War is the most ruthless and vicious thing that people ever do on an organized national basis, and their grand pretensions of morality while they engage in doing it are mostly concocted to stir up enthusiasm among the hapless citizens who are sent off to die fighting the other guy's hapless citizens. No need to get huffy about the Russians being called our "allies"...war is a question of survival, and one finds allies where one can.

And you can thank them for being the primary force that broke the back of the German army, because that's what they were. The immense campaign on the Eastern Front between June '41 and April '45 dwarfed the western campaign in its size and its bloodshed, and it destroyed the main fighting strength of the German army, particularly its Panzer formations and its tactical air forces and its air supply squadrons, all of which were decimated in Russia. The Russians also paid a terrible price for that...and should be owed a debt of gratitude by their former allies for the blood they shed in a common cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:01 AM

My Hero!!

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Joe Richman
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:06 AM

"And you can thank them for being the primary force that broke the back of the German army, because that's what they were." LH

"Of course we benefitted from the eastern front against Hitler in a big way, but that was due to the sacrifices of the Russian people more than to the Communist leadership." Joe

Gee... I think we said the same thing (nearly).

But this doesn't really have a lot to do with Iraq. I'm not sure the current Shia Religious party dominated leadership in Iraq is any sort of US ally except maybe of dire necessity.

Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:32 AM

Well, today the 'sainted' Henry Kissinger, architect if the VietNam catastrophe, said that military victory in Iraq is impossible.

So, what are the U.S. troops still doing there? Sampling the cuisine? (Greg F.)

Those who read more than just the headlines have also read how K. has argued against a "premature withdrawal" risking a "dramatic collaps".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:42 AM

"But the sheiks and imams who promote the insurgency aren't Baathists and aren't secular." That's true for the Shi'ite Side of it. And in a different way the Al Qaeda type outsiders who have moved in on the back of the invasion. But the media reports - and that all we have to go on - suggest that it isn't particularly true when it comes to the Sunni based insurgents, who would be the relevant ones when it came to whether Syria or Saudi Arabia would have more chance of restraining or diverting them.
..............................

My point about the Russians is that they just don't seem to feature as "the enemy" in most peoples minds here, and never have. After all, the last (and only) time there was any war with Russia was back in the days of the Crimea, and that's almost as long ago as the last war with the USA. Governments now - well, Tsarist, Communist or post-Communist, they seem much the same in a lot of ways, as the headlines in today's papers rather indicate. But that's another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:59 AM

When you find yourself in a hole....STOP DIGGING!!

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 11:22 AM

Paul Burke,

You state
"At the same time, do something about the problem that underlies the whole thing. Israel must return to the 1967 borders, and compensation must be given to the descendants of the Palestinians displaced in 1947."


Why 1967? Why not 1972, or 1948, or 1927 ( when the ARAB PALESTINIAN homeland was split off from Mandate Palestine) ?


As for compensation, will you also require it for the descendents of those jews ( a GREATER number) that were driven out of Arab countries? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 12:01 PM

There should be a right of return for all those driven from their homes in all countries, and an obligation to provide compensation if that was denied them, though that latter option should really be dependent on the people who had been driven out agreed to it.

I would think that 1948 or 1927 would be quite acceptable dates, so far as Palestinians were concerned. 1972 is not a relevant date in this context - the Sinai has never been a part of Palestine or of Eretz Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 02:40 PM

OK, 1927 it is- with compensation to the 820,000 Jews, and 640,000 Palestians.


ALL of the West bank is now part of Israel, and the Arabs owe the Israelis 9/32 more in compensation.

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:09 PM

A united country with a population made up of Arabs and Jews in more or less equal numbers. Called Israel or Palestine according to taste.

It would be the best solution of all. Maybe it'll come to that in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:52 PM

...have also read how K. has argued against a "premature withdrawal" risking a "dramatic collapse"...

Just as Henry said repratedly about his VietNam mess. I wonder how many unnecessary U.S. and Vietnamese deaths occurred between his statements and the final withdrawl......

The U.S. shouldn't have been in either country in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:28 PM

Good fuckin' thing this tread wasn't about Sierra Leone, because if it was the topic would be Baffin Island by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:54 PM

Id recommend reading Peter Galbraiths book End of Iraq.
He has decades of experience in the area as well as spent time there during and after the US invasion. He had also helped bring the story of the Anfal (Saddams genocide of the Kurds) campaign to the west and worked closely with the Kurds for many years.

all those like Dougr who believe that eventually that all Iraqi security forces will be able to control all of Iraq are dreaming the same fantasy of Bush and his neocon crew.

what is likely and probably the best scenario for everyone involved is to partition Iraq. Iraq was formed by outside powers after world war I
just like for instance Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were, those countries have since decided to break up. The Kurds were promised their own country in an initial treaty with Turkey (that ultimately failed) and given the past history and the genocidal campaign why would they even want to be part of some united Iraq that Bush and Bremer visualized.   For all intents and purposes Kurdistan has been independent and self-governing since 1991. They have built hospitals and schools and universities with high quality accreditation. THey have even rebuilt the

There is no security problem in Kurdistan, other than a 2004 bombing in which many toplevel Kurds were killed by a suicide bomber. Since then there have been only a handful of incidents and only 2-3 deaths.

Bremer and the CPA were dreaming, when they thought the Kurds would disband the peshmerga, which is a well trained and equipped army compared to the rest of Iraq, and instead put their security in an all Iraqi army. IN the recent elections the Kurds took part in a referendum in which 98% voted in favour of independence.

As for the rest of Iraq, the Shiite majority view the Sunni minority as former oppressors. The Shiites especially Moqtada Sadr and the Mahdi army look toward Iran whose funding theyve received for years.

THe Sunnis on the other hand resent losing their hegemony.
And they remember the 8year war with Iran and now view the SHiites as traitorous for their close ties to IRan.

(speaking of Shiite and Sunni, in January 2003 3 months before the War George Bush met with a number of Iraqi expatriates,who were stunned to learn that he didnt know there were two sects in ISlam and what the differences were).

The current civil war between Shiite and Sunnis will probably play out for a while, however the Sunni population isnt large enough to prevail. The Americans are powerless to stop it anyway, in April 2004 when Sadr mobilized the Mahdi army after Bremer shut down his newspaper and tried to arrest him. (it was like hitting a tiger with a fly swatter) Sadrs militia so disrupted the coalition supplies that Bremer was forced to institute rationing in the green zone.

So ultimately there will be a Kurdistan and a Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. The big winner of course is Iran as well as the Kurds.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 08:20 PM

A complicating element is that Kurdistan, as understood by Kurds, isn't just in Iraq. It includes sizeable regions of what is currently Turkey and Iran where Kurds are in a majority.

This YouTube clip of the striking Kurdistan National Anthem includes a shot of a map of Kurdistan which shows this.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 08:56 PM

Rather strange that those posting here expect that the Shia South would willingly become part of Iran. All evidence indicates that the "Arab" Shia's currently dwelling in Iran actually seek to break away from Persian rule (By the bye, they have the bulk of Iran's oil production). Any independent Shia Iraq actually poses a threat to the twelve "Old Gits" who rule Iran, i.e. this is not something they would welcome. Therefore what happens in the South of current day Iran does not phase the West one jot, or the the US in particular, Iran and Iraq is not where the US gets its oil from, now Japan and other far-eastern countries is a different story.

Now the Kurds, both Shia and Sunni, that is again a different story. Had Saddam used this cards correctly during the Iran/Iraq War he would have won it hands down. He didn't, and ultimately paid the price for it. Now the UN could do the same for the Kurds as they did for the Israelis in 1948, and recognize a Kurdish State in the break-up of Iraq. Now this would not go down well with Iraqi Sunni's, or with the Turks and Iranians, but it would give those regimes something to deal with, seems like a lot of folks here are mightly concerned about artificial borders set for Iraq but not of those set for modern day Turkey and Iran. Unlike Ron Davies I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945. From 1933 to 1945 they had milked every advantage out of their political allegiance as they could get, let them run to Ba'athist Syria for whatever hand-outs may come their way, those will be damn few and far between, but no less than what they richly deserve. The end of December 2006 marks the end of the UN Mandate for MNF troops to be stationed in Iraq. The Iraqis should be given notice that that is a dead line, by which time they should be looking after their own affairs, and if that has to be resolved by sectarian militias, then so be it, let them get on with it, it was the same solution A. J. Taylor suggested for Northern Ireland back in 1972, (secterian violence was not worth the life of one single British soldier) I agreed with him then, I would agree with that premise now in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:30 PM

Teribus.
there are very close ties with SCIRI, the Mahdi army and Iran. Iran has been funding them for years. The Shiites in Iraq would rather have an Islamic Republic modeled after Iran. They dont have to be a part of Iran. Witness Moqtada Sadrs visit to Teheran and his speech of alliance.

(to assume otherwise is the same fallacy that Wolfowitz made when he opined the IRaqi SHiites (being Arabs) wont want close ties with IRanian s who are Persian - since SHiites fought the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. (Of course they were conscripts, with all the officers being Sunni, they didnt have much choice) and many SHiite soldiers actually did defect to IRan.

And Yes I agree, that the Kurds have a right to their territory in Iran
and Turkey (they make up almost a 1/4 or 1/5th (18million) of Turkeys population). But for now they are pleased to have Kurdistan in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 11:37 PM

1)   Teribus--you never did read very carefully--so sorry that your Pollyanna predictions somehow have not panned out. Gee, I wonder why that is. As I've said before, nobody is in favor of the worsening bloodshed in Iraq--but it sure would be a good step forward if you could bring yourself to recognize reality.

And, by the way, I have always made it clear that the main reason you need to take the wishes of the Sunnis is that if you don't, you assure a bottomless supply of recruits for the insurgency--until, of course, ethnic cleansing is complete. But since Saddam was and is a beast, all the Sunnis deserve to suffer--appears to be your view--the Sunnis deserve no consideration. Anything you say. After all, you've never been wrong about anything so far.

2) Those who predict a de jure Kurdistan anytime soon are not aware of the situation. The Kurds are painfully aware of the consequences--and being mostly in the north of "Iraq", and already making their own oil deals-including with Turkey--without regard to the Baghdad government--are perfectly willing to keep the current situation for a good long time. Their first item of business will be to try to secure the oil-rich Kirkuk area for de facto "Kurdistan. That will be a ticklish enough problem to finesse--Turkey doesn't like that idea either-- without a stupid blatant affront to Turkey, like declaring official independence of "Kurdistan".   And they have the problem of the PKK rebels seeking and finding refuge in "Kurdistan". "Independence" of "Kurdistan" is just asking for trouble. And they know it. So for the foreseeable future, it's a moot point.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: number 6
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 11:38 PM

Good one Peace !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 12:10 AM

As a matter of fact, Peace, I am VERY upset about what's going on in Baffin Island! INCENSED! FURIOUS! LIVID! PALPITATING! I cannot fathom why people aren't talking more about that instead. ;-)

Kendall, you said, "When you find yourself in a hole....STOP DIGGING!!

What you obviously haven't realized is this: Bush's plan is to keep digging that hole until he danged well reaches the other side. Like Nixon, he is not inclined to be "a quitter".

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:43 AM

petr, thats worth repeating:

" there are very close ties with SCIRI, the Mahdi army and Iran. Iran has been funding them for years. The Shiites in Iraq would rather have an Islamic Republic modeled after Iran. They dont have to be a part of Iran. Witness Moqtada Sadrs visit to Teheran and his speech of alliance.

(to assume otherwise is the same fallacy that Wolfowitz made when he opined the IRaqi SHiites (being Arabs) wont want close ties with IRanian s who are Persian - since SHiites fought the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. (Of course they were conscripts, with all the officers being Sunni, they didnt have much choice) and many SHiite soldiers actually did defect to IRan.

...the Kurds have a right to their territory in Iran
and Turkey (they make up almost a 1/4 or 1/5th (18million) of Turkeys population).

It seems they troops will be deployed to Lebanon or retreat through Kurdistan.


Lets face it. You never go it alone, George.

You drag the rest of the world along with you.

By the time you are finished with your Crusade; North America and Europe will be flooded with refugees from Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and Iran and they will be Christians and Jews.

Of course you and your buddies will be making plenty of money out of supplying weapons to fuel a bloodbath in the Middle East.

War is hell and Bush and his friends are pure evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 12:14 PM

ron davies - thanks for your points.
re Kurdistan, I am mostly quoting from Peter Galbraiths book The End of Iraq which came out a few months ago. (A highly recommended read)

He has worked closely with the Kurds for the past 20years. And recently advised them in their negotiations with the other parties - in the Iraq constitution.

Kurdistan is already a de-facto independent region. The IRaqi constitution states this. Any laws imposed on Kurdistan must be agreed to by the Kurds. Taxation is up to the Kurds not federal Iraq etc. (the agreement was mainly a Shiite-Kurdish agreement since the Sunnis boycotted it- however the SUnnis were granted full rights as anyone else in Iraq.) Also the Kurds while claiming Kirkuk - have not claimed the oil fields around Kirkuk.
INstead they want all EXISTING fields to belong to ALL of Iraq and any new fields or natural resources that come online to belong to each region. )

As far as Turkey is concerned about Kurdish rebels - Turkey has actually since softened its line - ie. the comments that KIRKUK was a red line that the Kurds must not cross. In fact Turkish oil companies are big investors in Kurdistan and it is to Turkeys advantage to have a non-arab pro-western regions as an ally in the area.

Turkey is also trying to join the EU and any possible threats to Kurdistan in Iraq would not go well, there are many European nations looking for reasons not to have Turkey join the EU and this would be one of them. Militarily their options are not that strong either, since Turkey spent 15years fighting the PKK Kurdish insurgency. This was 5000 rebels on Turkish soil - quite a difference between dealing with 100,000 well trained Peshmerga on Kurdish soil.

When the time is right the Kurds will opt for an independent Kurdistan
in fact they deserve one just as much as the Croatians or the Palestinians or the Ukrainians do.
Iran is another story but Iran is also limited by what it can do.
The US would be better off in maintaining bases in Kurdistan. The Kurds are completely in favor of this. As it would provide protection from Iran, Turkey as well as provide a rapid response force if needed for other parts of IRaq. The Iranian interest is mainly in the SHia south anyway.

whether Kurdistan is fully independent is indeed a moot point because the Kurds are behaving as if it is anyway. When countries that were held together by force or imposed from outside, such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and much of the former Soviet UNIOn there is nothing to be gained by trying to keep them together if their people do not want it. Czechoslovakia split amicably, as did much of the Soviet Union
but in the early 90s much of Europe and the west tried to keep Yugoslavia together and failed miserably and 200,000 people died.

Bush set out to change the middle east and he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 05:31 PM

I would recommend a full retreat/withdrawal. Our country needs to suffer the full shame for what we have allowed to occur in Iraq. If we do not acknowledge defeat, we will forever be condemned to repeat the same mistake again in the future as we did in the past with Viet Nam. By immediate withdrawal, which is in essence what we did when we finally retreated for Viet Nam, the world and history will forever have evidence to hold the U.S. accountable for the war atrocities we committed in Iraq. By the way, Viet Nam is thriving today. Iraq could return to what it was before Saddam. They need to practice their on religion and develop their own culture without our better-than-thou Christian Crusader force.

We had our Civil War and look at the great country we are today. When we pull out of Iraq, there will be chaos but it will not be worse than Sherman's March Through Georgia or the 618,000+ of our own we murdered and/or lost to disease. We slaughtered our own brothers and sisters in our War Between the States so what will happen in Iraq will be no worse than that.

Then if the "fertile crescent', which Bush turned into the fertile terrorist crescent, becomes a direct threat to the U.S. to the point of a possible annihilation of our country we retaliate with nuclear power. We give them a strong warning then we totally annihilate them if they do not cease and desist. However, I do not think it would ever come to that.

A conventional army cannot win conflicts like Viet Nam and the War on Terror. If we plan to have a dog in that fight, we must destroy whole cultures. Lincoln at first abhorred what General Sherman did then praised him later by giving him all the glory. Lincoln realized that the War would have been lost if this drastic step of decimating the South's culture and supply routes was not done. We need to develop a Sherman-like strategy in the Middle East if we ever need to return there.

What I just suggested is difficult to posit. I am a proud Viet Nam era veteran and lost a fine brother, who I still mourn daily, in Laos during that conflict. (My brother's favorite song was the "Ballad of the Green Beret" and he was an exemplary Green Beret Officer). I am listening to that song now and I still hurt.

As Sherman said, and we should not forget, "war is hell". His hell just used more primitive tools back then than what we have in our modern arsenal. Sherman would have used whatever means available today to win whatever war he was commissioned to fight in today's world. By the way, I would have fought for the Confederacy had I lived then.

If Britain and the U.S. are disgraced and humiliated, as I think we must be, then we will likely never enter an unjust, preemptive war again. I do not think the rest of the world would stand for it.

Finally, if we continue with this war, our own culture will be irreparably damaged and our economy will collapse rendering us easy targets for the rest of the world to do with us as they please.

We are going to lose in the Middle East and the only decision is when and how we choose to do so. I strongly suggest immediate withdrawal without prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 05:36 PM

all the Sunnis deserve to suffer

I think that says it all. Nazi talk. Klu Klux Klan talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 06:49 PM

Well said, Cruiser. What the War in Iraq has done (among other things) is give the Islamic fighters who hate the USA something they really wanted: a good target (all those American soldiers and other personnel who are over there). They must be quite pleased, I would think. It has also succeeded in destroying the Middle East's most modern and secular major society (which Iraq was under Saddam) and replacing it with what will likely be a Shiite fundamentalist government.

This was a war launched under false premises which ended up achieving the exact opposite of its stated aims, as far as I can see. It was a war claimed to be in defence of Americans, which has in fact greatly endangered and killed a lot of Americans.

Bush, like Nixon, Johnson and many other politicians in the past, will find it virtually impossible to ever admit he made a mistake, I expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Big Phil
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 08:04 PM

All home, - NOW

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Cruiser
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 08:25 PM

Little Hawk: The frustrating part is no one in our Executive Branch is subject to civil or criminal punishment for his or her decisions. As a former federal law enforcement officer, if I made a spur of the moment bad decision or if I violated someone's rights I would have lost my job. I could have been sued civilly or gone to jail if it was a criminal case against me.

The people in the Bush Administration simply need to be punished so future presidents do not take similar actions. There must be deterrents for irresponsible decisions than cause such completely unjustified death and destruction.

Our federal government needs overhauling from the ground up in areas that involve abuse of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 09:09 PM

not only a war launched under false premises -
but in the planning was based on wishful thinking -
(in war you hope for the best but plan for the worst -
here the Administration only planned for the best and
didnt even consider the worst. IN fact anyone who entertained
other ideas - was dismissed or cast aside.

and managed with total incompetence.
(allowed the looting of the museum, the ministry of defense (that had all the fedayeen records- youd think you want the names and addresses of the people attacking you)

and marred with corruption (billions of Iraqi reconstruction dollars

missing or spent on non-existent projects etc)

for Bush (and Blair) to actually admit a mistake is quite difficult - not just that so many people have been killed, but that the ultimate outcome was counter productive. The Iraq war recruited thousands for AlQaeda, rather than eliminating WMDS it emboldened North Korea and Iran to go ahead with their nuclear weapons programs - without fear of much US retribution (since they are mired in IRaq - and easy targets there)
It also is a financial burden on the US economy (some economists such as Joseph Stiglitz estimate the long term cost between $1& 2trillion)

It alienated much of the US's European allies, and lost much of its moral authority After Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

The US went into this with the most powerful military in the world,
and yet it is unable to maintain security in a small country -
that is also a powerful lesson.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 01:20 AM

Aggressors who launch unjustified invasions very seldom have real success maintaining security (as they would call it) in the occupied country. Security remains impossible when most of the civil population hates you and would prefer that you leave. Consider that the Germans in WWII were quite unable to maintain security in a small country like Greece, for just one example. The Greeks fought them with ruthless guerilla warfare until the war ended. My father knew a German who had been stationed in Greece all through the war, and his memories that time were so unpleasant that he never visited the country again in the postwar era, although business took him all over Europe. It's no fun watching your back 24 hours a day in an occupied foreign country with a hostile population and expecting that you might die at any moment. It's even less fun when some of your good friends die.

Yeah, Cruiser, Bush and other people in the administration should face criminal charges, but I doubt that they will. That sort of thing usually only happens to people in countries that have not just lost a war, but have been totally defeated and made to surrender to an occupying power...as has happened to Saddam recently, and as happened to the Germans, Italians, and Japanese in WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:30 AM

As far as the UK's Forces stationed in Iraq are concerned the "phased withdrawal" will continue - 33,000 in March 2003; 15,000 June 2003; 8,750 in 2004; 7,500 in 2005; currently around 6,000.

Out of Iraq's 18 Provinces, Iraqi Police and Army are solely responsible for policing and security in 7 of them. On BBC News today it would appear that UK Forces are about to hand over responsibility in Basra (second largest city in Iraq) to Iraq Police and Troops within the next few months. That would mean that the number of UK troops would be further reduced if not completely withdrawn. I do not believe that they would be redeployed within Iraq as that would be political suicide for the current Labour Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:12 AM

So Teribus, what about the victory in Iraq you said was so essential--comparing the situation there with World War II, as I recall? All of sudden not quite so essential to win the "war on terrorism" in Iraq?

Or is this a tragic mistake we will live to regret?

Or have you finally realized that your parallel to World War II was always absurd?

Just like your parallel of the Sunnis to hard-line Nazis--in fact hideously wrong. The only Sunnis to benefit substantially from Saddam were the ones who toed his complete line without question. Any Sunni who stepped out of line was just as harshly dealt with as a Shiite or Kurd. The real parallel may well be with the general population of Germany, not the hardline Nazis. Did the general population of Germany in 1945, after Hitler's death, deserve to continue to suffer? Or was the Marshall Plan a good idea? Intelligent people have no doubt as to the answer.    In contrast to you. Why don't you join us?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 02:19 PM

No general population deserves to suffer after a war is over. The war itself is suffering enough.

Besides, everyone always thinks they are "the good guys", and from their own point of view, of course, they are... ;-) If they have the bad luck to lose, however, the victors will get to label them accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:38 PM

Newsflash....Teribus surrenders!!

Now let's make sure Bush ,Blair and their yes men are punished....and let the punishment fit the crime.

I also agree with Cruiser that justice must seen to be done at home, to prevent pre-emptive war in the future.
Regarding the future of Iraq. It's out of our hands we must stand back and watch in horror, the conclusion of the catastrophy created by greed, stupidity and the search for personal glory.

Right from the beginning, I argued with T that this war would strengthen Islamic fundamentalism and lead to an Iranian style govt.
T responded that I was obsessed with I.F. and merely scaremongering.

Well it's nice to have one's opinions vindicated, but unfortunately this is only the start of this war of cultures.

The Islamists want a regime of repression, intolerable to free thinking people.

We want a free society, but with our type of free society comes many social evils. Evils which will soon kill the freedom we say we want.

We need a new way, free from religious dogma, greed , modern slavery and the greatest evil of all Capitalism....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Cruiser
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 05:58 PM

"Blasts bring Baghdad to brink of civil war
2006-11-24

SUSPECTED Sunni-Arab militants set off three suicide car bombs and fired two mortar rounds into Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City in an attack that killed at least 150 people and wounded 238 yesterday, police said.

Authorities said it was the deadliest attack on a sectarian enclave since the beginning of the Iraq war."

It appears to me the U.S. is already in the middle of an Iraqi Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:55 PM

"Iraq" doesn't exist. In fact it has always been an extremely artificial creation--did not grow organically in the least--but was just cobbled together by Churchill--who later said that that forced unity was one of the biggest mistakes of his career. You may say that the UK also did not grow organically--   neither the Welsh nor the Scots were very happy to be included--not to mention the Ireland situation----but at least the UK was not forced together by, say, China--which would be an analogous move. Soon after he created "Iraq", Churchill described the British military presence there as paying (whatever amount in pounds) to live " on top of an angry volcano".

Only somebody actually proud of his abysmal ignorance in geopolitics--and many other fields--(like Mr. Bush, to pick a theoretical example--- and his supporters, it seems--perhaps even some Mudcatters)---would have not realized what this meant for the prospects for a successful democracy there.

The Kurds, for one have NEVER wanted to be part of "Iraq"--as I've been pointing out for months, probably over a year. Almost immediately after the formation of "Iraq" they rebelled. And now they have de facto independence--have had it since the end of the Gulf War--since the US and the UK have been supplying them, and provided a no-fly zone for Saddam's aircraft. Now in "Kurdistan" they even refuse to fly the Iraqi flag--while carrying on a lively commerce in oil without regard to the Baghdad government.

So "Kurdistan", while not officially a state, is gone from "Iraq"--and will never return.

The question then becomes whether the Shiites and Sunnis can work out an accomodation in the rump state--and possibly convince the Kurds to share some oil revenue. As Peter has pointed out, the current official line is that current oil deposits' revenue are to be shared with the entire "country"--but new ones are to be the property of the province where they are found. This interpretation would mean the Sunnis are to a large extent out of luck. A recipe for disaster.

And the Kurds may just start keeping all the oil revenue from "Kurdistan"--if they're not already doing so. It would be interesting to know how much "Kurdistan" revenue is now making it to the central Baghdad government.

As I've told Teribus more than once--for months in fact--maybe for over a year--, as long as the Sunnis 1) cannot trust the police,   and 2) are not guaranteed more oil revenue than would accrue to them just from "their" parts of "Iraq", the violence will never end.

His response-- that the Sunnis don't deserve any consideration--is, to put it bluntly, even more heartless--and stupid--than Mr. Bush's attitude. Truly a major achievement.

And at this point, if anything the likelihood of any kind of reasonable settlement is disappearing rapidly.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:11 PM

By the way, petr, thanks for the heads-up on the Galbraith book. Sounds excellent-- couldn't be more timely---and I've seen many references to Mr. Galbraith.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:46 PM

according to Galbraith the civil war has been on since at least 2004.
However after the destruction of the Samarra mosque in February it intensified.
IT is very difficult to stop a civil war once it escalates out of control. Those who are moderate become targets and people are forced into increasingly hardline extremes.
Baghdad is the most dangerous city in the world right now.
To maintain order in Baghdad, especially would require
much larger troop commitment with more casualties.
There is no easy way out.

Given their smaller population though, the Sunnis will not prevail.

A recent comment by the BUsh administration was that as troops will be
slowly withdrawn the US will press Iraqis to maintain a united Iraq.
(just how they will do that with less troops when they havent been able to do that for the last 3years with 150,000 troops is another thing). The conventional wisdom is that it would be destabilizing to split a country up, however a country like Iraq that required a strongman dictator to maintain order, was destabilizing anyway.

I dont think, the Nazi party comparison is out of line - comparing the Baath party to the Nazis. Their 35 year rule with genocide of 300,000 SHi-ites, and close to 200,000 Kurds.
(it is hard to imagine keeping a country united when 2 groups were victims of genocide by the third group. The Sunnis still deny there was any genocide.

regarding future oil revenues - apparently there may be rich oilfields around Baghdad.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 09:57 PM

Baath party, perhaps--though even their lesser functionaries should not be punished for the sins of Saddam.

However, Teribus' parallel was between hardcore Nazis and ALL Sunnis--clearly absurd--and in fact not helpful to any accomodation between Sunnis and Shiites

And I'm sure Galbraith would not agree with Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:08 AM

Would anybody? - "all the Sunnis deserve to suffer"

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:43 AM

I've read in more than one place that one of the worst mistakes Bush and his fellow incompents made in Iraq was to immediately disband the entire Iraqi army--probably heavily Sunni. This dumped a huge number of heavily armed (overtly or covertly) unemployed soldiers onto the Iraqi economy--at a time it had totally collapsed. All the Bushite fools would have had to do was look at Germany's experience directly after World War I--when a similar number of unemployed soldiers--who had been told they had just lost the war-- were thrown on the economy of Germany. And then contrast that to the German experience directly after World War II--when every effort was made to find jobs for these soldiers. And as I said earlier, in Iraq there was no Marshall Plan.

And the purge of Baathists after the fall of Saddam's regime meant the removal of all sorts of people, including oil experts, mayors etc, from their positions--ensuring that no knowledge was passed on to the people who were now supposed to do those jobs.

I suppose it's not surprising--after all, in the 2000 campaign Bush ridiculed the idea of "nation-building". Nobody can claim it's startling that he in fact has no idea of how to do it.

As has been said, aside from killing and destroying--at which Bush's expertise is unquestioned--(as long as he doesn't have to be personally at risk)-- his regime is totally clueless.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:44 AM

"incompetents"

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:49 AM

Oh yes, and propaganda--the Bush regime has fully shown its mastery of that. Good thing the US public--in contrast to Bush-- appears to be able to learn from its mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 04:22 PM

one would probably say that disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them
home WITH their weapons has to be one of the dumbest military mistakes of the last 100years.

ALthough it is questionable that the remnants of the Iraqi army would have reported to work if requested by the CPA. In any case it was a totally unnecessary decision to publicly disband them. THey could have been put to work fixing sewers etc. as well as maintaining order.

(at the same time the US left weapons depots unsecured and much of them were looted - including the high explosives at Tuwaitha - which would have required at least 40 truckloads) The US was warned about this facility by the IAEA, as well as a chemical facility in Baghdad where
the looters DUMPED barrels of uranium yellowcake (the stuff BUsh warned about in one of his speeches). Ostensibly the looters took the drums to use as rain barrels - but much of the material is still missing. YOUDthink you want to guard that, when your rationale is to stop WMDs.

The DeBaathification order was also another stupid decision. What choice do people have when they are fired from their jobs - they have to feed their families - many of them no doubt joined the insurgency as they had weapons and knew where the dumps were.

THe people who worked for the CPA were hired on an ideology basis, not experience of the MidEast or linguistic ability.

One example is when 8 college graduates were offered jobs by email,
to work for the CPA handling the dispersal of millions of $ to get the IRaqi economy going. (they eventually figured out their only thing in common was they all posted resumes on the HERITAGE FOUNDATION (a young republican) website. They had no experience in dealing with such huge spending and as a result disbursed money very slowly.
(IN a reconstruction effort this should be done as fast as possible)

Michael Fleischer who got a job as a banking industry consultant with the CPA through his brother (ARI Fleischer the former presidential spokesman) in a WASHINGTON POST interview said (WITHOUT apparent Irony) that 'we will show them how to do business the American way, apparantly all they know is cronyism'

it would be funny if it was not so stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:14 PM

Just how do we expect to 'avoid a bloodbath'?

Among today's developments:

"Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday's assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same neighborhood, the volatile Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.

"Most of the thousands of dead bodies that have been found dumped across Baghdad and other cities in central Iraq in recent months have been of victims who were tortured and then shot to death, according to police. The suspected militia killers often have used electric drills on their captives' bodies before killing them. The bodies are frequently decapitated."

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:19 PM

petr,


Be careful: You just stated that the reasons Bush gave for the invasion WERE real.

"as well as a chemical facility in Baghdad where
the looters DUMPED barrels of uranium yellowcake "

The party line is that there WAS no yellowcake, since there was no program of nuclear weapon development.


bad, bad petr!

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Cruiser
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:44 PM

{Quote}
"Just how do we expect to 'avoid a bloodbath'? "
{End Quote}

A bloodbath cannot be avoided. It is only going to be a matter of whose blood is spilled by whom. The U.S. has done enough of the bloodletting and we need to leave the Iraqi's to sort out their own Civil War. It will not be any worse than our Civil War was, as I previously mentioned above.

Because of Mr. Bush, the spilled blood and atrocities will far outweigh anything Saddam did or was capable of. I just do not understand why our all our fellow Americans cannot understand this. The blood evidence should be very clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 07:43 PM

Well, one thing that has become increasingly evident is that the US should ****not**** train any more folks as supposed peacekeepers 'cause training more folks to use weapons is jus' gonna get more folks killed...

So with that reality sinkin' in, it is apparent that this war cannot be won, no matter the definition...

Hey, people who go back here in Mudville know my feelings about how this war was created to prop up a corrupt regime (Bush's) and also that I have called for pullouts all along but...

... over the last month I thought that maybe an engaged Bush would do something spectacular and pull off an emergency summit to deal not only with Iraq but Iran, Lebenon and the Isreali/Palestianian conflict... Yeah I thought that he might even put pressure on his ol' buds, the Saudi royals, and resurect something akin to the original "Saudi Proposal", which he chose not to support when the Saudis stepped up to the plate before the invasion with a framework for avioding what now looks very much like Vietnam, Part II (but worse)... But Bush has sat on his hands again and has not come out from hidin' at Camp David, Crawford, Texas or the White House and let a couple lettin' a couple of precious weeks go by with nothin' to give hope to anyone...

So, I give up...

It's time to jus' get the fu*k out!!!

Thie war, as I (as well as others here) predicted would end up in civil war and as much as I hate to see it, I was right...

Like I said, time to redeploy...

Maybe to the Sudan where the motives would not be mired in politics, power and oil...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 07:57 PM

Meanwhile all hell looks like breaking loose in Lebanon. I'm very suspicious of the general assumptin that this latest assassination was Syrian backed. Feels much more like an well-timed attempt to take Syria out of the picture and reduce the danger that a way can be found to avert a full scale civil war in Iraq, and bring one about in Labanon.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 08:18 PM

BB-

So we are to imply that you are one of the last holdouts--who still believe the invasion of Iraq was justified?   

Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 12:55 AM

Pre-emptive wars are never justifiable. Note that one of the great pre-emptive attacks of all time was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour! The Japanese did it because they perceived that the USA was cutting off their international supply sources of oil and steel, thus rendering them impotent militarily within a year or less if they did not attack. Accordingly, they pre-emptively attacked while they still had enough oil to fight, launching a war that most of their naval staff doubted they could possibly win in the long run.

And it's known as "a day that will live in infamy". The day that "Shock and Awe" began should also live in infamy, because it has caused nothing but suffering and disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:11 AM

RD,

YOU have not yet answered MY question.

Ans YES, I feel that from the information at the time, the INVASION of Iraq was justified, although the execution was flawed, in no small manner because of the efforts of misguided people like yourself to encourage Saddam NOT to leave power on his own.

And YOUR answer to my question, little man?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:17 AM

"MY question" implies the existence of a "ME".

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:21 AM

sorry- lost cookie

"I have a name, therefore I exist"


But the questions remain unanswered, althought I have responded to the request for answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:33 AM

Bobert

"Like I said, time to redeploy...

Maybe to the Sudan where the motives would not be mired in politics, power and oil..."


No interest HERE in any action that would actually prevent genocide BEFORE it happens....


thread.cfm?threadid=73826&messages=121


thread.cfm?threadid=69879


thread.cfm?threadid=78711&messages=24

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 08:56 AM

No, BB--you have not answered my question--do you NOW feel that the invasion was justified. It's understandable that you were duped by the propaganda campaign--many others were also--though not many Mudcatters.

But do you STILL feel it was justified---thus proving that you have learned nothing?

And the "Temper, temper, little man"--was in response to your tantrum--and I feel, totally justified.

Hope you slept well.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 04:13 PM

whether it was 'justified' depends on your point of view.

if it was about WMD's then they sure as hell didnt secure
any of the sites they were warned about by the IAEA.
and In any case Wolfowitz himself admitted in a Vanity Fair
interview that ultimately the WMD threat was the one issue they finally agreed on as one they could sell to the US public..
and it was ultimately counterproductive to US interests as it emboldened Iran and North Korea to proceed with their nuclear development.

and in geo-strategic terms..

when Barbara Bodine met with officials in Kurdistan after the Jan05 elections, the shortest speech was given by the local Iranian intelligence agent who, looking directly at Bodine, said 'the people we have always wanted to win are now in power' (he didnt bother to add Thank you George BUsh).

in terms of oil ...
another one of Wolfowitz failed predictions, the war certainly didnt pay for itself. Iraq produces less oil now than it did under Saddam
so one of the geo-strategic reasons (to have Iraq as a major (non-opec) oil nation that could produce so much oil as to make opec irrelevant - has also failed.
(which is probably why Bush gave that 'America is addicted to OIl'speech - a surprising turnaround)

in terms of spreading democracy in the middle east.
well Id say the Kurds are better off and good for them - they deserve a homeland.
but the free elections in the middle east - led to Hamas and a more reactionary Iranian govt. (really the opposite effect of what Bush had intended).

the US failure to secure Iraq, (which was due to planning based on wishful thinking, arrogance and incompetence of Bush and the neocons)
has actually lowered US prestige, and increased support. Now the largest military in the world cannot maintain order in a small third world country. And that may make the next war of choice less likely - and that is a good thing.

although it came at the cost of thousands of lives, and much more
to come judging from the spiraling civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 04:59 PM

As for bb's assertion that attackin' Iraq was the right decision based on the information available at the time: bull feathers!!!

There was plenty of information and intellegence available at the time for a more responsibile decision to be made... It's just that the Bushites didn't want to acknowledge it then, just as they still don't...

Yeah, we have since learned just how far the Bushite war-machine went in not only pressuring anaylists into "office-speak" but also how when the anaylists refused to buckle under to Cheney's pressure that their opinions were ignored by Bush and Co....

This dog jus' won't hunt no more...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 05:18 PM

The "information" was tailored to match the policy which had already been determined.

I see the term "intelligence" was not used this time round. It does sound rather ridiculous in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:12 PM

Information is almost always tailored to fit the policy which has already been determined by a government bent on war. ;-)

Historical examples:

1. The Japanese played wargames in 1942 to test how the Midway operation might go. In one of the test games a USA carrier force ambushed the Japanese carriers and sank 4 of them! (which is what happened in the real battle) The Japanese judges overruled the result and altered it to one Japanese carrier sunk, one damaged. They went ahead with the operation...and met with disaster when ambushed by a real USA carrier force.

2. Montgomery was advised before Operation Market-Garden that aerial reconnaisance photos had revealed significant amounts of German armoured formations near the crucial drop zone areas. He pooh-poohed the information, and said that it must be a mistake, and that the tanks seen in the photos were probably derelict vehicles or dummy vehicles. He was wrong! An entire SS Panzer division was resting and refitting near Arnhem, and they crushed the paratroopers who landed to secure the last bridge (after some very tough fighting).

3. Hitler was informed on the morning of D-Day that the long-awaited main Allied invasion of France was landing in Normandy. He refused to accept that that was the real invasion, and held back much of his armour, expecting the real invasion to come nearer the Pas de Calais area. He was wrong.

And there are so many others....

The road to hell is paved with wishful thinking...and with minds too stubborn to change.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:36 PM

By the way, the "information available at the time" was information that was doctored, concocted, and cooked up by the architects of the policy while they ignored and suppressed any information that did not fit their agenda. ;-) Which is also the usual story.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 10:59 AM

Re: the Kurds--from their perspective the Iraq invasion of 2003 was also not necessary--they already had a region safe from Saddam--due to the no-fly zone established by the UK and US after the Gulf War of 1990.

One of the few people in the world to positively benefit from the war was Bush himself--since, due to perceived insufficient support of the war by Kerry, the Bush regime was able to paint itself as more patriotic than the Democrats.   (And, ironically thanks to the UN, Bush was able to beat the rap that Iraq was a second Vietnam---beat it in November 2004--at the time it counted---by pointing to an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency.

Another irony, however, is that I believe Bush's own position would have been even stronger if he had contented himself with maintaining the no-fly zone in Iraq and funding internal Iraqi attempts to remove Saddam.   And in Afghanistan toppling the Taliban and continued pursuit of Osama---both moves heavily supported by the majority of US voters.

But of course Bush has never been good at anything but destroying and killing--(as I said, as long as he himself is not personally at risk)--war appears to be his favorite pursuit.

And there are an amazing number of sheep/idiots in the US to support him.

Though not as many as before.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Cruiser
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 11:44 AM

AP: Iraq War Has Now Lasted Longer Than WW II


Iraq Longer Than WW II


__________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:00 PM

That business about "Iraq War Longer Than World War II"--is a very unfortunate headline. It will not play well with the rest of the world--it's part of the regrettable and offputting US tendency to define US participation as the only gauge of importance.

World War II started in September 1939.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:05 PM

And the Chinese might say it started even earlier than 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Cruiser
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:08 PM

From the AP link I posted above the number of war casualties is important to reflect on:

"In the casualty count, the Civil War was the most lethal, with military deaths of the North and South combined totaling at least 620,000. By comparison, the total for World War II was roughly 406,000; Vietnam, 58,000; Korea, 37,000; World War I, 116,000."

As I mentioned in a post to this thread earlier, we killed 618,000+ of our own citizens in the U.S. Civil War.

Astonishingly, our Civil War cost more lives (about 3,000 more) than all the other wars combined: World Wars I & II, Viet Nam, and Korea!

So, let the Iraqis sort out their own problems and kill their own "citizens" as we had to do in our Civil War to solve our problems. Otherwise, that region will forever be unsettled.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Shields Folk
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:10 PM

AJP Taylor suggests WWII started in 1914

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:04 AM

all the Sunnis deserve to suffer--appears to be your view-- (Ron Davies to Teribus who has not used these words)

all the Sunnis deserve to suffer

I think that says it all. Nazi talk. Klu Klux Klan talk. (McGrath about the words Ron Davies has put into the mouth of Teribus.)

To attack a position even with strong words is alright but since when do we blame people for words that others have used polemically to portray their position?

Wolfgang (not thinking the Sunni should suffer)

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:19 AM

You're right there Wolfgang - I should have checked better before posting - I did think Teribus had used those words, and he didn't.

He did write "I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945.", but that's not quite the same thing, and in fact he seems to have been meaning they deserved no share of oil revenues in any breakup of Iraq.

Rather analogous to the proposals which were made by some for deindustrializing Germany as collective punishment for Nazism - drastic and potentially disastrous but not with quite the genocidal implications carried by the mistaken quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:04 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. To punish any general population at the conclusion of a disastrous war is ridiculous and criminal. Merely losing a major war is enough punishment for anybody!

Furthermore, such punishment by the victors upon the losers sows bitterness which is likely to resurface later in further deadly conflict...as happened when a punished Germany (after the 1st World War) rose again under the Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 12:24 PM

With Cheney in charge (upon the untimely ***** of GW b in Jordan) there will be punishment that would make shock and awe look like a 10 cent sparkler.


Only neocons felt that a lightening quick invasion of Iraq would establish a oil rich headquarters that would lead to US control of puppet "democratic leaders" throughout the middle east.


If only Hitler had lost his initial blitzkrieg in the 30's.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:57 PM

Wolfgang--

You're usually very observant, but you are wrong in this case--it's not at all clear that Teribus did not mean all Iraqi Sunnis should suffer--in fact it's likely he did.

21 Nov 2006 8:56 PM Teribus: The Sunni population of Iraq are "the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany in 1945" . It is a reasonable interpretation that Teribus would want hard-line Nazis in 1945 to suffer--so would we. But he equates ALL Iraqi Sunnis--not just unrepentant Ba'athists-- to hardline Nazis in 1945. This is where he is tragically--and stupidly--wrong.

He does equate them--therefore, as I said, he is advocating continuing suffering for all Iraqi Sunnis. In fact he has a track record of hostility to Sunnis--at least a year.

It would be appreciated if all posters would read carefully---and not just the preceding post.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:32 AM

If America ever should lose a great war someday, and be occupied by conquering forces, the winners of that war would probably look upon American commanders, and officers, and many of the rank and file soldiers and citizenry in a manner rather similar to the old "as if they were hard-line Nazis".

Keep it in mind. You may enjoy dishing it out, but that doesn't mean you would enjoy taking it.

Or to put it another way, what goes around comes around.

Vengeance at the conclusion of a war is the conceit of the meanest minds on the winning side. Remember what Lincoln said at the conclusion of the American Civil War, that the Union should act "With malice toward none, with charity for all." Unfortunately, he did not live to see those wise words heeded. The mean minds in Congress took over right after he died...and proceeded to take their vengeance on the South. The wounds from that festered for generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:19 AM

Just to put matters to right, I will clearly explain to all, but especially to Ron Davies and to MGOH, exactly what I mean. Hopefully this exercise will remove the need for them to put words into my mouth and attribute meanings to my posts that are totally incorrect.

Iraq from the 1950's was governed by the Ba'athists (Ba'athist Party by the way was modelled on the formed German National Socialist Party) who took power in a coup aided and abetted by the US (CIA), but not engineered by them. At the time they looked the better bet than the existing government who seemed to be moving into the USSR's camp (Not considered to be a good thing during the "cold war"). Years later in 1979 to prevent a link-up between the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq in which he would lose his job, Saddam Hussein staged a coup taking over as President of Iraq (The US had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this). From 1979 until 2003 Saddam's Ba'athist regime, which was predominantly Sunni Arab, recruited from the Anbar Province, ruled Iraq, although ran roughshod over the entire country would have been a better description if you happened to be a Shia Arab or Kurd (Sunni or Shia). Necessary qualification to serve in either the Republican Guard (Formed because Saddam did not trust the Iraqi Army), the Special Republican Guard or the Feydaheen Saddam is that you had to be from the minority Sunni Arab population and preferably from Anbar province or Tikrit.

So much for background - During his term in office, depending on what sources you read Saddam Hussein and his lads, predominantly Sunni Arabs, maimed, tortured and executed at will, the statistics for the latter averaging out at between 154 and 282 victims per day (for damn near 24 years). During all that time there was no massive outcry from the Arab Sunni population of Iraq, unless of course they had been deemed to have misbehaved and Saddam hit out at them, which he did on the odd rare occasion. The Arab Sunni's even now deny that any of the atrocities Saddam is accused of ever happened, despite the large numbers of witnesses, evidence and the uncovering of mass graves that cannot be explained away as resulting from either the Iran/Iraq War or Desert Storm.

Now that Saddam's regime has been removed from power (Yes Ron the reasons for intervention in Iraq were totally justifiable at the time and remain so today - how things are perceived as turning out can never alter that, decisions have to be taken AT THE TIME, they cannot be undone at a later date), the Iraqi people have elected representatives to a two house assembly who, for the first time ever, will speak and act for the communities who sent them to those assemblies, they will not merely rubber-stamp the wishes of a Dictator who only ensures rights and privileges for a minority.

No matter how much they regret the passing of those halcyon days when they were top dog in Iraq, the Arab Sunni's of the Anbar Province had best come to realise the following:
1. Those days are over no matter how much they posture and threaten, and they will never return.
2. Under their new constitution Arab Sunni's will be treated exactly the same as any other Iraqi citizen. They deserve and should expect no special preferential treatment. That deal enshrined in law is the only deal in town, the Arab Sunni's had best take it at face value and accept it.
3. If the MNF pulls out immediately as some in this forum would wish to see happen, and should there be a "civil war" in Iraq, then being in a minority, the Arab Sunni's will find that they will be in a dire and very precarious position - they will lose and lose badly. But if such is their choice, then so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:41 AM

Ron, read Kevin McGrath's post. He has understood my point.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:26 AM

The blundering invasion of Iraq will not be solved by the Mudcat parliment, the truth is, if like out PCs a very large majority of people would gladly return to before the greedy oil seeking bastards invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:59 PM

No doubt, Guest.

Nice historical summary, Teribus. The only part I would not agree with was that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was either necessary or justifiable under the circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:41 PM

Purely a matter of opinion LH, you are fully entitled to yours, I am fully entitled to mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:08 PM

Body count, body counts, body counts, Cruiser...

Seems that upwards of 650,000 Iragis alone have died as a result of Bush's impetious decision to ivade Irag...

That's more than the American Civil War (which it wasn't)...

Might of fact, that's one heck of a lot of folks...

Let's jus' keep an open mind when playin' the body counts card in the hopes of winnin' points... None of the 650,000 dead Iraqis would want their individul murders left un-counted....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:13 PM

Yes, that's my view as well, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:21 PM

"Seems that upwards of 650,000 Iragis alone have died as a result of Bush's impetious decision to ivade Irag..."

Utter crap. Boberts fabled statistic comes from an extrapolation of the widely disproven "Lancet" article that declared 500,000 Iraqi deaths that was based on "batch" sampling applied to the entire country. Now the IraqBodyCount web-site that actually investigates all reported deaths and causes comes to a figure of about 55,000 plus worst case. The Iraqi Government comes up with between 110,000 and 150,000 but they admit that their figures are estimates and that they cannot be verified.

Come on Bobert substantiate those figures that you are so keen to broadcast. You quote 'em so you must have some sort of source that substantiates them, or like everything else you spout - is this just another Bobert fact - i.e. totally ficticious.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:30 PM

Good fancy footwork, there Teribus.   Too bad your record betrays you.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:40 PM

Teribus--

You have equated ALL Sunnis with hard-core Nazis in 1945. I have quoted you directly.

As I've said more than once, your attitude is both stupid and tragic.




As I've said for about a year now, if Sunnis' interests are not attended to-- ensuring that Sunnis can trust the police, and that they are guaranteed more oil revenue than would accrue to the "Sunni parts" of Iraq, the violence will never end.

And if you continue to deny this, your analysis of the Iraq situation will continue to be, not to put too fine a point on it---worthless. Unsurprisingly.


Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:49 AM

Teribus contends that the invasion of Iraq seemed "a good idea at the time".
Well he certainly argued for that invasion using all the flawed intelligence served up by the US/UK govts, although there were many here who were utterly sure we were being lied to.

This points to two conclusions. Teribus's opinions are mostly worthless, no matter how many mangled facts he digs up to support them.
And more importantly, he hasn't the guts to admit when his opinions have been proved wrong by events.

Fledgling democracy my arse.....The political game in Iraq was always about power .....and due to our intervention, the Islamists have won

Purely from a selfish point of view, I wonder if Teribus believes the world was in more danger from a weakened Saddam, or from a resurgent Islamist block in the Middle East....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:32 AM

AP Gets Caught Working For The Enemy
November 30, 2006: Two blogs, Gateway Pundit and Flopping Aces, have uncovered what appears to be a serious screw-up by the Associated Press in its coverage of Iraq. It appears that this American media outlet passed on terrorist propaganda, perhaps willingly. The mistake in question involves at least ten stories since April 27 in which a Captain Jemil Hussein was a source. Six of these stories involved alleged massacres of Sunni Arabs. Four others involved unknown victims. A second AP source in the Iraqi police, Lieutenant Maithem Abdul Rizzaq, is also proving to be nonexistent, according to Central Command and the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. This is not the first time the media has been caught with bad stories and invented sources, but this is the most serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:54 AM

"all Sunnis"--in Iraq, of course. Lest there be a misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:35 AM

Teribus contends that the invasion of Iraq seemed "a good idea at the time". Don't put words into my mouth Akenaton, what I actually said was the invasion of Iraq was fully justified at the time - Not "a good idea at the time".

Just to be accurate here Akenaton, "..all the flawed intelligence" you refer to was, "served up" by the UN Weapons Inspectors (UNSCOM), including Ritter and Blix in January 1999, NOT by the US/UK govts in 2003. What the intelligence agencies of a great many countries had to do with that information was evaluate it. In doing so they all reached the same conclusion albeit to varying degrees, that is how UN SC Resolution 1441 got unanimous support. At no time was anybody lied too.

As to "mangled facts", at least the points I attempt to make in any discussion are based upon facts, not supposition, not pure opinion, never on pure invention.

"Fledgling democracy my arse....." Really Akenaton Kofi Annan and quite a few others were quite impressed with the turn-out at the polls on all three occasions when the Iraqi people showed the insurgents and terrorists exactly where they could stick their death threats.

Not wishing to point out the obvious Akenaton but - "The political game ANYWHERE is ALWAYS about power.....". Oh and due to our intervention, the Iraqi people got the chance exercise their right to elect their own government, now whether that choice ultimately leads to an Islamist Government or not remains to be seen - True?

Now this is the bit I have trouble in understanding when it comes to those who express the wish that Saddam Hussein should have remained in power. It is this fallacious idea that there would always be a "weakened" and "contained" Saddam Hussein. Moved by Russia and by France pressure was being put on at the UN to end sanctions. On the grounds that they were ineffective (Russia and France were extremely well placed to know about that, as they were largest offenders in breaking those sanctions) and that Saddam Hussein's Iraq no longer posed a threat to the region (all this was taking place before the UNMOVIC teams returned to Iraq) With the sanctions lifted it is not unreasonable to predict that Saddam Hussein would not remain "weakened" and "contained" for long. Had there been no intervention and with sanctions lifted, as they no doubt would have been by now, with Saddam Hussein in power. What do you think Saddam Hussein's reaction would have been to Iran's nuclear programme?

Subsequent to the invasion of Iraq and including the UN fiasco/human tragedy that is Darfur, the world at the moment is a safer place than it has ever been since the end of the Second World War - Not my opinion Akenaton, those are the findings of a UN funded study carried out jointly by the University of Vancouver and the University of Uppsala.

What threat is there from a resurgent Islamic block in the Middle East, that does not already exist and has existed since 1972, the year that Tosser Arafat invented international terror.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:07 AM

Spin the sources of intelligence, spin how it was evaluated, and by whom, spin what the "facts" were "at the time", spin "good idea" vs. "fully justified", spin, spin, spin.

FACT remains that many (including Bobert) knew at the time that this was a very bad idea, and predicted at that time much of what is now IN FACT occurring. Others were taken in by the (intelligence / propaganda / mistaken facts / lies ...you fill in the blanks however you want).

So who is full of crap?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:23 PM

Is there really any significant difference between "it seemed a good idea at the time" and "the reasons for intervention in Iraq were totally justifiable at the time"?

I suppose the former expression can be taken as implying that the action was a bit spur of the moment, and the latter suggests that it was more of a considered decision. But if you were in a court of law, charged with criminal damage, I don't think it would make a great deal of difference which way you put it.

Pedantic note: Reasons can be valid or not, and "intervention" can be justifiable or even justified. But reasons can't be justifiable or unjustifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:45 PM

Well, Teribus, then the reasons for Japanese "intervention" in Dec '41 were fully justifiable too...from their point of view. ;-) Their national oil and steel supply was at stake, and it was the USA that had cut off their oil and steel supply. The Japanese were under a real threat, not like the bogus threats cooked up by Bush and Blair as an excuse to attack Iraq. That's why they launched a war that they were almost certain to lose, in the view of their naval top commanders.

Nevertheless, the Japanese attack in '41 was still naked aggression, as was the USA/UK attack on Iraq in 2003. And naked aggression is always, by international law, an illegal and criminal act of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:17 PM

Nevertheless, the Japanese attack in '41 was still naked aggression...

Not so. It was a 'pre-emptive strike' in the style of Wolfowitz, Perle Rumsfeld, Cheney, Dumbya & uncle Tom Cobley & all.

Get used to the New American Century.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM

Not wishing to point out the obvious Akenaton but - "The political game ANYWHERE is ALWAYS about power.....". Oh and due to our intervention, the Iraqi people got the chance exercise their right to elect their own government, now whether that choice ultimately leads to an Islamist Government or not remains to be seen - True?

Yes Teribus, but our bold leaders are engaged in TWO wars at the moment.   The war in Iraq And the "War on Terror". Facilitating the election of a hard line Islamist govt in one would seem to be counter productive in regard to the other.

Our stance in both conflicts can be described in one word, STUPID.
I am staggered by how stupid our leaders are, the famous occasion where a mic was left on and we overheard Bush and Blair "discussing" foreign policy was truly frightning.

There have been many more intelligent conversations here on Mudcat, but I suppose thats all in the past, as you appear to have "risen again"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:26 PM

The comparison between the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 and the Invasion of Iraq in March 2003 is ridiculous. The points of difference are so obvious and numerous that I can't be bothered to detail them, but the main differences are as follows:

Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbour December 7th, 1941:
- In the time leading up to the attack and at the time of the attack itself, there was a Japanese peace delegation in Washington DC, discussing means to ease the problems between the two countries.
- The Japanese carrier force sailed in secret to attack Pearl Harbour.
- The attack was launched without warning.
- US Forces on peacetime footing and routines at the time of the attack.

MNF Invasion of Iraq March 30th, 2003:
- At least six month build-up prior to invasion, that build-up being very well publicised and broadcast with regard to nature and intent if Iraq did not fully comply with UNSC Resolution 1441.
- UN Security Council and Iraq told with the utmost clarity by the US that if Iraq did not comply with all UN Security Council Resolutions specificied in 1441 that the US would act.
- Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist rulers given 48 hours to leave Iraq after which time the invasion would commence.
- Iraqi armed forces mobilised, deployed and on full alert.

Now LH, what were "the bogus threats cooked up by Bush and Blair as an excuse to attack Iraq." Please correct me if I have any of this wrong:
- Immediately post 911 the Joint House Security Committee was tasked with evaluating potential foreign threats to the United States of America, not Bush, not Blair, nor any "neocon think tank".
- Greatest potential threat was considered to be an attack by an international terrorist group covertly backed by a rogue government.
- The evaluation by the Joint House Security Committee put Iraq at the head of the list, not Bush, not anybody in the Bush Administration, not Blair.

The above by the way is a matter of record.

akenaton - 30 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM

"..but our bold leaders are engaged in TWO wars at the moment.   The war in Iraq And the "War on Terror". Facilitating the election of a hard line Islamist govt in one would seem to be counter productive in regard to the other."

Point 1 Akenaton what two wars are being fought at the moment? The MNF currently in Iraq is stationed there at the request of the sovereign government of Iraq and by UN Mandate. The MNF in Iraq is currently at war with no-one, if that were the case activity levels on the part of the MNF would be far, far higher.

Point 2 Akenaton, as previously explained the "War on Terror" is not a war in the conventional sense, it is ongoing, global and will continue for many, many years to come.

Point 3 Akenaton why should the election of a "hard line Islamist government" be seen as counter productive. Did the Taleban in Afghanistan ever threaten or attack the US, US interests or US allies? No they did not and they were about as hard line as you could get. Al Queda who were sheltered and supported by the Taleban in Afghanistan were the ones who attacked the US. Had the Taleban given up Osama Bin Ladin as initially requested, they would still be in power in Afghanistan today.

Now how about those questions I asked you Akenaton:
In what manner do you believe that Saddam Hussein could have been kept "weakened" and "contained"? So far you haven't explained that.
What would Saddam's take have been on the Iranian nuclear programme? What do you think he would have done?

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:11 PM

Well Teribus, had we not exposed Saddam as a "toothless tiger" perhaps Iran would not now be pursuing a nuclear policy.
Our actions in regard to North Korea e.g. no action at all, must surely have persuaded Iran that a nuclear policy was imperative to avoid being attacked and invaded.

The three points you cite as answers to my post are nothing but evasion.
Ask the mothers of the dead young boys serving in Iraq whether they believe we are at war in that country
I'm sure they will be mightily relieved to hear that it is all just a bad dream.

Yor third point is cynical sqirming and as Tia says "spin, spin, spin."

According to the US/UK govts Iran is one of the main promoters of Terror worldwide, so a hardline Islamist Govt in Iraq sponsered by Iran, is likely to follow the same agenda.

Your arguments have descended to the absurd, and any further discussion should be addressed to messrs Bush and Blair.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:20 PM

Teribus--


"...your analysis of the Iraq situation will continue to be, not to put too fine a point on it-- worthless".

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:50 PM

Speaking of the absurd akenaton:

"..had we not exposed Saddam as a "toothless tiger" perhaps Iran would not now be pursuing a nuclear policy." The timeline with regard to Iran's nuclear programme way predates the start of what is happening currently in Iraq - Check that with the IAEA.

"Our actions in regard to North Korea e.g. no action at all, must surely have persuaded Iran that a nuclear policy was imperative to avoid being attacked and invaded." I would hardly describe the diplomatic activity centred on solving the problem of North Korea as being "no action at all" involving as it does four other nations. I see from what you say that you fully believe that Iran's nuclear programme is geared to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I would also point out that nobody, at any time, has voiced any intention of attacking and invading Iran, so based on one misconception the second is idiotic.

"The three points you cite as answers to my post are nothing but evasion." Not answers to your post Akenaton merely comments/observations that you seem to have chosen not to refute.

"Yor third point is cynical sqirming and as Tia says "spin, spin, spin." Please elaborate on how this point has been "spun". Did the Taleban, or the Government of any other hard line Islamic State, EVER threaten the United States of America? The question's rhetorical - NO THEY HAVE NOT.

"According to the US/UK govts Iran is one of the main promoters of Terror worldwide, so a hardline Islamist Govt in Iraq sponsered by Iran, is likely to follow the same agenda."

So a hard line Islamist Government in Iraq would be sponsored by Iran. What thought process leads you to this belief? What is this based on? Iran is without any doubt one of the main sponsors of terror (Hezbollah and Hamas are amongst the beneficiaries of Iran's largesse) Iraq also used to sponsor terror, but it has given that up since March 2003. Now a few months ago the Shia Arabs in Iran were conducting a bombing campign against the central government of Iran in the south west of Iran, the "12 Old Gits" in Tehran have definite cause for concern regarding this part of Iran should the Shia South of Iraq get any degree of autonomy, as these fellow Arabs will act as a magnet for the political aspirations of the Shia Arabs in Iran (little hint Akenaton - Iran is not an Arab country).

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:54 PM

Some never believed the propaganda.

Some believed it and now recognize that it has been exposed.

Some, incredibly, still believe it in the face of mountains of contrary evidence (which perhaps they are kept shielded from by FOX, Rush, et al.).

But the saddest are those who are clearly smart enough to know better, but have invested so much in defending it that they probably can never admit, even to themselves, that they were duped.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:03 PM

Of course the historical details are different, Teribus. You and I both know our WWII history well enough that there's no need to run through it blow by blow...not for your benefit or mine.

But the general principle is the same. The general principle is to make a pre-emptive attack on someone who has not militarily attacked you, but whom you claim is "a threat".

If the Japanese thought the USA was a threat to their position in Asia in the early 40's, they were dead right! The USA, however, was dead wrong in feeling Iraq was a serious threat to anyone any longer except various of its own citizens.

The reasons the Japanese moved in secret to attack the USA in '41 were embarrassingly simple: it was the only way that could be hoped to be effective in producing a major victory for them. ;-)

The reasons the USA openly persecuted Iraq for years, and said it would attack Iraq if certain conditions weren't met, and openly prepared for that attack in front of the entire world were equally simple: The USA had such crushingly superior military power available that it could do that...or anything it wanted to do...with confidence and absolute impunity.

So...both the Americans and the Japanese launched pre-emptive attacks in the manner that they could plainly see was feasible at the time...with equally self-interested motives, and with an equal lack of concern for either international law or morality.

And I regard both attacks as morally equivalent in that sense.

The reason you can't see it is, you are just convinced in your heart that the USA must always be "the good guys" and anyone they fight must always be "the bad guys". Sorry. That's not a principle you necessarily can rely on.

Sometimes both sides are "bad guys". In the case of the Iraq war, that was the case...but the Iraqis were not the people who attacked in 2003, they were not the aggressor, they were the victim of aggression. Brazen aggression. Pre-planned and pre-publicized aggression. Aggression announced before it was undertaken. Aggression launched without U.N. approval, and in the face of massive protest on the part of the majority of most populations, including that of the UK.

I think the only countries with a majority of citizens in favour of launching that war in 2003 were the USA and Israel. Which figures... ;-) They are both so sure that they are "the good guys" that it amounts to a pathological mental illness, and it keeps losing them friends around the world whom they cannot afford to lose.

You're rooting for an arrogant, preening aggressor, Teribus. One that attacks small countries who cannot fight back with any hope of winning, and attacks them with overwhelming technological weaponry. This is arrogance on the level of Adolf Hitler in 1939 when he attacked Poland. It's equally blatant, it's equally unjustifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:26 PM

We have sometimes speculated that the T was working for the aggressor governments in some kind of function that required blinders and a cyclopean focus on the situation as promulgated with a devotion that is stunningly insensate. Since we now know that the US president on occasion "uses the internets" , including "the Google", I now advance the theory that the T is no one but the prez hisself.

Hi, bushie!

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:59 AM

Actually, thinking it over, the USA/British attack on Iraq was considerably more heinous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the various Allied bases in the Phillipines, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia in Dec '41. Why? Because it was not just an attack on some far-flung military bases occupied by military personnel who could fight back with equivalent weaponry. No, it was an attack on the entire metropolitan civilian infrastructure and the capital city and smaller centres of an entire country...a country which was basically almost incapable of fighting back in any effective manner at the time.

The Japanese risked attacking people similarly armed to themselves, and with considerably greater resources to bring to bear not far down the road...someone who might very likely beat them. That takes guts.

What kind of guts does it take to massacre a 3rd World country with smart bombs, cruise missiles, B-52s, and stealth bombers? What kind of guts does it take to fight a war where you normally kill at least a hundred of them for every man you lose?

Now bear in mind, I am not criticizing the American and British soldiers. No indeed! It always takes some guts to be a soldier and go into combat and quite likely get shot at, even if you do outgun the enemy severely.

No, I am criticizing the political commanders at the top in the USA and the UK who dreamed up the whole damn thing in the first place and sent American and British soldiers into an unprovoked war of aggression. I'm criticizing Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Richard Pearl, and the whole unsavoury crew who set it in motion. It didn't take guts to do what they did...it just took stubborness, stupidity, and a singular lack of morality or honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:10 AM

I might as well mention too that the Japanese did at times do even much worse things than the USA/Britain have done in attacking Iraq... They did much worse things in the Japanese war in China, for example. They deliberately massacred enormous number of Chinese civilians, raped women, killed children, basically engaged in wholesale genocide.

(because I'm sure if I did not mention it, you would) ;-) So relax, Teribus, now I've done it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:11 AM

"The Japanese risked attacking people similarly armed to themselves, and with considerably greater resources to bring to bear not far down the road...someone who might very likely beat them. That takes guts."

You have got to be kidding - right? It takes absolutely no courage whatsoever to launch a full scale attack on an opponent who does not even expect an attack to take place. It's the equivalent of walking up behind some complete and utter stranger in the street and hitting them over the head with a bottle.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive stike. It was an attack unleashed upon an unsuspecting target. Over the target area/area of operations the Japanese had total control of the air, in terms of naval forces after the first attack they had naval superiority in the area. Their attack was based on the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm attack on the Italian Fleet's base at Taranto but on a far grander scale, which oddly enough I believe was to their disadvantage. If instead of this Japanese pre-emptive strike being planned and executed as a purely naval operation it had contained a landward element, had the initial aerial assaults being followed up by a landing on the islands, Hawaii would have fallen. Then carriers or no, the US would have been effectively hamstrung as far as the war in the Pacific for a considerable time as their only option of "getting at" the enemy would have been through Australia, given of course that that landmass would not have been invaded had Hawaii been in Japanese hands. As things were the vast resources of their enemey (the US) that you mentioned were a twelve months and a few thousand miles away, and even once brought into play the Allied Forces in the Pacific theatre remained very much on the back foot for some time.

The attack by the Israeli Air Force in 1966 was a pre-emptive strike, the league of Arab states who had parked their armies on Israel's borders were taken totally by surprise, they did not for one second expect Israel to act in this way.

On the other hand the invasion of Iraq was telegraphed, the Ba'athist regime were contiually advised on exactly what they had to do and what they had to comply with in order to save themselves, this was done right up until the very last moment.

You describe the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as being - "an attack on the entire metropolitan civilian infrastructure and the capital city and smaller centres of an entire country...a country which was basically almost incapable of fighting back in any effective manner at the time." That just does not tally up with reality does it? If you think that it does then please explain how civilian casualties for 2003 were one tenth of those for Desert Storm (IraqBodyCount - they confirm casualties from two sources before reporting - they have so far been the most consistantly accurate measure of all casualties in Iraq) . In March 2003 civilian infrastructure was not targeted because the troops entering the country were relying on various lumps of that infrastructure being captured intact. In Desert Storm the objective was to drive the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, so various lumps of civilian infrastructure was deliberately destroyed in order to prevent Iraqi reinforcements being deployed to the area of operations.

The following "questions" are laughable to anyone who has been involved in "live/hot" situations:

"What kind of guts does it take to fight a war where you normally kill at least a hundred of them for every man you lose?"

Let me remind you of a quotation from one of your heroes little hawk - "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - George S. Patton.

"Now bear in mind, I am not criticizing the American and British soldiers. No indeed! It always takes some guts to be a soldier and go into combat and quite likely get shot at, even if you do outgun the enemy severely." The norm for launching any sort of attack upon a fully alerted enemy (In this case the Iraqi Army) is that local superiority in numbers has to be established in the ration of 3:1. In short Little Hawk, if you are going to attack someone and you want that attack to go through you will ALWAYS outgun the enemy severely.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:03 PM

The Americans DID expect the attack to take place, Teribus. Everyone in the top American naval command circles and in the government knew perfectly well in late '41 that war was coming, and it was only a question of which week or which day it would commence on. They knew that the Japanese were sending seaborne forces south toward Malaya and the Phillipines. They knew that the Japanese carriers were out in force...location unknown...most likely readying a major attack. It was totally 100% bloody obvious that they were on the brink of a major war with Japan. When the carrier Enterprise steamed out of Pearl Harbour the day prior to the attack, its commander speculated that if he sighted any Japanese warships he would attack them on sight.

They knew war was immediately imminent at the high command level. That, of course, doesn't mean the ordinary soldier or sailor knew anything about it. They don't bother to inform those guys about such matters. ;-)


"The norm for launching any sort of attack upon a fully alerted enemy (In this case the Iraqi Army) is that local superiority in numbers has to be established in the ration of 3:1. In short Little Hawk, if you are going to attack someone and you want that attack to go through you will ALWAYS outgun the enemy severely."

Absolutely correct, Teribus. I agree entirely. That is the principle to use when attacking a defensive position in any war situation (as I well know from my years of playing historical wargames). It has no bearing, however, on my comments about a superpower attacking a 3rd World Country that hasn't got any chance at all in a conventional battle...as opposed to the Japanese attacking a nation in '41 that had enormously greater industrial resources than their own. I say that what they did took guts, but America attacking Iraq was the act of a bullying superpower which knew it couldn't lose (the conventional battle). It can, however, lose the ensuing occupation, as we are seeing...

Patton, my hero? He isn't my hero...I just recognize that he was a very effective general when it came to winning battles. Personally speaking, I don't find him very likable...but he was a good fighting general, I'll give him that. I would not have wanted to have to put up with him on a daily basis, that's for sure. He was a war-lover. I think such people are a bit mentally disturbed, to put it mildly.

I agree that the Japanese would have fared much better had they launched an amphibious invasion of Pearl Harbour in '41. I think, though, with what they already had to deal with in assaulting the Phillipines, Malaya, and Dutch East Asia, plus some other places...that mounting an additional amphibious assault on the Hawaiian Islands at that point was probably just a bit more than they could manage.

I think that Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese into going to war in '41...matter of fact, I'm sure of it. He pushed them into a corner where he knew they would lash out. He did not, of course, inform the American electorate of that! ;-) Nor did he inform the Congress. No, for propaganda purposes he had to present it as a complete shock out of left field, an unprovoked, unexpected, and despicable surprise attack, a "day that will live in infamy"...blah, blah, blah...the usual melodramatic BS, in other words...all designed to infuriate ordinary Americans with the kind of righteous wrath that would send them off to war. 911 was used the same way against Afghanistan and Iraq, and some other similar outrageous thing will probably be used eventually against Iran if the USA goes to war with Iran. If so, it will be carefully arranged and presented by people in the US government, well ahead of time, and it will not be a surprise to them, but it sure as hell will be to the American public.

Was war between the USA and Japan inevitable anyway, even without Roosevelt's arranging to push Japan into it in '41? Yes. The Americans and Japanese had been sliding inexorably into a war in the Central Pacific ever since the 1920's, and they both knew it. Was Roosevelt, therefore, wise to provoke the Japanese by cutting off their steel and oil imports and jumpstart the whole thing in '41 and get it going? Perhaps. It's debatable. He wanted very much to go to war against Germany, but he had an isolationist public and congress to contend with who wanted peace. That's a problem. In such a situation one needs a major provocation by some foreign power to get the public and congress in a war mood. I believe Roosevelt decided to push the Japanese into providing such a major provocation, and they responded splendidly. His expectation was that once at war with Japan, war with Germany would not be delayed long, but he must have been astounded at his good luck when Hitler declared war on the USA!!! What a gift! It saved Roosevelt the difficulty of declaring war on Germany first, which still would have taken awhile to arrange with the American congress, no doubt...because strongly persuasive excuses would have had to be found. Hitler saved Roosevelt from needing to find any.

I don't know why, Teribus, you are so perturbed about the Japanese hitting the American fleet by surprise at Pearl Harbour. That's standard in warfare. You ALWAYS hit the enemy by surprise if you possibly can, it's the smart thing to do. You'd have to be a complete idiot to politely inform them a day or a week ahead, "Hey, we're going to attack you, okay? Be ready for us when we get there. Give us your best shot."

Yeah, right.... (grin)

And anyway, as I said above, the American high command should not have been surprise at all. They knew the Japanese were about to attack in numerous places in the Pacific. The only thing they didn't know was exactly where, and at exactly what time, and with exactly how many forces in each case. But they sure as hell knew it was coming. They just didn't bother to tell the public or most of the sailors and soldiers who would soon bear the brunt of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:17 PM

I think Roosevelt and his key people were surprised only in one sense, by the way. They did not realize what an efficient, modern, and capable military force the Japanese had or how complete their early victories would be. That surprised everyone, even the Japanese themselves.

As such, it probably upset Mr Roosevelt a bit. ;-) After all, the Japanese planes were supposed to be inferior copies of outmoded American designs, and their soldiers were supposed to be bucktoothed, nearsighted, incompetent little fanatics who could not possibly beat a western force in the field, right?

And battleships were supposed to be unsinkable by airplanes when maneuvering freely at sea too, weren't they? Just ask Winston Churchill about that.

Yes, the Japanese had a few surprises up their sleeve in '41.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:30 PM

Teribus---

You are indeed a student of history. But you fail to realize that you may not be the only such student on Mudcat.

And your blatant ideological bias impels you to force Iraq today into a historical straitjacket of your devising.


1) ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945.

Wrong--despite the ill-informed defense of your position by Kevin and Wolfgang.



2) The US attacking Iraq is like Japan attacking the US in 1941.

Wrong. LH has pointed out to you the error of your ways.



3) The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's.

Wrong. Even you should recognize this by now.


Etc. etc.--ad nauseam.



Your problem is you need to start thinking-- before trying to spout your absurd attempted parallels.

And do what your hero, Mr. Bush, never does--consider arguments opposing your already-decided conclusion.

It would be a refreshing change.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:32 AM

Ron, I know that you like putting words into my mouth and then quoting ad nauseum that they did in fact originate from me, and I have drawn your attention before to what I believe to be your extremely poor skills when it comes comprehension of the english language.

Now as to the three historical parallels that you claim I hold so dear, lets take a look at those:

1) ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945.

What I actually said was:
"Unlike Ron Davies I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945. From 1933 to 1945 they had milked every advantage out of their political allegiance as they could get, let them run to Ba'athist Syria for whatever hand-outs may come their way, those will be damn few and far between, but no less than what they richly deserve."

2) The US attacking Iraq is like Japan attacking the US in 1941.

Eh?? I think that you had better go back and read those posts again - I have argued exactly the opposite.

3) The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's.

My references to what was known as "The War of the Running Dogs" in respect to Iraq relate to two aspects of post war Iraq:
A) The possible time frame for involvement - 15 to 20 years
B) How it should be handled, that the problem cannot be solved by military means alone, the tremendous importance of "Hearts and Minds", also pointed out my belief that US armed forces have never been very good at this.

But at no time at all did I ever say that "The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's."

You see Ron you tend to read only what you want to read, only what backs your arguement. For a change try reading and trying to understand what is actually said.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:59 PM

"ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945."

"I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945."

The words are different, but I can't for the life of me see that there is any difference in the meaning.

ALL Iraqi Sunnis = the Sunni population of Iraq

are like hardcore Nazis = are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 02:17 PM

I am pretty sure that Ron unintentionally left the word "not" out of his point # 2, Teribus. ;-)

You said, "You see Ron you tend to read only what you want to read, only what backs your arguement."

As a philosopher by nature, I would say that virtually ALL of us human beings are guilty of that habit, Teribus...most of the time. Including you and me. ;-) It's human nature to do that. People only bother (occasionally) to read the stuff that doesn't back their argument so that they can quote it later out of context in order to ridicule it.

I'm aware of this tendency...even as I do it myself...I catch myself and other people doing it all the time, and it causes me to have a certain ironic humour about people and their impassioned opinions about things, specially when it comes to politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:01 PM

It's against my nature to attack the underdog.
And you must surely admit Teribus, that on this forum you are the underdog. All your erstwhile supporters have deserted you, unable to suspend reality any longer.
But still you soldier on....in the words of your favourite put-down, "digging that mucky hole ever deeper."

I think you must be having a laugh!!....I never really thought your heart was in the conception of this conflict, you are too smart not to have forseen the pitfalls lying in wait and for a man who puts such store by facts you seem in this discussion, to interpret and present these "facts" in whichever form suits your argument.....Something like Bush and Blair really.


I don't intend to say much more on this thread as it is succombing to your usual tactic of smothering the life out of it with minutiae.
However You know very well that although the Taliban were no direct threat to US/UK....According to the American administration their support for terrorism, and Al Quaeda in particular was seen as a very great threat.
Seems to me, that any Shia dominated Govt in Iraq will lean heavily towards Iran, and may well sponser strikes against Western interests throughout the Middle East.

Right from the start you have stated that you don't see Islamic Fundamentalism as a problem ....often mocking my opinions.
I would be interested to hear the "thought process" that leads to your conclusion....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM

Teribus--


"They (Iraqi Sunnis) are the equivalent of the hardline Nazis in Germany in 1945."
Indeed. That's what you said. Thanks for confirming it.

And it's drivel. Dangerous drivel.

Some Sunnis are. Most are not.

And it's the height of stupidity--and therefore not surprising to hear from you.



Your parallel to the Malaysian situation was geared--in context--which you conveniently omit- to counsel patience--it would take a long time to win. You ignore the many differences between the two situations--especially regarding resupply of the insurgents.

Then there are your agonized parallels between Hitler and Saddam--as regards danger to the whole world.

It's back to your historical straitjacket.


I repeat--it would be nice if you would do what your hero Mr. Bush never does--consider evidence which opposes your pre-determined decision.