BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq

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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:43 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Big Phil
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 08:04 PM

All home, - NOW

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: number 6
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 11:38 PM

Good one Peace !

biLL

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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