BS: Mission Accomplished !

Subject: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 09:15 AM

Yer doin' one helluva job, Bushie!

***


U.S. toll in Iraq surpasses that of 9/11

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press
Tuesday, December 26, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The U.S. military on Tuesday announced the deaths of six more American soldiers, pushing the U.S. military death toll since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003 to at least 2,978 -- five more than the number killed in the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 12:29 PM

There are several wars going on in Iraq. The most violent one is the war against Sunni Arabs. This community, which was about twenty percent of the population in 2003, is now fifteen percent, and dropping fast. Most of those Sunni Arabs that could afford to get out, already have. Those that remain are either too poor, or too stubborn, to leave. The stubborn ones are the Sunni nationalists who, for personal or altruistic reasons, do not want Iraq run by its majority population, the Shia Arabs. However, the Sunni Arabs are hated by the Kurds and Shia Arabs because, for centuries, the Sunni Arabs have dominated the country (even when the region was part of the Turkish Empire.) The last three decades, when Saddam Hussein led the Sunni Arabs, were particularly brutal. Thus atrocity was added to domination, and the result is a desire to expel all Sunni Arabs from the country. The Western media has played down this hatred, which is a big mistake. Talk to Iraqis (and there are plenty of English language blogs and message boards where Iraqis discuss this), and you will see it in action. While a large segment of the Sunni Arabs opposed Saddam, this faction was not able to restrain the militants. Many of the several hundred thousand secret police and intelligence operatives who kept the population terrorized for Saddam, have remained in Iraq and produced most of the terrorist violence. These guys know they can be prosecuted for war crimes, or simply hunted down by friends and family of those Kurds and Shia they killed. This payback began as soon as American and British troops invaded in 2003, and continues. Saddam's enforcers are fighting for their very lives, since the Shia dominated government refuses to offer the majority of them amnesty. There have been several amnesty deals discussed, but the numbers (of those getting amnesty) were never enough to stop the violence. So Saddam's stalwarts will fight on, despite being defeated at every turn. Increasingly, these Sunni Arab diehards are fighting Shia police, soldiers and militias. One unspoken reason for a "surge" (reinforcement) of American troops in is to prevent outright massacre of Sunni Arabs by armed Shia Arabs. While the Shia are content to terrorize Sunni Arabs into fleeing, the Sunni Arab nationalists and former Saddam employees resist this sort of thing, and eventually this will lead to some nasty incidents. Think Bosnia in the 1990s.

Another war is Irans attempts to dominate the country. Iran is doing this through Shia Arab factions it has influenced, or bought. While the majority of Shia Arabs oppose Iran pulling strings in Iran, there is a realization that Iran is a natural ally against Sunni Arab efforts to put Iraqi Sunni Arabs back in charge of Iraq. This, oddly enough, is where the United States come in. Iraqi Shia Arabs look to the U.S. as a guarantor of Shia Arab dominance in the country. The U.S. is expected to keep both Iran, and foreign Sunni Arab, influence from interfering in Iraq. That, in effect, is U.S. policy. But that does not stop Iran from trying to stir up pro-Iranian trouble inside Iraq. Saudi Arabia has recently come out and said, publicly, that it would come to the aid of Iraqi Sunni Arabs if the situation got much worse. Well, it is going to get much worse. But since the U.S. also protects Saudi Arabia from Iran, the Saudis are not going to send much more than guns and money to their fellow Sunnis in Iraq. And those Iraqi Sunnis already have lots of guns and money, so the Saudi pledge is more for morale purposes, than for material effect. Fighting the Iranian influence is tricky, because the pro-Iranian political parties control about a third of the seats in parliament, and are more united than any of the other factions. The Iranians are religious fanatics who believe they are on a roll. Recently, Iran has told the West to back off when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran has also asserted that Shia, not Sunni, should control the Moslem holy places at Mecca and Medina. This goes to the heart of the Saudi family rationale for controlling most of the Arabian peninsula. This brings us right back to the reason why the Saudis need the United States so much. The U.S. is also supporting the Iraqi factions that resist Iranian influence. These factions are the majority in parliament, but are not as well armed, organized or determined as the pro-Iran groups. Iran is willing to back a coup in Iraq, which is a nightmare scenario for the Sunni Arab nations of the region.


Islamic radicals, both Sunni and Shia, are also at war with infidels (non-Moslems) and less devout Moslems. About half Iraq's Christians have been driven from the country by Islamic radicals since 2003. That's fewer than 40,000 refugees, because Islamic radicals have been persecuting Christians in the region for over a thousand years. That's why, until recently, most Arab-Americans were Christians, whose ancestors fled religious persecution and went to America. But most of the victims of the Islamic radicalism has been other Moslems, which has led to a flood of Arab Moslem migrants to the U.S. over the last few decades. Anyone who does not support these religious zealots is considered a heretic and worse than an infidel. The Islamic radical groups, which include al Qaeda, want to establish an Sunni Islamic republic in Iraq. Iran, which is run by a Shia religious dictatorship, wants to turn Iran into a Shia Islamic republic. Most Iraqis want neither flavor of Islamic "republic", but the religious radicals are well armed and ruthless. These zealots carry out most of the suicide bomb attacks, and assaults on religious targets. The Sunni Arab Islamic radicals formed an alliance with the Sunni Arab nationalists two years ago. But in the last year that relationship has become frayed because of the number of Sunni Arabs killed by the attacks, and the growing number of revenge attacks by Shia Arab death squads.


Warlordism is alive and well in Iraq, as it is throughout the Arab world. But in most countries, the tribal and religious factions have been disarmed, and kept in check via favors or fear (or both.) That's what Saddam did, and with Saddam gone, all the factions got their guns and went into business for themselves. Some of these private armies are there mainly to protect a criminal enterprise. Most of the criminal gangs have political wings, since the gangsters want to make money, not war, and are willing to pay off the government. But the criminals will fight to keep their loot. Some of the gangs provide support services for terrorists (making bombs, transporting weapons and people, whatever). The most notable warlords are those that lead political militias, but even these groups have "business" units that engage in extortion (or "taxes") and theft (often of oil). Fighting the gangs is a war that can wait, but it will eventually have to be fought.


If the U.S. began pulling out its troops now (it would take about a year, because of logistical and operational considerations, to get everyone out), the Iraqi factions would decide, by force and negotiation, who would rule the country. A democracy is possible, because the Sunni Arabs are too weak to make a come back, and there are too many Shia factions (and the U.S. would continue to back the anti-Iran ones) for one to form a new police state dictatorship. With the U.S. remaining for a while, the expulsion of the Sunni Arabs would proceed in a kinder and gentler way. The pro-Iranian factions would have a harder time with American troops around (which is why these guys demand that the U.S. get out ASAP.) There might even be a working democracy in Iraq.


Happy New Year.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 12:48 PM

I really do wish that Guest would identify him/herself. I can't be certain of the veracity of Guest's statements or the conclusions drawn but the message is clearly defined and seems valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM

Hell in a teacup.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Amos
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 01:56 PM

The situation in Iraq? Or the psyche in Anonymous?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 05:05 PM

Well, yeah, GUEST has purdy much nailed the situation except perhaps his or her thoughts that about the expulsion of Sunni's being "kinder and gentler" with the U.S. presence... Quicker??? Yeah, but kinder and gentler??? Doubtfull...

The worst thing about this is that during Bush's mad-dash-to-Iraqmire there were plenty of highly educated and knowledgeable people who were predicting exactly what is occuring in Iraq but Bush ignored them as if they were radioactive...

I think it's time for the folks who were so hell-bent on attacking Iraq to step to the plate and send their kids and step to the plate and give up the Bush-tax-cuts to pay for this war if they want to continue it... Up until now they have profited from it and lifted nar finger in the way of sacrifice...

This is the deiscussion we should be having...

Of course Iraq will fall into civil war when we leave and some way will get their differences worked out even if it means killing ebvery Sunni but the U.S. has *****no***** control over that any more than it has control over how Iraq's future governemnt will look after the civil war...

So really, given the chicken hawks and war profiteers who aren't part of the sacrifice, and won't be part of it, I'm for calling a Middle East Summit, including Iran and Syria, as a last ditch effort and face-saving effort and then get the heck out and let the Iraqi's figure it out...

And, BTW, with Viet Nam and Iraq in the lost column, ain't it about time for the US to quit electing stupid leaders???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 05:42 PM

If I get the gist of this thread, we should end the war because we have lost more troops now than 9/11 deaths.
Did Lincoln keep score and end the Civil War when Union deaths exceeded those of Fort Sumter?
Did Wilson pull out of WWI when AEF deaths exceeded those on the Lusitania and other shipping?
Did Roosevelt cease operations when American deaths exceeded those at the attack on Pearl Harbor?
What errant nonsense this thread is!

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:08 PM

If I get the gist of this thread...

No, you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM

I agree with Bobert on the calling for a Mid East Summit which would not only include Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, but also to my way of thinking all Islamic & Arab nations within the Middle East, including Israel (they too live there & should have a say in the future) Oman, Yemen, the UAE, Turkey, Pakistan Afghanistan & Palistine too. To many, you might say, they all have to live there & they all play & are playing within the same circle. I also agree with the unnamed guest above as to some of the causes & effects we've (US) have on not just Iraq but the whole area & I also agree that we need to pull out, ASAP, though 1 year may be to long. One of the more important things that's being neglected is both the US & the UK need a change in leadership & policy. Blair, Bush & their present company need to be pulled out & ASAP just isn't fast enough.
IMHO the first & foremost thing to happen is for Bush & company to go, they are the biggest road block to any steps towards peace & putting anything to rest, then & only then there can be a Summit & not before.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:20 PM

A democracy is possible A dictatorship of one sort or another is virtually certain.

The point about quoting the deaths from September 11 is that this war was imposed on Iraq and on the USA on the grounds that Iraq had something to do with what happened then. (At least in the UK Bl;air never pretended that particular lie was the case - he just went along with the fibs about Weapons of Mass Destruction that the "Intelligence" Services has been ordered to flesh out.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:28 PM

Greg F., it is certainly the inferred subtext, else there is no reason to juxtapose the two numbers. There may be many good and sufficient reasons to end the war; that is not one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:30 PM

Oh, so now Abe Lincoln is a friggin' hero???

He is the worst president, bar none, that the US has ever had... He ****allowed**** a war to take place that could have been avoided...

But rather than dwell on that kinda stuff it seems that the revisionists have not only made this tragedy into some kinda glory filled event but have also been marketing mass-produced memoribilia to anyone dumb enough to buy the story... Which it is: a story...

Screw Abe Lincoln, too...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:42 PM

Bobert, I'll be happy to participate if you ever decide to start thread on the worst US president ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: number 6
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

Bobert ... you must be a direct descendant of General George McCellan ... or hell, the reincarnation of George himself.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 07:45 PM

LOL, biLL...

Yeah, George the Mc wasn't really up to the task, was he??? But he was my kinda guy... Never met a battle worth actually fightin'... If we had had more generals like him the war would have been a lot less bloody...

As for a worst president thread??? Hmmmmmm??? Maybe later but I just don't have time for it now as I'm tryin' to get about a hundred songs into my word processer, one at a time, 'cause I have some real important gigs comin' up an' my bandmates is expectin' to have words and music an' all that stuff that bandmates like...

Geeze....

But I'm stickin' by Lincoln as the worst with Polk a close second and the current idiot hangin' tough with the two of them...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: heric
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:03 PM

Bush never said that Saddam had any involvement in 9/11.

He did, for a while, talk about how Saddam has sheltered members of terrorist organizations "like al Qaeda," or that he would like to be or was associated with al Qaeda (and similar), or that he had connections to al Qaeda.

Somehow, later, someone let or caused the grunts to believe they were serving up retribution for 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: number 6
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:09 PM

"If we had had more generals like him the war would have been a lot less bloody..."

HeHe ... you caught my ball Bobert .... and Grant the Butcher became the hero.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:09 PM

The part that seems very sad to me is when I hear a soldier or his or her family say they are keeping America safe.



I no longer recall which columnist it was but I recently read that the reason that the Bush Administration doesn't have an "exit strategy" is that they were not planning to leave...

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Peace
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:12 PM

America needs to be kept safe from Bush and Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:12 PM

Iraq was not responsible for 911. Therefore, to kill even 1 American by invading Iraq doesn't make any sense to me.

The reason to end this war is not because x-number of American casualties have occurred to date, but simply because the war had no justification in the first place. It was an illegal and unprovoked attack, like Hitler's attack on Poland in '39. That's why it should be ended.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:24 PM

More Americans died after Richard "I have a secret plan for getting out of Vietnam" Nixon was elected...

Support the troops: Get 'um the heck out!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: number 6
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 08:26 PM

"America needs to be kept safe from Bush and Cheney."

I do wonder if that is true .... the "Dems were big on ending the war" ... Senator John Mirtha was one of their biggest spokespeople during the bi-election ... anyway, they hold the power ... were are they now when .... senator Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops over there .... Reyes was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 09:17 PM

Y'know, 6, maybe when you get real responsibility you see things differently and act differently from how you behave when you're not in power

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: number 6
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 09:36 PM

Yeah John ... it happens.

Power has a way of making people do strange things I guess.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 10:04 PM

I didn't mean that as a negative---John

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Dec 06 - 11:59 PM

It is a negative, John. The Democrats and Republicans represent the very same corporate backing interests and the very same military-industrial complex. They both seek needless wars and they both lie about it. A change in power is just the big old beast in Washington changing its mask.

The Power Game they play is NOT about serving the American public nor is it about spreading democracy and freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 12:18 AM

We disagree, Little Hawk. There is a great deal of difference between Ds & Rs, and all the socialist, conspiratorial rhetoric does not negate that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: heric
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 12:22 AM

There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the invasion then and favoring troop increases now. Different day, different facts, different issues. It's a different subject, whatever your preference be.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 12:46 AM

There's less consistency between opposing the invasion and favoring troop increases than there is between opposing the invasion and favoring pulling out now.

But no one seems to be calling for that because no one is in favor of ending this war now - except perhaps, the soldiers ("A soldier, above all, prays for Peace") ..and the mothers and fathers who've lost sons and daughters in Iraq.

Sadly, in the absence of Saddam, the occupying forces have become - for what they're worth - somewhat of a stabilizing factor and make any kind of exit strategy problematic. Pulling out now will involve way more planning than Bush & Co. put into planning the invasion in the first place - and if their abysmal history of foreign policy is any indication, frankly they're not up for the job even if they were so inclined. Any sort of abrupt withdrawal would, I'm afraid, result in a collapse into chaos for the whole region - destabilization with far greater negative impact on a global scale now than before the U.S. ever got involved. The "way forward" should be some sort of exit strategy, but now that will involve addressing much broader and far more complicated issues than Bush's myopic "War on Terrorism."

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 01:02 AM

Yup. Just leaving now is almost unfeasible under the circumstances. What a mess it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: heric
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 01:05 AM

>There's less consistency between opposing the invasion and favoring troop increases than there is between opposing the invasion and favoring pulling out now.<

I think it depends on one's objectives. If you are a power figure who wants to protect American lives, then you would choose that "consistent" option then and now. But if you believe in promoting regional stability, or advancing democracy (don't laugh - those could be legitimate objectives in a better world), then you could go in differing directions (then versus now) on the more force/less force/no force decisionmaking.

If the overarching goal (even for Silvestre Reyes) is securing US or Western geopolitcal advantage, we lesser beings can only place bets on what the big boys might do, right or wrong. We don't have the information.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 02:45 AM

biLL, the Democrats are not yet in the majority. Wait until January.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 03:36 AM

Yes Ebbie, the time's not here yet & when it comes it up to the people to see that a move is to be made. Everyone's talking about pull out or push in, it sounds more like a lot of moaning & groaning like everyones having sex & it's a grand ole time trying to deceide what's next except for the soldiers. There's a march coming up on March 17th to impeach Bush & IMHO nothing positive can happen while he's hanging about. The country's getting what it deserves if it can't get itself up & lift a leg. We have no right to complain if we let the government run over us. After all we can get out of their way & get off the road or we can block the road & walk it ourselves until the ride the road with us.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 09:33 AM

You are correct ebbie.

I hope it will make some sort of difference.

"Just leaving now is almost unfeasible under the circumstances. What a mess it is. "

Certainly is a mess right now, and it will be a mess regardless of an immediate withdraw or a planned piecemeal witdrawl ... so why not leave NOW.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 11:45 AM

We all really know what's going to happen. Continued military involvement and probabaly some increase in troop numbers (slight or massive) - up to a point when they will all be pulled out in the run-up to an election; and total chaos in Iraq, leading to a de facto partitio of the country and massive ethnic cleansing. At some point a new authoritarian regime in Baghdad.

Whether the pull-out is in six months time or two years (or for that matter six years) the result will be just about the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 01:03 PM

Barry, are you using 'free association'? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 02:21 PM

>Certainly is a mess right now, and it will be a mess regardless of an immediate withdraw or a planned piecemeal witdrawl ... so why not leave NOW. <

That might be the right answer, but with increased ethnic cleansing in the offing and especially when we're the ones who made the mess, it can't be made lightly. I can't imagine anyone having a grand time with it.

How the hell did Bush get elected, anyway? I forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 06:22 PM

ummm... Diebold elected Bush, if I remember correctly. At least that's been the rumor.

If I were a power figure bent on protecting American lives, perhaps I could start with the ones I threw in harm's way initially - the soldiers - and get them out of there.

If I were a power figure with visions of regional stability and democracy as my legacy, then maybe I would consider additional troops, which would conveniently coincide with a not-stated-but-highly-significant agenda of securing vast oil reservoirs.

If I were a power figure who knew there was nothing of value to me or the interests of big corporations under the land or anywhere in the region, I would probably be content to sit back and watch warring factions slaughter each other mercilessly into extinction while holding my troops in reserve to fight for big oil interests another day.

Other posters have probably nailed it. This is a Vietnam-esque quagmire all over again. Pessimistically speaking, the outcome is going to be the same: lots of lives lost for nothing, unless a continued plentiful suppy of relatively cheap gasoline at the pump is a good enough reason to sacrifice life and limb for a long time to come. Is anyone in Washington or the British Parliament daring to think "thousands of lives lost now is better than putting off the inevitable and losing tens of thousands of lives later"? Is anyone else thinking anything other than a strategy for securing a source of oil?

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 07:03 PM

The only way bush must be able to sleep at night with the responsibility of all those deaths on his "mind" must be when he talks to god while kneeling down by his big white house bed before nite nite time and says,

Now i way me down to seep
i pway the Lord my sole to keep
if i shud dye before i wayke
i pway the Lord my sole to take

Many would pray or say "please take his soul now, for heaven's sake!"

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 09:10 PM

But then we'd have Cheney in charge...

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 09:13 PM

The only people with any hope of cutting down on the sectarian violence are going to be the neighbouring countries, especially Iran and Syria.

That would realistically have to mean inviting them to move in troops, to replace the Americans and the British as they are withdrawn.

An apology to the people of Iraq might make the process easier.

But that's not going to happen. It'll be a matter of slogging on deeper into the Big Muddy for a while longer, and then, at some arbitrary time pulling out as fast as possible. And if that's going to happen anyway, the sooner the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 09:52 PM

Iran? Syria? Do the words 'fox' and 'henhouse' conjure any images? Hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Dec 06 - 10:21 PM

Hi Ebbie
I sometimes associate freely, yes.

Yes McGrath, an apology would be a start. Something like "sorry we came, sorry we're going"

As for the fox, that would be US in someone elses house.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 10:15 AM

But then we'd have Cheney in charge...

News Flash : Cheney's been in charge all along.

Iran? Syria? Do the words 'fox' and 'henhouse' conjure any images?

Right!- the Domino Theory redux!

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 06 - 09:12 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 26 Dec 06 - 06:20 PM

"The point about quoting the deaths from September 11 is that this war was imposed on Iraq and on the USA on the grounds that Iraq had something to do with what happened then. (At least in the UK Bl;air never pretended that particular lie was the case - he just went along with the fibs about Weapons of Mass Destruction that the "Intelligence" Services has been ordered to flesh out.)"

Absolute crap, sorry but that is absolute crap. Let's take this ullage bit by bit and expose it for what it is:

"The point about quoting the deaths from September 11 is that this war was imposed on Iraq and on the USA on the grounds that Iraq had something to do with what happened then."

Sorry Kevin, within days of the attacks of 911, Colin Powell was first on record as part of the current US Administration stating categorically on the steps of the UN that Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attacks of 11th September 2001. That is a simple matter of record, if you chose to believe lies, all well and good, but please do not present them on this forum as fact.

(At least in the UK Bl;air never pretended that particular lie was the case - he just went along with the fibs about Weapons of Mass Destruction that the "Intelligence" Services has been ordered to flesh out.)

OK Kevin, we have had three Inquiries that have all concluded that no intelligence information was fleshed out, no lies were told, all information relating to Iraqi WMD came from the UN, from the UNSCOM Inspectors Report of January 1999. If you dispute this then please provide details. According to your take on things if anybody told fibs it was the UN nobody else. The exact wording of the Dossier as presented to Parliament is freely available, it bears out exactly what I have said above.

McGrath of Harlow - 27 Dec 06 - 09:13 PM

"The only people with any hope of cutting down on the sectarian violence are going to be the neighbouring countries, especially Iran and Syria.

That would realistically have to mean inviting them to move in troops, to replace the Americans and the British as they are withdrawn.

An apology to the people of Iraq might make the process easier."

You are joking of course Kevin? Please expound upon the beneficial effect of Nazi Ba athist Syrian intervention in Lebanon, correct me if I am wrong Kevin but they occupied the country for 27 years and produced nothing but strife. I know that you are inordinately fond of the rule in Iran of the 12 Old Gits, but I somehow think that under no circumstances on earth that you, yourself would be prepared to live under their rule. OK for others though, my little left wing socialist. Typical, do as I say, not as I do.

In actual fact Kevin, "The only people with any hope of cutting down on the sectarian violence are" The prats who are actually carrying out the killings now, they have to be discouraged, Kevin. They have to be shown the error of their ways. It has got absolutely nothing to do with Syria and Iran, they can only add fuel to the flames.

Little Hawk - 26 Dec 06 - 08:12 PM

"Iraq was not responsible for 911. Therefore, to kill even 1 American by invading Iraq doesn't make any sense to me."

Well done Little Hawk, the first sentence is spot on. Why then do you connect the invasion of Iraq to 911. It had nothing to do with 911. It had everything to do with what the Senate and House of Representaives Security Committee identified as being the greatest external threat to the USA. Please note this had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with GWB or his administration. The Joint Security Committee reached this conclusion entirely on their own. Again a simple matter of record, check it out, might not fall in with a lot of fondly held myths that exist on this forum, but what the hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 06:49 PM

Impressive. The T'zer has mastered being able to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 03:25 PM

T'zer, I found this:

"We can and must provide a rational, cost-effective, and enduring framework using risk management as the underlying basis for security decision making." The Joint Security Commission

http://cryptome.org/jcs.htm

There was nothing rational or cost-effective about invading Iraq.

Can you please explain what they are referring to when they speak of 'asset valuation' in the document?

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:17 AM

Teribus, you say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Good man - you're clearly becoming immune to the right-wing spin. Some others (who clearly lack your intellectual rigour) are not, however.

Gary Schmitt, of the Project for the New American Century (endorsed by Wolfowitz, Perle et al), writing in 2005 states: "Saddam's Iraq had always been a home for and supporter of various terrorists, including a key participant in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. But what the mainstream media have largely ignored is the evidence of contacts and an evolving relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam in the 1990s.
Focused on the narrow question of whether Saddam had any hand in the attacks of 9-11, they have ignored the reports coming from prisoner debriefs, uncovered internal Iraqi intelligence documents and, for that matter, declassified Clinton-era National Security Council memos pointing toward a budding "marriage of convenience" between Saddam and bin Laden. As Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the 9-11 Commission, put it: "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

We also have the testimony of Richard Clarke who says he was ordered to find a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

And, of course, Bush himself in 2004: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." And in 2003: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."

Is it any wonder that 44 per cent of Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Bravo Terry! With your confident and dogmatic assertion, it seems as if you're going to cross the floor and join the sane world in denouncing such neo-con nonsense! Welcome on board. It's a shame you weren't around in the aftermath of 2001 to put those silly Americans right, but better late than never, eh, love?

And let's hope that your Damascene conversion marks the moment when you stop writing 'crap, absolute crap'.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:33 AM

Immunity aside the thing about right wing talking points is that as long as they are repeated ad infinitum they all become "psychologically true - just like a post hypnotic suggestion no matter how absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:21 AM

Major combat operations have ended....NOT

Subject: RE: BS: Mission Accomplished !
From: Alba
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 10:47 AM

Good to see you posting Tia. A Happy New Year to You.

The NOT on the end of your sentence is indeed a very depressing fact!
Best Wishes
Jude