BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:10 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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.