BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:03 PM

It was Realpolitik, as usual. The Germans and Russians had much to gain by cooperating in '39 and '40, and much to lose by not doing so. So they temporarily put aside their mutual loathing and cooperated with each other. That's typical of the strategic maneuvering that competing nations engage in. Great powers do not have friends, they have interests.

Hitler was an idiot to attack Russia in '41. He should have left them alone. They would certainly have left him alone.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM

GUEST282RA, I don't know where you conjure up your revisionist history of World War II -- 7:50pm this date.
Hitler and Stalin had signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 allowing Hitler to pursue his maniacal ambitions in Europe, and ceding hegemony to USSR in eastern Europe. Hitler invaded Poland, causing the official start of the War. Without having to worry about Russia to the east, Germany overran most of western Europe. But in 1941 Hitler took his eye off the prize and broke his treaty with the USSR and invaded Russia.
Russia, now the enemy of the English enemy, became the Allies ally.
You invalidate your argument with false premises.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:23 PM

Hmmm. Well, that's a pretty strong argument, 282RA. Good points you make there.

I did live in New York State for 10 years, and I spent much time in Nevada in the 80's. From the angle you're speaking, as to how you go about explaining it, I'm basically in agreement with what you say. Yes, that kind of attitude is cowardly, although it poses behind a lot of aggressive intolerance and bluster (which indicates deep paranoia and extreme lack of confidence at some level...plus simply not giving a damn about other people).

The attitudes you describe are among the many reasons I'd far rather be in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:17 PM

>>What I meant was this: Americans, as individuals, have a long history of pugnacity and willingness to fight. Look at the history of your country. Look at how many people own guns, fer chrissake!<<

Apparently, you don't live in America and have never been here. Your basic gun-owner--I'm not talking about hunting enthusiasts, I'm talking about gun enthusiasts--is a freaking moronic mistake of nature. These are BY FAR the BIGGEST cowards currently to pollute planet earth. These people are SO fearful of everything that doesn't "think" exactly like them that they have to arm themselves and mutter stupidity like: "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" but these great defenders of our constitional right to own firearms have absolutely NOTHING to say when they learn Bush is wiretapping without a warrant. They also say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and then say, "Shut the fuck up, you asshole liberal!" when you ask why America is ONLY nation on earth whose peacetime death count due to guns far outnumbers other nations in the midst of violent, bloody wars. We must have an awful lot of people who want to kill other people.

>>Look at how many people are willing to use them.<<

Yeah, look at that. How brave! How courageous!

>>That is not a nation of cowards,<<

I'm afraid that's exactly what it is.

>>it's a nation of people who will fight when they see that something geniunely valuable is at stake.<<

Such as what? When terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center where were the long lines of outraged patriots standing outside of military recruiting offices? Nowhere as evidenced by the military's inability to meet even reduced recruiting goals. Here's what one courageous individual said to me when I asked how real men could stand by while more and more women are willing to serve in Iraq: "If the dumb bitches want to get themselves killed, why should I care?" No joke. When I asked how long we should keep sending the SAME people to fight this war over and over again, this was what another brave hero said, "If they don't like it, they shouldn't have volunteered." Wow, makes me want to salute that ol' red, white & blue.

No, Americans will not fight when something valuable is at stake unless it's the latest lottery jackpot--which is frankly more important to them than what's happening in Iraq judging from the huge numbers of Americans that play the lottery everyday as opposed to the ones that join the military to help win this war.

I've had it up to here with asshole Americans and their self-centered shit. At least I served in the Middle East. At least I did that much.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

282RA, I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying...

You said of the modern American that they are, as a nation in a general sense, "self-absorbed, delusional and arrogant". Yup, I'd agree with that all right. Your media and educational system have accomplished that. You assert that the Congress is corrupt. Yup, I'd agree with that.

But I would not call Americans cowards for ending the Korean War fighting when they did (it had ground into a bloody stalemate, and neither side could gain ground). I do not blame them for getting out of Vietnam when they did...they should have done so a lot sooner, because it was a mistake in the first place. They should not even have helped the French stay there!

I do not blame anyone for stopping a war that is a mistake or that offers nothing but a bloody stalemate. It's wise to stop a profitless war.

What I meant was this: Americans, as individuals, have a long history of pugnacity and willingness to fight. Look at the history of your country. Look at how many people own guns, fer chrissake! Look at how many people are willing to use them. That is not a nation of cowards, it's a nation of people who will fight when they see that something geniunely valuable is at stake.

The Vietnamese HAD something genuinely valuable to fight for...national sovereignty and an end to colonialism...but the Americans in Vietnam didn't. That's why the Americans lost heart for the whole thing, and why they finally left. It isn't "courage" to continue a pointless, profitless war...it's sheer stubborness, false pride, and stupidity.

I was speaking of the American national character, not of your wretched excuse for a government, which is in truth just a handmaiden for a bunch of huge corporations like the oil companies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:02 PM

Not only is Bush "incurious"--by far the most charitable interpretation to his attitude. But--from a recent column by that wild-eyed leftist, George Will, under Bush the US now displays to the world "the fatal new combination of arrogance and incompetence".

I think that puts it nicely.

The same column also pointed out that Halliburton hired Pakistanis and Indians for the "Coalition" food service. Iraqis need not apply. Why?--fear of poisoning the food.

That's how much the Bush regime trusts its budding democrats.

And on top of it all, as I said earlier-- listening to Bush, he still imagines himself as Churchill. Nothing like a whining fake Texan accent rolling faux-Churchillian cadences, I always say--it adds that I don't know what--(certainly nothing French--that won't make it with the macho sheep who voted for him). Twice? How could any thinking individual do that?

Roll on, 2009.

And in the meantime, start the investigations of the propaganda campaign that got the US into Mr. Bush's war.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:38 PM

IRaq Study group, (as Jon Stewart says) the test was 3 years ago.

Robert Gates has pointed out that frankly 'there are no new ideas'
and rearranging the old ones will not work.

Train more Iraqi and Police - they are divided into sectarian units - and will not fight against their own sect.

Talk to Syria and Iran ? why should they talk after being painted as rogue states.

The middle east will not fall into chaos like some reverse domino theory if the US withdraws, although a lot more Iraqis will die probably for quite some time.

Regarding Bush; I think its more stupidity than evil,
after being presented with the Iraq Study groups 79 recommendations
he did not ask one question. heres one point of view

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:50 PM

>>282RA - I do NOT think of Americans as cowards, and I will not think of them as cowards even if they should precipitately pull out of Iraq.<<

Talk is cheap. America's defeat will not be cheap for anyone and that includes you. So you remember what you said because I will be here to hold you to it once you finally realize how utterly self-absorbed, delusional and arrogant Americans really truly are.

>>I think of your government as misguided, irresponsible, and idiotic, but do not think of Americans as cowards. Not for a minute. Americans are tough people, and they have always shown great courage and independence when times are tough.<<

Let's see, when times got tough in WW2, we sent to the Russians to die battling Hitler so we wouldn't have to. As for WW1, we spent a whopping 6 months fighting in that one. When times got tough in Korea, we fled and North Korea is STILL a threat as a result. When times got tough in Vietnam we fled. Now times are tough in Iraq and we are getting ready to flee. No one's talking about Afghanistan but that one is worse off than Iraq and we are going to flee from there too. And we'll leave the rest of the world trying to sort it out while we blame the whole mess on them not helping us (after we told them we didn't need their help). I guess I was born in a different country called the United States of America because I haven't seen any of this "great courage" in my lifetime. What specifically are you referring to?

>>The reason I want to see America leave Iraq is simply because I don't think they had justification for going there in the first place. No matter when or how they leave, it's going to be a very tough time for the Iraqis, but anyone who thinks ordinary Americans or their soldiers are cowards is just plain lost in his own delusions and anti-American rhetoric.<<

This from someone who said in an earlier post that he wants to see America leave Iraq in disgrace. Get that straight. George Bush wasn't truly elected by the people in his first term but he sure was in the second and so was that unbelievably corrupt 109th Congress that allowed him to do anything and everything he damned well pleased. I am sick to death of seeing morons defending a country that desperately needs to have its stupid ass kicked for fucking up the world and thinking it has every right to and no one else has any right to complain. That is not a country I could or would EVER defend and I'll kill myself before I ever do. America taught me that in school. We're not supposed to be doing the things we are doing. That's not supposed to be what we stand for. And when I find out it's all a dirty, cheap lie I'm supposed to the Little Chicken way out and say, "But I still love you" For what???? You tell me--for what??

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: bobad
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:44 PM

"Almost like visiting Eastern Europe with hamburgers and cars."

Yeah, well, you have to put up with some hardship.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM

>>If a draft is the only answer then I reckon the draft dodging that went on at the time of Vietnam will be a mere nothing compared to the dodging that will go on to avoid fighting in Iraq.<<

That's called "when the war hits home" and no one has any business whatsoever supporting a war without supporting the draft. If they're not prepared to accept a draft then they need to shut the hell up about starting a stupid war.

>>Needless to say it will be the sons of the poor who will be drafted and the sons of the rich will be getting out of it.<<

Of course. But nevertheless, we will draft at some point. There's no way out of it because if we're going to lose, we'd better lose having tried everything to win it because this loss is going to sting very, very deep.

>>Currently the cost of the war is over $348,000,000,0000. Mind it makes it great for us Brits to visit the USA. Almost like visiting Eastern Europe with hamburgers and cars. Place is such good value for money as the $ collapses.<<

That is one of the things that will happen when we pull out--the incredible shrinking dollar. Again, that's the gamble you take when you decide to go to war. If it isn't worth it, then don't do it. Now, the American people can be forgiven for this war because Bush was not elected in his first term, he stole it with some electoral hocus-pocus and started the war at that time but his reelection was something I still cannot forgive the American people for and I don't think I ever will. I am extremely disappointed in the American people and if I had another country to flee to, I would. I am ashamed of my American citizenship and really don't want it anymore but I'm stuck with it. The midterm victories, I'm sorry to say, were far too little far too late.

What kind of a nation are we? Bunch of fucking stupid asses who deserve everything that's coming. Assholes!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM

LOL! You might be onto something there, freda. Nothing gets male blood pumping like a good, lively military campaign. Remember Bush on the aircraft carrier? Those are the moments a lot of men live for.

282RA - I do NOT think of Americans as cowards, and I will not think of them as cowards even if they should precipitately pull out of Iraq. I think of your government as misguided, irresponsible, and idiotic, but do not think of Americans as cowards. Not for a minute. Americans are tough people, and they have always shown great courage and independence when times are tough.

The reason I want to see America leave Iraq is simply because I don't think they had justification for going there in the first place. No matter when or how they leave, it's going to be a very tough time for the Iraqis, but anyone who thinks ordinary Americans or their soldiers are cowards is just plain lost in his own delusions and anti-American rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:35 PM

"I don't understand. I don't pretend that I do. I hope you're wrong Ake. I suppose what I'm saying is that I hope he is really stupid, rather than evil. Perhaps though there is third alternative we can't see."


When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade
another country.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:23 PM

What confused me,and still does to some extent is the cultural background he is coming from . Married to a lefty lawyer, liberal education, he's even a guitarist for godsake....yea I know Heydrich played the violin quite well.

Do you know that bit in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, where they ask the culprit why he did it - betray England. He said, well after Suez, it was impossible to think of England as anything except America's streetwalker.

perhaps that's it. Written on the desk as they walk into the PM's job is something to the effect - whatever happens you go along with American foreign policy, to the extent that you can. Wilson, despite howls of protest from Heath at the time, kept us out of Vietnam but he offered tacit support to America in that war. Perhaps Blair simply wasn't that savvy.

If someone like Blair is the scoundrel that you say he is, what bloody hope is there? Any more left wing and anti establishment won't be elected in the marginals.

I don't understand. I don't pretend that I do. I hope you're wrong Ake. I suppose what I'm saying is that I hope he is really stupid, rather than evil. Perhaps though there is third alternative we can't see.

Look at all the people who said, why didn't Bush Senior finish off Saddam after the famous 'Turkey Shoot' as Iraqui troops left Kuwait? Well we can see now what a dumb idea that would have been.

Sometimes the truth is not pure, simple, or self evident. And I'm not dumb, but I am puzzled by this situation.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:32 PM

If a draft is the only answer then I reckon the draft dodging that went on at the time of Vietnam will be a mere nothing compared to the dodging that will go on to avoid fighting in Iraq.

Needless to say it will be the sons of the poor who will be drafted and the sons of the rich will be getting out of it.

Did someone say "Bush"?

Currently the cost of the war is over $348,000,000,0000. Mind it makes it great for us Brits to visit the USA. Almost like visiting Eastern Europe with hamburgers and cars. Place is such good value for money as the $ collapses.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:11 PM

>>The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops.<<

We've completely dismantled their military. It will literally take years to rebuild it. This is compounded by the fact that the Iraqi economy is a disgrace and most of the people enlisting are doing strictly for a paycheck and have no intention of dying for their country. When the economy is good, you get a better grade of soldier because he's volunterring out of a sense of duty. When the economy is bad, they sign up just to have a job and patriotism and duty be damned. Whent he bullets fly, they flee. It will take years just to comb out the malingerers and the free-loaders.

>>A US draft would solve absolutely nothing apart from increasing your casualty rates and guaranteeing the defeat of US troops.<<

It's the only chance we have. It is the ONLY option not being explored. Every other has been exhausted and been found wanting and that is why Robert Gates said the other day that he is open to suggestions. That should prove right there that we currntly have no real options. So to me, we either get out and get out now or we stay and fight but we MUST have fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops and we're not going to get them from among the Iraqis.

>>How long do you think it would take to put those draftees into the frontline? The answer to that would be termed in months not weeks.<<

That's atually very fast. With Iraqis, it will take years. At least 5 years of struggle must pass before any Iraqi officer or enlisted leader would be considered savvy, experienced and trustworthy enough to be followed. We don't have that time to wait. We have to do something NOW!!

>>How effective would they be? Absolutely bloody useless, they would be a bigger danger to your "professional" troops than the insurgents those "professionals" are currently fighting.<<

Professional armies historically don't work any more effectively. Ask Egypt, Rome, Greece, Assyria, IRAQ and countless other nations of the past. They all had professional armies. They all fell. Professional armies are notorious for a can-do attitude no matter what the odds are. "We can do it" "we don't need help" "We're soldiers and we rely on ourselves" is all you'll ever get out of them regardless of what the truth is. They don't care about the truth. All they care about is being a soldier. Once there is a war, they generally don't want it to stop because it might mean being cashiered once that war ends. It's their livelihood--they have nothing to go home to. The longer a war goes on for a professional soldier, the better--it's his job. Professional armies are bunk.

>>Please note that while a largely "civilian" think tank suggests an increase in troop levels, not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops. I would rely more on their judgement of the situation than those of any damn committee sitting in Washington.<<

You would be an idiot to do so because, as a veteran and as someone working inside the defense industry, military people do not speak their minds to the public and they do not get in the faces of the people whose policies they are assigned to carry out. They do what they're told and, by my own military experience, they are told to do it and shut up. And they do. That's why generals retire before they speak out against Rumsfeld. They just can't do it when they're in an active capacity or they would have. Generals aren't clamoring for more men because they have been ordered not to and a good soldier NEVER disobeys an order unless it is illegal.

>>US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe.<<

I never said we would win. We are going to lose. But it is the only chance we have to score some kind of victory. If we leave without drafting, it will always look like we chickened out--in fact, if we leave before we draft we DID INDEED chicken out. It would show the rest of the world that we're just a pack of stupid asses who start shit and then expect everyone else to finish it for us because we're weren't prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for a victory. Not acceptable. We must make EVERY effort--EVERY EFFORT--possible BEFORE withdrawing. That means we HAVE to draft. Will we win? Fuck no. Of course not. It's too late for that. But we have to be the example not a coward who starts a fight and then hides behind others. Every other option has been exhausted. This is the only one left before withdrawal and it MUST be implemented before we can leave.

>>The Soviets with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Afghanistan by a far weaker foe.<<

It doesn't matter. We MUST draft BEFORE we can leave or we will have cut and run. It is the ONLY option not yet exploited and it must be exploited before we can leave.

>>The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo.<<

It doesn't matter. We are losing the war and so we MUST draft or we will be cutting and running. We will be cowards in the eyes of the world.

>>Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters - again they are facing professional troops, not conscripts, not draftees.<<

It doesn't matter. We are losing the war!!!!! THEREFORE we MUST draft before we leave or we will be cowards who cut and run. We MUST exhaust EVERY POSSIBLE OPTION before we can leave. Period. And if that means a draft then so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:22 PM

Al...Sorry for seeming to tar you along with Blair, and I probably find all the alternatives on offer even less palatable than you do.

The question is quite simple... Was he bad or stupid? The same question I would ask all who supported this war....especially TERIBUS.

BUT.....the whole notion of pre-emptive war just because someone thinks it may give personal kudos....like something thought up by some focus group, is to my mind evil incarnate.
Something which should not be convieniantly forgotten, or weighed against a few more pennies on the pension, or another week in Tenerife for the nurses.

Today Blair lectures our minorities on their behaviour, praising terrorism ect. Yet who will point to his own bloodstained hands and demand that justice is seen to be done .......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:32 PM

The alternatives aren't very palatable anywhere where the great corporate empire controls all the major parties which you can vote for...

"Let's see. Who shall I pick this time? Tweedledee? Or Tweedledum? Or Tweedledummest? Decisions, decisions."

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM

I found it difficult to ascribe the motives you did so readily to the leader of the party I had voted for all my life.

He has said nothing in his own defence. Perhaps there is nothing to be said.

I still don't find the alternatives to Labour very palatable. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM

The War was not about Global politics or spreading democracy, it was about domestic politics.
America saw Saddam's Iraq as a soft target, an easy way to gain the political initiative and grab a bunch of oil.
Blair was even worse...he saw Iraq as his ticket to glory.
An easy victory for the Yanks and the guy who stood "shoulder to shoulder" wouild be rewarded.

In the UK this conflict was indeed   "Blair's War" single handedly he convinced a willing party and many here that he was fighting for freedom.

He lied and lied again.....For personal glory.
I remember arguing with wld years ago over this point.
wld excuses Blair, but most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned.......The American can do as they like with Bush who is in reality a sad fool.

Blair knowingly committed a monumental political crime and should face the consequences.

However, solely due to Mr Blair, Labour will be booted out at the next election, and may they never be returned to power until all who are stained by Blair's crime hide under the Labour banner...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:44 PM

"...there is no way you can guarantee democracy is going to deliver you something sane and sensible in the way of government. Malaya being a bloody good case in point."

I don't think you have to go as far afield as Malaysia to get another case in point...

Here's a piece by Simon Hoggart in today's Guardian which seems to put it pretty well - Dead fish day

"The president looked like a hooked fish with its head hammered by a humane angler. But he always does. Yesterday he looked even worse. He has moved from the riverbank to the fishmonger's slab. After the midterms and the Baker report on Iraq (executive summary: "We screwed up. Now let's get out"), he has been called a dead man walking. Yesterday he resembled a dead fish twitching...."

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:45 AM

Well at very least I think Teribus is being unfair. This guy isn't right wing, left wing or whatever - he's trying to think this thing through, and he may be on to something.

The way you win a war is to surround your enemy with superior forces and kill him, and a lot of other innocent people. Like the Union army in the American Civil War, or the aliies in WW2. In WW2 of course the Russians did a lot of our dying for us. If you're not prepared to do that, you shouldn't be fighting a war - its not fair to the men who put their lives on the line for your cause.

The Germans didn't stop being Nazis because they had a change of heart. They stopped being Nazis, because if we found one being a Nazi, we shot them in public. And we showed them there were was more percentage in doing things our way. But as the guy says - we are talking MASSIVE commitment.

Furthermore there is no way you can guarantee democracy is going to deliver you something sane and sensible in the way of government. Malaya being a bloody good case in point.   So you can't really with any degree of honesty, promise a stable benevolent government at the end of the road.

I don't really think this war was ever about that. It was about showing the world there are pains and penalties if you pull a stunt like 9/11. There is a military response. And I think in a way - Bush's ignorance speaks very eloquently. It says I don't care if you are fundamentalists or not. I get any shit from your part of the world and this shit is what happens. Look out your window at the wreckage and say Thankyou Osama, without you - there would have been none of this.

I think America and England will withdraw without creating Utopia in Iraq. And I think the people who thought this one out, won't give a bugger. Mission accomplished, as far as they are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM

Teribus,

I have no intention of getting into a slagging match here, but I want to take issue with a couple of your points from above.

"The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo."

Actually, a considerable number of the British troops deployed in the 'Malayan Emergency' were National Servicemen. I think we have therefore to look elsewhere for the reasons for the title of this thread.

"Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters..."

While I can believe the above, do you have a source for it?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 10:43 AM

The problem I see with T-zer's "boots on the ground" being Iraqis is that we keep hearing how the stategy should be to train more "peacekeepers"... Yeah, that may sound good but when you peel off a few layers what it amounts to is basicly training folks to be better killers... I mean, like who trained the malitias???

History is repleat with such exercizes of insanity... Think the Taliban here...

While I agree with my bud 282RA that any chance of victory would involve a massive effort both in terms of manpower and equipement I'm rather scepical that even if those sacrifices were made that the chances of winning or even breaking even would be very slim...

Sadder yet is that Bush is too stubborn and/or intellectually challenged to hang with a paradigm change and that all but insures that the US/UK ill-thought-out invasion will fail... Even today, Bush holds to his rhetoric about completing a mission which has changed over and over to suit his political situations... The man will say anything...

So, I think we are screwed...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:29 AM

"the alternative does not really bear thinking about."

Ah, but it HAS to be thought about... eventually.

Yep - that's the same narrow minded red necked ball clanking dickheadedness that got the Iraq mess started in the first place... but, like in Vietnam, "the alternative" is now par for the course - just how much Trade does the US (and the "Allies of the willing in that conflict") now have with Vietnam (oh, and it's "backer of Terror" - China)?   ;-)

The same will eventually happen with whatever sort of rubble is left in Iraq too...

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:21 AM

"Carry on laughing Foolstroupe"

Just as long as you keep spinnin' 'em Mr T!

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:14 AM

Teribus--



The US "will prevail", you assure us. Gee thanks, that makes it all better.

The only thing wrong is that at this point, and probably long since, it has been out of the hands of the "Coalition". How many times do we have to tell you that it is fundamentally a question of IRAQI politics--- before it finally sinks into your giant brain?

I've been saying for over a year now that if you don't take Sunnis' wishes into account--specifically their need for oil income and their need to be able to trust the police-- you ensure a bottomless supply of terrorists. Your response is that ALL Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945--and therefore deserve no consideration.

As I've said earlier, this is drivel--dangerous drivel.

It's your attitude, as manifested by Shiite leaders in Iraq, which makes peace in Iraq--(even the rump state, without the northern Kurdish area, which is gone from "Iraq" for good)--- impossible---ever.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:10 AM

Carry on laughing Foolstroupe, as you obviously haven't got any real contribution to make. It would appear that all that you can do is repeatedly spout the usual left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush nonsensical mantras in the hope that people will be stupid enough to swallow them. When confronted with an alternative/opposite point of view backed up by fact, your stuffed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:59 AM

"the MNF currently deployed in Iraq are there at the invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq"

ROFL.... elected AFTER the invasion..... hahahahahaha!

"under the terms of a perfectly legal and duly authorised UN Security Council Mandate"

ROFLMAO - passed 'when the war had been won' AFTER the invasion when George Baby told the UN and the rest of the world to eff off and that the US 'would go it alone'... the attempt to get the UN to clean up the mess Georgie Porgie and "kill 'em all" Rummy created....

ROFL... oh please stop... my sides hurt...

"despite all the bombings and specific targeting of Army and Police recruitment centres thousands of Iraqi's continue to volunteer."

It's the only real way of earning a living honestly in Iraq - sort of a 'suicide army', in a way, really....

"If the civilian population of the United States of America does to US servicemen and women currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq what you did to your conscript army that served in Vietnam."

Ah - it was the GOVT who did that - didn't want to praise the soldiers so snuck them in undercover, no parades for 'heroes' etc - because they didn't want to wear the political fallout for having 'failed' after years of loud mouth rednecking and trying to destroy all critics of Govt 'policy'. The loyal sheep citizens just did what the govt inspired media told them to do...



"the alternative does not really bear thinking about."

Echoes of Vietnam, anyone.... now THAT's a good title for a song...

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:37 AM

GUEST,282RA - 07 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM

"If there is no war in Iraq, Teribus, then Bush cannot claim war time powers. So Bush then is abusing his power and must face the consequences."

Wrong 282RA, the MNF currently deployed in Iraq are there at the invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq and under the terms of a perfectly legal and duly authorised UN Security Council Mandate. The latter has just been renewed and extended until 31st December 2007.

So sorry no requirement to claim war time powers and no abuse of power on the part of your President.

The Iraqi army currently being trained, who have already taken post in almost half of the country and who for some time now have been taking the lead in counter-insurgency operations is a very different force from the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein (Who never trusted his Army anyway). Main difference is that this Iraqi Army is not made of conscripts, they are all volunteers, and despite all the bombings and specific targeting of Army and Police recruitment centres thousands of Iraqi's continue to volunteer.

Your President is quite right to state that the US "will prevail" because the alternative does not really bear thinking about. If the civilian population of the United States of America does to US servicemen and women currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq what you did to your conscript army that served in Vietnam. If you succeed in dragging them back home having not allowed them to finish the job, then resign yourselves to the fact that on their return you will be defenceless, because these guys will not be prepared to go in to bat for you again unless it is on American soil where they can see you on the frontline alongside them - of course by that stage it would be too late, you'd already have lost whatever conflict you were involved in.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:30 AM

282RA - just about the realistic sounding assessment I've heard. Unpleasant reading, but feels spookily more like reality than anything I've heard for a while.

al

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM

"US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe."

Yep. But, really, weaker? Militarily, tonnage of bombs, amount of expensive hardware (as judged by the standards of the time, perhaps) - bet they were fighting on their own soil - and remember that NORTH VIETNAM - before external interference and partition, WANTED HELP from ''the free world' and were promised it during WWII, but were betrayed afterwards - so they had the attitude of "f*** 'em all". Don't forget that the French built their big base in the shadow of mountains "that they can never get artillery up there" ...
hahahaha :-)

The 'South' were a bunch of corrupt warlord puppets, who could not motivate their 'official army' ... oh dear, starting to sound more like Iraq...

"The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops."

Which are acknowledged to be no more effective than in Vietnam, not counting infiltration by those dedicated to overthrow...

"not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops."

Ah - in the beginning, and even BEFORE the invasion, they did, but since the 'political winds' were observed correctly, no sane military commander has since stepped out of line - hence 'no more requests for more troops'.... :-)


"The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo."

Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet...

"As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens. "

That's about the best that can be said, unfortunately...

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:49 PM

I hope that they DO try to reinstitute the draft. That would make this illegal war of aggression so unpopular in the USA that it would definitely cause its failure even sooner. So much the better. The USA is an outright aggressor in this case, and it richly deserves to lose the war and go home in disgrace.

And yes, conscript forces would be less effective, just as you say, Teribus.

As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:40 PM

And still Bush says "We will prevail". It seems he looks in the mirror and sees Churchill. Anybody else could tell him he's a bit off, to put it mildly.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:55 PM

The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops.

A US draft would solve absolutely nothing apart from increasing your casualty rates and guaranteeing the defeat of US troops. How long do you think it would take to put those draftees into the frontline? The answer to that would be termed in months not weeks. How effective would they be? Absolutely bloody useless, they would be a bigger danger to your "professional" troops than the insurgents those "professionals" are currently fighting.

Please note that while a largely "civilian" think tank suggests an increase in troop levels, not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops. I would rely more on their judgement of the situation than those of any damn committee sitting in Washington.

US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe.

The Soviets with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Afghanistan by a far weaker foe.

The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo.

Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters - again they are facing professional troops, not conscripts, not draftees.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:39 PM

Unfortunately while America may have the largest military in the world
it is not as useful as one might expect since the US populace has a deep aversion to casualties - as well as cost,
(Stiglitz the former world bank economist estimates that over the long run the Iraq war is 2-3$ trillion)
when it comes to a war of choice.

OBviously the NOv election was the real beginning of Bushs accountability moment, and now hes had to submit to adult supervision.
Unfortunately there is very little that the US can do regardless what the Iraq Study group comes up with.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:23 PM

If there is no war in Iraq, Teribus, then Bush cannot claim war time powers. So Bush then is abusing his power and must face the consequences.

Saying we're not losing, we're just not winning is like saying, "I didn't lie, I merely misrepresented my position." There is no stalemate here. Either we get our victory or we have been defeated. We're the superpower, we have to win. The insurgency only has to fight us to a standstill and can rightfully claim victory. Unfortunately, they have already fought us to a standstill and we still cannot turn this thing around. So we are losing.

Because our leaders are too chickenshit to talk about it, I'm amazed at how few here bring it up: if we're going to have a chance, if we're going to continue this good fight, such as it is, we need a draft. We simply must have more people. There simply are not enough. We cannot draw down troops until we have an upper hand which we clearly do not. To get an upper hand, we need a lot more "boots on the ground," as they term it, at any given time.

Short of a huge influx of soldiers, the United States will lose this war shortly. We keep saying that the Iraqis need to take responsibility, excuse me? WE need to start taking responsibility. WE invaded them, WE dismantled their govt, their military, their police, their media, their infrastructure. We took away every available weapon they had to stop an insurgency and a civil war then we tell them, "This is your fault because you won't take responsibility for it!" WE were the ones that promised to build a democracy there--it is OUR responsibility to see Iraq out of this brutal dark age we have thrust them and ourselves into.

As long as we're too chickenshit to draft people and get bodies over there and start kicking butt and start turning this thing around, it is WE who are not taking responsibility for this debacle and it is entirely the fault of the United States and Great Britain. They're talking about the need to send 20,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to disarm the militias. HOHOHO! Dream on! All that would accomplish it getting thousands more troops sent home in flag-draped boxes. Be honest! We need to send 200,000 to 300,000 over there if we're going to have any success disarming militias. Really, we need about 500,000 to do that. Trouble is, that would be unbelievably expensive since the current paltry 140,000 cost us about $6 billion a month. We have spent too much money already and can't afford to spend much more. So what do we do?

Our hardware is also running down and wearing out from overuse and we don't have the personnel or parts to fix it. It will cost $17 billion a year for the next several years to repair this equipment and it wouldn't matter if the war stopped at this very minute. My job deeply involves me in this hardware repair effort and it is a lost cause. I wrote the procedures for revamping the humvees to withstand the rigors of Iraq--I wrote them. There were about 88,000 early last year that needed to be rebuilt at the time I wrote those procedures. We have less than 1% of it done. If we double the repair rate next year and no more humvees come stateside for revamping, we will still have less than 1% of them rebuilt. It is a serious, serious, serious hardware and repair shortage we are facing. I mean, it's extremely serious, folks.

We need a draft just to get enough people to fix this hardware. Much of it was never meant for Iraq, it was emergency equipment meant for domestic disasters and most of it is now over in Iraq getting beat to shit and then being sent back to the States to sit in some govt lot awaiting repairs that have yet to come. The money isn't there because Bush slashed it to divert more to Iraq where it is promptly squandered and stolen by unscrupulous assholes.

You see how this shortage affected our ability to respond to Katrina. You see how unacceptably slow our response has been to Midwestern people who lost power in that snowstorm last week. Some 55,000 STILL have no power and will not have it back before Saturday at the earliest!! It takes great effort from the National Guard to clear the roads so repair crews can get through but few states have enough Guardsmen or equipment to sustain much of the necessary effort. Eventually, it just won't happen at all. We'll be on our own. We are slowly devolving into a 3rd world nation thanks to Bush and his war.

We are cowards if we keep expecting only a small segment of the total population to shoulder this war and all the natural calamities we face. Most Guard units today are now rated as "Unready" or "Unsat" (unsatisfactory) because they lack the necessary personnel and equipment to be able to assist in even the least catastrophic disasters. And it's only getting worse by the month. Even then, we'd rather sit in a cold, dark house than do something about our situation. We have to start acting like a responsible nation instead privileged, spoiled, stupid brats whose individual wants and needs matter above the nation's as a whole and we need to start a draft and start showing the world we're serious or the world is going to go on without us. They don't have much of a choice, really.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:24 PM

I'm NOT at all surprised - neither is the 'rest of the world' - this sort of arrogant wankerism stuff-up is what the USA is best well known for internationally, and why some of us just KNEW that the US would stick its dick in Iraq, AND get it chewed, like in Vietnam. What we were trying for at best, and it failed with Fascist Johnny, was to not burn our bridges by tagging along - Johnny still refuses to admit that the US is 'not winning in Iraq'...

BTW, Johnny said that "sending troops into Fiji at the request of the elected PM would be an illegal invasion" - ROFL....

All that Hollywood crap about careful US military planning is really funny, you know. The last bit of effective US military planning was WWII D-Day, and don't forget that the English refused to let 'the bloody Yanks' have total charge of that, you know... In the Pacific, the tactic was mostly just an inevitable "roll up the carpet with concentrating superior force on a weak spot".

After the 'Axis of Evil' & 'Grand Crusade' stupidities, we are just waiting for "Ooops, what was that damn big Red Button for anyway?"

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Peace
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM

The President of the USA isn't fluent in English fer krissake. So why should the embassy people surprise you?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:56 PM

"either didn't understand Iraqi politics, or failed to get GW to listen to them."

"Out of a 1000 people in the US embassy in Iraq, only 6 are fluent in Arabic"...!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:48 PM

You gotta understand the *rules*...if you manage to define cleverly, you get to do anything you wish!

"Heck, no...we aren't fighting a 'war'...'cause we didnt DECLARE a war! Therefore we can't be losing a war. We are just...ummmm...helping a bunch of nice folks to recover from a dictatorship and guiding them toward democracy! (Never mind that most of them can barely comprehend 'voting' for anyone except members of their own sect.)"

who, me? Cynical? Naaawwww....

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:34 PM

"Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq"

No War, right.....

"The exact conduct of war will depend to a great extent upon its objectives, which may include factors such as the seizure of territory, the annihilation of a rival state, the subjugation of another people or recognition of one's own people as a separate state. Typically any military action by one state is opposed, ie is countered by the military forces of one or more states."

.... which blithely sidesteps "Civil War"... unless one define "state" as any group of people led by leaders, or even any group of would be leaders fighting on behalf of their assumed followers....

Notice that this definition cutely avoids the concept of anybody being hurt or dying...

Some people must be bald, the way they want to split hairs...

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:32 PM

But, Bill, it's not all bad. Think of the money the arms industry has made. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM

guys...it don't matter about the exact number of how many are dead. TOO many.....and it is useless to quibble over semantics about whether "not winning" = "losing"....it is, simply, a big mess because we (meaning Republican strategists) either didn't understand Iraqi politics, or failed to get GW to listen to them.

We took the lid (Saddam)off a cauldron where the major groups hate each other and care more about Sunni or Shia 'power' than about Iraq as a country. And on top of this, most of BOTH groups have come to dislike US and assume that our presence there is a major reason a lot of their friends & relatives are dead!....And no one could see this coming?

We have been at this longer than WWII. We can barely IDENTIFY the enemy. We have troops on their 3rd deployment, enlistments way down, and mountains of equipment piled up in Alabama, waiting to be refurbished from desert fighting,....we are spending 5-6 BILLION a month...(week?)¹ to have a damned STALEMATE? THAT seems a lot like 'losing' to me...but who am I to 2nd guess all those experts?




¹ remember the words of Everett Duerksen..."A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon we're talking about real money!"

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:23 PM

Well, well, well...

Seems that not only is the t-bird in denial but that somehow he thinks some of this stuff is funny...

For the life of me I can't find any humor in deaths of over 600,000 people motivated pretty much by the Bushite's desire to hold power...

And, T-zer, while we are at it perhaps you'd like to take on the Johns Hopkins folks who have come up with that number??? Resorting to the ***prove it*** defense is a tad below yer standards if you think that one poor ol' hillbilly has the time or background to take a study conducted by folks who are at the top of their fields at Johns Hopkins and prove them correct???

I believe that you have been tutored in the Old Guy Debatin' School...

BTW, not only did the Iraq study panel use the word "dire" but also used the word "deteriorating"... Logic would suggest that if yer position is deterioratin' that a "tie game" is quite illogical...

Perhaps, rather than burn up bandwidth with usless and irrelevant facts and non facts, perhaps you could, in your own words, explain how "dire and deterioratin" suggest some kind of stalemate???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 12:33 PM

there is no 'war' in Iraq, oh I forgot it ended when they toppled Saddams statue. Somebody ought to tell that the families of the 13 US soldiers who died yesterday.

What Iraqi army? It exists mostly on paper. ALthough there is the Kurdish Peshmerga and Kurdistan, there is Moqtada Sadrs Mahdi Army militia. (Which by the way the US completely underestimated when they shut down Sadrs newspapers and tried to arrest him. When he mobilized his militia they so interrupted the US supplies that Bremer had to institute rationing in the Green zone.) There are other militias as well. None of them are about to be disbanded and merge into an all Iraqi army. And as the US talks about withdrawing, how are the going to bring about more security with less troops, when they arent able to provide it now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:43 AM

"the Gods of US politics" LOL, well done Ard, I did say that your babble tended to inject a bit of humour into any thread - "the Gods of US politics" indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM

Teribus you are holed below the waterline be British and go down with dignity, you seemed to be a man of many snorts, too many by the fruitless bombardment of facts that don`t mean a thing.
Bush was a pitiful sight trying to reply to the Gods of US politics, and you thought the man did well, even Blair has given up the ghost.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:11 AM

You mean Rumsfeld only managed to sell 0.5% of the arms that Saddam bought?

Pretty poor selling I'd say. And of course it depends how you define "arms" Here is another view:

From a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December 2002.

The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.

The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.

The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'.

It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agriculture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology.

Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms- trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs. The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds.

In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab.

The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter- productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members -- Russia and China -- traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades.

UNSCOM found documents showing preparations by the Russian firms Livinvest, Mars Rotor and Niikhism to supply parts for military helicopters in 1995. In April 1995, Mars Rotor and Niikhism sold parts used in long-range missiles to a Palestinian who transported them to Baghdad. In 2001 and 2002, the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies sent supplies to Iraqi air defence.

Foreign companies supplied Iraq's nuclear weapons programme with detonators, fissionable material and parts for a uranium enrichment plant. Foreign companies also provided Iraq's chemical and biological programmes with basic materials; helped with building labs; assisted the extension of missile ranges; provided technology to fit missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical warheads; and supplied Scud mobile launch-pads. Nearly all the weapons that were supplied have been destroyed, accounted for or immobilised, according to former weapons inspectors.

Now perhaps you would like to justify the cost of the Iraq War to the USA as your economy weakens and the once almighty dollar crumbles in value? Tell me what you intend to do when your currency becomes worthless?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:55 AM

*LOL* Foolestroupe!

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:46 AM

Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq, there is a duly elected Government and a duly mandated UN Force in Iraq both of whom are currently combating an insurgency, but there is no "War" civil or otherwise being fought in Iraq other than the ongoing war on terror. Terminology regarding the Senate hearings can be accredited to those participating in those hearings do not attribute them to me.

Dianavan asks how we're doing, let's see by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year. Probably by March next year Iraq's second largest city will be handed over to full Iraq Authority control. My best guess is that in the South the British will have withdrawn apart from training and support duties by summer 2007.

autolycus - 06 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM
Oh, and just as a reminder, it was the West that

a)armed Saddam in the first place and

b)gave him the money to buy the beastly arms.

Neither a) or b) as stated above is correct - Anybody want to dispute that? Between 1973 and 1990 Iraq was the armament industries best market. Now according to the figures published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Iraq's main suppliers of weapons during this period (i.e. point a) above - those who armed Saddam in the first place) were as follows in descending order of importance:

- Russia supplied 68.9% of all arms (From 1973 to 1977 Russia was their sole supplier)
- France supplied 12.7% of all arms
- China supplied 11.7% of all arms
- "Others" supplied 4.8% of all arms
- Egypt supplied 1.3% of all arms
- USA supplied 0.5% of all arms

As for Ivor's other contention b) above - Sorry Ivor, Iraq's weapons were purchased with oil deals made by Saddam that ripped-off the Iraqi people and did great damage to Iraq's oil reservoirs. Any here remember who were the most vocal in the debating halls of the international community in support of Saddam in 1990 and again in 2003 - any doubts take a look at the vested interests depicted above - that will provide you with an answer.

The mutterings of Bobert and Ard Mhacha aren't even worth addressing, but it is noted that defence of the 600,000 dead Iraqi figures seems to have diminished in the light of fact and reason. If you are going to quote figures to back up an arguement at least get the damn thing right. Impossible for both Bobert and Ard I know, but they do inject a bit of humour into proceedings.