BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:56 AM

Careful Barry, you'll upset the poor lad. He grew up when the world was square-jawed and seen in black and white. He hasn't yet come to terms with shades of grey, so an onslaught like that is likely to result in all the toys being thrown across the room!
Look, if Terry really wants to play cowboys, let him strap on the six-gun and wear the stetson until bed time. He'll be much better after a good night's sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:32 AM

"The United States of America was attacked and will continue to be attacked whether or not you are involved in Iraq or not. That was a promise made by one Osama Bin Laden over 13 years ago."

What has Iraq & Bin Laden got to do with one another? Another nation did not attack us, Iraq did not attack us & never planned on it.

"As a complete and utter outsider I will tell you how I think things will turn out as the worst possible case"

As a complete and utter outsider you cannot begin to know or tell us what we've already lost & what we are about to lose. It's like telling a mother you know how she feels when she's lost her child. Unless you've lost one you will never know how she feels.

This not our "finestest hour" (grin) but our "worstest hour" (grin,grin)

"Always remember everything you have in life is worth fighting for"

True, we are peacefully fighting for a peace & for an end to an unjust war, that's what's worth fighting for

"The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again. Internationally you will be a laughing stock. You will have proved to the world that you are the weak willed, indecisive "middling power" that the General referred to. Certainly no-one will ever look towards the US to provide any sort of leadership in any crisis in the future."

We now have no credibility in the world & we have none at home! We lost that won/one a while back!

Not only is our president the laughing stock abroad he is at home too! Yes, we are tired of it & quite embrassed about it too! We are now trying to fix that!

Yes our leaders are weak willed, there's no denying that!

And yes we understand that our leadership will not be look upon as favorable in the future. It's that way now & has been for at least the past 6 years!
We are trying to fix that too, thank you.

So what is it you're asking us to fight for, to send our kids to die for?   
Sorry, you must be against US if you're not with US. We fight for the America that could & should be not the tragic junkie crack whore that we've become.
And you think as a "complete and utter outsider" you know how we feel? You don't understand US at all nor have any idea about how we feel. You are a dinosaur, a living fossil of a time long gone, a John Wayne or Dick Tracy, a comic relief, an example of why wars are the last resort of imbeciles, you are Tedious & you do not know US!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:20 AM

Hardly, teribus, its not just the vote that counts but the dog eat dog attitude that is shared by you and others in this world.

I didn't say you had a vote, I said, " "Thanks to people like you, teribus, for giving them the power."

I hope to see you when I'm protesting the war in Iraq. I'm sure you'll be one of the guys waving the sign that says: Support our Troops!

I'll have to say that at this time, I do not support our troops.

I do, however, want them home safe and sound.

Maybe, unlike VietNam, these returning soldiers will be given medical, educational and housing benefits while they recover.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:22 AM

Oops, almost got sucked in. Don't you fellahs ever get tired of the back and forth with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:16 PM

Teribus--

It's obvious your "finestest (sic) hour" is every time you post here (at least in your mind).

But it's hard to imagine how anyone could be as detached from reality as you are.

Even your terminology is wildly off. I suppose that your history as a matelot must be one of the reasons you are so far at sea--have no clue what is really going on.

Sorry--"insurgency" is a bit old hat now--superseded by events. Most objective commentators these days are aware the situation in Iraq--especially in Baghdad--where the main focus is now--is not so much the "insurgency" trying to topple the "government" as just sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis--more and more taking the cast of revenge killings.

It's this which has to stop--and will never stop--,( as I've been saying for over a year--and you have been refusing to acknowledge)--unless the Sunnis can trust the police. For a long time you gave the distinct impression that the Sunnis should just learn to" live with the situation", aware the shoe is now on the other foot--they are no longer in charge. Do I have to cite chapter and verse from your own collected works?

And by the way, please be so good as to tell us how long you would be willing to " live with the situation" if you were targeted by your police--for the crime of being Protestant, Catholic, English, Welsh, Irish, Scots etc.--irrespective of what you had personally done.

Also, so sorry to have to break it to you (again)--Bush is not Churchill. You really need to have your vision checked. I could recommend a good optician, but unfortunately he's in the US.

Hope you're able to deal with your psychological and physical problems soon.

Looking forward to another of your classic postings--but perhaps one that makes a bit more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Arne
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

Teribus said:

Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the terms outlined by the General will only mean one thing to the armed forces of the United States of America - defeat -...

Piffle. We got over Vietnam ... perhaps a tad too soon.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Arne
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:34 PM

Teribus said:

You will have proved to the world that you are the weak willed, indecisive "middling power" that the General referred to....

Teribus is of the opinion that one is measured by ... the willingness to use their "gun".

Doesn't matter that everyone can see Iraq as a disaster. Doesn't matter that getting troops out of Iraq can only improve things. Doesn't matter that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. What matters is "manly pride", Don't ask for directions, don't ever admit you're wrong, don't refuse a fight, and don't back down ... ever. If you do, you obviously have a small one.

Of course, in the real world, we see that it is often the wisest thing to re-evaluate, to admit a mistake. Maybe even avoid a fight, if it doesn't concern you. And to know when enough's enough. There's a saying: "There's old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." The best pilots don't take unnecessary risks, and don't put themselves in the bulls-eye to show how macho they are. They just do what they have to do ... and no more. Dubya got his flight status revoked.

And in the real world, we see sometimes that the biggest ... jerks ... are not the ones with the big ones, rather the opposite. Insecurity is a very dangerous thing.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM

"Thanks to people like you, teribus, for giving them the power."

Hardly dianavan, giving power to those you refer to is way beyond my gift, having no vote in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:07 PM

Wake up Mr. T. - The hour has arrived.

You fear, "The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again. Internationally you will be a laughing stock."

Bush has already guaranteed that. Most, however, are not laughing. Most would like the U.S. to return to its former glory. However, with the neo-conservatives in power, such ideals as human rights, compassion and democratic freedom are all but forgotten.

Thanks to people like you, teribus, for giving them the power.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:29 AM

My pleasure Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:21 AM

Now we know what motivates Teribus!

You usually find my posts a hoot....well thanks for the chuckle...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:50 AM

katlaughing, Lt. Gen. William E. Odom is talking out of his rear end, he could not possibly be more wrong. If the US cuts and runs from the situation that it is in now there will be a number of extremely serious consequences:

- The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again. Internationally you will be a laughing stock. You will have proved to the world that you are the weak willed, indecisive "middling power" that the General referred to. Certainly no-one will ever look towards the US to provide any sort of leadership in any crisis in the future.

- Your "professional", volunteer armed forces will never again trust the population or government. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the terms outlined by the General will only mean one thing to the armed forces of the United States of America - defeat - The lesson that will burn itself into the minds of every serving soldier, sailor, marine and airman will be that less than 20,000 poorly armed irregulars took on and defeated the best trained and best equipped army in the world simply because the population and politicians in the United States lost faith and lacked the will to back them up. The only battles they will fight on your behalf in future will be fought on American soil where they can see you in the front lines fighting alongside them - I could not say that I would blame them for adopting that attitude. It took the US military over twenty years to recover from the defeat suffered at the hands of the Vietcong, they will not recover from the defeat against the insurgents in Iraq inflicted upon them by their own politicians and population.

- Emboldened by your defeat in Iraq, the battle against the USA, declared by Al-Qaeda way back in the early 1990's will arrive at your doorstep. There is no negotiating with this enemy, their intent was clearly stated a long time ago, they are determined and willing. To cut and run as detailed by the General in the face of this attack will only demonstrate to your enemies that the politicians and population of the US are not. How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA since the 11th of September 2001? Withdraw from Iraq as described by the General above, then watch the attacks fall thick and fast.

- NATO, the only effective and efficient international military alliance in the world, will disintegrate, because it will have absolutely no credibility. No-one will trust the United States to have the integrity to live up to it's commitments.

- The United Nations will become even less significant than it is today. Like it's predecessor, "The League of Nations", without a powerful and forthright United States of America the UN will become equally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:32 AM

".......this is the situation that the UK was faced with in 1940 and was described by Winston Churchill as being "Their Finestest Hour"...."

Eh???

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:52 AM

From Bloomberg:

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he expected that ``almost all of the fighting in Baghdad'' will fall to U.S. troops.

``This is presented as an Iraqi plan with Iraqi forces in the lead and the U.S. in support,'' Cordesman said. ``The reality is it's an American plan where the U.S. forces are in the lead, and it is unclear how much support U.S. forces are going to get.''

I'd say that Bush is getting faulty intelligence if he thinks Maliki will turn against Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:05 AM

Teribus--you have more serious problems than I thought. Not only does Bush see Churchill when he looks in the mirror--but you also see Churchill when you look at Bush. I won't waste my time explaining the differences to you--but maybe you'll wake up eventually from your time warp and start recognizing reality. We can hope.

However: re: Maliki--excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by his statement--yet again--that he will purge ALL the militias from the police.

Talk is cheap. We've heard this before. The results speak for themselves. Much as it may pain you, something beyond words would be nice this time--since, contrary to what you once said, all Iraqi Sunnis are not the equivalent of hardline Nazis in 1945.

Maliki says (again) that he will purge the police of militias. As that great and respected foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain -- (surely you're familiar with her view)-- said "That don't impress me much."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:03 AM

Cut and Run? You Bet.

By Lt. Gen. William E. Odom


Why America must get out of Iraq now

Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of "red state" citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.

The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, U.S. President George W. Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let's consider his administration's most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.

If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam. Any close observer could see that then; today, only the blind deny it. Even President Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war.

Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers - precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with one choice: Surrender, or ally with al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.

Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr's Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.

Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world's only superpower, it's patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world's opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history. The United States now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. I served as a military attache in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow during Richard Nixon's Watergate crisis. When Nixon resigned, several Soviet officials who had previously expressed disdain for the United States told me they were astonished. One diplomat said, "Only your country is powerful enough to do this. It would destroy my country."

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the "big sandy" of Iraq. America must withdraw now.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor at Yale University. He was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:07 PM

The seventy billion came from our military. You can listen to the same broadcast I heard at Military Commanders Wary of Increase in Troops. Here's the lead-in quote: ..tanks, weapons, helicopters - will exceed $70 billion. But it's not just the money, it's the strain on the force itself that worries senior military officials. Here's retired Major....

Teribus, As a complete and utter outsider maybe you should butt out.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:18 PM

Oh yes by all means katlaughing let's turn the clock back. Only trouble is that you can't. The United States of America was attacked and will continue to be attacked whether or not you are involved in Iraq or not. That was a promise made by one Osama Bin Laden over 13 years ago. Most on this forum seem to have forgotten that.

Now let's take a look at the choices open to the great unwashed American people:

The Democrats 2006 election promises that they would end the "war" and bring the troops back home is an empty promise - those attacking you will not subscribe to that thinking. You will continue to be attacked, nothing whatsoever to do with GWB, this was your enemies agenda long before he came to power.

Having "won" the mid-term 2006 elections the Dems have inherited a bit of responsibility for the safety and security of their country. They can no longer pose and posture about this issue, they have to take upon their own shoulders in extremely real terms the real responsibilty for the security of their country. They can no longer pander to populist myths and lies. It is now their responsibility. Let's see how much things change if their line of thought can be brought to prevail.

As a complete and utter outsider I will tell you how I think things will turn out as the worst possible case. You lot will bottle out of it. The one and only super-power on earth will lose, not because of the resilience of your foes, but because you yourselves could not stay the course. You could not, with all your wealth, power and ability do what was needed to be done in the face of what you perceived to be as insurmountable odds. By the way for all you who have any pride in your country this is the situation that the UK was faced with in 1940 and was described by Winston Churchill as being "Their Finestest Hour". Judging by what most of you post on this forum, your finest hour will be marked by capitulation, you will richly deserve everything that comes your way. Always remember everything you have in life is worth fighting for - That I think most of you have forgotten, you have come to believe that what you have you have as a birthright - you don't and there are those that will teach you that very lesson - wake up to fact and deal with it, before it is too late, because once it is gone it will never again be recaptured.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:25 PM

Where did this figure of 70 Billion dollars come from?

Is it US billions (1000 million) or UK billions (100 million)?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:47 PM

Why no comment on the Dems reaction to Bush's escalation of the war?

This forum seems to be swarming with Dems, does it not destroy your faith in the political process when your Party is elected with a mandate to get the troops home, then seems happy to go along with further escalation.

Time to wake up, Young lives are worth more than jobs for the politicians.
WE are achieving nothing in Iraq other than assisting the setting up of an Islamic republic, is that worth one more young soldiers life??

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM

No kidding, ard. Sure wish we could, only back to before the shrub had any inkling of getting close to the WHite House, with people remembering how they feal baout his policies now!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:20 PM

Bush wants to target the Mahdi Army whose leader is an ally of Maliki.

This is getting more confusing all the time.

One thing for certain, Bush is no match for the leaders of the Middle East. His strategies have failed because he does not begin to understand their socio-political relationships. In fact, any attempt to apply Western logic to the Middle East is doomed to failure. Pretty soon the whole country will turn on the U.S. troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

Katslaughing if only they could turn the clock back.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM

The cost in lives and our money is too high no matter what. I heard on the radio today it will take 70 billion dollars to repair/replace all of our military equipment which has been damaged or lost while being used in Iraq.

"Iraq
At a Glance: Boosting Troop Levels in Iraq

by Guy Raz

    * There are 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. About half of them are part of brigade combat teams which are made up, largely, of what you might think of as "trigger pullers" or infantry soldiers.
    * Each brigade combat team consists of about 3,500 soldiers.
    * When the Pentagon talks about a troop increase, it thinks in terms of brigade combat teams — not in terms of individual troops.
    * There are 15 brigade combat teams in Iraq right now and one Marine expeditionary unit. For simplicity's sake, a Marine expeditionary unit can be thought of as roughly equivalent in size to an Army brigade combat team.
    * Currently, the entire U.S. Army has 39 brigade combat teams, though the numbers fluctuate. There are 15 combat teams in Iraq now, and three in Afghanistan, which leaves 21 elsewhere. President Bush would increase the long-term size of the U.S. force in Iraq by four or five combat teams. That means under his so-called "surge" plan, there would be as many as 20 combat teams in Iraq.
    * The Army will achieve this boost in troop levels through extensions and accelerations of troop deployments.
    * Once a year (usually around January or March), the Army rotates most combat teams out of Iraq and replaces them with fresh teams coming from the United States or from bases in Germany, South Korea or Japan.
    * But in order to stabilize troop levels in Iraq at 20 combat teams, plus other military personnel (which would amount to about 155,000 or 160,000 troops in total), the U.S. military will have to shift the way troops are currently deployed. That means slowing down departures from and speeding up deployments to Iraq.
    * In theory, soldiers are supposed to serve in Iraq for a year, then return to their home base for at least two years before their next deployment. In practice, many soldiers are getting just a one-year break between deployments to Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

ac·qui·esced, ac·qui·esc·ing, ac·qui·esc·es
To consent or comply passively or without protest.

al-Maliki had not consented or complied passively or without protest to a reported White House plan to send as many as 9,000 more U.S. troops to Baghdad alone.

This does not translate to Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops and it is not from al-Maliki himself. Therefore it is fiction.

"in a speech on Saturday he vowed to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics.""

There is no military draft in the US either.


Reuters Tuesday, January 09, 2007
BAGHDAD, Jan 9 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government would welcome an increase in U.S. troop numbers in Baghdad expected to be announced on Wednesday by President George W. Bush, the government spokesman said on Tuesday.

As U.S. and Iraqi forces clashed with gunmen in central Baghdad, Ali al-Dabbagh said in the first official comment by the government on the expected U.S. move that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed Bush's new strategy on Iraq.

"The Iraqi government does not object to an increase in coalition forces. The Iraqi government supports this trend," Dabbagh told a news conference.

Not far from the heavily fortified Green Zone compound where Dabbagh spoke, U.S. and Iraqi forces battled insurgents in Haifa Street, a stronghold of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

U.S. fighter jets screamed over the city with unusual intensity and military helicopters were seen hovering above Haifa Street, witnesses said.

Battling growing sectarian violence, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has announced a major security plan for Baghdad, vowing to crack down on violence on all sides.

Dabbagh said the raid in Haifa Street was aimed at eliminating "terrorist hideouts" and said U.S. and Iraqi forces would avoid "mistakes" made in past plans to secure Baghdad, which is seen a key to pacifying the rest of Iraq.

"Any failure ... would lead to grave consequences and disasters. We can not accept failure," he said.

Bush told U.S. lawmakers he has decided to send about 20,000 more troops to Iraq in a plan to be announced on Wednesday.

The White House said Bush, who is reshuffling his commanders and diplomats in Iraq, would address Americans on his new Iraq plan on Wednesday at 9 p.m. (0200 GMT Thursday).

Gordon Smith, one of Bush's fellow Republicans, was among senators who attended a White House meeting to discuss the president's emerging strategy for Iraq, which Democrats have called an escalation of the war.

Smith said Bush told him and several other senators that the plan for the additional troops had originated with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki had made commitments that the Iraqi government and military would take steps to strengthen security in exchange for more U.S. troops, Smith said.

Seeking to salvage the U.S. mission in an unpopular war nearly four years after the invasion, Bush's new plan is also expected to include setting "benchmarks" for Maliki to meet, aimed at easing sectarian violence and stabilising the country.

It is also expected to contain a job creation programme for Iraqis likely to cost more than $1 billion.

Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, has so far resisted U.S. pressure to crack down on militias loyal to his fellow Shi'ites, which the United States has said are the most serious threat to Iraq. But in a speech on Saturday he vowed to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics."

A new clandestine video posted on the Internet showed the body of Saddam Hussein lying on a hospital trolley with a vivid red wound in his throat after being hanged.

The 27-second clip, seen on Tuesday, showed a sheet being removed to reveal Saddam's neck severely twisted and with a smear of blood on his left cheek.            

It was the third illicit film of Saddam's demise to emerge since he was hanged on Dec. 30 in an execution that inflamed sectarian passions in Iraq and attracted      

Iraq's Shi'ite-led government, which says it is struggling to avert an all-out sectarian civil war, is investigating another illicit film showing Shi'ite officials taunting Saddam on the gallows that has sparked anger among Saddam's fellow minority Sunni Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:42 AM

Donuel,

I did like, "The urge to surge by the scourge...". Had a really good chuckle at that. The rest of the post I thought was twaddle.

"If a nuclear device should explode in the region, the white house is prepared to immediately blame Iran, no matter who is respondsible."

Now what on earth is your rational behind that declaration?

Oh Ard, I don't believe that there is anybody anywhere outside of Anbar and Sullahadin Provinces who would wish to see Saddam Hussein back in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:28 AM

The urge to surge by the scourge of the free world is only a vehicle for our beloved president to save face. 20,000 troops or 40,000 lives is cheap at half the price just as long as our decider is happy. Granted it is a pathetic little face to save but it is the face of our vast defense contractor's have - not the face they might wish to have.

More troops are not the whole story. We have now parked a nuclear aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. It is a win win situation whether it is fired upon, sunk or gives support to our troops, many of whom are now on their fourth deployment. An attack against a US ship (imagined or not) has been the standard to escalate several US war adventures in the past.

If a nuclear device should explode in the region, the white house is prepared to immediately blame Iran, no matter who is respondsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:14 AM

As long as only former Bush advisors see this and not the guy himself, there is little hope.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 07:51 AM

Wolfgang there is quite a lot of people in the US would like to see Saddam back in office, the naive people who advised Bush now see the hell hole they are in and it looks like they will regret this until they turn tail and get out.
There will be a bloodbath if they get out?, that is what is taking place now.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 07:24 AM

I slowly develop a feeling that I never thought could enter my mind: a nostalgic longing to see Rumsfeld back in office:

Taking the US troops out of the danger areas and daily patrols and only use them for some time as a last resort in case of threats the Iraqi government cannot deal with was not such a bad idea in comparison to what happens now. It even could have been a start for a much better policy of rare (I don't dare to hope for: no) intervention.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:49 AM

The man must have changed his mind according to Reuters:

"Iraq would welcome more U.S. troops

20,000 more on the way, Bush says

Reuters
Published: Tuesday, January 09, 2007
BAGHDAD, Jan 9 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government would welcome an increase in U.S. troop numbers in Baghdad expected to be announced on Wednesday by President George W. Bush, the government spokesman said on Tuesday.

As U.S. and Iraqi forces clashed with gunmen in central Baghdad, Ali al-Dabbagh said in the first official comment by the government on the expected U.S. move that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed Bush's new strategy on Iraq.

"The Iraqi government does not object to an increase in coalition forces. The Iraqi government supports this trend," Dabbagh told a news conference.

Battling growing sectarian violence, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has announced a major security plan for Baghdad, vowing to crack down on violence on all sides.

Gordon Smith, one of Bush's fellow Republicans, was among senators who attended a White House meeting to discuss the president's emerging strategy for Iraq, which Democrats have called an escalation of the war.

Smith said Bush told him and several other senators that the plan for the additional troops had originated with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki had made commitments that the Iraqi government and military would take steps to strengthen security in exchange for more U.S. troops, Smith said.

Seeking to salvage the U.S. mission in an unpopular war nearly four years after the invasion, Bush's new plan is also expected to include setting "benchmarks" for Maliki to meet, aimed at easing sectarian violence and stabilising the country.

It is also expected to contain a job creation programme for Iraqis likely to cost more than $1 billion.

Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, has so far resisted U.S. pressure to crack down on militias loyal to his fellow Shi'ites, which the United States has said are the most serious threat to Iraq. But in a speech on Saturday he vowed to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics."

Oh, and has that bastion of the Dems, Teddy (mind-that-bridge) Kennedy painted himself and his party into a corner? If he proceeds unmuzzled as he is he may very well hand the 2008 election to the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:08 AM

As I've said before, this is the wrong question. The real question is whether Maliki will purge the police of Shiite militias or not. ( There's no more danger of Saddam being restored to power.) Now is the time for Maliki to make that move in the police. If he doesn't, he's squandered a great opportunity. If the Sunnis cannot trust the police, there will never be peace in Iraq (what's left of it, now that "Kurdistan" is de facto independent.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:20 PM

Pedant alert.

The correct original quote that Ake. alludes to is

   "Love of money is the root of all evil."

   Return any variant to the manufacturer as faulty.





   For the rest,anyone got any ideas how to get the West to change policy in this mother of all cock-ups?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:57 PM

No, quite literally, the common or garden variety

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM

The genetically modified parsnip??

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:36 PM

... and the root of all evil is the parsnip

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:34 PM

Nice to see you've calmed down, now exactly what misinformation did I post?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:31 PM

Alot of people voted but not for democracy or anything like democracy.

And by the way ,I was a Communist in my youth as were many others, but am no longer a party member.
I have come to see thatif we are to survive on this planet it will be due in no part to political organisation.
In saying that, I still believe Capitalism to be the "root of all evil"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:07 PM

What misinformation did I post?

I made two statements
1) Maliki has not asked the US to withdraw.
2) A lot of people voted.

Tell me which of these is false.

and one question,

Irrespective of the rights and wrong of going into Iraq should we really abandon them?

On this you're allowed an opinion, that was the point of me asking the question. Unfortunately you chose to read between the lines instead of what was on them. Not a good indication of your academic prowess is it?

I never said I was in favour of the war.

As I said, an old commie loony left who can't face that he's lost in the west (you say as much in your linked post).

You have nothing to teach anybody about democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:51 PM

No need to rant Guest, just so long as I can call you when you post misinformation.
During the Iraqi elections, while people like you were gushing over a "new democratic dawn", I posted THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:12 PM

Ah, the eternal communist who's seen his beloved system destroyed and believes my enemy's enemy is my friend. Politics is about power, democracy is about power. Nothing in my original post is false and you know it. You have nothing to teach anybody about democracy, you just don't like the results that democracy brings, whether they're tories or democratic socialists or whatever. Your stalinist views are out of date. Rant on as much as you want on this forum, you lost. Whether the next UK government is red, blue or whatever colour the liberals are these days, they would all have similar policies none of which will be from the loony adolescent left. Rant on.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 07:37 PM

Wrong guest.... They voted on straight sectarian lines for POWER.

And that is as undemocratic a system as you can get.

Take off the shades and try to understand what is really happening in Iraq....Or is your post just a continuation of the spin and lies which got us involved in the first place??

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM

Neither has Maliki asked the US (plus others) to leave. Irrespective of the rights and wrong of going into Iraq should we really abandon the 9 million people who voted, under the threat of death, for their own government.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 04:00 PM

Looks as if this will be a good test for the Democrats....Yes, the same Dems who were going to impeach Bush.
Will they swallow their "principles" and give him the money. My guess is they will ...in fuckin' sackfulls.

Of course the future of the Democratic Party is at stake.
They don't want to appear "un-American".
What do the lives of a couple of hundred young soldiers and a few thousand Iraqis mean compared to THAT ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 10:37 AM

We'll spit thru the streets of the cities we wreck
And we'll find you a leader that you can elect
Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck...

We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock?
We're the biggest & the toughest kids on the block...

We own half the world, oh say can you see?
And the name for our profits is dee-mocracy
So like iot or not, you will have to be free

'Cause we're the cops of the world boys,
We're the cops of the world.

Phil would have had a field day with this shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM

Maliki sold out for a measly billion? I wonder what else was in the package?

Yeah right! U.S. contractors hire the Iraqis to clean, repair and paint the damage done by the U.S. Pentagon-run? Does that mean KBR or Haliburton.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:24 PM

While the business orgs. in the US bitch about the Democrats wanting to raise the minumum wage, I've heard nothing from them about Bush and this costly plan of his:

The other sweetener will be a doubling of reconstruction efforts. Up to $1bn is to be spent on a programme in which Iraqis are employed to clean the streets and repair and paint schools.

The Pentagon-run scheme would try to draw young men away from insurgent groups and back into the mainstream economy. It would be administered by officials embedded in US combat brigades in a bid to persuade Iraqis that the Americans were there as a force for good and not just of occupation.

Seems the idiot, true to form, underestimates everyone elses' intelligence. He probably thinks they are all like him.

I had to dig a bit to find this news item. if you want to read the whole thing, CLICK HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM

The Americans unleashed this monster long before Mr Bush when they brought together the most fanatical Islamic fighters they could find and armed them and trained them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. That was in the 1980's, during Reagan's term of office. The Mujahedin people promoted by America to bleed the Soviets white became the future Taliban and Al Queda. The long term results have been catastrophic for moderate Islamic people everywhere, for 3000 people in New York (and their families), for the Russians, for Afghanistan, for Iraq, and for America. Bush wins the booby prize for having initiated the final culminating horror of what has been, from the beginning, a totally misguided policy. No one has benefited from it thus far, except perhaps Iran whose position has been strenthened by the almost complete demolition of their greatest regional rival...Iraq. If Iran has benefited, it has been merely by default, not by intention.

It has, however, been a brilliantly successful policy if you want is this: perpetual war and a perpetual market for high tech weaponry and munitions. Maybe its planners were not so stupid after all. It depends on what they had in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 09:15 PM

Good guess.

Subject: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 08:44 PM

So Bush is expected to ask Congress for more money and more troops in spite of the the report that says it was faulty intelligence that led him there in the first place. Bush claims that Iraq has a democratically elected government so lets see if he respects the man who has replaced Saddam as leader of Iraq.

From Assc. Press:

"Al-Maliki is uneasy about the possible introduction of more U.S. troops, aides said, and he has repeatedly refused U.S. demands to crush the militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the prime minister's most powerful backers.

Sami al-Askari, an al-Maliki political adviser, told The Associated Press on Friday that al-Maliki had not acquiesced to a reported White House plan to send as many as 9,000 more U.S. troops to Baghdad alone."

My guess is that Bush is terrified of the monster he has unleashed.