The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated

[Mcluhan]

A few words of preamble on this thread. I'm posting this thread not because of some flighty frivolous desire to bash Pax American, rather this is about Iraq and the real situation there.

The War In Iraq has been a concern of mine since about one month after 9/11 when I realised what was about to happen in Iraq. Even from there I could see January 2005 as clearly as a wide-eyed deer in my headlights. Since that time I have passively studied the situation as it developed day by day, investigating from the armchair...watching it all unfold with a critical eye.

More than half the threads here melt down quickly into dems bashing reps, yanks bashing canucks and visa versa, and while it can be fun or boring, most of the arrow slinging has been said and said again. We all know who we are. I think Bush is an idiot. Others think he is a pillar of the community. These two view points will never change until hell freezes. We are stuck with each other. We are also stuck with a war. But so is Iraq, stuck.

My stake in the ground driven here is: if humanity is to form an educated opinion, they must not be kept in ignorance of the facts. This thread is about that concept.

Regardless of what side we take, the war in Iraq has occured. The War 'IS".

The Iraq War is a mess. It is tragic. It is unjustifiable. It appears unresolvable. That my friends is the world perspective, the opinion of the vast majority, note that was 'World View' . For those 59,000,000 million Americans that voted for Bush's war, they are disconnected from the global reality. They are blind to the facts, and worse they seem to care not. They have only God on their side. The rest of the world is indisagreement.

There are two Iraq realities, the one we see on CNN, and the other Iraq, the one that 'is'. The American, and the Canadian press do not report reality in Iraq because they do not even see it, never mind the issues that they mostly keep silent on.. Below is a journalist's take on Iraq's reality He was there. He saw. He wrote.

This reporter's version of realility that follows is factual because he, like Scott Taylor, was indeed there. He risked his life in order to give you this perspective. I think we owe it to him and to ourselves to at least read it. Here my friends is one man's reality.. Iraq's reality.




Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself.

His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The NewStandard and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald and Islam Online, to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese and Arabic. On the radio, Dahr is a special correspondent for Flashpoints and reports for the BBC, Democracy Now!, and numerous other stations around the globe.

Dahr has spent a total of 6 months in occupied Iraq, and has now returned to continue reporting on the occupation. One of only a few independent reporters in Iraq, Dahr uses the DahrJamailIraq.com website and mailing list to disseminate his dispatches.

Iraq: The Devastation
by Dahr Jamail and Tom Engelhardt
January 8, 2005

Measure Iraq any way you want and it adds up to disaster: Less electricity is now being delivered than in the Saddam Hussein years; infant malnourishment has, according to a Norwegian study, doubled in the same time period ("It's on the level of some African countries," says the deputy director of the institute that conducted the study); attacks on the country's oil infrastructure are now so severe that no oil whatsoever is leaving the country heading north; there are far more insurgents and sympathizers (over 200,000 and growing) than American troops in the country, according to a recent estimate by Iraq's national intelligence chief; new plans with a distinctly Vietnam-ish ring to them are being developed to place sizeable numbers of American "advisers" with newly trained Iraqi military units that are under siege and crumbling (to "bolster the Iraqi will to fight") – and that just scratches the surface of this moment.

continued...

[Mcluhan]

Sadiq Zoman is fairly typical of what I've seen. Taken from his home in Kirkuk in July, 2003, he was held in a military detention facility near Tikrit before being dropped off comatose at the Salahadin General Hospital by U.S. forces one month later. While the medical report accompanying him, signed by Lt. Col. Michael Hodges, stated that Mr. Zoman was comatose due to a heart attack brought on by heat stroke, it failed to mention that his head had been bludgeoned, or to note the electrical burn marks that scorched his penis and the bottoms of his feet, or the bruises and whip-like marks up and down his body.
I visited his wife Hashmiya and eight daughters in a nearly empty home in Baghdad. Its belongings had largely been sold on the black market to keep them all afloat. A fan twirled slowly over the bed as Zoman stared blankly at the ceiling. A small back-up generator hummed outside, as this neighborhood, like most of Baghdad, averaged only six hours of electricity per day.
Her daughter Rheem, who is in college, voiced the sentiments of the entire family when she said, "I hate the Americans for doing this. When they took my father they took my life. I pray for revenge on the Americans for destroying my father, my country, and my life."

{snip]

At that moment, a convoy of Humvees full of soldiers, guns pointing out the small windows, rumbled through the front gate of the penal complex, kicking up a huge dust cloud that quickly engulfed everyone. The parent of another prisoner, Mrs. Samir, waving away the clouds of dust said, "We hope the whole world can see the position we are in now!" and then added plaintively, "Why are they doing this to us?"
Last summer I interviewed a kind, 55 year-old woman who used to work as an English teacher. She had been detained for four months in as many prisons…in Samarra, Tikrit, Baghdad and, of course, at Abu Ghraib. She was never, she told me, allowed to sleep through a night. She was interrogated many times each day, not given enough food or water, or access to a lawyer or to her family. She was verbally and psychologically abused.
But that, she assured me, wasn't the worst part. Not by far. Her 70 year-old husband was also detained and he was beaten. After seven months of beatings and interrogations, he died in U.S. military custody in prison.
She was crying as she spoke of him. "I miss my husband," she sobbed and stood up, speaking not to us but to the room, "I miss him so much." She shook her hands as if to fling water off them…then she held her chest and cried some more.
"Why are they doing this to us?" she asked. She simply couldn't understand, she said, what was happening because two of her sons were also detained, and her family had been completely shattered. "We didn't do anything wrong," she whimpered.
With the interview over, we were walking towards our car to leave when all of us realized that it was 10 pm, already too late at night to be out in dangerous Baghdad. So she asked us instead if we wouldn't please stay for dinner, all the while thanking me for listening to her horrendous story, for my time, for writing about it. I found myself speechless.
"No, thank you, we must get home now," said Abu Talat. By this time, we were all crying.
In the car, as we drove quickly along a Baghdad highway directly into a full moon, Abu Talat and I were silent. Finally, he asked, "Can you say any words? Do you have any words?"
I had none. None at all.

[Mcluhan]

Broken Infrastructure
Everything in Iraq is set against the backdrop of shattered infrastructure and a nearly complete lack of reconstruction. What the Americans turn out to be best at is, once again, promises -- and propaganda. During the period when the Coalition Provisional Authority ruled Iraq from Baghdad's Green Zone, their handouts often read like this one released on May 21, 2004: "The Coalition Provisional Authority has recently given out hundreds of soccer balls to Iraqi children in Ramadi, Kerbala, and Hilla. Iraqi women from Hilla sewed the soccer balls, which are emblazoned with the phrase ‘All of Us Participate in a New Iraq.'"
And yet when it came to the basics of that New Iraq, unemployment was at 50% and increasing, better areas of Baghdad averaged 6 hours of electricity per day, and security was nowhere to be found. Even as far back as January, 2004, before the security situation had brought most reconstruction projects to the nearly complete standstill of the present moment, and 9 months after the war in Iraq had officially ended, the situation already verged on the catastrophic. For instance, lack of potable water was the norm throughout most of central and southern Iraq.
I was then working on a report that attempted to document exactly what reconstruction had occurred in the water sector -- a sector for which Bechtel was largely responsible. That giant corporation had been awarded a no-bid contract of $680 million behind closed doors on April 17, 2003, which in September was raised to $1.03 billion; then Bechtel won an additional contract worth $1.8 billion to extend its program through December 2005.
At the time, when travel for Western reporters was a lot easier, I stopped in several villages en route south from Baghdad through what the Americans now call "the triangle of death" to Hilla, Najaf, and Diwaniyah to check on people's drinking-water situation. Near Hilla, an old man with a weathered face showed me his water pump, sitting lifeless with an empty container nearby -- as there was no electricity. What water his village did have was loaded with salt which was leaching into the water supply because Bechtel had not honored its contractual obligations to rehabilitate a nearby water treatment center. Another nearby village didn't have the salt problem, but nausea, diarrhea, kidney stones, cramps, and even cases of cholera were on the rise. This too would be a steady trend for the villages I visited.
The rest of that trip involved a frenetic tour of villages, each without drinkable water, near or inside the city limits of Hilla, Najaf, and Diwaniya. Hilla, close to ancient Babylon, has a water treatment plant and distribution center managed by Chief Engineer Salmam Hassan Kadel. Mr. Kadel informed me that most of the villages in his jurisdiction had no potable water, nor did he have the piping needed to repair their broken-down water systems, nor had he had any contact with Bechtel or its subcontractors.
He spoke of large numbers of people coming down with the usual list of diseases. "Bechtel," he told me, "is spending all of their money without any studies. Bechtel is painting buildings, but this doesn't give clean water to the people who have died from drinking contaminated water. We ask of them that instead of painting buildings, they give us one water pump and we'll use it to give water service to more people. We have had no change since the Americans came here. We know Bechtel is wasting money, but we can't prove it."
[quote]At another small village between Hilla and Najaf, 1,500 people were drinking water from a dirty stream which trickled slowly by their homes. Everyone had dysentery; many had kidney stones; a startling number, cholera. One villager, holding a sick child, told me, "It was much better before the invasion. We had twenty-four hours of running water then. Now we are drinking this garbage because it is all we have."
The next morning found me at a village on the outskirts of Najaf, which fell under the responsibility of Najaf's water center. A large hole had been dug in the ground where the villagers tapped into already existing pipes to siphon off water. The dirty hole filled in the night, when water was collected. That morning, children were standing idly around the hole as women collected the residue of dirty water which sat at its bottom. Everyone, it seemed, was suffering from some water-born illness and several children, the villagers informed me, had been killed attempting to cross a busy highway to a nearby factory where clean water was actually available.

[Mcluhan]

In June, six months later, I visited Chuwader Hospital, which then treated an average of 3,000 patients a day in Sadr City, the enormous Baghdad slum. Dr. Qasim al-Nuwesri, the head manager there, promptly began describing the struggles his hospital was facing under the occupation. "We are short of every medicine," he said and pointed out how rarely this had occurred before the invasion. "It is forbidden, but sometimes we have to reuse IV's, even the needles. We have no choice."
And then, of course, he -- like the other doctors I spoke with – brought up their horrendous water problem, the unavailability of unpolluted water anywhere in the area. "Of course, we have typhoid, cholera, kidney stones," he said matter-of-factly, "but we now even have the very rare Hepatitis Type-E…and it has become common in our area."
Driving out of the sewage filled, garbage strewn streets of Sadr City we passed a wall with "Vietnam Street" spray painted on it. Just underneath was the sentence -- obviously aimed at the American liberators -- "We will make your graves in this place."
Today, in terms of collapsing infrastructure, other areas of Baghdad are beginning to suffer the way Sadr City did then, and still largely does. While reconstruction projects slated for Sadr City have received increased funding, most of the time there is little sign of any work being done, as is the case in most of Baghdad.
While an ongoing fuel crisis finds people waiting up to two days to fill their tanks at gas stations, all of the city is running on generators the majority of the time, and many less favored areas like Sadr City have only four hours of electricity a day.

Broken Cities
The heavy-handed tactics of the occupation forces have become a commonplace of Iraqi life. I've interviewed people who regularly sleep in their clothes because home raids are the norm. Many times when military patrols are attacked by resistance fighters in the cities of Iraq, soldiers simply open fire randomly on anything that moves. More commonly, heavy civilian casualties occur from air raids by occupation forces. These horrible circumstances have led to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties in the less than two year-old occupation.
Then there is Fallujah, a city three-quarters of which has by now been bombed or shelled into rubble, a city in whose ruins fighting continues even while most of its residents have yet to be allowed to return to their homes (many of which no longer exist). The atrocities committed there in the last month or so are, in many ways, similar to those observed during the failed U.S. Marine siege of the city last April, though on a far grander scale. This time, in addition, reports from families inside the city, along with photographic evidence, point toward the U.S. military's use of chemical and phosphorous weapons as well as cluster bombs there. The few residents allowed to return in the final week of 2004 were handed military-produced leaflets instructing them not to eat any food from inside the city, nor to drink the water.


Last May, at the General Hospital of Fallujah, doctors spoke to me of the sorts of atrocities that occurred during the first month-long siege of the city. Dr. Abdul Jabbar, an orthopedic surgeon, said that it was difficult to keep track of the number of people they treated, as well as the number of dead, due to the lack of documentation. This was caused primarily by the fact that the main hospital, located on the opposite side of the Euphrates River from the city, was sealed off by the Marines for the majority of April, just as it would again be in November, 2004.
He estimated that at least 700 people were killed in Fallujah during that April. "I worked at five of the centers [community health clinics] myself, and if we collect the numbers from these places, then this is the number," he said. "And you must keep in mind that many people were buried before reaching our centers."
When the wind blew in from the nearby Julan quarter of the city, the putrid stench of decaying bodies (a smell evidently once again typical of the city) only confirmed his statement. Even then, Dr. Jabbar was insisting that American planes had dropped cluster bombs on the city. "Many people were injured and killed by cluster bombs. Of course they used cluster bombs. We heard them as well as treated people who had been hit by them!"
Dr. Rashid, another orthopedic surgeon, said, "Not less than sixty percent of the dead were women and children. You can go see the graves for yourself." I had already visited the Martyr Cemetery and had indeed observed the numerous tiny graves that had clearly been dug for children. He agreed with Dr. Jabbar about the use of cluster bombs, and added, "I saw the cluster bombs with my own eyes. We don't need any evidence. Most of these bombs fell on those we then treated."

[Mcluhan]

Speaking of the medical crisis that his hospital had to deal with, he pointed out that during the first 10 days of fighting the U.S. military did not allow any evacuations from Fallujah to Baghdad at all. He said, "Even transferring patients in the city was impossible. You can see our ambulances outside. Their snipers also shot into the main doors of one of our centers." Several ambulances were indeed in the hospital's parking lot, two of them with bullet holes in their windshields.
Both doctors said they had not been contacted by the U.S. military, nor had any aid been delivered to them by the military. Dr. Rashid summed the situation up this way: "They send only bombs, not medicine."
As I walked to our car at one point amid what was already the desolation of Fallujah, a man tugged on my arm and yelled, "The Americans are cowboys! This is their history! Look at what they did to the Indians! Vietnam! Afghanistan! And now Iraq! This does not surprise us."
And that, of course, was before the total siege of the city began in November, 2004. The April campaign in Fallujah, which resulted in a rise in resistance proved -- like so much else in those early months of 2004 -- to be but a harbinger of things to come on a far larger scale. While the goal of the most recent siege was to squelch the resistance and bring greater security for elections scheduled for January 30, the result as in April has been anything but security.
In the wake of the destruction of Fallujah fighting has simply spread elsewhere and intensified. Families are now fleeing Mosul, Iraq's third largest city, because of a warning of another upcoming air campaign against resistance fighters. At least one car bomb per day is now the norm in the capital city. Clashes erupt with deadly regularity throughout Baghdad as well as in cities like Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba and Balad.
The intensification is two-sided. With each ratchet upwards in violence, the tactics by the American military only grow more heavy-handed and, as they do, the Iraqi resistance just continues to grow in size and effectiveness. Any kind of "siege" of Mosul will only add to this dynamic.
Despite a media blackout in the aftermath of the recent assault on Fallujah, stories of dogs eating bodies in the streets of the city and of destroyed mosques have spread across Iraq like wildfire; and reports like these only underscore what most people in Iraq now believe -- that the liberators have become no more than brutal imperialist occupiers of their country. And then the resistance grows yet stronger.
Yet among Iraqis the growing resistance was predicted long ago. One telling moment for me came last June amid daily suicide car bombings in Baghdad. While footage of cars with broken glass and bullet holes in their frames flashed across a television screen, my translator Hamid, an older man who had already grown weary of the violence, said softly, "It has begun. These are only the start, and they will not stop. Even after June 30." That, of course, was the date of the long-promised handover of "sovereignty" to a new Iraqi government, after which, American officials fervently predicted, violence in the country would begin to subside. The same pattern of prediction and of a contrarian reality can now be seen in relation to the upcoming elections.
Three weeks ago, a friend of mine who is a sheikh from Baquba visited me in Baghdad and we had lunch with Abdulla, an older professor who is a friend of his. As we were eating, Abdulla expressed a sentiment now widely heard. "The mujahideen," he said, "are fighting for their country against the Americans. This resistance is acceptable to us."
The Bush administration has recently increased its troops in Iraq from 138,000 to 150,000 -- in order, officials said, to provide greater security for the upcoming elections. Such troop increases also occurred in Vietnam. Back then it was called escalation.
What I wonder is, will I be writing a piece next January still called, "Iraq: The Devastation," in which these last terrible months of 2004 (of which the first half of the year was but a foreshadowing) will prove in their turn but a predictive taste of horrors to come? And what then of 2006 and 2007?
Posted by Dahr_Jamail at January 7, 2005 03:26 PM

[assoholic]

..there was a great article I have searched for to post a link but I have not been able to find. It is from the Pentagon, it discusses how the next big Strategic hurdle the US Military will have to overcome are 3'rd world slums, Miles and miles of narrow streets.
No centralized facilities to bomb, like Water facilities to bring the population to heel.
Plus unlike the Jungle you just cant carpet bomb it , unless of course you want to escalate the War a notch higher.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by assoholic
..there was a great article I have searched for to post a link but I have not been able to find. It is from the Pentagon, it discusses how the next big Strategic hurdle the US Military will have to overcome are 3'rd world slums, Miles and miles of narrow streets.
No centralized facilities to bomb, like Water facilities to bring the population to heel.
Plus unlike the Jungle you just cant carpet bomb it , unless of course you want to escalate the War a notch higher.

This is one solution the Pentagon is mulling over..




The Salvador Option

The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

Newsweek
Updated: 10:22 a.m. ET Jan. 9, 2005Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.


Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)


Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell

~snip



read the rest here..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

[assoholic]

..DQ could fill us in, but in Nam its name was the Phoenix Program.
In other words torture and kill people you suspect of being Insurgents.

[Ranger68]

You won't convince those who think the war was a reasonable or justifiable course of action.
"Better them than us."

[yychobbyist]

Excellent post McLuhan.

You're right to an extent Ranger but I think one of the issues that this article raises is this: the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption necessarily means that the overall effects of an invasion on a state play absolutely no role whatsoever in making the decision on whether to invade or not. The U.S. did NOT invade Iraq to free Iraqis. They did NOT invade Iraq to save the lives of malnourished children. They did NOT invade Iraq to improve the lives of Iraqis. They invaded because they believed it was in their national interest.

Now, interestingly, if they did indeed invade to rid the country of terrorists and make Iraq an unsafe haven for terrorists it means they will have to rebuild Iraq, eliminate poverty, build a middle class and subdue Islam. How long do they think this will take? How much money will this take? Do they honestly think that Bechtel, Haliburton, Citibank and the corporate interests which are already in Iraq like dirty shirts are going to rebuild that country? Hell no, it's not safe for any foreigner there. It won't be safe for any foreigner there for a long time and what concerns me is that while the Americans are making it a safe place for foreigners they are doing s.f.a. to make it safer and better place for the Iraqis.

All in all this has the makings of one of the monumental fark-ups in history.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
[B]... The U.S. did NOT invade Iraq to free Iraqis. They did NOT invade Iraq to save the lives of malnourished children. They did NOT invade Iraq to improve the lives of Iraqis. They invaded because they believed it was in their national interest.



Agreed across the board yychobbyist . This reply could unleash the dawgs of war... Oh well...here goes...

This war had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. We can call a spade a spade here, and stick that on the wall as fact. But is it really a long range 'fark up' for the economy of the US...I seriously wonder.

This destruction by the time this is finished, will be measured in the trillions, not billions.

Q:Who will rebuild Iraq?
A:The US will rebuild Iraq.
Q:Where will the money come from?
A:The oil in the ground.
Q:Who will do the work?
A: British and US contractors...

The war game played here is simple to figure.

What of the civilians? They are inconsequential...just as they were in Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and Argentina. Just as they always will be. They are not on the balance sheet anywhere as expense items.

The US did not have an 'exit strategy', because they didn't need one. They were not leaving. The unforeseen however has happened. They are losing to a national resistance. Just like Vietnam.

In lay jargon the Pentagon, is freaking out. Their soldiers are weakening, their reserves are weakening, the Nat Guard is buckling.. The boys and girls are worn out. The stress is doing them in, along with the roadside shrapnel. Iraq is now officially a hell-hole.

The Mujahideen, a real threat, grows stronger, as the US boots weaken on the ground. The civilian population is increasingly behind the Mujahideen. The 'regional' resistance support reported as 200,000 strong and growing is probably a "national resistance" and a way distorted figure. If you read between the lines, its more likely tens time higher than 'intel' reports. It a safe bet that 2,000,000 in resistance support the Mujahideen country wide. Look at the cities where the military police are in collusion with the Mujahideen. That would be all of them, except where the Kurds rule. Its Vietnam all over again, with El Salvador mixed in. The Generals in dissent have publicly said, “It’s a war we cannot win and the longer it goes, the worse it will get. “

Bush is off in space, touting a political solution, an election in a country that's blowing itself to pieces right under his nose. Meanwhile the pentagon is trying to figure out how to get away with genocide, because wiping out large chunks of population, seems about the only way to cure the problem.

As the writer of the article says, if this year is Disaster, what will next year be? And the year after that?

The US military is locked in a very deadly and potentially disastrous situation. Deadly for both sides, but more so for Iraq and its population.

There is only one direction the US will go, and we all know it. They will keep ploughing. There is only one thing that will stop them, US public opinion. And so far, its not looking all that potent. If the US public knew what was actually happening in Iraq, it would help. Meanwhile this war, and those that would continue it, are destroying the country.

Tell your friends...

[Geminixoxo]

Bush will ultimately be seen as one of the biggest diasters teh US presidency has ever produced and the people who voted him back in the biggest idiots.

Amen to that...

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
Excellent post McLuhan.

You're right to an extent Ranger but I think one of the issues that this article raises is this: the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption necessarily means that the overall effects of an invasion on a state play absolutely no role whatsoever in making the decision on whether to invade or not. The U.S. did NOT invade Iraq to free Iraqis. They did NOT invade Iraq to save the lives of malnourished children. They did NOT invade Iraq to improve the lives of Iraqis. They invaded because they believed it was in their national interest.

I concur. The administration couldn't sell that to the American people, though, so it conconcted story after story - WMDs, terrorists, freedom for the Iraqis, etc. There are regular posters in here who buy it.

My argument has always been that the invasion is DETRIMENTAL to national security and thus the *national* interest. I think it is of interest to a small cabal of people in the administration, and does nothing but harm the country as a whole.


Originally posted by yychobbyist
Now, interestingly, if they did indeed invade to rid the country of terrorists and make Iraq an unsafe haven for terrorists it means they will have to rebuild Iraq, eliminate poverty, build a middle class and subdue Islam. How long do they think this will take? How much money will this take? Do they honestly think that Bechtel, Haliburton, Citibank and the corporate interests which are already in Iraq like dirty shirts are going to rebuild that country? Hell no, it's not safe for any foreigner there. It won't be safe for any foreigner there for a long time and what concerns me is that while the Americans are making it a safe place for foreigners they are doing s.f.a. to make it safer and better place for the Iraqis.

All in all this has the makings of one of the monumental fark-ups in history.

The US needs to get out as soon as possible, and let the chips fall where they may. There is NOTHING they can do to prevent these consequences now - they can merely prolong and exacerbate them.

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I concur. The administration couldn't sell that to the American people, though, so it conconcted story after story - WMDs, terrorists, freedom for the Iraqis, etc. There are regular posters in here who buy it.

My argument has always been that the invasion is DETRIMENTAL to national security and thus the *national* interest. I think it is of interest to a small cabal of people in the administration, and does nothing but harm the country as a whole.



The US needs to get out as soon as possible, and let the chips fall where they may. There is NOTHING they can do to prevent these consequences now - they can merely prolong and exacerbate them.

But they can't get out now - getting out now leaves a huge power vaccuum which the insurgents will fill. Prior to the war Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. It is now the primary battleground between the U.S. and terrorists (and, in response to earlier posts about why the U.S. hasn't been attacked by terrorists for a few years I think the reason why is that al-Qaeda doesn't need to attack U.S soil when it has such a target rich environment in Iraq) and if the U.S. leaves it will only get worse.

[Drunken Master]

Lies, lies, lies, all dirty socialist lies from dirty pinko commies.

(/opposite day)

One of the effects of the insurgency has been, I think, to prevent the ever-increasingly timid media to go and find stories like these. I'm stunned at this guy's accusation that the US is using cluster bombs - which, stupidest of the "stupid" bombs, kill indiscriminently over a large area - and I'd like to see some independent confirmation.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
But they can't get out now - getting out now leaves a huge power vaccuum which the insurgents will fill. Prior to the war Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. It is now the primary battleground between the U.S. and terrorists (and, in response to earlier posts about why the U.S. hasn't been attacked by terrorists for a few years I think the reason why is that al-Qaeda doesn't need to attack U.S soil when it has such a target rich environment in Iraq) and if the U.S. leaves it will only get worse.

What makes you think the "insurgents" will go away if the US stays for long enough?
The US military is the dominant power in the nation right now, and *whenever* they leave there will be a power vacuum.

What they do by staying longer is create more Iraqi dissent against their occupation - *increasing* the odds that, once they leave, the rest of the country will vomit up the government they leave behind.

You're right - when the US leaves, things will get worse, for a period of time - then they will get better. The US needs to hasten this process.

You're also right that the Islamist terrorists haven't needed to go elsewhere to foster their agenda. Things will continue as before when the US leaves. That having been said, this isn't an unusual length of time for there NOT to be an attack on US soil. These attacks are exceedingly difficult to pull off and will therefore always be quite rare.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
But they can't get out now - getting out now leaves a huge power vaccuum which the insurgents will fill. Prior to the war Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. It is now the primary battleground between the U.S. and terrorists (and, in response to earlier posts about why the U.S. hasn't been attacked by terrorists for a few years I think the reason why is that al-Qaeda doesn't need to attack U.S soil when it has such a target rich environment in Iraq) and if the U.S. leaves it will only get worse.

Ranger's two primary arguments above are: invading Iraq was contra to US national security, and that defeat is inevitable.

I agree with the first one. The second one asks how far will the Pentagon be allowed to go with Rummy’s war. They are now looking at exterminating chunks of population. So the jury's out on win/lose, if they area allowed to wage(r) unabated.

I think the media could stop this war in 180 days, if they wanted to. They could simply tell the real story, like they eventually did in Vietnam (finally). Like they are now doing, with the Indian Basin devistation. How's that for shirking moral responsibility...not covering the US Tsunami in Iraq.

[Ranger68]

Mcluhan, no matter how far they go - but ESPECIALLY if they begin to "exterminate large chunks of population" - they will "be defeated".

[yychobbyist]

I'm not arguing that going into Iraq was in the real national interests of the United States. All I was arguing was that it is entirely consistent with the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. I think one of the things the invasion has done is actually make the determination of what actually is in the U.S. national interest much more difficult - stay and you expose yourself to worldwide condemnation, you spend yourself into obvlivion, you expose your forces to unwarranted danger, you risk turning millions of Iraqis against you. Go and you leave a huge void into which God knows what will flow, you admit defeat, you expose yourself to international condemnation because the truth of what you've done to the civilian populace will come out.

Ultimately, Bush will never leave. I don't think he can politically. He'll leave the next Pres to deal with that dirty work.

[red]

the stories may be true or not- i guess the insurgents should stop killing civilians doing repair work and stop killing reporters- then maybe the story,if true, would get out

[Ranger68]

He'll have no choice but to go, I think. The US people won't stand for such a prolonged occupation. Expect the administration to start jacking up the rhetoric on reasons to extend the stay, though - WMDs nearby, Syria, Iran, continued terrorist threats, etc.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
He'll have no choice but to go, I think. The US people won't stand for such a prolonged occupation. Expect the administration to start jacking up the rhetoric on reasons to extend the stay, though - WMDs nearby, Syria, Iran, continued terrorist threats, etc.

I agree with the first part of your statement.


Not sure the USA will need a base in Iraq to conduct operations nearby. Afghanistan should be quiet sufficent for that.

[Ranger68]

Afghanistan is not a great country to base in, being land-locked and having very difficult terrain. Iraq makes more sense logistically and geographically.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Afghanistan is not a great country to base in, being land-locked and having very difficult terrain. Iraq makes more sense logistically and geographically.

From a strategic point of view, do you think that really make s a difference?
I hope we are not getting involved in another full scale war against Syria. I was hoping for more of a "commando style attack", with narrowly defined goals.

[Ranger68]

Why wouldn't it make a difference from a "strategic" point of view? Some areas are going to be more useful for military basing.
You really shouldn't be hoping for *any* attack against Syria.
Should you?

[langeweile]

The US military is so far advanced and the potential enemy *Syria* is relatively weak, the war could be won without having to be based in IRAQ.

If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgency, an attack on those targets, should be warranted.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
The US military is so far advanced and the potential enemy *Syria* is relatively weak, the war could be won without having to be based in IRAQ.

If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgency, an attack on those targets, should be warranted.

Old bore, everybody is weak, militarily, against the US. But I cannot believe that you would like to see the current war expanded to the entire middle east.

The fact is, as cooler heads in the US has pointed out, that the US will eventually have to cut a deal with the insurgents in order to get out of Iraq.

Rummy lost his little war of liberation.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
Old bore, everybody is weak, militarily, against the US. But I cannot believe that you would like to see the current war expanded to the entire middle east.

The fact is, as cooler heads in the US has pointed out, that the US will eventually have to cut a deal with the insurgents in order to get out of Iraq.

Rummy lost his little war of liberation.

I wasn't talking about an expanded war.
I was suggesting a "commando style" attack against any elements supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

Yes and I do hope it doesn't come to that, already too many people have died.

[onthebottom]

Some other articles and links from the same author:

Continuing Slaughter, Kidnappings, US Rhetoric
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6018.htm

Fallujah, Pacified
http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=2753

Telltale Signs of Torture Lead Family to Demand Answers
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/jamail/jamail3.html

Americans Slaughtering Civilians in Falluja
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/jamail/jamail2.html

Detained, Bludgeoned and Electrocuted into a Coma
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/jamail/jamail1.html

OTB

[Mcluhan]

OTB, do you think using cluster bombs on civilian populations is a good thing? Or a bad thing. Or are you somewhere inbetween..

[yychobbyist]

OTB - you joining the dark side?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
The US military is so far advanced and the potential enemy *Syria* is relatively weak, the war could be won without having to be based in IRAQ.

If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgency, an attack on those targets, should be warranted.

Where would they be based?
What type of "war" are you talking about?

If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgents, perhaps the US should take that as yet another clue. That MANY Arabs don't agree with the invasion, to put it mildly.
:rolleyes:

The US would be treading on very thin ice if it expanded this war across national borders.

Does the bombing of Cambodia ring a bell? ........

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
Old bore, everybody is weak, militarily, against the US. But I cannot believe that you would like to see the current war expanded to the entire middle east.

The fact is, as cooler heads in the US has pointed out, that the US will eventually have to cut a deal with the insurgents in order to get out of Iraq.

Rummy lost his little war of liberation.

Precisely.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
I wasn't talking about an expanded war.
I was suggesting a "commando style" attack against any elements supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

Yes and I do hope it doesn't come to that, already too many people have died.

What sort of "commando style attack"? Against what kinds of targets?

I think you've been watching too many James Bond movies. ;)

You *do* realize that most of these "insurgents" merely think they're fighting against a foreign aggressor, right?

[yychobbyist]

They face the same problem with an incursion into Syria that they face with doing it in Iran - everyone would see it coming a mile away and it's a hardly secure launching site. Plus, if they start doing it, international support for the U.S. will be eroded because it'll look like they're only interested in Iraq as a staging area for strikes elsewhere in the region.

[Ranger68]

Agreed. The administration's program has hit hard times.
No big surprise there.

[jwmorrice]

Here's an article from Newsweek on the possible use of death squads in Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010905V.shtml

So much for morality.

jwm

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
What sort of "commando style attack"? Against what kinds of targets?

I think you've been watching too many James Bond movies. ;)

You *do* realize that most of these "insurgents" merely think they're fighting against a foreign aggressor, right?

The same style attacks we should have used against Saddam in the first place.
Target the head and the snake will die.

[Ranger68]

What sort of attacks would those be?
You're being very vague.
Assassinating the head of government?

Wow.

Even assuming the US *could* pull that off (not a chance), it's a frightening proposal.

[Elguapo2004]

So can anybody tell me how the war affected this hobby in Iraq? :)

[jwmorrice]

I understand that Uday and Qusay have cut back.

jwm

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
What sort of attacks would those be?
You're being very vague.
Assassinating the head of government?

Wow.

Even assuming the US *could* pull that off (not a chance), it's a frightening proposal.

Precisely.

Israel has very succesfully taken out some of the Hamas leaders as a retaliation for terror attacks. Seems to be working for them.

You reaaly don't believe that the USA could pull it off? I beg to differ.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Ranger68


My argument has always been that the invasion is DETRIMENTAL to national security and thus the *national* interest. I think it is of interest to a small cabal of people in the administration, and does nothing but harm the country as a whole.

Ranger, the “Iraq invasion, a blunder for national security� argument rightly must connect to the rise of Usama Bin Ladin. OBL is distinguished as the first terrorist criminal in the world to go global. But after 9/11 he was still, just “a terrorist at large’.

The Iraq war vaulted OBL to demi-god status when the US justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming it was a necessary part of their war against terrorism, ergo against OBL, ringleader.

The counter move by OBL was to pick a local deputy in Iraq, and personalize the struggle even more publically. Now we see the Mujahideen gaining in support. And who is their spiritual godfather? Why OBL of course. The only terror guru from the Arab street that went toe-to-toe with the US.

Before Iraq, OBL was a “a terrorist at large’ the US claimed, with a following of less than 5,000; and they claimed to have eliminated 75% of that lot. After Iraq, OBL’s forces are now equal to the American forces in Iraq, and OBL’s forces are not losing.

Measured in terms of strengthening OBL, Iraq is a disaster for US national security, clearly.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
Precisely.

Israel has very succesfully taken out some of the Hamas leaders as a retaliation for terror attacks. Seems to be working for them.

You reaaly don't believe that the USA could pull it off? I beg to differ.

There's a big difference between a Hamas leader and the leader of a nation like Iraq or Syria. Plus, the Mossad's humint is orders of magnitude better than the US'. Whether *Israel* could do it or not is a different question - but not entirely.

Do you recall the US trying to nail Saddam with bombings at the outset of this latest incursion? All the hooplah around the thought that they might have nailed him with a bomb?

How could the US pull off the assassination of a major world leader?

Also, what makes you think this is remotely justified?? This question is by FAR the more interesting. (Much of that is because, if you think the US *could* pull off an operation like that, you're sadly mistaken - they couldn't even get *Castro* for God's sake - the head of a banana republic.) But, I'm interested in what makes you think: (a) it's justified; (b) it's going to be remotely acceptable to *anyone*; (c) it's going to solve anything.

This is a truly frightening notion.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Ranger, the “Iraq invasion, a blunder for national security� argument rightly must connect to the rise of Usama Bin Ladin. OBL is distinguished as the first terrorist criminal in the world to go global. But after 9/11 he was still, just “a terrorist at large’.

The Iraq war vaulted OBL to demi-god status when the US justified the invasion of Iraq by claiming it was a necessary part of their war against terrorism, ergo against OBL, ringleader.

The counter move by OBL was to pick a local deputy in Iraq, and personalize the struggle even more publically. Now we see the Mujahideen gaining in support. And who is their spiritual godfather? Why OBL of course. The only terror guru from the Arab street that went toe-to-toe with the US.

Before Iraq, OBL was a “a terrorist at large’ the US claimed, with a following of less than 5,000; and they claimed to have eliminated 75% of that lot. After Iraq, OBL’s forces are now equal to the American forces in Iraq, and OBL’s forces are not losing.

Measured in terms of strengthening OBL, Iraq is a disaster for US national security, clearly.

The first terrorist to go global? That's a laugh.

I believe that's part of the rhetoric, but we've been through this before - nobody buys that OBL had anything to do with Iraq.

You're totally on the ball.

It had nothing to do with US security, everything to do with increasing US power (real and perceived). It will accomplish little of even that objective.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Ranger68
The first terrorist to go global?

That's a laugh.

You're totally on the ball.



Would you expect any less from the name's sake of the 'Global village' inventor to point that out... lol

[Manji]

Rather than attacking Syria, the United States would have better luck using the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach. Promising economic benefits and returning land lost to Israel would definitly help convince the Syrian leadership to rein in the insurgents and its supporters in Syria.

Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.

Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents.
It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight.

The key to US victory is in building and developing Iraqi security forces. Its easier said then done but there have been units that have performed quite well against the insurgents. Integrating US troops with Iraqi security units will only further the effectiveness of these units.

There are many Iraqis who lost there lives due to the indiscrimate insurgents attacks. Its seems that every insurgent attack against the Americans takes a least one Iraqi life. Lately, the targets have been Iraqi themselves and I think this will further push more Iraqis to fight for the future of Iraq. Not for the Americans, but for the future of a free Iraq.
A free Iraq that does not include the Americans but also does not accept the insurgents and what they represent. Remember, the insurgents on the most part are from Saddam's old regime, die hard Baathists or hard core fundamentalists. These insurgents represent a possible future that most Iraqis would reject; a choice of a Saddam style dictatorship or Taliban-like regime.

I think the media has not really conveyed the fact that there are lot of Iraqis who hate the insurgents (or at the very least do not support the insurgent campaign). These Iraqi do not speak up because they are afraid of the insurgents and possible reprisals.

40, 000 insurgents and 200, 000 supporters seems rather high to me....
But even if these numbers are correct; the Iraqi numbers against the insurgents are far higher than the ones for them.

The United States, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Security Forces has time on their side. Patience and prudent planning will bring Iraq out this of this violent and bloody conflict.

[Ranger68]

Manji, I don't believe there is any way the US will be able to outlast the insurgents in Iraq. As long as they are there - whether it's six months or six years - they will be seen as foreign invaders by a *large* portion of the Iraqi population, and the situation will be a dangerous, chaotic mess. Yes, history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight - and that an insurgent guerilla army will fight for as long as it takes.

Time is NOT on the US' side. Support for the US mission in Iraq continues to erode at home. If they're still there in *another* two years, what do you think support at home will be like? I'd guess it will be practically zilch.

No, in the words of the administration, "We don't do nation-building". They're going to speed through the elections, then mostly get out. (Perhaps trying to sign deals for military basing options with the "new regime".) When they do, the new regime will be undone, the Iraqis will settle their own affairs without further US meddling, and let the chips fall where they may.

"Patience and prudent planning" would have seen the US stay out. LOL That phrase now has little to do with the US mission.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Manji
Rather than attacking Syria, the United States would have better luck using the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach. Promising economic benefits and returning land lost to Israel would definitly help convince the Syrian leadership to rein in the insurgents and its supporters in Syria....

OBL connected the “Arab struggle� to the Palestinian struggle as a political convenience to unite Arab emotions against the US. I think OBL gives not a wit about the Palestinians. They have always been the poor cousins that nobody wants. I am sure the average Syrian feels the same way. The common element bonding Arabs in the street, is they hate Israel. Bush wrapping his arms around Sharon was a political faux pas for any President wishing to maintain a neutral negotiating stance.

Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.

I think the average Iraqi is more concerned about potable water and not ending up dead while asleep in their beds.

Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents.

The political will of the US war effort rests with the people. Do you really think the US population cares about winning this war? They care about not losing the war. It’s a matter of face. Nixon withdrew from ‘nam “with dignity�. The US swallowed the word, as in swallowing pride, and moved on quickly, trying to forget. The population turned its back on the vets because America lost face. If you remember this lesson it will help predict the future. As Martin Luther King said, the US is a ten day nation. Meaning in ten days they could forget about Iraq.

It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight.

Huh? History has shown that when people are fighting on their own turf, they tend to outlast an invading army.

[Ranger68]

The tenet about invaders being outlasted applies:

increasingly with the amount of power the people of the invading nation have at home - that is, it applies very heavily when the invader is a liberal democracy, and less so when they are a dictatorship or an autocracy; and,

increasingly with the prevalence of free media at home - that is, it applies very heavily in a nation like the US with readily available Internet and several hundred news channels, and less so when the media and information flow is almost totally state-controlled (Nazi Germany, say).

These two are often related, but aren't necessarily conjoined.

This means that, as history marches on and the free flow of information increases, occupying armies will have an increasingly tough time staying put in the face of armed insurgency - the people at home will tolerate casualties less and less. Consider that the "Somalia line" was *twenty*. That is, the US pulled out of Somalia, considering it a disaster, when the military suffered fewer than *twenty* deaths - a mere platoon-sized defeat in historical terms.

In the past, this was often not an issue. Consider the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia and Poland, for example. Really, no amount of partisan activity was going to eject the German army from those countries, and the Nazi responses, using relatively few troops, were often savage. Nazi Germany, of course, was a dictatorship with totally state-controlled media. This means two things - that the government was less likely to be swayed from their desired course of action no matter what the cost, and that the population was less likely to even have knowledge of happenings beyond their borders outside of what the propaganda machine told them. You could also consider the US' history - when twenty or two hundred casualties might not have even been sniffed at - after all, that's what the military is for. The US tolerated a war which saw them fighting *amongst themselves* and which created death tolls MANY orders of magnitude higher.

I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.

[Cobra1]

Originally posted by Ranger68
If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgents, perhaps the US should take that as yet another clue. That MANY Arabs don't agree with the invasion, to put it mildly.


Understanding Syria is complicated. To those on this board with an interest in trying to get local - understanding the mentality of the people and for a different perspective on our myoptic view - I would recommend reading

Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East
by Patrick Seale

It gives one a good perspective from their vantage point. There are good reasons for the internal power struggles, the Alawites battles to maintain control (and incidently stop Islamic Fundamentalism) and how Syria has been constantly screwed over by its allies (Jordan and Egypt) and the US and Israel.
Very readable.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Cobra1
Understanding Syria is complicated. To those on this board with an interest in trying to get local - understanding the mentality of the people and for a different perspective on our myoptic view - I would recommend reading

Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East
by Patrick Seale

It gives one a good perspective from their vantage point. There are good reasons for the internal power struggles, the Alawites battles to maintain control (and incidently stop Islamic Fundamentalism) and how Syria has been constantly screwed over by its allies (Jordan and Egypt) and the US and Israel.
Very readable.

Not knowing much about Syria myself, how would you respond to Manji's statement:


Rather than attacking Syria, the United States would have better luck using the "carrot" rather than the "stick" approach. Promising economic benefits and returning land lost to Israel would definitly help convince the Syrian leadership to rein in the insurgents and its supporters in Syria.

Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents.


And do you think that the US would benefit from widening the conflict into Syria? Or maybe the question is, what are the pros and cons...are there any benefits whatsoever..

[Mcluhan]

Ranger, I think you will enjoy this article on the hottest topic in Washington. I see negotiation with OBL is not on the list BTW!




Washington rumbles with questions on Iraq exit

David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt, New York Times

Monday, January 10, 2005

Washington -- Three weeks before the election in Iraq, conversation has started bubbling up on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and some days even in the White House about when and how U.S. forces might begin to disengage in Iraq.

view the rest here..
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/10/MNG3VANRRI1.DTL

[Manji]

I would like to state for the record that I do not support George Bush, his policies or his reasons for being in Iraq. I do believe that now that the United States is in Iraq; it has to finish its mission (to stabilize Iraq and restore some semblance of a centralized and democratic government). I also believe that this mission is achievable (though this not a certainty).

American military casaulties had reached a thousand before the US elections; and it was pretty much a non-issue. That demonstrates that the people of the United States will be able to stomach more casaulties. Now, if the number should drastically increase and the US casaulty rate reaches the ten-thousand mark (or even five thousand); the public would definitly be much more vocal in withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Right now strong support for Bush, strong American nationalism and a weak opposition (against the war and Bush) will mean that the United States willl be in Iraq for at least two more years if not until 2008.
Also; both Bush supporters and haters know that if the US leaves Iraq prematurly; the Iraqi nation may become another Afghanistan. Another staging point for terrorist attacks to be lauched against America and the Western World.

Bush has even stated that he has been given political power and he will use that power to finish what he started in Iraq. Bush may be a fool; but even he realizes (or at least somebody told him...) that this war will define his legacy as President.

The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.

Its true that the Iraqis view the US as "invaders" and "occupiers" but most of those Iraqis believe that the Americans are not there to stay in Iraq or even possess the desire to stay in the Iraq. Most Iraqis realize that the Americans want to be out Iraq as much as the Iraqis want the Americans to be out of Iraq.
It is this belief that will convince most Iraqis that a "sit and wait" policy is much more beneifical than an "attack-the-Americans-now" policy. The Shites of Iraq such as the Supreme Council (the one that is influenced by Al-Sistani) are doing precisely that, sitting and waiting (at the same time consolidating their political power).

The US will speed through the elections but that will not convince them to leave; it will be whether the Iraqi Security forces are capable enough in handling the insurgency itself.

Fallujah may prove to be the turning point for the US military. It may have cost the United States political points but tactically it was a step in the right direction.

Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)?

The insurgents no longer have a clear safe haven point (remember, the Vietnamese Communists had North Vietnam). That means they no longer have a command and control centre, a place to rearm and reorganize, train new recruits or even a place to safely hide without fear of Americans capturing or killing them.

These insurgents are human; they need a place to rest and relax and to ogranize and plan. No man can be a killing machine 24/7.

Since Fallujah, it might not seem apparent but the American military has the intiative. Sure the insurgents have been attacking but what did you expect? For them to roll over and die....

(Sorry, this post is a little bit disorganized .... a little tired today)

[Manji]

"Attacking Syria would only push the nation to assisting the Iraqi insurgents." - Manji

"I think the average Iraqi is more concerned about potable water and not ending up dead while asleep in their beds." - Mcluhan

I agree, no arguement here. Not sure why you quoted me on this one.

Its seems that many people opposed to the war and the occupation believe that the United States has lost Iraq. The war is far from over and the United States still has enough resources to oufight and outlast it opponents. - Manji

The political will of the US war effort rests with the people. Do you really think the US population cares about winning this war? They care about not losing the war. It’s a matter of face. Nixon withdrew from ‘nam “with dignity�. The US swallowed the word, as in swallowing pride, and moved on quickly, trying to forget. The population turned its back on the vets because America lost face. If you remember this lesson it will help predict the future. As Martin Luther King said, the US is a ten day nation. Meaning in ten days they could forget about Iraq. - Mcluhan

Unfortunatly, the people voted for Bush!! The sixties are over, man!! Political apathy is at all time high and many Americans don't care about what is happening overseas. Watch the news... The Iraqi conflict barely makes any waves in the papers or the News Channels.
Sadly for the US soldiers and the Iraqi people but a bonus for Bush is that people are more pre-occupied with Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston's break-up then the elections in Iraq.
That means that Bush has a much more political leverage (at this moment) than Nixon did during the Nam era.


" It has not even been two years since the United States invaded Iraq and history has shown that a determined enemy will not be defeated overnight. " - Manji

"Huh? History has shown that when people are fighting on their own turf, they tend to outlast an invading army." - Mcluhan

Really?
I think you need to brush up on your military history.
Germany and Japan were both determined (and fanatical) foes and yet the United States managed to transform both nations into Western style/capatilist democracies.

As for fighting on other people's turf and not outlasting them; well, I got a ton of examples in history that will prove that statement as false.
Look at the Irish and the Scottish in regards to the British.
The Tibetans in regards to the Chinese.
Hell, the French in regard to the British in Canada...

Sorry, will try to continue this tomorrow. Am going to smoke a joint and watch the latest episode of BattleStar Galatica.

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by Manji

The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.


The eerie similarities between Somalia and Iraq though are that in both instances, commanders on the ground requested stronger forces and were denied and that the Americans went in as lightly as possible.

I still don't believe that there are enough U.S. troops in Iraq to do anything other than control small pockets of the country. U.S. forces there remain exposed and vulnerable as do the Iraqis who support the new regime. Because they do not control enough of the country whatever insurgents are there do have the ability to rest, eat, restock and take instructions from their leadership - the situation isn't perfect for them from a military perspective but it is not dire. Because there are so many of them, and I don't see a reason to question the number McLuhan posted, and because its likely that they are organized into small cells, it will be next to impossible for the U.S. to eliminate large numbers of them.

[Manji]

Okay, I'm back..... (Another great episode by the way!!)

Really, if you looked hard enough there are enough eerie similarities between Iraq and a thousand other conflicts/moments in history.

As for requesting stronger ground forces, the forces in Iraq have not been turned down for armaments/weapons.
Numbers have not been denied because the Pentagon does not want to provide added troops. It is because the Pentagon does not really have any troops to spare to give to the Iraqi conflict.

I agree that more troops are needed on the ground. The only way that the United States is going to supplement their numbers is by building the Iraqi Security forces.

As for numbers of insurgents.
Nobody has enough information to guess how many insurgents there are in Iraq. Could be 5000, 10000, 50000, etc.....
The Iraqi insurgents themselves don't know their actual numbers.

I don't suppose you guys considered that The Chief of Iraqi Intelligence (or the Minister of the Interior or whatever the hell he was) may have had an ulterior motive in stating that possibly inflated number.

He might have stated that number because he might not want the elections to be held. Around that time that report came out, the Allawi government was hinting that it did not think elections could be held safely.
The Chief may have over inflated the numbers to scare the Iraqi public, Allawi's political opponents and the Americans to delay the elections. He might have done it for his personal gain or he might have done it for the good Iraq? Who knows?

As for eliminating the resistance. Not impossible. Arrest, capture and kill. Rely on good intelligence, act swiftly and try not make too many enemies.
At the same time deprive the insurgents of their leadership and valuable members (specialized fighters such as demolitions experts).
Deprive them of their weapons and their ability to move through Iraq.
War against insurgents is one that takes time and patience. Its not solved by huge battles but by wearing down the enemy while at the same time strengthening your forces.

At the same time try to raise to good will of the people through community projects, rebuilding the infrastructure and providing employment. If the Iraqi people see a future ahead of them; most of them will wait it out. (Wouldn't you?)

The insurgency can be put down. Unfortuanatly, successes and failures in this type of war cannot be easily gauged.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Manji
American military casaulties had reached a thousand before the US elections; and it was pretty much a non-issue. That demonstrates that the people of the United States will be able to stomach more casaulties. Now, if the number should drastically increase and the US casaulty rate reaches the ten-thousand mark (or even five thousand); the public would definitly be much more vocal in withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Right now strong support for Bush, strong American nationalism and a weak opposition (against the war and Bush) will mean that the United States willl be in Iraq for at least two more years if not until 2008.

Polls continue to show slipping support for the war in Iraq. Election-time is actually a BAD time to guage the public mood an any *one* particular issue. As time goes on and casualties mount, the public will tolerate them less - as has been shown in the polls I've seen.
My guess is that the US will be out, as a major player, within a year.


Originally posted by Manji
Also; both Bush supporters and haters know that if the US leaves Iraq prematurly; the Iraqi nation may become another Afghanistan. Another staging point for terrorist attacks to be lauched against America and the Western World.

This is actually contrary to the opinion of "Bush-haters" (which, I guess, is everyone who opposes the invasion). The LONGER the US stays, the worse the situation becomes - that is, the more terrorists will be created. Why do you think that if the US leaves now, Iraq will become another Afghanistan? What will change by the US staying? And, are you saying that it *wasn't* before?


Originally posted by Manji
Bush has even stated that he has been given political power and he will use that power to finish what he started in Iraq. Bush may be a fool; but even he realizes (or at least somebody told him...) that this war will define his legacy as President.

Bush has also stated that he has been given *divine* power - he says a lot of things. I agree that this war will define his legacy as President, and that it will almost certainly be a bad one.


Originally posted by Manji
The US pull out of Somalia cannot be compared to Iraq. The Clinton Presidency had just come into power and immediatly proved its international inexperience by demonstrating weakness in Somalia (before and after the "BlackHawk Down incident). The US did not invest time, money and lives into Somalia so it figured it was better to cut its losses and head home. It was also the previous Bush Sr. administration that sent the US military into Somalia; so it probably made it much easier for Clinton to cut and run.

Why can't they be compared? Because you don't want them to be? They illustrate that the American public doesn't suffer casualties well except where they've been sold on a mission extremely well. I grant that the Republicans did a great job lying about Iraq. However, that public support has slipped dramatically over the last 18 months. I don't think any President - Bush Sr. or Jr. included - would have seriously committed the troops in Somalia after it was demonstrated that there are people *gasp* who don't want them around in their countries, no matter what the reason. They weren't there to propagate any real American policy - just to help out. Once it became clear that, sometimes, helping out is dangerous - they were gone.


Originally posted by Manji
Its true that the Iraqis view the US as "invaders" and "occupiers" but most of those Iraqis believe that the Americans are not there to stay in Iraq or even possess the desire to stay in the Iraq. Most Iraqis realize that the Americans want to be out Iraq as much as the Iraqis want the Americans to be out of Iraq.
It is this belief that will convince most Iraqis that a "sit and wait" policy is much more beneifical than an "attack-the-Americans-now" policy. The Shites of Iraq such as the Supreme Council (the one that is influenced by Al-Sistani) are doing precisely that, sitting and waiting (at the same time consolidating their political power).
<snip>
Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)?


I don't think you know what "most of the Iraqis" are thinking.
We'll see what happens to the violence, over time. If you are right, it will slacken off considerably.
The problem with all of these operations is that civilian casualties can't be avoided - this FOMENTS opposition to the US occupation, even among moderates. Over time, the only thing that is likely to happen is that the US creates more opposition to their stay, and to representation by entities who came to power while the US was there.

40000 is a large number.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Manji

Really?
I think you need to brush up on your military history.
Germany and Japan were both determined (and fanatical) foes and yet the United States managed to transform both nations into Western style/capatilist democracies.

Actually, I think *you* need to brush up on your history. The Germans were NOT fanatical foes. The Nazis were. By the end of the war, few live Germans supported their government, and although there WAS fanatical fighting, it was either sparse (on the western front), or totally overwhelmed (on the eastern front). The German people were done fighting. Had the Allies invaded Japan, you would have seen truly FANATICAL fighting, and Allied casualties well over a million.

A populace with *large* segments violently opposed to a foreign invader often has good success fighting them off, over time. Reread *my* post.


Originally posted by Manji

As for fighting on other people's turf and not outlasting them; well, I got a ton of examples in history that will prove that statement as false.
Look at the Irish and the Scottish in regards to the British.
The Tibetans in regards to the Chinese.
Hell, the French in regard to the British in Canada...

Sorry, will try to continue this tomorrow. Am going to smoke a joint and watch the latest episode of BattleStar Galatica.

Please reread my post about the effects of time on this discussion. All of your examples are badly flawed, however - especially in light of the arguments made in my post - the Irish and Scottish achieved measures of independence (when the British became a more liberal democracy), the Tibetans quickly adopted pacifist tactics (against an authoritarian invader), and the French fought against the British on almost equal terms and were defeated in open battle, after which they were integrated into the rest of the country.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Manji
War against insurgents is one that takes time and patience. Its not solved by huge battles but by wearing down the enemy while at the same time strengthening your forces.

At the same time try to raise to good will of the people through community projects, rebuilding the infrastructure and providing employment. If the Iraqi people see a future ahead of them; most of them will wait it out. (Wouldn't you?)

The insurgency can be put down. Unfortuanatly, successes and failures in this type of war cannot be easily gauged.

Actually, time and patience works *against* an invader, and *for* a guerilla army.
The US is not raising any goodwill among the Iraqis by being there and fighting.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2149&ncid=2149&e=9&u=/cpress/20050108/ca_pr_on_wo/iraq
It is as much for the hope of inflicting casualties as it is for the hopes that the US will retaliate that a guerilla army fights. It is the nature of war that American retaliation will result in innocent Iraqis being killed and general destruction being sown. The US has, at times, been quite heavy-handed.
The US is NOT interested in nation-building - which is what you would propose they do to increase Iraqi goodwill.
Sure, you can gauge success - when attacks slacken, that's success. If they don't slacken, that's not success. Simple.
What do you think the population of Fallujah thinks of the American invasion?

[slowpoke]

Originally posted by Ranger68

The US is NOT interested in nation-building - which is what you would propose they do to increase Iraqi goodwill.
Sure, you can guage success - when attacks slacken, that's success. If they don't slacken, that's not success. Simple.
What do you think the population of Fallujah thinks of the American invasion?

This article was published in APRIL/04, over 8 months ago. Even then, Iraqi support was weak:

"...In Iraq, quite apart from Fallujah and Najaf, the U.S. occupation, according to the latest Gallup polls, has turned most of the population against America. In Baghdad, only 13 percent now believe the invasion and regime change it accomplished was morally justifiable. Only one-third of Iraqis believe the occupation is doing more good than harm, and a majority favor an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal while conceding this could put them in greater danger...."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r

[Cobra1]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Not knowing much about Syria myself, how would you respond to Manji's statement:

And do you think that the US would benefit from widening the conflict into Syria? Or maybe the question is, what are the pros and cons...are there any benefits whatsoever..

The carrot is definately the way to go. Recognoze that Asad still walks a tightroap, he may be the dictator, but with Syrias history that could be over in a second. There are powerful people in Syria that are not visible - and despite being dictator, he is always accomodating vsarious interests.

Syrian history is intersting if only that it has been on the short end of the stick, and misfortunes often of its own making. Asad Sr was quite a principaled leader - who moved the Arab repbulic a long way. Women and minority rights is something he pushed - there is actually a womens military academy. Christians are safe there, and he strove to keep the state secular from religion. He did great battles in keeping the Muslem Brotherhood, the true combatants to the WEst at bay - and we in the west owe him big time for that.

Asad was alwasy the ME leader with the most integrity. He was stright forward, true to his word, not like his arab counterparts that constantly backstab each other and make secret deals. He later learned how to use guerilla tactics in dealing with military superiority with the US and ISreal - through fate he was linked up with the Russians - but only after being rejected by the West/US.

Syria could easily be in the WEsts camp. Isreal needs to give back the Golan, expand trade, and everyone wins. With little arable land, and arab pride/honour that is usually their downfall, return of the Golan is necessary. Isreal had pushed Syria in this area time and again before 1967, and then launched a suprise attack. Teh Isrealis generals had long identifies this spot as a region of possible expansion and chose to agitate heavilyt along here. The conflicts with ISreal over LEbanon are an endless chain of lies, deciet and underhandedness by Isreal and some forces inside the US who also kept the agenda from Reagan and Weinburger. Ironicly Sharon was part of the problem who with Begin, had a clear objective to expand ISreal. Asad kept making deals with Shultz, Habib and others only to be double crossed, in which the US envoys themselves were often lied to.

Asad clearly wants peace and is willing to negotiate - the US keeps staffing its ME policy group with people of allied or actualy jewish background - which affecrts the US position toward Isreal. From Kissinger on down, this group has not been persuing policy for the benefit of the US necessarily. Even WASPs like Haig, hoping for jewsih support for a possible presidential run gave Begin and Sharon cover for their attacks.

Isreal doesnt want to give back the land for obvious reasons. The US also needs a bogey man to pick on and use for propaganda - Syria is good for that. If the US picked policy makers that were not biased to Isreal and understood the history, they would require the Golan to be returned, and trade to be increased. Syria would gladly be an ally, in which you would then have Turkey, Syria and Isreal and Lebnon alongside Iraq and Saudi. Things could change for the better - but for those that trumpet ISreal, peace means reduced military and other aid - and why would you want that?

[red]

if only they had tried the carrot approach with hitler

[Mcluhan]

Fallujah may prove to be the turning point for the US military. It may have cost the United States political points but tactically it was a step in the right direction. – manji

There are others more qualified than I, who disagree strongly with that statement Manji. I’d like to hear Rangers point of view on Falluja. But glad you brought it up, because this thread is about the destruction of Iraq.

There are some who argue that destroying Fallujah spread out the resistance. Destruction of this city, (two thirds buildings destroyed) on the political balance sheet of plus/minus points, is probably a minus. How effective it was in neutralising the resistance, is highly doubtful. The 1200 insurgents that were killed seemed mostly to stay behind, and die for the fanatical cause of killing Americans. (50 dead, 300 severely wounded)

Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)? - manji

Actually, these numbers do not belong to me, they are the latest published info…200,000 “supporters� etc. My comment was that I think the number is low. I suspect the support for the resistance is a lot higher than ‘published’ intel reports. 2 million would not surprise me. Especially given the state of Iraq’s infrastructure and the nightmarish effect its obviously having on the population. How do I arrive at this number 2 million you ask? Well, 20% of Iraq’s 25 million population is Sunni, and these 5 million people mostly live in the Sunni Triangle which is actually a rectangle. It seems logical (to me) that because the resistance seems so entrenched, and is in fact dominating the area, that at least 40% of the native population would be supporting it. It is just an uneducated guess.

The insurgents no longer have a clear safe haven point (remember, the Vietnamese Communists had North Vietnam). That means they no longer have a command and control centre, a place to rearm and reorganize, train new recruits or even a place to safely hide without fear of Americans capturing or killing them.
-Manji

I disagree manji. As yychobbyist says “ its likely that they are organized into small cells, it will be next to impossible for the U.S. to eliminate large numbers of them.�

If you read Scott Taylor’s report, Scott paints the destuction of Falluja as a hollow victory.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2BC0FF0-1A7F-4AA9-826C-FBF3D5BDDF0A.htm

Two quotes from that article by Scott Taylor:




"In reporting that six police stations in Mosul had been overrun, no explanation was given as to how 5000 American-paid Iraqi police could have been overwhelmed without a single casualty on either side"

Whether or not US forces ever manage to pacify the few remaining fighters' holdouts in Falluja, their resistance has already taken on mythical proportions. Like those American frontiersmen who fought that legendary one-sided battle against superior Mexican forces at the Alamo, Falluja has now become a symbol of resistance to US occupation.

[Ranger68]

The US' destruction of cities - Fallujah chief among them - can only strengthen the hand of those fighting against them.
This sort of action is *precisely* what the "insurgents" hope for. You can win a battle tactically, but lose strength strategically. This is what is happening in these situations.

[islandboy]

This is the very frist time I have ever heard that the nazi did not have strong support within Germany during WWII. I have to consider the sources Rnager generally uses and ask, does anyone else have information about this.

While I do not trust what this Administration says, it is interesting to note that the more heat it takes results in two things: a) an increased reluctance to come clean and 2) a greater probablity that it will cut and run before the job is finished. I know that there are those that say we are part of the problem and that is a good point. BUT if we leave I see no alternative except a Lebonese style civil war pushing this country even further into the dark ages.

As far as Asad coming into the "fold" my perception is that he is too weak to do this. What is the basis for the contention?

[Ranger68]

Really? Read some history books about WWII. The German people, most of their cities destroyed, were VERY RELIEVED when the war ended - the VAST majority were NOT fanatically fighting the Allies at the end of the war.
???
More straw men. I didn't say "the nazi did not have strong support within Germany during WWII" (sic). I said:
"The Germans were NOT fanatical foes. The Nazis were. By the end of the war, few live Germans supported their government".
This is demonstrably true. If you'd like, I can post to that effect from MANY history books.

Please. Why don't you list some of your sources regarding WWII history, then we'll talk.

Why would you think that there would be a Lebanese style civil war when you leave? Why would you think you could postpone that, assuming you think it's going to happen, by staying longer?

The same old unanswered questions .........

[Ranger68]

LOL
I must say, that's the first time I've *ever* heard the Germans in WWII described, in general, as "fanatical".
LOL

[slowpoke]

Originally posted by Ranger68

I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.

I agree with you about public opinion in the US. There just wasn't enough reason for the invasion in the first place. Now that election fever has died off, support at home is dropping and recruitment is down. The American people, God bless 'em, know this thing is headed down the toilet but Dubya is too delusional to face up to it:

"...American casualties in Iraq now number about 1,500 dead and well over 10,000 wounded. Instead of decreasing, the casualty rate is increasing. The U.S. Army and National Guard are overstretched. Recruitment has fallen sharply. The war has already cost $130 billion and is expected to soar to over $200 billion. The Bush administration is expected to ask Congress for another $100 billion this year. American public opinion is beginning to rebel. The latest poll suggests that 56 percent of Americans do not think the war is worth the cost in men and treasure...."

"...The present situation is untenable. Fresh thinking is urgently required - not the least in Washington - if poison from the wound in Iraq is not to infect the whole region..."

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=11656

[langeweile]

Originally posted by islandboy
This is the very frist time I have ever heard that the nazi did not have strong support within Germany during WWII. I have to consider the sources Rnager generally uses and ask, does anyone else have information about this.

While I do not trust what this Administration says, it is interesting to note that the more heat it takes results in two things: a) an increased reluctance to come clean and 2) a greater probablity that it will cut and run before the job is finished. I know that there are those that say we are part of the problem and that is a good point. BUT if we leave I see no alternative except a Lebonese style civil war pushing this country even further into the dark ages.

As far as Asad coming into the "fold" my perception is that he is too weak to do this. What is the basis for the contention?

In the last open election in Germany the NSDAP got about 30% of the votes, hardly a majority support.
Adolf was forced to build a coalition with some other splinter groups to obtain the majority.
Once he had it, he passed a law, banning most or all of them.
The subsequent elections, were a farce.

Ranger is right. Why Adolf might have had a fairly broad support in the beginning, due to the fact that he provided work to most unemployed, and effectively steered Germany out of the depression. This support rapidly declined once he started the war, and was non-existent by in the end.

Germans ( I was born there) have the thing about duty, honour and total obedience to their goverment. In this case the soldiers did the very best, right to the end. Not because they were fanatics, they did it out of loyality to their leadership.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68

I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry Ranger, but i have to agree with you again...shit..that is the second time today...

[Ranger68]

You have it exactly right, lange.
Although there *were* fanatical elements of the German military - the SS and Hitler Youth - most of them were merely excellent, loyal soldiers.
Throughout late 1944 and 1945, many of them were happy to give themselves up to the western allies when the situation demanded it. Only those fringe, fanatical Nazi elements fought to the bitter end in the west. In the east, all units fought practically to the death rather than be captured by the Soviets.
The German army of WWII was hard and professional, not fanatical.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
In the last open election in Germany the NSDAP got about 30% of the votes, hardly a majority support.
Adolf was forced to build a coalition with some other splinter groups to obtain the majority.
Once he had it, he passed a law, banning most or all of them.
The subsequent elections, were a farce.

Ranger is right. Why Adolf might have had a fairly broad support in the beginning, due to the fact that he provided work to most unemployed, and effectively steered Germany out of the depression. This support rapidly declined once he started the war, and was non-existent by in the end.

Germans ( I was born there) have the thing about duty, honour and total obedience to their goverment. In this case the soldiers did the very best, right to the end. Not because they were fanatics, they did it out of loyality to their leadership.

Don't get carried away now, old boar, it was not that some aliens from outer space came and took over Germany.

As Peter Ustinov has one of his carricatures state in his book "We were only human" : "Soap out of human fat? I can explain that. It is not generally known that there were an acute soap shortage in the Fatherland.".
Another one states: "As far as I know the ovens were only used for bakery"

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
Don't get carried away now, old boar, it was not that some aliens from outer space came and took over Germany.

As Peter Ustinov has one of his carricatures state in his book "We were only human" : "Soap out of human fat? I can explain that. It is not generally known that there were an acute soap shortage in the Fatherland.".
Another one states: "As far as I know the ovens were only used for bakery"

I am not suggesting that all of Germany was oblivious to what was going on.
At best I would put the number at 50-60%. there is a difference in suspecting something and actually knowing something. ADOLF had complete control over the media and the press.

I wasn't trying to defend what we did. My point was, that the Wehrmacht didn't fight hard because they were fanatics. They fought hard because it is the "German way". That also doesn't mean that you didn't have some fanatics within the wehrmacht, but certainly not the majority.

[Hadrien]

I love the deathsquad option: it makes US become the terrorist state, and train people who will in less than a generation become their worst ennemies.

The difference between Vietnam and Salvador is that neither country took revenge on US soil: they just wanted to be left alone. But with the Jihad and religious element thrown into the equation, the crusade is on. And demographics and democracy are against a force that is more poweful because it doesn't require equipement and doesn't care about any life (the adversary's or their own).

If you look at the history of terrorists against the US, most of them came from allied countries (saudi arabia, pakistan) which are protected against invasion.

The whole plan coming from people who dodged the Nam war is pretty scary.

h

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
Don't get carried away now, old boar, it was not that some aliens from outer space came and took over Germany.

As Peter Ustinov has one of his carricatures state in his book "We were only human" : "Soap out of human fat? I can explain that. It is not generally known that there were an acute soap shortage in the Fatherland.".
Another one states: "As far as I know the ovens were only used for bakery"

Although I think more Germans knew about the holocaust than is generally admitted (for obvious reasons), this is a long way from *fanatical support* for those in power.
I believe that most Germans who did know the whole ugly truth felt powerless to do anything about it. As, in all likelihood, they were. This is in no way an apologia for their behaviour, mind you.

The Nazis rode a powerful crest of nationalistic sentiment to power, then so firmly embedded themselves that little short of cataclysm could actually unseat them. There is no doubt that support for the Nazis, and many of their policies, was quite high at the outset. When it became apparent to what lengths those in power were willing to go to foster those notions of supremacy - the utter destruction of the country - I think support had generally totally eroded.

[danmand]

Originally posted by Hadrien
I love the deathsquad option: it makes US become the terrorist state, and train people who will in less than a generation become their worst ennemies.

The US is the only country that has been convicted of state terrorism.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by danmand
The US is the only country that has been convicted of state terrorism.

Really, can you send me a link on that?

OTB

[xarir]

A very interesting thread.

The BBC today reports that the search for WMD in Iraq is officially over now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So now that the official reason for invading Iraq has turned out to be false (surprise surprise), what now? It's been postulated in previous comments in this thread that if the US leaves, there will be a power vaccuum. While true, history has shown that these vaccumms can be successfuly filled. In Vietnam, Saigon fel in 1975 but today the country is vibrant and healthy. True, they are not a wealthy nation, but give them a few years and that will change.

Arafat died recently and nothing terrible has happened in that corner of the world. Even old Adolf died in 1945 and Germany went on to become a successful country despite being split in 2 post war.

When the US leaves, Iraq may suffer a power vaccumm for a while. But it will overcome in time, the damages done by the American occupation. The only real question is when will America leave Iraq? The US Military has no more troops to spare so short of extending tours of duty indefinitely, it follows that the troops must leave eventually.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by xarir
A very interesting thread.

The BBC today reports that the search for WMD in Iraq is officially over now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So now that the official reason for invading Iraq has turned out to be false (surprise surprise), what now? It's been postulated in previous comments in this thread that if the US leaves, there will be a power vaccuum. While true, history has shown that these vaccumms can be successfuly filled. In Vietnam, Saigon fel in 1975 but today the country is vibrant and healthy. True, they are not a wealthy nation, but give them a few years and that will change.

Arafat died recently and nothing terrible has happened in that corner of the world. Even old Adolf died in 1945 and Germany went on to become a successful country despite being split in 2 post war.

When the US leaves, Iraq may suffer a power vaccumm for a while. But it will overcome in time, the damages done by the American occupation. The only real question is when will America leave Iraq? The US Military has no more troops to spare so short of extending tours of duty indefinitely, it follows that the troops must leave eventually.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/

Here is your answer...happy now?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by xarir
A very interesting thread.

The BBC today reports that the search for WMD in Iraq is officially over now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So now that the official reason for invading Iraq has turned out to be false (surprise surprise), what now? It's been postulated in previous comments in this thread that if the US leaves, there will be a power vaccuum. While true, history has shown that these vaccumms can be successfuly filled. In Vietnam, Saigon fel in 1975 but today the country is vibrant and healthy. True, they are not a wealthy nation, but give them a few years and that will change.

Arafat died recently and nothing terrible has happened in that corner of the world. Even old Adolf died in 1945 and Germany went on to become a successful country despite being split in 2 post war.

When the US leaves, Iraq may suffer a power vaccumm for a while. But it will overcome in time, the damages done by the American occupation. The only real question is when will America leave Iraq? The US Military has no more troops to spare so short of extending tours of duty indefinitely, it follows that the troops must leave eventually.

Yes, the parallel with Viet Nam, in this regard, is a good one. The Vietnamese government which came out of the US withdrawal has done fine for itself. Did the US leave a vacuum? Yep. Did the Vietnamese people sort themselves out without US help? Yep.

[Ranger68]

I think it's clear, from Powell's statements today, that the US is *not* staying for four more years, or even two, but that they're preparing to leave practically as soon as the election is done.
Clear now?

[danmand]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Really, can you send me a link on that?


The International Court of Justice, The Hague, in 1986 found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" (international terrorism in lay terms) against Nicaragua.

[Ranger68]

http://hnn.us/articles/1465.html
This doc references the event. The "World Court" found the US guilty and asked them to pay reparations to Nicaragua.
The US ignored the verdict.

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Yes, the parallel with Viet Nam, in this regard, is a good one. The Vietnamese government which came out of the US withdrawal has done fine for itself. Did the US leave a vacuum? Yep. Did the Vietnamese people sort themselves out without US help? Yep.

did the vietnamese people sort themselves out? sure- the viet cong took over purged the govenment, took everyone's personal property, set up education camps- it was a paradise

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
did the vietnamese people sort themselves out? sure- the viet cong took over purged the govenment, took everyone's personal property, set up education camps- it was a paradise

Actually, I think everybody, including the uS government, agrees that it worked out quite well.

As usual, the ones who will have a hard time in Iraq are the collaboraters, who as usual will be abandoned by the occupiers without any scruples.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by red
did the vietnamese people sort themselves out? sure- the viet cong took over purged the govenment, took everyone's personal property, set up education camps- it was a paradise

I'm sure it *was* a paradise compared to when the fighting was occuring. That's the point.

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
Actually, I think everybody, including the uS government, agrees that it worked out quite well.

As usual, the ones who will have a hard time in Iraq are the collaboraters, who as usual will be abandoned by the occupiers without any scruples.

the US govt agrees? who cares- I don't think those who enjoyed the hospitality of the north agree that it went well.

as for iraq- the ones trying to rebuild their country are collaborators? nice. so you support civilian iraqis being killed by the "insurgents"?

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I'm sure it *was* a paradise compared to when the fighting was occuring. That's the point.


no - its not the point. people are killed during a war- and no it was not a paradise. whether you support the war in iraq or not or in viet nam or not - lets not pretend that the north vietnamese were a bunch of nice guys and that everyone in the south wanted to live in a communist wonderland

[islandboy]

No guys, the point is that there was an advanced organization in Vietman able to fill the vacuum. In Iraq all you have are disorganized gorrilla's/freedom fighters. There are to many groups who will want control if there is nothing viable in place. If you do not like the comparison to the Lebanese situation, then think of the Sudan. Another mess.
Ranger, as regards paradise, the war was no where near as hard on the general populace as the hard transition which followed but with no resisting civil groups the transition did work out. That is not the case here.

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
the US govt agrees? who cares- I don't think those who enjoyed the hospitality of the north agree that it went well.

as for iraq- the ones trying to rebuild their country are collaborators? nice. so you support civilian iraqis being killed by the "insurgents"?

Well, Senator McCain does, but he is of course a commie in your book.

As far as killing anybody, I am against it. You obviously are not.

I was merely pointing out that history will name the insurgents "freedom fighters" and the ones helping the occupiers "collaborators".

[Manji]

Actually, I think *you* need to brush up on your history. The Germans were NOT fanatical foes. The Nazis were. By the end of the war, few live Germans supported their government, and although there WAS fanatical fighting, it was either sparse (on the western front), or totally overwhelmed (on the eastern front). The German people were done fighting. Had the Allies invaded Japan, you would have seen truly FANATICAL fighting, and Allied casualties well over a million. - Ranger68

Holy Ranger68.
I hope you don't have a wife or girlfriend. You must argue with her on how she cooks your scrambled eggs!!

Alright alright, the Nazis were fanatics and the German people were done fighting. And the war didn't end with the death of Hitler. There were still groups of die-hards that fought the US after the war. Don't forget about the Werewolfs.



A populace with *large* segments violently opposed to a foreign invader often has good success fighting them off, over time. Reread *my* post. - Ranger 68



Please reread my post about the effects of time on this discussion. All of your examples are badly flawed, however - especially in light of the arguments made in my post - the Irish and Scottish achieved measures of independence (when the British became a more liberal democracy), the Tibetans quickly adopted pacifist tactics (against an authoritarian invader), and the French fought against the British on almost equal terms and were defeated in open battle, after which they were integrated into the rest of the country. - Ranger 68

Blah Blah Blah!!!
My point was the invaders can win on foreign turf. A sucess is a sucess. Whether you want to put a time limit on a victory and how long that time limit should be is another debate altogether.

[Mcluhan]

Posting this in 2 parts.. there is some relevent info here...to this discussion.




U.S. mulls strikes on Syria

By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent

New York, NY, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- Bush administration hard-liners have been considering launching selected military strikes at insurgent training camps in Syria and border-crossing points used by Islamist guerrillas to enter Iraq in an effort to bolster security for the upcoming elections, according to former and current administration officials.


Pressure for some form of military action is also coming from interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, these sources said.

Some former and serving U.S. intelligence officials who have usually been opposed to any expansion of U.S. military activities in the region are expressing support for such strikes.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official told United Press International, "I don't usually find myself in sympathy with the Bush neo-cons, but I think there is enough fire under this smoke to justify such action."

Referring to the escalating attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iraqi insurgents, he added, "Syria is complicit in the (anti-U.S.) insurgency up to its eyeballs."

"Syria is the No. 1 crossing point" for guerrillas entering Iraq," Gary Gambill, editor of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, said. He added that Damascus "does nothing about it."

An administration official said Syria has "camps in which Syrians are training Iraqis for the insurgency and others where Iraqis are training Syrians for the same purpose" which could be hit by U.S. air strikes.

Gal Luft, a former Israeli military official with ties to Israeli and U.S. intelligence, said, "I have heard of the same thing about the camps."

Recently, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that senior Baath Party officials from Iraq are operating from Syria where they provide financing and direction to the cells of Iraqi insurgents killing Americans, sparking new discussions within the administration about possible measures against Syria.

"There are all sorts of discussions going on, the White House, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs," said former CIA counterterrorism chief, Vince Cannistraro.

He felt the talk of strikes "is part of a general plan of intimidation."

The White House did not return phone calls.

U.S. officials told United Press International that money, direction, weapons and personnel are flowing into Iraq from Syria, ending up in Iraqi cities such as Iskanderiya, Baqouba, Latafiya and Fallujah.

Damascus is also home to associates of a top insurgency commander now affiliated with al-Qaida, Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who is responsible for many major suicide bombing attacks in Iraq, U.S. officials said.

The presence of a Zarqawi branch in Damascus, discovered last summer, was said to have acted as a major spur in uniting France and the United States in supporting U.N. Resolution 1559 that demanded Syria withdraw from Lebanon and that elections be held in April 2005, U.S. officials said.

Gambill charged that a major Zarqawi deputy lives in Damascus.

In addition to Syria being used as a rear area for insurgents, it is a key center of finance for former Saddam Hussein officials who are leading the insurgency, thanks to stashes of Iraqi cash that could run as high as $3 billion, which is all in the Syrian banking system, according for former and serving administration officials.

There are also allegedly "many millions of dollars" from Palestinian groups flowing into Syria that are also being used to help finance anti-American guerrilla groups in Iraq, these sources said.

The Bush administration has applied increasing pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt the activities of militant groups inside Syria, and to arrest and extradite former Saddam Hussein officials who are the leading financiers, according to several U.S. government sources.

So far there has been no positive response, they said.

What especially worries U.S. former and serving intelligence analysts is the seeming weakness of Assad to act against these groups. According to these sources, Assad is "well aware of the U.S. Army on its border to the east," and does not want to antagonize the United States, in the words of one.

[Mcluhan]

Part II U.S. mulls strikes on Syria




In fact, Bashar's inner circle of key advisers consists of reformist, "smart, streetwise young technocrats" who are urging Bashar to yield to U.S. pressure and begin to shut down some of the anti-U.S. activity, one U.S. official said.

But Bashar is also surrounded by "the old guard" -- rogue members of the ruling circle, "various people who are making millions and millions of dollars" by allowing former Baath officials to shelter in Syria, this source said.

"If something goes wrong, they can pack up and go and live in Geneva," he said.

Because of the rogue elements, after the technocrats (who are also pro-reform) give Bashar their views, they often find themselves visited the next day by hard-line members of Syria's Mukhabarat, or secret police, who tell them to keep their mouths shut, according to this official.

"Bashar is trapped," this U.S. government official said. "He's the prisoner of Zenda."

Luft agreed, saying, "The Mukhabarat and some of the old guard are known to be pressuring Bashar's senior confidents to ignore U.S. demands."

One former senior CIA official, usually an administration critic, said, "We should send a cruise missile into south-side Damascus and blow the Mukharbarat headquarters off the map. We should first make clear to them that they are the target."

But are the hawks likely to get their strikes?

Former CIA Syria expert, Martha Kessler doesn't think so. "I don't think the administration can afford to destabilize another country in the region," she said.

Kessler pointed out that Syria has tried, often in vain, to cooperate with the United States, only to be either snubbed or ignored.

According to Kesssler, Syria offered to station U.S. forces on its soil before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Syrians have also opened their intelligence books that identify assets in Europe, including front companies, to the administration in an attempt to help track down al-Qaida.

But Kessler said a chief reason for not moving against Damascus is that any strikes would "destabilize Lebanon," where the Lebanese Hezbollah movement awaits orders from Iran before launching retaliations against Israeli attacks.

"Damascus is not the heartbeat of this Iraqi insurgent movement," she said.

However, one administration official said, "We have got one hell of a problem."

[Manji]

The operation to take Fallujah was not designed to make friends. It was designed to take and pacify the city and elminate/capture insurgents.

The US military knew going in that Iraqis in Fallujah were going to hate them more than ever after the siege. The military can live with that as long as the citizens of Fallujah are incapable of assisting the insurgency.
The best the US can hope for after this operation is that by providing relief and reconstruction projects the people of Fallujah will be more preoccupied with living their lives then fighting the Americans.

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
Well, Senator McCain does, but he is of course a commie in your book.

As far as killing anybody, I am against it. You obviously are not.

I was merely pointing out that history will name the insurgents "freedom fighters" and the ones helping the occupiers "collaborators".

When did I call Mr. McCain a commie? - no where - you are putting words in my mouth to stay away from the point.

when did I say I was for killing anyone? - never- again -putting words in my mouth in an attempt to attack someone whose views you disagree with

your point re how history will name people- well maybe they will and maybe they won't- I don't know who will write the history of this conflict. in my mind the ones killing the iraqis trying to rebuild their country are fuckin assholes- whatever their motivation

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I'm sure it *was* a paradise compared to when the fighting was occuring. That's the point.

Too bad the Cambodians weren't quite so lucky once the US decided to cut and run.

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
when did I say I was for killing anyone? - never- again -putting words in my mouth in an attempt to attack someone whose views you disagree with

Are you not in support of the war on Iraq? In case you missed the news, in the order of 200,000 have lost their lives as a direct result of the war on Iraq.

[Manji]

I don't think you know what "most of the Iraqis" are thinking.
We'll see what happens to the violence, over time. If you are right, it will slacken off considerably.
The problem with all of these operations is that civilian casualties can't be avoided - this FOMENTS opposition to the US occupation, even among moderates. Over time, the only thing that is likely to happen is that the US creates more opposition to their stay, and to representation by entities who came to power while the US was there. - Ranger 68

And you know what the Iraqis are thinking?
The opposition against the United States is already there but most of these Iraqis rather use non-violent actions to decide the fate of Iraq and their people.
Some of you people are making it seem that these Iraqi are violent and hate-filled creatures who rather forget about taking care of their families and go out kill Americans?

Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do? Would you make the best of a bad situation and provide for your family?
Or would you go grab an AK and run out and fight the Americans with the high probability of getting your ass blown off?

Somehow, Ranger; I don't think you would even leave your house to shake your fist at the Americans much less shoot at them....

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
Are you not in support of the war on Iraq?

where did you read that?

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
where did you read that?

It is a question.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by red
no - its not the point. people are killed during a war- and no it was not a paradise. whether you support the war in iraq or not or in viet nam or not - lets not pretend that the north vietnamese were a bunch of nice guys and that everyone in the south wanted to live in a communist wonderland

That doesn't entitle the US to intervene when and where they choose to put the guys it likes in power.
THAT'S the point.
When they do so, they cause more problems than existed in the first place.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by islandboy
No guys, the point is that there was an advanced organization in Vietman able to fill the vacuum. In Iraq all you have are disorganized gorrilla's/freedom fighters. There are to many groups who will want control if there is nothing viable in place. If you do not like the comparison to the Lebanese situation, then think of the Sudan. Another mess.
Ranger, as regards paradise, the war was no where near as hard on the general populace as the hard transition which followed but with no resisting civil groups the transition did work out. That is not the case here.

"Disorganized gorillas"??
Yikes.
LOL

Seriously, I think the US would like to portray it that way - that the Iraqis couldn't organize / defend / protect themselves, but I think that's far from the truth.

You're kidding yourself that the Viet Nam war wasn't as hard on the population as the transition that followed. Kidding yourself. The same applies here.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Manji

Blah Blah Blah!!!
My point was the invaders can win on foreign turf. A sucess is a sucess. Whether you want to put a time limit on a victory and how long that time limit should be is another debate altogether.

Not in recent memory, they can't.
Nope. Nuh-huh. Hasn't happened.
Unless the US is going to turn into a dictatorship and totally ignore popular opinion, which is becoming FIRMLY against the occupation.

In any case, your prognostications are proving false - as Powell said, the US is commencing withdrawal effective immediately. They'll be gone in a year.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Manji
The operation to take Fallujah was not designed to make friends. It was designed to take and pacify the city and elminate/capture insurgents.

The US military knew going in that Iraqis in Fallujah were going to hate them more than ever after the siege. The military can live with that as long as the citizens of Fallujah are incapable of assisting the insurgency.
The best the US can hope for after this operation is that by providing relief and reconstruction projects the people of Fallujah will be more preoccupied with living their lives then fighting the Americans.

Not just the Iraqis in Fallujah, my friend. But, that's the point - they won tactically, but have created more insurgents - a strategic loss.

[Mcluhan]

.. The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. ...



http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Asterix
Too bad the Cambodians weren't quite so lucky once the US decided to cut and run.

Maybe the US should have just stayed out entirely, hmm?
Makes you think ......
Of course, the US was never *officially in* Cambodia. ;)

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Not just the Iraqis in Fallujah, my friend. But, that's the point - they won tactically, but have created more insurgents - a strategic loss.

Not strategic...political...unless that is what you mean...

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Manji

And you know what the Iraqis are thinking?
The opposition against the United States is already there but most of these Iraqis rather use non-violent actions to decide the fate of Iraq and their people.
Some of you people are making it seem that these Iraqi are violent and hate-filled creatures who rather forget about taking care of their families and go out kill Americans?

Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do? Would you make the best of a bad situation and provide for your family?
Or would you go grab an AK and run out and fight the Americans with the high probability of getting your ass blown off?

Somehow, Ranger; I don't think you would even leave your house to shake your fist at the Americans much less shoot at them....

Clearly, there are some who will choose non-violence. HOWEVER, there are some who will choose violence, especially given the poverty and sense of despair many of these people live with.

Nice argumentum ad hominem, though. ;)
Somehow, I don't think you're remotely capable of understanding the situation.

"The opposition against the United States is already there"?! With every Fallujah, every civilian killed, every mistaken bombing, the US creates MORE opposition - and yes, despite your best intentions, some of it will be violent. Some of it will come back to haunt the US, and all of us, in years to come.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

Yes, somehow though, things were better during the war, when the US was there.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, just like things were worse under Saddam before the US came.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
Not strategic...political...unless that is what you mean...

Both. The US is fighting a war in Iraq, despite its declaration that "major combat operations have ended". Just like the US was fighting a war in Viet Nam.
Tactically, the Americans won practically every significant battle during the Vietnamese war. Strategically, they continued to lose ground while that was happening.

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
When did I call Mr. McCain a commie? - no where - you are putting words in my mouth to stay away from the point.

when did I say I was for killing anyone? - never- again -putting words in my mouth in an attempt to attack someone whose views you disagree with



Come to think of it, were you not putting words in my mouth when you said:

"as for iraq- the ones trying to rebuild their country are collaborators? nice. so you support civilian iraqis being killed by the "insurgents"?"

[Mcluhan]

Ranger you nailed it. I thnk what manji *may* be missing, is what happens next, after a cluster bomb rips the legs of his little sister while she sleeps...

[Manji]

Ranger, you might be the one who does not understand the situation for the simple reason that you don't seem to understand people.
You got to get off your high horse and actually talk to people rather than talking down on them.

And just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I'm wrong.
Really, only time will tell who is right or wrong in this debate. This war can go either way.

And Mcluhan, with that kind of thinking that would mean more Iraqis would be against the insurgents than the Americans.
The insurgents have been killing more Iraqis than the Americans have with indisriminate bombings, attacks and executions.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Manji

And Mcluhan, with that kind of thinking that would mean more Iraqis would be against the insurgents than the Americans.
The insurgents have been killing more Iraqis than the Americans have with indisriminate bombings, attacks and executions.

Manji, I like your spunk! I'd like to play on your team...now, if we could get you pointed in the right direction! lol

The insurgents are killing civilians also, yes. But they do not account for the some 100,000 in friendly fire...nor the 1,000,000 under sanctions..

I will find some iraqi civilian blogs for you to read...standby pls... you can then absorb the true meaning of the words 'Iraqi Angst'

[Ranger68]

I think I understand people far better than you do - you who expect people whose lives are being ripped apart by a foreign invasion to all just peacefully go to the polls to register their opposition.

It is my stated, firm opinion that this war will go only one way. I'm sorry to tell you that. The US is already starting to withdraw, having stated that they don't partake in "nation building". Only "nation destroying", I suppose. When they leave, the pathetic excuse for a security organization they've left in place will prove totally inadequate to the task of protecting the government in power, which will fall within a month or two. It will be replaced, in time, by something organically chosen by the Iraqi people and those who *do* have the power - like in every other place on earth. The Iraqis will settle their own affairs. *AFTER* the US leaves. After the US leaves the place a shambles, I should say. The government which comes to power may very well be one which is very undesireable to the US administration. This is called "the law of unintended consequences". No matter how long the US stays, this will surely follow.

Fine - time will tell who is right and who is wrong. And someone *will be* wrong.

The problem with your final statement to mcluhan is that the invaders are foreigners. Its MUCH worse to have foreigners in your country killing your own citizens than for countrymen to kill countrymen. The insurgents at least might seem to be fighting for your country.

[Mcluhan]

manji...go here.. meet River!

Shes is my favourite iraqi blogger... if your read some of her posts..it will rip your heart out. I guarantee it!

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/


... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...

[danmand]

What some of you seem unable to grasp is the fact, that the war has been LOST. If you want any proof, consider the musings about creating death squads.

[Mcluhan]

Monday March 29th was a post by River that really did rip my heart out...it took me awhile in the achives to find it...but here it is..in two parts




Baghdad Burning
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Monday, March 29, 2004

Tales from Abu Ghraib...
At precisely 5 p.m., yesterday afternoon, my mother suddenly announced that we were going to go visit a friend of hers who had recently had a minor operation. The friend lived two streets away and in Iraqi culture, it is obligatory to visit a sick or healing friend or relative. I tried to get out of the social call with a variety of tired excuses. It was useless- my mother was adamant.

We left the house at around 5:40, with me holding a box of chocolate and arrived at the friend's house less than five minutes later. After the initial greetings and words of sympathy and relief, we all filed into the living room. The living room was almost dark; the electricity was out and the drapes were open to let in the fading rays of sun. "The electricity should be back at six…" my mother's friend said apologetically, "That's why we haven't lighted the kerosene lamps."

Just as we were settling down, a figure sitting at the other end of the living room rose in a hurry. "Where are you going?!" cried out my mother's friend, Umm Hassen. She then turned to us and made a hasty introduction, "This is M.- she's a friend of the family… she's here to see Abu Hassen…" I peered hard across the darkening room to get a better look at the slight figure, but I couldn't make out her features. I could barely hear her voice as she said, "I really have to be going… it's getting dark…" Umm Hassen shook her head and firmly declared, "No- you're staying. Abu Hassen will drive you home later."

The figure sat down and an awkward silence ensued as Umm Hassen left the living room to bring tea from the kitchen. My mother broke the silence with a question, "Do you live nearby?" She asked the figure. "Not really… I live outside of Baghdad… on the southern edges, but I'm staying with some relatives a few streets away." I listened to the voice carefully and could tell that the girl was young- no more than 20 or 25… probably less.

Just as Umm Hassen walked into the room with the tea tray, the lights in the house flickered back to life and we all murmured a prayer of thanks. As soon as my eyes adjusted to the glaring yellow lights, I turned to get a better look at Umm Hassen's guest. I had been right- she was young. She couldn't have been more than 20. She was wearing a black shawl, thrown carelessly over dark brown hair which was slipping out from under the head cover. She clutched at a black handbag and as the lights came back on, she shrank into herself at the far end of the room.

"Why are you sitting all the way over there?" Scolded Umm Hassen fondly, "Come over here and sit." She nodded towards a large armchair next to our couch. The girl rose and I noticed for the first time just how slight her figure was- the long skirt and shirt hung off of her thin body like they belonged to someone else. She settled stiffly in the big chair and managed to look even smaller and younger.

"How old are you,M. ?" My mother asked kindly. "Nineteen." Came the reply. "And are you studying? Which college are you in?" The girl blushed furiously as she explained that she was studying Arabic literature but postponed the year because… "Because she was detained by the Americans." Umm Hassen finished angrily, shaking her head. "She's here to see Abu Hassen because her mother and three brothers are still in prison."

Abu Hassen is lawyer who has taken on very few cases since the end of the war. He explained once that the current Iraqi legal system was like a jungle with no rules, a hundred lions, and thousands of hyenas. No one was sure which laws were applicable and which weren't; nothing could be done about corrupt judges and police and it was useless taking on criminal cases because if you won, the murderer/thief/looter's family would surely put you in your grave… or the criminal himself could do it personally after he was let out in a few weeks.

This case was an exception. M. was the daughter of a deceased friend and she had come to Abu Hassen because she didn't know anyone else who was willing to get involved.

[Mcluhan]

On a cold night in November, M., her mother, and four brothers had been sleeping when their door suddenly came crashing down during the early hours of the morning. The scene that followed was one of chaos and confusion… screaming, shouting, cursing, pushing and pulling followed. The family were all gathered into the living room and the four sons- one of them only 15- were dragged away with bags over their heads. The mother and daughter were questioned- who was the man in the picture hanging on the wall? He was M.'s father who had died 6 years ago of a stroke. You're lying, they were told- wasn't he a part of some secret underground resistance cell? M.'s mother was hysterical by then- he was her dead husband and why were they taking away her sons? What had they done? They were supporting the resistance, came the answer through the interpreter.

How were they supporting the resistance, their mother wanted to know? "You are contributing large sums of money to terrorists." The interpreter explained. The troops had received an anonymous tip that M.'s family were giving funds to support attacks on the troops.

It was useless trying to explain that the family didn't have any 'funds'- ever since two of her sons lost their jobs at a factory that had closed down after the war, the family had been living off of the little money they got from a 'kushuk' or little shop that sold cigarettes, biscuits and candy to people in the neighborhood. They barely made enough to cover the cost of food! Nothing mattered. The mother and daughter were also taken away, with bags over their heads.

Umm Hassen had been telling the story up until that moment, M. was only nodding her head in agreement and listening raptly, like it was someone else's story. She continued it from there… M. and her mother were taken to the airport for interrogation. M. remembers being in a room, with a bag over her head and bright lights above. She claimed she could see the shapes of figures through the little holes in the bag. She was made to sit on her knees, in the interrogation room while her mother was kicked and beaten to the ground.

M.'s hands trembled as she held the cup of tea Umm Hassen had given her. Her face was very pale as she said, "I heard my mother begging them to please let me go and not hurt me… she told them she'd do anything- say anything- if they just let me go." After a couple hours of general abuse, the mother and daughter were divided, each one thrown into a seperate room for questioning. M. was questioned about everything concerning their family life- who came to visit them, who they were related to and when and under what circumstances her father had died. Hours later, the mother and daughter were taken to the infamous Abu Ghraib prison- home to thousands of criminals and innocents alike.

In Abu Ghraib, they were seperated and M. suspected that her mother was taken to another prison outside of Baghdad. A couple of terrible months later- after witnessing several beatings and the rape of a male prisoner by one of the jailors- in mid-January, M. was suddenly set free and taken to her uncle's home where she found her youngest brother waiting for her. Her uncle, through some lawyers and contacts, had managed to extract M. and her 15-year-old brother from two different prisons. M. also learned that her mother was still in Abu Ghraib but they weren't sure about her three brothers.

M. and her uncle later learned that a certain neighbor had made the false accusation against her family. The neighbor's 20-year-old son was still bitter over a fight he had several years ago with one of M.'s brothers. All he had to do was contact a certain translator who worked for the troops and give M.'s address. It was that easy.

Abu Hassen was contacted by M. and her uncle because he was an old family friend and was willing to do the work free of charge. They have been trying to get her brothers and mother out ever since. I was enraged- why don't they contact the press? Why don't they contact the Red Cross?! What were they waiting for?! She shook her head sadly and said that they *had* contacted the Red Cross but they were just one case in thousands upon thousands- it would take forever to get to them. As for the press- was I crazy? How could she contact the press and risk the wrath of the American authorities while her mother and brothers were still imprisoned?! There were prisoners who had already gotten up to 15 years of prison for 'acting against the coallition'... she couldn't risk that. They would just have to be patient and do a lot of praying.

By the end of her tale, M. was crying silently and my mother and Umm Hassen were hastily wiping away tears. All I could do was repeat, "I'm so sorry... I'm really sorry..." and a lot of other useless words. She shook her head and waved away my words of sympathy, "It's ok- really- I'm one of the lucky ones... all they did was beat me."

[Ranger68]

"Gunner Palace".
See it.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Its MUCH worse to have foreigners in your country killing your own citizens than for countrymen to kill countrymen. The insurgents at least might seem to be fighting for your country.

Pol Pot. I generally agree with you on Iraq, it's just that you tend to make broad statements in black and white. Some of thw worst genocides in history have come from people killing their own countrymen. It took a foreign invasion from Viet Nam to finally put a stop to him. after he had killed hundreds of thousands if not millions.

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
That doesn't entitle the US to intervene when and where they choose to put the guys it likes in power.
THAT'S the point.
When they do so, they cause more problems than existed in the first place.

in your opinion

[Ranger68]

Pol Pot was a *dictator*, not an insurgent fighting against a foreign aggressor, and he was pursuing a campaign of effective genocide.
Plus, I'd bet that if the US had invaded *there* the Cambodians would have fought with more tenacity against the Americans than against Pol Pot.
In what way does this disprove what I'm saying? That people will much more readily take up arms against a foreign aggressor than against a native one?

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Ranger68
That doesn't entitle the US to intervene when and where they choose to put the guys it likes in power.
THAT'S the point.
When they do so, they cause more problems than existed in the first place.


Originally posted by red
in your opinion

And mine... as well I think Ranger speaks for 98.7% of the thinking, literate population of Canada on this one..not that it matters much to the scheme of things...add Sweden, denmark, Italy, france etc etc... lol..

[red]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Originally posted by Ranger68
That doesn't entitle the US to intervene when and where they choose to put the guys it likes in power.
THAT'S the point.
When they do so, they cause more problems than existed in the first place.



And mine... as well I think Ranger speaks for 98.7% of the thinking, literate population of Canada on this one..not that it matters much to the scheme of things...add Sweden, denmark, Italy, france etc etc... lol..

while most canadians did not support the invasion of iraq- its a stretch to say that 98.7% of canadians believe that the US causes more problems than existed in the first place. but even if they did- doesn't make it true

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
It is a question.

then the answer would be no

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
Come to think of it, were you not putting words in my mouth when you said:

"as for iraq- the ones trying to rebuild their country are collaborators? nice. so you support civilian iraqis being killed by the "insurgents"?"

yes- i guess I did misinterpret what you were saying. So then - do you think those working to rebuild their country are collaborators?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by red
while most canadians did not support the invasion of iraq- its a stretch to say that 98.7% of canadians believe that the US causes more problems than existed in the first place. but even if they did- doesn't make it true

An Iraqi is 2.5 times more likely to die now than before the war started, most likely by violence.
You got anything to back up *your* opinion?

[Mcluhan]

If the civilian population is not part of the equation of war, then war is out of hand. War has been out of hand for quite some time now. Everything went on the table in WWII, including civilian casulties as an acceptable consequence, if not outright strategy. It was a departure of human consciousness, away from what civilization might have otherwise been, had they not gone down that road. The Japanese killing civilians in China probably started the ball rolling. The Americans put the the big cherry on the cake by nuking cities. It doesn't make it right. In my book, its wrong.

[Mcluhan]

Let's put this poll another way, 50% of Americans now agree with Canada's position on the War in Iraq.




New Gallup Poll Finds 50% of Public Saying Invasion of Iraq a Mistake

By E&P Staff

Published: January 12, 2005 10:20 AM ET

NEW YORK A new Gallup poll released this morning finds Americans tilting against the war in Iraq, with 50% now saying it was a mistake to send U.S. troops into Iraq, while 48% say it was not. These results show a slight increase since mid-November in the percentage saying it was a mistake.

Last year at this time, 59% said it was worth going to war in Iraq.

The poll, conducted Jan. 7-9, finds 56% of Americans disapproving the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, up from 51% in November. Just 42% approve.

When Americans were asked how well things are going for the war in Iraq, 40% say they are going well, and 59% say they are going badly. This is a decline of 6% in optimism since September.

There is a clear partisan divide, with 82% of Republicans saying it was not a mistake to send troops to Iraq, while 79% of Democrats say it was a mistake.

In another finding, 71% say it is unlikely peace and internal security will be established in Iraq in the coming year.

In an intersting sidelight, the Gallup organization provided results from past polls showing how the public viewed the Vietnam War while it was still underway, contrasting this with the current view that 50% of Americans feel it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

This chart showed that the share of Americans who believed it was mistake to send troops to Vietnam did not reach 50% until August 1968, three years into the heavy U.S. troop involvement in Vietnam, meaning the criticism of the Iraq decision is a year ahead of that schedule.

In November 1966 the negative view in Vietnam was only endorsed by 31%, and in July 1967 it reached 41%. After reaching 53% in August 1968, it hit 60% in January 1971.

Polls in 1995 and 2000 found about 70% holding this negative view.

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
An Iraqi is 2.5 times more likely to die now than before the war started, most likely by violence.
You got anything to back up *your* opinion?

Well - I am not sure how accurate any statistics under saddam's ministry of information are, so I can't comment on whether your quoted statistic is true or not. but

is this the americans fault? do you blame the violence on the americans rather than on the "insurgents"?

[red]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
If the civilian population is not part of the equation of war, then war is out of hand. War has been out of hand for quite some time now. Everything went on the table in WWII, including civilian casulties as an acceptable consequence, if not outright strategy. It was a departure of human consciousness, away from what civilization might have otherwise been, had they not gone down that road. The Japanese killing civilians in China probably started the ball rolling. The Americans put the the big cherry on the cake by nuking cities. It doesn't make it right. In my book, its wrong.

civilian populations have been put to the sword many times before wwii

I don't think anyone is walking around saying this is great.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Let's put this poll another way, 50% of Americans now agree with Canada's position on the War in Iraq.

Is that the same Gallup that did the exit polling on election evenning?

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
yes- i guess I did misinterpret what you were saying. So then - do you think those working to rebuild their country are collaborators?

I think that the Iraqis working for the american occupation forces are trying to support their families in a desperate situation. I also think that they will be abandoned when the US leaves, and that they then will be considered collaborators and delt with rather harshly. Personally, I would not judge them.

PS: And I am sorry I misinterpreted your position on the war.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by red
Well - I am not sure how accurate any statistics under saddam's ministry of information are, so I can't comment on whether your quoted statistic is true or not. but

is this the americans fault? do you blame the violence on the americans rather than on the "insurgents"?

These people weren't being killed until the Americans invaded. So, yes - it's the Americans' fault. It is the Americans' fault that many insurgents feel the need to fight.

Do you really think that a similar number of people was being killed on a daily basis in Iraq before the invasion? If you do, there's probably no hope for you.

Again, do you have anything to back up *your* opinion? ...... No? ...... Not surprising.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by red
civilian populations have been put to the sword many times before wwii

I don't think anyone is walking around saying this is great.

Civilian populations have generally *not* been "put to the sword", except during "barbarian" invasion.

The Second World War reached new lows of genocide and *massive* civilian massacre. NEVER in warfare have such a high percentage of the casualties been civilian. Never.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by danmand
I think that the Iraqis working for the american occupation forces are trying to support their families in a desperate situation. I also think that they will be abandoned when the US leaves, and that they then will be considered collaborators and delt with rather harshly. Personally, I would not judge them.


" ...Three weeks ago, a friend of mine who is a sheikh from Baquba visited me in Baghdad and we had lunch with Abdulla, an older professor who is a friend of his. As we were eating, Abdulla expressed a sentiment now widely heard. "The mujahideen," he said, "are fighting for their country against the Americans. This resistance is acceptable to us."

Dahr Jamail, reporter.

]

[danmand]

Originally posted by bbking
The Iraqis fighting the Americans and the current Iraq government are very much the minority - mind you a very loud minority but a minority never the less.

Your so called collaborators are the majority and as such - no matter what happens will never face harm.


As usual, you have no clue. The insurgents in occupied Europe during WW2 were a very small minority, much smaller than the number of people who collaborated with the Germans. After the war ended, the collaborators were delt with very harshly, indeed.

[Manji]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Manji, I like your spunk! I'd like to play on your team...now, if we could get you pointed in the right direction! lol



Thanks Mcluhan...
No hard feelings I hope....

Maybe its my youth (though I don't really know how old you guys are...) but I am a little feisty....
Or as you said, I do got a lot Spunk which is why I'm on this board...

(Sorry, been drinking tonite and I should not be on the P&IA section at all .... especially with Ranger jumpin on my ass for every little mistake....)

Will continue this heated debate tomorrow when I'm a little more coherent....


Take it easy...

[antaeus]

Originally posted by Ranger68
...Its MUCH worse to have foreigners in your country killing your own citizens than for countrymen to kill countrymen. ... Not to anyone who has had a loved one killed; death is death regardless of who serves it to those that are left to live forever with that burden.

[Ranger68]

All rhetoric aside .......
:rolleyes:

I disagree. I think history clearly proves you wrong. People are MUCH more easily stirred *to violence* when the people doing the killings are foreign invaders than when they are your own people.

Even Soviet citizens who'd had many loved ones killed during Stalin's purges fought FANATICALLY (there's that word again) against the German invaders. The SS death squads weren't doing anything all that different from Stalin's death squads.

[Cobra1]

Originally posted by Ranger68
These people weren't being killed until the Americans invaded. So, yes - it's the Americans' fault. It is the Americans' fault that many insurgents feel the need to fight.

Do you really think that a similar number of people was being killed on a daily basis in Iraq before the invasion? If you do, there's probably no hope for you.

Again, do you have anything to back up *your* opinion? ...... No? ...... Not surprising.

and further to this point, the US rolled a secular state, which allowed women the right to education, right to careers and religous freedom probably into a Shiite controlled theocracy that will emerge after some brutal civil war in 6 years. Sometimes you have to be arbitrary in these high minded objectives, and keeping the Baath party in power, possibly without Saddam would have been the way to go. Women are increasingly being forced to accept Sharia law, wear hajib or chadour and are at person risk on the streets, which didnt exist before. So no, the quality of life in Iraq has not been enhanced by any measure.

The US had a perfect overthrow under Clinton, and failed the Iraqis division that would have taken out Saddam the opportunity - which is how it should have been done, - not at the cost to the world economy, or US lives.

[onthebottom]

The only reason that anyone is getting killed in Iraq right now is that a Sunni minority is using terror of it's own citizens to affect a political process. There are only 4 regions where violence is high, all Sunni.

Guess what, if no one shoots at US troops.......

Under Saddam - Sunni minority exploiting, killing, gassing, rapping the Iraq public.

Current Situation - Sunni minority killing, terrorizing, US troops and Iraq citizens.

I see a common thread.

OTB

[onthebottom]

gee and you dont think that shooting has anything to do witha foreign power invading and occupying? a foreign power dismantling a governemnt and an army, destroying a country's infrastructure, killing 100,000 civilians in the process....

nah, its just sour grapes by a few terrorist's who dont appreciate a good thing.

No, it's a minority desperately trying to stay in power.

OTB

[danmand]

Originally posted by onthebottom
No, it's a minority desperately trying to stay in power.


Are you saying that the Sadr and Faluja fighters are Bathist trying to stay in power???? Jeeesh

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by danmand
Are you saying that the Sadr and Faluja fighters are Bathist trying to stay in power???? Jeeesh

Are you saying that Sadr isn't making a power play.... jeeesh.

OTB

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom
The only reason that anyone is getting killed in Iraq right now is that a Sunni minority is using terror of it's own citizens to affect a political process. There are only 4 regions where violence is high, all Sunni.

Guess what, if no one shoots at US troops.......
OTB

OTB, you never answered the previous question I put to you..so what is your position? I think your answer is important as you seem to be a statesman on behalf of this war effort.


Originally posted by Mcluhan
OTB, do you think using cluster bombs on civilian populations is a good thing? Or a bad thing. Or are you somewhere in between..

Usually when a country is invaded, people do shoot back, not throw buckets of roses...but then I haven't read all of history.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
OTB, you never answered the previous question I put to you..so what is your position? I think your answer is important as you seem to be a statesman on behalf of this war effort.



Usually when a country is invaded, people do shoot back, not throw buckets of roses...but then I haven't read all of history.

When was the last time a cluster bomb was dropped? I'm not going to even bother argue the "on civilians" part.

The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power.

I completely understand being anti-war, I think there are very valid reasons to think (regardless of WMD) the US should not have done what we've done. You can hold the US accountable as you see fit.

OTB

[Ranger68]

gee and you dont think that shooting has anything to do witha foreign power invading and occupying? a foreign power dismantling a governemnt and an army, destroying a country's infrastructure, killing 100,000 civilians in the process....

nah, its just sour grapes by a few terrorist's who dont appreciate a good thing.

Yeah, I guess no Americans would have been killed if they hadn't revolted against the British.
:)

[danmand]

Originally posted by onthebottom
The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power.


Because everybody on this planet should recognize that the US knowns (guided by the God of the white people) what is best for them, and has the moral obligation to invade and occupy any territory it sees fit.

The US military is incapable of violence?

[Ranger68]

i'm skeptical..... for the longest time the u.s. was claiming that the "terrorists" were foreign agitators. this was proved dead wrong.

now theyre saying it's all former baathist's. i'm sure thats part of it, but the reports i've seen in non-mainstream media suggest that there are a lot of ordinary iraqis who are pissed off and setting up roadside bombs etc.....

just read the diaries and blogs of some iraqis and you can see the hatred the u.s. has stirred up.... but again, no one seems to care what actual iraqis have to say (witness the complete dismissal of the "River" blog earlier in this thread.....)

their country got invaded..... they are resisting.

There are purely resistance fighters, I am sure - those who are opposed to being invaded by a foreign nation.
There are terrorists who really don't care who they kill as long as it makes the Americans look bad or retaliate.
There are Baathists who are trying to cling to power.

I'm certain that *all* of these groups are fighting.

To paint them all as one or the other is false.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom

I completely understand being anti-war, I think there are very valid reasons to think (regardless of WMD) the US should not have done what we've done. You can hold the US accountable as you see fit.

OTB

Thank you for that. Now, pursuing this just a little, because I am sensative (politely so) to how you, as an American are above being advised by others, on your own foreign policy, may I ask... what are those valid reasons...in your mind.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by danmand
Because everybody on this planet should recognize that the US knowns (guided by the God of the white people) what is best for them, and has the moral obligation to invade and occupy any territory it sees fit.

The US military is incapable of violence?

Yes, I think it's important to remember that the US BEGAN the violence.
Now, they're decrying it, ostensibly because they can't finish what they started.
:rolleyes:

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Thank you for that. Now, pursuing this just a little, because I am sensative (politely so) to how you, as an American are above being advised by others, on your own foreign policy, may I ask... what are those valid reasons...in your mind.

This should be fun.

[Mcluhan]

i'm skeptical..... for the longest time the u.s. was claiming that the "terrorists" were foreign agitators. this was proved dead wrong.

now theyre saying it's all former baathist's. i'm sure thats part of it, but the reports i've seen in non-mainstream media suggest that there are a lot of ordinary iraqis who are pissed off and setting up roadside bombs etc.....

just read the diaries and blogs of some iraqis and you can see the hatred the u.s. has stirred up.... but again, no one seems to care what actual iraqis have to say (witness the complete dismissal of the "River" blog earlier in this thread.....)

their country got invaded..... they are resisting.

Thanks for mentioning River's blog. It an incredible window into the world we are trying to understand, from our remote positions. Here's on excerpt I find revealing..

OTB, you might ask 'Who is funding' ..the organisations River refers to in this passage on the possibility of civil war...

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_riverbendblog_archive.html



Sunnis and Shi'a have always lived in harmony in Iraq and we still do, so far. I'm from a family that is about half Shi'a and half Sunni. We have never had problems as the majority of civilized people don't discriminate between the two. The thing that seems to be triggering a lot of antagonism on all sides is the counterinsurgency militia being cultivated by the CPA and GC which will include Chalabi's thugs, SCIRI extremists and some Kurdish Bayshmarga.

The popular and incorrect belief seems to be that if you are a Kurd or Shi'a, this step is a positive one. Actually, the majority of moderate Kurds and Shi'a are just as exasperated as Sunnis about this new group of soldiers/spies that is going to be let loose on the population. It's just going to mean more hostility and suspicion in all directions, and if the new Iraqi force intends to be as indiscriminate with the detentions and raids as the troops, there's going to be a lot of bloodshed too.

I once said that I hoped, and believed, Iraqis were above the horrors of civil war and the slaughter of innocents, and I'm clinging to that belief with the sheer strength of desperation these days. I remember hearing the stories about Lebanon from people who were actually living there during the fighting and a constant question arose when they talked about the grief and horrors- what led up to it? What were the signs? How did it happen? And most importantly… did anyone see it coming?

[langeweile]

Good site the riverblog.
very interesting links from this page Al Jazeerah in english and the IAC????

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Thank you for that. Now, pursuing this just a little, because I am sensative (politely so) to how you, as an American are above being advised by others, on your own foreign policy, may I ask... what are those valid reasons...in your mind.

I don't think you are the least bit sensitive but I'll answer a direct question (a rare event on TERB).

I think many people don't view any war as valid, that unless directly attacked a country should never go to war. People felt this way in 1915, 1935, 1965, 1990 and now. I can understand this.

I think a majority of Americans are uncomfortable with our foreign affairs beyond aid and trade. PJ O'Rourke had a great line, why do we need a foreign policy, sure we deal with foreigners but we deal with dogs and we don't have a dog policy. Americans are isolationist by nature, I've been saying for 2 years that the backlash to Afghanistan and Iraq will be a much more isolationist US.

Many are suspect of our military (in and out of the US), to use that power is to invite disaster. They worry about Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" and see Halliburton conspiracies everywhere.

I think some didn't see Iraq as any threat to the US directly, or US interests. The strength of this argument I think is, why now. Why not wait.

That answer your question.

OTB

[langeweile]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I don't think you are the least bit sensitive but I'll answer a direct question (a rare event on TERB).

I think many people don't view any war as valid, that unless directly attacked a country should never go to war. People felt this way in 1915, 1935, 1965, 1990 and now. I can understand this.

I think a majority of Americans are uncomfortable with our foreign affairs beyond aid and trade. PJ O'Rourke had a great line, why do we need a foreign policy, sure we deal with foreigners but we deal with dogs and we don't have a dog policy. Americans are isolationist by nature, I've been saying for 2 years that the backlash to Afghanistan and Iraq will be a much more isolationist US.

Many are suspect of our military (in and out of the US), to use that power is to invite disaster. They worry about Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" and see Halliburton conspiracies everywhere.

I think some didn't see Iraq as any threat to the US directly, or US interests. The strength of this argument I think is, why now. Why not wait.

That answer your question.

OTB

Your assesment on isolationism is correct. Even I have a hard time resisitng it. With all the whining that goes on about what we do and what we don't do, it makes it hard to stay positive.

I would love for us to step back and let some of the armchair quarterbacks run the show namely France, Germany, Russia, China and Canada.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
Your assesment on isolationism is correct. Even I have a hard time resisitng it. With all the whining that goes on about what we do and what we don't do, it makes it hard to stay positive.

I would love for us to step back and let some of the armchair quarterbacks run the show namely France, Germany, Russia, China and Canada.

Why stop there? Let the poor people everywhere determine their own affairs!

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
Why stop there? Let the poor people everywhere determine their own affairs!

Agreed

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by langeweile
Your assesment on isolationism is correct. Even I have a hard time resisitng it. With all the whining that goes on about what we do and what we don't do, it makes it hard to stay positive.

I would love for us to step back and let some of the armchair quarterbacks run the show namely France, Germany, Russia, China and Canada.

I posted a thread about 6-9 months ago asking if the US should just pull it's military back to the US and roll up the bridges. It degenerated into a US bashing thread (inevitable I guess) but I think it's an option that is being explored. Rummy announced quite a while back that we were going to move 70k troops home, from Germany (why we have a single guy there is beyond me - lazy farking euros), South Korea and Japan. I think this is a phase one.

If Iraq ends badly for the US (a HISTORICAL CERTAINTY says Ranger) it will have a Vietnam effect on the US. We will move in a huge way back to isolationism. Genocide in Africa - send a couple of guys, peace with Israel - send money. We could easily descend into a Japan like foreign policy - send money to people we want to sell stuff to.

The funny thing is, even when candidates run on anti-American platforms (current President of South Korea let's say), when they get in power we're all of a sudden a good friend.

I can only imagine the tax cut I could get if we'd let the EU protect the world for a while and stay home;-) Anyone want to buy a dozen aircraft carriers?

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by danmand
Why stop there? Let the poor people everywhere determine their own affairs!

Like in Sudan, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, the West Bank and Gaza......

I like it actually.

OTB

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
...Kuwait...

OTB

People in Kuwait are poor? And you mean all this time the people in the West Bank and Gaza have enjoyed total self-determination? Wow.

As I've said many, many, many times in this forum, the question is not whether the US should become more or less isolationist, it's that they should exercise better judgement in doing so. Being an expansionist for transparently self-interested motives is no better than being an isolationist for the same reasons.

[danmand]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Like in Sudan, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, the West Bank and Gaza......

I like it actually.



With the possible exception of Yogoslavia, none of your examples are better off because of western intervention.

Let us agree on the objective of letting people everywhere, rich and poor, determine their own affairs.

[Ranger68]

Notice that OTB *doesn't* answer the question, even remotely. He just makes vague references to past wars and opinion.
LOL
Wow.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
People in Kuwait are poor? And you mean all this time the people in the West Bank and Gaza have enjoyed total self-determination? Wow.

I was thinking poor from an "oppressed by US foreign policy" perspective not economic.


Originally posted by Drunken Master

As I've said many, many, many times in this forum, the question is not whether the US should become more or less isolationist, it's that they should exercise better judgment in doing so. Being an expansionist for transparently self-interested motives is no better than being an isolationist for the same reasons.

I guess some would say we're guilty of one and Canada another.

OTB

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom


I guess some would say we're guilty of one and Canada another.

OTB


True enough, but I think everybody agrees that if we tried to be expansionist it would be fairly hilarious.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Notice that OTB *doesn't* answer the question, even remotely. He just makes vague references to past wars and opinion.
LOL
Wow.

Put me back on ignore.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

Should we all put you on ignore or just Ranger?

[langeweile]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Put me back on ignore.

OTB

Please add me to the list as well....

[Ranger68]

I've got you on Ignore, OTB.
:)
I can't help it if people quote the idiots in here.
LOL

Don't tell me what to do Lange.
I thought YOU'D put ME on Ignore.
Guess you were lying.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
Should we all put you on ignore or just Ranger?

Well I was quoting Ranger and the term "back" would seem to indicate I was previously on ignore. Fine line between smartass and dumbass.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

Yup. and great minds think alike. So do no minds.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I don't think you are the least bit sensitive but I'll answer a direct question (a rare event on TERB).

I think many people don't view any war as valid, that unless directly attacked a country should never go to war. People felt this way in 1915, 1935, 1965, 1990 and now. I can understand this.

I think a majority of Americans are uncomfortable with our foreign affairs beyond aid and trade. PJ O'Rourke had a great line, why do we need a foreign policy, sure we deal with foreigners but we deal with dogs and we don't have a dog policy. Americans are isolationist by nature, I've been saying for 2 years that the backlash to Afghanistan and Iraq will be a much more isolationist US.

Many are suspect of our military (in and out of the US), to use that power is to invite disaster. They worry about Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" and see Halliburton conspiracies everywhere.

I think some didn't see Iraq as any threat to the US directly, or US interests. The strength of this argument I think is, why now. Why not wait.

That answer your question.

OTB

Well, no. It doesn’t tell me what you think. You take no clear position. But you have defined generally that some people do not recommend war, regardless, others say the US should have waited, and still others that compare dealing with foreigners as similar to dog control, whatever that means. The answer is eye-wash. It doesn’t get to the core issues. To use your word, the answer is a deflection, avoiding the responsibility of ownership. Remember Powell, you guys just ‘bought it’ (when you broke it.)

It does not speak to the current issue of America invading another country, why they invaded, nor what they should do now, that the invasion is, to put it mildly, a mess. If you feel honestly that the US should not have invaded Iraq, as you seem to imply, I for one would like to hear why, from the heart. It would speak to your character as man, and to me that’s significant for me personally, to understand your point of view (truthfully) in as much as it represents some portion of the 59,000,000 Americans that are behind this debacle.

The fact that you would elect a President in the first place that has never been anywhere outside the US, makes perfect sense in terms of a lack of concern for US isolationism. The fact that this President, the one who has never been anywhere, as soon as he has the reins, immediately invades another country and then destroys it, is one thing, but for those same people to continue their support, without questioning properly the issues, is another. I think we are all questioning the issues, and therefore yes I am sensitive to your answers. Especially because you are a microcosm spokesman for the prime movers of this whole affair.

The answer was more a doctor treating the symptoms of the illness, not proposing a cure.

[Ranger68]

It's a total deflection Mcluhan.
Because they HAVE no answer.
There WERE no WMDs. Iraq WAS no threat. It's NOT about freeing the Iraqi people.
50% of Americans now think that the invasion was a mistake. This number is sure to rise.
Come on, guys - get ahead of the wave.

[Ranger68]

BTW, I think America entering the war in 1915 WAS a mistake. WWI was sheer idiocy - imperial ambition and paranoia run amok - and led *directly* to WWII. 1965 was a mistake to, I think most would agree. No?

In 1990 they had the full support of the UN - read, the rest of the world. Few nations were opposed to the coalition mission to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait. And that's where Bush Sr., rightly, stopped. You see, he *cared* about what the rest of the world thought - about the primacy of international law.

In 1935, nobody was at war, and nobody - but NOBODY - was proposing another war to stay Hitler's hand at that point. The policy of appeasement, which came to the fore a few years later, turned out to be (probably) a mistake, in the end - but Hussein was no Hitler. ;) Iraq was more a case of *tolerance* over outright war. Hussein was in no position to demand appeasement - it was the other way around.

[langeweile]

No Ranger and Mcluhan, we just don't have the answer that you want to hear.
The both of you are a prime example of why Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world.

Both of you consistently speak down to us and you constantly ask questions, which you expect a certain answer. if you don't get what you expect you ignore us or put us off as idiots.

Your whole attitude towards Americans is that we are just a bunch of stupid, uneducated rednecks that don't know shit about the rest of the world. You acuse us being loud and obnoxius and constantly critize every move we make.

Guess what? Some of the adjectives that you put on Americans, fit very well on to Canadians, Europeans, Russians to every other country of the world.
I have lived in four different countries for an extended period of time and by far the USA is the best place to live.

Assholes and Rednecks are alive and well in evry part of the world. In very single post of yours there is at least one deragatory comment on the USA. How do you think you going to engage us in a serious discussion? If all you want play is " Gotcha". Just the arrogancei n that kind of behaviour makes you look stupid.
Americans are as diverse as any other country i have lived in. Your narrow minded view of Americans shows your lack of education and tolerance.

Do you really think that we don't see through your childish games. The "Gotcha" game is very popular all over the world. Unless you are interested in a true exchange of ideas, you will never get to the heart of the matter.
IMHO

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by langeweile
No Ranger and Mcluhan, we just don't have the answer that you want to hear.
The both of you are a prime example of why Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world. IMHO

Actually I don't lump any on my American friends into this basket...but its your perspective.

I take it you see yourself as a redneck then? I do have a couple of reneck buddies, ex-pats living abroad. You could be right about them, let me think on it..

[Ranger68]

We're still waiting for an answer.
Any answer.
What "good reasons" (in your opinion) did the US have for invading?

blah blah blah "Nobody likes us." waa waa waa "You guys are a bunch of children." blah blah blah "You think we're all stupid. You just hate us so much." blabbedy blah blah blah

Spare me your rhetoric. If that's all you've got, just admit you have no answer and put us back on Ignore.
Please.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68


blah blah blah "Nobody likes us." waa waa waa "You guys are a bunch of children." blah blah blah "You think we're all stupid. You just hate us so much." blabbedy blah blah blah


thank you for proving my point. You are just looking for a target for your general hatred for Americans. I for one will not play the target anymore. So FUCK OFF


BTW
If you are really interested in the answer. Do a search. We have discussed this issue at great length before.
While you were sleeping or playing with yourself.

[danmand]

Ranger, they do not ignore you, they only ignore your arguments and reasoning.

[Mcluhan]

BTW...Ranger, do you think that *your* attitude to Americans, and *my* attitude, individually of course, is emblematic of why langeweile and others like him, don't give a shit about the rest of the world.

Could we be the problem here??

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
BTW...Ranger, do you think that *your* attitude to Americans, and *my* attitude, individually of course, is emblematic of why langeweile and others like him, don't give a shit about the rest of the world.

Could we be the problem here??

I feel bad for you man. You are wrong again. Here is a little history for you.

I was born and raised in Germany, as parents of Hungarian immigrants. They had to leave Hungary because of the Russians! I have lived there until i was almost 28.
I have lived two years in Holland, 6 month in Africa, 15 years in the USA and three years in Canada.

I am an American by choice and damn proud of it.

Your prejudice and assumptions on people is your problem. Go out leave your home and see the world...and not just on vacation.

You will find out that there is a vast difference in what you read and reality....bye for now

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
I feel bad for you man. You are wrong again. Here is a little history for you.

I was born and raised in Germany, as parents of Hungarian immigrants. They had to leave Hungary because of the Russians! I have lived there until i was almost 28.
I have lived two years in Holland, 6 month in Africa, 15 years in the USA and three years in Canada.

I am an American by choice and damn proud of it.

Your prejudice and assumptions on people is your problem. Go out leave your home and see the world...and not just on vacation.

You will find out that there is a vast difference in what you read and reality....bye for now

I find it intriguing that I have almost the same life path as you, Germany, USA, Africa and Canada. But I am not-American by choice, even as my company for 15 years wanted me to become one.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by langeweile
I feel bad for you man. You are wrong again. Here is a little history for you.

I was born and raised in Germany, as parents of Hungarian immigrants. They had to leave Hungary because of the Russians! I have lived there until i was almost 28.
I have lived two years in Holland, 6 month in Africa, 15 years in the USA and three years in Canada.

I am an American by choice and damn proud of it.

Your prejudice and assumptions on people is your problem. Go out leave your home and see the world...and not just on vacation.

You will find out that there is a vast difference in what you read and reality....bye for now

lol..langeweile I have over 120 international stamps in my passport (does not included US entries), and have lived in several countries..I am probably a bad target for this rhetoric of yours.

You might wany to take this conversation a little less personally.. it's not meant to cause another war.. lol

[Mcluhan]

Interesting article...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=7&u=/ap/20050112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_trouble_with_bin_laden



Iraqi Insurgents Worried About Bin Laden

Wed Jan 12, 3:30 AM ET Middle East - AP

By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt - Osama bin Laden has vowed to turn Iraq into the front line of his war against the United States, but Iraqi insurgents seem worried that he's out to hijack their rebellion.

At times, the Iraqis and foreign Muslim militants seem to be competing. Media reports and Web statements have speculated that a Saudi carried out the Dec. 21 suicide bombing of a U.S. mess tent in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul that killed 22 people. But Ansar al-Sunnah, the homegrown group that took responsibility for that deadliest of attacks on a U.S. target in Iraq, named the bomber as Abu Omar of Mosul, a nom de guerre that pointedly claims him as an Iraqi.

Earlier this month, a posting on Ansar al-Sunnah's Web site told foreign militants to stop coming. The group, which defines itself as both nationalist and Islamic, said it needed money, not more recruits.

"We have concrete information that a sharp division is now broiling between" Iraqis waging a nationalist war and foreign Arabs spurred by militant Islam, said Mouwafak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government's national security adviser. "They are more divided than ever."

Al-Rubaie said one reason was the perception among Iraqis that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant whom bin Laden endorsed as his deputy in Iraq, was of little help during the American onslaught on the Iraqi insurgent hotbed of Fallujah in November.

"Al-Zarqawi and his group fled Fallujah and let the Iraqis face the attack alone," al-Rubaie said in a telephone interview.

Some Iraqis may have drawn parallels between the debacle in Fallujah and what happened to Afghanistan (news - web sites) after it became bin Laden's headquarters.


Since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime was overthrown by the American-led war in April 2003, insurgents including foreign fighters have waged a guerrilla war aimed at forcing out U.S. troops. The Iraqi interim government says it has detained more than 300 foreign fighters, among them men from almost every Arab country.

Some streamed into Iraq shortly before the war, invited by a desperate Saddam. Muslim militants are believed to be behind some of the deadliest attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces.

In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire.

In the same message, though, he may have angered insurgents loyal to Saddam by calling the toppled president "a butcher" and "a tyrant." And naming a Jordanian as his deputy in Iraq would not have sat well even among Iraqis who share bin Laden's militant vision of Islam.

Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic. But Iraqi groups including Sunni clergy that had earlier called for boycotting the Jan. 30 vote now say they want to participate if a timetable is set for U.S. withdrawal.

"Bin Laden's problem is that he is far away from reality, he is a daydreamer. He is even blind," said Shadi Abdel Aziz, a Cairo University professor and author of "Continuity and Change in bin Laden's Thought."

Abdel Aziz said bin Laden's key mistake is to ignore that "people always put their national and personal interests first."

"In this part of the world people have several identities, Islam is only one of them and it does not necessarily come first," he said.

Bin Laden's problem in Iraq seems similar to what he faced in Afghanistan after the defeat of Soviet troops. While bin Laden wanted to follow up with a worldwide war on those he saw as Islam's enemies, some of the warlords who became Afghanistan's new rulers wanted the Arab fighters out.

Al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, was an Islamic activist in his youth, but believes bin Laden-style Islam will fail to take hold in Iraq.

"They failed in Egypt, which is a more homogenous society, and they failed in Afghanistan when they had a state," he said. "How can they win here with all this religious and sectarian diversity?"

[yychobbyist]

Hey McLuhan, don't shove this stuff down n_v's throat ok. Post a link next time!!!

This is an interesting article in that I think the assumption that most of us make is that al-Qaeda is at the forefront of the insurgency. I have no doubt that if the Americans were to leave there would be a bloody conflict between factions of the insurgency pitting Iraqi nationalist forces vs. the Islamist forces. Unfortunately for those of us in the West the tide of history seems to be in favour of the Islamists.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by langeweile
You will find out that there is a vast difference in what you read and reality....bye for now

BTW lange, my anguished friend, here is somthing I just read on American Federal income tax...is it fact or fiction? As you are a proud funding source, you would probably know..

" As much as 50 percent of federal income taxes (which does not include trust funds like Social Security or Medicare) go for past and present military spending, according to a federal budget analysis.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
thank you for proving my point. You are just looking for a target for your general hatred for Americans. I for one will not play the target anymore. So FUCK OFF


BTW
If you are really interested in the answer. Do a search. We have discussed this issue at great length before.
While you were sleeping or playing with yourself.

Still no answer.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
BTW...Ranger, do you think that *your* attitude to Americans, and *my* attitude, individually of course, is emblematic of why langeweile and others like him, don't give a shit about the rest of the world.

Could we be the problem here??

I've stated ON MANY OCCASIONS that I like Americans. I think anti-Americanism in Canada is counter-productive and nothing but vicious. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Americans, who prove time and again that they are a just and generous people.
I dislike the current administration. I think they've done nothing but lie to the people they're supposed to represent. Fully half of the population of the United States agrees with what I'm saying in here. If you support the current administration and think that I, thereby, dislike you, that's your problem.
I also dislike ignorance, whether it's American or Canadian.

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Still no answer.

Well, give the guy a break. He could be having dinner or spending time with his kids or doing something productive.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
I feel bad for you man. You are wrong again. Here is a little history for you.

I was born and raised in Germany, as parents of Hungarian immigrants. They had to leave Hungary because of the Russians! I have lived there until i was almost 28.
I have lived two years in Holland, 6 month in Africa, 15 years in the USA and three years in Canada.

I am an American by choice and damn proud of it.

Your prejudice and assumptions on people is your problem. Go out leave your home and see the world...and not just on vacation.

You will find out that there is a vast difference in what you read and reality....bye for now

You couldn't be more wrong. In your assumptions about those you argue with, or your beliefs about your chosen administration.
Bye.
Have something more intelligent to say if you come back.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by yychobbyist

This is an interesting article in that I think the assumption that most of us make is that al-Qaeda is at the forefront of the insurgency. I have no doubt that if the Americans were to leave there would be a bloody conflict between factions of the insurgency pitting Iraqi nationalist forces vs. the Islamist forces. Unfortunately for those of us in the West the tide of history seems to be in favour of the Islamists.

Actually, I don't think so. The Islamists started out targeting *their own Arab nations*. These efforts were singular failures, and they failed to do anything but sway general opinion against them. They seem to be having more success since they made the decision to target nations outside their sphere - the west. But, when the west leaves, I think the Islamists will find that their efforts, when directed within the Arab sphere once again, will fail - again.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
Well, give the guy a break. He could be having dinner or spending time with his kids or doing something productive.

These guys have had lots of time to post an answer - they've responded to lots of posts.
They have no answer.
That's the only conclusion I can come to.
Even in their own minds, they can't reasonably justify the invasion of Iraq.

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Actually, I don't think so. The Islamists started out targeting *their own Arab nations*. These efforts were singular failures, and they failed to do anything but sway general opinion against them. They seem to be having more success since they made the decision to target nations outside their sphere - the west. But, when the west leaves, I think the Islamists will find that their efforts, when directed within the Arab sphere once again, will fail - again.

It worked pretty well for the Islamists in Iran and Afghanistan and it'll work pretty well in Iraq too in my estimation. Iran will be the big player in the region if the Americans left. The Saudis will steer clear because they have their own internal issues, the Syrians are weakening, the Jordanians irrelevant.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
It worked pretty well for the Islamists in Iran and Afghanistan and it'll work pretty well in Iraq too in my estimation. Iran will be the big player in the region if the Americans left. The Saudis will steer clear because they have their own internal issues, the Syrians are weakening, the Jordanians irrelevant.

Yes, there is no doubt Iran is the big player in that region...and that they are not "Arabs" is important to the equation...which is probably why Bin Laden is opting for the term " Islamic nation" rather than Arab nationalism...OBL is playing both sides of the street...like any politician..

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
It worked pretty well for the Islamists in Iran and Afghanistan and it'll work pretty well in Iraq too in my estimation. Iran will be the big player in the region if the Americans left. The Saudis will steer clear because they have their own internal issues, the Syrians are weakening, the Jordanians irrelevant.

The Islamists are NOT in power in Iran - this was an Islamic Revolution, with little to do with the Islamists involved in these affairs.
The VAST majority of the Islamists are Arab. Iran is primarily Persian. It is no surprise that few of the Al Qaeda or associated Islamist terrorist operatives who have been captured or are being sought are Iranian. There is little doubt that the Iranians sponsor terrorism - they aren't part of the Islamist movement, though. The Islamists detest the ruling Shia theocracy as much as anybody.

Afghanistan is the one example - and it may be a telling one, since they came to power after a very similar episode to the one we're looking at - the defeat and withdrawal of the USSR.

May there be something akin to an *Islamic Revolution*? Involving Iranian influence? Drawing them closer into the Iranian sphere? Perhaps. Again - the law of unintended consequences. This would *still* have nothing to do with the Islamists.

[Ranger68]

If the Iraqi government falls hard into the laps of an Islamic Revolution, it'll be just another nation that OBL won't have any influence upon. Just like Iran.

[assoholic]

..anf if the US tries to impose its version of Government in Iraq, in time thats excatly what will happen. The vast majority of Iraqi's will reject it for that reason alone and will continue to support the Insurgency.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
I find it intriguing that I have almost the same life path as you, Germany, USA, Africa and Canada. But I am not-American by choice, even as my company for 15 years wanted me to become one.

Interesting.
Was it due to your work? or what?

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by Ranger68
The Islamists are NOT in power in Iran - this was an Islamic Revolution, with little to do with the Islamists involved in these affairs.
The VAST majority of the Islamists are Arab. Iran is primarily Persian. It is no surprise that few of the Al Qaeda or associated Islamist terrorist operatives who have been captured or are being sought are Iranian. There is little doubt that the Iranians sponsor terrorism - they aren't part of the Islamist movement, though. The Islamists detest the ruling Shia theocracy as much as anybody.

Afghanistan is the one example - and it may be a telling one, since they came to power after a very similar episode to the one we're looking at - the defeat and withdrawal of the USSR.

May there be something akin to an *Islamic Revolution*? Involving Iranian influence? Drawing them closer into the Iranian sphere? Perhaps. Again - the law of unintended consequences. This would *still* have nothing to do with the Islamists.

I don't know where to start on this one because starting necessarily means I'll have to write fourteen posts worth of response. So, I will say this. I disagree. I stand by my earlier post.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by bbking
Reasons to invade

Trying to invalidate the Iraq war because of the lack of actual WMDs is just dumb. Let me ask you a question - lets suppose Sadaam did the smart thing and agreed to the US and UN demands and ended up with everyone agreeing that Sadaam's Iraq didn't have any WMDs in it's arsenal. Do you honestly belive it ends there?
bbk

BBK Saddam actually did comply with the WMD inspections..in fact he was practically down on his hands and knees pleading with the US...at least by Arab standards...the US went to war because the the architects of the invasion (singled out in the excerpt below), and the people whose financial interests they represent, wanted the invasion. Plain and simple. The questions behind their wanting war are of much more significance.

A bigger issue (i find) is why was there was such a massive intellegence failure, one that promoted/justified the acts of war...and in fact, how is it that an administration such as this one can get away with warping an agency like the CIA, to a point where based on lies, an invasion can occur and to such a disasterous outcome .. things like that are sort of important not to be swept under the rug...that is if you want a credible leadership in charge of the most powerful military in the world...

For example the asbestos law suit that haliburton just settled for a couple of billion in damages, which had its engineering division under bankruptcy protection...now out BTW..reasons like that, and more.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6814437/

Long before President Bush gave the orders, using force to topple Saddam was a glint in the eye of the civilians who would become key players in the Bush administration.

In 1998, a neoconservative think tank called the Project for the New American Century wrote to President Clinton, “The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to ‘undertake military action.’�

A list of those who signed the 1998 letter include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton.

In addition to those who signed the 1998 pronouncement, Perle and two of his top associates had already urged an aggressive new strategy in 1996. Perle’s group embraced overthrowing Iraq’s Saddam and replacing him with a monarchy that would “redefine Iraq.�

In 1998, after Iraq severed ties with the U.N. commission in charge of weapons inspectors, Congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. It called for arming rebel forces, but did not advocate U.S. military involvement.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by Ranger68
The Islamists are NOT in power in Iran - this was an Islamic Revolution, with little to do with the Islamists involved in these affairs.
The VAST majority of the Islamists are Arab. Iran is primarily Persian. It is no surprise that few of the Al Qaeda or associated Islamist terrorist operatives who have been captured or are being sought are Iranian. There is little doubt that the Iranians sponsor terrorism - they aren't part of the Islamist movement, though. The Islamists detest the ruling Shia theocracy as much as anybody.

Afghanistan is the one example - and it may be a telling one, since they came to power after a very similar episode to the one we're looking at - the defeat and withdrawal of the USSR.

May there be something akin to an *Islamic Revolution*? Involving Iranian influence? Drawing them closer into the Iranian sphere? Perhaps. Again - the law of unintended consequences. This would *still* have nothing to do with the Islamists.

This is taking a very narrow view of the Islamist movement, which can easily work simultaneously within government and oppositionist factions - the dominance of Wahabism in Saudi society for example, both among those who support and those who oppose the ruling monarchy. The fact is the Iranians were thee Islamists-du-jour in 1979.

The divide by racial lines is certainly a reality, although it is worth noting that the population of Iran is in fact only 51% Persian. I'm sure the Iranian government - and people - feel much of the push and pull of radical Islam that is felt in many other countries.

The point that there is no unified "Islamist" movement or that just because a government is a theocracy must mean it supports Al-Quaeda is well-taken.

[danmand]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
Well, give the guy a break. He could be having dinner or spending time with his kids or doing something productive.

Or maybe he is taking time of from the political forum to see an SP? This is afterall the Toronto Escort Review Board.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
is it fact or fiction? As you are a proud funding source, you would probably know..

" As much as 50 percent of federal income taxes (which does not include trust funds like Social Security or Medicare) go for past and present military spending, according to a federal budget analysis.

Langeweile, in case you missed this question... I am interested to know if you support this 'way of life'. ..does it conflict with 'the dream' etc.

[onthebottom]

Mcluha,

Not the first time I've answered a question I wasn't asked;-). While I've supported the war from Day 1 I can understand why some do not (that was the question I answered).

So, I'll take another shot, your question is what do I think.

I'll answer this (on my blackberry so it may come in a series of posts with typos) in two way, why I supported the war on Day 1 and why I still support it.

Cont...

OTB

[onthebottom]

YYC was right, been with the family.

Day 1 reasons:

A) I thought Iraq had WMD and would use them again against their neighbours.

B) I viewed this as a threat to US interests, a threat to the global economy and eventually Israel and the US.

C) I belived that containment would continue to crumble, that the humanitarian crisis the oil-for-stuff program caused (or was scapegoated with by Iraq) ment that sooner or later (I thought sooner so France, Germany and Russia could get paid on their contracts)
OTB

[onthebottom]

D) I belived that after containment Iraq would accelerate it's WMD program (I was most worried about Nuke) and it's delivery options (missle - artillary, terror). In fact a ship going anywhere in the world would be a simple delivery mech for a nule. I'd read an article that one CIA estimate said Iraq was within 5 years of having a nuke - that kind of did it for me.

E) There was no way to control Saddam after containment - deterence wouldn't work (he had no care for the loss of his people).

Cont

OTB

[onthebottom]

F) Many on this board made me realize the cost of containment - I was referred to a UN site that said 35,000 children under 10 were dieing every year. This says nothing of the costs to the adult population, the Stalinst government that Saddam had brought to Iraq.

G) A critical calculation for me - there was no low cost (in human terms) solution. If containment worked many died, if containment ended (as it leagally should have given Blix was right - more on that later) I thought many would die

OTB

[Mcluhan]

Thanks OTB, for laying that out!...I'll wait until your back on the PC..

[onthebottom]

G cont) many would die because Saddam would go back to attacking the Shiits, Kurds and his neighbours.

H) I don't think Iraq was involved in terrorism (beyond paying kids in Palistine to blow themselves up) it was too incompetant to work outsides it's borders.

Cont...

OTB

[onthebottom]

I) 911 chaned my mindset regarding threats to the US, better to do what the troops call FISH (fight in someone elses house) and take Saddam out while we could. I thought he was a threat, I thought there was no low-cost (humanitarian) solution and I thought that we would leave a democracy behind after we left.

Cont...

OTB

[onthebottom]

J) I thought if the US was so comitted in the ME we would put our full weight (insert fat American joke here) behind getting the Palistinians their own country.

If you really have no life you can find each of these points in TERB posts by me in 2003 and 2002.

Cont...

OTB

[onthebottom]

Now, why do I still support the war:

I think Saddam would have reconstituted a WMD program and kill hundreds of thousands and threaten our interests. There was no low-cost solution to Saddam. I think the Iraqi people will be better off after we leave than they would have been had we never invaded. It also really pisses off the French - not a reason, just a bonus.

What worries me:

In war innocent people die, and they didn't get to make this decision.

Cont...

OTB

[Mcluhan]

Pissing off the French is some level of achievment. These two republics have a love hate relationship. :)

I used to live with a Frenchwoman...I understand!

[onthebottom]

Worries cont... It has caused a rift with old europe and we really need unarmed socialists as allies - that was a joke. We need to work closer with europe and Russia and this has made that harder. This war is a great tool for OBL to spread hate of the US. This has hurt US credibility - and made it harder for us to get consensus going forward.

Flame away!

OTB

[onthebottom]

you complain about U.S. - bashing and then write crap like this!

HC - Bland,

Go rent a sense of hummor as I'm quite sure you can't afford to buy one.

And I don't worry about US bashing.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Mcluhan Pissing off the French is some level of achievment. These two republics have a love hate relationship. :) I used to live with a Frenchwoman...I understand!

If you can't slag the French and have fun you are living a sad and shallow life.

OTB

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by yychobbyist
I don't know where to start on this one because starting necessarily means I'll have to write fourteen posts worth of response. So, I will say this. I disagree. I stand by my earlier post.

Okay. But the Islamists - as representative of those in Al Qaeda, say - are most certainly NOT in power in Iran. They're *Islamic*, not Islamists.
Anyway ........

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
This is taking a very narrow view of the Islamist movement, which can easily work simultaneously within government and oppositionist factions - the dominance of Wahabism in Saudi society for example, both among those who support and those who oppose the ruling monarchy. The fact is the Iranians were thee Islamists-du-jour in 1979.

The divide by racial lines is certainly a reality, although it is worth noting that the population of Iran is in fact only 51% Persian. I'm sure the Iranian government - and people - feel much of the push and pull of radical Islam that is felt in many other countries.

The point that there is no unified "Islamist" movement or that just because a government is a theocracy must mean it supports Al-Quaeda is well-taken.

I disagree that the Iranians were ever *Islamists*. They were interested *solely* in revolution within their own country. The Islamist agenda is pan-Arab - it is *necessarily* global. That's why the Taliban supported the movement - by supporting Al Qaeda - and why the Iranians haven't.
Not a big deal.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking Then you must really hate yourself. bbk maybe we should put Ranger on suicide watch

And why, pray tell, would we want to do that?

OTB

[Asterix]

Time for four patches at once bbk. You can do it. Been there, got through it.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
BTW lange, my anguished friend, here is somthing I just read on American Federal income tax...is it fact or fiction? As you are a proud funding source, you would probably know..

" As much as 50 percent of federal income taxes (which does not include trust funds like Social Security or Medicare) go for past and present military spending, according to a federal budget analysis.

I currently pay canadian taxes which pay 50% for a defunct Healthcare system, supporting Newfoundland, sending Canadian flags to Quebec, new french signs in eastern Ontario etc....not sure which is worse.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
You couldn't be more wrong. In your assumptions about those you argue with, or your beliefs about your chosen administration.
Bye.
Have something more intelligent to say if you come back.

you certainly fall in the category of a redneck..they are a species not just native to the USA

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
These guys have had lots of time to post an answer - they've responded to lots of posts.
They have no answer.
That's the only conclusion I can come to.
Even in their own minds, they can't reasonably justify the invasion of Iraq.

Your relentless quest for an answer is self serving. You just want an opportunity to post your, probably pre typed, response.Which BTW I have already read in another forum.

Go ahead post it..I like re-runs...

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Langeweile, in case you missed this question... I am interested to know if you support this 'way of life'. ..does it conflict with 'the dream' etc.

That is a very interesting question.

I believe that less goverment is more. i believe that the average joe on the street, has a much better idea on how to spend his money.
Military spending is out of control and in this day and age a necessary evil. On the flipside social program spending is out of control, so the question is..do you want to give your goverment more or less power?

I have seen the endgame of social spending in Europe. i have seen the devastating effect it has on a nation that prides itself of being selfsufficent and hardworking. Only to see them turn in to a whining and sniveling bunch of people that just stay in line and waiting for the goverment to solve their problems.

In recap.
No i am not happy about the level of money the USA has to spend on military.
The question is back to you are you happy that your goverment pisses away your money to support a bunch of lazy asses, send flags to QC, pour money in to a bottomless healthcare system?

Goverment in general is a necessary evil and needs to be kept to a minimum.PERIOD>

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
Your relentless quest for an answer is self serving. You just want an opportunity to post your, probably pre typed, response.Which BTW I have already read in another forum.

Go ahead post it..I like re-runs...

Okay.

Ready?

Still no answer.

How's that?
:D LOL
You so crazy, langeweile!

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Okay.

Ready?

Still no answer.

How's that?
:D LOL
You so crazy, langeweile!

Hey guys we need to get serious about the suicide watch....he starts talking to himself.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
No i am not happy about the level of money the USA has to spend on military.
The question is back to you are you happy that your goverment pisses away your money to support a bunch of lazy asses, send flags to QC, pour money in to a bottomless healthcare system?


Although I reluctantly agree with your views on the ballooning welfare system in northern Europe, I am puzzled by your acceptance of the enormous sums that are wasted on military spending.
Whatever the canadian government spends on road signs and flags in Quebec is truly insignificant compared to the military spending and waste in the US.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
Although I reluctantly agree with your views on the ballooning welfare system in northern Europe, I am puzzled by your acceptance of the enormous sums that are wasted on military spending.
Whatever the canadian government spends on road signs and flags in Quebec is truly insignificant compared to the military spending and waste in the US.

While you are correct that these amounts don't compare, it is about the principle of goverment spending and waste.
Plus the Canadian obsession with US military spending, while neglecting to hold their own politicians feet to the fire.

BTW without US spending on military, where would Europe be today?

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
BTW without US spending on military, where would Europe be today?

In charge?

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
While you are correct that these amounts don't compare, it is about the principle of goverment spending and waste.
Plus the Canadian obsession with US military spending, while neglecting to hold their own politicians feet to the fire.


Seriously, you cannot possibly believe that there are no waste in the military spending. The money wasted in the US military by bureaucracy, silly skunk works and lazy asses is likely greater than the entire Canadian budget. Is that better than giving flags to quebecers to wrap their cheese in, or erecting french signs that confuse the poor motorists?

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
Seriously, you cannot possibly believe that there are no waste in the military spending. The money wasted in the US military by bureaucracy, silly skunk works and lazy asses is likely greater than the entire Canadian budget. Is that better than giving flags to quebecers to wrap their cheese in, or erecting french signs that confuse the poor motorists?

Of course there is waste in military, anything that goverment touches is wasteful for the most part.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
In charge?

No your name would be Ivan or Petrov and instead of living in Canada you be chopping wood in Novosibirsk.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
No your name would be Ivan or Petrov and instead of living in Canada you be chopping wood in Novosibirsk.

maybe, or maybe we would be yelling Heil a lot. I would have had the right genetic credentials for the thousandyear Reich.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
maybe, or maybe we would be yelling Heil a lot. I would have had the right genetic credentials for the thousandyear Reich.

Oh shit.. I would have been in trouble..I have some jewish blood in my line about four generations back.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
Of course there is waste in military, anything that goverment touches is wasteful for the most part.

Of course. But pray, tell me, why do you accept waste of money in the military but not in social programs.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
Of course. But pray, tell me, why do you accept waste of money in the military but not in social programs.

I don't except any waste from any goverment in any area.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
While you are correct that these amounts don't compare, it is about the principle of goverment spending and waste.
Plus the Canadian obsession with US military spending, while neglecting to hold their own politicians feet to the fire.

BTW without US spending on military, where would Europe be today?

If it's about the principle of government spending and waste, why aren't you all over the US military?

Anyway, I agree with your comment about Europe. The US saved us all from a real menace during the Cold War. I am certainly grateful for that, and so should most Europeans.
But, why does the US want to continue to spend on its military as if this they were still in an arms race? Or, rather, why should US citizens put up with it? (Of course, it becomes a problem for everyone else when the US administration feels the need to get return on its investment and come up with more uses for its military than is probably wise.)
Save a few billion dollars from some missile shield that's never going to work properly and put it to something useful - useful for the American public, if nobody else.

[langeweile]

We are still in an arms race, IMHO.
While the opponent has changed the enemy is still out there. While there might not be the need for more ICM's anymore, there is a need to re-tool the military, and that costs money.

Do I believe we could spend the money somewhere else? Hell Yeah. Do i think that spending money on more arms is stupid? Hell yes.
The problem is, that while we undertsand the need for peace and cooperation, some others don't, and we better be ready to defend ourselves.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
We are still in an arms race, IMHO.
While the opponent has changed the enemy is still out there. While there might not be the need for more ICM's anymore, there is a need to re-tool the military, and that costs money.

Do I believe we could spend the money somewhere else? Hell Yeah. Do i think that spending money on more arms is stupid? Hell yes.
The problem is, that while we undertsand the need for peace and cooperation, some others don't, and we better be ready to defend ourselves.

I do not see the value of arming Canada. The only country that could possibly invade Canada is the US, and we would have as much of a chance against them as Denmark had against the germans in 1940.

Instead of a military, Canada should publish a phone number with an answering machine with the message: "we surrender".

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by danmand
I do not see the value of arming Canada. The only country that could possibly invade Canada is the US, and we would have as much of a chance against them as Denmark had against the germans in 1940.

Instead of a military, Canada should publish a phone number with an answering machine with the message: "we surrender".

LOL...comical...my first laugh of the day! Thanks!

[Mcluhan]

Thanks for the points OTB it must be difficult to back three years and recall the state of mind. However it paints a picture of what rational the average taxpayer from the pro-war side was probably thinking in getting behind Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Here’s a few comments back.

thought Iraq had WMD and would use them again against their neighbours.

It was pretty clear to me, watching the run-up to war that Saddam had no WMD. I think this reason one bought into, because they wanted to go and whip some Arab ass. Emotions where running very high after 9/11 and it was apparent Bush was cashing in, and blatantly so. In defence of the average American person’s viewpoint, the media hyped the WMD story, and made it seem like Saddam was a monstrous demon capable of nuking USA. I found this a ridiculous idea at the time, blown way out of proportion. Almost cartoon-like on a level with Dr. No from the James Bond movies. The anthrax scare was probably a big contributor to the US population’s feeling of vulnerability. I personally am very suspicious of the Anthrax affair, and feel it was likely ‘someone manipulating someone’. There is seems a vacuum of interest in solving this case.

I viewed this as a threat to US interests, a threat to the global economy and eventually Israel and the US.

First, unless you are Jewish, and have an emotional connection, I can’t see fear for Israel as part of any legitimate equation. After all, they have those 200 nukes, and seem entirely capable of looking after themselves, this apart from the 2 billion you guys feed them every year from the war chest. Saddam as threat to the global economy? Go on OTB, you are more informed than that! Saddam was a wet noodle. How could a nation of 25 million, starved to death for 10 years by the coalition, who had not even control of their air space, possibly be a threat to the global economy? Iraq was a third world developing country BEFORE the US decimated its military in ’91.

I belived that after containment Iraq would accelerate it's WMD program (I was most worried about Nuke) and it's delivery options (missle - artillary, terror). In fact a ship going anywhere in the world would be a simple delivery mech for a nule. I'd read an article that one CIA estimate said Iraq was within 5 years of having a nuke - that kind of did it for me.

Some well placed smart bombs, would have eliminated that possibility, very efficiently. You cannot build nukes these days without the big eye in the sky knowing about it. Why were smart bombs invented, if not for this reason.

many would die because Saddam would go back to attacking the Shiits, Kurds and his neighbours.

If you studied the Iran Iraq war at all, you can easily see it was a war of futility, fought to a stalemate by two third rate powers mostly firing old-technology missiles at each other from WWI style trenches . The proxy war was useful to both the US and Soviets, because they dumped arms (note WMD armaments ) not to mention the French and Italians who also sold the two warring neighbours arms.

I don't think Iraq was involved in terrorism (beyond paying kids in Palistine to blow themselves up) it was too incompetant to work outsides it's borders.

This statement cuts the legs off your notion that Saddam was a threat to the global economy, US national interests, etc etc. However, I won’t labour the point.

Your list attempts to find lots of traction on the “ humanitarian concern for Iraqi population argument�. I find it very unlikely somehow (I will not say disingenuous because it’s your story and thanks for telling it.) especially in view of your apparent lack of interest (here) in what today’s war in Iraq is doing to the general population. It’s a nice story however, “America The Good�, implementing it’s war machine for the sake of others well being. Many probably did honestly buy into the idea.

So lets move on, and see how your rational plays out. (See my next post). If your arguments were honest then (true to heart), it follows that they should be honest now. Today we have a pretty clear picture of the situation...so lets see how your past intentions overlay in today's world... shall we?

[Mcluhan]

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005;

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.

Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of "great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is lower than at any time in the past century." However, "at no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux as they have in the past decade."

The report also says the emergence of China and India as new global economic powerhouses "will be the most challenging of all" Washington's regional relationships. It also says that in the competition with Asia over technological advances, the United States "may lose its edge" in some sectors.

[Mcluhan]

This article is also interesting...particularly on the training of terrorists who are simply trained in iraq, then sent home..to cook up whatever destruction... posting a snip...




Iraq conflict fuels al Qaeda menace, experts say

By Jon Boyle

PARIS (Reuters) - Iraq has become a recruiting ground for al Qaeda, which is training agents, including Western nationals, and sending them home to set up networks or form sleeper cells, according to two France-based experts.

The advent of "blue-eyed jihadists" is symptomatic of al Qaeda's response to the U.S.-led war on terror, including its mutation into a more decentralised organisation which has made it all the more potent, they said.

Roland Jacquard, a leading French analyst who has worked for a U.N. terrorism panel, and Paris-based Algerian journalist Atmane Tazaghart make their assessment in a new 500-page book: "Bin Laden -- the programmed destruction of the West".

The book argues that al Qaeda is now capable of striking the West and its allies with chemical, biological and radiological weapons -- so-called "dirty bombs" -- that could wreak havoc on humans and the global economy.



http://in.news.yahoo.com/050113/137/2izvj.html

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
These people weren't being killed until the Americans invaded. So, yes - it's the Americans' fault. It is the Americans' fault that many insurgents feel the need to fight.



in your opinion. They don't need to fight- the americans are not going to stay. the ones fighting are a mixture of terrorists, gangsters and the naive being taken advantage by the others.

[Ranger68]

"They don't need to fight"? Well, you're right.
Any time a nation is invaded, they can always just roll over and surrender.
"the ones fighting are a mixture of terrorists, gangsters and the naive being taken advantage by the others"
in your opinion ........

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by langeweile
We are still in an arms race, IMHO.
While the opponent has changed the enemy is still out there. While there might not be the need for more ICM's anymore, there is a need to re-tool the military, and that costs money.

Do I believe we could spend the money somewhere else? Hell Yeah. Do i think that spending money on more arms is stupid? Hell yes.
The problem is, that while we undertsand the need for peace and cooperation, some others don't, and we better be ready to defend ourselves.

Who are you in an arms race with? What enemy? What would be the best weapons to deal with that enemy?
A "race" implies that there is a competition of research and expenditures. Towards what?
The US could spend half what it does, and STILL be able to defend themselves against any reasonable threat.
The missile shield is a great example of waste.

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Do you really think that a similar number of people was being killed on a daily basis in Iraq before the invasion? If you do, there's probably no hope for you.

Again, do you have anything to back up *your* opinion? ...... No? ...... Not surprising.


not sure why you are so defensive. but as i said- i don't know what the real story is, or how many people died of violence before the invasion versus after - and in reality, while you can provide links to studies done by well meaning people - you don't know either. who knows what the real situation in iraq was or how many were killed by the regime.

something to back up my opinion that I don't know? not sure how to answer that one

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
I think that the Iraqis working for the american occupation forces are trying to support their families in a desperate situation. I also think that they will be abandoned when the US leaves, and that they then will be considered collaborators and delt with rather harshly. Personally, I would not judge them.

PS: And I am sorry I misinterpreted your position on the war.

ok - then we agree on this

[Ranger68]

Okay, well I have *numbers* to back up "my opinion".
You just have your opinion.
And, as they say, opinions are like OT-- er, assholes.
;)

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Civilian populations have generally *not* been "put to the sword", except during "barbarian" invasion.

The Second World War reached new lows of genocide and *massive* civilian massacre. NEVER in warfare have such a high percentage of the casualties been civilian. Never.


yes WWII did reach new levels. but there have been many pogroms against civilian populations before- and not just by barbarians- they just were not as systematic or as horrific. the romans, the russians, etc

[red]

Originally posted by Cobra1
and further to this point, the US rolled a secular state, which allowed women the right to education, right to careers and religous freedom probably into a Shiite controlled theocracy that will emerge after some brutal civil war in 6 years. Sometimes you have to be arbitrary in these high minded objectives, and keeping the Baath party in power, possibly without Saddam would have been the way to go. Women are increasingly being forced to accept Sharia law, wear hajib or chadour and are at person risk on the streets, which didnt exist before. So no, the quality of life in Iraq has not been enhanced by any measure.

The US had a perfect overthrow under Clinton, and failed the Iraqis division that would have taken out Saddam the opportunity - which is how it should have been done, - not at the cost to the world economy, or US lives.

you are comparing a year or so, with what- a year of relative peace under saddam- who knows how many were killed or tortured during his reign? I am sure the kurds think things are better

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
Because everybody on this planet should recognize that the US knowns (guided by the God of the white people) what is best for them, and has the moral obligation to invade and occupy any territory it sees fit.

The US military is incapable of violence?

OTB didn't say that. he said, correctly, that the violence continues because of the insurgents. why don't they wait until the americans fix what they broke and then leave

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68

"the ones fighting are a mixture of terrorists, gangsters and the naive being taken advantage by the others"
in your opinion ........

yep

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Okay, well I have *numbers* to back up "my opinion".
You just have your opinion.
And, as they say, opinions are like OT-- er, assholes.
;)

if you have so many facts and great arguments- why always try to make it personal?

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
OTB didn't say that. he said, correctly, that the violence continues because of the insurgents. why don't they wait until the americans fix what they broke and then leave

I can remember that the commander in chief of the american forces encouraged the fighters to "bring it on". But he is of course safe and well on a ranch in Texas.

[red]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Okay, well I have *numbers* to back up "my opinion".
You just have your opinion.
And, as they say, opinions are like OT-- er, assholes.
;)

if you have so many facts and great arguments- why always try to make it personal? you have numbers- so did Nortel- doesn't make them right

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
I can remember that the commander in chief of the american forces encouraged the fighters to "bring it on".

i don't think OTB is the chief of the american forces

though I may be wrong

[Asterix]

Originally posted by red
i don't think OTB is the chief of the american forces

though I may be wrong

No, but Danmand brings up a good point. "Bring 'em on", originally a thoughtless comment by Bush, even by his standards, was enthusiastically taken up by Tommy Franks as a direct challenge to the insurgents. As OTB says, careful what you wish for.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Asterix
No, but Danmand brings up a good point. "Bring 'em on", originally a thoughtless comment by Bush, even by his standards, was enthusiastically taken up by Tommy Franks as a direct challenge to the insurgents. As OTB says, careful what you wish for.

And now appearing as graffiti in baghdad, and from there to the world press front pages. In fact I was thinking about this line today before getting online...how it has come back to bite. The al-Qaeda camp is fully engaged in media warfare...a war of words and images...psychological warfare.

With Bush as spokesman for the counter effort...could they wish for more?

[red]

Originally posted by Asterix
No, but Danmand brings up a good point. "Bring 'em on", originally a thoughtless comment by Bush, even by his standards, was enthusiastically taken up by Tommy Franks as a direct challenge to the insurgents. As OTB says, careful what you wish for.

sure. but the original danmand comment was what I was referring to - and it was a misinterpretation of OTB's comment.

[danmand]

Originally posted by red
sure. but the original danmand comment was what I was referring to - and it was a misinterpretation of OTB's comment.

Actually, not. OTB wrote: "The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power."

For OTB and you to put the responsibility for the fighting on the "insurgents", after the americans invaded and occupied their country, is cute, but not credible. I, for one, don't buy the argument.

[Mcluhan]

Okay as no one is asking…I’ll pose the question: ‘What Now McDuff??�

“Terrorism� used to be a tactic. Now it has crystallized into as a political force under the label “Jihad�. Jihad for the first time has managed to engage a world power on a scale that requires reckoning with as a global force. No matter what country we live in, we are all faced with a dangerous terrorist cult attacking and killing civilians and leveraging this method into power attainment.

The world’s remaining superpower, (sorry I have to say it - led by a moron) has blundered by engaging ‘terrorism’ apparently square-on by invading and subsequently destroying a country that actually (it turns out) was a strategic secular opponent of the radical islamic terror-cult leadership. The blunder was compounded when the superpower made moves akin to pouring water on an oil fire, spreading it. In a country where religious extremism as a political force was previously severely dampened, the devastated country has overnight become a crucible for its growth.

Conditions have amalgamated where terrorism has armed, mixed, and multiplied by an unknown magnitude. No longer is it just a case of bombs going off every Autumn in a suburban Paris subway, Jihad is now global cult-phenomena. It is here to stay, and it is quickly shaping the world we live in to a new and different place. Worse, the world economy is *now* totally vulnerable to it and this is (should be) everybodies main concern.

So how do we move forward from here? I believe strongly that the superpower must not ‘dump’ Iraq into the hands of the Jihad. That would be ultra explosive, and tear Iraq to shreds. At the moment there seems no viable approach to the matter. Obviously a military solution will not work….although the superpower will be inclined to solve the problem that way.

If this microcosm of thought could be a legitimate think tank, we would be looking for answers.

[red]

Originally posted by danmand
Actually, not. OTB wrote: "The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power."

For OTB and you to put the responsibility for the fighting on the "insurgents", after the americans invaded and occupied their country, is cute, but not credible. I, for one, don't buy the argument.

ok_ but you said this in response to OTB:

Originally posted by danmand
"Because everybody on this planet should recognize that the US knowns (guided by the God of the white people) what is best for them, and has the moral obligation to invade and occupy any territory it sees fit.

The US military is incapable of violence? "

not quite the equivalent of what OTB said- he never mentioned god, or US always knowing what is right, or anything about a moral obligation to do anything. Its ok to disagree with OTB- i have done it myself, but there is alot of misconstruing by everyone on this board, including myself- i was merely trying to correct you on this one point. with respect to your other point:

You may or may not agree with the insurgents that they had no choice but violence against the americans who are a threat to them. I disagree. Just as I disagree with the american decision to invade because they felt threatened by saddam. In both cases- the violence was unnecessary

[danmand]

Fair enough, I will agree that violence always is unnecessary.

But we should not expect people to behave saintly and turn the other cheek, when their country is invaded and occupied.

[danmand]

Originally posted by bbking
God of the White People - just a thought Danmand but please try not to be such a blatant idiot - If you're refering to the Christian religion - try to understand this:

There are more believers in Christianity that are non-white


Stop being a bigot.

bbk


You are being in a bit of a foul mood, lately, BB. Has your mommy been bugging you about rent for the basement again? Or is it the phone bill?

PS: I was not referring to christianity.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by red i don't think OTB is the chief of the american forces though I may be wrong

Nope, couldn't afford the pay cut - would be nice to not fly commercial though.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Mcluhan,

Be brave and answer your own question - what do YOU think we should DO now? If it makes you feel better feel free to bash Bush all you like but answer the question.

OTB

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Mcluhan,

Be brave and answer your own question - what do YOU think we should DO now? If it makes you feel better feel free to bash Bush all you like but answer the question.

OTB

Swear on your scout's honor that you have read the last two articles I posted, and then email PM me the # of your fav SP and I will answer it. (note, she has to be a screamer lol...if not..we can negotiate the terms...)

[strange1]

Originally posted by danmand
...

PS: I was not referring to christianity.

You must be refering to the god of the secret cult of the albinos. How did you find out?

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Mcluhan Swear on your scout's honor that you have read the last two articles I posted, and then email PM me the # of your fav SP and I will answer it. (note, she has to be a screamer lol...if not..we can negotiate the terms...)

Would this be one of Rangers "no answers"? I don't care what an article says, I asked what you think.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by danmand Actually, not. OTB wrote: "The violence that is standing between Iraqi citizens and a better life is not coming from the US. It is coming from people who want to keep, or grab power." For OTB and you to put the responsibility for the fighting on the "insurgents", after the americans invaded and occupied their country, is cute, but not credible. I, for one, don't buy the argument.

We'll put you down as a no.

OTB

[Asterix]

Originally posted by bbking
At least with Sadaam gone the Iraqi people are closer to the end of the violence than if he had been allowed to stay in power.


bbk

Considering the CIA has now called Iraq a magnet for international terrorist activity, you know this how?

[Asterix]

Originally posted by bbking
Well if you make the government more stable - which means killing the terror cells dumb enough to jump in front of the US army. Being a magnet doesn't change a thing other than delay the departure of the US Army.

But your one of those who believe that the Iraq ruled by Sadaam would become a pleasant place to live, because how can you make the argument your making without believing that.


bbk

No, I'm challenging the idea that Iraq automatically becomes better simply because Sadaam is gone. Sorry, but I don't believe that. The US could very possibly leave it in a worse mess than it was before.

[Asterix]

Fair enough, but I also think GWB has put everything on this election, and I've seen very little to encourage me that they are prepared for what might happen next. If this election goes badly, and I truly hope it does not, I don't know what realistic options the US has left.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by bbking
Don't you love it OTB when people like Danmand have little or no clue.

The fact remains that the Iraqi people faced violence from these Sunni hard heads. At least with Sadaam gone the Iraqi people are closer to the end of the violence than if he had been allowed to stay in power.


bbk

Reminds me of Redford saying to Newman, before they jumped, "I CANT SWIM!", and Newman answers back, "Don't worry about that, the fall will kill ya!"

I love this "but Saddam is gone argument". Their country is destroyed, there is no end in site to the violence. The 'invasion' killed 100,000 of their CIVILIANS...it's likely to claim another 200,000 before its all over. The US militray is using cluster bombs on civilian populations, the Pentagon's now considering "the Salvador Solution'... but wait!...Saddam is Gone! Saddam Is Gone!

If only this damn country we invaded would get it! And stop shooting back! lol..it's comical to listen to..sorry..tragic is a better word.

[assoholic]

...the bottom line is this, the thing most Iraquis overwhelming want is for the US to get the fark out of their country. The rest they will handle, and until that is done, that is what the Iraquis will focus on. Interesting Scenario, the Sunni's do not take part ,the Shia's win overhelmingly. Then the US annulls the election results. How do you think Shias would feel about that ?
Consider that right now it is basically still just the Sunni Triangle, approx 5 million people. If the US does not have the right answers after the election. The Shias will join the party.
Dont forget this thing could still really escalate quite easily.

[Mcluhan]

My take on the Iraqi's wanting the US out, is that part of the population is scared shittless about what will happen when they do leave. Others, in their own words "want their country back." I think most are probably so sick of being starved, bombed, shot at, beaten, and of sleeping in their clothes at night, that they will prefer almost any type of government, to get some normalcy into their lives. Relatives of the roughly 110,000 civilians who died probably hate the US with a passion, that would be about 2 million. There's likely another 1,000,000 people who are up in arms just because there's a foreign army breaking down doors in their neighbourhood and hauling them off to jail where they are beaten, some raped, and some killed, etc. War is not pretty and no surprize, this one is just like most others down through time.

The country is a mess. The electricity infrastructure is barely working part time, the water supply to 7 million people is not working. People are paying 100 times the price of gasoline on the black market and being thrown in jail when they get caught buying. Entire cities are destroyed. The sabotage on the oil lines have stopped the flow northward, the boarders are not secured, outside terrorists are flooding into the country to train, fight and then leave again. US and British troops are essentially barricaded in against a resistance that they refer to as insurrection. The reconstruction is not occurring, major contractors have bailed because it’s just too bloody dangerous. The military cannot even secure the road to the airport in the capital city, never mind the rest of Baghdad’s 7,000,000 population.

Is normalcy just on the other side of the elections to be held in two weeks? Very doubtful. I would guess impossible.

[Manji]

There is no way that US will disregard the elections even if the majority of Sunnis boycott the vote (or are unable to vote).
Plus, its not really their election to declare invalid.
What the Allawi government and United States will do is devise some way to compensate the lack of Sunni votes by electing Sunni representatives themselves.

Progress will take time especially with so much chaos.
There are regions in Iraq that have had little trouble and lot of oppurtunity to rebuild but since there is no violence there is little coverage.
Many Iraqis are working with the Americans not because they "adore" the Americans but because they believe in a better Iraq. Whatever their feelings/beliefs about the Americans; at least most Iraqis know that the Americans are trying to rebuild and reconstuct Iraq.
The insurgents on the other hand have no clear plan for the future of Iraq. When they speak, its only about violence and vengeance and nothing about progress. That is why most most normal Iraqis will not side with the insurgents (at least no willingly).

Just look at the election workers risking their lives in Iraq; as well as the policeman, the government workers and the soldiers. All their lives are at great risk. When interviewed they admit that they do it for the paycheck but they always add that they also do it for their nation and for the future of their children.

The situation is dire in Iraq but by giving into the insurgents, Iraqis know that they will be digging a bigger hole than the one they are currently stuck in.

[Manji]

As for the "Salvador Solution" or the return of the "Phoenix Program"; that is not going to happen.
I doubt that it was going to be seriously considered by the Pentagon leadership.
Chances are some general in the Pentagon brought it up, it was discussed and then rejected; then someone in the press picked it up and blew it out porportion (as they usually do with issues that really don't seem to be relevant)

[onthebottom]

Mcluhan,

I guess we'll assume you don't have a view on what to do next, just a catalog of what is wrong.

Answer score: OTB 1, Mcluhan 0

OTB

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Mcluhan,

I guess we'll assume you don't have a view on what to do next, just a catalog of what is wrong.

Answer score: OTB 1, Mcluhan 0

OTB

My, aren't we the demanding one! OTB, I don't know about you, but I usually try to first define what is wrong before I go about suggesting how to fix a problem.

Oops..forgot..you voted for the moron. lol

This is a particulary difficult problem..and as I don't have nukes, i'm thinking about it. This is a colossal mess. You will hear from me eventually on it. (be a little patient) :)

[onthebottom]

Mcluhan,

You ask me a question and I answer it - I ask you one and you go into deflection mode. If you don't know just say so.

What do nukes have to do with it?

OTB

[Mcluhan]

OTB, I asked you why you supported the 'Invasion' and you came up with 12 very wishy-washy reasons...sounded like off the cuff. Fine. I was gentle with you. Now you ask me to put forward a solution to this overwhelming mess of GLOBAL proportion, that "your" boys made. And you jump up and down when you you don't get a prompt answer back. Comical. As I said, i'm thinking about it. I'd prefer not to give a half-baked answer.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Mcluhan,

I guess we'll assume you don't have a view on what to do next, just a catalog of what is wrong.

Answer score: OTB 1, Mcluhan 0

OTB

Him and some others here,remind me of the two old guys from the Muppet Show, that always sat on the balcony and made fun and complained about everything.
It is so much easier to comlain about something, than to do anything about it.

It amazes me that the very same people that applauded the end of apartheid in South Africa, where a minority ruled the majority. Do nothing else than explain and justify the Sunni's power hold over a Shia majority.
Being all things equal, shouldn't we support the Shia, just as we have supportrd any other struggle of majority oppression?

NO, we can't do that here, because the mean and oppressive Americans are involved.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
It amazes me that the very same people that applauded the end of apartheid in South Africa, where a minority ruled the majority. Do nothing else than explain and justify the Sunni's power hold over a Shia majority.
Being all things equal, shouldn't we support the Shia, just as we have supportrd any other struggle of majority oppression?

NO, we can't do that here, because the mean and oppressive Americans are involved.


You said you lived in Africa???

The USA was in support of the apartheit regime in South Africa, allowing it to aquire nuclear weapons technology. That is one reason why Mandela and the current governmant of South Africa are very sceptical (to use a diplomatic term) of the intentions of the US in the Middle East

[onthebottom]

Mcluhan,

Take your time, after all it is easier to ask questions and critisize than it is to answer them and suggest a solution;-)

As for my "half baked" answer and your predictably spun response - I'll respond when I can use something other than my thumbs.

OTB

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by langeweile
Him and some others here,remind me of the two old guys from the Muppet Show, that always sat on the balcony and made fun and complained about everything.


Doesn't surprise me you watch the Muppets.

Actually, I was wondering to myself yesterday if I am indeed guilty of harboring unnaturally angry feelings toward dubbya. Then I took stock of my reactions to past Presidents of your Republic. Nixon generated a big negative response from me personally. I thought Clinton was a brilliant politician, Regan a great actor (after he became a politician). The rest fall somewhere in between. I can't count JFK because I was in Grade six when he was assassinated.

I have actually sat at the table with heads of state. So I am not completely without terms of reference, on a personal level.

Incidently, I never bothered to watch MM's 911 flick, because I am just not all that caught up in reveling in the egg throwing, however, there is something about watching the highjacking of your political process that I find threatening..especially when done by a moron. I thought your country was better than that. I am more concerned for future of the American people than you might care to think. Bush just brings out some kind of special disgust in me and, except for Nixon, I have never previously spoken out (in public or otherwise) against an American President.

As this is a 'Canadian forum' on Canadian Turf, I feel comfortable speaking my mind on this particular subject. I would not for example get on a US board and start bashing your President. Anyway, there are enough American's who do that better than I could ever attempt.

This is a global problem now. It affects all of us. Because I don't side with your particular view, doesn't mean that I don't listen to it. I am not close minded. Bush will eventually go. He will be remembered as the worst President the US ever had (hopefully there will be no others to compare).

And yes, there isn't much I can do about, except speak. If my thoughts offend you, I suggest don't listen. Just turn up the volume on the muppets, and have another beer.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Mcluhan,

Take your time, after all it is easier to ask questions and critisize than it is to answer them and suggest a solution;-)

As for my "half baked" answer and your predictably spun response - I'll respond when I can use something other than my thumbs.

OTB

I never said your response was 'half baked' ...I said it was 'wish-washy'.

So now I am 'predictable'...lol. Okay...if you say so.

Take a pill OTB..your neck is flushing.

[Drunken Master]

As I said in another thread, the very last possible line of moral defense for the war was that Iraqis would be better off - ie not getting killed as much - without Sadaam. There is now ample and credible evidence that this is not the case, and some indication that it may never be the case.

As far as the idea being advanced that "we reasonbly thought he had WMD's therefore we were right to invade even if he didn't have them" - this is ludicrous. Those who were in the best position to know whether Sadaam had such weapons or not - Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, among many others - we screaming prior to the war that he did not. In any court in the world the case for "justifiable invasion" would be nullified by this level of willful ignorance.

As far as I'm concerned, 'nuff said.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
OK you sold me DM. Sadaam is still alive - lets give him the keys to the country and say sorry it was big mistake.



bbk

The hilarity of this statement is, there are no doubt many Iraqis saying the same thing - and who in their right mind could blame them?

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
The hilarity of this statement is, there are no doubt many Iraqis saying the same thing - and who in their right mind could blame them?

Yep, no doubt. What some people seem to miss, (not surprisingly) is that Saddam built the country's educational system, medical and trans infrastructure into a show case, as compared to the Arab states. They ignor this point, because saddam was a fascist.

BTW, where did he get all those WMD? Ask Rummy...he sold them.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by bbking
Gee... I was so mistaken, I didn't understand that he was such a great guy - must be American propaganda that mislead me.

bbk

Yes, I think we can forgive the US for not publically extolling the virtues of Saddam's Iraq during his rise to power, and for that matter, how they assisted with it. The fact that he was a ruthless dictator is not the issue. The fact that the US precipitated an intellegence failure by twisting the CIA, lied to their public, then invaded Iraq in an illegal, unprovoked war, had 110,000 civilian morts, destroyed a few cities the size of Cleveland along with half the country's infrastructure supporting a population of 25 million, and 'by accident' caused an unprecidented, uncontrolled hot bed for the growth of international terrorism is probably more of an issue.

But then that's just how I see it. It's probably just spin.

[Manji]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Yep, no doubt. What some people seem to miss, (not surprisingly) is that Saddam built the country's educational system, medical and trans infrastructure into a show case, as compared to the Arab states. They ignor this point, because saddam was a fascist.

BTW, where did he get all those WMD? Ask Rummy...he sold them.

Well not exactly....

Saddam's regime let much of Iraq's infrastructure fall apart during the last twenty years. Power plants, water purification plants, oil refineries, etc.... these industries have not had new equipment/parts since the seventies.
With the American invasion and the subsequent looting and insurgency; trying to fix what needed fixing a long long time ago has been quite the task.

Education and Health was mostly doled out to Iraqis who were loyal to Saddam. Shittes in the South and the Kurds in the North did not recieve any of benefits and were left to fend for themselves.

Saddam spent most his nation's money on himself, his family and cronies and on his military. Spending on the Iraqi people and on the nation's infrastructure (and other needs) was not at all an important priority to him.

[assoholic]

..in comparison to the other Arab States, it was.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Manji
Well not exactly....

Saddam's regime let much of Iraq's infrastructure fall apart during the last twenty years. Power plants, water purification plants, oil refineries, etc.... these industries have not had new equipment/parts since the seventies.
With the American invasion and the subsequent looting and insurgency; trying to fix what needed fixing a long long time ago has been quite the task.

Education and Health was mostly doled out to Iraqis who were loyal to Saddam. Shittes in the South and the Kurds in the North did not recieve any of benefits and were left to fend for themselves.

Saddam spent most his nation's money on himself, his family and cronies and on his military. Spending on the Iraqi people and on the nation's infrastructure (and other needs) was not at all an important priority to him.

Manji..there you go re-writing history *again*. Of course it fell apart in the last few years...they where under sanctions, since 1991 (dough-head lol)... 1,000,000 people, the greater percentage women and children starved or died through lack of medicine and they fought a seven years war with Iran before that. Do some research. By the way, have you actually ever *been* to the middle east? You sound like you grew up on the streets of Baghdad lol

<sigh> It's a pity youth is wasted on the young. - B.R.

[Manji]

Yes, born and raised in the West Side of Baghdad.

WEST SIDE!!!!


As for Re-writing history!?!?
You just confirmed what I just wrote....Iraq's infrastructure was in great disrepair before the invasion!!!
Nobody forced Saddam to pursue a war with Iran.... or to invade Kuwait for that matter.
And it was Saddam's refusal to accept UN demands that forced the sanctions on Iraq though Saddam still profited from his country's misery.

Mucluhan, I know you think Saddam was this great guy and all but I think you're on your own if you're trying to start a I-LOVE-SADDAM fan club on this board

<sigh> And I really liked you in the Muppet Show.....
Were you Statler or Waldorf!?!?!

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Manji
Yes, born and raised in the West Side of Baghdad.

Mucluhan, I know you think Saddam was this great guy and all but I think you're on your own if you're trying to start a I-LOVE-SADDAM fan club on this board

<sigh> And I really liked you in the Muppet Show.....
Were you Statler or Waldorf!?!?!

No my son, I do not *love* Saddam. He was a ruthless dictator. But that's all he was. He was no threat to world peace, nor to the future of the world economy. He was just another stongman, illiterate until the age of 16, rose up from poverty with a gun in his hand, to run a country. BTW...how much more *noble* was the Vietnam War as compared to Iraq Verses Iran? Perhaps you can educate me on this, as well..

On the Muppets, you'll have to ask Lange, he's the Muppet expert! lol

[onthebottom]

I'm sure the 80 % of the country that the Shiit and Kurds represend don't want him back, and many of the sainer Sunni as well. You guys should really think about this stuff before you post it.

Muppet show and name calling - did I walk into a middle school.

OTB

[slowandeasy]

"THE TRUTH"

My stake in the ground driven here is: if humanity is to form an educated opinion, they must not be kept in ignorance of the facts. This thread is about that concept.

At the beginning of this thread, the above was stated. I have tried to stay out of this Political Forum for a number of reasons.

When I first read this thread, I had hoped that this was infact a truthful thread... As I read the initial post, at first, I was glad that the original poster (Mcluhan i think) had posted it. I completely agree that things over there are probably worse than we realize.

But unfortunately, what I proceeded to read was a completely onesided account of what's happening in Iraq...by some "journalist" who's truth seems to be to prove that this war has resulted in the Iraqi people being worse off than under Saddam...

If you are going to post something about THE TRUTH...then please be truthful and do not present a one sided account of the 'truth".....

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
I'm sure the 80 % of the country that the Shiit and Kurds represend don't want him back, and many of the sainer Sunni as well. You guys should really think about this stuff before you post it.

Muppet show and name calling - did I walk into a middle school.

OTB

I'm sure 80% percent of the population doesn't appreciate being called Shiit.

Shiite, poindexter.

You're probably right - they'd no doubt prefer a dictator of their own religious persuasion.

[slowandeasy]

Originally posted by langeweile
Him and some others here,remind me of the two old guys from the Muppet Show, that always sat on the balcony and made fun and complained about everything.
It is so much easier to comlain about something, than to do anything about it.
.

Those two guys were great... when you are a kid you wonder if there are real people like that...then you say to your self NAW...there are no real people like that, cuz if there were, that would really suck..... i am an adult now, and i got the problems of an adult..... and that really sucks that there are so many people out there that are like statler and waldorf

[slowandeasy]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
As I said in another thread, the very last possible line of moral defense for the war was that Iraqis would be better off - ie not getting killed as much - without Sadaam. There is now ample and credible evidence that this is not the case, and some indication that it may never be the case.

As far as I'm concerned, 'nuff said.



You cannot possibly compare pre-invasion Iraq and post invasion Iraq. Why???? Because now all the fanatics, miscreants and ne'er do wells come out wreak havoc... Every tom, dick and abdul who were afraid are now taking advantage of the chaos. Unfortunately, the majority of the Iraqi's are good people and they are the ones who are suffering and paying the price.

It seems that some members continue the debate on should the US have invaded or not!!!!???

Frankly, it really does not matter anymore!!!! But these members like their political counterparts continue to waste time and energy on fighting the invasion...

I have no desire to debate the topic of the invasion? Was there WMDs or not etc..

How about this for all the Statler and Waldorf's of the world. How about if we actually used the fact that we are there now to do something positive????

Is there anyone out there who thinks that there needed to be some change in the middle east? Anyone???

Was the status quo in the middle east alright?

Earlier in the post, someone posted that they did not think that Saddam was a threat to the world!! I would like to know what qualified him/her to make that decision..

The long and short of it is that the US has invaded... if the Iraqi's attempt to make the best of the situation, and use this as a positive thing.... or they can let the radicals, rebels, fanatics, drug lords, etc... continue to wreak havoc and continue the devestation that the US has wreaked upon them.

Guess what... I do not think that the US intends to leave like they did in Vietnam. I believe that GWB wants this to be HIS solution to the middle east... Do I agree with it???? Not really... but who would I rather be in control of Iraq... SADDAM or the US???
hmmm...let me think....

hmmm.. my neighbor or a madman...

hmmm...

[onthebottom]

Slow,

About as close to a constructive recomendation you'll find from the anit-war crowd here is that the US should leave now. The rest is a combination of insulting Bush and dire consequenses predictions.

OTB

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Slow,

About as close to a constructive recomendation you'll find from the anit-war crowd here is that the US should leave now. The rest is a combination of insulting Bush and dire consequenses predictions.

OTB

Constructive recomendation? So, you expect the anti-war crowd to fix the mess the pro-war crowd created? Fascinating.

Okay, how about this: Fire every single individual who had anything to do with this botched invasion and occupation. Put a few of them, like Rumsfeld and Bremer, under Congressional investigation for massive incompetence. Replace them with people, suitably warned that such idiocy will not be tolerated, who are competent to accomplish what is rapidly becoming the near-impossible.

Of course, you voted for Bush and this administration, so your concern for "constructive recomendations" for the Iraqi people must be taken with, oh, about a pound of salt.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by slowandeasy
Earlier in the post, someone posted that they did not think that Saddam was a threat to the world!! I would like to know what qualified him/her to make that decision..



What makes you qualified to say he was?

[onthebottom]

Slow,

DM has pulled a double header - contradicted himseld on the Iraqi people wanting Saddam back and proving my point on the bash Bush - no constructive solution.

I'd expect a lot of this going forward.

OTB

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
Slow,

DM has pulled a double header - contradicted himseld on the Iraqi people wanting Saddam back and proving my point on the bash Bush - no constructive solution.

I'd expect a lot of this going forward.

OTB

Were you not paying attention when I provided said solution? Fire those responsible for screwing up in the first place. Was this too complicated? Or, true to form, are you simply going to put your head in the sand whenever somebody provides an answer to one of your silly little challenges?

I'm not sure I can find the place where I contradict myseld (your spelling is really going to pot), but I do want to make sure you understand the problem: we can do nothing but expect the momentary joy over their liberation to be slowly bleeding away, and a nostaligia for the old stability - however oppressive - to be just as progressively infecting the Iraqi people.

As I'm sure you realise, this is not a question of saying "Iraq would be better off with Sadaam" - a tacit way of putting forward the tired old pathetic "an opponent of Bush is a friend of Sadaam" defense - but simply of noting how badly off Iraq is today. Iraqis are now dying a rate that is 2.5 times higher than during the last year of Sadaam's regiem - a testament not to the gentleness of that regiem, but to the massive neglect of the occupiers.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Mcluhan

I have actually sat at the table with heads of state. So I am not completely without terms of reference, on a personal level.


OHH please. Do you have some kind of an inferiority complex? i have heard a lot of bull on this site, but this takes the cake.

I guess now we have to bow to you....oh great one. Some of your posts are pretty good, especially the one on gold...very educational.
I believe you are a smart man, your grammar and syntax very much suggest that.
You don't have to try to impress us, with this kind of nonsense.

Yeah right. I might have watched the muppets as a kid, but I wasn't born yesterday.

Your blind hatred for Americans gives it away. Like most Canadians on this board, you push Bush as a front to unload your childish anti american stands.

Nice try...but this dog doesn't hunt....

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
You know OTB what these fools forget is that the militant Shi'ite (DM - note there is an ' in the word) crowd laid down there arms to participate in the elections mainly because they have an opportunity to share power without getting themselves killed. However the militant Sunnis - who were used to all the power have little chance of obtaining any power with the upcoming elections - It seems our friends OTB are little studied in human nature. They don't seem to grasp the very simple concept that when you had power and now have no chance at power, your only option is to blown things up in the hope of destroying the new order.

Personally OTB, the US should do what 90% of all countries on this planet would do in a heart beat - cut and run and leave the Iraq to the tender mercies of the extremists, it will be decades before this country could pose any threat even with a militant government.


bbk

Remind me - of what religious presuasion is Moqtada al-Sadr?

Give up?

Why, he's a Shi'ite (you got me with the ')! And here is something else - his insurgency is supported by Shi'ite Iran! Could it be that the whole bad Sunnis verses good Shi'ites paradigm is too simplistic?

Naw. Sometimes I forget how black and white the world really is.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
You got your facts all farked up - al-Sadr is the Shi'ite that laid down his weapons (well most of them anyways) and is fielding a group of candidates in the upcoming election. Hell it was in all the papers this spring - remember the mosque, graveyard, the really important religous sites - lots of dead people, the meeting with the top Shi'ite mullah. I really don't know how you missed it. BTW it's Moktada.



bbk

No, properly transliterated the "k" sound in Arabic is traditionally rendered as "q".

Spring, you say? That's funny. In July of last year Sadr was quoted as saying of Iyad Allawi "damn him and damn the occupier". In August the insurgency irrupted again in Najaf, and continued well into the fall, to be halted not by the intervention of the Coalition but by another Shi'ite cleric. Sadr still has an army and controls small enclaves of Shi'ite Iraq.

I'm not sure how you missed all of this - it was in all the papers.

You're right though - he has agreed to participate in the elections. We'll see how he feels about about continuing his insurgency after he loses.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
It remains to be seen if al-Sadr will respect the results but as of this writing his militia ain't firing at Americans.


bbk

Well, I guess that settles it - the Sunnis are the bad guys.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
BTW the Arabic alphabet is very different than the one we are using

No kidding!


so you shouldn't use our *q* to denote the sound K at least not in this case

Try typing "moktada al-sadr" into Goggle. Let me know what happens.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by slowandeasy
"THE TRUTH"

My stake in the ground driven here is: if humanity is to form an educated opinion, they must not be kept in ignorance of the facts. This thread is about that concept.

At the beginning of this thread, the above was stated. I have tried to stay out of this Political Forum for a number of reasons.

When I first read this thread, I had hoped that this was infact a truthful thread... As I read the initial post, at first, I was glad that the original poster (Mcluhan i think) had posted it. I completely agree that things over there are probably worse than we realize.

But unfortunately, what I proceeded to read was a completely onesided account of what's happening in Iraq...by some "journalist" who's truth seems to be to prove that this war has resulted in the Iraqi people being worse off than under Saddam...

If you are going to post something about THE TRUTH...then please be truthful and do not present a one sided account of the 'truth".....

Hey Slowand easy, welcome to the bash-fest, although you might want to duck under the table, while the glass smashes overhead into the walls on all four sides.

This thread now is mostly consisting of people strutting their stuff and insulting each other, so I'm surprised you even got to the journalistic elements. Information was the intention here. I did post a number of articles, and even introduced a blog authored by an excellent writer from Baghdad named River.. She chronicles life in Iraq seen through her eyes, on a day by day basis. It is a truely fascinating story. Yet, only one person bothered to comment (maybe two).

The journalists introduced here are: one American living there for six months, a Canadian ex-military kidnapped by the mujahideen on his 22nd trip to Iraq, and one Iraqi girl who lives there day to day. There is a story unfolding in Iraq that we only catch glimpses of over here. To really get to the truth of the matter, one needs to listen to what people like these have have to say. My grandfather used to say,'You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.' and it seems to apply here.

The thread conversation reminds me of when as kids we used to ride the bumper cars ar the fair. Everyone would run jump in a car, and drive around bashing hell out of each other. As for the truth on Iraq, it will all come out eventually, no matter how overshadowed by the various egos spinning out here and there. Much like we see with the government and the media, the thing this thread seems most interested in has little to do with the truth. So thanks for dropping by and pointing it out!

And remember to duck!

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by bbking
I did and once again your wrong besides why would an Arab care if we spell the sound K as a q or a k, your making absolutely no sense.


bbk

1. you're = you are.

2. Notice that at the top of the Google page it asks if you meant moqtada al-sadr. (I suppose it was a little much to expect you to latch onto this subtlety. I'll try to be more obvious in the future.) Clicking on this link brings you to such famously illiterate sites as the BBC, which uses the q.

3. Who cares? Not me - but I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place, dumbass.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by slowandeasy
"THE TRUTH"

[b][i]

.....But unfortunately, what I proceeded to read was a completely onesided account of what's happening in Iraq...by some "journalist" who's truth seems to be to prove that this war has resulted in the Iraqi people being worse off than under Saddam...

If you are going to post something about THE TRUTH...then please be truthful and do not present a one sided account of the 'truth".....

Slow, here's a little window into the streets of Iraq though River's eyes... check it out.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html




The Phantom Weapons...
The phone hasn't been working for almost a week now. We just got the line back today. For the last six days, I'd pick up the phone and hear... silence. Nothing. This vast nothingness would be followed by a few futile 'hellos' and a forceful punching of some random numbers with my index finger. It isn't always like this, of course. On some days, you can pick up the telephone and hear a bunch of other people screaming "allooo? Allooo?" E. once struck up a conversation with a complete stranger over the phone because they were both waiting for a line. E. wanted to call our uncle and the woman was trying to call her grandson.

The dial-tone came about an hour ago (I've been checking since morning) and I'm taking advantage of it.

The electricity situation isn't very much better. We're getting two hours of electricity (almost continuous) and then eight hours of no electricity (continuous). We still can't get the generators going for very long because of the fuel shortage. Kerosene is really becoming a problem now. I guess we weren't taking it very seriously at first because, it really is probably the first time Iraq has seen a kerosene shortage and it is still difficult to believe. They say in 1991 when there was a gasoline shortage which lasted for the duration of the war and some time after, kerosene was always plentiful. This isn't the situation now. We're buying it for obscene prices and it's really only useful for the lamps and the heaters.

It feels like just about everyone who can is going to leave the country before the elections. They say the borders between Syria and Jordan might be closed a week before elections so people are rushing to get packed and get out. Many families are simply waiting for their school-age children to finish mid-year finals or college exams so they can leave.

This was an interesting piece of news a couple of days ago:

The United States has ended its physical search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which was cited by the first administration of President George W Bush as the main reason for invading the country, the White House has said.

Why does this not surprise me? Does it surprise anyone? I always had the feeling that the only people who actually believed this war was about weapons of mass destruction were either paranoid Americans or deluded expatriate Iraqis- or a combination of both. I wonder now, after hundreds and hundreds of Americans actually died on Iraqi soil and over a hundred-thousand Iraqis are dead, how Americans view the current situation. I have another question- the article mentions a "Duelfer Report" stating the weapons never existed and all the intelligence was wrong. This report was supposedly published in October 2004. The question is this: was this report made public before the elections? Did Americans actually vote for Bush with this knowledge?

Over here, it's not really "news" in the sense that it's not new. We've been expecting a statement like this for the last two years. While we were aware the whole WMD farce was just a badly produced black comedy, it's still upsetting to hear Bush's declaration that he was wrong. It's upsetting because it just confirms the worst: right-wing Americans don't care about justifying this war. They don't care about right or wrong or innocents dead and more to die. They were somewhat ahead of the game. When they saw their idiotic president wasn't going to find weapons anywhere in Iraq, they decided it would be about mass graves. It wasn't long before the very people who came to 'liberate' a sovereign country soon began burying more Iraqis in mass graves. The smart weapons began to stupidly kill 'possibly innocent' civilians (they are only 'definitely innocent' if they are working with the current Iraqi security forces or American troops). It went once more from protecting poor Iraqis from themselves to protecting Americans from 'terrorists'. Zarqawi very conveniently entered the picture.


con't

[Mcluhan]

River's blog con't


Zarqawi is so much better than WMD. He's small, compact and mobile. He can travel from Falloojeh to Baghdad to Najaf to Mosul… whichever province or city really needs to be oppressed. Also, conveniently, he looks like the typical Iraqi male- dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, medium build. I wonder how long it will take the average American to figure out that he's about as substantial as our previously alleged WMD.

Now we're being 'officially' told that the weapons never existed. After Iraq has been devastated, we're told it's a mistake. You look around Baghdad and it is heart-breaking. The streets are ravaged, the sky is a bizarre grayish-bluish color- a combination of smoke from fires and weapons and smog from cars and generators. There is an endless wall that seems to suddenly emerge in certain areas to protect the Green Zoners... There is common look to the people on the streets- under the masks of fear, anger and suspicion, there's also a haunting look of uncertainty and indecision. Where is the country going? How long will it take for things to even have some vague semblance of normality? When will we ever feel safe?

A question poses it self at this point- why don't they let the scientists go if the weapons don't exist? Why do they have Iraqi scientists like Huda Ammash, Rihab Taha and Amir Al Saadi still in prison? Perhaps they are waiting for those scientists to conveniently die in prison? That way- they won't be able to talk about the various torture techniques and interrogation tactics...

I hope Americans feel good about taking their war on terror to foreign soil. For bringing the terrorists to Iraq- Chalabi, Allawi, Zarqawi, the Hakeems… How is our current situation going to secure America? How is a complete generation that is growing up in fear and chaos going to view Americans ten years from now? Does anyone ask that? After September 11, because of what a few fanatics did, Americans decided to become infected with a collective case of xenophobia… Yet after all Iraqis have been through under the occupation, we're expected to be tolerant and grateful. Why? Because we get more wheat in our diets?

Terror isn't just worrying about a plane hitting a skyscraper…terrorism is being caught in traffic and hearing the crack of an AK-47 a few meters away because the National Guard want to let an American humvee or Iraqi official through. Terror is watching your house being raided and knowing that the silliest thing might get you dragged away to Abu Ghraib where soldiers can torture, beat and kill. Terror is that first moment after a series of machine-gun shots, when you lift your head frantically to make sure your loved ones are still in one piece. Terror is trying to pick the shards of glass resulting from a nearby explosion out of the living-room couch and trying not to imagine what would have happened if a person had been sitting there.

The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America...

Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now.

[strange1]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
...
It was pretty clear to me, watching the run-up to war that Saddam had no WMD. ...


Originally posted by Mcluhan
...
BTW, where did he get all those WMD? Ask Rummy...he sold them.

Good old doublespeak.

He had no WMD but he bought them from the US. At least make up your mind which arguement you're making.

[Mcluhan]

You have asked for the answer to the "Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t question". It’s a hard bite to swallow, but the answer in this situation is, swallow the bullet.

The US must leave Iraq. Now. Right now.

The situation: The Mujahideen increasingly more organised, more sophisticated, growing in number. Neither the Americans nor the Brits, nor any western force have the stomach to match the blood lust ferocity of jihadist warriors. It means a lot more civilians are going to die if the US pursues a military option like the Salvador solution now hotly debated. If not this outcome, there will be another similar, if left to military and Rumsfeld. Larger numbers of civilian deaths equals fanning the flames of Islamic extremism everywhere. Solution must be political, take a fall back position, leave and go home. As Ranger68 so many times said, let the chips fall where they may.

You may have to impeach Bush to get there. So be it.

Focus on China. The next superpower. Iraq is lost. Get on with it.

[Manji]

Originally posted by langeweile


Your blind hatred for Americans gives it away. Like most Canadians on this board, you push Bush as a front to unload your childish anti american stands.

Nice try...but this dog doesn't hunt....

Hey!!!
I'm Canadian and I'm not Anti-American. I'm not a supporter of Bush or his policies but I do believe America needs to finish what it started in Iraq.

Was the war absolutly necessary? No...
Did Saddam deserve to be removed? Yes...
Do the Iraqi people deserve to suffer like they have suffered in the last two years? No... but hopefully Iraq will change for the better and in five or ten years, Iraqis will be looking back at this period as an era of tragedy and bloodshed that eventually led to a period of progress and prosperity.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by strange1
Good old doublespeak.

He had no WMD but he bought them from the US. At least make up your mind which arguement you're making.

Before and after sanctions. Next?

[Manji]

By the way guys, nitpicking over spelling is kind of childish and idiotic....

Not all of us have time to proof read our writings!!

[Mcluhan]

Manji...comical..we have posted two diametrically opposed arguments at roughy the same moment. I like your vision. But its not in this reality - unfortunately. You will need to jump a few strings to get there.

[Manji]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
No my son, I do not *love* Saddam. He was a ruthless dictator. But that's all he was. He was no threat to world peace, nor to the future of the world economy. He was just another stongman, illiterate until the age of 16, rose up from poverty with a gun in his hand, to run a country. BTW...how much more *noble* was the Vietnam War as compared to Iraq Verses Iran? Perhaps you can educate me on this, as well..

On the Muppets, you'll have to ask Lange, he's the Muppet expert! lol

Well Dad....(or is it GrandDad....)

I wouldn't use the word "noble" for either the Vietnam war or for the Iran/Iraq confict.

The war in Vietnam was a war that the US entered because of its irrational fear and hatred of Communism.
The Iran/Iraq war was initiated by Saddam to simply grab more oil rich lands in Iran.

One was a war based on misguided fear and the other a war based on outright greed.

[Manji]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Manji...comical..we have posted two diametrically opposed arguments at roughy the same moment. I like your vision. But its not in this reality - unfortunately. You will need to jump a few strings to get there.

I guess we are going to have to wait and see what the future holds for Iraq....

I really hope for the sake of Iraq (and the United States and the world) that I'm right...

Your solution could lead to the destablization of the whole region. If left alone, the civil war in Iraq would make the Lebanese civil war look like a bitter arguement.

If the United States were to leave; how exactly do you think it will play out?
Don't you think many more will die if the United States leaves Iraq and the Iraqis will have to fend and fight for themselves?

With the US military in Iraq there will be deaths but without the US; there will be a lot more Iraqi deaths!!

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by Manji


With the US military in Iraq there will be deaths but without the US; there will be a lot more Iraqi deaths!!

It will be Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Let them sort it out. They will.

The deaths will be many less. Many.

They have a country to rebuild. It will pull them togther like glue. The threat is now from 'outside'...what you are seeing is 'nationalism'.. it will prevail. The lights and the water will come back on.

[Manji]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
It will be Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Let them sort it out. They will.

The deaths will be many less. Many.

They have a country to rebuild. It will pull them togther like glue. The threat is now from 'outside'...what you are seeing is 'nationalism'.. it will prevail. The lights and the water will come back on.

I think you're over-estimating the power of Iraqi nationalism...


Shiites and Sunnis ....
Arabs, Kurds and Turkoman....
Christian and Muslim...
Saddam loyalists and Pro-Democracy...
Secular and Religious and Religious Fundamentalists...
Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel...
And Oil!!!!!

That's just too many factors that will make Iraq a bigger and bloodier mess without the United States.
It will be every man, sect, tribe, etc... for himself and it may lead to the eventual dissolution of the nation of Iraq (but not before tens if not hundred of thousands of Iraqi lives are lost).

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
Hey Slowand easy, welcome to the bash-fest, although you might want to duck under the table, while the glass smashes overhead into the walls on all four sides.

This thread now is mostly consisting of people strutting their stuff and insulting each other, so I'm surprised you even got to the journalistic elements. Information was the intention here. I did post a number of articles, and even introduced a blog authored by an excellent writer from Baghdad named River.. She chronicles life in Iraq seen through her eyes, on a day by day basis. It is a truely fascinating story. Yet, only one person bothered to comment (maybe two).

The journalists introduced here are: one American living there for six months, a Canadian ex-military kidnapped by the mujahideen on his 22nd trip to Iraq, and one Iraqi girl who lives there day to day. There is a story unfolding in Iraq that we only catch glimpses of over here. To really get to the truth of the matter, one needs to listen to what people like these have have to say. My grandfather used to say,'You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.' and it seems to apply here.

The thread conversation reminds me of when as kids we used to ride the bumper cars ar the fair. Everyone would run jump in a car, and drive around bashing hell out of each other. As for the truth on Iraq, it will all come out eventually, no matter how overshadowed by the various egos spinning out here and there. Much like we see with the government and the media, the thing this thread seems most interested in has little to do with the truth. So thanks for dropping by and pointing it out!

And remember to duck!

Interesting statement from somebody, that consistently belittles everybody else around here.
O great holder of the truth!!
Your arrogance and your believe that you hold the truth makes people attack you.
You ask people for their opinions only to disqualify them as wishy/washy, childish, stupid etc..
What kind of reactions to you expect in return?

What you claim to be your truth's are a quoting of second hand sources and blogs, some of them quiet dubious I might add.
So if you want people to have a civilized conversation with you, maybe you should stop threating them like children.

In my book you are as qualified (or not) than everybody else to make a statement here on this board. What makes you think, that you are above eveybody else?
What are your qualifications? What makes you believe that your answer is the only truth?
Truth is not always black and white.

[onthebottom]

DM,

I don't see how firing US politions is a solution in Iraq - a bit transparent on this one.

And yes, my spelling on my blackberry sucks - you looking for an admin job?

Bbking,

The cut and run is the only suggestion I've seen from the Bush bashers. I don't see how that would help the Iraqi people and slow down the Summi on Shiite violance. I think most Americans would love to cut and run, but I think many don't think it's the right thing to do. Even the Dems were supporting staying.

OTB

[slowandeasy]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
What makes you qualified to say he was?

Hey DM,

I did not say that he was or was not... I do not really know.

Q. Do I feel that the world is a safer place now that Saddam is no
longer the dictator of Iraq???
A. At first thought yes.... now definitely NOT.
Q. Is that a problem...
A. YES....
Q. Did GWB and the US create this problem by the invasion??
A. YES, but only partially. Why would you blame the US and GWB
for the actions of fanatics and terrorists who blow up their
own people?
Q. What is the US mission in Iraq now?
A. Set up democracy (and have a large influence over the
country's Oil reserves and natural assets) and supposedly
allow the Iraqi people to rule themselves.
Q. Does everyone believe that the US really wants democracy?
A. NO.... but that's their problem...but why do they support the
terrorists that are trying to undermine this attempt at
democracy?
Q. Are there large US corporations who have a vested interest in
this war?
A. Hell YA....so what's the problem. There are large corporations
that have a vested interest in Canada's elections and political
situation. And we still seem to be doing alright.

On a regular basis, the anti-invasion party (on terb) bash the US because they did not find WMD's. But then some very vocal and supposedly knowledgeable Anti-Invasion Party (lets call them the AIP) say that the US sold Saddam the equipment and knowledge to make WMD or the WMD's themselves. So you can't have it both ways....

If he had them, then the US had the legal right to invade... (read LEGAL not moral) and then I am safer.

I am completely at a loss to explain how they did not find WMD's. Going in I would have bet anyone $1,000,000 that they would have found WMD's??????

Why was I so sure you ask??? Like many conspiracy theorists, I thought that they would have found evidence of WMD's. Whether the evidence was planted or not is another story.

That was at the point that I did not understand what happened??

All the US had to do was plant the evidence??? Why did they not do this? This is most perplexing to me.... Planting the evidence would have solved alot of problems surrounding this war? Now I realize that planting this type of evidence would be extremely difficult, but if there is anyone who could have done this, it would be our neighbors

So where does this leave us?? WITH A REAL BIG PROBLEM!!!!

What's the solution???? While I do not like it, the only answer is to make the best of a bad situation and try to complete the mission and set up democracy.


to be continued...

[slowandeasy]

Unfortunately, the Statler and Waldorfs continue to armchair QB the war...

Earlier, I had asked some questions and have not received a reply

Does anyone have a solution to the middle east (that does not include NUKE EM, or will not take 10 generations to solve?)?

How many of you in the Anti Invasion Party drive cars?
Use products related to crude oil???
Have you stopped using your cars and any products manufactured by crude oil?
Have you purchased an electric vehicle?
Have you bought a horse to commute to work with?

If not then...... never mind....

FACT: THE WESTERN ECONOMY AND LIFESTYLE IS BUILT UPON
AND HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON CRUDE OIL!!

DOES ANYONE DISAGREE?????

FACT: The recent power outage in TO showed us just how
vulnerable we are..

FACT: OK...maybe not fact... but I do not know if we (Canada)
would survive a winter without oil...

Someone help me draw a conclusion here.... there's another thought in here, but I have to run...

[strange1]

Originally posted by slowandeasy
...

FACT: The recent power outage in TO showed us just how vulnerable we are..
...

Though I agree with your first few points to some extent, this one's a red herring. The vast majority of ontairio's electrical power generation is not from oil fired plants. (Off the top of my head, I believe less than 20%)


As for solutions:

- To make Iraq into a western, liberal democracy; fat chance.

- To make Iraq a reasonably safe place to live; takes time and significant $$ invested. They need a chance to develop a basis for their own system. To reach a democratic system, probably they need to go through a generation of control by criminal (or individually motivated individuals) before individual rights get valued enough for some type of democracy to function. Under a religous system, posssibly far longer until the religous leaders fell they have a comfortable enough base of power to allow freedoms.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by onthebottom
DM,

I don't see how firing US politions is a solution in Iraq - a bit transparent on this one.

And yes, my spelling on my blackberry sucks - you looking for an admin job?



Ah, I suspected the blackberry was the culprit. Not that I was going to let it slide. :)

I'm not suggesting firing politicians - there was an election, and that's that. Just the militaro-crats like Rumsfeld who were responsible for pushing the US into the war.

Put it this way - not only are most of the people responsible for the botched occupation still running the show, but those who have left have been rewarded! Paul Bremmer gets a medal! What kind of message does this send to the people running Iraq now?

Let's say I did take that admin job. Does this scenario make any sense?

DM: Hey OTB, remember that shipment that had to be in Sacremento by Tuesday or else the company was going to lose 2 million dollars in penalties?

OTB: Yes......

DM: Well, I sent it to Pakistan instead. Apparently Osama has it now.

OTB: Oh. I see.

DM: Yeah.

OTB: I'm very disappointed in you.

DM: I know.

OTB: Here's a raise and a promotion.

DM: Great! I'll get right on that shipment that needs to go to Portland by tommorrow - just let me have a few drinks first....

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by onthebottom


The cut and run is the only suggestion I've seen from the Bush bashers. I don't see how that would help the Iraqi people and slow down the Summi on Shiite violance. I think most Americans would love to cut and run, but I think many don't think it's the right thing to do. Even the Dems were supporting staying.

OTB

I see more than one solution posted here from the anti-bush league. (and so would you, if you looked). Let’s separate the two ideas shall we, anti-bush and pro-stick-it-out verses cut-loss-run.

I’m a bush-basher, no doubt about it. Before engaging here, I was pro stick-it-out. Why? One main reason, I felt the country left unto itself, would escalate the level of global terrorism (my main concern). I spent the last 36 hours thinking over my position. I read a bunch, looking for info on the real situation in Iraq, not just the vanilla version that Canadian Press and CNN push. Finally, I came to the undesirable conclusion (and please believe me, I tried to push my point of view hard into stick-with-it camp) that the military solution is the only solution in Iraq, if the US is to stay the course. There is no political solution. This will lead to more genocide, (yes, same will occur if they pull out). The difference is that in the military solution, the US will have a hand in the genocide. This consequence will be like pouring naptha gas on the Islam extremist movement everywhere. I finally concluded this is the bigger of the two problems we all face.

If we compare the two outcomes in terms of US interests (staying the course verses cut and run), the escalation of islamic extremism world wide is a larger negative, than having Iraq fall into the chaos of self-rule. The cut and run solution is the more detrimental of the two for US corporate interests, because by staying the course, there is the ongoing business of war, and the billions that flow due to the business. However the counter point, is that US security weakens on a broader scale, along with those of France, UK, Asia etc (Pakistan for one) , in the equation, due to the large boost of cannon fodder to international terrorism and its recruitment etc etc. resulting from the US hand in genocide in the M.E. region.

This is simply ‘a point of view’. Like all points of view, it can be changed. I am open to any light that can be shed. But for now I have to side with this point of view, because that’s the outcome I see for the future, based on current reality. Bush has come and Bush will go. Islamic extremism will be here for decades. What the US does in Iraq now (in the next year), will largely determine/affect the course of that destiny.

[Mcluhan]

On Bush bashing and the Canadian view. There is a completely different mind set in Canadian Politics (includes UK and France) verses the American mind set. Here we call our politicians liars quite openly when they lie. It is the ‘Canadian thing to do’, in fact we expect out politicians to lie, and they rarely let us down. So we land on them mercilessly. However, in the US, when a politician lies, it is unpatriotic to outwardly call a politician a liar, and you are unpatriotic if you do. The Americans dance around the lies, trying to find some failure somewhere to pin it on. So when Canadians bash the US political leadership, it is not ‘un-American' on this side of the boarder, it simply Canadians doing what they do - bashing a lying politician. And we probably do it well. (hopefully)

On the US in Iraq. The only people anywhere that want Americans in Iraq, are Americans (and the Israelis, an American territory). The Iraqis don’t want them there, The rest of the M.E. doesn’t want them there, and the other countries of the world (includes Ukraine) don’t want them there. They are alone in wanting to be there.

The US and those Americans that got behind the invasion, made a mistake when they invaded Iraq. It’s that simple. Now they have to admit to the mistake, and pull out. Somehow, they have to find a way to say, “It wasn’t really sex.�..or ‘I didn’t inhale’… or “We didn’t really kill 110,000 Iraqis�….and get the fark out. The sooner the better.

[Mcluhan]

Amid Talk of Withdrawal, Pentagon Is Taking Steps For Longer Stay in Iraq
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration drops hints about withdrawing troops from Iraq as early as this year, the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system that suggests American soldiers will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

The new network, known as Central Iraq Microwave System, will eventually consist of up to 12 communications towers throughout Iraq and fiber-optic cables connecting Camp Victory, located outside of Baghdad, to other coalition bases in the country, according to three sources familiar with the project. The land-based system will replace the tactical communications network the Army and Marines have been using in Iraq. That network relied primarily on satellites and is much easier to dismantle. The contract for the new communications system covering central Iraq, won by Galaxy Scientific Corporation, is worth about $10 million.





http://www.nysun.com/article/7680

[slowandeasy]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Were you not paying attention when I provided said solution? Fire those responsible for screwing up in the first place. Was this too complicated? Or, true to form, are you simply going to put your head in the sand whenever somebody provides an answer to one of your silly little challenges?

I'm not sure I can find the place where I contradict myseld (your spelling is really going to pot), but I do want to make sure you understand the problem: we can do nothing but expect the momentary joy over their liberation to be slowly bleeding away, and a nostaligia for the old stability - however oppressive - to be just as progressively infecting the Iraqi people.

As I'm sure you realise, this is not a question of saying "Iraq would be better off with Sadaam" - a tacit way of putting forward the tired old pathetic "an opponent of Bush is a friend of Sadaam" defense - but simply of noting how badly off Iraq is today. Iraqis are now dying a rate that is 2.5 times higher than during the last year of Sadaam's regiem - a testament not to the gentleness of that regiem, but to the massive neglect of the occupiers.

DM you must really be drunk when you post, as you seem to have brief moments of amazing clarity then you lapse..

First your solution was impractical and would wreak further havoc.

I don't know what the figures are, but I do believe that Iraqi's are dying at a rate of 2.5X higher.

But then you draw the conclusion that this is a direct result of the Occupiers neglect. That is not necessarily the case. It's a combination of a number of things.

Gotta run again..

[xarir]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
The US and those Americans that got behind the invasion, made a mistake when they invaded Iraq. It’s that simple. Now they have to admit to the mistake, and pull out. Somehow, they have to find a way to say, “It wasn’t really sex.�..or ‘I didn’t inhale’… or “We didn’t really kill 110,000 Iraqis�….and get the fark out. The sooner the better.

It's interesting to see the historical parallels here. In the early 1940s, the US sent military "advisors" in the form of elite military teams to Vietnam. Why? To help train the Vietnamese in their fight against the Japanese. The guy in charge of things in Vietnam? Ho Chi Minh who went on to lead the Viet Minh which later evolved into the Viet Cong.

A few decades later, the US sent in military advisors and other covert assistance to a ragtag group of folks in Afghanistan to help them combat the evil Soviet Union.

A decade later, the US sent in military assistance to a guy name Saddam Hussein to help him fight the evil regime of Iran.

I would like to think, naively perhaps, that the intentions of the US were relatively good at heart. I don't thing they were trying to destabilize the world and make it a Bad Place, but they were thinking a little short-term and being self serving in that they did what was perceived to be the right thing only for US national interests. Nonetheless, one has to wonder if a time may come when the US politicians realize that non-interference is a viable alternative.

That's not to say that one stands by idly while two groups try to beat the living crap out of each other. Rwanda and now Darfur are precise examples where interference in the form of protecting innocents should be used judiciously. But not imposing "Western values" in regions that don't inherently subscribe to them is something that US foreign policy must learn. Otherwise the US, the areas they try to "help" and by extension the world will forever be paying the price of human tragedy and of lost opportunities for peaceful co-existence.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by slowandeasy
DM you must really be drunk when you post, as you seem to have brief moments of amazing clarity then you lapse..

First your solution was impractical and would wreak further havoc.

Firing Rumsfeld and his cohorts will cause havoc? Wow. They really are the masters of the universe.


I don't know what the figures are, but I do believe that Iraqi's are dying at a rate of 2.5X higher.

But then you draw the conclusion that this is a direct result of the Occupiers neglect. That is not necessarily the case. It's a combination of a number of things.



Yes indeed, it is a combination of things - including neglect and incompetence. And I'm far from the first one to draw that conclusion.

[slowandeasy]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Firing Rumsfeld and his cohorts will cause havoc? Wow. They really are the masters of the universe.

[B]

Yes indeed, it is a combination of things - including neglect and incompetence. And I'm far from the first one to draw that conclusion.

Ok... it's a combination of a number of things including neglect and incompetence...

I surely hope that when Judy Sgro gets back to the cabinet, she will work out something for Iraq Strippers, SPs and MPA to get easy access to working visas in Canada.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
Ah, I suspected the blackberry was the culprit. Not that I was going to let it slide. :)

I'm not suggesting firing politicians - there was an election, and that's that. Just the militaro-crats like Rumsfeld who were responsible for pushing the US into the war.

Put it this way - not only are most of the people responsible for the botched occupation still running the show, but those who have left have been rewarded! Paul Bremmer gets a medal! What kind of message does this send to the people running Iraq now?

Let's say I did take that admin job. Does this scenario make any sense?

DM: Hey OTB, remember that shipment that had to be in Sacremento by Tuesday or else the company was going to lose 2 million dollars in penalties?

OTB: Yes......

DM: Well, I sent it to Pakistan instead. Apparently Osama has it now.

OTB: Oh. I see.

DM: Yeah.

OTB: I'm very disappointed in you.

DM: I know.

OTB: Here's a raise and a promotion.

DM: Great! I'll get right on that shipment that needs to go to Portland by tommorrow - just let me have a few drinks first....

I don't know that I'd be handing out medals, unless they had to do with Afghanistan.

What I found curious was that when asked for a suggested course of action you focused in Washington - I don't think that will impact the events on the ground in Iraq. If you were put in charge - what would you do.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by Mcluhan
I see more than one solution posted here from the anti-bush league. (and so would you, if you looked). Let’s separate the two ideas shall we, anti-bush and pro-stick-it-out verses cut-loss-run.

I’m a bush-basher, no doubt about it. Before engaging here, I was pro stick-it-out. Why? One main reason, I felt the country left unto itself, would escalate the level of global terrorism (my main concern). I spent the last 36 hours thinking over my position. I read a bunch, looking for info on the real situation in Iraq, not just the vanilla version that Canadian Press and CNN push. Finally, I came to the undesirable conclusion (and please believe me, I tried to push my point of view hard into stick-with-it camp) that the military solution is the only solution in Iraq, if the US is to stay the course. There is no political solution. This will lead to more genocide, (yes, same will occur if they pull out). The difference is that in the military solution, the US will have a hand in the genocide. This consequence will be like pouring naptha gas on the Islam extremist movement everywhere. I finally concluded this is the bigger of the two problems we all face.

If we compare the two outcomes in terms of US interests (staying the course verses cut and run), the escalation of islamic extremism world wide is a larger negative, than having Iraq fall into the chaos of self-rule. The cut and run solution is the more detrimental of the two for US corporate interests, because by staying the course, there is the ongoing business of war, and the billions that flow due to the business. However the counter point, is that US security weakens on a broader scale, along with those of France, UK, Asia etc (Pakistan for one) , in the equation, due to the large boost of cannon fodder to international terrorism and its recruitment etc etc. resulting from the US hand in genocide in the M.E. region.

This is simply ‘a point of view’. Like all points of view, it can be changed. I am open to any light that can be shed. But for now I have to side with this point of view, because that’s the outcome I see for the future, based on current reality. Bush has come and Bush will go. Islamic extremism will be here for decades. What the US does in Iraq now (in the next year), will largely determine/affect the course of that destiny.

Thanks for that, I think you can come to either conclusion (stay and fight it out or cut and run) depending on what factors you emphasize. I tend to think if we cut and run that it will have a Somalia effect of convincing terrorists that if they fight hard enough we'll give up and leave. I don't think there is ANY chance W will do that, he's a stubborn guy when he's running for reelection - now that he's in for 4 with never having to face the voters again in his life he's going to do what he wants and that's stay and fight. Doesn't mean it's right, just what's going to happen IMHO.

I tend to think if we can find ways to kill the insurgents faster, get the Iraqi's in the fight and seal off the boarders with Syria and Iran this thing could be won. A successful election in two weeks could take some of the air out of the insurgents sails - far from a sure thing but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I don't really care what's good for corporate America on this, how much it costs or how long it takes, I think winning is everything here.

I have a very good friend who is a Republican and a Palestinian. His strong view is cut-and-run is the only answer. He keeps telling me that when they look at us they see the British.

OTB

[langeweile]

My guess is that the US population will send a firm message on the midterm elections to the Republican party.
There is a good chance for anti-war candidates to gain some ground. This trend will set the tone for 08 and will let either an antiwar candidate a la Dean or a moderate a la McCain come to the forefront.
Either way there will be a lot of public pressure on ending the "Iraq Experience".

Either way, IMHO this will be over soon.

A few posts back someone mentioned that Canadians call their politicians liars.True, they do, but do they hold them accountable?
I will watch with great interest the fallout of the sponsorship scandal.
Let's see if this will go to the top and if the buck will stop there?

[langeweile]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050116/2005-01-16T173023Z_01_GEO655222_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.html

[langeweile]

Originally posted by bbking
You already saw the fall out - the Liberals only have a minority government. BTW who says US Congressman and Senators are any more accountable than Canadian politicians. Incumbancy in non-term limited jobs is amongst the highest in the world in American politics - you trying to tell me this is because American polititians are more honest than anyone else.


bbk

I am not sure where you see me imply this?

A few posts back some guy was implying that Canadians somehow, hold their own politicians to a higher standard.
I can't say i have seen much evidence of this, that's why i have refered to the scandal.
I hope there is going to be a bit more beef than that. I for once want to know, how much Martin and Chretien knew about it?
Chretien is due to testify this month.

Martin even if he didn't knew about the ad agencies(I give him that benefit), at least he has hown incompetence, by not knowing where a substantial part of his money went, while he was minister of finnace.

I have never implied that US politicians are more honest. IMHO power corrupts and I wish their would be a term limit in the US.
Less goverment is always better than more.

[slowandeasy]

Originally posted by bbking
I am very sure Martin knew about the ad agencies - after all the original idea was approved by the government. What he didn't know was that not all the money went to ads and hence the scandal. Some of Martin's critics seem to think that Finance Minister needs to know where every last penny is spent, I think our Finance Ministers have better things to do.

This is a Chretien scandal and just simply good ole fashioned Quebec buddy buddy politics - but good luck in getting Chretien to say anything.


bbk

I agree with you BBK. I would hope that the Finance Minister has better things to do.

slow waits for the effects to wear off before he can type again

I was amused when some politicians seemed to expect to ask Martin about $10 that was spent in 1999 on meals for the MP from SW buttfuck!!!!...

What I was disturbed about was when he was asked how much government money was spent on his Shipping Company and he missed by a factor of 10. I think that he had said $10million and the figure was $160 million. Now that caused me some concern..

[langeweile]

Originally posted by bbking
I was also surprised at that but it should be noted that while Martin didn't formally give control to his sons until after the leadership convention, the reality is that his sons have been running the Company since 1989. In addition the conflict of interest rule require that Martin not be involved in any meeting where Canada Steamship was brought up and all indications show that he did just that, so not being that informed on Canada Steamship policy - might be a good thing. I think it is important to note that nobody has said the reasons for the granting the money was any less important than the money granted to those snow mobile builders. Again Quebec politics as usual - BTW this kind of politics is not limited to the Liberals - Mulroney of the PCs paved the way.


bbk

BTW this kind of politics knows no boundaries or nationality...IMHO

[Mcluhan]

From inside Iraq..



Iraq violence spreads to 'safe' areas

Gunmen are now setting up their own checkpoints on most roads leading out of Baghdad....

....The number of attacks across the country now averages 80 a day, the same level as last spring when the US occupation was facing its greatest challenge, trying to head off armed uprisings in Sunni and Shia areas....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1392871,00.html

[yychobbyist]

Makes you wonder how much violence there'll be on election day.

[danmand]

Well, if the location of the polling stations have to be kept secret for fear of attacks, I would not show up.

[danmand]

In the Galapagos Islands, the finches have beaks that .....Oh, never mind.

[Mcluhan]

Originally posted by bbking
....and you would be a wimp. Somethings are so important that you should standup for what you believe. If it was me I would vote - mind I most likely be armed to the teeth, but I would vote.
bbk

Would I stand up in front of a snipers bullet to vote? Let me think about that.. (a quarter second passes)..No.

One thing I found interesting, there could be between 1 mil and 4 ex-pats voting.

[yychobbyist]

Any society where you need to be armed to the teeth to vote has some serious farking problems. Any society which would allow you to vote while armed to the teeth has even bigger problems.

[danmand]

Would anybody else be willing to make a contribution towards buying a ticket to Iraq for BB, so he can show his heroism appropriately?

Please give generously.

[danmand]

Originally posted by bbking
Gee Danny boy - Are you being a silly fart once again? You would have to get me Iraq citizenship for that to happen and I'm not planning on leaving the greatest country in the world.


I hear they are looking for people to guard the polling stations.

Please.

[yychobbyist]

Originally posted by bbking
I didn't say they didn't have problems but if I was getting a real vote for the first time, there would be no way in hell some asshat is going to chase me off that vote and if they tried they would regret it. To stay home would be wimpy and not respect what was at stake.

For you to imply that a first time democracy like Iraq, isn't a real democracy because of the potential for violence is just wrong. Hell you can't even get thru an election in Jamacia without a body count.


bbk

Be that as it may, I would be willing to bet that your average Iraqi would rather wake up in bed next to his wife and make breakfast for his kids than be blown to bits while voting the day before.

I'm not implying that Iraq isn't a real democracy because of a potential for violence. I'm just saying that a society where you're allowed to take a weapon to a polling station is a pretty fucked up place. Moreover, any society where there is violence during elections also has its issues.

If asked outright, I wouldn't imply that Iraq isnt' a real democracy because of violence, I'd say it wasn't going to be a real democracy for a few generations because I don't think real democracies can be forced on anyone, I think they're a product of a historical evolution. I also think forcing a state to become a democracy when there is no history of it does nothing but fuel any existing problems.

[mrpolarbear]

The US military is so far advanced and the potential enemy *Syria* is relatively weak, the war could be won without having to be based in IRAQ.

If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgency, an attack on those targets, should be warranted. isnt that what they said about Iraq in the begining.WEAK

[yychobbyist]

Actually no. During the runup to the first Gulf War I remember an article in Time mag. that said that Iraq was the third largest standing army in the world.



bbk

I remember a great cartoon in the Calgary Herald during the first Iraq war where there was a soldier standing at a sign that said "Welcome to Iraq, Home of the World's 3rd largest army". The "3rd" was crossed out and replaced by 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th which were also crossed out.

[langeweile]

isnt that what they said about Iraq in the begining.WEAK

Army yes...insurgents....no..two different issues. The army is not fighting anymore.


BBK the slogan 3rd largest army was done for publicity. They certainly didn't fight like it.

[danmand]

Now that is funny lol


I am glad that you can see the fun in killing humans. I can't.

[Mcluhan]

Why don't you go back to kissing Ranger's butt.

bbk
Where is Ranger? After weeks of disagreement on this point, I finally reversed my opinion, and decided the US should pull out. I was expecting at least one Ha! i told you so!" :o This thread was much more entertaining with his lambasting.

[danmand]

What is your farking problem. You really have to say something negative about everything I post - Am I that farking important in your life. Grow the farkup you path. fool

Is this truly the best you can do - I understand you generally have nothing of any importance to say but at least your kissing of Ranger's ass is mildly amusing. Why don't you go back to kissing Ranger's butt.

bbk

Boy, are you in a foul mood.

[Mcluhan]

I don't really care what's good for corporate America on this, how much it costs or how long it takes, I think winning is everything here.



OTB, interesting take on 'winning'. Enjoy!


Julia Roberts has a better chance of winning this war

Iraq will surrender its soul to America only when the US army has left

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1393528,00.html

[Manji]

This year will be a big year for Iraq....

The elections, the new government and the ability of Iraq's security forces to slowly demonstrate that it will be able to handle things on its own (though the US military will definitly have to be strong presence in Iraq for years)....

It seems that the United States (Bush and his cabinet) is still committed to finishing what it started in Iraq despite what some here are saying.... :rolleyes:

[langeweile]

This year will be a big year for Iraq....

The elections, the new government and the ability of Iraq's security forces to slowly demonstrate that it will be able to handle things on its own (though the US military will definitly have to be strong presence in Iraq for years)....

It seems that the United States (Bush and his cabinet) is still committed to finishing what it started in Iraq despite what some here are saying.... :rolleyes:


Even if there is a plan to pull out any time soon. Do you seriously believe that it would be communicated?
Like I said earlier, this will be over some time after the midterm elections, especially if things continue to worsen.

[Mcluhan]

What you claim to be your truth's are a quoting of second hand sources and blogs, some of them quiet dubious I might add.

In my book you are as qualified (or not) than everybody else to make a statement here on this board...

Press release:

The Baghdad Burning book

In her riveting weblog, a remarkable young Iraqi woman gives a human face to war and occupation.

In August 2003, the world gained access to a remarkable new voice: a blog written by a 25-year-old Iraqi woman living in Baghdad, whose identity remained concealed for her own protection. Calling herself Riverbend, she offered searing eyewitness accounts of the everyday realities on the ground, punctuated by astute analysis on the politics behind these events.

Riverbend recounts stories of life in an occupied city - of neighbors whose home are raided by U.S. troops, whose relatives disappear into prisons, and whose children are kidnapped by money-hungry militias. The only Iraqi blogger writing from a woman's perspective, she also describes a once-secular city where women are now afraid to leave their homes without head covering and a male escort.

Interspersedwith these vivid snapshots from daily life are Riverbend's analyses of everything from the elusive workings of the Iraqi Governing Council to the torture in Abu Gharib, from the coverage provided by American media and by Al-Jazeera to Bush's State of the Union Speech. Here again, she focuses especially on the fate of women, whose rights and freedoms have fallen victim to rising fundamentalisms in a chaotic post-war society.

With thousands of loyal readers worldwide, the Riverbend blog is recognized around the world as a crucial source of information not available through the mainstream media.

The book is due out in March 2005. You can order it from the Feminist Press at the City University of New York.

[yychobbyist]

The book is due out in March 2005. You can order it from the Feminist Press at the City University of New York.

Ok ok. I'll say it first (to save Langeweile and OTB the trouble), how can you trust anything published by a placed called the Feminist Press? I mean, I've never heard of it, it's so obviously a biased publisher as to be completely meaningless. Unless it's published by an unbiased source like the National Review I would pay this book no heed.

[Mcluhan]

I think its a good thing you've never heard of this publisher Feminist Press. And neither have I.

Point was in response to the angry german's remarks about my blog sources, (this btw was the only blog i referenced). I found it interesting that the blog was being published into a book... maybe that in itself is note worthy (to some who read the blog). It's probably not every day a blog is published...let alone by a new york house.

(Edited to add: Sorry YYC, it just occured you are being facetious...lol.. I'm having a LOW I.Q. day!)

[islandboy]

As much as I was against the Iraq war, I simply think that many of these claims are a combination of good writing and propaganda. Sure things are tough. Sure there are instances of terrible things - but all that is being claimed here; I am simply not that gullible.

[yychobbyist]

As much as I was against the Iraq war, I simply think that many of these claims are a combination of good writing and propaganda. Sure things are tough. Sure there are instances of terrible things - but all that is being claimed here; I am simply not that gullible.

And what are we gullible types believing that you do not?

[onthebottom]

And what are we gullible types believing that you do not?

That the Afghans withstood the Russians for a decade and the US will get bogged down in the mountains.... oh wait

That the US will suffer huge casualties in house to house fighting before Saddam can be overthrown..... oh wait

That there is a nation wide insurgency and that democracy can't come to Iraq - yeah that's the one.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

That there is a nation wide insurgency and that democracy can't come to Iraq - yeah that's the one.

OTB

Come back to this board in ten years and then we can talk about that one. Democracy will not come to Iraq this month or next. To think any differently is to dream in technicolour.l

[onthebottom]

Come back to this board in ten years and then we can talk about that one. Democracy will not come to Iraq this month or next. To think any differently is to dream in technicolour.l

Has democracy come to Afghanistan? How about Japan where the same party has been in charge since WWII? Depends on how you define it I guess. Iraqi citizens will elect representatives that will govern them - that would have to be one definition.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

Has democracy come to Afghanistan? How about Japan where the same party has been in charge since WWII? Depends on how you define it I guess. Iraqi citizens will elect representatives that will govern them - that would have to be one definition.

OTB

It is amongst the weakest of definitions.

[Mcluhan]

Yes, it was devilishly clever plan. Invent a global terror threat, by marketing the falsehood of WMD, backed by such tales as the Niger uranium forgeries. Step two, lie some more and fire/demote the disagreeable counter intelligence core because they were in the way. Invade a sovereign nation with no ties to terrorism. Destroy half the country. Kill 110,000 civilians. Deploy 100 billion dollars to service corporations with ailing balance sheets who do not rebuild the country because it’s suddenly too dangerous, but they keep the money anyway (and ask for more). Do not secure the suddenly unprotected boarders so the genuine al Qaeda terrorists, can flood into the devastated country to gorge themselves killing soldiers riding around in aluminum foil armor. Then when the public begins to question the credibility factor, invent a larger WMD threat right next door in Iran, the evil theocracy. The bigger the lie the more believable.

Finally, the ultimate public relations coup de gras, sweep the whole mess of lies under the Persian rug by claiming it’s all about national safety and the spreading of Democracy. No gullibility factor here whatsoever. 200 billion well spent. Let’s not forget that we also finally captured one al Qaeda lieutenant. Well done.

[Drunken Master]

Has democracy come to Afghanistan? How about Japan where the same party has been in charge since WWII? Depends on how you define it I guess. Iraqi citizens will elect representatives that will govern them - that would have to be one definition.

OTB

You're right - democracy is in the defining. I've always that the fact that Japan enjoys a singularly autocractic form of democracy is proof positive that you can't enter a country that has little or no tradition of democracy and expect to create one with any ease.

And, just so we're clear, Iraqi citizens will not be electing "representatives that will govern them". They will be electing representatives who will debate and approve a constitution. Iraqi democracy is still a long ways away.

[islandboy]

Good idea forget about what will be the end result for a while - several years. Now all you can do is your best under the present circumstances. There is no choice - while mistaken this will be seen through to a point that the international community can reflect upon and say "They did what they set out to do" That last statement may be loosely formulated as I expect the administration to waffle, but the fact is that the US can not under any circumstances be seen to have lost this one. (And while this point has been made before it does not seem to be contested.)

[Mcluhan]

Good idea forget about what will be the end result for a while - several years. Now all you can do is your best under the present circumstances. There is no choice - while mistaken this will be seen through to a point that the international community can reflect upon and say "They did what they set out to do" That last statement may be loosely formulated as I expect the administration to waffle, but the fact is that the US can not under any circumstances be seen to have lost this one. (And while this point has been made before it does not seem to be contested.)

No sir. An (American) poster said, "its all about winning". What was agreed to is, yes indeed this does seem to be the Administration's point of view. (left to their own, the Military would probably withdraw, IMHO)

[yychobbyist]

Good idea forget about what will be the end result for a while - several years. Now all you can do is your best under the present circumstances. There is no choice - while mistaken this will be seen through to a point that the international community can reflect upon and say "They did what they set out to do" That last statement may be loosely formulated as I expect the administration to waffle, but the fact is that the US can not under any circumstances be seen to have lost this one. (And while this point has been made before it does not seem to be contested.)

Hey, unless there is a total collapse of the insurgency and Iraq becomes the region's most stable political entity (and who'd bet on either of those happening in the foreseeable future) the U.S. has lost this one.

[slowpoke]

...There is no choice - while mistaken this will be seen through to a point that the international community can reflect upon and say "They did what they set out to do" That last statement may be loosely formulated as I expect the administration to waffle, but the fact is that the US can not under any circumstances be seen to have lost this one. (And while this point has been made before it does not seem to be contested.)

I assume you mean that US' international credibility would take a huge hit if the rest of the world saw their invasion as a failure because they lied about WMD and then completely failed to keep their promise of establishing democracy, freedom and security in Iraq. IMHO, this is already happening. This election will be a travesty. The US won't hang around for the many years it will take to get real democracy, if it ever does take hold. So the US is going to take that hit. You can count on it.

[Mcluhan]

The US won't hang around for the many years it will take to get real democracy, if it ever does take hold. So the US is going to take that hit. You can count on it.

Agreed 1000%. Tell, me someone..anyone...what could possible happen to prevent this from becoming a stong theocracy? (with close ties to Iran?)

It looks like the Pentagon is planning on another two years at current troop levels...meanwhile...they cannot even secure the road to the airport...and they have returned to airstrike warfare...not good for civilians... The soldiers and marines returning are telling a different story than the media. It's going to a bloody 'four more years'.

[islandboy]

I understand your points, but if the US does not get to a point that the international community accepts as a proper job completion, the US will no longer be accepted as having a voice which can or should be listened to.
While you may like that idea, hang on to your wallet as there will be no reasonable alternative to a vastly increased military and ecomonic aid budget countries such as Canada.


If you think that the world will do just fine without no credible country or countries out there with the resources to to help with conflict and/or disaster and/or economic collapse, we are wasting each other's time.

You know, then it comes to the Tidal waves that just hit, the US cash per person may or may not be the largest, but that does not factor in that it was our ships, planes, and men that were the first on the ground with sufficient resources to help out. That costs a huge sum of money. To the extent that it is claimed that US interntional contributions have declined over the past few years, that does not consider the costs of our military which by its size, capablity, and use has contributed to world stablity.

[Mcluhan]

I understand your points, but if the US does not get to a point that the international community accepts as a proper job completion, the US will no longer be accepted as having a voice which can or should be listened to.
While you may like that idea, hang on to your wallet as there will be no reasonable alternative to a vastly increased military and ecomonic aid budget countries such as Canada.


If you think that the world will do just fine without no credible country or countries out there with the resources to to help with conflict and/or disaster and/or economic collapse, we are wasting each other's time.

You know, then it comes to the Tidal waves that just hit, the US cash per person may or may not be the largest, but that does not factor in that it was our ships, planes, and men that were the first on the ground with sufficient resources to help out. That costs a huge sum of money. To the extent that it is claimed that US interntional contributions have declined over the past few years, that does not consider the costs of our military which by its size, capablity, and use has contributed to world stablity.

Your point is clear, a large military infrastructure is an enormous benefit when tragedy strikes. The argument what’s good for the goose, is also good for the gander, looses meaning when you compare crisis aid with invading a sovereign nation on false pretense over ulterior motives. I can’t think of a better way to lose hard-earned well-deserved credibility, can you? It’s a false argument in this circumstance, because the US had store piles of international credibility, before it thumbed its nose at the UN, and went waltzing into Iraq. Admittedly the UN is a weak and sometimes corrupt organization, however since its inception, and the loftier days of Dag Hammarskjold the U.N.Charter’s main reason for existence was to prevent war, and its happens to be the only global voice the rest of us have. Now, the US has thrown a cold wet blanket on the role of the UN in this capacity, in as much saying the UN interests are not US interests, and that's all that counts. It doesn't strengthen you argument to find that the UN was correct in its assessment of MWD, and the Slam Dunk crowd was wrong.

Okay. Fine. Please continue with your argument, but for Christ's sake fess up to the lying, the coercion, and the mistakes first. Some honesty here might at least strengthen the wilting platform.

[slowpoke]

Agreed 1000%. Tell, me someone..anyone...what could possible happen to prevent this from becoming a stong theocracy? (with close ties to Iran?)

It looks like the Pentagon is planning on another two years at current troop levels...meanwhile...they cannot even secure the road to the airport...and they have returned to airstrike warfare...not good for civilians... The soldiers and marines returning are telling a different story than the media. It's going to a bloody 'four more years'.

Whether it is two more years or four more, they will be very long and arduous! The US public is rapidly losing its enthusiasm for exporting freedom and democracy so I expect the US will ditch Iraq at the earliest opportunity. It will become politically necessary to cut and run because the folks back home will see it as an impossible mission and demand an end to it.

It is one thing to invade and militarily occupy a country of that size and complexity. But it is quite another to force freedom and democracy on people you have already starved, bombed, imprisoned, brutalized and generally alienated. US credibility in Iraq no longer exists. It has been replaced by a fervent and now entrenched insurgency that will be impossible to root out and defeat. The longer the US stays, the worse this will get.

[islandboy]

Yes I fear that Bush will spin the terms of exit from Iraq. And yes, there was a hit to crediblity. But all that can be done now is get on with it and try as best you can. As I noted in another thread: while I fear that thoecratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will cause continued problems, if it brings hope to those within Iraq and those surrounding it and, as well, can liberalize over time, it may be that history will not view what has happened so dimly.

Consider, that while there are delivery problems with Iraqi oil, prices have risen and the accounting is transparent which long term is a huge plus for the iraqi people.

[yychobbyist]

Yes I fear that Bush will spin the terms of exit from Iraq. And yes, there was a hit to crediblity. But all that can be done now is get on with it and try as best you can. As I noted in another thread: while I fear that thoecratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will cause continued problems, if it brings hope to those within Iraq and those surrounding it and, as well, can liberalize over time, it may be that history will not view what has happened so dimly.

Consider, that while there are delivery problems with Iraqi oil, prices have risen and the accounting is transparent which long term is a huge plus for the iraqi people.

I wonder why many of us in the West have a problem with the concept of a theocratic democracy when we never question the concept of a captalist democracry.

[Mcluhan]

Yes I fear that Bush will spin the terms of exit from Iraq. And yes, there was a hit to crediblity. But all that can be done now is get on with it and try as best you can. As I noted in another thread: while I fear that thoecratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will cause continued problems, if it brings hope to those within Iraq and those surrounding it and, as well, can liberalize over time, it may be that history will not view what has happened so dimly.

Consider, that while there are delivery problems with Iraqi oil, prices have risen and the accounting is transparent which long term is a huge plus for the iraqi people.

Islandboy help me out here. You are saying that the US made a mistake by invading Iraq? Correct? (requesting a 'yes' or 'no' answer)

You are saying that Bush will 'spin the terms' of his exit from Iraq. can you be more specific? The Pentagon is set for two more years. Can you even think in terms of year five? If so, what do you see? What do you think Bush sees?

If your answer to the first question was (a clearly spoken): "Yes, the US made a mistake", then is your statement: get on with it and try as best you can not the same as, "We are in a hole, let's keep digging." Or do you imagine some way to correct the mistake by continuing down the same road.

[islandboy]

Yes - I am saying that the US should not have invaded Iraq. I understand the reasons but there were alternatives.

Yes I am saying that Bush MAY 'spin the terms' of his exit from Iraq by saying that the deomocratic status or readiness for self suffciency are greater than what is the case. As I think that now that we are in there, there is no alternative to getting things done wiil, I can in terms of five years. But I see Bush cutting and running if the heat gets to high - while he understand the history, he also has to worry internal matters and such things about Jeb's run for POTUS.

In response to your statement: "If your answer to the first question was (a clearly spoken): "Yes, the US made a mistake", then is your statement: get on with it and try as best you can not the same as, "We are in a hole, let's keep digging." Or do you imagine some way to correct the mistake by continuing down the same road." I respond. 1) Canada is on the other side of the hole. And seriously 2) Of course, we must persevere. This is not Vietman, the costs of leaving the country in a state where there will be blood bath on every street corner and a complete break down of services including police - there must be enough central authority with suffcient power to at least keep the infrastructure running - is not an option. Vietman did not face that fate; they always had the North ready willing and able to administer some sort of transition. The North was harsh but there was no complete breakdown of ALL order. That is the real consequence of cutting and running.
There are greater polical and moral issues at hand now.

[yychobbyist]

I understand Shrub today said that the American presence in Iraq would last for generations. That's an interesting admission if true.

[Mcluhan]

Yes - I am saying that the US should not have invaded Iraq. I understand the reasons but there were alternatives.

Yes I am saying that Bush MAY 'spin the terms' of his exit from Iraq by saying that the deomocratic status or readiness for self suffciency are greater than what is the case. As I think that now that we are in there, there is no alternative to getting things done wiil, I can in terms of five years. But I see Bush cutting and running if the heat gets to high - while he understand the history, he also has to worry internal matters and such things about Jeb's run for POTUS.

In response to your statement: "If your answer to the first question was (a clearly spoken): "Yes, the US made a mistake", then is your statement: get on with it and try as best you can not the same as, "We are in a hole, let's keep digging." Or do you imagine some way to correct the mistake by continuing down the same road." I respond. 1) Canada is on the other side of the hole. And seriously 2) Of course, we must persevere. This is not Vietman, the costs of leaving the country in a state where there will be blood bath on every street corner and a complete break down of services including police - there must be enough central authority with suffcient power to at least keep the infrastructure running - is not an option. Vietman did not face that fate; they always had the North ready willing and able to administer some sort of transition. The North was harsh but there was no complete breakdown of ALL order. That is the real consequence of cutting and running.
There are greater polical and moral issues at hand now.

Thanks for the answer(s). You raise a good point on North Vietnam. I wonder about Iraq laspsing into a chaotic civil war. It is not necessarily a given. There are those among the Sunni and Shia both who seem to feel they have been living and do now live in relative harmony with the Shias. Do you not think that the Sunni and Shia would pull together and solve their own internal 'arab' problems? I for one tend to think so...only because I am listening to what the Iraqi's are saying in the street. What makes you think that the country would fold into chaos and civil war? The Kurds seem to be a different matter. They would likely (instantly upon US pull-out)) form an independent state, and they have the arms support to do so. Is it perhaps more of a reality (than imminent civil war) that the US does not want to face a second Iran, i.e. the strengthening of fundamentalism in the region and a theocracy controling the second largest oil reserve on the planet..rather than the US concern for a civil war in Iraq. Lets be honest about the intentions here, of your Government.

[slowpoke]

I understand Shrub today said that the American presence in Iraq would last for generations. That's an interesting admission if true.

Hollow words from a man who doesn't ever have to worry about the next election. What possible reason do we have to suspect him of telling the truth? Anything at all.....

[islandboy]

My view is the Kurds and Turks will fight their own war.

The sunni's and shia's have so little experience knowing they can work together without supressing each other and/or killing each other or just simply settling old scores, that with all those arms and no effective civil administration in place to run the infrastructure and perform police et. al. duties there would be door to door civil war.

As far as underlying US motives I discount many such as oil - too speculative per Pravda - and while the decision matrix certainly has others which I disagree with, as Colin Powell said "You break it, you own it."

I am not particularly interested in US motives on going in except as we can learn from what we have found so we can get out in a diplomatically and morally acceptable fashion and not repeat the mistake. And If you have read my opinions in other threads, you will see that I take the position that we will only know if this nation building thing actually works in about 40 years if we stay the course.

As far as the oxymoron of a theocartic democary, only time will tell if learning to work together within the context of a transparent government can evolve into something self sustaining. Right now any government which does not give both Sunni's and Shia's a strong say will fail. It should be noted that there are strong mulla's in both camps who are keeping their mouths shut - I guess in order to be sure that if and when they can assert influence that, ot having shot themselves in the foot, they will be in a position to be listened to.

Ah, who the hell knows anything anyway. (Having said this do not think me a neo-con who thinks that long term strategic thinking is a waste of time and that only short term goals matter.) I just think that too many people are drawing too many conculsions - mine included.

[onthebottom]

I wonder why many of us in the West have a problem with the concept of a theocratic democracy when we never question the concept of a captalist democracry.

I think you've started to loose your grip....

OTB

[red]

I wonder why many of us in the West have a problem with the concept of a theocratic democracy when we never question the concept of a captalist democracry.


not too many theocratic democracies have escort review boards.

[islandboy]

I think as is almost always the case nowdays that all of forget that capitalizm and democracy are not the same thing. Indeed, we often confuse capitalism and market analysis with business and business profits. Capitalism and clear known values are not the same as profitable business - would that it did but hiding cost and benefits can help profits.

When we talk about democracy we are talking about a process of choice. Economics is a factor. Religion is a factor. Funding is a factor. Freedom is a factor. The problem with a democracy that elevates all other aspects to one and is authoritarian in how is thus structures itself is that change, adaptation and other considerations may never be possible.
We see this when buiness hijacks this administration. While it talks about an ownership society instilling hope and responsiblity, its actions tend to belie that ideal. So while our model is still better as it has more actors able to get to the table and make a difference, the theocratic model shuts off many of the players before they get to the gate.