We're Losing In Iraq

[LoungeMachine]

Published in the October 4, 2004 issue of The Nation
Eclipsed
Bush, Kerry, Vietnam & Iraq

by William Greider

The presidential pageant has now risen full in the sky and is blocking out the sun. Until November, we dwell in a weird half-light, stumbling into spooky shadows but shielded from the harsh glare of the nation's actual circumstances. Down is up, fiction is truth, momentous realities are made to disappear from the public mind. The 2004 spectacle is not the first to mislead grossly and exploit emotional weaknesses in the national character. But this time the consequences will be especially grim.

The United States is "losing" in Iraq, literally losing territory and population to the other side. Careful readers of the leading newspapers may know this, but I doubt most voters do. How could they, given the martial self-congratulations of the President and relative restraint from his opponent? High-minded pundits tell us not to dwell on the long-ago past. But the cruel irony of 2004 is that Vietnam is the story. The arrogance and decei t- the utter waste of human life, ours and theirs - play before us once again. A frank discussion will have to wait until after the election.

Several Sundays ago, an ominous article appeared in the opinion section of the New York Times: "One by One, Iraqi Cities Become No-Go Zones." Falluja, Samarra, Ramadi, Karbala, the Sadr City slums of Baghdad-these and other population centers are now controlled by various insurgencies and essentially ceded by US forces. This situation would make a joke of the national elections planned for January. Yet, if US troops try to recapture the lost cities, the bombing and urban fighting would produce massive killing and destruction, further poisoning politics for the US occupation and its puppet government in Saigon-sorry, Baghdad.

Three days later, the story hit page one when anonymous Pentagon officials confirmed the reality. Not to worry, they said: The United States is training and expanding the infant Iraqi army so it can do the fighting for us. That's the ticket-Vietnamization. I remember how well General Westmoreland articulated the strategy back in the 1960s, when war's progress was measured by official "body counts" and reports on "new" fighting forces on the way.

But this time Washington decided the United States couldn't wait for "Iraqization," a strategy that might sound limp-wristed to American voters. The US bombing and assaults quickly resumed. The Bush White House is thus picking targets and second-guessing field commanders, just as Lyndon Johnson did forty years ago in Indochina. Bush is haunted by the mordant remark a US combat officer once made in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Meanwhile, Bush's war is destroying the US Army, just as LBJ's war did. After Vietnam, military leaders and Richard Nixon wisely abolished the draft and opted for an all-volunteer force. When this war ends, the volunteer army will be in ruins and a limited draft lottery may be required to fill out the ranks. After Iraq, men and women will get out of uniform in large numbers, especially as they grasp the futility of their sacrifices. Yet Bush's on-the-cheap warmaking against a weak opponent demonstrates that a larger force structure is needed to sustain his policy of pre-emptive war. Kerry says he wants 40,000 more troops, just in case. Old generals doubt Congress would pay for it, given the deficits.

Iraq is Vietnam standing in the mirror. John Kerry, if he had it in him, could lead a national teach-in-re-educate those who have forgotten or prettified their memories but especially inform younger voters who weren't around for the national shame a generation ago. Kerry could describe in plain English what's unfolding now in Iraq and what must be done to find a way out with honor. In other words, be a truth-teller while holding Bush accountable.

Kerry won't go there, probably couldn't without enduring still greater anger. His war-hero campaign biography inadvertently engendered slanderous attacks and still-smoldering resentments. Kerry, like other establishment Dems, originally calculated that the party should be as pro-war as Bush, thus freeing him to run on other issues. That gross miscalculation leaves him proffering a lame "solution"-persuading France, Germany and others to send their troops into this quagmire. Not bloody likely, as the Brits say.

Bush can't go near the truth for obvious reasons. If elected, he faces only bad choices-bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq, as Nixon bombed Vietnam and Cambodia, or bug out under the cover of artful lies. The one thing Bush's famous "resolve" cannot achieve is success at war. Never mind, he aims to win the election instead.

So this presidential contest resembles a grotesque, media-focused war in which two sides skirmish for the attention of ill-informed voters. Bush won big back when he got Iraq off the front pages and evening news with his phony hand-off of sovereignty and his chest-thumping convention. But then his opponents - the hostile insurgents in Iraq - struck back brilliantly and managed to put the war story back in the lead on the news (might we expect from them an "October surprise" of deadlier proportions?). In this fight, Kerry is like a bystander who might benefit from bad news but can't wish for it. Most combat correspondents, with brave exceptions, hesitate to step back from daily facts and tell the larger truth. Maybe they are afraid to sound partial.

The timing of events in Iraq does not fit propitiously with the election calendar. A majority has already concluded that it was a mistake to fight this war, but public credulity is not yet destroyed. A majority still wants to believe the strategy may yet succeed, that Iraq won't become another dark stain in our history books. During Vietnam, the process of giving up on such wishful thinking took many years. The breaking point came in 1968, when a majority turned against the war. LBJ withdrew from running for re-election. Nixon won that year with his "secret plan" to win the peace. The war continued for another five years. US casualties doubled.

This time, public opinion has moved much faster against the war, but perhaps not fast enough. People naturally are reluctant to conclude that their country did the wrong thing, that young people died for a pointless cause. If the war story does stay hot and high on front pages, a collapse of faith might occur in time for this election, but more likely it will come later. Nixon won a landslide re-election in 1972 with his election-eve announcement that peace was at hand, the troops were coming home. In the hands of skilled manipulators, horrendous defeat can be turned into honorable victory. Temporarily at least. When the enemy eventually triumphed in Indochina, Nixon was already gone, driven out for other crimes.

Copyright © 2004 The Nation

[Big Troubles]

old story. Allied forces LOST that "war" along time ago. Sad times are ahead still.

[LoungeMachine]

Whether it's BEFORE the election, or AFTER, this country will finally come to grips with the reality that we were lead into an unjust war, against the wrong people.

Saddam / Iraq was not the enemy

was not the need

was not the answer

But now we shall reap what the neo-cons have sown.


Elvis, Warham, BT, BBB, et al, we joke, we kid, we have different views and opinions. But in MY opinion, we will ALL see just how bad this to become.

We on the left have had our major fuck ups, and dolts. Guilty as charged. LBJ defense exhibit A1

But when will you see what YOUR administration has done?

[Big Troubles]

You know I tried telling people that a long time ago- and I was laughed at by Ashcroft and Wibury. I was Canadian and didn't know shit. Michael Moore is every American's enemy and all that shit. Now it seems everything is all too clear. The invasion of Iraq served one purpose only. It was a dick measuring contest. Bush and Blair cornered other countries to take part in a ridiculous overtaking of a nation that was a) easy in their eyes to overtake and b) next best war instead of capturing Osama. Now they are knee deep in shit and getting deeper. Turn on CNN, does Iraq look liberated yet? Do they seem happy? I believe they were happier before- regardless of the own nations inside terror- they were content.

[Big Troubles]

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2669&highlight=big+troubles

3rd post down. ;)

[John Ashcroft]

Unfortunately, you guys are getting only the negative from the mainstream "news" organizations. It's a totally agenda driven, distorted view of what's going on in Iraq.

And for the record, many of the same news organizations that were around following WWII were reporting pretty much the same stuff. They routinely questioned the U.S.'s ability to win in Germany. They routinely questioned the Marshall Plan.

It all turned out pretty good then, no?

[LoungeMachine]

To me, ALL we have accomplished is pissing away our respect around the world, throwing away the post 9/11 support and sympathy, sent to slaughter 1,000 brave men and women, maimned 7,000 other americans, killed tens of thousands innocent civilians, provided a fertile ground for terrorists to gather under little security, depleted options of confronting the REAL regimes with WMD [N.Korea, Iran], spent hundreds of billions of dollars, all so some neo-cons can finish the job they felt entitled to when poppy stopped short.

It's about Money
It's aout power
It's about Oil
It's about defense contracts
It's about religion
It's about ego

BUT IT SURE AS SHIT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH FREEDOM, OR ANY WAR ON TERROR.

Just as the "war on drugs" actually made drugs cheaper and easier, the "war on terror" is it easier for the terrorists.

AND AS WITH DRUG KINGPINS........

Don't think for one moment killing saddam, OBL, or their sons or their henchmen WILL SLOW THEM DOWN ONE IOTA

Just as when a drug dealer dies, or goes to prison, there is another one, bigger, badder, and more careful to take his place

[John Ashcroft]

Well, obviously I don't agree.

You can't solve a problem by hiding from it.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Unfortunately, you guys are getting only the negative from the mainstream "news" organizations. It's a totally agenda driven, distorted view of what's going on in Iraq.


Puh-leeze, JA

First of all, how do YOU know WHERE I get MY news? Are you using the Patriot Act to monitor my intake?

I have a pretty wide god damn range of sources. I can filter spin.

What are YOU basing your opinion it's a success over there?

Saddam eating on a cot?

Seriously, convince me with your "positive" info.

How are we doing over there compared to the rummy/cheney/powell preview they gave us for months leading up the the war?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Well, obviously I don't agree.

You can't solve a problem by hiding from it.

HIDING FROM WHAT?

Saddam was no threat

He had nothing to do with 9/11

WE had no credible intel proving WMD

The sanctions worked

THIS WAS A WAR OF CHOICE

JUST ADIMT THAT AT LEAST

Just think what the money/manpower/time/resources could have accomplished GOING AFTER THE REAL ENEMIES WHERE THEY REALLY ARE

dammit.

It was a war that should NEVER have been fought.

Freedom for Iraq?

Why not invade and give freedom for Iran. Saudi Arabia, and a dozen OTHER countries who have no "freedom"????????

Why the hypocricy?
Why the ruse?

[ELVIS]

Gauging Our Success

By Bob Dole (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10683-2004Jun27.html)


An air of unreality is polluting our country's political discourse on the U.S. role in Iraq. Opponents of the coalition deployment were already questioning the continued U.S. presence and second-guessing the intervention itself. Now they are raising the bar for a "successful" handover of power in Iraq to absurdly high levels.



Iraq is and will continue to be a contentious issue -- all the more reason for every political side and interested party to restore some perspective to our national debate. To begin: Where do our Iraq operations really stand? The first phase of the country's transformation was completed when the U.S.-led coalition overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein. The second ends this week when an interim Iraqi government assumes power.

These are important milestones, but when Iraqis awaken July 1, they will not suddenly find themselves denizens of a stable democracy. This momentous day will merely be one of many steps on the long, hard journey to democracy. To reach the end of that road, the international coalition and Iraqis must work together to build accountable government, a viable economy, effective security structures, reliable media, the rule of law and other foundations of a civil society.

I share the administration's belief that relinquishing sovereignty over Iraq from the coalition to an Iraqi government now will facilitate and expedite this process -- but there will be setbacks, and the process will be arduous. I do not agree with those who suggest we are doomed to failure or that we have achieved little. Yes, the battle is ongoing and victory cannot yet be ensured in some quarters, but we have accomplished much.

As President Bush has noted, some targets have been reached at a faster pace than in postwar Germany and Japan. For the others, remember that the United States is in its ninth year in Bosnia, where we have spent roughly $29 billion and still have about 1,000 troops deployed to enforce a flawed peace plan that legitimizes ethnic divisions and paralyzes the central state. In Kosovo, where several hundred U.S. troops are deployed, the United Nations controls a national economy that is in worse condition than when the U.N. was entrusted with restoring it five years ago.

Meanwhile, in only 15 months in Iraq, the coalition has facilitated the production of more than 150 newspapers, the operation of an effective police force, the reopening of schools with propaganda-free textbooks, the rebuilding of more than 400 villages razed by Hussein, the re-creation and appreciation of a national currency, and the return from Iran and Turkey of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees.

Legions of dedicated American and other soldiers, public servants, businessmen, and nongovernmental workers in Iraq have struggled to complete these tasks and will continue to fulfill their mission in the face of unimaginably difficult obstacles. Terrorists are trying to drive them out by capturing and gruesomely murdering innocent civilians. At the same time, a group of U.S. troops has damaged their collective credibility by beating and ritually humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Here at home, critics carp and, intentionally or not, too often suggest that Americans are serving and dying in Iraq in vain. Some suggest that if we had it to do over again, we would not and should not.

Some Democrats even claim that the coalition's failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq invalidates their earlier explicit support for our intervention. In fact, their own statements at the time show that they supported the war not only because it would eradicate the weapons threat but also because it would end human rights abuses and regime-sponsored terrorism, as well as create conditions for democracy. This isn't just "selective amnesia" in an election year. It's irresponsible hindsight.

Backbiters and back-stabbers are as entitled as anyone to ask questions, but they, like the rest of us, must remain realistic and credible. Today Iraq is poised for increased prosperity and a better political future. Many, if not most, of its people are imbued with hope. Thousands of brave Americans, with the support of most of us here, are slowly but surely turning that hope into reality.

If our hope is not fully realized, it will not be because President Bush decided to withdraw on the advice of those who expected miracles and instant gratification. We will have set noble yet tangible goals, worked diligently and sacrificed honorably. If we succeed -- as I believe we will, sometime after this wretched political season is over but in the not too distant future -- the people of Iraq and their neighbors in the Middle East will benefit from political rights, civil liberties and freedom of a kind that the Arab world has never seen before.



:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

Hey E,

What say you and Bob about Saudi Arabia and Iraq?

Shoudnt we demand our closet allies in the region, the Saudis to adhere to freedom and democracy? Or are we selective about who we wish to join our beliefs.

And shouldnt we DEMAND the Iranians disarm of all WMD?, or are we selective about who may posess WMD in the region

[ELVIS]

Iran is on the horizon...

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Iran is on the horizon...

yup they are, but I think Saudi should've been a calculated first and only war the Americans should've planned out. Take Saudi out and Iraq, Iran & Afgans would surley stand at attention. ;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Iran is on the horizon...

Meaning what, exactly.

Are you insinuating that we currently have plans to invade and disarm?

bullshit

Are you claiming that we COULD invade and disarm?

bullshit

Are you just sabre rattling to make your support of this war easier to live with?

probably.

WE INVADED A COUNTRY THAT POSED NO THREAT TO US WHATSOEVER, UNDER THE GUISE OF TERRORISM AND WMD

and now we're weaker for it.


Under what circumstances can you possibly imagine us taking on Iraq AND Iran

or is your "horizon" 10 years down the road

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Unfortunately, you guys are getting only the negative from the mainstream "news" organizations. It's a totally agenda driven, distorted view of what's going on in Iraq.

And for the record, many of the same news organizations that were around following WWII were reporting pretty much the same stuff. They routinely questioned the U.S.'s ability to win in Germany. They routinely questioned the Marshall Plan.

It all turned out pretty good then, no?

Unfortunatley yes, we are only getting one side to this story but there is a reason there is only one side to this story. Mainstream pub is what sells worldwide, EVEN IN IRAQ. For the record, WWII and this false notion of what a war is "supposed to be like" are two totally different wars based on different issues and eras. Different technology and different eveolutionary train of thoughts. Id like to think ppl have progressed up the ladder of common thought and reason, not throw together a war based loosley on misleading info and political agendas.
(WMD, Saddam and Osama ties to terrorism and the Bush campaign)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Meaning what, exactly.

Are you insinuating that we currently have plans to invade and disarm?

bullshit

Are you claiming that we COULD invade and disarm?

bullshit

Are you just sabre rattling to make your support of this war easier to live with?

probably.



Dude, quit relying on your liberal feelings...

I've posted articles here that suggest that Iran is indeed "on the table"...

I don't make shit up.. I look it up...

You should do the same...


:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
I think Saudi should've been a calculated first and only war the Americans should've planned out. Take Saudi out

The Bushies and their neo-con cohorts would NEVER bite the hand that's fed them so well all these years.

Hell, they even protect them from scrutiny by blacking out pages and pages of Saudi involvement in 9/11

WE INVADED AND MURDERED THE WRONG COUNTRY PEOPLE

and now we want the UN to clean it up

ha!

Good for you Koffee Annan

It is an "illegal" war

[ELVIS]

You are twisted...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dude, quit relying on your liberal feelings...

I've posted articles here that suggest that Iran is indeed "on the table"...

I don't make shit up.. I look it up...

You should do the same...


:elvis:

Please don't dismiss my opinions as "liberal feelings"

I do't think Ive thrown THAT insult at you. I respect your opinions.

I just keep asking how you on the right can justify what YOUR administration has done over there.

I dont DOUBT Iran is "on the Table" I read the same things YOU do

I JUST DONT BELIEVE FOR ONE MOMENT WE COULD DO ANYTHING MORE THAT FUCK THAT UP AS WELL

And WHY didnt we FINISH in Afghanistan FIRST
and then hold the SAUDIs to the same standard
and then keep the Nuclear Regime of Iran in check

WHY WAS IRAQ INVADED BEFORE ANY OTHER GOALS HAD EVEN BEEN MET YET?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
You are twisted...

Me and a MAJORITY of this country feel we are heading in the wrong direction with respect to Iraq

Not to mention most of the civilized world

Yeah, Im twisted.

So ignore me then

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dude, quit relying on your liberal feelings...

I've posted articles here that suggest that Iran is indeed "on the table"...

I don't make shit up.. I look it up...

You should do the same...


:elvis:

Yeah, I know the feeling Elvis. We've killed all this bullshit how many times now? Kinda getting old. Tonight, I just don't feel like doing it again. Maybe tomorrow.

[ELVIS]

I'm not ignoring anyone...

This mission has just begun, and you liberals are ready to pull out...

I anticipated this, and believe me, so have the terrrorists...

Keep believing that Saddam had no terrorist ties...

He absolutely did, and the world will reap the benefits...

Things like this take time...

Your point of view has the potential to derail the whole process...

This ain't 1850!

The world is getting smaller and smaller...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Tonight, I just don't feel like doing it again. Maybe tomorrow.

Oh C'mon...

Pull out a fact or two...:D

[wraytw]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

So ignore me then

Now that wouldn't be any fun...

[diamondD]

There were UN sanctions placed on Iraq, and they thumbed their noses at them for years. They knew there was a threat of attack if they didn't comply, but they thought if they just held out, it would finally go away. They made backdoor deals that are just now coming to light and it wasn't hurting Saddam at all and his way of life. It was all just passed on to the regular people in Iraq.

If you put sanctions on someone with the threat of attack and they ignore you, you just open it up for it to happen again the next time.

Look at Libya, as a result of all this, they have opened up like never before and seem to be trying to join the civilized world. Is there anyone who could say this is a bad thing?

Other countries are trying to interfere in this mainly because they are scared that if Iraq is successful, the coalition will focus attention on them next.

It's gonna be tough, but at this point we have no option but to finish it out.

[Dr. Love]

You know, I used to be against the whole Iraq thing. Over time, and with a lot of thought, I came to one conclusion.

It was a good thing to do.

All the reasons, all the excuses, who cares. Iraq is a great place to build up some new bases. So was Afghanistan. It'll help build our dominance in those regions. Those countries will be a bit more hesitant in the future to step on our toes when we have thousands of troops already in the area.

Saddam was a horrible guy, great thing we took him out. But that's only a secondary benefit. The fact is that those are great strategic places to have people.

[scorpioboy33]

does it matter there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction..don't you think it makes America look dumb considering what powell said to the UN and the pictures and such

[Big Train]

I will make my case ONE last time (Feel like I have said it over and over in so many threads). Iraq WAS the correct move, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, we needed a place to play ball, in their house not ours. In terms of running over a country, Iraq was the most justified in that it had ignored UN sanctions for over 12 years, which every UN nation had agreed to in the sanctions and such. They had used chemical agents against their own people, had mobile labs going and scientists who admitted to an active program. The fact that we didn't find them is our fault. We announced we were coming and took to long to get there. I don't even think the intel was bad, I think we took so long to get to it, they had enough time to do what they had to do with it.

I have no doubt at some point in the future, hopefully through circumstances which aren't tragic, we will find that he had them. We are talking about a sandbox the size of Texas...they could be anywhere. The fact that we didn't find them immediately doesn't bother me.

We got involved in this conflict because sooner or later we were going to have to. Terrorists kept punking us trying to bait us into this conflict that they want. Don't kid yourself about this. The first World Trade Center attack, Kenya, the Cole, and 911 were all designed to "kill their enemy". What scares people (and I think is the real question that the polls don't ask) is that this type of war is a long term Hatfields/McCoy's kind of war no American wants to be in. However, ignoring the threat isn't going to make it go away. Bush made a ballsy decision (or ego based for the passivists) to draw the line. I applaud him for that. There is no isolationist option here at all. France, Canada, Spain none of them are safe although I'm sure at this point they all think it is "america's war".

This war is going to be a major deal for our generation, probably for the majority of our lives. It won't be all out war, but it will be relatively small battles over a long period of time. Just the way it is going to be. If Bush remained passive, there would just be more attacks and the next president would have had to do something.

[ELVIS]

Exactly right BT!

Bush stood up and drew the line...

The question is, is America willing to back him up ??

I am!

[Big Troubles]

Originally posted by ELVIS


The world is getting smaller and smaller...

small world until they lose your luggage, no? ;)

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Puh-leeze, JA

First of all, how do YOU know WHERE I get MY news? Are you using the Patriot Act to monitor my intake?

I have a pretty wide god damn range of sources. I can filter spin.

What are YOU basing your opinion it's a success over there?

Saddam eating on a cot?

Seriously, convince me with your "positive" info.

How are we doing over there compared to the rummy/cheney/powell preview they gave us for months leading up the the war?

A Familiar Place
It got ugly in postwar Germany, too.

With all the nay saying about our presence in Iraq, it's worth noting that none of these difficulties are particularly new. No postwar occupation has been without serious challenges, including the occupation of Germany after World War II. The New York Times ran a series of news stories in late 1945 reporting, in part, the following:

"Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945
The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared.
This official views the situation as so serious that he and others are protesting the withdrawal of 1,600 experienced military-government officers form the German governments on township, county and regional levels between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15. "We have been talking since the summer about the trouble that we expect this winter," the source said. "That trouble has now begun and we meet it with a plan to withdraw officers from communities where trouble is already being encountered.
"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945
Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration. Government failures were attributed in part to public apathy. The predictions of a coming crisis are predicated upon three points:
1) The failure to start training a civilian corps of administrators to take over when the Army's Military Government pulls out of Germany by June 1.
2) The failure of the Government to set up an expert advisory group, such as that which existed in the Foreign Economic Administration's Enemy Branch to back up the American administrators of Germany with informed advice and provide a focal point in Washington for policy-making on the German question.
3) The failure of the Allies to decide together, or the United States for itself, the crucial economic question raised by the Potsdam Declaration; namely what level of German economic activity is desired over the long term?
"Germans Declare Americans Hated," December 3, 1945
An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released this afternoon from the confidential status under which it was submitted to officials of the United States Forces in the European Theatre recently.
Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation, though there was some praise for the improvements in transportation, health conditions, book publishing and entertainment.
"German Election Set In Towns of U.S. Zone," December 19, 1945
United States Seventh Army headquarters announced today that plans had been completed for initial German elections in January at Gemuende. A statement said that a vast majority of Germans remained passive in attitude toward politics and displayed no disposition to take over civic responsibilities.
I think we can agree that the postwar occupation of Germany, and the rest of Europe, worked out quite well, despite numerous difficulties and the best efforts of the New York Times to highlight them — as it does today in postwar Iraq.
Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp

Iraqi slams U.N. inaction

NEW YORK — Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari yesterday chastised war opponents at the U.N. Security Council — and the United Nations itself — for failing to help the Iraqi people during three decades of Saddam Hussein's brutal reign.
Although he did not list names, France, Russia and Germany were prominent among the countries that had resisted a Security Council resolution authorizing the war in Iraq.
"One year ago, this Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable," Mr. Zebari said dispassionately in an address to the 15-member council.
"The U.N. as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure. ...
"The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again," Mr. Zebari said in a plea for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to return international staffers to Baghdad for relief work and nation-building assistance.
"We call upon the members of the United Nations to look beyond their differences over the decision to go to war on Iraq and come together to forge an international consensus," the foreign minister said.
"Settling scores with the United States should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people. This squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold."
Mr. Annan, as well as the ambassadors of France and Germany, seemed to accept the criticism.
"We all know what our positions were before the war," said German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger.
"That's an opinion [Mr. Zebari is] entitled to," said Mr. Annan, adding that the organization had done all it could and was prepared to do more.
Speaking three days after Saddam's capture by U.S. troops in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit, Mr. Zebari promised to provide "whatever security is required" to bring the United Nations back to Iraq for an expanded role in "humanitarian relief, capacity- and nation-building, promoting sustainable development and advancing the electoral and political processes."
"Your help and expertise cannot be effectively delivered from Cyprus or Amman," he told Mr. Annan, who last week had outlined plans to base the United Nations' Iraq mission in a safer country.
While expressing understanding for the losses the world body suffered on Aug. 19, when 22 of its staff were killed in a suicide bombing in Baghdad, Mr. Zebari told reporters after the council meeting that the United Nations "has always worked in difficult and war-torn regions and crisis areas."
"Why not Iraq? Why an exception? We are all, in fact, targets for those terrorists. It is not just the U.N. and the coalition."
Mr. Annan, in remarks to the council, stressed that the United Nations had not disengaged from Iraq. But before U.N. staff could return to the country, Mr. Annan said, "much greater clarity" was required from the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority on what exactly is expected of the world body.
"I need to weigh the degree of risk that the United Nations is being asked to accept against the substance of the role we are being asked to fulfill," he told the council.
Mr. Zebari was in New York to present to the Security Council a timetable for establishing an interim basic law and a transitional administration and, by the end of 2005, holding direct elections.
The schedule won the support of Mr. Annan and many council members, though several diplomats reminded Mr. Zebari that the process had to be open, inclusive and credible.
French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said former Ba'ath Party members should not be excluded from office as long as they renounce violence.
"The process should be open to all those against violence," Mr. de la Sabliere said. "If you have all political forces against violence represented in the provisional government, then it will be huge progress."
The question of security will remain in the forefront, many diplomats said yesterday, despite Saddam's capture and the promise of a return to Iraqi sovereignty.
Mr. Zebari said the IGC would negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with the coalition by the end of February, but that he did not expect the troops to withdraw by July, when an all-Iraqi transitional authority is to be established.
"Those forces are needed to maintain stability, and if they were to withdraw, it would be a disaster," Mr. Zebari told reporters after his council presentation. "There would be chaos, a civil war."

Link: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031216-113953-8003r.htm

What Iraqis Really Think
[i]We asked them. What they told us is largely reassuring.

America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not knowing much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of radical Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their attitude toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another Iran under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real problem?
Up to now we've only been able to guess. We've relied on anecdotal temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy of images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy. And some of us who have spent time recently in Iraq--I was an embedded reporter during the war--have been puzzled by the postwar news and media imagery, which is much more negative than what many individuals involved in reconstructing Iraq have been telling us.
Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.
• Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.
• The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.
• Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.
• Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.
• Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.
• You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.
• And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished.
This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month--and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.

None of this is to suggest that the task ahead will be simple. Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50% to 36% they chose hurt over help. This is fairly understandable; Iraqis have just lived through a war in which Americans were (necessarily) flinging most of the ammunition. These experiences may explain why women (who are more antimilitary in all cultures) show up in our data as especially wary of the U.S. right now. War is never pleasant, though U.S. forces made heroic efforts to spare innocents in this one, as I illustrate with firsthand examples in my book about the battles.
Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30% of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully half knew some family member, neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power.
Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year.
We're making headway in a benighted part of the world. Hang in there, America.
Link: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991

[ELVIS]

Awesome!

The similarities between post war Iraq and Germany are stunning...


:elvis:

[Nitro Express]

We won't know if going into Iraq was a big mistake or a good move until some more time goes by. I remember when people were saying Ronald Reagan was going to start World War III and in hindsight, he was the man who most successfully negotiated with the Soviet Union and helped pave the way to a peaceful end of that nightmare.

[ELVIS]

Don't tell FORD that...

[Big Train]

You CAN"T Tell Ford anything...

[Cathedral]

We're not losing in Iraq and anyone who actually talks to soldiers who have returned from there would understand that.
I saw someone post how they get their info from CNN...that's a joke.

I mean, doesn't the fact that the stories from those who were there not jiving with what the Media is putting out make you wonder at all?

Who's word are you gonna take?
The word of some journalist here in the states or the words of those who are in theater facing this daily?

Some of you act as though Saddam is the only guy that the US is concentrating on, well, he isn't.
But to say that Saddam was not a threat to human life can only come from those who have never seen the videotaped atrocities from his reign as Dictator there.

I have faith in what our President is doing and find it refreshing to once again have a man who doesn't make decisions solely based on poll numbers.

Let me be perfectly clear to you people when i say that waiting for a Mushroom Cloud to appear over one of our cities before acting is not an option if we want to win this war.

Question: What does it mean that Iraq has become a battleground that has attracted mass terrorists to go there?

Answer: It means that they won't be crossing our borders to take us on here at home.

I support Bush on his actions, and on election day you will discover that a majority of voters feel the same way.

Do you want another 9-11 on a larger scale that kills an entire city?
Then elect John Kerry as your leader and wait for the attack, he will as he has already made clear on a few occasions.

People, if Bush hadn't taken the war to their yard they would be here in ours killing just the same, then what?
Are we not safer?
Then why have we not been attacked successfully since 2001?

The problem is that Democrats are playing political games that we cannot afford to play since 9-11.
Bush understands this, and so do I and many many of the people I know personally.

Let me also add that with 40 countries able to produce nuclear bombs that it is only a matter of time before we do see one of those clouds.
The question then is, Do we want to make it easy or hard for them to achieve that goal?

Wise up and realise that the days of conventional warfare are gone and we are dealing with Barbarians that have no value for human life.

To protest the war is your right as an American. It is the things you say filled with hatred for a man who is trying to protect you that makes the line thin for you as a patriot.
The office that Bush holds deserves far more respect than most liberals are showing, and that i find to be very sad.

Good Luck to you and your party in Nov.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral

Question: What does it mean that Iraq has become a battleground that has attracted mass terrorists to go there?

Answer: It means that they won't be crossing our borders to take us on here at home.

I'm so sick of this bullshit logic. Trained sleeper agents like Mohammed Attah are not the same as the AK-sporting camel-jockeys sneaking into Iraq from Syria and Iran. It's like comparing an F-16 to an A-10 Warthog. Two different weapons for two different jobs.

God damn I am sick of hearing that rationale. It's BULLSHIT.

[Cathedral]

Sorry you feel that way but that is your right to do so.
Facts are facts and one terrorist is as effective as another no matter the brand they go by.

They all deliver death to anyone they can victimize, usually the innocent.

Walk in the dark if you choose to do so, that too is your right as an American.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Facts are facts and one terrorist is as effective as another no matter the brand they go by.

FALSE. Most can't speak English, but some can. Some have or can obtain visas to the U.S. while others can't. Some are more valuable than just foot soldiers. They are not created equal.

I am just sick of hearing that one because my friend's mom always spouts it and you can't get a word in edge-wise with her.

[Big Train]

How is it bullshit logic? Iraq attracts the common terrorsist which covers a whole angle of their operation. Obviously, we are looking for sleeper cells here too. Are you saying one form of terrorist is less valid then the other, which means we should not focus on them? Trying to follow your logic...

[Sgt Schultz]

I understand what ODShowtime is saying and it has some validity. It is true that the college educated, English speaking terrorists are better suited to be in sleeper cells in the U.S.. That being said though, there ARE college educated, English speaking terrorists who are fighting U.S. forces in Iraq simply becasue access is easier and it is now MUCH more difficult for them to get into the U.S. - and if they do get into the U.S. chances are they are being watched much more closely.

So, the net effect is that we are indeed fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq that may otherwise have tried to infiltrate the U.S. or other places.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I understand what ODShowtime is saying and it has some validity. It is true that the college educated, English speaking terrorists are better suited to be in sleeper cells in the U.S.. That being said though, there ARE college educated, English speaking terrorists who are fighting U.S. forces in Iraq simply becasue access is easier and it is now MUCH more difficult for them to get into the U.S. - and if they do get into the U.S. chances are they are being watched much more closely.

So, the net effect is that we are indeed fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq that may otherwise have tried to infiltrate the U.S. or other places.

Thumbs up to you Schultz!:D I knew you were sharper than most here. I think we agree that the college educated ones are the ones to watch out for. I think that those types would be more intent on getting here and causing serious trouble. I see the Iraq fighters as more like anyone from the region who can get there that:

1. got brainwashed and has nothing better to do

2. got brainwashed and more importantly has a sheik donating food
to his family now that he has joined Jihad.

3. Is an Iraqi who has had families members killed or imprisoned by
the US/IIA.

4. An Iraqi whose job in the army was finished when we disbanded it
and has nothing better to do or any money.

I'm not on the ground over there, so maybe we are diverting the mohammad atta types to fight us in Iraq. I just don't see it that way. The ones who are serious and want to inflict mass casualties in the US and have a viable means to do so know Iraq is a just a battleground and not a homefront.

[Big Train]

Ugh, yea, I got that. I'm just trying to understand your bullshit logic statement. I completely agree (as mentioned in my previous post) about doing everything we can against sleeper cells here, but ignoring them there is faulty logic, why?

[Cathedral]

Hmmmmm, where exactly are these Terrorists getting their education by the way?
I do believe it is here in America since we have the best education sytem on the planet, even with all the trouble we have in public schools.

OD, I see your point, and i agree with it to a degree. But to assume that a Terrorist is less effective based on their education is crazy, if that is what you are saying.

But my point of view goes beyond the border of our own country. just because people aren't here in the states waging attacks on us does not mean we cannot be attacked abroad.
But you have to understand that Iraq is a distraction, and an effective one at that since they are focused on fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All throughout history we have ignored the suffering of foreign people to keep stability. what changed you ask?
9-11 changed everything and we now realise that stability will never come if the suffering of the weak forced upon them by the strong is allowed to continue.
Nobody expected us to take action, they expected us to do a Clinton and alter our policy and run....Not on Bush's watch i'm afraid.

I have watched quite a few independant reports done in the Middle East where citizens were asked about their feelings towards America.
The results from that showed me that those who are suffering, the silent citizens we never see on our news reports, only hate us because we have allowed such suffering for so so long when we had the power to liberate them. They see us making deals with the dictators that are oppressing them and ask, Why?
Yet they all still want to go to school here.
But then those who don't want us liberating their people are the ones who are creating and organizing terrorist cells to make us change our policies and mind our own business.

The dymanics of the world have changed in the last 20 years and since we have economic interests all over the globe these days, minding our own business is impossible since our business is global as is everyone elses.

Bush is on the right track, although i don't agree or support everything he has done since taking office, I support the end goal here.

What i would like to see is our soldiers getting more agressive in dealing with the insurgents in Iraq, and politicians letting them do their job without pulling them back because of a Mosque being off limits for our soldiers, and a base for them to gather, re-arm, and re-organize after we put the bulk of our force down their throats.

We can win this war, and Iraq is a strategic place in which we can further progress in the War on Terror.

And on another note, Who says a "Civil War" in Iraq would be a bad thing?
Sure, at this point it is the most undesirable event that we want to see happen given the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform in the name of democracy.
But in all reality, if it does happen it could go a very long way in assisting Iraqi citizens in dealing with their own stability, which to date i have not seen much of and that pisses me off a little.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
Ugh, yea, I got that. I'm just trying to understand your bullshit logic statement. I completely agree (as mentioned in my previous post) about doing everything we can against sleeper cells here, but ignoring them there is faulty logic, why?

Pro-war arguements like "we brought the fight to our enemies" and "better to fight them in Iraq than in the US" are based on faulty logic. The US Army being geographically near those brainwashed jihadists is what enables them to inflict casualties.

The serious, strategic terrorist, the kind that really got our attention on 9-11, are a different breed entirely and they will stay focused on attacking us here (the thing we most fear, the motivating factor for the whole she-bang... at least for the people).

By attacking Iraq and exposing the US name to guerilla warfare and all the bad PR that goes along with it, the bush administration has worked to creates more support for the serious terrorist.

The part that makes me want to vote out bush is that he executed this manuever with such clumsiness that it's now apparent to the whole world that we hoarded the plunder from this war, we gave out construction and services contracts to companies that were barely one step away from the executive branch. The bush administration was so greedy that they weren't willing to cut any deals through diplomacy or just plain bribery to get a credible coalition aboard.

Bottom line: The war was a bad enough idea, and mostly counterproductive to what our true goals should be, but they've fucked it up so bad that our name will be tarnished for decades.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Hmmmmm, where exactly are these Terrorists getting their education by the way?
I do believe it is here in America since we have the best education sytem on the planet, even with all the trouble we have in public schools.

OD, I see your point, and i agree with it to a degree. But to assume that a Terrorist is less effective based on their education is crazy, if that is what you are saying.

But my point of view goes beyond the border of our own country. just because people aren't here in the states waging attacks on us does not mean we cannot be attacked abroad.
But you have to understand that Iraq is a distraction, and an effective one at that since they are focused on fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All throughout history we have ignored the suffering of foreign people to keep stability. what changed you ask?
9-11 changed everything and we now realise that stability will never come if the suffering of the weak forced upon them by the strong is allowed to continue.
Nobody expected us to take action, they expected us to do a Clinton and alter our policy and run....Not on Bush's watch i'm afraid.

I have watched quite a few independant reports done in the Middle East where citizens were asked about their feelings towards America.
The results from that showed me that those who are suffering, the silent citizens we never see on our news reports, only hate us because we have allowed such suffering for so so long when we had the power to liberate them. They see us making deals with the dictators that are oppressing them and ask, Why?
Yet they all still want to go to school here.
But then those who don't want us liberating their people are the ones who are creating and organizing terrorist cells to make us change our policies and mind our own business.

The dymanics of the world have changed in the last 20 years and since we have economic interests all over the globe these days, minding our own business is impossible since our business is global as is everyone elses.

Bush is on the right track, although i don't agree or support everything he has done since taking office, I support the end goal here.

What i would like to see is our soldiers getting more agressive in dealing with the insurgents in Iraq, and politicians letting them do their job without pulling them back because of a Mosque being off limits for our soldiers, and a base for them to gather, re-arm, and re-organize after we put the bulk of our force down their throats.

We can win this war, and Iraq is a strategic place in which we can further progress in the War on Terror.

And on another note, Who says a "Civil War" in Iraq would be a bad thing?
Sure, at this point it is the most undesirable event that we want to see happen given the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform in the name of democracy.
But in all reality, if it does happen it could go a very long way in assisting Iraqi citizens in dealing with their own stability, which to date i have not seen much of and that pisses me off a little.

Cathedral, you have good ideas and intentions, but you don't understand the Bush Adminstration at all. You think you know their goals, but you don't. I don't mean to be disrespectful.

They thrive on the instability, that's what keeps the Arabs weak. The British chopped up the region after WWI and made sure it was unstable. Why are the Shiites in Iraq and Iran separated? Why are the Kurds near each other in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq? Because the Brits wanted to keep 'em separated. That's the status quo and we want to uphold it. Any major upheaval and oil prices sky-rocket, tanking our economy. And if all the Shiites got together, they'd had some power. If all the Arabs got together from Egpyt to Iraq, they'd be able to whup some ass in the long run. Israel would be HISTORY.

A civil war in Iraq could very well signal the beginning of that transformation. Civil wars don't have to stay in the borders of one country. Trust me, you don't want to see that.

You're right that the swamp of poverty and inequality is a breeding ground for terror, but you must understand that Bush&Friends have had an interest in that for almost 100 years. And it benefits each of us too.

The key is making oil less valuable by finding alternatives. Then we wouldn't give a shit about them.

WTF you know?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Hmmmmm, where exactly are these Terrorists getting their education by the way?
I do believe it is here in America since we have the best education sytem on the planet, even with all the trouble we have in public schools.

OD, I see your point, and i agree with it to a degree. But to assume that a Terrorist is less effective based on their education is crazy, if that is what you are saying.

Language skills alone make a HUGE difference in whether a terrorist can infiltrate a society. Having techincal skills helps them fit in and can be utilized for deadly means. I believe that quite a few Palestinian bombmakers were electrical engineers trained in the region. They don't need fancy US colleges to vastly increase their lethality. But the really competent ones are groomed by the commanders and given even more training in anticipation of globally strategic terrorist actions. They don't just jump onto a bus headed to Bahgdad with a couple AK-47s and an RPG launcher.

Conversely, most of the jihadist foot soliders we experienced in Afghanistan and now in Iraq are probably less remarkable. A majority of people in these developing countries are illiterate or at least completely brainwashed with hate by the time they can be given a weapon and given orders to attack a convey. These ones would be chilling in their own countries or fighting wars amongst themselves if we didn't present ourselves for attack.

The bottom line is that they are used for different things... the sleeper agent and the foot soldier.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Cathedral, you have good ideas and intentions, but you don't understand the Bush Adminstration at all.

Ah, the irony.

[ODShowtime]

I wish you were right if that helps.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Cathedral, you have good ideas and intentions, but you don't understand the Bush Adminstration at all. You think you know their goals, but you don't. I don't mean to be disrespectful.



Like you do ??

All I'm hearing from you is blah blah blah blah Bush is making the terrorists hate us blah blah blah let's try to understand te terrorists blah blah blah...

Shut up...

We do not care how they "FEEL" !!!

[ODShowtime]

yes... so far I've gleaned from your posts that you like it when we blow stuff up... and that you agree with people on stuff... and that you choose to believe what you want to...

I can't change that. I'm just throwing my stuff out there. It's cathartic.

you didn't really address any of my points.

[ODShowtime]

and when you wage war, you must know your enemy... so yes we must understand the terrorists you fool!

[ELVIS]

You didn't make any points...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
You didn't make any...

"They thrive on the instability, that's what keeps the Arabs weak. The British chopped up the region after WWI and made sure it was unstable. Why are the Shiites in Iraq and Iran separated? Why are the Kurds near each other in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq? Because the Brits wanted to keep 'em separated. That's the status quo and we want to uphold it. Any major upheaval and oil prices sky-rocket, tanking our economy. And if all the Shiites got together, they'd had some power. If all the Arabs got together from Egpyt to Iraq, they'd be able to whup some ass in the long run. Israel would be HISTORY."

there's nothing in there worthy of discussion? We don't even have to argue about it. Rampant speculation is fun too.

[Big Train]

Posted by OD:

Pro-war arguements like "we brought the fight to our enemies" and "better to fight them in Iraq than in the US" are based on faulty logic. The US Army being geographically near those brainwashed jihadists is what enables them to inflict casualties.

That says it all right there, doesn't it. They were able to inflict casualties, yes, but not on US civilians, which is the point of the exercise. Not understanding that concept means your unclear on what the military actually does.

The war contracts things are all completely circumstancial. Nobody in the administration is directly benefitting from the war, yet liberals incessanting scream that they are. Nor can they prove anything beyond their shouting.

And for the third post in a row, I do agree with you about educated terrorists and that they remain a priority for us. However, having Al Qaeda and the Taliban mostly occupied in foreign lands has it's benefits.

[ODShowtime]

Big Train, I appreciate your attempt to discuss this with me although it appears we have reached the area of fundamental disagreement.

I say that the hardcore ones are coming for us no matter what (and are more inclined after the Iraq invasion) while the foot soldiers would have no one to fight if we weren't there. That's my point and I will save everyone the trouble and not make it again here.

On the topic of war profiteering in the administration, you must understand that one of the big clearinghouses, the Carlyle Group, is a private corporation and therefore receives little oversite from the SEC nor has any required disclosures. So we have no clue what's going on behind closed doors except to know that the company employs men like George HW Bush to lobby for them. You make a deal, you get elected, you enact the right legislation and policy, and then a couple years later when you're out-of-office, you get a nice directorship and get millions of dollars from the profit the policies and legislation made possible. And the company is completely opaque.

Money follows money and power follows power and it will never change.

Also, the no bid contracts to Halliburton are an embarrassment and if you don't understand why you may never understand.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
Posted by OD:

Pro-war arguements like "we brought the fight to our enemies" and "better to fight them in Iraq than in the US" are based on faulty logic. The US Army being geographically near those brainwashed jihadists is what enables them to inflict casualties.

That says it all right there, doesn't it. They were able to inflict casualties, yes, but not on US civilians, which is the point of the exercise. Not understanding that concept means your unclear on what the military actually does.

And I hope our Army is more than just cannon fodder for Christ's sake!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Thumbs up to you Schultz!:D I knew you were sharper than most here. I think we agree that the college educated ones are the ones to watch out for. I think that those types would be more intent on getting here and causing serious trouble. I see the Iraq fighters as more like anyone from the region who can get there that:

1. got brainwashed and has nothing better to do

2. got brainwashed and more importantly has a sheik donating food
to his family now that he has joined Jihad.

3. Is an Iraqi who has had families members killed or imprisoned by
the US/IIA.

4. An Iraqi whose job in the army was finished when we disbanded it
and has nothing better to do or any money.

I'm not on the ground over there, so maybe we are diverting the mohammad atta types to fight us in Iraq. I just don't see it that way. The ones who are serious and want to inflict mass casualties in the US and have a viable means to do so know Iraq is a just a battleground and not a homefront.

Thanks, you must of caught me on a good day. I respect your opinion as well.

Again, I think all of your points are valid. However, I also think that command and control, logistics, intelligence etc. being carried out by terrorists in Iraq is being done by these "upper echelon" elements of terror groups. Guys with college education, English and computer skills etc. I think if we were not engaged in Iraq they would be (the terrorists) would be engaged elswhere - like in the U.S., or Afghanistan etc. So, in the end, i still think we are engaging high quality terror targets in Iraq. Plus, our forces, by fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, are managing to disperse terrorist assets and putiing them more in a defensive posture.

[ODShowtime]

Those are all valid points as well. I just give the real bad guys more credit on being focused on the main goal.

[Big Train]

OD, I appreciate your attempts as well. Let's just say we are miles apart on this one.

I know all about the Carylye Group, the no-bid contracts etc..I don't draw conclusions about stuff unless I can directly see the connection. George H.W. by the way, stopped lobbying for them before his son became President. I make it a habit never to assume, as you have here. Modifying your analogy, where money goes, a trail follows. If there was a connection, any number of people who could follow the trail (not to mention a foreign banker who would love to drop a dime) would be all over it.

The US Army is more than cannon fodder, but there job is to engage the enemy. And they have done a remarkable job.

I think you would prefer an isolationist option that doesn't exist. If there were such a thing, I would probably agree with you.

[ODShowtime]

I just remember pitying Israel (blame not withstanding) for their situation being constantly attacked by guerillas in Lebanon and at home.

Now the US gets the same thing and we should have seen it coming and done a lot more to preclude it. First thing, much more should have been done to seal the borders of Iraq, at any cost.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral
We're not losing in Iraq and anyone who actually talks to soldiers who have returned from there would understand that.


Talk to Sarge.

He WORKS with the returning Soldiers

HE says we've FUCKED ourselves big time over there.

So much for your blanket generalization.


How about we ask those coming back in boxes?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Like you do ??

All I'm hearing from you is blah blah blah blah Bush is making the terrorists hate us blah blah blah let's try to understand te terrorists blah blah blah...

Shut up...

We do not care how they "FEEL" !!!

Typical, and yet so revealing.

Shut up if you don't THINK like US

or pray like us

or look like us

or.....................

BTW, who the FUCK are you to tell ANYONE in here to "shut up"??

Personally, I'd like to hear this person's opnions. In fact, I'd rather read their's than your's.

But I wont tell you to shut up.

[ELVIS]

Shut up!

:D

I like to hear this person's opnions as well...

I was commenting on is repetitive wordyness, If you must know...

Carry on...


:elvis:

[ODShowtime]

I do get a little long winded at times. keep in mind there's morning time pissed of OD and late night "relaxed" OD

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Talk to Sarge.

He WORKS with the returning Soldiers

HE says we've FUCKED ourselves big time over there.

So much for your blanket generalization.


How about we ask those coming back in boxes?


What's this WE shit? Last I heard Iraq was made up of 'IRAQIANS'.

Last I heard, they are now readying to have a free election of their leaders.

Last I heard, more people in Iraq are glad that Saddam is gone.

Last I heard, the suicide bombings are being condemned by Muslim leaders.

So what is it exactly that we are losing? Could it be that some of us are losing our nerve at seeing some of this bloodshed and want to turn tail and go home?