Perhaps...it really is time? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 07-14-2007, 06:59 AM

Can we take our toys....and go home now?.....Please

Quote:

Iraq PM: Country Can Manage Without U.S.

BAGHDAD -

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3914332.html

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 09:04 AM

Normally I would take this as the final nail in the coffin of the Iraq War, but Bush and Cheney won't leave until they've left office one way or the other.

reconmike · 07-14-2007, 09:07 AM

I am kind of hoping this is it also, let's get our stuff out, move it on the borders, let those savages kill each other for a few years, then go back in to mop up the place.

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 09:08 AM

I agree with reconmike. Not for the same reasons, necessarily, but there we have it. A hard line liberal and a hard line conservative both see this as a serious sign to leave Iraq.

SecretMethod70 · 07-14-2007, 10:27 AM

I'm always torn on the Iraq issue. On one hand, we should have never gone in there. On the other hand, I think Colin Powell was right to reference the rule, "You break it, you own it." Prime Minister al-Maliki is (unsurprisingly) delusional to think Iraq can survive right now without a U.S. presence. It can't even survive with a U.S. presence! (Due, in no small part, to the incompetence of this administration and its removal of any military intelligence which doesn't agree with it.) So, on one hand, we have the fact that we never should have gone into Iraq, it's distracting us from more important things such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and finding Osama Bin Laden, and that until there is new leadership in America there can be very little hope for substantial change in the direction Iraq is going. In the meantime, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more American soldiers are killed for a war we never should have started in the first place.

On the other hand, as Uncle Ben told Spider-Man

, with great power comes great responsibility. Iraq is in the mess it is in because we not only started a war we shouldn't have, but also because the current administration has been severely lacking in its planning and management of the war. It is important to set goals for the Iraqi government and people, but the Bush administration has displayed over the years a complete lack of understanding regarding the complexities that exist in the region. This is not to mention the delusional expectation that Iraq would, in the course of a few years, suddenly become a stable democracy after a whole generation living under dictatorship combined with the ethnic and religious issues.

In other words, whatever responsibility the Iraqi people have for the shambles their country is in, the United States has more. Bush opened a Pandora's Box without having any clue what was inside, and now our military and Iraqi people - both innocent and less-than-innocent - are paying for it. It is very tempting to take the selfish way out and say that they should fix their own problems and the American military shouldn't be involved. It is, however, America's fault that those problems have reached the level they have in the first place. Not to mention, how many people (on the "liberal" side of the coin at least) would also say that it was good for us to (basically) let the Rwandans kill themselves and deal with their problems without U.S. involvement? Or, for that matter, how many would say we (as the U.S., or as the broader international community) should not bother interfering in Darfur and let those people deal with their problems themselves? Or, again, what about Kosovo?

So I have a hard time with the idea that we should just pull out - even if it's done gradually over time. It's a very tempting proposal, but it strikes me as the political equivalent of taking over a company, running it into the ground, and then leaving with a nice big package. What I would much rather see is Democrats working hard to force this administration not to leave, but to fundamentally change course, with respect to both the military and international relations. We took an Iraq which was cracked and then smashed it into the ground. We can't fix it ourselves, but we owe it to the Iraqi people who are living in extreme fear and violence right now to do our best to repair the damage that we've done to our international relationships and work hard to create a real coalition based not on American supremacy but on global cooperation.

But, then again, that can't happen to the degree it needs to until Bush is out of office, so maybe it's better to just pull out after all. Like I said, I'm torn. One thing I do know, though, is that PM al-Maliki has not only been a poor leader, but is now delusional regarding the ability of his country to hold itself together.

host · 07-14-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...45&postcount=8

<h3>What makes him [Bush] a colossal failure?</h3> Interest rates? Stock market values?
Home values? The economy? Unemployment rates?

I know what it is, its Iraq, the AG, and what happens in Washington.

No matter how bad you think he looks, just look up Carter and he seems great.

Since you only commented on this one I guess Hellery works, I get busy on a better one for Obama.

....to further answer your question, reconmike:

Quote:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...314583333.html
U.S. calls 40,000 Iraqi troops combat-ready

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
<h3>Monday, February 7, 2005</h3>

........The Defense Department also released a chart that said more than 79,000 Iraqi police officers and nearly 57,000 Iraqi military personnel have undergone training, Middle East Newsline reported. This included 74 Iraqi battalions, many of which were deployed during elections on Jan. 30.

Later, Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided different figures on the number of trained Iraqi troops. Pace told a Pentagon briefing that 136,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and equipped.

For his part, Myers said Iraqi units unprepared for combat missions could still conduct patrols. He said the coalition planned to accelerate training of Iraqis in 2005.

"The coalition must focus our efforts on reaching the point where we can shift our mission to fighting the counterinsurgency ourselves to developing Iraqi capacity to conduct those operations," Myers said. "Since this past July, the coalition has accomplished a great deal in improving the quality of the Iraqi security forces on duty."

Myers said the U.S. military has begun to embed trainers into Iraqi military and security units. He said the U.S. units have trained Iraqi military personnel and then conducted combat operations with them.

The general refused to provide an updated estimate of the size of the Iraqi insurgency. He said the estimate was classified, adding that "accurate estimates are just very, very difficult in this type of insurgency."

Members of the Senate committee expressed skepticism over the Pentagon figures, particularly regarding the number of combat-ready Iraqi forces.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, read an e-mail message from a Marine colonel who asserted that Iraqi commanders were inflating the size of their units.

"They have been lying about their numbers in order to get more money," the colonel was quoted as saying in the e-mail sent in 2005. "They say they have 150 when there are only 100. The senior officers take a cut from the top. We've caught soldiers in houses stealing property, and the commander won't react to it. They have no interest in learning the job, because right now the Marines are doing all of that."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who cited numerous setbacks, said the United States must increase formation, training, equipping and mentoring of Iraqi forces. Wolfowitz cited a Bush administration request of $80 billion, much of which would be used to train Iraq's military, police and security forces.

"Iraqi security forces lack many of the capabilities that our forces demonstrate so superbly," Wolfowitz said. "However, Iraqi forces bring to the fight skills that our soldiers will never possess, particularly their understandings of the languages and cultures of Iraq."

Wolfowitz told the Senate committee that on June 28, 2004 only one Iraqi battalion was regarded as combat-ready and capable of deployment. He said that today there are 45 such units, but acknowledged absentee rates of up to 40 percent in Iraqi military units.

The deputy defense secretary also said the Pentagon has decided to withdraw 15,000 troops from Iraq in March 2005, which would result in 135,000 American soldiers in that Middle East country. Wolfowitz said the withdrawal would return the U.S. military presence to the level of that before the Iraqi elections last month.

Officials said the administration has seen a steady increase in Iraqi combat capability. They cited a turning point in August 2004 when Iraqi National Guard and military forces joined in the stabilization of Najaf.

"We have seen a steady increase in capability as measured by success in fighting on the ground." Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ronald Schlicher said.

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/...d-mccain-iraq/
General Abizaid Smacks Down McCain’s Plan To Send More U.S. Troops To Iraq
November 15, 2006

Today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain’s calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he “met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey” and asked them if bringing “in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and <b>they all said ‘no.’” Watch it:</b>

MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? <h3>And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010901872.html
With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals

By Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01

When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."

But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

Bush's decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

....There is little question that more troops for Iraq seemed far from the conventional wisdom in Washington after the beating Bush and the Republican Party took in the midterm elections Nov. 7. Indeed, when Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 30, Maliki did not ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said.

Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it. "The message in Amman was that he wanted to take the lead and put an Iraqi face on it. He wanted to control his own forces," said a U.S. official familiar with the visit.

Another problem for the administration was the Iraq Study Group, the prestigious bipartisan panel headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). Soon after Bush returned from Jordan, the group delivered its recommendations, including proposing a high-level dialogue with Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq and setting a goal of early 2008 for the removal of almost all U.S. combat troops.

Although the president was publicly polite, few of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which intensified its own deliberations over a new "way forward" in Iraq. How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.

As described by participants in the administration review, some staff members on the National Security Council became enamored of the idea of sending more troops to Iraq in part because it was not a key feature of Baker-Hamilton. One senior administration official disputed that, arguing that staff members were attracted to the "surge" option to address long-standing concern that earlier efforts failed because of insufficient security forces.......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289303,00.html
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Top Republican Senators Propose Own Iraq Bill

Saturday, July 14, 2007

....Through top aides and in private meetings and phone calls, Bush has repeatedly asked Congress to hold off on demanding a change in the course of the war until September, when the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, deliver a fresh assessment of progress.

But many Republicans, most of whom will face voters next year, say they are tired of the war, which is in its fifth year and has killed more than 3,600 troops.

In a report to Congress this week, the White House conceded that not enough progress was being made in training Iraqi security forces — the linchpin in Bush's exit strategy for U.S. troops.

At a news conference Friday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said the number of battle-ready <h3>Iraqi battalions able to fight independently has dropped from 10 to six in recent months despite an increase in U.S. training efforts.</h3>

Pace said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem was partly attributable to losses in the field.

"As units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment," Pace said.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092902085.html
Decline in Iraqi Troops' Readiness Cited
Generals Tell Lawmakers They Cannot Predict When U.S. Forces Can Withdraw

By Josh White and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
<h3>Friday, September 30, 2005; Page A12</h3>

The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help <h3>has dropped from three to one</h3>, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon....

....Officials did not say specifically why two battalions are no longer rated at Level 1 and thus unable to operate on their own. They said generally readiness ratings can change for numerous reasons, such as if a commander resigns, or if more training is needed. Casey also said that the "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time."

In another development Friday, Bush's top spokesman appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and other benchmarks designated by the United States.

However, Tony Snow said, "Let's also see what happens because quite often when parliaments do not meet, they are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I'm sure on a number of fronts."....

<h3>Has Bush really traded the lives of nearly 2000 additional US troops, and countless more wounded, since General Casey testified before a senate committee, on September 28, 2005, that one Iraqi combat battalion was able to "operate independently".....traded the lives, in exchange for 5 more independent Iraqi battalions, now? Even if these Iraqi battalions are manned to full strength.....800 troops....isn't it true that Bush has ordered 2000 additional US troops to their deaths, in the last 22 months, for a result of, at most, 4000 more independently operating, Iraqi troops....</h3>

...and you describe the Iraqis as "savages", reconmike? What word do you reserve to describe a president so deceitful and incompetent, and for the folks who have back him....all this way.....through so much avoidable killing, in a "war of choice", founded on a conspiracy of deliberate deceit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

I am kind of hoping this is it also, let's get our stuff out, move it on the borders, <h3>let those savages kill each other for a few years, then go back in to mop up the place.</h3>

reconmike, isn't combat training about being taught to dehumanize the enemy, or, anyone? Who commands these troops, who is their commander in chief...who are "those savages" of whom you speak?

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4830782.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 March 2006, 12:30 GMT

Iraqi civilian deaths shrouded in secrecy
By David Gritten
BBC News website

.....A US statement at the time said the civilians, including seven women and three children, died in a roadside bomb explosion that also killed a marine in the western town of Haditha.

But survivors and those who saw the bodies said the account was not true.

"Their bodies were riddled with bullets, there was evidence that there had been gunfire inside their homes, there were blood spatters inside their homes," Bobby Ghosh, a journalist who took up the case for Time magazine, told the BBC.

"It was quite clear that these people were killed indoors, which couldn't possibly have happened if they'd been involved in a roadside blast."

An initial military inquiry found the two families had indeed been shot dead in their homes by the marines, but it described the deaths as "collateral damage".

The report has now prompted the US Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) to determine the motives behind the killing.

The NCIS will have to decide whether the civilians were killed by accident or were targeted by the marines as an act of revenge in a potential war crime.

Several American veterans of the war in Iraq have told the BBC's Newsnight programme that the marines' reaction to the roadside bomb attack in Haditha was not an isolated incident.

Specialist Michael Blake, who served in Balad, said it was <h3>common practice to "shoot up the landscape or anything that moved" after an explosion</h3>.

'Common practice'

Another veteran, Specialist Jody Casey, who was a scout sniper in Baquba, said he had also seen innocent civilians being killed.

Bombs "go off and you just zap any farmer that's close to you", he said.

<h3>At that time, when we first got down there, you could basically kill anyone you wanted
Specialist Jody Casey</h3>

Mr Casey said he did not take part in any atrocities himself, but was advised to always carry a shovel. He could then plant this on any civilian victims to make it look as though they were digging roadside bombs.

The US and British governments say the fact the allegations are being investigated at all shows that progress has been made in Iraq.

UK International Development Minister Hilary Benn welcomed the inquiry and said it was important that the perpetrators were being brought to justice.

"The big difference between now and the 30 years that people endured under Saddam is that when things happened nobody was called to account, there was no due process," he said. .....

Quote:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...626870,00.html
Over 2 000 killed in Fallujah
25/11/2004 22:17

Baghdad - More than 2000 people have been killed so far in the operation against the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, an Iraqi official said on Thursday.

He gave no breakdown of deaths among US troops, Iraqi forces, insurgents and civilians.

Qassem Dawoud, the government's national security adviser, told reporters that as of Thursday, the death toll stood at "more than 2 085" with "more than 1 600 arrested".

US officials had said 54 US soldiers and marine were killed in the operation, which began on November 8.....

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...638829,00.html
A name that lives in infamy

The destruction of Falluja was an act of barbarism that ranks alongside My Lai, Guernica and Halabja

Mike Marqusee
Thursday November 10, 2005
The Guardian

One year ago this week, US-led occupying forces launched a devastating assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja. The mood was set by Lt Col Gary Brandl: "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."

The assault was preceded by eight weeks of aerial bombardment. US troops cut off the city's water, power and food supplies, condemned as a violation of the Geneva convention by a UN special rapporteur, who accused occupying forces of "using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population". Two-thirds of the city's 300,000 residents fled, many to squatters' camps without basic facilities.

As the siege tightened, the Red Cross, Red Crescent and the media were kept out, while males between the ages of 15 and 55 were kept in. US sources claimed between 600 and 6,000 insurgents were holed up inside the city - which means that the vast majority of the remaining inhabitants were non-combatants.

On November 8, 10,000 US troops, supported by 2,000 Iraqi recruits, equipped with artillery and tanks, supported from the air by bombers and helicopter gunships, blasted their way into a city the size of Leicester. It took a week to establish control of the main roads; another two before victory was claimed.

The city's main hospital was selected as the first target, the New York Times reported, "because the US military believed it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties". An AP photographer described US helicopters killing a family of five trying to ford a river to safety. "There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone," said Burhan Fasa'am, a photographer with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. "With no medical supplies, people died from their wounds. Everyone in the street was a target for the Americans."

The US also deployed incendiary weapons, including white phosphorous. "Usually we keep the gloves on," Captain Erik Krivda said, but "for this operation, we took the gloves off". By the end of operations, the city lay in ruins. Falluja's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines.

The US claims that 2,000 died, most of them fighters. Other sources disagree. When medical teams arrived in January they collected more than 700 bodies in only one third of the city. Iraqi NGOs and medical workers estimate between 4,000 and 6,000 dead, mostly civilians - a proportionately higher death rate than in Coventry and London during the blitz.

The collective punishment inflicted on Falluja - with logistical and political support from Britain - was largely masked by the US and British media, which relied on reporters embedded with US troops. The BBC, in particular, offered a sanitised version of the assault: civilian suffering was minimised and the ethics and strategic logic of the attack largely unscrutinised.....

reconmike · 07-14-2007, 11:54 AM

[QUOTE=host

reconmike, isn't combat training about being taught to dehumanize the enemy, or, anyone?[/QUOTE]

Ah yes Host, first they show you countless vids of puppies being skinned alive to desensitize you, then they move up to skinning alive of all the unwanted Chinese female infants, by that time killing your own mother is cake.

Quote:

...who are "those savages" of whom you speak?

Quote:

Sunni mosques attacked after Shiite shrine bombing

Quote:

Jay Deshmukh
AFP
June 14, 2007

IN PROTEST: An elderly Iraqi Shiite demonstrator chants slogans during a protest against the bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, in Basra, south of Baghdad June 14.
(REUTERS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAGHDAD -- Three Sunni mosques were bombed in Iraq Thursday in apparent reprisal for an attack on a revered Shiite shrine, sparking fears of fresh sectarian bloodletting despite appeals for calm.

Curfews were swiftly imposed in Baghdad and in Samarra, where suspected Al Qaeda militants Wednesday bombed the Askari mosque, but at least six Sunni mosques have been attacked, including one in the capital.

The destruction of Samarra's two gold-covered minarets came after an initial attack on the shrine in 2006, also blamed on Al Qaeda, sparked Sunni-Shiite reprisals that have claimed tens of thousands of lives.

Early Thursday, two Sunni mosques in Iskandiriyah and one in Mahawil, both south of Baghdad, were bombed, Lieutenant Kamal Al Ameri of Hilla police said.

One of the Iskandiriyah mosques had already been attacked Wednesday, along with two others in the town and one in Baghdad - the latter despite a curfew in the capital that was due to be lifted Saturday.

"Insurgents bombed the mosque again today at around 4.00 am and shrapnel from the bomb wounded a woman and girl in a nearby apartment," Ameri said of Iskandiriyah's twice-bombed Hatteen mosque. He said that unknown men had Wednesday launched a coordinated attack on the town's Grand Mosque using first bombs and then rocket-propelled grenades against the holy building.

The Samarra shrine attack triggered widespread protests among Iraq's Shiites with thousands Thursday taking to the streets of Baghdad's Sadr City and in the cities of Kut and Amara in the south.

"No! No! to occupation," young black-clad Shiites shouted in Sadr City, waving black banners and Iraqi flags inside the bastion of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr who has blamed the US for the Samarra attack.

Banners calling for a united Iraq and a fight against sectarianism were seen in the crowd alongside posters of Sadr, a witness said.

In Kut, angry Shiites protested in front of the local government building.

"We demand that the government works hard to protect shrines and prevent sectarian violence. We demand that Iraqi blood be protected," shouted protestor Dhiya Abdel Amir.

Hundreds more protestors took to the streets further south in Amara where Sadr representative Munshid Al Zurfi slammed the Samarra attack as "a conspiracy by the occupier."

US President George W. Bush, who ordered tens of thousands more US troops onto Baghdad's streets to stem brutal sectarian murders started by the 2006 Samarra bombing, blamed the latest attack on Al Qaeda. He said that the bombing was aimed at "inflaming sectarian tensions among the peoples of Iraq and defeating their aspirations for a secure, democratic, and prosperous country."

Bush called "on all Iraqis to refrain from acts of vengeance and reject Al Qaeda's scheme to sow hatred among the Iraqi people and to instead join together in fighting Al Qaeda as the true enemy of a free and secure Iraq."

The February 2006 attack destroyed the golden dome of one of the world's holiest Shiite shrines where the faithful believe that their 12th Imam, a messianic and mystical figure, disappeared in the 9th century. The mosque houses the remains of the 10th and 11th Imams - Ali Al Hadi and Hassan Al Askari - buried in the house where they died in the 9th century and around which the shrine was built.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki held the shrine guards responsible for Wednesday's attack.

"The guards present there had a role in this attack and they will be punished," Maliki told reporters during a visit to Samarra broadcast by Al Iraqiya. "Anyone who is involved or participated or played any role in this brutal crime will be punished," he said, adding that the government was close to signing a contract to rebuild the shrine before it was bombed.

The interior ministry said that an unspecified number of shrine guards had been arrested and were under investigation after reports that Samarra security forces were themselves involved in infighting shortly before the bombing.

In Samarra, a blanket curfew forced people to stay indoors Thursday as police snipers took up positions in the vicinity of the shrine.

"The curfew is total and Iraqi security forces have been deployed across the town along with US forces," said Major Ahmed Majid of Tikrit police, adding that two people had been wounded after being shot by snipers. "All entrances to the town have been blocked. We have also tightened security around the shrine."

Quote:

In December 2006, the Pentagon reported that violence in Iraq had hit at an all-time high. Between August and November, attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians increased nearly 30 percent, to an average of 959 per week.

There were an average 93 attacks each day against Iraqi civilians -- more than three times the rate two years ago.

Overwhelmingly, strife between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is driving the upsurge in violence. Sunni insurgent groups and Shiite militias carry out kidnappings and bombings in an ongoing cycle of violence and retaliation. In Baghdad, neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites once lived together are now being cleared of one group or the other, in what some are calling sectarian cleansing.

"Sectarian violence now presents the greatest immediate threat to Iraq's stability and future," CIA Director Michael Hayden told the Senate Armed Services Committee in November.

Saddam Hussein's Dec. 31 execution illustrated the deep sectarian divide -- Shiites taunted the former dictator in his last moments with chants of the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's name.

It wasn't always this way. Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere have a long history of conflict, but also, at many points over the past 14 centuries, of living together peacefully.

The religious divide between the two sects formed over many years, according to University of Michigan historian Juan Cole. It began after the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632, when his followers could not agree on who should succeed him. Some -- the predecessors of the Shiites -- thought Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali, should be the successor, while others -- the Sunnis predecessors -- thought the position should go to a community elder named Abu Bakr.

Abu-Bakr won, and became the first Caliph, or leader of the Muslims. Meanwhile, the predecessors of the Shiites began to call Ali and his descendents "Imams," and considered them their leaders. After the third Caliph was murdered, in 656, Ali did become Caliph -- but then he too was murdered five years later.

When the 11th Imam -- Muhammad's many-times-over great-grandson -- died in 874, a legend grew up among Shiites that his young son, the 12th Imam, had disappeared from the funeral. Many began to see the child as a messianic figure, furthering distancing the Sunni and Shiite forms of Islam.

"By the time you get to the 900s, you can really talk about Shiism as a separate movement," Cole explained. "From the Shiite point of view, history went wrong. The central rituals in Shiism are about mourning, in Sunnism there's no equivalent."

But, Cole and others have said, this religious aspect of the Sunni-Shiite split has little to do with the contemporary violence in Iraq.

"It's a struggle for political power," said Vali Nasr, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. "Whenever you have identity divisions, there's always an identity marker. Sometimes it's race, sometimes language. But sometimes religious identity becomes the marker, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you're pious."

In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the divide between Sunnis and Shiites simmered although it rarely erupted, according to Nasr. Saddam, a Sunni, filled the top ranks of his Baath Party with other Sunnis. So although Iraq was and remains about 60 percent Shiite, Sunnis were the ruling class.

"Some people say there was no sectarianism, but that's like saying there was no racism in South Africa under apartheid," Nasr said. "The state was racist. There was no sectarianism in the streets, but that doesn't mean there was no sectarianism."

Still, the Baath Party was a secular party, and on a day-to-day level Shiites and Sunnis could live together in mixed neighborhoods, work together and marry each other --particularly in cosmopolitan Baghdad.

"By and large the people were moderates, and the religious element was a small element in their lives," said Laith Kubba, the Iraqi-born senior program officer for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Endowment for Democracy, and a former spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. "You'd find more extremist Shiites in Pakistan and Iran, and more extremist Sunnis in Saudi Arabia."

What has occurred since the fall of Saddam to incite the violence is a power vacuum, said Kubba.

"You have 20 million-plus people, with no services to provide law and order. And this in a country that was so dependent on bureaucracy," he said. "When you pull out state and government, the only thing left is the mosque."

Insurgent groups -- many made up of Sunnis deposed from power -- began attacks against Americans and Iraqis almost immediately after Saddam's fall. Then, particularly after the February 2006 bombing of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra -- one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam -- retaliatory violence by Shiite militias began in earnest.

In the past several months, the violence has only gotten worse. A December article in the Washington Post, for example, told the emblematic story of a Sunni family about to flee their home in Tobji, a previously mixed neighborhood in central Baghdad where they had lived since the 1950s, as Shiite militiamen kidnapped and killed other Sunnis in the area.

"I am scared. I am Sunni," the father, Farouk, told the paper.

Meanwhile, many moderate, secular Iraqis have fled the country. "The people who intermarried were the first to leave," Nasr said. "Most of the class in which intermarriages happened--the middle class--they've left Iraq."

In politics, the parties that have replaced Saddam's Baath Party are all sectarian. The Iraqi parliament includes the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, the Shiite Sadr movement, and the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, among others.

Many of these political parties also have armed wings driving the violence on the ground, including Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution's Badr organization.

The Iraqi government has made some attempts to bridge the sectarian divide. In mid-December, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki organized a "National Reconciliation Conference" in Baghdad, intended to bring together Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to discuss how to end the violence. At the conference, al-Maliki invited former members of Saddam's Baath party to join Iraq's new army.

But most accounts deemed the conference a failure, particularly because many key groups, including the Shiite Mahdi army and the Sunni Muslim Scholars Association, refused to attend.

Meanwhile, the relationships among all these political and insurgent groups are complex. According to Cole, for example, Muqtada al-Sadr paradoxically has a better political relationship with some Sunni members of parliament than any other Shiite, despite the fact that his Mahdi Army and Sunni insurgents are at war in the streets every day.

That's because, Cole wrote in his blog, al-Sadr sees a difference between most Sunnis and those Sunnis who violently hate Shiites, and he believes his militia is fighting only the latter group.

But, according to Cole, a stable coalition between Sadr and Sunnis is unlikely. "I fear that ... if the U.S. left, the Sadrists and the Sunni fundamentalists would gradually fall on one another. Dislike of the U.S. presence is after all among the main things they have in common, and that would be gone," he wrote.

And that sort of stable coalition is the only hope for reducing sectarian violence, according to Kubba.

"Put the state back to business and you'll immediately pull back a huge chunk of Iraqis," he said, "and cut the religious zealots back to size

BAGHDAD (AP) — Gunmen shot and killed 23 members of an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq on Sunday after stopping their bus and separating followers of other faiths.
At least 20 people were killed in car bombings in the capital, most at a police station in a mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhood.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Egypt's leader to ignore widespread reports that the country is suffering a civil war. He also said he would halt the U.S. construction of a barrier that would separate a Sunni enclave from surrounding Shiite areas in Baghdad that had drawn sharp criticism from Sunni leaders and residents.

In the northern Iraq attack, armed men stopped the bus as it was carrying workers from a textile factory in Mosul to their hometown of Bashika, which has a mixed population of Christians and Yazidis. Yazidis are a primarily Kurdish sect that worships an angel figure considered to be the devil by some Muslims and Christians.

The gunmen checked the passengers' identification cards, then asked all Christians to get off the bus, police Brig. Mohammed al-Wagga said. With the Yazidis still inside, the gunmen drove them to eastern Mosul, where they were lined up along a wall and shot to death, al-Wagga said.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Iraq | Baghdad | Sunni | Mohammed | Egypt | Maliki | United Arab Emirates | Iraqi prime minister | Nouri | Egyptian President | Hosni Mubarak | Sunni-Shiite
After the killings, hundreds of Yazidis took to the streets of Bashika. Shops were shuttered, and many Muslims remained indoors.

Bashika is about 80% Yazidi, 15% Christian and 5% Muslim.

Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a police spokesman for Ninevah province, said the executions were in response to the killing two weeks ago of a Yazidi woman who had converted to Islam after she fell in love with a Muslim and ran off with him. Her relatives had disapproved of the match and dragged her back to Bashika, where she was stoned to death, he said.

Elsewhere:

• In Baghdad, two suicide car bombs exploded within moments of each other. The first driver raced through a police checkpoint guarding a police station and exploded his vehicle just outside the two-story building. The second bomber aimed at the checkpoint's concrete barriers, police said.

Iraqi police stations often are the target of attacks by insurgents who accuse the officers of betraying Iraq by working in cooperation with its U.S.-backed Shiite government and U.S. military.

Police said 13 people died: five police officers and eight civilians. The wounded included 46 police officers and 36 civilians.

• In Fallujah, police found 24 bullet-riddled bodies, and two brothers who were shot to death a day after the chairman of the city's council was assassinated.

• The U.S. military also reported the deaths of three soldiers. Two were killed in attacks in Baghdad on Saturday, while the third died from an unidentified non-combat cause that was still under investigation, the military said.

Like I said these savages, will kill and blow up anyone that is not in their sect, doesn't matter who or what gets in the way.

Maybe we can pull back the troops, watch from the eye in the sky, and when we see a concentrated number of savages we could chuck a well placed cruise missle into the group of them.

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 11:57 AM

All Iraqis are not savages. Very few are violent at all. To suggest that they are, as a race, savage only has one answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Answers.com

Racism:
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

reconmike · 07-14-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

All Iraqis are not savages. Very few are violent at all. To suggest that they are, as a race, savage only has one answer:

Iraqi is a race?, I thought it was a nationality.

Elphaba · 07-14-2007, 10:48 PM

Back to the OP, I had heard another report that Maliki claimed that the withdrawal of US troops would lead to a full break down of the government. I believe that came from our ever compliant msp.

The current Iraqi government has been a US puppet and many of the members remain at their homes or have escaped the country. Iraqi police are now turning their guns on our troops, and Maliki asks for more guns and training of the Iraqi police.

It is long past time to leave, but Bush will not do so under any circumstances as long as the oil sharing legislation is not passed. The Iraqi oil unions are speaking out, both in the US and elsewhere, revealing the rape of Iraqi resources that this "war" was all about.

I would love the possibility that Maliki double crossed his US promoters, by his invitation to leave without the oil legislation that they demanded.

shakran · 07-15-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Prime Minister al-Maliki is (unsurprisingly) delusional to think Iraq can survive right now without a U.S. presence. It can't even survive with a U.S. presence!

And that's the whole point right there. We can't do any good there. Why keep getting our kids killed for something we can't possibly fix? The best solution (and it is by no means a good one) is to get out, apologize profusely, and maybe this time resolve never to do something stupid like this again.

irateplatypus · 07-15-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Normally I would take this as the final nail in the coffin of the Iraq War, but Bush and Cheney won't leave until they've left office one way or the other.

WTF? final nail in the coffin?

so... the democratically elected leader of the iraqi republic states that his countrymen are able to provide their own security and that's the final nail in the coffin?

Sounds like victory to me hombre.

i'm not saying that his statement is necessarily true. just that, if it were, it wouldn't be anything like a "nail in the coffin".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

It is long past time to leave, but Bush will not do so under any circumstances as long as the oil sharing legislation is not passed. The Iraqi oil unions are speaking out, both in the US and elsewhere, revealing the rape of Iraqi resources that this "war" was all about.

I would love the possibility that Maliki double crossed his US promoters, by his invitation to leave without the oil legislation that they demanded.

i don't know even where to begin illustrating the flaws in these statements except to say that the oil sharing measures expected by the coalition are aimed at providing stability among iraqi groups, not to enrich foreign corporations. the oil fields don't fall along neat tribal/ethnic/sectarian lines. the legislation is meant to distribute the nation's wealth equitably to pre-empt future regional disputes.

Willravel · 07-15-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

WTF? final nail in the coffin?

so... the democratically elected leader of the iraqi republic states that his countrymen are able to provide their own security and that's the final nail in the coffin?

Sounds like victory to me hombre.

i'm not saying that his statement is necessarily true. just that, if it were, it wouldn't be anything like a "nail in the coffin".

However you want to state it, our troops should start leaving by the thousands today. If there's any delay, there should be immediate impeachments.

SecretMethod70 · 07-15-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

And that's the whole point right there. We can't do any good there. Why keep getting our kids killed for something we can't possibly fix? The best solution (and it is by no means a good one) is to get out, apologize profusely, and maybe this time resolve never to do something stupid like this again.

Just like we resolved never to let another Rwanda happen again? (I'm looking at you, Darfur)

Like I said before, Iraq was already cracked. But you don't go into an antique shop, break something, and then get to walk out saying "it was already weak anyway, it's not my fault!" It's terrible (and that's an understatement) that our troops are paying for the incompetence of this administration, but it seems to me that for a country full of people that claim to value personal responsibility, we need to take responsibility for the messes we cause and work to the best of our capabilities to fix them. Staying the course isn't doing that by any means, but neither is just pulling out. I don't claim to have the answer to this, but it strikes me that those are two of the worst, least responsible things we can do. Apologizing profusely is nice and all, but we all know words mean shit, and our apologies do nothing to make Iraq a safer place to live for the innocent people who live in fear everyday when doing simple things like going to the market.

roachboy · 07-15-2007, 11:34 AM

i'm more or less with smethod on this one.

this is a wreck of a situation.
obviously, we can all thank cowboy george and his band of idiot neo-cons for this huge steaming bucket of shit--but that only goes so far. fact is that the americans have managed to find themselves in the kind of factional fighting the threat of which explained the characteristics of saddam hussein's regime in the first place--which (i remind folks) the americans thought just hunky dory until they didnt any more. so not only was there no justification for the war...that on its own would have been fuck up enough---but KNOWING that behind saddam hussein's regime lay a patchwork of groups the nature of which was shaped fundamentally by british colonial domination, which relied on playing groups off each other in order to dominate the whole----the lack of a coherent plan on the part of the bush people is an example of such a mind-boggling level of incompetence that it really is hard to imagine.

even now it is hard to imagine.

i still think that every last person who approved of this disaster at any point should resign. every last one of them. if you are an elected official and you approved of this fuckwit non-plan, then you are obviously not competent to hold office. period. it does not matter which conservative party you belong to. you are incompetent because you allowed this incompetence to manifest itself in 3-d. but that does not get anywhere in terms of addressing what appears to be happening in real time as a result of this epic incompetence.

the bush people have no way out. they lack imagination on the one hand and this is compounded by the inability to admit errors much less learn from them. the current bush-"strategy" is self-evidently worthless. simple withdrawal is not an alternative at this point. it has seemed clear to me for a long time that the problems are: (a) the americans are a faction amongst factions and are in no position to do much of anything beyond defending themselves; (b) that the americans are an invading force means that they are seen as an invading force and cannot escape from that. so (c) the only way out of this mess in anything like the shorter run seems to me to internationalize it. that means getting the international community to bail the americans out of this catastrophic mess that they have made by setting up different multinational political structures that'll enable the americans to roll out of the conflict altogether. egg on the face and all. for cowboy george, this would be a complete humiliation, so cowboy george and his foul band of reactionaries are a primary obstacle to anything remotely like a coherent way of addressing iraq.

simple withdrawal seems like a pipedream, the imagination-less inversion of bush policies. there needs to be a fucking plan. pulling out straight away is NOT a plan--it is NOT BETTER and in many ways NO DIFFERENT from the disastrous policies of bushworld.

but i do think the americans need to get out. i just dont think it rational to imagine that getting-out can be a simple matter of picking up "our toys" and going home. the fiasco that would follow that would be the american's fault and as has been said before, no series of mea culpas, no matter how long, would mean shit in the face of it. but who knows, maybe if the "news" network cameras were pointed another way and the american press decided that the catastrophe in iraq was of a magnitude that it posed a real threat to the legitimacy of the american system (---as it does---) so that ignoring it made sense, perhaps we'd be treated to the lovely spectacle of the iraqi people choking in relative silence and american blithely getting on with their lives as consumers. i expect the shit would hit the fan politically for that sooner or later, but maybe most people wont notice. too busy watching sitcoms or anything else that enables them to look another way, any other way.

a fuck up like a george w bush fuck up is not so easy to get rid of.

Willravel · 07-15-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Just like we resolved never to let another Rwanda happen again? (I'm looking at you, Darfur)

Like I said before, Iraq was already cracked. But you don't go into an antique shop, break something, and then get to walk out saying "it was already weak anyway, it's not my fault!"

We were pissed, then went into the antique shop that we had a history with, broke a bunch of stuff, but ended up breaking even more trying to fix it. The shop owner is asking us to leave. Of course it's our fault, but it's time to admit that the mighty US can't fix this at all, and we've been asked to leave. That's the situation, and it's no unreasonable to respect the wishes of the shop owner. We're one of the bulls in the china shop.

jorgelito · 07-15-2007, 01:59 PM

Um, I thought the Iraqi minister said they were ready and able to handle being on their own? If that's the case, then that should resolve it. We can now leave right? The Iraq government gave their ok. What's the issue here?

tecoyah · 07-15-2007, 02:20 PM

We have not yet procured the rights to petroleum products, that may put a dent in the enormous capital expended to accomplish....uh...to create...um...to make,whatever it was we actually intended.

dc_dux · 07-15-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i don't know even where to begin illustrating the flaws in these statements except to say that the oil sharing measures expected by the coalition are aimed at providing stability among iraqi groups, not to enrich foreign corporations. the oil fields don't fall along neat tribal/ethnic/sectarian lines. the legislation is meant to distribute the nation's wealth equitably to pre-empt future regional disputes.

Irate...please illustrate the flaws in Elph's statement ("Bush will not do so under any circumstances as long as the oil sharing legislation is not passed. The Iraqi oil unions are speaking out, both in the US and elsewhere, revealing the rape of Iraqi resources that this "war" was all about.)

Cheney's secret Energy Task Force of oil company CEOs was looking at dividing up Iraq's oil fields even before our invasion:

These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

The draft oil law that many (Kurd, Shia and Sunni) within Iraq oppose would de-nationalize Iraq oil fields (something no other country in the Middle East would ever consider) and allow two-thirds of the oil fields to be developed by private oil companies....and would also allow foreign oil company officials to serve on the newly-created Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, the decision-making body on investments in Iraq oil development. These provisions were written in Washington DC.

Quote:

As the Bush administration and Congress press Baghdad to pass an oil law, a parliamentarian visiting Washington wants them to back off the legislation viewed by many to be too friendly to oil companies and detrimental to Iraq.

"The people as well as all the members of Parliament believe that this law is not only for robbing Iraq of its oil wealth but also for the division of Iraq," said Mohammed al-Dynee, a member of the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue's contingent in the Parliament...
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2...iraq_oil/5850/
***

WASHINGTON, July 6 As Iraq's oil law this week was sent to Parliament, one of its original authors fears it will be passed -- to the detriment of the country.

Tariq Shafiq, a London and Amman, Jordan-based oil consultant born and raised in Iraq, says backroom compromises will lead to the mismanagement of the country's oil sector and open it too much to foreign, private companies -- all enshrined in the oil law he originally wrote.
...
"The policy of the neo-conservative politicians prior to and post-invasion of Iraq has been the privatization of Iraq's oil industry," Shafiq alleges, adding international oil companies will then access the sector with production-sharing agreements, one of the most company-friendly contract models in the industry. The neo-conservatives "called for Iraq's withdrawal from OPEC and an open oil production policy to rival Saudi Arabia and break the OPEC cartel," he said.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/80070.html

Bush clearly wants the law passed while the central government is at its weakest and while US influence is still present...a callous and immoral attempt at exploitation.

irateplatypus · 07-15-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

However you want to state it, our troops should start leaving by the thousands today. If there's any delay, there should be immediate impeachments.

no, don't make this about me. why wouldn't YOU describe it as a victory?

impeachment talk is complete nonsense, on the same level as advocating immediate withdrawal.

elph/dc_dux

as for the iraqi oil law... read it for yourself. true, it was drafted by a major US contractor... but it must first be accepted and ratified by a sovereign iraqi government. there are provisions for foreign investment but those are delineated to allow for an infusion of foreign capital/technology. i won't deny that there aren't opportunities for abuse if their law ends up looking like the US draft. but, those abuses will be made by iraqis against iraqi citizens and will be vulnerable to iraqi votes.

foreign investment is a vital part of re-assembling the iraqi oil industry. after decades of neglect by saddam and years of sabotage ever since... foreign capital/tech is the quickest way to get it back on its feet. iraq would cripple itself if it didn't formally establish mechanisms for its use.

dc_dux · 07-15-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

elph/dc_dux

as for the iraqi oil law... read it for yourself. true, it was drafted by a major US contractor... but it must first be accepted and ratified by a sovereign iraqi government. there are provisions for foreign investment but those are delineated to allow for an infusion of foreign capital/technology. i won't deny that there aren't opportunities for abuse if their law ends up looking like the US draft. but, those abuses will be made by iraqis against iraqi citizens and will be vulnerable to iraqi votes.

foreign investment is a vital part of re-assembling the iraqi oil industry. after decades of neglect by saddam and years of sabotage ever since... foreign capital/tech is the quickest way to get it back on its feet. iraq would cripple itself if it didn't formally establish mechanisms for its use.

In fact, there are two separate laws - the hydrocarbon law and the revenue distribution law.

Can you imagine the outrage in the US if a law to "manage" our greatest natural resources was drafted by a by a foreign government or foreign contractor?

Thirty year contracts with US oil companies`that Bush/Rice/Crocker are pushing hard not to have eliminated in the legislation may be the "quickest way" to get the Iraq oil industry back on its feet but is exploiting the Iraq people in the long term.

Bush/Rice/Crocker should stay the fuck out of the internal negotiations on these bills, but that wont produce the desired result for the US.

jorgelito · 07-15-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

We have not yet procured the rights to petroleum products, that may put a dent in the enormous capital expended to accomplish....uh...to create...um...to make,whatever it was we actually intended.

Then that would be the true "nail in the coffin" because we went there to remove Saddam and to liberate Iraqis and fight terror and remove wmds. With the Iraqi PM saying we can leave now, then by all means, we should declare "Mission accomplished" and leave Iraq since it is their wish we do so.

If we are holding out for petroleum concession then that is truly shameful and a further indictment on the Bush Administration that this debacle of a war is total BS. If we need to be "reimbursed" for war expenditures. then I'm sure we can work out some sort of payment program with the Iraqi government and send them a bill. Hopefully the Iraqi government will show some gratitude and act accordingly. Or, seeing how apparently Republicans are the most "compassionate", then we can write off the expense and tell the mothers and fathers of dead soldiers that their sons and daughters died for charity and compassion.

Willravel · 07-15-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

no, don't make this about me. why wouldn't YOU describe it as a victory?

Victory would have been allowing Saddam to be overthrown by Iraqis hungry for change and with the will to implement it. The second we invaded, there were no victories to be had. We've seen this in revolution after revolution against dictators through history. They emerge stronger when the people do it instead of an outside source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

impeachment talk is complete nonsense, on the same level as advocating immediate withdrawal.

Impeachment talk is nonsense, eh? Well if you can explain why, instead of pretending like we all know what's going on in your head, maybe there could be discussion. Impeachment talk being considered nonsense is nonsense until you do.

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

...
impeachment talk is complete nonsense, on the same level as advocating immediate withdrawal.

Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who served as a deputy AG in the Reagan administration and who wrote the first article of impeachment against Clinton, made a pretty clear and concise case for an impeachment inquiry against Bush in a recent interview with Bill Moyers:

Quote:

“[Bush’s crimes are more] worrisome than Clinton’s because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress and the judiciary to superintend his assertions of power.

He has claimed the authority to tell Congress they don’t have any right to know what he’s doing with relation to spying on American citizens, using that information in any way that he wants in contradiction to a federal statute called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

He’s claimed authority to say he can kidnap people, throw them into dungeons abroad, dump them out into Siberia without any political or legal accountability.

These are standards that are totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...nt.php?p=11459

mixedmedia · 07-18-2007, 09:25 AM

I'd just like to throw the weight of my own sentiment behind Smethy on this one. And I have to say that I am continually shocked at the flippant dismissal towards OUR MESS that so many people who call themselves liberals display. It's not as if you COULD just walk away anyway.

*edit* I see, Roachboy covered that last statement.

Willravel · 07-18-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I'd just like to throw the weight of my own sentiment behind Smethy on this one. And I have to say that I am continually shocked at the flippant dismissal towards OUR MESS that so many people who call themselves liberals display. It's not as if you COULD just walk away anyway.

To simply say it's 'our mess' ignores to the complexity of the situation. For one, there was going to be civil war after the removal of the Baath leadership no matter what. If the UN had stepped in and removed the Hussain leadership, there still would probably be a civil war, though it probably wouldn't be as big. If the Iraqis had removed Saddam themselves, there would have been a civil war to remove Saddam, then another to find out who was in charge next. If no one did anything, when Saddam eventually died his kids and nephews would have started a civil war for control.

The Bush administration was the catalyst to something that was, for the most part, eventual. The difference is that we handled it much worse than anyone ever could have guessed possible. The mismanagement, lack of planning, and overt theft and power grab are the reasons this situation has become so dire. It stand to reason that continuing the current path is not just mind numbingly obtuse, but it's going to be detrimental to the safety of people from Iraq to the UK and even back to the US. The longer we stay there, the more we invite guerilla attacks from radical elements of people sympathetic to Arabs and/or Muslims who are being occupied, suppressed, abused, tortured, and murdered. That's right, I'm not using the "t" word.

dc_dux · 07-18-2007, 09:38 AM

MM and roach:
I dont think any of the recent redeployment proposals supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress (and liberals in the country) would have the US just walking away.

The Levin/Reed Amendment, the one the Republicans in the Senate blocked from a vote today is representative of most recent proposals:

* phased redeployment as part of a new and different comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.

* continued training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces

and

* engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/0...amendment.html

I dont see that as walking away, but rather as the best alternative to a failed policy and no-win situation for the Iraqis

roachboy · 07-18-2007, 09:43 AM

dc: interesting.
perhaps all of us who are playing in this thread have ceded ground to the conservative framing of the debate without realizing it---it is on those terms that the options are either keep going or walk away....

mixedmedia · 07-18-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

To simply say it's 'our mess' ignores to the complexity of the situation. For one, there was going to be civil war after the removal of the Baath leadership no matter what. If the UN had stepped in and removed the Hussain leadership, there still would probably be a civil war, though it probably wouldn't be as big. If the Iraqis had removed Saddam themselves, there would have been a civil war to remove Saddam, then another to find out who was in charge next. If no one did anything, when Saddam eventually died his kids and nephews would have started a civil war for control.

The Bush administration was the catalyst to something that was, for the most part, eventual. The difference is that we handled it much worse than anyone ever could have guessed possible. The mismanagement, lack of planning, and overt theft and power grab are the reasons this situation has become so dire. It stand to reason that continuing the current path is not just mind numbingly obtuse, but it's going to be detrimental to the safety of people from Iraq to the UK and even back to the US. The longer we stay there, the more we invite guerilla attacks from radical elements of people sympathetic to Arabs and/or Muslims who are being occupied, suppressed, abused, tortured, and murdered. That's right, I'm not using the "t" word.

I don't disagree with any of this, but find none of it to be supportive of the solution of walking away.

And I don't think I ignore the complexity of the situation. In fact, the complexity of the situation forms the very basis of my opinion. Rather I find the idea of "walking away" to be completely void of comprehensive thought.

And this is OUR MESS, it may not be only our mess, but still it is OUR MESS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

MM and roach:
I dont think any of the recent redeployment proposals supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress (and liberals in the country) would have the US just walking away.

The Levin/Reed Amendment, the one the Republicans in the Senate blocked from a vote today is representative of most recent proposals:

* phased redeployment as part of a new and different comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.

* continued training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces

and

* engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/0...amendment.html

I dont see that as walking away, but rather as the best alternative to a failed policy and no-win situation for the Iraqis

Thank you, DC. Actually, I am aware that walking away is not the Democratic stance on Iraq. It's just very disheartening to realize the grave disparity there is on the issue among people I would normally find myself in close alignment with politically. And I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

dc_dux · 07-19-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

... I am aware that walking away is not the Democratic stance on Iraq. It's just very disheartening to realize the grave disparity there is on the issue among people I would normally find myself in close alignment with politically. And I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

MM...I agree with you on the moral responsibility of the US for the chaos we created Iraq.

But I understand the anger and frustration of those who say the "hell with it".

Bush has been dishonest with the American people from before the invasion to his latest pronouncement about Iraqi progress on the benchmarks and we have 3500+ dead family, friends and neighbors and 25,000+ injured as a result of that dishonesty. There is some justification to say "enough" if one can ignore the collateral damage to the Iraqi people.

roachboy · 07-19-2007, 02:08 PM

it almost seems that it either is or is not time in many places

Quote:

We are failing in Afghanistan

The costs of losing this war far outweigh those of Iraq. We must urgently change the approach

Paddy Ashdown
Thursday July 19, 2007
The Guardian

In July 2006, Britain's highly respected commander of international forces in Afghanistan, General David Richards, issued a stark warning: "Afghanistan is a good and winnable war but, at the pace we are proceeding, we need to realise that we could actually fail here." A year on, as yesterday's defence committee report indicates, we are indeed beginning to fail in Afghanistan.

Failure is not yet inevitable. But it is now likely, and will remain likely until we increase resources and redress the disastrous failure of the international community to get its act together. The tragedy is that this is happening despite a high level of professionalism and a lot of raw courage among our soldiers. And it is happening despite some outstanding reconstruction successes outside the hot conflict areas of Helmand province.

I recently had a rather heated conversation with a government minister who assured me that we were winning in Afghanistan because "we were killing more Taliban". But success is not measured in dead Taliban. It's measured in how many more water supplies are being reconnected; how many more people now have the benefit of the rule of law and good governance; how many have the prospect of a job; and, above all, whether we are winning or losing the battle for public opinion, which is central to successful reconstruction.

The polls measuring domestic opinion show falling support for the international presence. The decline has been relatively small, but once this slide begins it can move fast and be difficult to turn around. Modern war is fought among the people, and so is post-conflict reconstruction. The battle for public opinion is the crucial battle: if you lose it, you lose full stop. We have to turn this around very rapidly if we are not to have another, and more painful, failure on our hands after Iraq.

A number of factors have placed us in this perilous situation. We have been left with too few resources - above all, as yesterday's report underlines, too few soldiers' boots on the ground. A balkanisation of strategy has muddled our focus - the British are obsessed with Helmand, but arguably Kandahar and Kabul are the crucial areas. Sharply deteriorating relations between President Karzai's government and that of President Musharaff have hardly helped. But the paramount reason for our failing grip lies with ourselves.

In the task of post-conflict reconstruction, the international community's tendency to repeat what fails is quite bewildering. The fundamental principles are a coherent strategy, unity of voice, and coordinated international action. All three are almost totally lacking in Afghanistan.

One can normally at least rely on the military to understand the importance of unity of command. But in Afghanistan, even this is absent. The US military are not exclusively under the command of Nato's mission in Afghanistan, and frequently conduct operations that run counter to the Nato force's basic doctrine of minimising civilian deaths. Worse, US special forces and CIA operations are run not from the theatre but from Washington. This is exactly the fractured command structure that led to the US disaster in Somalia.

On civilian reconstruction, the situation is worse still. There is no effective coordination. Individual nations' obsession with their own bilateral plans produce duplication, waste and confusion. Our partners in the Afghan government are baffled by the stream of contradictory instructions and the absence of an international partner with a clear view of what must be done. The hapless UN special representative in Kabul, Tom Koenigs, who might have the task of coordinating international effort, has neither the power nor the support from major capitals to do so.

The poppy eradication programme provides a graphic illustration. There are 15 international and local organisations working on it. Britain has the nominal duty of coordinating their actions but has failed to do so. The result? Some £200m spent on the programme - and the last two poppy harvests have been the biggest in Afghanistan's history. I am not at all sure that our strategy on eradication is right. But if we have one, we ought to be able to do better than this. We are putting 1/25th the amount of soldiers and 1/50th the amount of aid per head of population into Afghanistan than we put into Bosnia and Kosovo. That is less in terms of resources than has ever been put into a successful post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction effort. Does this mean we are bound to fail? Probably not. But "probably not" becomes "definitely yes" if, on top of a starvation of resources, we also fail to organise what we have to best effect.

The costs of failure in Afghanistan are much more dangerous than Iraq. Failure would mean a hugely increased risk of instability in Pakistan, with dangerous implications for the security of the region - and for the internal security of Britain. One result could be the beginning of a wider conflict that would start with war-lordism but end with a Sunni-Shia civil war on a regional scale. And then there is the effect on Nato. One highly respected UK general has told me that he believes failure in Afghanistan could do the same damage to the Atlantic alliance as the UN's failures in Bosnia did to that organisation. What we could be looking at is not just damage to the Atlantic relationship but perhaps eventually even to the US security guarantee for Europe.

Britain has identified Afghanistan as one of its major foreign affairs priorities. We have one of our brightest ambassadors and one of our biggest embassies there. This is right. Perhaps no western country has a greater stake in succeeding in Afghanistan than we do. Perhaps therefore no person has a greater interest in seeing that we turn things around in time to avert failure than our new foreign secretary, David Miliband.

· Paddy Ashdown was high representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2002 until January 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...129594,00.html

host · 07-20-2007, 02:48 AM

Quote:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015576.php

The Challenge for Afghanistan
07.19.07 -- 11:38AM
By Spencer Ackerman

In today's episode of TPMtv, we ask Afghan Ambassador Said T. Jawad about some of the more controversial aspects of the war in Afghanistan: from torture on Afghan soil to the spike in civilian casualties to the allegation that President Hamid Karzai's brother is involved in the opium trade. His take on Iran's influence in Afghanistan might surprise you. Take a look.

(Video)

Where is the "big media" coverage? Wouldn't "liberal media bias" make the coverage that we're seeing in the Guardian UK and by talkingpointsmemo.com an opportunity for MSM to embarrass president Bush and the 27-1/2 of American adults who still approve of the job that he's doin' ?

cybersharp · 07-22-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I don't disagree with any of this, but find none of it to be supportive of the solution of walking away.

And I don't think I ignore the complexity of the situation. In fact, the complexity of the situation forms the very basis of my opinion. Rather I find the idea of "walking away" to be completely void of comprehensive thought.

And this is OUR MESS, it may not be only our mess, but still it is OUR MESS.

Well then, we are losing lives, are not gaining anything, except a even worse international reputation. I really cant say it was ever a mess by whose authority it was the States to fix anyway. So your defiantly right.. There must be no reasons to quit the front for a justifiable war on a people whose sole hobby in showing their massive appreciation for us is shielding enemy gunman, and blowing themselves and others up.

The only pretext I know of in which the "mess" could be considered ours is by the fact that we destabilized their government. Which was not a totally effective government in the first place. So I am still left wondering what "mess" of ours or our involvement in the war, could be deemed our responsibility to clean up. I do not know how many others have forgotten... But Iraq is actually another country and not our own, and the people over there are people too, who can just maybe think and come up with their own solutions. Never mind that the region has more history than the states, a longer past, yes... they must be savages because they have a mindset that allows them with utter conviction to die for something they believe in, I mean because they are unbelievably happy that there is another country dictating what beliefs they should abide be. Because of course those beliefs must be SO much better for everyone.

Furthermore, I find any claim that you understand the complexity of the situation and enough of the situation to have a accurate judgment in concerns with leaving or "walking away" from what proof gained by many deaths and much time has granted us with a seemingly not winnable situation by war effort standards to be.. how shall I say this... "void of comprehensive thought".

Not that I am making a effort to insult in anyway, but you voiced a opinion in which you are negative to walking away, and would not come up with a reasonable alternative mainly because I do not have faith in your abilities to solve the issue of the war when our generals who probably know much about the war think it is seeming to be a unavoidable and costly defeat. Which is when you enter a effort and walk away without crushing the enemy or achieving the aim of the effort to begin with.

mixedmedia · 07-22-2007, 02:17 PM

First of all, I find your writing to be close to unintelligible. Not that I am making an effort to insult in anyway...

No, you are absolutely right. I do not have a solution. Geez, how undeserving I am then, of having an opinion on world affairs. I love that argument: you don't have a solution to the world's problems therefore you cannot have an opinion on them. Bullshit. I'm not sure why you chose me to unload your snideness on this evening, but I really wish you hadn't because I have other things planned for this evening.

But I will say this, what is your solution? We leave? What then? Please lay down your 10-step troop removal and political extrication plan for us all to examine and nitpick.

I believe the truth is, even if we were to pick up and leave by July 31st, there is no such a thing as "walking away." There seems to be this delusion that we actually can "go back" to the way things were before the war. As if it's nothing but a political nuisance. Something that just needs to be swatted away. I don't believe, politically or practically, spiritually or morally, that there is a way of walking out of this war. And it has a lot more to do with than just our troops. It has to do with Americans fucking standing up and realizing that the actions of America (and its inactions) in the world are theirs to own. Not abstract theories to bat around over apres-dinner coffee and amaretto. And you know who needs to own it most keenly? All of those people who were so gung-ho to go in there in the first place. It makes me sick to see how these assholes have had their fill of war and destruction and now think it's time to come home.

Quote:

But Iraq is actually another country and not our own, and the people over there are people too, who can just maybe think and come up with their own solutions. Never mind that the region has more history than the states, a longer past, yes... they must be savages because they have a mindset that allows them with utter conviction to die for something they believe in, I mean because they are unbelievably happy that there is another country dictating what beliefs they should abide be. Because of course those beliefs must be SO much better for everyone.

I don't know why the fuck you are directing this bullshit at me.

Sorry, but I'm in a mood and this claptrap pisses me off.

Oh, and one more thing, don't bother telling me about "American lives." I get so fucking tired of that horsehit, too. Wherever we go the amount of lives lost by American troops is dwarfed by the deaths of the people we go to "help." If you open your eyes real wide and think of all the senseless death that has been brought to Iraq since our invasion and then rid your mind of the concept and American and Iraqi, then perchance you can understand where I am coming from and absorb the magnitude of our responsibility there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, here it is the next morning and I am reading this, and I would like to apologize for my tone and, possibly, for my use of profanity (if that offends anyone), but I do not apologize for the sentiment.

I don't believe leaving is anymore of a plan than staying. And a lot hangs in the balance here. And it terrifies me that the choices will be made as a matter of US partisan politics, spite and national selfishness and not with the mind of doing what is best for the Iraqis.

Plus, if we leave, we will forget. Yes, we will. Just like Afghanistan. We will forget. I'm not saying that's a reason to stay, just that it's the truth, and the very cynical part of me says that many people want us to leave so they can forget. Not necessarily anyone here, but other people I've talked to on this subject out in real time-land.

07-14-2007, 09:07 AM	#3 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I am kind of hoping this is it also, let's get our stuff out, move it on the borders, let those savages kill each other for a few years, then go back in to mop up the place. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

07-14-2007, 10:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm always torn on the Iraq issue. On one hand, we should have never gone in there. On the other hand, I think Colin Powell was right to reference the rule, "You break it, you own it." Prime Minister al-Maliki is (unsurprisingly) delusional to think Iraq can survive right now without a U.S. presence. It can't even survive with a U.S. presence! (Due, in no small part, to the incompetence of this administration and its removal of any military intelligence which doesn't agree with it.) So, on one hand, we have the fact that we never should have gone into Iraq, it's distracting us from more important things such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and finding Osama Bin Laden, and that until there is new leadership in America there can be very little hope for substantial change in the direction Iraq is going. In the meantime, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more American soldiers are killed for a war we never should have started in the first place. On the other hand, as Uncle Ben told Spider-Man , with great power comes great responsibility. Iraq is in the mess it is in because we not only started a war we shouldn't have, but also because the current administration has been severely lacking in its planning and management of the war. It is important to set goals for the Iraqi government and people, but the Bush administration has displayed over the years a complete lack of understanding regarding the complexities that exist in the region. This is not to mention the delusional expectation that Iraq would, in the course of a few years, suddenly become a stable democracy after a whole generation living under dictatorship combined with the ethnic and religious issues. In other words, whatever responsibility the Iraqi people have for the shambles their country is in, the United States has more. Bush opened a Pandora's Box without having any clue what was inside, and now our military and Iraqi people - both innocent and less-than-innocent - are paying for it. It is very tempting to take the selfish way out and say that they should fix their own problems and the American military shouldn't be involved. It is, however, America's fault that those problems have reached the level they have in the first place. Not to mention, how many people (on the "liberal" side of the coin at least) would also say that it was good for us to (basically) let the Rwandans kill themselves and deal with their problems without U.S. involvement? Or, for that matter, how many would say we (as the U.S., or as the broader international community) should not bother interfering in Darfur and let those people deal with their problems themselves? Or, again, what about Kosovo? So I have a hard time with the idea that we should just pull out - even if it's done gradually over time. It's a very tempting proposal, but it strikes me as the political equivalent of taking over a company, running it into the ground, and then leaving with a nice big package. What I would much rather see is Democrats working hard to force this administration not to leave, but to fundamentally change course, with respect to both the military and international relations. We took an Iraq which was cracked and then smashed it into the ground. We can't fix it ourselves, but we owe it to the Iraqi people who are living in extreme fear and violence right now to do our best to repair the damage that we've done to our international relationships and work hard to create a real coalition based not on American supremacy but on global cooperation. But, then again, that can't happen to the degree it needs to until Bush is out of office, so maybe it's better to just pull out after all. Like I said, I'm torn. One thing I do know, though, is that PM al-Maliki has not only been a poor leader, but is now delusional regarding the ability of his country to hold itself together. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

07-14-2007, 10:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Back to the OP, I had heard another report that Maliki claimed that the withdrawal of US troops would lead to a full break down of the government. I believe that came from our ever compliant msp. The current Iraqi government has been a US puppet and many of the members remain at their homes or have escaped the country. Iraqi police are now turning their guns on our troops, and Maliki asks for more guns and training of the Iraqi police. It is long past time to leave, but Bush will not do so under any circumstances as long as the oil sharing legislation is not passed. The Iraqi oil unions are speaking out, both in the US and elsewhere, revealing the rape of Iraqi resources that this "war" was all about. I would love the possibility that Maliki double crossed his US promoters, by his invitation to leave without the oil legislation that they demanded. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

07-15-2007, 11:34 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm more or less with smethod on this one. this is a wreck of a situation. obviously, we can all thank cowboy george and his band of idiot neo-cons for this huge steaming bucket of shit--but that only goes so far. fact is that the americans have managed to find themselves in the kind of factional fighting the threat of which explained the characteristics of saddam hussein's regime in the first place--which (i remind folks) the americans thought just hunky dory until they didnt any more. so not only was there no justification for the war...that on its own would have been fuck up enough---but KNOWING that behind saddam hussein's regime lay a patchwork of groups the nature of which was shaped fundamentally by british colonial domination, which relied on playing groups off each other in order to dominate the whole----the lack of a coherent plan on the part of the bush people is an example of such a mind-boggling level of incompetence that it really is hard to imagine. even now it is hard to imagine. i still think that every last person who approved of this disaster at any point should resign. every last one of them. if you are an elected official and you approved of this fuckwit non-plan, then you are obviously not competent to hold office. period. it does not matter which conservative party you belong to. you are incompetent because you allowed this incompetence to manifest itself in 3-d. but that does not get anywhere in terms of addressing what appears to be happening in real time as a result of this epic incompetence. the bush people have no way out. they lack imagination on the one hand and this is compounded by the inability to admit errors much less learn from them. the current bush-"strategy" is self-evidently worthless. simple withdrawal is not an alternative at this point. it has seemed clear to me for a long time that the problems are: (a) the americans are a faction amongst factions and are in no position to do much of anything beyond defending themselves; (b) that the americans are an invading force means that they are seen as an invading force and cannot escape from that. so (c) the only way out of this mess in anything like the shorter run seems to me to internationalize it. that means getting the international community to bail the americans out of this catastrophic mess that they have made by setting up different multinational political structures that'll enable the americans to roll out of the conflict altogether. egg on the face and all. for cowboy george, this would be a complete humiliation, so cowboy george and his foul band of reactionaries are a primary obstacle to anything remotely like a coherent way of addressing iraq. simple withdrawal seems like a pipedream, the imagination-less inversion of bush policies. there needs to be a fucking plan. pulling out straight away is NOT a plan--it is NOT BETTER and in many ways NO DIFFERENT from the disastrous policies of bushworld. but i do think the americans need to get out. i just dont think it rational to imagine that getting-out can be a simple matter of picking up "our toys" and going home. the fiasco that would follow that would be the american's fault and as has been said before, no series of mea culpas, no matter how long, would mean shit in the face of it. but who knows, maybe if the "news" network cameras were pointed another way and the american press decided that the catastrophe in iraq was of a magnitude that it posed a real threat to the legitimacy of the american system (---as it does---) so that ignoring it made sense, perhaps we'd be treated to the lovely spectacle of the iraqi people choking in relative silence and american blithely getting on with their lives as consumers. i expect the shit would hit the fan politically for that sooner or later, but maybe most people wont notice. too busy watching sitcoms or anything else that enables them to look another way, any other way. a fuck up like a george w bush fuck up is not so easy to get rid of. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-18-2007, 09:25 AM	#25 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I'd just like to throw the weight of my own sentiment behind Smethy on this one. And I have to say that I am continually shocked at the flippant dismissal towards OUR MESS that so many people who call themselves liberals display. It's not as if you COULD just walk away anyway. edit I see, Roachboy covered that last statement. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 07-18-2007 at 09:28 AM..

07-14-2007, 09:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Normally I would take this as the final nail in the coffin of the Iraq War, but Bush and Cheney won't leave until they've left office one way or the other.

07-14-2007, 09:08 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I agree with reconmike. Not for the same reasons, necessarily, but there we have it. A hard line liberal and a hard line conservative both see this as a serious sign to leave Iraq.

07-15-2007, 01:59 PM	#17 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Um, I thought the Iraqi minister said they were ready and able to handle being on their own? If that's the case, then that should resolve it. We can now leave right? The Iraq government gave their ok. What's the issue here?

07-15-2007, 02:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	We have not yet procured the rights to petroleum products, that may put a dent in the enormous capital expended to accomplish....uh...to create...um...to make,whatever it was we actually intended.

07-18-2007, 09:38 AM	#27 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	MM and roach: I dont think any of the recent redeployment proposals supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress (and liberals in the country) would have the US just walking away. The Levin/Reed Amendment, the one the Republicans in the Senate blocked from a vote today is representative of most recent proposals: * phased redeployment as part of a new and different comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. * continued training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces and * engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/0...amendment.html I dont see that as walking away, but rather as the best alternative to a failed policy and no-win situation for the Iraqis __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-18-2007 at 09:41 AM..

07-18-2007, 09:43 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dc: interesting. perhaps all of us who are playing in this thread have ceded ground to the conservative framing of the debate without realizing it---it is on those terms that the options are either keep going or walk away.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite