So here's a question, What is the point of the Iraq War? Why are we there and what is the goal? Give me an opinion, a joke, a cynical rambling run on sentence, whatever, I just don't get the reason.
The purpose of the war is rarely explained or questioned. Here's some words from the Whitehouse website "If We Withdraw Prematurely.. Violent Extremists Would Be Emboldened.. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and sanctuaries.. Iran would benefit from the chaos and be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq.. could face a humanitarian nightmare, and democracy movements throughout the region would be violently reversed."
All these Whitehouse points can be refuted, here we go... We embolden violent extremists by allowing military contractors to Kill civilians without punishment. Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting and training tool is Iraq, and if we left Al Qaeda would have a diminished purpose, fewer recruits and the Iraqis would kick them out. Iran has been the biggest beneficiary of the Iraq War so far, we got rid of their enemy Saddam, dismissed the UN which might have prevented nuclear activity, and more. The Mideast might control their own oil, ok that's true, but what gives us the right to control someone else's oil? Iraq already faces a humanitarian nightmare 2 million refugees inside Iraq and 2 million in neighboring countries, the whole region faces a humanitarian crisis, and nothing the US has done so far has helped. Democracy movements? Anybody seen any Mideast countries saying "Check out Iraq, I need to get me some of that Democracy!"
The Whitehouse narrative is obviously a bunch of BS, and the American people are skeptical about what they say, but we don't really have an alternative. The press usually treats the government opinion as truth, all other explanations are conspiracy theories.
What's the purpose of this war? I'm asking you, why did we invade, and why are we still there. I just don't get it.
We Americans live in a bubble of official sources, part of the reason is that there aren't many journalists in Iraq, and the ones who are there, are usually embedded with American troops and government officials all day. This media blackout means that the Bush administration can create its own narrative about what's going on in Iraq, and we have very little evidence to contradict them.
In the eyes of the American News Media, the view of the government is the official objective analysis, and should be assumed to be as close to the truth as we can get. Why? The officials in government are self interested. This government in particular, is the most secretive and least transparent in this nations history. They won't let us see what they are doing, but instead they will explain it to us in press briefings. Information Control. (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia by the way)
I'm rambling a bit. Anyway. Here's my thoughts on the goals and purpose of the Iraq War.
The US strategy is NOT, to find common ground between warring factions and foster a lasting peace. The real theory is Divide and Conquer. We are handing out weapons like they're candy, and loosing thousands more. We're training the Shiite army and police to use our weapons against Sunni insurgents, then we turn around and give weapons to Sunni insurgents to drive out foreigners from Al Qaeda. We are essentially arming two militias that hate each other, we are giving them both guns and teaching them how to kill.
8 officers currently serving in Iraq wrote an op-ed and sent it to the times, they said "Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in Americas absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with America on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on the government of Iraq should the Americans leave." I'd encourage you to read the whole thing,
That leads me to my next point, we're not supposed to leave Iraq. The war may be bad for Military families, Iraqis, Taxpayers, America, and just about everyone except defense contractors, but that's OK. We blow things up, pretend to rebuild them, and get rich. Good plan, from that perspective the war is going perfectly. They waste our money, and that's just fine, boosts the economy, or something. $88 billion in contracts for Iraq are being audited for fraud
The thing is, since we've been in Iraq everyone has been laughing at us. Iran Russia, we started an arms race and there's nothing we can do about it because we look like fools in another Vietnam. But let's stay there indefinitely.
Here's Tom Friedman after he got back from Iraq on what he saw, "Peace in Iraq has to be built on a Shiite-Sunni consensus, not a constant balancing act by America. So far, the surge has created nothing that is self-sustaining. That is, pull us out and this whole place still blows in 10 minutes."
Iraq is part of a Mideast strategy, which is stupid, evil, and harmful to America. Need proof? "Under the guise of promoting a 'security dialogue' in the Persian Gulf, the Bush Administration has proposed $63 billion in arms transfers to the Middle East over the next ten years... $20 billion worth of high-tech arms to Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing states in the Gulf." Great Plan, makes me feel real safe.
Divide and conquer, establish permanent bases from which to demand power, and make Americans comfortable with permanent war. Why? I can't figure it out. Power for the sake of power? just for the sake of staying on top in the world, as PNAC stated? Are the Neo-Conservatives really that evil? Can it all be about Oil?
I don't know, it just doesn't make sense. Why stay in Iraq when it helps Al Qaeda and hurts America? Why trash international law in favor of the bomb, when it just proves we are selfish, destroys our alliances, and creates enemies? Why create Mercenary armies, send 180,000 contractors to Iraq, and blow billions of dollars on nothing? Why create so many enemies? Why destroy so many families?
Are we just trying to save face? the best way to do that would be to impeach Bush, no really, I'm serious.
I'm linking to this article again, because it is one of the few perspectives from inside Iraq, from the 8 soldiers in the NY times
Here's Bill Moyers talking about them. video
2 videos inside Iraq, I posted these before but they're a rare and recent glimpse inside Iraq.
Thanks
I promise, non political entries soon! woo hoo! those might not take 2.5 hours to write!
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/03/2007 23:49 #41487
What is the reason for Iraq?Category: political
09/20/2007 09:39 #41211
Blackwater, the Senate, and IsraelCategory: political
So Much News, So little Time.
Iraq Prime Minister Agrees that Blackwater should be banned and suspects in Saturday's shootout should be tried in Iraqi Courts.
There was a meeting in Iraq to eveluate the Interior Ministry's decision to ban Blackwater and everyone aggreed they were right, except the US I'm sure. There are 48,000 private contractors in Iraq, about 1,000 from Blackwater. Iraq is declaring independence from the US and starting to govern itself. Good for them.
The Puppet [government in Iraq] talks back
The Jim Webb Amendment to Protect the Troops gets filibustered by the Republicans.
The Troops in Iraq are under stress 24 hours, 7 days per week. Even when they are sleeping, they are worrying about rocket attacks. This kind of stress is terrible for the health of our soldiers. Currently they spend an average of 12 months at home for every 15 months in Iraq, that's the average some are coming home for only 6 months. This amendment said that US military personnel should spend at least as much time at home recovering as they do in Iraq. it even allowed the president to bend the rules if he makes a valid case to congress (you know the branch that declares war) if the troops are needed. British troops spend 6 months at war and a year at home. This is a bare minimum step to protect the health of our military troops and make sure that that they can reintegrate themselves into society.
The bill got 56 votes and the republicans filibustered it.
What a bunch of heartless lemmings. The Republicans are a disgrace, why are they protecting Bush and this failed policy. This is completely offensive to me. There were 3 republican co-sponsors, and still the rest of the senate gave the troops a big "fuck you" by ignoring the consequences of these extended deployments. Their hegemonic ideology is not sustainable, and they are ignoring the human concequences, just so they can play they international empire war games. None of it is making us safer, and it is abusive to our troops.
Detainees in the "War on Terror" can be detained indefinitely, without charge.
They have no rights to know why they are being held, nor challenge the charges against them in court. They can just sit in jail until they die, without ever knowing what they did. There are a lot of innocent people in these prisons, being tortured, and they have no chance at all to prove their innocence. If we tolerate this position we may as well just give up on America. The rule of law is just a bunch of bullshit if the president can throw somebody in jail unilaterally without ever charging them with a crime, let them be interrogated, and die there. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. What's to stop them from throwing anybody they choose in jail, how about a guy trying to form an Oil Workers Union in Iraq, or anybody the US disagrees with. This is an atrocity. Americans have learned nothing from history.
56 senators voted to reinstate Habeas Corpus, the others, all republicans, are traitors, what else can I call them.
This inalienable right is known as, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, if you are thrown in jail you have a right to know why, and see the evidence. This prevents the king from locking up anyone he doesn't like, for no reason, besides the fact that he doesn't like them. This protection has been the bedrock of modern law since the Magna Carta in 1215!!!! But I guess nothing in history has been as bad as 9/11, and now we need a strong man to take away our rights for our own protection. It's for our own good. What the hell is wrong with this country, why are we following an authoritarian off a cliff?
So Much for the Middle East Peace Process
Condi Rice shows up to hold a peace summit in Israel. And hours before her arrival Israel declares the Gaza Strip an "Enemy Entity" and says it's going to cut off utilities to the occupied territory. Rice didn't make a single comment about. And she's not sure if countries like Egypt will be coming to her summit. That's right folks, one Safer world coming right up.
The best thing you can do, if all of this stuff makes you angry, is call your representatives and tell them that you will not vote for them if they don't do something about it, their job is to protect the constitution. I don't want to make everyone upset and leave you no options about how to fix it. Congress people get scared when constituents call them, it's more effective than voting. go to congress.org to find your reps, or there are links in my sidebar to the right.
This stuff is out of control. We are giving up everything that makes America great.
Iraq Prime Minister Agrees that Blackwater should be banned and suspects in Saturday's shootout should be tried in Iraqi Courts.
There was a meeting in Iraq to eveluate the Interior Ministry's decision to ban Blackwater and everyone aggreed they were right, except the US I'm sure. There are 48,000 private contractors in Iraq, about 1,000 from Blackwater. Iraq is declaring independence from the US and starting to govern itself. Good for them.
The Puppet [government in Iraq] talks back
The Jim Webb Amendment to Protect the Troops gets filibustered by the Republicans.
The Troops in Iraq are under stress 24 hours, 7 days per week. Even when they are sleeping, they are worrying about rocket attacks. This kind of stress is terrible for the health of our soldiers. Currently they spend an average of 12 months at home for every 15 months in Iraq, that's the average some are coming home for only 6 months. This amendment said that US military personnel should spend at least as much time at home recovering as they do in Iraq. it even allowed the president to bend the rules if he makes a valid case to congress (you know the branch that declares war) if the troops are needed. British troops spend 6 months at war and a year at home. This is a bare minimum step to protect the health of our military troops and make sure that that they can reintegrate themselves into society.
The bill got 56 votes and the republicans filibustered it.
What a bunch of heartless lemmings. The Republicans are a disgrace, why are they protecting Bush and this failed policy. This is completely offensive to me. There were 3 republican co-sponsors, and still the rest of the senate gave the troops a big "fuck you" by ignoring the consequences of these extended deployments. Their hegemonic ideology is not sustainable, and they are ignoring the human concequences, just so they can play they international empire war games. None of it is making us safer, and it is abusive to our troops.
Detainees in the "War on Terror" can be detained indefinitely, without charge.
They have no rights to know why they are being held, nor challenge the charges against them in court. They can just sit in jail until they die, without ever knowing what they did. There are a lot of innocent people in these prisons, being tortured, and they have no chance at all to prove their innocence. If we tolerate this position we may as well just give up on America. The rule of law is just a bunch of bullshit if the president can throw somebody in jail unilaterally without ever charging them with a crime, let them be interrogated, and die there. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. What's to stop them from throwing anybody they choose in jail, how about a guy trying to form an Oil Workers Union in Iraq, or anybody the US disagrees with. This is an atrocity. Americans have learned nothing from history.
56 senators voted to reinstate Habeas Corpus, the others, all republicans, are traitors, what else can I call them.
This inalienable right is known as, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, if you are thrown in jail you have a right to know why, and see the evidence. This prevents the king from locking up anyone he doesn't like, for no reason, besides the fact that he doesn't like them. This protection has been the bedrock of modern law since the Magna Carta in 1215!!!! But I guess nothing in history has been as bad as 9/11, and now we need a strong man to take away our rights for our own protection. It's for our own good. What the hell is wrong with this country, why are we following an authoritarian off a cliff?
So Much for the Middle East Peace Process
Condi Rice shows up to hold a peace summit in Israel. And hours before her arrival Israel declares the Gaza Strip an "Enemy Entity" and says it's going to cut off utilities to the occupied territory. Rice didn't make a single comment about. And she's not sure if countries like Egypt will be coming to her summit. That's right folks, one Safer world coming right up.
The best thing you can do, if all of this stuff makes you angry, is call your representatives and tell them that you will not vote for them if they don't do something about it, their job is to protect the constitution. I don't want to make everyone upset and leave you no options about how to fix it. Congress people get scared when constituents call them, it's more effective than voting. go to congress.org to find your reps, or there are links in my sidebar to the right.
This stuff is out of control. We are giving up everything that makes America great.
jason - 09/20/07 12:55
If the Democrats even sniffed a molecule of victory and mass appeal after de-funding the war, they would have done it far long ago, to bury the Republicans for good. That should tell us something about how they think it would shake out.
Congress knows full well, and they admit it al the time on programs like Meet the Press, there are only two ways this war is realistically going to end. The quickest way, and the most legitimate way Constitutionally, is to de-fund it. The second way is to elect a Democrat to the White House in 08 that will certainly end it. With Hillary, who you can count on getting the nomination for the Democrats, you are not going to get that.
Personally, I think the anger is misplaced, or perhaps at least not shared equitably. If you are mad that the war isn't ending, blame it on the people you voted for who promised a change in policy (something they probably knew they couldn't deliver). Blame them for using these stupid bills to try and coerce Bush into doing something he most certainly will not do of his own volition. If you want to end the war "yesterday" you want to de-fund it. That's really the only way I think it will happen.
If the Democrats even sniffed a molecule of victory and mass appeal after de-funding the war, they would have done it far long ago, to bury the Republicans for good. That should tell us something about how they think it would shake out.
Congress knows full well, and they admit it al the time on programs like Meet the Press, there are only two ways this war is realistically going to end. The quickest way, and the most legitimate way Constitutionally, is to de-fund it. The second way is to elect a Democrat to the White House in 08 that will certainly end it. With Hillary, who you can count on getting the nomination for the Democrats, you are not going to get that.
Personally, I think the anger is misplaced, or perhaps at least not shared equitably. If you are mad that the war isn't ending, blame it on the people you voted for who promised a change in policy (something they probably knew they couldn't deliver). Blame them for using these stupid bills to try and coerce Bush into doing something he most certainly will not do of his own volition. If you want to end the war "yesterday" you want to de-fund it. That's really the only way I think it will happen.
drew - 09/20/07 10:07
yes James, Warner's flip is the worst, especially since the amendment was, like so much else that congress has done, essentially a "suggestion." I have to think that he was threatened/bought off in some way.
I really do think it is time for the Dems to de-fund the whole thing. I do believe it would be seen as heroic, but they lack either brains or nuts or both.
yes James, Warner's flip is the worst, especially since the amendment was, like so much else that congress has done, essentially a "suggestion." I have to think that he was threatened/bought off in some way.
I really do think it is time for the Dems to de-fund the whole thing. I do believe it would be seen as heroic, but they lack either brains or nuts or both.
drew - 09/20/07 10:01
I like your updates, thanks for giving them.
The Senate thing is crazy. Without a doubt, our veterans need time at home (and hospitals, and compensation, and armor, and Geneva convention protection, and to be dealt with honestly . . .)
The problem, for the republicans is that the war falls apart if the troops get what they need. There just aren't enough of them. Maybe there would be more soldiers recruited if we treated them well, but we can't afford to treat them well and maintain our level of engagement so we can't recruit more. It's a horrible cycle in which not only regular and reserve military get abused, but also our national guard, who did not sign up for this and who cannot do what they need to at home because they are overseas.
Our policies make a joke of the mantra, "support our troops." They really mean, "support the war."
And "homeland security?" Not likely. Everybody that is supposed to protect our home is being used up by this conflict.
Everyday I get more glad that I live a short drive from Canada. I love everything that America stands for, but I might have to cross the border to actually experience it soon.
Wow. I am having a cynical morning. I guess I should just be glad that I am past prime drafting age.
I like your updates, thanks for giving them.
The Senate thing is crazy. Without a doubt, our veterans need time at home (and hospitals, and compensation, and armor, and Geneva convention protection, and to be dealt with honestly . . .)
The problem, for the republicans is that the war falls apart if the troops get what they need. There just aren't enough of them. Maybe there would be more soldiers recruited if we treated them well, but we can't afford to treat them well and maintain our level of engagement so we can't recruit more. It's a horrible cycle in which not only regular and reserve military get abused, but also our national guard, who did not sign up for this and who cannot do what they need to at home because they are overseas.
Our policies make a joke of the mantra, "support our troops." They really mean, "support the war."
And "homeland security?" Not likely. Everybody that is supposed to protect our home is being used up by this conflict.
Everyday I get more glad that I live a short drive from Canada. I love everything that America stands for, but I might have to cross the border to actually experience it soon.
Wow. I am having a cynical morning. I guess I should just be glad that I am past prime drafting age.
james - 09/20/07 09:56
Hey, if there were 56 votes for the Webb amendment, that means some Republicans can't be all bad. Just to be fair to them.
At their current rate the GOP is set to not just break the record for most filibusters, but also tripling the number! It is one reason I don't care for the 'us vs them' mentality. It makes the minority party feel like a few elves, dwarfs, and men at the gates of Mordor.
Even more odd with the Webb amendment was the Warner bill which was a toothless, non-binding version of the Webb amendment. Warner had worked with Webb on the amendment and then did the ol' switcher-oo. James Wolcott called Warner a "Termite-ridden Treebeard tottering off towards extinction."
Which makes two Tolkein references in this comment.
Hey, if there were 56 votes for the Webb amendment, that means some Republicans can't be all bad. Just to be fair to them.
At their current rate the GOP is set to not just break the record for most filibusters, but also tripling the number! It is one reason I don't care for the 'us vs them' mentality. It makes the minority party feel like a few elves, dwarfs, and men at the gates of Mordor.
Even more odd with the Webb amendment was the Warner bill which was a toothless, non-binding version of the Webb amendment. Warner had worked with Webb on the amendment and then did the ol' switcher-oo. James Wolcott called Warner a "Termite-ridden Treebeard tottering off towards extinction."
Which makes two Tolkein references in this comment.
09/18/2007 00:34 #41170
Iraq Unraveling,Category: political
Crucial news stories are trickling out from Iraq. You may have missed these, because it's buried under the mass of a new OJ trial of some sort. Here is some of the real news.
Bush's new Iraq Ally gets killed.
When George bush went to Iraq two weeks ago. He went to Anbar Provence, which is so safe even the president can go there. That's the message anyway, Success in Anbar. And who do we have to thank? The troop surge of course, and a man named Sheikh Abu Risha who brought the warring factions together to fight Al Qaeda. Bush is seen shaking Abu Risha's hand in the above picture. Now the people in Anbar can go about being a stable democracy, and "an ally on the war on terror" as bush says.
Abu Risha shook Bush's hand, and a week later was killed... by Al Qaeda of course, just hours before Bush gave a speech on the wonderful things happening in Iraq. Tragic end to a wonderful man? Not quite. One journalist took his Camera to Anbar for the BBC and chronicled the progress and the uneasiness there. They found Abu Risha, the man of mystery, and got an interview out of him, one of the things he said was "I have worked with All of the Iraqi Tribes and they are All under my leadership." a blanket statement that makes the bullshit alarms go off in my head. All of the tribes? really? They are "All" under your leadership. Well how come nobody ever heard of you before now, he was nicknamed the "ghost of Anbar" by the Iraqis, because nobody had heard his name until recently, and few have met him. But he showed up just in time for Bush to stage a photo op, and try to sell the Iraq Policy again. And Abu Risha was killed in true mob fashion, he got greedy, he conned the Americans into giving him some money, then he fled to jordan, but he did not escape the Iraqi mob, who sent a message to other con men who go meddling in their business and taking money for themselves.
Video, from Iraq
Part one
Part 2
In Depth Analysis, from Greg Palast
Abu Risha's obituary from the BBC
The other Big story "Will Iraq Kick Out Blackwater?"
If you've never heard of "Blackwater" you might be interested to know that the US military isn't the only American force fighting in Iraq, Blackwater is a private contractor, hired guns, mercenaries if you will. They do things like protect State Department officials when they travel about the country. They're heavily armed and get paid about 50 times more then the US military personnel (not 50% more, military pay x50). Anyway they've got at least 1,000 soldiers, er, people fighting in Iraq. And they're in a sort of legal limbo, unaccountable to the American Government, our military courts, or any other.
In a recent twist of events, Blackwater contractors were involved in a firefight on Sunday, which left a number of Iraqis dead or injured. The event was offensive enough that the Iraqi Interior Ministry has suspended Blackwater's license to operate in the country. They declared that all Blackwater personnel must leave the country, except those being questioned in the shooting, they will be tried in Iraqi courts. I didn't know Iraq had functioning courts. But anyway, that was the story, until the state department called Iraq's Prime Minister Alawi to demand a stop to this legal nonsense. Well actually Condi Rice called Alawi and said the the US was already investigating this matter, no need to worry, don't get too hasty. Alawi and his cabinet are going to have a meeting about it tomorrow. I'm very curious what will come out of it.
Kicking contractors out of Iraq... depending on how this plays out it could be a watershed moment. There are thousands of contractors operating in Iraq, a shadow military of some sort. There are 48,000 Military contractors in Iraq (corrected). What if they started kicking them out, establishing their own sovereignty, and thereby reducing the troop level without Bush's consent by reducing the number of contractors aiding the troops. What happens then? I'm rooting for the Iraqis on this one.
News accounts of the Blackwater Story:
More About Blackwater
P.S.
Alan Greenspan says oil was the purpose of Iraq War. So if you don't believe me, believe him. He's a republican stalwart who was there from the beginning. It's kind of like John McCain of Paul Wolfowitz confessing about the Iraq War. Greenspan briefed Bush on the idea as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Bush's new Iraq Ally gets killed.
When George bush went to Iraq two weeks ago. He went to Anbar Provence, which is so safe even the president can go there. That's the message anyway, Success in Anbar. And who do we have to thank? The troop surge of course, and a man named Sheikh Abu Risha who brought the warring factions together to fight Al Qaeda. Bush is seen shaking Abu Risha's hand in the above picture. Now the people in Anbar can go about being a stable democracy, and "an ally on the war on terror" as bush says.
Abu Risha shook Bush's hand, and a week later was killed... by Al Qaeda of course, just hours before Bush gave a speech on the wonderful things happening in Iraq. Tragic end to a wonderful man? Not quite. One journalist took his Camera to Anbar for the BBC and chronicled the progress and the uneasiness there. They found Abu Risha, the man of mystery, and got an interview out of him, one of the things he said was "I have worked with All of the Iraqi Tribes and they are All under my leadership." a blanket statement that makes the bullshit alarms go off in my head. All of the tribes? really? They are "All" under your leadership. Well how come nobody ever heard of you before now, he was nicknamed the "ghost of Anbar" by the Iraqis, because nobody had heard his name until recently, and few have met him. But he showed up just in time for Bush to stage a photo op, and try to sell the Iraq Policy again. And Abu Risha was killed in true mob fashion, he got greedy, he conned the Americans into giving him some money, then he fled to jordan, but he did not escape the Iraqi mob, who sent a message to other con men who go meddling in their business and taking money for themselves.
Video, from Iraq
Part one
Part 2
In Depth Analysis, from Greg Palast
Abu Risha's obituary from the BBC
The other Big story "Will Iraq Kick Out Blackwater?"
If you've never heard of "Blackwater" you might be interested to know that the US military isn't the only American force fighting in Iraq, Blackwater is a private contractor, hired guns, mercenaries if you will. They do things like protect State Department officials when they travel about the country. They're heavily armed and get paid about 50 times more then the US military personnel (not 50% more, military pay x50). Anyway they've got at least 1,000 soldiers, er, people fighting in Iraq. And they're in a sort of legal limbo, unaccountable to the American Government, our military courts, or any other.
In a recent twist of events, Blackwater contractors were involved in a firefight on Sunday, which left a number of Iraqis dead or injured. The event was offensive enough that the Iraqi Interior Ministry has suspended Blackwater's license to operate in the country. They declared that all Blackwater personnel must leave the country, except those being questioned in the shooting, they will be tried in Iraqi courts. I didn't know Iraq had functioning courts. But anyway, that was the story, until the state department called Iraq's Prime Minister Alawi to demand a stop to this legal nonsense. Well actually Condi Rice called Alawi and said the the US was already investigating this matter, no need to worry, don't get too hasty. Alawi and his cabinet are going to have a meeting about it tomorrow. I'm very curious what will come out of it.
Kicking contractors out of Iraq... depending on how this plays out it could be a watershed moment. There are thousands of contractors operating in Iraq, a shadow military of some sort. There are 48,000 Military contractors in Iraq (corrected). What if they started kicking them out, establishing their own sovereignty, and thereby reducing the troop level without Bush's consent by reducing the number of contractors aiding the troops. What happens then? I'm rooting for the Iraqis on this one.
News accounts of the Blackwater Story:
More About Blackwater
P.S.
Alan Greenspan says oil was the purpose of Iraq War. So if you don't believe me, believe him. He's a republican stalwart who was there from the beginning. It's kind of like John McCain of Paul Wolfowitz confessing about the Iraq War. Greenspan briefed Bush on the idea as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
dcoffee - 09/18/07 16:09
I guess Greenspan should take that as a compliment :-) I was just trying to think of a recognizable figure that was a full-blown republican.
I was curious about your opinion on my last entry, where I said the Iraq War is not making us safer. That's a pretty bold assertion. I just wonder if you agree. Anyone who is against the idea of bringing our troops home from Iraq ASAP would probably take issue with that. thoughts?
I guess Greenspan should take that as a compliment :-) I was just trying to think of a recognizable figure that was a full-blown republican.
I was curious about your opinion on my last entry, where I said the Iraq War is not making us safer. That's a pretty bold assertion. I just wonder if you agree. Anyone who is against the idea of bringing our troops home from Iraq ASAP would probably take issue with that. thoughts?
jason - 09/18/07 14:07
Whatever you may think about Greenspan, he's no Wolfowitz, by any metric I can imagine.
Whatever you may think about Greenspan, he's no Wolfowitz, by any metric I can imagine.
james - 09/18/07 10:04
Greenspan also said that Iraq was after the Strait of Hormaz: On the border of UAE and Iran and a major oil production and shipping area.
Of course, Iraq does not have a border on that side of the Persian Gulf... nor does it have a Navy. Oh, and Saudi Arabia and Iran stand in their way... WTF?
Greenspan also said that Iraq was after the Strait of Hormaz: On the border of UAE and Iran and a major oil production and shipping area.
Of course, Iraq does not have a border on that side of the Persian Gulf... nor does it have a Navy. Oh, and Saudi Arabia and Iran stand in their way... WTF?
09/13/2007 00:40 #41072
The General, War for No Good ReasonCategory: politics
General Petraeus testified to the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday and today. The general was asked an interesting question by Republican senator John Warner, But his answer was the real eye opener.
Senator Warner: Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the congress here, this strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?
General Petraeus: Sir, I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
Warner: Does that make America safer?
General Petraeus: Sir I don't know actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind what I have focused on and what I have been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the multinational force Iraq.
Is the Iraq War making us safer? The General couldn't say No, that would be a political disaster. But Patreus is also a bit to honest to say yes.
He can't say "Yes we should put all our available troops in Iraq because this is the war to save America."
The battle to protect innocent American life from extremists cannot be won by brute force. And it certainly can't be won by exhausting our military in Iraq. The general may be able to stabilize Iraq, over 10 years or so, but in the meantime, the danger to America is Growing.
This stupid war is being waged for Bush and Bush alone. Not America. Impeach that son of a bitch and bring some sanity to our foreign policy. We started a damn Arms Race, and now Russia has the "father of all bombs" and the world has its finger on the trigger. The war in Iraq is just a Jihaddist recruiting, training ground, and fundraising tool for extremists. Osama and Al Qaeda want us to stay in Iraq, because every dead civilian proves that they are right and America is wrong.
We will stop terrorist plots through good old fashioned law enforcement. Terrorism is a crime, not a country that we can invade. Law enforcement depends on international cooperation and intelligence sharing. To bad we currently have no friends, no trust, and thanks to Bush, no International Criminal Court.
Read "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers"
I don't know what the purpose of this war is, only Bush and his wealthy authoritarian friends in the Oil and Weapons industries know the real reason for this war. But it has not, and will not make America Safer.
When the founding fathers put impeachment into the constitution, they were thinking of George W Bush. A power hungry authoritarian who is willing to deceive the nation in order to take more power and money for himself. He has destroyed the fragile framework of Democracy by claiming executive superiority, and unilaterally granting power to himself. The big problem is that if he is allowed to get away with it, without consequences, what's to stop the next president, and every president after that. Bush thinks he can ignore the Congress and the Courts, disregard subpoenas, prevent whitehouse officials from testifying or swearing an oath, and violate any law painstakingly passed through congress.
If I learned one thing in my US history class, it's that the US is a great country, because we have checks and balances, three branches of government. Remember that? That's pretty fucking important. And if one arrogant president can start a war, trample the other two branches of government, and have no consequences... You had better be fucking worried. Call your congresspeople and demand impeachment, that's the power that you still have.
That's a great question, has this War, and this President, made America safer?
Keep your bullshit detectors on tomorrow.
Bush will address the nation and say say "Look I'm cutting troops, what more do you want from me?" and the papers will say, "Bush cutting troops, democrats still unhappy". "Bush to support troop pullback, Democrats want more out sooner" look for more headlines like that and remember it's another lie.
some 30,000 troops will leave Iraq by March. And it's all Bush's wonderful idea, how merciful. Yea, what choice does he have? to keep them there longer he would be violating their contracts by extending their tours. those 30,000 troops were just added in January for the "surge" he got the maximum time out of them, now he will go through normal troop rotations. All while claiming He has decided to find middle ground and compromise with those pesky America hating Democrats by withdrawing some troops.
A year and a half is not a "surge" it's an escalation. And withdrawing troops in March, is another way of Bush squeezing every bit of energy out of them without causing a revolt.
metalpeter - 09/13/07 19:38
I'm not going to put all the blame on Bush I got back to Clinton and Bush before him and maybe even "Ronie Ray Gun". The US has had a bad forgien policy for a long time. We like to go get into wars and conflicts and sometimes with out really thinking. I think if Powell was President (not saying if he ran he would have won at the hight of his fame) we would be much better off. Powell was a military man and worked up the ranks he knows about the horrors of war and wouldn't just go in for no reason. But see none of these guys have been military men so they don't really get wars and ocupations and all that stuff. Yes different guys would have different views but at least when they send troops places they understand what is going on and will only send them for good reason.
I wonder if Bush is evil enough to let another Attack happen before elections start and then try to enact war powers and suspend elections. I know it sounds crazy and with Iraq being a horrid mess it wouldn't work. But what if Iran attacked us then it might. I'm not saying it would happen but I'm sure Bush has at least thought about it.
I'm not going to put all the blame on Bush I got back to Clinton and Bush before him and maybe even "Ronie Ray Gun". The US has had a bad forgien policy for a long time. We like to go get into wars and conflicts and sometimes with out really thinking. I think if Powell was President (not saying if he ran he would have won at the hight of his fame) we would be much better off. Powell was a military man and worked up the ranks he knows about the horrors of war and wouldn't just go in for no reason. But see none of these guys have been military men so they don't really get wars and ocupations and all that stuff. Yes different guys would have different views but at least when they send troops places they understand what is going on and will only send them for good reason.
I wonder if Bush is evil enough to let another Attack happen before elections start and then try to enact war powers and suspend elections. I know it sounds crazy and with Iraq being a horrid mess it wouldn't work. But what if Iran attacked us then it might. I'm not saying it would happen but I'm sure Bush has at least thought about it.
09/12/2007 09:35 #41059
The Surge and Petraeus brieflyCategory: politics
It was called a surge,
and the goals were clear.
Those goals were not met,
so bush's Pet, said
"give me a year"
I find it offensive that people are dieing in Iraq, and Bush is using the war as a political football. It seems that bush's only goal is to prolong the war for the next president to deal with, so that he will not be the one in the history books who failed in Iraq. Sure he botched the whole operation , but you can't lose a war that never ends. Like Vietnam, we lost that war because we left, that's bush's logic, remember in august "bush compares Iraq to Vietnam"
There are some BS news headlines floating around like "Bush to support troop pullback" so I have to clear the air a bit. The surge was called a surge because it was a temporary increase. But Bush and Petraeus plan to let the additional 30,000 surge troops go home by next summer. That's a year and a half. And bush says he is agreeing to troop cuts by letting the surge troops leave iraq. No, sorry, that's not a troop cut, that's back to where we started.
Next the numbers
Nothing but creative accounting practices to come up with fuzzy statistics. You know, like Enron. Car bombs don't count.
Most importantly, where are we now and what do we do next. Trust Bush to get er done. No.
Let's ask General John Batiste. I think this is a clear and concise assessment of the war. We have been adjusting the goals in Iraq for the entire war. Now bush has been telling us that as the Iraqi Government stands u, we can stand down. There's an inherrent problem with that and General Batiste put it into words
"Bottom line, we have put our strategic interests in the hands of an incompetent government in Iraq and we are 'waiting to see if Iraqi's can settle their differences.' This is unacceptable."
"America's national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus. Despite a remarkable performance, our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy for the Middle East. The way-ahead is uncertain at best, but it is time to put America's vital interests first. From this point forward, America's strategy must focus on the mission is defeat world-wide Islamic extremism."
General John Batiste's full testimony
I can't say it any better than that.
More reading and video.
Sorry, gotta go to work.
and the goals were clear.
Those goals were not met,
so bush's Pet, said
"give me a year"
I find it offensive that people are dieing in Iraq, and Bush is using the war as a political football. It seems that bush's only goal is to prolong the war for the next president to deal with, so that he will not be the one in the history books who failed in Iraq. Sure he botched the whole operation , but you can't lose a war that never ends. Like Vietnam, we lost that war because we left, that's bush's logic, remember in august "bush compares Iraq to Vietnam"
There are some BS news headlines floating around like "Bush to support troop pullback" so I have to clear the air a bit. The surge was called a surge because it was a temporary increase. But Bush and Petraeus plan to let the additional 30,000 surge troops go home by next summer. That's a year and a half. And bush says he is agreeing to troop cuts by letting the surge troops leave iraq. No, sorry, that's not a troop cut, that's back to where we started.
Next the numbers
Nothing but creative accounting practices to come up with fuzzy statistics. You know, like Enron. Car bombs don't count.
Most importantly, where are we now and what do we do next. Trust Bush to get er done. No.
Let's ask General John Batiste. I think this is a clear and concise assessment of the war. We have been adjusting the goals in Iraq for the entire war. Now bush has been telling us that as the Iraqi Government stands u, we can stand down. There's an inherrent problem with that and General Batiste put it into words
"Bottom line, we have put our strategic interests in the hands of an incompetent government in Iraq and we are 'waiting to see if Iraqi's can settle their differences.' This is unacceptable."
"America's national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus. Despite a remarkable performance, our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy for the Middle East. The way-ahead is uncertain at best, but it is time to put America's vital interests first. From this point forward, America's strategy must focus on the mission is defeat world-wide Islamic extremism."
General John Batiste's full testimony
I can't say it any better than that.
More reading and video.
Sorry, gotta go to work.
carolinian - 09/12/07 17:50
The right doesn't count car bombs in their tally of civilian deaths, the left counts traffic accidents in their tally of troop combat deaths.
Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be selective in the ways they are counting.
The right doesn't count car bombs in their tally of civilian deaths, the left counts traffic accidents in their tally of troop combat deaths.
Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be selective in the ways they are counting.
dcoffee - 09/12/07 16:15
Our military has been successful. That is true. There was a NY Times video online yesterday from Baghdad that showed public markets, and commercial strips that are now open and secured by our troops. Also the Baghdad theme park is open, and people are taking the opportunity to do some things they like. Our Troops have set up checkpoints and made sure that weapons stay out of certain areas, and people are enjoying some ease.
The troops have not failed. The politicians have. We can not leave our troops there forever, Iraq will have to sustain itself eventually. Has the surge gotten us any closer to that? no.
The Iraqi people want us out. They think things will be better when we leave. If we do reduce our presence maybe they can stop complaining about American forces and in their country, and get down to business trying to find a way to coexist. We are a distraction, and an excuse for them to avoid taking responsibility.
As for General Petreus, The Whitehouse turned his report into a political stunt. The whitehouse put so much emphasis on his report, that in the end, they told him what to say and how to say it. And his problem is he listened to them instead of being a professional. However, I don't think he personally should be the target of criticism, he probably hates talking to the whitehouse and just wants to do his job. But we are told to trust his credability above all else, despite the fradulent math he used with a straight face as 'proof' of progress.
As I said above, violence is down, because we stopped counting deaths by car bombs, or gunshots to the front of the head. This is a bush formula, and it's a total fraud. I'm sorry Petraeus is the mouthpiece. But this type of fraud needs to be exposed, move on did it and they were in your face about it. But unlike Swift Boat Vets for Truth smearing John Kerry, this stuff is actually true.
:::link:::
Our military has been successful. That is true. There was a NY Times video online yesterday from Baghdad that showed public markets, and commercial strips that are now open and secured by our troops. Also the Baghdad theme park is open, and people are taking the opportunity to do some things they like. Our Troops have set up checkpoints and made sure that weapons stay out of certain areas, and people are enjoying some ease.
The troops have not failed. The politicians have. We can not leave our troops there forever, Iraq will have to sustain itself eventually. Has the surge gotten us any closer to that? no.
The Iraqi people want us out. They think things will be better when we leave. If we do reduce our presence maybe they can stop complaining about American forces and in their country, and get down to business trying to find a way to coexist. We are a distraction, and an excuse for them to avoid taking responsibility.
As for General Petreus, The Whitehouse turned his report into a political stunt. The whitehouse put so much emphasis on his report, that in the end, they told him what to say and how to say it. And his problem is he listened to them instead of being a professional. However, I don't think he personally should be the target of criticism, he probably hates talking to the whitehouse and just wants to do his job. But we are told to trust his credability above all else, despite the fradulent math he used with a straight face as 'proof' of progress.
As I said above, violence is down, because we stopped counting deaths by car bombs, or gunshots to the front of the head. This is a bush formula, and it's a total fraud. I'm sorry Petraeus is the mouthpiece. But this type of fraud needs to be exposed, move on did it and they were in your face about it. But unlike Swift Boat Vets for Truth smearing John Kerry, this stuff is actually true.
:::link:::
james - 09/12/07 14:57
Joshua: You are right that organizations like moveon use attention grabbing headlines to drum up readership. But give us liberals a break. We don't all read moveon, we don't all like moveon, just like every Republican isn't a neo-facist Christian fundamentalist.
The NYT's has not been a consistently down on the Iraq war. Thomas Friendman and David Brooks have been big supporters of the Iraq war from the start and still support it, but are also critical of the handling of it. Further, it doesn't make any sense for a Dem to denouce moveon publicly, just like it doesn't make any sense for GOPers to denounce Pat Robertson. That is wishful thinking.
And any good news from Iraq is bad news? Do you think that they actually don't want anything good to happen there? And if there is any good news I would love to hear it. What you must be referring to is Dems not swallowing the fake progress being shown in highly armed green zones and not choking down the talking points prepared by the White House for them to read at this green zones.
And critique of solders for killing civilians and inhumane acts isn't exactly out of left field considering there have been dozens of cases (legal, tried cases that is) of soldiers who have killed civilians in cold blood. Abu Graib should speak for itself.
Joshua: You are right that organizations like moveon use attention grabbing headlines to drum up readership. But give us liberals a break. We don't all read moveon, we don't all like moveon, just like every Republican isn't a neo-facist Christian fundamentalist.
The NYT's has not been a consistently down on the Iraq war. Thomas Friendman and David Brooks have been big supporters of the Iraq war from the start and still support it, but are also critical of the handling of it. Further, it doesn't make any sense for a Dem to denouce moveon publicly, just like it doesn't make any sense for GOPers to denounce Pat Robertson. That is wishful thinking.
And any good news from Iraq is bad news? Do you think that they actually don't want anything good to happen there? And if there is any good news I would love to hear it. What you must be referring to is Dems not swallowing the fake progress being shown in highly armed green zones and not choking down the talking points prepared by the White House for them to read at this green zones.
And critique of solders for killing civilians and inhumane acts isn't exactly out of left field considering there have been dozens of cases (legal, tried cases that is) of soldiers who have killed civilians in cold blood. Abu Graib should speak for itself.
jason - 09/12/07 14:02
I think really what people are missing is that there is a stark difference between a military failure and a political failure. The Iraqi government has failed, not our military. People sort of incoherently clump the two together to obfuscate the issue, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of innocent ignorance.
Really, the Vietnam parallels are so stale and indigestible that I don't even understand why people use them anymore, Bush included. For every instance of comparing Petraeus to Westmoreland, I've got about 10 questions about who represents Vo Nguyen Giap. It is just useless babble.
To me, clearly, the issue has become so obfuscated by politicians on both sides that the bottom line is being ignored. They (Iraq) can't seem to get their shit together, and nobody wants to hear "Well, we'll have our shit together when we're good and ready. Keep on dying." It is more or less a unanimous vote among experts that if we leave them now, it will turn into a free for all. Bush does not want to be responsible for that (even though he is already) and I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton isn't going to be the vote for change either, so don't get your hopes up.
I don't think Petraeus has failed us at all, and I definitely do not side with those low life, rat vomit worms who attack his character. Given the conditions, and the task he was given to accomplish, I think he's done as well as anyone could do. Who has really failed? The Iraqis have. They're not keeping their end of the bargain, and I don't think Americans have the patience to let things continue the way they are for much longer.
I think really what people are missing is that there is a stark difference between a military failure and a political failure. The Iraqi government has failed, not our military. People sort of incoherently clump the two together to obfuscate the issue, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of innocent ignorance.
Really, the Vietnam parallels are so stale and indigestible that I don't even understand why people use them anymore, Bush included. For every instance of comparing Petraeus to Westmoreland, I've got about 10 questions about who represents Vo Nguyen Giap. It is just useless babble.
To me, clearly, the issue has become so obfuscated by politicians on both sides that the bottom line is being ignored. They (Iraq) can't seem to get their shit together, and nobody wants to hear "Well, we'll have our shit together when we're good and ready. Keep on dying." It is more or less a unanimous vote among experts that if we leave them now, it will turn into a free for all. Bush does not want to be responsible for that (even though he is already) and I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton isn't going to be the vote for change either, so don't get your hopes up.
I don't think Petraeus has failed us at all, and I definitely do not side with those low life, rat vomit worms who attack his character. Given the conditions, and the task he was given to accomplish, I think he's done as well as anyone could do. Who has really failed? The Iraqis have. They're not keeping their end of the bargain, and I don't think Americans have the patience to let things continue the way they are for much longer.
joshua - 09/12/07 10:13
So what do you think about the NYT ad that MoveOn.org paid for, referring to Gen. Petraeus as "Gen. Betray-us?"
Frankly I think this is proof positive that there are a lot of latte-sipping liberals out there that don't know two shits about how to run a war and actively work to undermine the government, but feel entitled to call a career man in uniform a traitor. I'm sorry, but there is nobody at MoveOn that is worthy to even shine the mans 4-star boots. For the matter, how dare some of these idiots that got elected into office treat him as if he's nobody, when he's a 4-star general who has done more for his country than the entirety of MoveOn ever will?
When liberals hear what they want to hear from a military man, they are happy - just ask Wes Clark, at least as long as he's politically relevant. When they do not, he's a liar and a puppet. What kind of fucked up, bipolar, schitzophrenic logic is this? Liberals treat the military with total contempt, which is generally understood by the public, and this was just one of many examples over the past 6 years.
Its completely and utterly disgusting and MoveOn and its little cronies are shit human beings, and I'll tell you another thing - the fact that the Democratic nominees refuse to criticise MoveOn.org over the ad will see them get utterly crucified once the conventions are over. Do the Democrats really believe that they are worthy of being the CIC when they pick MoveOn over the soldiers? If they do, they are clearly having a laugh.
I think this utter folly surrounding the notion that the Democrats "support the troops but not the war" got thrown out the window a loooong time ago. Dick Durbin referring to our own troops as Nazis, Kerry claiming that our troops are terrorizing women in children in the cold of night, Murtha claiming that our soldiers routinely kill civilians in cold blood - none of which is actually true. And we continue to hear Democrats refuse to criticize groups like MoveOn, the rationale being "OHH WE AREN'T FALLING FOR THAT GOP TRICK!" What trick - the one that allows you (rhetorical) to throw the troops under the bus so that you don't have to bite the hand off that feeds you, or the trick that allows you to take the intelligence of the nation for granted by throwing the troops under the bus while still claiming to support them? Fucking hell! This is the sort of logic that will eventually lead to Demos characterizing paying high taxes as a "patriotic virtue."
I'm telling you, the Demos will *not* win in '08 when they have every ability to, if they keep going down this path and lapping up the sour milk that these special interests continue to pour out. America is offended by these sorts of ads... this exact type of thing is why liberals cannot win presidential elections.
This is the bottom line - any good news from Iraq is bad news for liberals. Its just how it is. We all knew that no matter what Petraeus said that it wouldn't be acceptable, so lets just forget about the mistaken notion that the liberals in Congress and everywhere else were going to give Petraeus a fair shake. Its the same behavior that makes me never, ever ever ever want to vote for a Democrat.
So what do you think about the NYT ad that MoveOn.org paid for, referring to Gen. Petraeus as "Gen. Betray-us?"
Frankly I think this is proof positive that there are a lot of latte-sipping liberals out there that don't know two shits about how to run a war and actively work to undermine the government, but feel entitled to call a career man in uniform a traitor. I'm sorry, but there is nobody at MoveOn that is worthy to even shine the mans 4-star boots. For the matter, how dare some of these idiots that got elected into office treat him as if he's nobody, when he's a 4-star general who has done more for his country than the entirety of MoveOn ever will?
When liberals hear what they want to hear from a military man, they are happy - just ask Wes Clark, at least as long as he's politically relevant. When they do not, he's a liar and a puppet. What kind of fucked up, bipolar, schitzophrenic logic is this? Liberals treat the military with total contempt, which is generally understood by the public, and this was just one of many examples over the past 6 years.
Its completely and utterly disgusting and MoveOn and its little cronies are shit human beings, and I'll tell you another thing - the fact that the Democratic nominees refuse to criticise MoveOn.org over the ad will see them get utterly crucified once the conventions are over. Do the Democrats really believe that they are worthy of being the CIC when they pick MoveOn over the soldiers? If they do, they are clearly having a laugh.
I think this utter folly surrounding the notion that the Democrats "support the troops but not the war" got thrown out the window a loooong time ago. Dick Durbin referring to our own troops as Nazis, Kerry claiming that our troops are terrorizing women in children in the cold of night, Murtha claiming that our soldiers routinely kill civilians in cold blood - none of which is actually true. And we continue to hear Democrats refuse to criticize groups like MoveOn, the rationale being "OHH WE AREN'T FALLING FOR THAT GOP TRICK!" What trick - the one that allows you (rhetorical) to throw the troops under the bus so that you don't have to bite the hand off that feeds you, or the trick that allows you to take the intelligence of the nation for granted by throwing the troops under the bus while still claiming to support them? Fucking hell! This is the sort of logic that will eventually lead to Demos characterizing paying high taxes as a "patriotic virtue."
I'm telling you, the Demos will *not* win in '08 when they have every ability to, if they keep going down this path and lapping up the sour milk that these special interests continue to pour out. America is offended by these sorts of ads... this exact type of thing is why liberals cannot win presidential elections.
This is the bottom line - any good news from Iraq is bad news for liberals. Its just how it is. We all knew that no matter what Petraeus said that it wouldn't be acceptable, so lets just forget about the mistaken notion that the liberals in Congress and everywhere else were going to give Petraeus a fair shake. Its the same behavior that makes me never, ever ever ever want to vote for a Democrat.
First of all the War is Over. Once we beat the Iraq Army and got Saddam we won. What we are in now is ocupation.
Why we went to war is because we where attacked and we had to respond with equal and even more force so that we look strong. See if any one attacks us and then when we strike back we destroy there country then no body else will fuck with you. It is kinda like if someone in school is picking on you what you do is go out to the playground find the meanest bad ass bully out there and in front of everybody bit the shit out of him.
The other reason we went to war was Iraq hide Al Quda. But that was stupid what we should have done was fly was have spies and seceret units over there and attack them and take them out like in the old days. Maybe even invade and say we only want the terrorists and go after them and leave the country alone.
Saudi Arabi are our buddies and some of them actully fund the people who attack use but see they are our friends so we can't go after any of them
Sadam did keep his people in line and we can't do that for a number of reasons. Yes some people like us there and some people don't. If you come in and try to liberate people then you morally you can't just go now lets let them all die. When we disbandend the army we lost that level of protection. At the same time though The US staying there hurts the people we are trying to protect. Anyone who doesn't like the us knows to come to IRAQ and can fight us. Of course this could have been avoided if the UN sent troops in to all the sections to keep the peace. Oh yeah that is right the UN doesn't mean jack shit anymore because they told us not to go in and we "Fuck you we are doing what we want" and then what did the UN do nothing. If the UN did what it was supposed to there would have Been UN troops around Iraq making sure the US didn't invade. Oh yeah that's right most of the troops are really americans.
The real problem is that you have 3 groups of people who don't like each other and then you have people who don't like us there also, so I don't know how you fix something you fucked up this bad.
Its interesting you mention that Carolinian... I think FDR wouldn't have thought twice about doing things (and didn't, for that matter) that in these times he would get impeached for, if it meant protecting the nation's interests.
There weren't international law kinda trials for Nazi insurgents.
:::link:::
That's pretty much how the "greatest generation who fought the last good war" dealt with terrorists. By the standards of WWII, Guantanamo is club med.
Some people wonder if there is ever a good reason to stay in a war... my answer to that question is "yes" but of course all of that is dependent on the situation. In Iraq, because of the reason I stated, this is why I think we need to stay... however unfortunate and sad. We have an obligation and we have to meet it. We've lost credibility around the globe, but to not clean up our mess would make it even worse.
Last night I was watching a news program and one of the pundits actually had a good point to make - one of the differences between Vietnam and this war is that in the 70's, the political climate at home made the soldiers in harms way dissolutioned, whereas in Iraq this is not necessarily the case. There are some anti-Iraq veterans out there now that are organizing, but I'd venture to say (based on the words of the majority of the soldiers that I've heard and read, anyway) that this isn't a situation where there is widespread dissolutionment... yet anyway.
As for the Iraqi law, that may be true... I can only assume that this sort of law is in place. The fact that Americans are enforcing a foreign law seems bizarre to me, but I have to say in the military's defense that since the war started, there has NEVER been a lack of gory pictures to show on TV... the media has always made sure of that. Given the plethora of gory shit the media is eager to air and has never had a shortage of (to what end besides "the truth" I have no idea... it should be no surprise that war is gory), I have to say that I don't know why people are worried about this incident. I don't think we are in danger of having a media in Iraq where the incidents are dictated to the press - and lets not forget the incidents where the media completely fabricated or took photos out of context in print, or intentionally altered photos in order to make them look worse, in the case of Reuters. The media can't necessarily be trusted whole heartedly either these days, although unfortunately they are the only independent voice available. I hate to say it, but this is exactly why I don't trust this article from the NYT... which is an organization that has proven its bias and editorial slant time and time again. However, I will say that an article written by any soldiers (whether or not they were intentionally collected to present a certain point of view) deserve to be read and considered every time. For me this is actually part and parcel... lefties critical of the war embrace these soldiers because they like what they say. When the anti-war left don't like what the soldiers say, they take out ads IN THE SAME PAPER as this article and call them traitors. I'm sorry but that is a disgrace.
I don't know if chaos in Iraq was intentional... I'm not prepared to enter Alex Jones territory and accept that sort of assumption to be true! Its in our interests for Iraq to be stable.
Here's a side note about information control. From todays news.
"A daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle Wednesday before being pulled to safety ...
American authorities CONFISCATED an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told AP that _IRAQI LAW make it ILLEGAL to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks_."
Iraqi Law?!?!? Yea right, what a ridiculous excuse. The iraqis can't even have elections, but they came up with that law right away, top of the list, really important to the Iraqis that Americans don't see wounded polish people on American TV. Give me a break.
Information control, Can you say memory hole?
That seems to be the best reason to stay in Iraq, we broke it, we fix it. it's pretty sad really. How'd you like to be a soldier, "Bush totally screwed this place up, we have to stay until we fix his mess." that must really inspire some pride in the mission. Meanwhile we're still making bad decisions, passing out weapons and cash, allowing widespread fraud by American contractors who are above the law, insisting on Oil privatization, phones and electricity still don't work after 4 years. and at the same time the Whitehouse is trying to screw Iraq veterans.
as for things 'seeming' to improve, read this article if you haven't yet :::link:::
I'm all for spying and gathering inelegance, and the war has hurt our alliances, so any inelegance other countries are gathering, we don't have access to, because they don't trust our good intentions, and why should they.
Terrorism is a crime, not a country, or a philosophy, it is an illegal means to any number of different ends. We should be using international law like we insisted upon for the Nazis, but instead Bush set out to dismantle the UN so we could go it alone.
as for pre war planning, you gotta see the movie No End in Sight. :::link::: There were tons of plans developed over years of study, bush opted for a free market pipe dream, which has so far kept Iraq in chaos. That's why I'm starting to think chaos is the goal, not peace. Everything they've done has led to chaos, can it realy be a mistake?
David -
The dirty little secret is that we aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon, regardless of what the anti-war crowd is being told. I think that DailyKos/MoveOn are going to be sorely disappointed - the new date being tossed around by Democrats and Republicans alike is 2013. I'm telling you - the anti-war crowd are being placated by the likes of Obama and Hillary now, but you are going to be ignored once one of them gets the nomination.
We all know the initial rationale behind the war. At the moment, and by all accounts things in Iraq "seem" to be improving, our current purpose in Iraq is to stabilize the country - which itself is an extreme uphill battle. Politically the country is fractured and there is no way to quickly resolve 1,000 year old tribal disputes.
Its unfortunate that we've never really had quality human intelligence in the Middle East, primarily because of the gradual decline in our ability to put actual people on the ground (yeah, I'm talking about spying). It appears that nobody considered in an adequate way what would happen once we cut Saddam out. In a morbid way, Saddam's presence stabilized the tribal factions out of fear. Now that there is no fear, and they've never bothered to consider how to get along without Saddam, our job is much harder. How do you predict a reaction that has never been considered by the population itself, let alone our inadeuqate intelligence capability in the region?
I think that many people fail to consider that in the past, even in the best of conditions, the US occupied Japan until 1952. It took us a full seven years, with no war in the country, to rebuild and stabilize their nation. That sort of comparison highlights exactly how difficult a task we took on in Iraq.
People want to end the war primarily because the initial rationale was flawed. I think we are beyond relying on that kind of luxury to determine our future course. Our obligation to make things right in that country trump anything else as far as I'm concerned. Its our mess and now we have an absolute obligation to clean it up. The debate is not when we're getting out of Iraq, but how. The Democratic presidential candidates know that Iraq will end on their watch if they get elected, one way or another, but none of them are prepared to take the blame if we pull out too early and a genocide occurs. Bush deserves the blame for starting the war, but he will not credibly be blamed for how the war ends - believe me, this is exactly why the Democratic presidential candidates are double talking depending on their audience.