If we pull out of Iraq this is why (round 2)

[BKK]

Iran’s game of nuclear hide-and-seek
Published on November 29, 2005

Mohammad ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is pressing the agency’s board of governors to make one last effort to find a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions before sending the case to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The board met last Thursday to discuss “new information” discovered by inspectors on the ground.

Thanks to IAEA inspectors, we now have a fairly detailed picture of Iran’s nuclear archipelago – at least those facilities that the Iranian government has been forced to open. We know that Iran has discovered, mined and milled natural uranium, the basic building block of any enrichment programme, without telling the IAEA. We know that Iran built a uranium-conversion facility in Isfahan to convert uranium yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas, the feedstock for uranium enrichment, without required prior notification to the IAEA.

We also know that Iran built an underground uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, hardened it against missile attack and erected dummy buildings on the surface to conceal it from overhead surveillance. The authorities agreed to open this facility to the IAEA only after its existence was confirmed by commercial satellite imagery, and they appear to have swept the underground halls of whatever equipment was installed before the inspectors arrived. Once fully operational, these facilities will give Iran mastery of the entire nuclear-fuel cycle.

For 18 years, Iran’s government concealed its nuclear activities from the IAEA, in clear violation of its safeguards agreement. For this reason alone, the IAEA board must refer Iran to the Security Council for further action, as required by the agency’s charter.

Non-nuclear nations that sign the IAEA charter, as Iran has, pledge to abandon all efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange, they are given access to nuclear technology. But that pledge requires complete, transparent cooperation with the IAEA. Instead, Iran has been playing cheat and retreat.

“With Iran, we realised that mastery of the fuel cycle makes you a virtual nuclear-weapons state,” a top aide to ElBaradei told me. “That was a wake-up call for all of us.”

But a wake-up call that allows the IAEA board to go back to sleep is useless. For two and a half years, the European Union has made every effort to get Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA and come clean about its nuclear activities, to no avail.

When the IAEA announced it wanted to inspect a suspected enrichment cascade within the Revolutionary Guard complex at Lavizan-Shian, Iran’s government stalled for months until it could raze the site. When it asked to visit a suspect lab within the Parchin defence-production plant, the Iranians stalled. When they finally allowed a small team in, they limited their movements, in violation of Iran’s commitments.

ElBaradei has stated that the IAEA has found “no evidence” of a weapons programme in Iran – a statement that Iranian leaders have since cited as proof of their peaceful intentions. But the IAEA has no authority to determine whether or not a country has a nuclear-weapons programme. That is up to the UN Security Council. The IAEA’s job is to determine whether a nation has violated its safeguards agreement, and ElBaradei has made it abundantly clear that Iran has.

Understanding the intentions of Iran’s leaders is not as difficult or as ambiguous as some believe. Eighteen years of concealment constitutes a powerful track record. So do Iranian leaders’ own statements.

For example, in 1986, then-president Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a pep talk at the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran. “Our nation has always been threatened from outside,” he said. “The least we can do to face this danger is let our enemies know we can defend ourselves.”

In 1988, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani – the supposed “moderate” candidate in Iran’s recent presidential election – spelled out what that meant in an address to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. “We should fully equip ourselves, both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons,” urging the audience to “make use of the opportunity and perform this task”. At a Jerusalem Day rally at Tehran University in December 2001, he uttered one of the regime’s most sinister threats: “The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would destroy Israel completely, while [the same] against the world of Islam would only cause damage.”

Iran’s regime has only grown bolder since then. Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi declared in June of last year that Iran “won’t accept any new obligations” and must “be recognised by the international community as a member of the nuclear club”. Similarly this past March, Rafsanjani reiterated Iran’s refusal to dismantle its nuclear-fuel cycle facilities, as the EU and the IAEA had demanded, insisting: “We can’t stop our nuclear programme and won’t stop it.”

In these circumstances, the risk entailed by doing nothing far outweighs the costs of referring Iran to the Security Council. Indeed, Iran may already be enriching uranium secretly. If it used the centrifuges that it purchased from Pakistan’s nuclear impresario, AQ Khan, it could have enough fissile material to produce 20 bombs. With Iran continuing to shelter top al-Qaeda leaders, this raises an even graver threat: terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons.

The dangers of allowing Iran to go nuclear ought to be obvious. Even to ElBaradei.

Kenneth Timmerman

Kenneth Timmerman, author of “Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran”, is president of the Middle East Data Project.

[W*GS]

Why America must stay
Nov 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition

America should keep its troops in Iraq until Iraqis ask them to go

http://www.economist.com/images/20051126/4805LD1.jpg

Wars waged abroad are often lost at home; and that may be starting to happen with Iraq. Calls for American troops to withdraw are familiar in the Arab world and Europe, but in the United States itself such talk has remained on the fringes of political debate. Now, with surprising suddenness, it has landed at the centre of American politics.

On November 17th John Murtha, a hawkish Democratic congressman, suggested pulling the troops out of Iraq in six months, prompting an unseemly spat between the former marine colonel and the White House. Moves to set a timetable have been voted down, but the Republican-controlled Senate has voted 79-19 for 2006 to be “a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty” and the Pentagon is mumbling about troop reductions. Meanwhile, some hundred Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference in Cairo backed by the Arab League talked about setting a timetable for withdrawal.

There is some politicking in this. In Cairo, the Shias and Kurds, who dominate Iraq's new order, were offering an olive branch to the sullen Sunnis, who used to run the show under Saddam Hussein. In America, Republicans are looking nervously at the 2006 elections. Democrats sense that George Bush is vulnerable—and that Iraq presents the best way to hurt him now that most Americans regret invading the country. Yet there is plainly principle too: Mr Murtha and millions of others maintain that America is doing more harm than good in Iraq, and that the troops should therefore come home.

This newspaper strongly disagrees. In our opinion it would be disastrous for America to retreat hastily from Iraq. Yet it is also well past time for George Bush to spell out to the American people much more clearly and honestly than he has hitherto done why their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq should remain in harm's way.

The cost of failure

Every reasonable person should be able to agree on two things about America's presence in Iraq. First, if the Iraqi government formally asks the troops to leave, they should do so. Second, the argument about whether America should quit Iraq is not the same as the one about whether it should have gone there in the first place. It must be about the future.

That said, the catalogue of failures thus far does raise serious questions about the administration's ability to make Iraq work—ever. Mr Bush's team mis-sold the war, neglected post-invasion planning, has never committed enough troops to the task and has taken a cavalier attitude to human rights. Abu Ghraib, a place of unspeakable suffering under Mr Hussein, will go into the history books as a symbol of American shame. The awful irony is that the specious link which the administration claimed existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to justify going to war now exists.

Two-and-a-half years after Mr Bush stood beneath a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”, the insurgency is as strong as ever. More than 2,000 Americans, some 3,600 Iraqi troops, perhaps 30,000 Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Iraqi insurgents have lost their lives, and conditions of life for the “liberated” remain woeful. All this makes Mr Bush's refusal to sack the people responsible for this mess, especially his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, alarming.

But disappointment, even on this scale, does not justify a precipitate withdrawal. There are strong positive and negative reasons for America to see through what it started.

Flickers of hope

Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America's aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics. Many voted in last month's referendum that endorsed a new constitution; more should be drawn into next month's election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. That will not stop the insurgency, but may lessen its intensity. It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency—the jihadists led by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who blow up mosques around Baghdad and Palestinian wedding parties in Jordan (see article). Though few Arabs publicly admit it, Mr Bush's efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.

So America does have something to defend in Iraq. Which, for Mr Bush's critics, leads into the most tempting part of Mr Murtha's argument: that American troops are now a barrier to further progress; that if they left, Mr Zarqawi would lose the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists; and that, in consequence, Iraqis would have to look after their own security. This has a seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence. Most of the insurgents' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers. There are still too few American troops, not too many. And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet. By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis. Over time, American numbers should fall. But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker. Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.

The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace. Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory. Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.

If such reasoning sounds negative—America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful—treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr Bush's vision for the Middle East has soured. The road ahead looks bloody and costly. But this is not the time to retreat.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[Rascal]

That article pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation.

You can argue about the reasons we went, but now that we are there we must finish the fight.

[Rigs11]

Why America must stay
Nov 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition

America should keep its troops in Iraq until Iraqis ask them to go

http://www.economist.com/images/20051126/4805LD1.jpg

Wars waged abroad are often lost at home; and that may be starting to happen with Iraq. Calls for American troops to withdraw are familiar in the Arab world and Europe, but in the United States itself such talk has remained on the fringes of political debate. Now, with surprising suddenness, it has landed at the centre of American politics.

On November 17th John Murtha, a hawkish Democratic congressman, suggested pulling the troops out of Iraq in six months, prompting an unseemly spat between the former marine colonel and the White House. Moves to set a timetable have been voted down, but the Republican-controlled Senate has voted 79-19 for 2006 to be “a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty” and the Pentagon is mumbling about troop reductions. Meanwhile, some hundred Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference in Cairo backed by the Arab League talked about setting a timetable for withdrawal.

There is some politicking in this. In Cairo, the Shias and Kurds, who dominate Iraq's new order, were offering an olive branch to the sullen Sunnis, who used to run the show under Saddam Hussein. In America, Republicans are looking nervously at the 2006 elections. Democrats sense that George Bush is vulnerable—and that Iraq presents the best way to hurt him now that most Americans regret invading the country. Yet there is plainly principle too: Mr Murtha and millions of others maintain that America is doing more harm than good in Iraq, and that the troops should therefore come home.

This newspaper strongly disagrees. In our opinion it would be disastrous for America to retreat hastily from Iraq. Yet it is also well past time for George Bush to spell out to the American people much more clearly and honestly than he has hitherto done why their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq should remain in harm's way.

The cost of failure

Every reasonable person should be able to agree on two things about America's presence in Iraq. First, if the Iraqi government formally asks the troops to leave, they should do so. Second, the argument about whether America should quit Iraq is not the same as the one about whether it should have gone there in the first place. It must be about the future.

That said, the catalogue of failures thus far does raise serious questions about the administration's ability to make Iraq work—ever. Mr Bush's team mis-sold the war, neglected post-invasion planning, has never committed enough troops to the task and has taken a cavalier attitude to human rights. Abu Ghraib, a place of unspeakable suffering under Mr Hussein, will go into the history books as a symbol of American shame. The awful irony is that the specious link which the administration claimed existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to justify going to war now exists.

Two-and-a-half years after Mr Bush stood beneath a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”, the insurgency is as strong as ever. More than 2,000 Americans, some 3,600 Iraqi troops, perhaps 30,000 Iraqi civilians and an unknown number of Iraqi insurgents have lost their lives, and conditions of life for the “liberated” remain woeful. All this makes Mr Bush's refusal to sack the people responsible for this mess, especially his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, alarming.

But disappointment, even on this scale, does not justify a precipitate withdrawal. There are strong positive and negative reasons for America to see through what it started.

Flickers of hope

Iraq is not Vietnam. Most Iraqis share America's aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics. Many voted in last month's referendum that endorsed a new constitution; more should be drawn into next month's election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. That will not stop the insurgency, but may lessen its intensity. It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency—the jihadists led by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who blow up mosques around Baghdad and Palestinian wedding parties in Jordan (see article). Though few Arabs publicly admit it, Mr Bush's efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.

So America does have something to defend in Iraq. Which, for Mr Bush's critics, leads into the most tempting part of Mr Murtha's argument: that American troops are now a barrier to further progress; that if they left, Mr Zarqawi would lose the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists; and that, in consequence, Iraqis would have to look after their own security. This has a seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence. Most of the insurgents' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers. There are still too few American troops, not too many. And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet. By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis. Over time, American numbers should fall. But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker. Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.

The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher. By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace. Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe. Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory. Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.

If such reasoning sounds negative—America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful—treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr Bush's vision for the Middle East has soured. The road ahead looks bloody and costly. But this is not the time to retreat.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

Good article. Especially the title "until Iraqis ask them to go".WTF? As if all the attacks on US soldiers isn't enough?Or the polls in Iraq which show the Iraqi's support for the US ridiculous low.

[bendog]

It overlooks the sad fact that, even by Ann coulter's take today, the "war" is not going well. Murtha's take isn't defeatest so much as it acknowledges that we are the problem. God only knows, assuming he does or cares, what Iraq will become, but our presence merely fuels the insurgency.

However, there are elections in Dec. I think it's next month. The sunnis may want in. So, even by Murtha's timeline, it gives them a chance to find a civil solution. If they can't, just holding one more election next year won't solve anything. They'll need a new Saddam, so let them get on about finding one.

Murtha isn't about polls, but bushii desperately wants a leg up.

[elsid13]

We need to stay to continue to stabilize the situation. We broke the system (even though it was evil) that provided some sense of security and economic to the people of that nation, until we provided functioning system we will need to be in the country. WE BROKE WE BOUGHT IT. The administration has failed and continue to fail to explain to citizen of this country why we need to stay, this is one my biggest problem with Bush and company. And world needs to successfully integrate Iran in world community by any means necessary

[REB]

“Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran”,

I'm about 1/2 way thru this book now. It's a good read.

[bendog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_road_ahead;_ylt=Ag_biaJhsW.sgMhs3ZhEfOFvaA8F; _ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

And I haven't seen anything to convince me we can to ****e about the Iranians and a nuke.

[REB]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_road_ahead;_ylt=Ag_biaJhsW.sgMhs3ZhEfOFvaA8F; _ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

And I haven't seen anything to convince me we can to ****e about the Iranians and a nuke.

Nice read bendog.

And on Iran and North Korea I can see the world doing the same thing it did with Hitler before WW II. Appeasment. Keep talking and making pacts that they (Iran&N.K.) do not intend on honoring and just keep hoping beyond hope that they will actually come around and join the civilized world and strive for peace. Aint gonna happen.

[Rigs11]

Nice read bendog.

And on Iran and North Korea I can see the world doing the same thing it did with Hitler before WW II. Appeasment. Keep talking and making pacts that they (Iran&N.K.) do not intend on honoring and just keep hoping beyond hope that they will actually come around and join the civilized world and strive for peace. Aint gonna happen.

So iran should "strive for peace" by totally dismantling their nuclear program and yet the US gets to drop out of the Nuclear proliferation and start fueling an arms race by working on an anti defense missile program??? Do you see the hypocrisy?

[REB]

So iran should "strive for peace" by totally dismantling their nuclear program and yet the US gets to drop out of the Nuclear proliferation and start fueling an arms race by working on an anti defense missile program??? Do you see the hypocrisy?

No

[alkemical]

Nice read bendog.

And on Iran and North Korea I can see the world doing the same thing it did with Hitler before WW II. Appeasment. Keep talking and making pacts that they (Iran&N.K.) do not intend on honoring and just keep hoping beyond hope that they will actually come around and join the civilized world and strive for peace. Aint gonna happen.


But are we 'peaceful' and 'civilized'?

[Rascal]

But are we 'peaceful' and 'civilized'?

Compared to who?

[TheDave]

So iran should "strive for peace" by totally dismantling their nuclear program and yet the US gets to drop out of the Nuclear proliferation and start fueling an arms race by working on an anti defense missile program??? Do you see the hypocrisy?

yes i do... but since it bennifits me i'm OK with it ;D

[REB]

[QUOTE=amesj523]But are we 'peaceful' and 'civilized'?[/QUOTE

Compared to countries like Iran and N.K. yes. The way I see it we are not the ones threatening to wipe Israel or anyone else off the face of the earth. Those countries would use their nuclear weapons offensively, thus throwing the whole world into chaos and then we can all kiss our a$$es goodbye. They are uncivilized and uncaring about anyone else in the world. Whether a lot of people want to admit it or not, we are the good guys here and they are the bad. We are the guys in the white hats and they are in black. May sound simple but it is fact. We ended slavery, we ended WW I, we ended WW II and fascism, we won the cold war and stopped the expansion of communism. There's obviously new threats against our civilized way of life and hopefully the younger generations to come will be strong enough to fight to keep our freedoms and our way of life and not appease evil and those who wish to perpetuate evil on the rest of mankind.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nowhere to run

After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1653453,00.html

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/images/topics/bonehed.jpg

There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".

To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.

He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers.

Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer.

The professor's puzzlement is understandable. More than two years after the war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is difficult to see any real benefits.

The weapons of mass destruction that provided the excuse for the invasion turned out not to exist and the idea that Iraq could become a beacon of democracy for the Middle East has proved equally far-fetched.

True, there is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalised and consolidated the country's ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions - exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratise.

In the absence of anything more positive, Tony Blair has fallen back on the claim that at least we're better off now without Saddam Hussein. That, too, sounds increasingly hollow.

The fall of Saddam has brought the rise of Zarqawi and his ilk, levels of corruption in Iraq seem as bad as ever, and at the weekend former prime minister Iyad Allawi caused a stir by asserting that the human rights are no better protected now than under the rule of Saddam.

Noting that some two-thirds of Americans believe the war was a mistake, van Creveld says in his article that the US should forget about saving face and pull its troops out: "What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon - and at what cost."

Welcome as a pullout might be to many Americans, it would be a hugely complex operation. Van Creveld says it would probably take several months and result in sizeable casualties. More significantly, though, it would not end the conflict.

"As the pullout proceeds," he warns, "Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge - if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not."

This is one of the major differences between Iraq and the withdrawal from Vietnam. In Vietnam, it took place under a smokescreen of "Vietnamisation" in which US troops handed control to local forces in the south.

Of course, it was a fairly thin smokescreen; many people were aware at the time that these southern forces could not hold out and in due course the North Vietnamese overran the south, finally bringing the war to an end.

Officially, a similar process is under way in Iraq, with the Americans saying they will eventually hand over to the new Iraqi army - though the chances of that succeeding look even bleaker than they did in Vietnam.

"The new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was," van Creveld writes.

Worse still, in Iraq there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese regime poised to take power. What will happen once the Americans have gone is anyone's guess, but a sudden outbreak of peace seems the remotest of all the possibilities.

Not surprisingly, many who in principle would argue that the Americans had no right to invade Iraq in the first place are apprehensive about what might happen once they leave. The conference organised by the Arab League in Cairo last week was one example: it called for "the withdrawal of foreign forces according to a timetable" but didn't venture to suggest what that timetable might be.

With or without American troops, the war in Iraq has acquired a momentum of its own and threatens to spill over into other parts of the region.

There are four major issues: terrorism, Sunni-Shia rivalries, Kurdish aspirations, and the question of Iraq's territorial integrity - all of which pose dangers internationally.

Back in July 2003, terrorism in Iraq seemed a manageable problem and President Bush boldly challenged the militants to "bring 'em on". American forces, he said, were "plenty tough" and would deal with anyone who attacked them.

There were others in the US who talked of the "flypaper theory" - an idea that terrorists from around the world could be attracted to Iraq and then eliminated. Well, the first part of the flypaper theory seems to work, but not the second.

As with the Afghan war in the 1980s that spawned al-Qaida, there is every reason to suppose that the Iraq war will create a new generation of terrorists with expertise that can be used to plague other parts of the world for decades to come. The recent hotel bombings in Jordan are one indication of the way it's heading.

Contrary to American intentions, the war has also greatly increased the influence of Iran - a founder-member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" - and opened up long-suppressed rivalries between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

The impact of this cannot be confined to Iraq and will eventually be felt in the oil-rich Sunni Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) that have sizeable but marginalised Shia communities.

Kurdish aspirations have been awakened too - which has implications for Turkey, Syria and Iran, especially if Iraq is eventually dismembered.

With a fragile central government in Baghdad constantly undermined by the activities of militants and weakened by the conflicting demands of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, the demise of Iraq as a nation-state sometime during the next few years has become a distinct possibility.

The effect of that on the regional power balance is difficult to predict, but at the very least it would bring a period of increased instability.

No one can claim that any of this was unexpected. The dangers had been foreseen by numerous analysts and commentators long before the war started but they were ignored in Washington, mainly for ideological reasons.

There were, of course, some in the neoconservative lobby who foresaw it too and thought it would be a good thing - shaking up the entire Middle East in a wave of "creative destruction".

The result is that even if the US tries to leave Iraq now, in purely practical terms it is unlikely to be able to do so.

Professor van Creveld's plan for withdrawal of ground troops is not so much a disengagement as a strategic readjustment.

An American military presence will still be needed in the region, he says.

"Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war ... Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf states, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches.

"A divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.

"The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American assistance."

As described in the article, van Creveld's plan seems to imply that the US should abandon Iraq to its fate and concentrate instead on protecting American allies in the region from adverse consequences.

A slightly different idea - pulling out ground troops from Iraq but continuing to use air power there - is already being considered in Washington, according to Seymour Hersh in the latest issue of the New Yorker magazine.

The military are reportedly unhappy about this, fearing it could make them dependent on untrustworthy Iraqi forces for pinpointing targets.

One military planner quoted by the magazine asked: "Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame it on someone else?"

Focusing on air power has obvious political attractions for the Bush administration, since it is the safety of US ground troops that American voters are most concerned about.

But, again, that would not amount to a real disengagement and would do little or nothing to improve America's image in the region - especially if reliance on air strikes increased the number of civilian casualties.

The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his "mission accomplished" speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A reminder of how we got into this mess in the first place...

Quotes

"Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that Bush remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding."

- Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact

http://www.bartcop.com/oac-passammo.jpg

[Rascal]

"After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush?"

Biggest BS statement I've heard in a long time.

The guy talks about Iraq and Vietnam...how many times have you said you can't compare Vietnam and Iraq LABF? But now you do to suit your purposes? Gimme a break.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...how many times have you said you can't compare Vietnam and Iraq LABF?

None.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I've been pointing out similarities, where they exist, between Vietnam and pResident Katrina's Iraq debacle since day one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush?"

Biggest BS statement I've heard in a long time.

Hmmm....who to believe? Professor van Creveld or "rascal?"

:laugh:

To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.

He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's deadly dance with Islamic theocrats

Political Islam vs. Democracy: The Bush Administration's Deadly Waltz with Shiite Theocrats in Iraq and Muslim Brotherhood Fanatics in Syria, Egypt, and Elsewhere

http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=39971

Nearly three years into the war in Iraq, the Bush administration tells us that it wasn't about weapons of mass destruction or Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, but about America's holy mission to spread democracy to the benighted regions of the Middle East. However, postwar Iraq is anything but a democracy. In fact, if Iraq manages to avoid all-out civil war, it is likely to end up with a government that is fiercely undemocratic -- a Shiite theocratic dictatorship that rules by terror, torture, and armed might.

What President Bush has wrought in Iraq is just the latest in a long string of U.S. efforts to make common cause with the Islamic right. But like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, the Mickey Mouse character whose naïve and inexperienced use of magic blows up in his face, American efforts to play with the forces of political Islam have proved to be dangerous, volatile, and often uncontrollable.

The problem goes far beyond the Shiites in Iraq. In the Sunni parts of that country, the power of Islamism is growing, too -- and by this I do not mean the forces associated with Al Qaeda but the radical-right Muslim Brotherhood, represented there by the Iraqi Islamic Party, and other manifestations of the Salafi- and Wahhabi-style religious right. In Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere, the radical religious right is also gaining strength. Meanwhile; sometimes deliberately, sometimes by sheer ignorance and incompetence, the Bush administration is encouraging the spread of political Islam. Were we to "stay the course," not only Iraq but much of the rest of the Middle East could fall to the Islamic right.

Continued at link...

[Rascal]

Well the guy is an idiot if he thinks Vietnam, Napolean second and third times, Hitler attacking Russia just off the top of my head were better then Iraq.

And I'm sure the guy is completely unbiased after all.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well the guy is an idiot if he thinks Vietnam, Napolean second and third times, Hitler attacking Russia just off the top of my head were better then Iraq.

Riiiiiiight.

He's such an 'idiot' that his books are on the U.S. Army's list of required reading for officers.

And I'm sure the guy is completely unbiased after all.

Yep, that's the ticket - the overwhelming number of Americans and others who are no longer chugging the Kool-Aid are just "biased." :laugh:

[Rascal]

You go ahead and cling to this guy LABF. It's an idiotic claim and even the most junior of historians would agree. I'm not making my statement based on the fact I voted for Bush, a decision I regret at times, I'm making this statement as an unbiased person who has studied a great deal of history. The war is stupid no doubt, but to say more so then those is idiotic and I don't care what the guy wrote...doesn't make him right.

[bendog]

Hitler had to invade Russia; they were mortal enemies. And, had he not gotten bogged down in the Balkans in the spring, thanks to Churchill, he might have won.

Bushii is a ****ing idiot. If there weren't 2100 dead and 16000 maimed, I'd laugh at this line of bull****.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/01/wirq101.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/01/ixnewstop.html

[Rascal]

Hitler had to invade Russia; they were mortal enemies. And, had he not gotten bogged down in the Balkans in the spring, thanks to Churchill, he might have won.

Bushii is a ****ing idiot. If there weren't 2100 dead and 16000 maimed, I'd laugh at this line of bull****.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/01/wirq101.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/01/ixnewstop.html

Hitler had no reason to invade Russia when they did. And Stalingrad was teh reason why he got stalled as he wanted to make it a personal vandeta. His own generals told him not to. He should have waited till he had taken out England and then worried about Russia. It was a stupid decision and it cost him the war...thankfully.

How many germans were killed on the eastern front? This is going to sound cold hearted but for a war 2100 dead and 16000 casualties is not that many.

[BroncoInferno]

Hitler had no reason to invade Russia when they did. And Stalingrad was teh reason why he got stalled as he wanted to make it a personal vandeta. His own generals told him not to. He should have waited till he had taken out England and then worried about Russia. It was a stupid decision and it cost him the war...thankfully.

How many germans were killed on the eastern front? This is going to sound cold hearted but for a war 2100 dead and 16000 casualties is not that many.

When do the numbers start to become unacceptable in your view?

[Rascal]

When do the numbers start to become unacceptable in your view?

One death is unacceptable. War should only be done as a last resort. Compared to wars in general though the #'s are not nearly as high.

[BroncoInferno]

One death is unacceptable. War should only be done as a last resort. Compared to wars in general though the #'s are not nearly as high.

If we agree that one death is unacceptable, then the numbers aren't really relevant. Lives have been lost and families destroyed for a war that we had no business starting.

[Rascal]

I made the comment after bendog's statement about the number of deaths and casualties. Taking it in context (maybe it shouldn't have been) with the conversation LABF and I were having I made an attempt to show that despite the reasons for this war, compared to other wars the #'s are not nearly as high.

The numbers are relevant when talking about the article LABF posted about this being the most foolish of wars since Augustus went to Germany.

[bendog]

Rascal, war between the commies and national socialists was inevitable. War with saddam was not. it was "elective." We've killed thousands, and so far for no coherent reason. There's no evidence these people wish to live in a united civil country. We were literally better off with Saddam, who we installed in the first place.

[Rascal]

Rascal, war between the commies and national socialists was inevitable. War with saddam was not. it was "elective." We've killed thousands, and so far for no coherent reason. There's no evidence these people wish to live in a united civil country. We were literally better off with Saddam, who we installed in the first place.

I didn't say it wasn't going to happen, but the timing of his invasion was horrible.

Is there ever a coherent reason for war? War is the result of when leaders are greedy or when politicians get lazy (generally speaking).

And I disagree that people wanted to stay under the rule of Saddam. That is crap IMO. Yes I know we installed Saddam.

[bendog]

I didn't say that some, or even most, of the Iraqis didn't want saddam. But that's not a reason to kill 2100 Americans and Main another 16000. I said that WE were better off with Saddam than having 3 regional militias, which is what is occuring because this fictional national army bushii is backing on isn't happening.

[BroncoInferno]

There's no evidence these people wish to live in a united civil country.

Yeah, the whole ideological premise that all people wish to live in free democratic societies is totally unfounded. Bush and the neocons he listened to (i.e. Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, etc) never seemed to get the cultural ramifications of democratization in the Arab world, and the fact that many (if not most) prefer a theocratic Islamist state to liberal democracy. Iraqi expatriots like Chalabi and Makiya (guys who had not lived in Iraq for 30+ years, and who had basically become Westernized and lost touch with what the average Arab really thought about things) convinced Bush that they would be greeted with flowers, that they would be able to set up a soverign democratic state in a matter of months and be out. Republicans love to pat democrats on the head and tell them how naive they are about foreign policy, and yet Bush and the fools he listened to actually thought they could reconstruct Iraq with $2 billion. The comical thing is that when Lawrence Lindsay predicted $200 billion, they ran the guy out on a rail. Now that number looks conservative.

[W*GS]

Yeah, the whole ideological premise that all people wish to live in free democratic societies is totally unfounded.

As is the notion that Arabs and/or Muslims, prefer autocratic/authoritarian systems, and are incapable of living in tolerant/democratic nations.

[BroncoInferno]

As is the notion that Arabs and/or Muslims, prefer autocratic/authoritarian systems, and are incapable of living in tolerant/democratic nations.

I'm not claiming that all Iraqis want an Islamist state, but it's pretty clear (and was clear before we went to Iraq) that a majority do. I'm sure Iraq is capable of living in tolerant/democratic nations, but it will take a massive cultural shift to sell them on it, and something like that takes years and years.

[bendog]

Oh, I've no doubt that the vast maj of kurds and shiaa wanted saddam and the baath gone. What I disagree with is why I should care what they want, or why I should pay for a war and why 2100 Americans are dead and 16000 maimed. One might possibly say that a democratic and peaceful muslim state helps defeat fundy Islam. That's real neat, though I don't necessarily agree. But, it's beyond debate that so long as we're there, the insurgency will become more popular, and the "central" govt lacks the credibility and even popular power to go out and defeat the local militias of Sadr and the Sunnis.

Bushii just comes out with one recycled bullh**** "plan" after another, and the plan is just sitting there while these stone aged nutters blow up people. The three tribes don't like each other. Iraq was never a unified nation. Didn't start out as one. I can see taking a shot, at this pt, of having their elections in Dec, giving them a year to come up with an agreed solution, and then getting the hell out. I don't even mind not specifically setting a date, or at least publicizing it. But, bushii is planning on this thing dragging on for years more. 1. that will just guarantee the insurgency continues. 2. I wasn't willing to sacrafice ONE american for nation building, and I'm pretty sure Americans are gonna be voting to put a stake in this thing, so bushii's plan isn't even sellabel over here.

PS, at least Saddam was manageable. Like BongII over in NK, he can be lived with if he has a means to sustain his rule, and building nukes will be contrary to that main interest. With a weak central govt, Iraq is more dangerous to the US than with Saddam.

[alkemical]

[QUOTE=amesj523]But are we 'peaceful' and 'civilized'?[/QUOTE

Compared to countries like Iran and N.K. yes. The way I see it we are not the ones threatening to wipe Israel or anyone else off the face of the earth. Those countries would use their nuclear weapons offensively, thus throwing the whole world into chaos and then we can all kiss our a$$es goodbye. They are uncivilized and uncaring about anyone else in the world. Whether a lot of people want to admit it or not, we are the good guys here and they are the bad. We are the guys in the white hats and they are in black. May sound simple but it is fact. We ended slavery, we ended WW I, we ended WW II and fascism, we won the cold war and stopped the expansion of communism. There's obviously new threats against our civilized way of life and hopefully the younger generations to come will be strong enough to fight to keep our freedoms and our way of life and not appease evil and those who wish to perpetuate evil on the rest of mankind.


It's a tough call when it comes to some of our actions world wide. Supporting coups of elected officials, always meddling in someone else's business - but civilized, i dunno - the romans were civilized too and threw people into lions pits - and had gladiator games as well - i'm looking at our overall culture.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You go ahead and cling to this guy LABF. It's an idiotic claim and even the most junior of historians would agree. I'm not making my statement based on the fact I voted for Bush, a decision I regret at times, I'm making this statement as an unbiased person who has studied a great deal of history. The war is stupid no doubt, but to say more so then those is idiotic and I don't care what the guy wrote...doesn't make him right.

No, it doesn't necessarily make him right insofar as his characterization of the war is a matter of opinion. However, given his exceptional qualifications, he is in a position to offer a highly qualified opinion, i.e., one supported by extensive research, study, facts, etc.

War should only be done as a last resort.

???

How does this statement jibe with your support for Bush, his invasion/occupation of Iraq, and his doctrine of pre-emptive war?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The cheerleader at Annapolis: Somebody should tell Bush he lost Iraq

It's pathetic to see the world's most powerful man, shunted into prearranged venues so he can pitch his snake-oil to college aged boys. That said, Bush's appearance today at the Naval Academy has got to be a new low for the White House public relations team. Apparently the only people buying the huckster-in-chief's bedraggled vision of a democratic Iraq are rosy-cheeked young men who dream of battlefields instead of girlfriends.

Is this the last place Bush can count on a round of applause without body-scanning everyone who enters the door?

"Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America," Bush boomed.

Bush loves the applause. He luxuriates in the warm glow of human affection. In many ways he is the consummate politician feeding his fragile ego with the ephemeral praise of complete strangers. Too bad, his only springboard to fame has been as bullhorn for right-wing fanatics and war-mongers. Now, he finds himself toddling on a narrower and narrower ledge, peering down into the abyss of defeat and disgrace.

http://counterpunch.org/whitney11302005.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group. Remember, the theory is Murtha is speaking on behalf of disgruntled Pentagon Brass who cannot publicly criticize the alleged "commander-in-chief."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_murtha;_ylt=AmeJmhWxW.hkVDoraaoWMiys 0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[Rascal]

No, it doesn't necessarily make him right insofar as his characterization of the war is a matter of opinion. However, given his exceptional qualifications, he is in a position to offer a highly qualified opinion, i.e., one supported by extensive research, study, facts, etc.


And the facts do not support that opinion. That is why I mentioned how this war, compared to others, has far lesser # of casualties. You can argue that Bush lied or whatever, personally I think he didn't but that's not the point, but you look back at history and you will find countless leaders who didn't bother to give a reason and just went off to war and were soundly defeated (due to lack of support or their own ignorance).


How does this statement jibe with your support for Bush, his invasion/occupation of Iraq, and his doctrine of pre-emptive war?

So one who supports Bush must like war and not care about it's consequences...talk about a gross generalization.

And sorry but I disagree with this statement, "Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group. I support these troops personally as a job function and I find it insulting that he claims that they are living "hand to mouth". I hope our troops do leave in a year, but I don't think it will happen. Of course when they do leave Bush (no matter when that is) will claim it was because we had accomplished our goal while his critics will say it was because of what Murtha stated. And I don't think our Army is, or will be, broken or worn and I know many a serviceman who would find that offensive because an army is broken or worn down when they are defeated...and defeated we are not. I'm not flaming Murtha's record, I simply disagree with him. Sure overtime an Army's moral is going to questioned...happens in every war...but I believe in our troops and if any Army can get the job done it's our boys and girls fighting over there regardless of their moral situation.

"Remember, the theory is Murtha is speaking on behalf of disgruntled Pentagon Brass who cannot publicly criticize the alleged "commander-in-chief." Was your own added comment and I have seen no evidence to suggest this and it's a theory as you stated yourself. Probably the same theorists who think Bush caused 9-11...moving on.

[Rascal]

It's pathetic to see the world's most powerful man, shunted into prearranged venues so he can pitch his snake-oil to college aged boys. That said, Bush's appearance today at the Naval Academy has got to be a new low for the White House public relations team. Apparently the only people buying the huckster-in-chief's bedraggled vision of a democratic Iraq are rosy-cheeked young men who dream of battlefields instead of girlfriends.

What a load of crap. You go tell a sailor this last sentance and they will knock your ass out. They dream of battlefields instead of girlfriends...what a complete BS statement.

And how is it a "new low" for a President to go talk to the Naval Academy? So it was a "new low" when any past presidents went and talked to the Citadel, West Point, Air Force Academy?

You usually present some good stuff LABF, but even you must have some sense of what is complete crap...and this fits the bill.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And the facts do not support that opinion.

Given the professor's qualifications (e.g., his books are required reading for U.S. Army officers) I seriously doubt that he would venture such an opinion without first being apprised of the facts.

What a load of crap. You go tell a sailor this last sentance and they will knock your ass out. They dream of battlefields instead of girlfriends...what a complete BS statement.

It's obvious that you have never served in the military.

Anyone who has actually served knows that most people emerge from basic training with one thing in mind: kicking some ass.


And how is it a "new low" for a President to go talk to the Naval Academy?


Insofar as the WH PR team knows that the only people in America Bush can still hoodwink with his Iraq lies are young military men and women who are not allowed to question his leadership and who are at that stage in their lives/carrers where they are focused almost exclusively on doing their jobs well and on pleasing their superiors.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...I voted for Bush, a decision I regret at times...

Well, credit where due - at least you have the sack to admit that much.

Most bush supporters these days (the few who are left) just continue to dig in because they aren't man enough to admit they were wrong.

"Remember, the theory is Murtha is speaking on behalf of disgruntled Pentagon Brass who cannot publicly criticize the alleged "commander-in-chief." Was your own added comment and I have seen no evidence to suggest this and it's a theory as you stated yourself. Probably the same theorists who think Bush caused 9-11...

You've got to be kidding me.

You've "seen no evidence" of military brass who are disgruntled with Smirk's misleadership? Are you forgetting all of those generals and former joint chiefs who endorsed Kerry? BTW, a member of my immediate family is a major serving with top brass in D.C. and who can vouch for the "disgruntled" part.

You can argue that Bush lied or whatever, personally I think he didn't...

News flash:

Knowingly using trumped-up, forged, and cherry-picked intelligence to deliberately mislead America into a war is lying.

Deciding first to invade and occupy a sovereign nation and then looking for reasons to justify said invasion and occupation is lying.

[Rascal]

Given the professor's qualifications (e.g., his books are required reading for U.S. Army officers) I seriously doubt that he would venture such an opinion without first being apprised of the facts.

It's obvious that you have never served in the military.

Anyone who has actually served knows that most people emerge from basic training with one thing in mind: kicking some ass.

Insofar as the WH PR team knows that the only people in America Bush can still hoodwink with his Iraq lies are young military men and women who are not allowed to question his leadership and who are at that stage in their lives/carrers where they are focused almost exclusively on doing their jobs well and on pleasing their superiors.

I don't think he did. I think he is just like you in his hatred of Bush and that clouds his judgement.

And they also have getting some pussy on their mind as well.

You didn't address my comment. I can't think of any president that didn't go an talk to one of our military academies...yet for bush it's a new low. That doesn't sail.

[Rascal]

You've "seen no evidence" of military brass who are disgruntled with Smirk's misleadership? Are you forgetting all of those generals and former joint chiefs who endorsed Kerry? BTW, a member of my immediate family is a major serving with top brass in D.C. and who can vouch for the "disgruntled" part.

News flash:

Knowingly using trumped-up, forged, and cherry-picked intelligence to deliberately mislead America into a war is lying.

Deciding first to invade and occupy a sovereign nation and then looking for reasons to justify said invasion and occupation is lying.

Either I didn't clarify myself or you didnt comprehend what I said. I doubt that Murtha is speaking for the military brass.

You can argue it all you want but I still don't think he lied...wrong yes but lied no. And we've had the argument before that you claim since he was wrong he lied but IMO being wrong does not constitute lying so you can save yourself some time and skip over that.

[W*GS]

It's obvious that you have never served in the military.

And you have, correct?

What branch? When? Where were you stationed? What was your rank when you were honorably (?) discharged?

[bendog]

Either I didn't clarify myself or you didnt comprehend what I said. I doubt that Murtha is speaking for the military brass.

You can argue it all you want but I still don't think he lied...wrong yes but lied no. And we've had the argument before that you claim since he was wrong he lied but IMO being wrong does not constitute lying so you can save yourself some time and skip over that.
It's interesting on the brass. The WH has pretty much gottne rid of anyone who disagreed. Shisinski and Desert Storm I guys have dissed the entire 'plan." Powell's puked on his own boots over his UN speech. But, I suspect Murtha is a 'grunt' kind of guy.

I'm sure everyone expected to find mustard gas, but nobody rationally could have thought Blix managed to miss an entire nuke or biol program. Even Powell is now saying the WH "misled" him on biologicals.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't think he did. I think he is just like you in his hatred of Bush and that clouds his judgement.

There's the usual generic right-wing spin: If any expert in any field criticizes Bush or Bush's Iraq fiasco, then it's just a case of personal "hatred," and the critic's judgment must be clouded.

If anyone exhibits "clouded judgment" here it's you insofar as your claims re: the professor's alleged "hatred" are merely conjectural and not based on facts, and insofar as you consider yourself more knowledgable than a man whose books on military theory and history are on the US Army's required reading list.

You didn't address my comment. I can't think of any president that didn't go an talk to one of our military academies...yet for bush it's a new low. That doesn't sail.

It's not the mere fact that Bush spoke to the academy that is a "new low" - it's the circumstances surrounding his speech and his motive, i.e., to deceive the American people re: a fraudulent and illegal war based on lies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/vic-in-iraq.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/blessed-troops.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lt. Gen. William Odom calls for Iraq pull out. Odom used to head the NSA and is a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute. He said "Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most" from Bush's War on Iraq.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051201-054122-4745r

[Spider]

Is that what will really happen ?
I dont know , but after learning what I learned about Taliban and Unocal ,I realy doubt the media and their idea of the truth .......... Could it be that those in Iraq just want us gone ? out of there ? I think they see us as occupiers .......
We dont like the Muslim way of life , so in our wisdom we decided that they should have our way of life ........ So we go in and remove an evil man( we are told ) in the name of 9-11 , meanwhile we turn a blind eye to Rwanda and a few other African states , where genocide is a daily event .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So we go in and remove an evil man( we are told )

Would that be this evil man, by chance?

http://www.bartcop.com/rummy-saddam.jpg
"I brought all the WMD on your wish list, Mr. Hussein."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Revolt of the Generals

The immense significance of Rep John Murtha's November 17 speech calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq is that it signals mutiny in the US senior officer corps, seeing the institution they lead as "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth", to use the biting words of their spokesman, John Murtha, as he reiterated on December his denunciation of Bush's destruction of the Army.

A CounterPuncher with nearly 40 years experience working in and around the Pentagon told me this week that "The Four Star Generals picked Murtha to make this speech because he has maximum credibility." It's true. Even in the US Senate there's no one with quite Murtha's standing to deliver the message, except maybe for Byrd, but the venerable senator from West Virginia was a vehement opponent of the war from the outset , whereas Murtha voted for it and only recently has turned around.

So the Four-Star Generals briefed Murtha and gave him the state-of-the-art data which made his speech so deadly, stinging the White House into panic-stricken and foolish denunciations of Murtha as a clone of Michael Moore.

It cannot have taken vice president Cheney, a former US Defense Secretary, more than a moment to scan Murtha's speech and realize the import of Murtha's speech as an announcement that the generals have had enough.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12032005.html

[watermock]

Well the cockroach known as LABF has worn out the war room and is now here...

Look you moron, we just killed the #3 man in Al Queada, we kicked their asses in W Iraq and the Sunnis want to be in the election...

That's a real disaster...

All they can do is blow up their own followers and civilians with those dumb suicide bombs...

And Howie Dean says the war is lost? No way...noone said the war on terror was over...we are on their ass tho...do you think Howard Dean mentioned the fact we killed the #3 man in Al Queada...you do you think so? Think again...do you think the national media barely mentioned it? Think again...

[Rigs11]

Well the corkroach known as LABF has worn out the war room and is now here...

Look you moron, we just killed the #3 man in Al Queada, we kicked their asses in W Iraq and the Sunnis want to be in the election...

That's a real disaster...

All they can do is blow up their own followers and civilians with those dumb suicide bombs...

And Howie Dean says the war is lost? No way...noone said the war on terror was over...we are on their ass tho...do you think Howard Dean mentioned the fact we killed the #3 man in Al Queada...you do you think so? Think again...do you think the national media barely mentioned it? Think again...


Put down the moonshine dimwit. Oh great we killed the number 3 in command, how many are waiting in line to fill that spot?Even your fellow repubs are distancing themselves from you daddy dubya.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Put down the moonshine dimwit. Oh great we killed the number 3 in command, how many are waiting in line to fill that spot?Even your fellow repubs are distancing themselves from you daddy dubya.

How many times have we killed "al Qaeda's #3 in command" now, anyway?

:D

Watercrock has been chugging the BushCo Kool-Aid (along with the moonshine) for so long he can't tell fact from right-wing propaganda.

And, BTW, how funny is it that this idiot thinks Howard Dean is the only one who says Bush's Iraq fiasco is a no-win situation? :laugh:

[BroncoInferno]

Look you moron, we just killed the #3 man in Al Queada,

Yeah, for about the fifth time.

[bendog]

ummm, didn't we kill the guy IN AFGHANISTAN?

wait, I mean PAKISTAN

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, for about the fifth time.

:laugh:

"We're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Eighty-four Americans died in Iraq last month. Ninety-six died in November. December? It's not starting well. As the White House celebrates a "season of hope and happiness," 10 Marines were killed Thursday. The "coalition of the willing" aren't so willing anymore. Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their troops this month, and the whore AP notes that
Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea are all talking about pulling out, too."

-Tim Grieve

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/



http://www.bartcop.com/sleeping-speech.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is Bush ready to cut and run in iraq?

DETROIT -- We are living under a regime that has made war and torture highly profitable for a handful of scummy corporations and individuals. That's the way the Busheviks like doing business, keeping their dirtiest deeds in the hands of for-profit surrogates.

Openness and accountability -- hallmarks of a free society -- have no place in the mad project to sell and impose "freedom" in Iraq.

Desperate to drum up support for his horrible mistakes and refusal to recognize his failed polices, President George Bush made a "major policy" speech last Wednesday, outlining his strategy for "victory" in Iraq.

The venue for his address was the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. For our rattled and insecure president, on not-so-secret double-probation from the American public, traveling to cozy military confines is like the "road trip" the Deltas in "Animal House" took to duck their troubles and hide from their adversaries.

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher242.html