Great job as usual by Michael Goldfarb in describing the fighting in Basra. Basically saying that those who moan and cry about Iraq always like to point out that the militia’s are still running rampant. Well now Maliki is doing something about it and what do we get? More whining. Michael:
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it’s not at all apparent that the region’s more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government’s sovereignty. It’s the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government–even to the New York Times it looks like progress.
Meanwhile Obama said this today about the fight:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
Really? There are tensions in Iraq that have not gone away? Get outta here….
No one has said The Surge has done this, not Bush, not McCain, no one. Does anyone really expect tensions to ease in a few short months, or years? Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life. And to suggest that he, or anyone else, can reduce those “tensions” by running from the fight is just naive and foolish. If we leave before that country can defend itself from outside influence, and from within, then you can bet your ass that there will a bit more going on other then some tension. There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi government has been criticized for not taking advantage of the reduction in violence caused by The Surge. Well, here they are stepping up and the MSM quickly steps up and gives the gloomiest reporting possible. You would think that those who want us out of Iraq would take heart in this fight…..one more step closer to getting out of there.
But not if it means they can’t bash Bush.
When 2009 rolls around, and if HillBama is in office, you better believe the reporting by the MSM and the talking points from lefty politico’s will be markedly different.
See author page
seems like the pla ce is blowing up.
“When 2009 rolls around, and if HillBama is in office, you better
believe the reporting by the MSM and the talking points from lefty
politico’s will be markedly different.”ABSOLUTELY!
MALIKI was unable to reach any of his stated objectives ALL MSM reports this as something much less than a great victory for MAliki even the Wall Street Journal. Sadr controls more of Basra than he did before according to CNN
I wonder what progress you’d like them to admit to? You’re SO intent on propping up this failed action, that YOU never admit how precarious the situation has become – in today’s news. we find that Sadr is setting terms for a cease fire! A cease fire in a country NOT at civil war? Flopping Acces should just be renamed – major FLOP!
Well, now we’re getting mortar fire and Americans killed in the Greenzone. I suppose that’s progress. We’ve also had as nearly many Americans killed in Jan/feb march as in all of 2005. I suppose that’s progress or a sort, too.
You said, “Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life.”
And it’s none of our business, we do not belong there, it is not our country and despite what Baghdad Bush says, the oil under their sand is not our oil.
Then you said, “There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.” Anyone who believes Baghdad Bush’s propaganda that we are fighting a-Qaeda there, or that AQ would have a snowflake’s chance in hell of “taking over Iraq” is a fool or a liar.
Why do right-wingers hate America so much they have become so contrarian that they are incapable of making any decisions that help our nation? Only damage.
this whole incident just shows how tenuous any reductions in violence in Iraq will be. We haven’t defeated any major players in Iraq…just struck deals, paid off, or segrated them away. Even if we achieve substantial gains in security, they can be reversed in a flash without continuous pressure applied.How long are we supposed to keep these people from killing each other?
And why are we now protecting the Iranian-backed set?Is 100 years in Iraq acceptable to you? is it worth the cost? Will the US military remain at reduced effectiveness for the benefit of Iraqis? isn’t the US military supposed to defend US interests? You must say it’s doing so by backing the Iran-supported government… really?
All you can ask for is one more year, six more months, etc… How many extensions do you want?If you are not willing to define failure (because presumably it is not “acceptable”), and success is not possible, then this war will never end.
So because you believe there is something called “success” in Iraq, even though it can’t be defined in any meaningful way, you are willing to wait, while others fight and die, for “success” to appear.
It’s actually quite simple:
Let’s define this thing called “failure” as what happens when we have to leave because we realize we can’t achieve our mission without significantly damaging our own strategic interests. Doesn’t matter what that is exactly.
Then let’s define this thing called “success” as what happens when Iraqis all agree to stop fighting to we can leave without feeling “icky” about having turned the country into a flaming hole in the ground. (and lets note that this version of success has been significantly reduced from our original idea of “greeted with roses”.)
We all agree failure is possible. I don’t think there’s much to argue there.
You think success is possible, I don’t.
Let’s say we do what you want to do and try to stay until the job is “successful”
If I’m wrong, and success is possible, then after x more years of fighting, dying, spending countless dollars, and pacifying a country, they won’t be killing each other as much and Iran will still be a powerful influence.
If I’m right, then after x more years of fighting, dying, spending countless dollars, and failing to pacifying a country, they’ll still be killing each other and Iran will still be a powerful influence.
How large does x have to be before it wasn’t worth it? You have to admit, at least hypothetically, that there is some value for x for which this war will not have been worth it, and for which continued death and destruction would not have been worth it.
Furthermore, is there some value for x that would convince you that success is not possible? If not, you are saying you would have the US fight this war forever if that’s how long it took to do the mission. I would say that’s not very serious.
The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
I find it odd that a philosophy which has considered america “exceptional” and uses the concept of personal responsibility to deflect against acusations of bad behaviour towards others (ie, Castro, not the US, is personally responsible for the embargo that has helped to keep cuba impoverished), or who rail against those who “blame america first” when it is the terrorists who are personally responsible for the atrocities they commit on our soil, is unable to apply that concept to the Iraqi people vis-a-vis their own security.If we leave and peolpe continue to die, it won’t be us doing the killing, it will be them. They can be personally responsible for that too.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/31/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Let me refresh your memory.We were told the war would take a few weeks and cost a few tens of a billion dollars.
Now, it’s over five years later; thousands of American dead; trillions pissed away; no end in sight. Talk to boots on the ground, they’ll tell you that it’s a long time since we made any progress at all. What’s funny is that you and people like you have been telling us about “progress” for five years!
Tell me, do you really believe that we’re so stupid that we’ve just forgotten all the claims you guys have made over the years, that we can keep believing your promises that something will happen in the future?
I had an employee once who seemed energetic and full of positive energy and gave me great progress reports. Almost a month into it I said, “These progress reports always seem encouraging, but you’re really going to have to deliver some actual work pretty soon.” He never did; he vanished, leaving most of the work he’d said he was doing undone.
Tell us when you get actual, real progress; when Iraqis and Americans stop *dying* by violence; when American soldiers have left Iraq; when there’s reliable power and water in Baghdad; when Iraqis stop dying from medieval diseases like cholera that had all but vanished from the country before the invasion.
Otherwise, please don’t insult our intelligence and your own by constantly claiming that some intangible “progress” has occurred. It’s been five years.
This whole shell game by the right-wingers is becoming ludicrous. So, the leader if Iraq, who is more in bed with Iran than any other faction, is ordering an assault on another faction in Iraq . Somehow that is not a civil war and there seems to be no problem among the neocon supporters that it is the US troops who have to actually carry out this offensive. So now, after more bloodshed, we are right back to where we were 1,2,3, etc. Friedman’s ago. Explain to us again how that is progress?
A parliamentary delegation from Maliki’s own coalition defies him going to Iran to let them broker a negotiation with Sadr: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story32055.html
In essence, Maliki was ignored in Basra while negotiations in the conflict were directly with made with Sadr as Iranians underwrote them.
Lots of typical leftist, anti-Bush/”anti-war” talking points and rhetoric from the usual stereotypes, but NO SUGGESTIONS on the future. Nothing but blame Bush, it’s all Bush’s fault, yada yada yada. ok, fine. Ya all sold me. I promise I will not vote for him in the fall. I’ll vote for the candidate who has the best plan for Iraq:Sen McCain: fight to win and make Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terrorSen Obama: withdraw forces on the ground, but leave enough to make Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terrorSen Clinton: withdraw forces on the ground, but leave enough to make Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terrorOne thing remains clear: force INCREASES have led to stabilization, but premature evacuations like the one the Brits did leads to destabilization.Suggestion: quit your whining and pony up to the reality that this fall you-YOU will be voting to continue the war in Iraq. Who do you want to lead that fight against Al Queda?
Typical “sky is falling” chickenlittling hysteria everytime another “setback”, challenge, or incident occurs. Basrah will be just another comma in the history books.
According to Bill Roggio:
Almost every hawkish blog on Iraq I read posts Roggio for their insights into Iraq. Since Roggio’s argues Sadr’s casualties evidence his losing, I thought I’d go contra Roggio’s calculations: http://greggrant.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/in-counterinsur.html
Now if Roggio’s numbers are meaningless in this kind of conflict, what else is left that posits the claim that Sadr was ‘getting his butt kicked’?
Doug wrote:
And almost every anti-occupation lefty willfully ignores what comes out of Iraq from Roggio, Michael Yon, Michael Totten, Matt Sanchez, and milblogs who don’t share your interpretation of the facts.
I actually do place value on Greg Grants insights, so thank you for providing the link.
Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell. Throughout conflicts, there are ebbs and flows, successes and setbacks. The question is: Does America have the attention span, commitment, and the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars, anymore?
The anti-war left have been a ball-and-chain to a successful prosecution of this war as much as the strategic mistakes that are a part of any conflict, and which happen in all wars. They’ve been this way from day one, magnifying, spotlighting, underscoring, highlighting, and underlining any and all negative news as if it were the end of the world.
This is just one more challenge posed and it won’t be the last.
Let’s see. Scott has asked a question as I have before. What do you guys on the left want to do???? How are you going to stop both Al Queda and Iran from taking over Iraq and making it a terrorist’s paradise???The only hing I hear is to leave and let them take over. Do you really think that that is a good idea??? And what happens when we have to goin there in 5 years or so with a much bigger and better motivated enemy.
And I am with Scott, I am not voting for Bush either this november. Who will be your boogie man then?????
Here is another question to all of you lefties out there. Do you think it was agood idea o stay in Germany, Japan, Korea, the Balkans for more than 10 years after the conflicts were over???? Was it agood idea to stay in Germany and quell the Wolves that assasinated people for the Reich???? If you haven’t noticed we are still there to this day and WWII ended in 1945. What about the fanatics that were in Japan at the end ofthe war, should we have left the Japanese government to go after them themselves??? Or should we have left South Korea to get overrun bythe North???
Just wanting to know what your thoughts are on those????
Another good question is do you know how long it took the USA to write the Constitution after the Revolutionary War???? It does not happen overnight.
“Does America have the attention span, commitment, and the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars, anymore?”Here’s better questions: Does america have the correct amount of troops and endless supply of money (or does china, which is who we borrow from) to win wars anymore.Let’s start with a draft. One with NO exceptions. Everybody goes to fight the greatest threat to this country EVAH! Yes, even Bill Kristol’s and John Bolton’s kids.Then we revoke the tax breaks to the richest 1% of americans, and throw-in a 2% across the board tax on corporate profits to pay for the war and to support the troops.How about it, righties? Willing to put your money and lives where your mouths are.My prediction: Never gonna happen. When push comes to shove, the Right will back down and admit the whole clusterfuck isn’t worth THEIR lives and money!
“Will they admit progress”?
Judging by the majority of anti-free-Iraq posts on this thread, I guess one can safely say the answer to that is “no”….
Greg Grant’s post points out that Sadr taps into the pool of “Iraq’s “no future” generation. Young, disenfranchised men who grew up during the embargo period with no future and very angry.
Well, there is no more embargo. The new Iraq has the opportunity to lessen the numbers of “no future”, disenfranchised men…. thereby reducing the numbers of recruits for Sadr. It is a goal worthy of pursuing. But that goal has been slowed because of lack of security, oil smuggling, slow political progress, and the flight of many of Iraq’s professionals.
These are all things the Iraq govt is striving to reverse, and as Stix points out, none of this stuff happens overnight.
It took quite a while for Vietnam to recover, and their largest gains came after they were granted membership to the WTO in 1996. Iraq requested membership in 2004, but has not yet been granted entry. Saudi Arabia became a member in 2005, after decades of negotiations. I’m not a huge fan of the WTO, but a formal entry into int’l trade promotes internal reform, and builds confidence of potential foreign investors in Iraq. Those opinions are what yields results, where my personal opinion does nothing.
Too bad so many Americans prefer to predict Iraq’s failure, based on some sort of self-declared crystal ball skills, instead of cheering them on to success. All merely to promote their political agendas. It exhibits a narcissism in this country that I find saddening.
Yada yada yada Robert. Same suggestion that somehow only poor leftists get sent to war. Newsflash, the Pentagon doesn’t want a draft because a volunteer army is better than a conscript army. Today’s soldiers and Marines aren’t mindless drones who get “stuck in Iraq.” Further, you can rant all you want about “righties”, but Hillary and Obama aren’t sending their daughters to war either. Neither do most Dems (btw, Congressional Dems have a lot more money and are a lot more corporate-tied than Republicans anymore).Back to the question: what’s your plan? I promise I won’t vote for GWB in the fall. So, who’s gonna make life happy-go-lucky in Iraq and fullfill all the socialist pipedreams you listed? Senator Obama’s gonna do that?Senator Clinton’s gonna do that?A Democratic Congress would do that if they controlled the House and Senate, right?Stop whining, start planning.
Scott,NOBODY. Your boys fucked this thing to a fairly-well. There is no short answer.But, if you believe that we should stay forever, then YOU pay for it.Screw the Dems, Obama, and Hillary as well. They can’t solve this mess, because NOBODY can. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, good luck putting it back in.BTW, without the draft, where do we get the troops to fight forever?There is no plan. You vote for Mr. 100 more years of Iraq War, I’ll stay in Argentina and laugh my ass off about the most powerful nation in the history of mankind being brought to it’s knees by a handful of guys with box-cutters.Hilarious!
100yrs? Who said they want the war to continue for 100yrs?
Ya know, come to think of it, I’ve been hearing about how they’re gonna have to start drafting people for…well, since mid 2003 when Scott Ritter said the US was gonna bomb Iran in June 03. Has that draft started yet?
Also, when you say “your boys…” do you mean Senator Clinton too? After all, she
promoted the invasion of Iraq
had unique access to the finest intelligence assessment on the other side of her bed
authorized the invasion
funded the occupation
supported the occupation
called for more troops
and now she vows to continue till 2013.
Is she one of “my boys”?
Oh my, Robert. Speaking of “on your knees”, I’d sure hate to be you – beholding to Chavez for the $3.5 bil in bonds to bail out Argentine debt.
McCain says 100 more years.Surely Hillary is one of your boys. Anyone stupid enough to follow the lead of a dry-drunk fratboy who couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag deserves scorn and ridicule (that includes Hillary AND you). I didn’t vote for him. i didn’t think the war was a good idea. I saw what Colin Powell showed to the UN in 2/03, and figured Iraq was no threat to the U.S.She’s all yours. Just like the moron decider is yours.Enjoy what the half-wits you followed brought you.In a real world the whole lot of them would be tried for war crimes for attacking and ruining a country that was of absolutely no threat to them.I’m not a Dem, and never supported Clinton. Tough break for you, there goes your entire argument.In the meantime, explain to me where you get the soldiers and money to fight a never-ending war of choice.Good luck sucker!
Gosh Robert. Here I thought the withdrawal started back on Sept 14, 2007, was expected to continue till July 2008, and then get re-assessed with the hope that perhaps it could continue even more. I had no idea Senator McCain pledged to wage war in Iraq for another 100yrs.Do you have that quote where he says he’s willing to see people killed in Iraq for the next 100yrs?…the whole quote?Thanks,Scott
Wow, Robert, you have no clue how the economy works. If you have a %2 tax cut on business, you will have more jobs and the economy will grow faster than if you didn’t. Man we need economics lessons for people,along with history lessons.
And I never heard anyone say that the war would last 100 years.I heard we might be in Iraq for 100 years helping them, kind of like Japan and Germany, but no one ever said 100 years of war.
Spoken like someone who wants to go back to the 9/10-mentality. You go on fighting yesterday’s arguments, trying to rewind and stuff your toothpaste back in the tube. I’ll just brush my teeth and smile at’cha without the cavities.
Context and honesty matter, don’t you think?
Bottom line questions about this topic, since you war supporters continue to dodge them:
1. Why have we decided to back the Badr Brigade in its civil war with the Madhi Army?
2. Why are we propping up the Iraqi faction with the most substantial ties to Iran while continuing to blame Iran for everything we don’t blame AQ on and for trying to use some nefarious tie between Sadr and Iran to make him the enemy?
3. Why are we allowing Maliki to declare war on his enemies and then have the US armed forces fight that war for him? I thought that was the whole reason why conservatives hated NATO.
4. What will the situation in Iraq have to look like specifically before we can finally declare victory and leave the area?
5. Do you think that the US building permanant bases on the largest oil fields in the country will help or hurt out long-term relationship with the people in the region?
6. Do you think the US forcing through Iraqi parliment a bill that allows Chevron, Exxon, BP, and Shell to extract oil from the land and kep the profits will help or hurt our long-term relationship with the country and the region?
You can continue to avoid these questions and then run around like toddlers shouting “BDS” and “surrender” all you want, but until you can answer these questions, you will continue to be pushed to the fringes of the conversation on what the hell we are going to do over there.
stix1972,
How do you pay for the never-ending war, cut taxes? That doesn’t make economic or common sense.
I’m against the war. The easiest way to stop it, is to challenge war supporters to put their lives and money where their mouths are. When Kristol and his kids lives and wallets are threatened, they’ll find a way out in a matter of minutes. The answers on how to get out will come quickly when Congress people and their constituents (corporate America) have to pay with blood, lives and money. Until then, they put politics (yeah team!) above the people.
Don’t believe me? Make them pay in lives and money, then you’ll see who’s hopelessly naive about the threat in Iraq.
1) I’m not sure how dramatic the “backing” is, but the goal of backing any group in Iraq is to have that group support the govt efforts to bring stability to the nation
2) Whether one group or another has ties to Iran, Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, etc is debatable and fluctuating at all times. Backing a group “tied” to Iran could very well be backing a group “tied” to Iranian opposition
3) Pretty sure the US forces aren’t the ones doing most of the fighting in Basra right now
4) The situation will have to be one where Democrats and political opponents of the war in Iraq stop opposing it. When that happens, victory can be declared.
5) US permanent bases? Seems odd. I’d have to see some pics and more reports on it. To my knowledge Iraq already had PLENTY of major bases built by Saddam (in fact, UNMOVIC called them “hyperbases”). I suspect that the reports of building permanent bases have more effect than the bases themselves.
6) I don’t know about such bills, but Iraqi oil’s gotta get sold to somebody, and I’m sure it’s not just to American companies. Besides, the US wasn’t even allowed to import Iraqi oil until late 03 early 04, and that didn’t stop the “No Blood for Oil” rantings or prevent opponents of the war from pretending it’s all about America’s interest in oil and not other nations’ interests which were far stronger.
Here’s one for you Jeff….
They lied about the illegality of the occupation
They lied about the cost of the war
They lied about the casualties in the war
They lied about the wmd threat
They lied about the ties to Al Queda
They lied about the oil America’d be swimming in
They lied about Al Queda being in Iraq
They lied about the effects of the Surge
When will opponents of the war stand up and stop opposing the war based on half truths (half a truth ain’t a whole truth, and only whole truth is truth), half quotes, exaggerations, and pipedreams
Robert,
Sen McCain’s sons have already fought there, but I do agree. Chelsea and Sen Obama’s kids should be sent. Great idea.
Still waiting to see that quote from Sen McCain where he says he wants to continue fighting for 100yrs. Got it yet?
Break up Iraq, undo the British Empire’s border-making mistake, and let everybody run their own damn show. That’s real democracy. I realize that there are diplomatic problems to such measures, but I don’t think anyone would disagree that diplomacy beats violence.
Heck, even if the new nations go to war, we can let the UN figure it all out. Let some other nations help pay for this.
Edit: you want a 100 years link? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
Ok, well here’s an idea to stabilize Iraq — alluded to by both Hillary and Obama: Bring in the rest of the world, as in a real coalition. To do so might entail incentives, such as allowing other countries to invest in oil in Iraq. It’s also in the very best interests of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all the neighboring nations to have a stable Iraq — allow them some, if not MOST of the profits in stabilizing the nation.
As it is, there’s no profit in any nation helping out the US right now. Why should they fight to protect our monopoly on all the Iraqi oil?
There is one problem, I will admit. The Iraqi themselves do not want privitized oil companies but a nationalized oil policy.
Nevertheless, the conservatives have proven they are incompetent warriors, totally inept at carrying out military strategy, and intractable idiots and cowards at admitting their mistakes and changing tactics to seek success. Yet, they remain optomistic that war is the answer. As George Bernard Shaw said “Blessed are the optomists, they shall be buried alive.”
Scott,
Of course it’s a great idea. You should have been listening to me all along. If you had, we wouldn’t have to draft Chelsea, Obama’s kids, John Bolton and his kids, you, Bill Kristol and his kids, etc. (You know, the phonies that support the war from the comfort of their own living rooms). They’re bad enough, if you really want to see the fake war supporters, ask them to pay the trillions to fight the war themselves. You’ll hear every excuse they can think of.
Here’s McCain saying he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
You might remember I said the plan was to build US military bases in Iraq back in 2003. I was laughed at as a “dirty F’n hippie”. Of course, I was right (we dirty F’n hippies always are). Just like I’m right when I say we can stop the war in a matter of days if we make the supporters put their blood and money up for the war they support.
Life is tough when you’re born with common sense, but it’s just a burden I have to live with.
Are you still waiting? Don’t know how to use google?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
Listen to the lunatic yourself. He would like to maintain a “presence” there for 100 years, as long as we’re not fighting or getting hurt (HUH!?! LOL!) He’s divorced himself from reality since the S&L scandal that SHOULD have ruined his political career. Instead the media (yeah, that thing all you right wingers LOVE to hate) has given him a pass on everything.
And while you’re talking about sending Democratic candidates’ daughters to war, why don’t YOU address what was mentioned earlier, namely why don’t all you cheerleaders send YOUR kids first to show all the rest of us how important it is to you. Encourage them to join the forces, please! Lets increase the enlistment age to 50 so that geniuses like Kristol can join too, and of course send their kids.
If there’s one thing I can say for McCain, he’s not a hypocrite when it comes to war mongering, and I at least appreciate his consistency on THAT issue. Too bad he’s such a moral coward and hypocrite on EVERY OTHER ISSUE. Please ask me for examples! Please!
You mean like some of the groups that are negotiating with the Iraqi government right now like Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, and BP…all foreign owned oil companies. Iraq makes the decisions on who to allow to invest in oil in their country, we don’t. Your tin-hat is showing.
Monopoly? Yeah, thats why our gas is sooooo cheap nowadays.
One of the most ignorant statements I’ve seen in a long time…probably since the last time Salon linked to a post here. These “incompetent warriors” have done the impossible, brought democracy to a country in the middle east, with the lowest casualty rate ever for a major war. They have adapted when one strategy didn’t work out, The Surge, and proven all you “the sky is falling” liberals wrong once again.
I know, tough pill to swallow, so go back to Salon with your tin-hat in tow and keep screaming “its all for oil!” Sooner or later someone, somewhere, will listen.
Yeah…who would think there wouldn’t be any fighting going on in places like Japan and Germany…the fool!
Robert, please show me the entire quote of Sen McCain saying he’s willing to have the Iraq War continue for the next 100 yrs. TIP: he doesn’t say that. It’s yet another half quote that opponents of the war promote as if it were truth.
The part that gosh…somehow just got left out:
“As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
They lied about the illegality of the occupation
They lied about the cost of the war
They lied about the casualties in the war
They lied about the wmd threat
They lied about the ties to Al Queda
They lied about the oil America’d be swimming in
They lied about Al Queda being in Iraq
They lied about the effects of the Surge
When will opponents of the war stand up and stop opposing the war based on half truths (half a truth ain’t a whole truth, and only whole truth is truth), half quotes, exaggerations, and pipedreams
Curt,
High comedy. Loved the crack about bringing democracy to a country in the ME. You’re a hoot.
Sadly innocent people are dying due to the actions of the Decider and his (5 deferment) Veep, who are closely tied to the war profiteers.
You are right about McCain (Senator-Media) being a fool though. Did you hear him confuse his ass with a whole in the ground yet? Thankfully Joe Lieberman (Senator-Israel) was there to whisper in his ear. Of course, it’s been years (4) since the GOP nominated someone this clueless as President.
Sadly I can’t say the same thing about you except that you and your friends are quite sad and pathetic. Denying reality in your BDS circlejerk at Salon.
Great idea-getting allies to come to Iraq by offering them oil contracts. 2 problems:
1) been there, tried that, failed
2) gosh, for some reason there’s a political movement that does everything it can to dismiss the reasons for being in Iraq. It’s kinda hard to turn to nation X and say, “Hey, c’mon send thousands of troops to Iraq because we’re against the occupation.” Maybe if those opposed to the war supported it instead, other nations would be lured into coming instead of following the ideals of the anti-war “movement”
Yeah, I still don’t see Sen McCain saying we should fight in Iraq for 100yrs. Sounded like he said there shouldn’t be a problem being in Iraq if no one’s dying. I agree. Hey, if it’s a peaceful deterrent like in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea…great.
I’m surprised at the rah rah rah Bush=bad rhetoric. I mean, the guy’s a lame duck. The Democrats’ Congress controls the purse=the war, and don’t tell me that they need more seats to get something done because it is simply not reasonable to suggest that a party “needs” unchecked power to get something done. No one should advocate unchecked power.
Here it is Dems…step up. Tell us how Senator Obama is gonna succeed in Iraq or get US forces out without having to invade a 3rd time to prevent/stop a genocide? Forget Sen McCain for a while, and tell us the magic plan from the annointed one. I dream about this ethereal whisp of Disney-like pixie dust that settles between Syria and Iran and makes everything better.
Rand, if you aren’t an Iraqi elected official, I suggest you, US Congress, or the US military, dictating Iraq’s future as a carved up nation is a far cry from democracy. It’s up to the Iraq’s to decide their fate. Not you.
psMarc93. US “monopoly” on Iraq oil fields? You are misinformed. Iraq’s oil ministry has been accepting registrations for service contract bids on the Iraq oil fields even up to Jan/Feb of this year. The negotiations are direct – between the oil companies themselves and the Oil Ministry. There is no “US only companies” restrictions.
Unofficial sources say BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total are the current registrants. ExxonMobile is a merger of both US and UK subsidaries. BP, British, of course. Total has main offices in France. Shell is Dutch. Chevron American.
Altho all these companies operate in multiple countries with subsidiaries, and therefore hard to nail down to one country’s interests.
And frankly I hope one gets it that has distribution in the US, and not awarded to Russia or China. If we are continually forbidden to drill for our own, I would welcome another source being opened to our market. Oil is necessary for survival… whether anyone likes it or not.
They are still battling it out as to who has the final authority to sign oil deals. Kurds, of course, aren’t waiting and busy entertaining contracts for their area. Since it’s central Iraq who stands to lose the most since they don’t have the resource location, the oil sharing bit (especially for undiscovered caches) is certainly still an issue. However the plan is for some agreed upon national sharing of revenues.
Jeff, why are you insisting the absurd and now defunct notion that the United States Armed Forces are in Iraq specifically for the purpose of helping our nation’s politicians obtain power over Iraq’s oil fields? After all, those gas companies that you had mentioned earlier, are companies whose interest rates are controlled by Russia’s oil industy(Shell in particular) and the last time I checked, Russia is one of the four countries that own the contracts to Iraq’s oil fields. If you want to promote the false mantra that the U.S. is in Iraq to take oil revenues then do it to someone who is gullible. Not someone who is informed!
Also, it really is funny to look at all the vitriol and ignorance in this thread from the comments. People ask, why should we continue to fight for Iraq? Well, the answer is pretty simple. We have a moral obligation to stay with Iraq until they can fight the insurgents in their country alone with little or no assistance. That is what happens when you remove the government that was previously in place. However, some would question whether we should have removed Saddam’s government from it’s position in power. That’s a different story. Still, it is one that is deserving of attention.
Answer this, why shouldn’t we remove a government who had WMD’s illegaly, links to international terror organizations(including Al Qaeda), and who violated international protocols? Some would falsely assume that he had or did none of these things, but nothing could possibly be such a farcry from the truth. A good example to prove this would be the thwarted VX nerve gas attack that was susposed to be carried out in Amman, Jordan. This was a terror attack that Al Qaeda had planned, and was trying to execute with the help of the Ba’ath military. The terrorists who were captured after failing to conduct the attack had participated in terror attacks plotted by Al Qaeda before this one and were on the terror watch list in airports and seaports all across the world.
In the Jordanian trials against these terror suspects, which is now in text and available on the internet, the terrorists confessed that the material they used to try and make VX were from Saddam’s military. They confessed to the fact that they had acquired the material to make the VX from a Ba’ath hideout in the Al Anbar province. The U.S. troops in Iraq didn’t know about this hideout until they heard the confessions, and when they went to search the hideout that the terrorists claimed to have gotten the chemicals to make VX, they found(guess what?) chemicals to make VX. This event proves that Iraq had WMD’s and that they were willing to help terror organizations carry out their attacks. So tell me, how is this not a threat to my security? How is this not a justification to remove Saddam from his position of power?
Another funny incident is how the recent Pentagon report trips over their own talking points when trying to prove that Saddam had no “Operational Links” with terror cells in the Al Qaeda network. The report says that the only terror groups that Saddam had ties with were the ones that were created in Iraq, the Ansar al Sunna(not to be confused with Ansar Al Islam) terror group, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The thing is, those last two; Ansar al Sunna, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad are terror cells that are apart of the Al Qaeda terror network. Zawahiri, the number two man of Al Qaeda, is an Egyptian Islamic Jihad member as well as more than 2/3rd’s of his subordinates. Coincidence, I don’t think so. Now, going back to the “war for oil” debacle.
If the United States government wanted to help the Oil Companies here make a higher profit off of Middle Eastern oil, then wouldn’t they make sure that the U.S. imported more Middle Eastern oil than less than ten percent? At the same time, wouldn’t they pull our troops out from the Middle Eastern countries that they operate in? Given that the spike in violence that would result from such an event would cause petroleum prices to sky rocket higher than they already have as well as cause the currencies of Middle Eastern countries to plummet farther than they already have. Which would ultimately benefit the revenues of oil companies because of how we’d be paying more for oil products than we do. Yeah, I think the silly “war for oil” debacle along with the “Saddam wasn’t that bad enough to be removed” notion(myth would be more accurate!) can finally be put where they belong…The gravesite for all the absurd idiocies!
LINK?
“In the Jordanian trials against these terror suspects, which is now in text and available on the internet, the terrorists confessed that the material they used to try and make VX were from Saddam’s military. They confessed to the fact that they had acquired the material to make the VX from a Ba’ath hideout in the Al Anbar province. The U.S. troops in Iraq didn’t know about this hideout until they heard the confessions, and when they went to search the hideout that the terrorists claimed to have gotten the chemicals to make VX, they found(guess what?) chemicals to make VX. This event proves that Iraq had WMD’s and that they were willing to help terror organizations carry out their attacks. So tell me, how is this not a threat to my security? How is this not a justification to remove Saddam from his position of power?”
Surprised at the rah-rah-rah Bush=bad rhetoric.
If only the problems he created were going away in January 2009. This POS has saddled the US with problems it will take them decades to get out from under.
Meantime, Curt thinks it’s all BDS. Talk about clueless. You can’t find ANYONE on the Left or Right with a plan that might work in Iraq, but Curt’s sure BDS is the reason we’re all against the moron in chief. Clowns like Curt have been backing the moron for 8 years, to the total detriment of the country (but at least Curt’s team is winning, “Yeah GOP Team”). If people like Curt cared about his country as much as he did about “his team”, we wouldn’t be in such a mess without a way out.
Iraq will be a disaster for everyone involved for years. The least we could do is hold those who got us in the situation accountable. War crimes trials will be a nice start (unless you think letting them walk away with the profits is the right answer). C’mon America (and the world). Make believe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the poor. Hold them accountable for their actions.
Bahahahahahah….who’s the clown again?
Rofl….you guys are always good for entertainment man.
Robert, the 2004 election was the moment of accountability for President Bush. Senator Clinton’s is now yet somehow I don’t hear a lotta complaining about her.
War trials? On what grounds? That Pentagon rpt last week totally documented regime ties to Al Queda making the war legal based on the authorization to use force post 911. The occupation is legal under UN 1483sec1-4 (even mandated if you read it).
Nah, the real liars are the ones who oppose the war as a catalyst for political opposition. If 8 million people had marched in Feb03 against Saddam instead of against the US, there’d have been no war, but no one dares march against the dictators do they? Nasty habit of filling mass graves with protesters in those kinda countries.
Oh, and don’t get mistaken for a moment that if somehow invasion had been avoided in 03 that it wouldn’t have happened by now anyway. Shoulda happened in 91.
Discussing the war can be an emotional gig-especially when based on the mammoth amounts of propaganda and false information put out by the war’s opponents. It’s too bad more people don’t read the investigations into wmd, regime ties, 911, intel, Iraq ops, etc., and instead get their “news” from Commondreams, Mother Jones, Truthout, Buzzflash, Bartcop, and other nutjob sites that will literally post anything as long as it’s anti-Bush (as if being anti-Bush isn’t a flashing red light that says,”what you’re about to read is aimed at replacing GWB with a Democrat, and it is not necessarily the truth”
Hang on Scott, let me get the links to them.
Scott, here they are;
1.)Info on the trial.
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/12162004001.htm
2.)Terror suspects’ confessions.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20579
Monopoly? Yeah, thats why our gas is sooooo cheap nowadays.
Thanks for giving your complete lack of economics understanding away. Because monopolies lead to LOWER prices in your world right? Not to mention the supply/demand thing, but then you might be better served going back through one of your old college textbooks…you did go to college right?
Answer this, why shouldn’t we remove a government who had WMD’s illegaly, links to international terror organizations(including Al Qaeda), and who violated international protocols?
You obviously live in an alternate reality too. Keep reciting the tired old talking points of the neocons (yeah, I saw your side’s lame attempt with the recent documents ya’ll had translated), but who do you think provided him with not only the WMDs (that he NO LONGER HAD) and the biological agents (that he NO LONGER HAD), but the logistical information on how to use them on Iranian soldiers? Hint: Read the Riegle report. Answer: US, stupid primarily under Republican administrations.
I don’t want my tax money going toward forcibly opening up markets in third world countries via CIA fomented coups (read globalist class wars), under the false premise of instilling democracy (see Chile, Argentina, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.) and when those coups fail, as in Iraq’s case we just declare outright “pre-emptive” war.
FYI – I’m sure all you wingers know that the governments we’ve overthrown throughout the past 50 years have ALL been democracies with democratically elected leaders who were hugely popular in their countries. They just made the mistake of taxing the uber rich in their countries to the point that they embraced radical laissez faire capitalist goons like Milton Friedman and his cronies in the CIA, then with “our” help put his theories into place via bloody, terroristic coups which made use of torture and murder- ALL FINANCED AND OVERSEEN BY THE USA/CIA at YOUR EXPENSE as a taxpayer.
Your idea of a foreign policy is just absurd. First it was the commies (see above paragraph – THERE WAS NO COMMUNIST THREAT IN ANY OF THE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WE F’D UP!) and now it’s the “islamofacists”. Your credibility is zero at this point. Democrats and Republicans alike have been responsible for this. But not until 9/11 did people with your distorted and bizarre paranoid worldview have the balls to rear their heads in public and actually advocate for pre-meditated pre-emptive warfare, again PAID OUT OF YOUR POCKET.
So now you all have the audacity to incredulously ask “well we know we f’d up (funny you didn’t admit that during the last prez election) but we can’t just leave! what do you lefties propose we do other than “cut and run”??!!! Pathetic.
Socialists would never see or acknowledge or recognize a communist threat (let alone any threat).
man…gotta say, someone really yanked the nutroots chain tonight! WOWZERS!