PDA

View Full Version : solving the Iraq mess



Davidflude
08-12-2006, 02:42 PM
Here are my first three steps.

Step 1 - George Bush should resign.

Step 2 - Tony Blair should resign.

Step 3 - John Howard should resign

Steve K
08-12-2006, 03:31 PM
Here are my first three steps.

Step 1 - George Bush should resign.

Step 2 - Tony Blair should resign.

Step 3 - John Howard should resign

Wishful thinking. Blair will resign sometime next year, Bush has 2 more years left and won't resign and Howard is a pig-headed ego-tripping' sycophant who will stay until the next election and (horrible thought) maybe beyond.

pax
08-12-2006, 04:05 PM
The amazing thing about all this is the way that Howard and Downer's line hasn't changed one iota.

Meanwhile, Blair says it's a disaster, Rumsfeld resigns, admitting mistakes and a total strategic rethink is required. Even Bush admits that Iraq is a disaster (or was forced by the midterms to admit it).

Yet Howard is still promising to stay the course, and refuses to admit any mistakes.

Speaking recently about the Vietnam war, Howard said:


"I supported our involvement at the time and I don't intend to recant that,"
and

"I think in public life you take a position, and I think particularly of the positions I've taken in the time I've been Prime Minister, I have to live with the consequences . . . and, if I ever develop reservations I hope I would have the grace to keep them to myself,"

So it's blantantly clear from that, that Howard isn't going to tell us if he thinks that Iraq was a total balls-up, that the coalition has made a total hash of it. Nope, he will just pretend that there's no problem, business as usual.

qpawn
08-12-2006, 04:05 PM
While the term "solving" is as subjective as its correspondening definition of "success" I would suggest a pullout of most troops by 2008 as suggested by that US report. Then Iraq will have to be divided into different areas along ethnic lines of Sunni, Shia [sp?] and Kurd. Turkey will have to be consulted in this withdrawal process, whether the US wants to talk to them or not, becuase there is a chance of Turkey making a "land grab" for parts of the south.

For all my hate of Howard and Bush I think that the above is inevitable whoever is in power in our 3 nations.

qpawn
08-12-2006, 04:07 PM
John Howard reminds me of Lyndon Baynes Johnson who said that "the enemy cannot win now in Vietnam" one month befoire the Tet offensive .

Howard is a total goose.

eclectic
08-12-2006, 04:46 PM
I wonder if Howard will think ...

Troops urgently needed at home to fight bushfires

:hmm: :uhoh: :rolleyes: :eek: :hand:

antichrist
08-12-2006, 04:59 PM
The current mess is exactly what was predicted by the criitics when the decision was being made to invade. I believe the occupying forces have a moral and legal obligation to rebuild all the infracture that they destroyed - they can't just bomb the place to kingdom gone then cut and run.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2006, 05:48 PM
Howard doesn't have to worry about it as much since Australia's losses in the conflict remain token. That's perhaps why the war is not as on the nose here as in the UK or even USA.

I agree that ethnic partitioning, accompanied by a redrawing of boundaries perhaps including those of Turkey, is most likely the way to go.

eclectic
08-12-2006, 05:53 PM
Howard doesn't have to worry about it as much since Australia's losses in the conflict remain token. That's perhaps why the war is not as on the nose here as in the UK or even USA.

I agree that ethnic partitioning, accompanied by a redrawing of boundaries perhaps including those of Turkey, is most likely the way to go.

You might as well ask for Kurdistan to be created at the same time ... :whistle:

antichrist
08-12-2006, 05:57 PM
Howard doesn't have to worry about it as much since Australia's losses in the conflict remain token. That's perhaps why the war is not as on the nose here as in the UK or even USA.

I agree that ethnic partitioning, accompanied by a redrawing of boundaries perhaps including those of Turkey, is most likely the way to go.


The Turks should not even be there - on Arab land

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2006, 06:34 PM
You might as well ask for Kurdistan to be created at the same time ... :whistle:

That'd help. I doubt that Turkey will be interested though. The Kurds might still have to cop some kind of raw deal at the end of it all, although since they're not actually doing that much damage compared to the Sunnis and Shias that may not matter if peace is the primary aim.

antichrist
23-12-2006, 10:36 PM
George Bush Snr in advising GB Junior: "Son, you are making the same mistake with Iraq as I made with your mother , I didn't pull out in time"

Axiom
28-09-2007, 12:21 PM
Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile


Saddam Hussein is said to have offered to go into exile for $1bn

George Bush was convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
]
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.

But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484162

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2007, 12:31 PM
Saddam might have been willing to go peacefully (if given a bribe he definitely didn't deserve), but what about his henchmen and followers?

Axiom
28-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Saddam might have been willing to go peacefully (if given a bribe he definitely didn't deserve), but what about his henchmen and followers?Firstly ,the bribe would have been excellent value for money considering the cost of the last 4 plus years.
...if saddam had stood down , the U.S could have sent in a much smaller force to oversee the installation of their puppet government ,without the need for mass bombings and killings in their 'shock an awe' PR campaign, and without the excuse to destroy the infrastructure.
refer to the PNAC documents which detail the plan to split iraq into 3 regions, months prior to the invasion !
Cmon KB stop defending the murderous lawless thugs (ie.the far more powerful ones !) Or do you advocate bigger bullies attacking smaller bullies ?

"all war is a racket"-smedley butler

Look at who you are defending:- letter from gary hart to iran

"Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head."



you also recall the double dealings by the U.S re. KUWAIT (when saddam said he was going to go into kuwait, the diplomat implied that the usa would take no action !)

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2007, 01:42 PM
Firstly ,the bribe would have been excellent value for money considering the cost of the last 4 plus years.

You're missing the point. The war to oust Saddam was a piece of cake, it's stopping the insurgency by his former followers (which may well have happened even with him in exile) that's been the problem.


Cmon KB stop defending the murderous lawless thugs (ie.the far more powerful ones !) Or do you advocate bigger bullies attacking smaller bullies ?

I'm not defending anyone (in fact I never supported the war from the start), I'm just sceptical that the concept would have made any difference.

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2007, 03:32 PM
John Howard reminds me of Lyndon Baynes Johnson who said that "the enemy cannot win now in Vietnam" one month befoire the Tet offensive.
Which Vietcong generals admitted many years later was a complete military disaster (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell041504.asp), losing about 10 times more men than the Americans. But they correctly relied on the treasonous American Leftmedia and their appeasenik mobs to be their fifth column. We couldn't have won WW2 if the media were that traitorous, gloating about all our losses. Good grief, America lost more on the first day of D-Day than in the entire Iraq conflict.

pax
28-09-2007, 03:43 PM
Good grief, America lost more on the first day of D-Day than in the entire Iraq conflict.

Which makes your attempts to find parallels between Iraq and 1930's Germany rather laughable.

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2007, 03:57 PM
Which makes your attempts to find parallels between Iraq and 1930's Germany rather laughable.
Come on, I was comparing the problems of appeasement then and now, not the death toll in the wars!! And the point is that we got Saddam before he developed nukes (thanx also to Israel in 1981).

Axiom
28-09-2007, 03:58 PM
You're missing the point. The war to oust Saddam was a piece of cake, it's stopping the insurgency by his former followers (which may well have happened even with him in exile) that's been the problem. Are you sure the bulk of the insurgency consists of saddam's former followers?
Are we not told that the violence is due to ethnic/religious based rivalry ie, shiite v sunni ,along with the supposed influx of jihadists,al qaeda etc ?
Saddam perhaps had to rule with an iron fist to contain these factions?
Look at iraq now, mass murder,total decimation of its infrastructure, i suspect this was the goal all along. nothing to do with rebuilding.




I'm not defending anyone (in fact I never supported the war from the start), I'm just sceptical that the concept would have made any difference.
you never supported the war from the start,thus i have little argument with you. i only wish you would reserve more of your skepticsm for the invaders rather than the invaded.

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2007, 07:05 PM
Are you sure the bulk of the insurgency consists of saddam's former followers?
Are we not told that the violence is due to ethnic/religious based rivalry ie, shiite v sunni ,along with the supposed influx of jihadists,al qaeda etc ?
Saddam perhaps had to rule with an iron fist to contain these factions?

The Sunnis were priveleged well above their share of the population during Saddam's rule. It's the loss of that status that is causing most of the current ruckus - and that status would also have been lost had Saddam gone into hiding and a puppet government been installed (initially) peacefully.


you never supported the war from the start,thus i have little argument with you. i only wish you would reserve more of your skepticsm for the invaders rather than the invaded.

What I'm being sceptical of is unconvincing claims.

pax
28-09-2007, 07:41 PM
Come on, I was comparing the problems of appeasement then and now, not the death toll in the wars!!

So the level of threat to human life is not a consideration when considering diplomatic solutions as opposed to military?



And the point is that we got Saddam before he developed nukes (thanx also to Israel in 1981).

And no thanks to the US in 1982.

Axiom
28-09-2007, 08:41 PM
The Sunnis were priveleged well above their share of the population during Saddam's rule. It's the loss of that status that is causing most of the current ruckus - and that status would also have been lost had Saddam gone into hiding and a puppet government been installed (initially) peacefully.
after due consideration,im willing to concede this point, as the margins for a balance shift are too thin.



What I'm being sceptical of is unconvincing claims.i understand, and trust the same level of sceptism will be shown here by you in relation to the "attack rationale"

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2007, 11:06 PM
i understand, and trust the same level of sceptism will be shown here by you in relation to the "attack rationale"

I showed plenty of it in various places at the time. It's really not such an interesting issue anymore since it's very obvious that the official rationale for going to war was somewhere between hopelessly bungled and deliberately trumped-up. My own guess is somewhere in the middle, ie that things were half-believed to be true because people wanted to believe that they were.

Axiom
28-09-2007, 11:13 PM
I showed plenty of it in various places at the time. It's really not such an interesting issue anymore since it's very obvious that the official rationale for going to war was somewhere between hopelessly bungled and deliberately trumped-up. My own guess is somewhere in the middle, ie that things were half-believed to be true because people wanted to believe that they were.
we are near enough on the same page on this one , im just much further along the 'deliberately trumped-up' spectrum than you it seems.

Kevin Bonham
28-09-2007, 11:23 PM
So given that this thread is called "Solving the Iraq mess" what's your proposed solution? (Or will I regret ever asking?)

Axiom
28-09-2007, 11:27 PM
So given that this thread is called "Solving the Iraq mess" what's your proposed solution? (Or will I regret ever asking?)
after the pullout in vietnam, did not stability return to that state under power from their own engines.
so, the only solution now, is for the damn lawless murderous thugs(no,not only blackwater!) to leave iraq immediately !

well you did ask ! :)

pax
19-04-2008, 12:05 AM
Based on the information available, many Democrats including the Klintons supported it, as did Chairman Rudd. They didn't want to make the same mistake as Chamberlain did 70 years ago at Munich. Of course, "beyond reasonable doubt" to lefties means waiting till there's a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or New York.
Oh come on, stop peddling bullshit. Saddam was never remotely close to procuring fissile material, to technologically constructing nuclear weapons, to delivering them anywhere. Even GWB never claimed such rubbish.

If mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv and New York are your concern, then shouldn't Iran, Pakistan and North Korea be on your list (way ahead of Iraq)?

Basil
19-04-2008, 12:16 AM
? I've just peeked at this for the first in forever.

Pax, you are aware that Hussein had actual WMD, aren't you? As in
West & more: 'hey, will you get rid of these wmd'
Hussein: 'No'
West & more: 'go on'
Hussein: 'ok'

I hope you haven't fallen victim to being so in love with third millenium righty bashing that you've forgotten what was up in the 90s. I could be wrong. I might have also misconstrued what you meant by fissile (implied beyond 'splitting').

As for the other countries to which you refer, sure let's watch 'em, but at least appreciate the difference between black and white (doesn't exist in politics BTW as your best mate Rudd is finding out :doh:), and grey.

The grey in the Iraq case was
a) it was doable
b) Hussein had already demonstrated a predilection for actual invasion and actual genocide.

So yes, pick at the double standards if you like (but they are grey), but don't deny history (probably just prior to your awareness of these things) and certainly not popular among righty bashers.

pax
19-04-2008, 02:41 AM
Pax, you are aware that Hussein had actual WMD, aren't you?
He certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war (when the West were happily supporting him against Iran). Did he have them prior to the latest invasion? It seems that he probably didn't. He certainly didn't have anything like the capability of causing "mushroom clouds over New York". North Korea, on the other hand probably does have that capability (though delivery may be another matter).

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2008, 02:50 AM
He certainly had chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war (when the West were happily supporting him against Iran).
More leftist bloviating from Pax, the leader of the "we miss Saddam" fan club. Yes, Iraq was considered the lesser evil, just as the mass-murdering Uncle Joe was in WW2 against Adolf. But the reason Iran was so bad was largely due to Jimmy Carter's betrayal of the Shah, allowing the Ayatollahs to turn a pro-Western country into a cesspool of antisemitism and West-hatred.


Did he have them prior to the latest invasion? It seems that he probably didn't.
He acted as if he did, in playing his cat and mouse games with the UN weapons inspectors. This certainly convinced many Dems and KRudd to support the war.

We also know that he funded Palestinian terrorists, e.g. paying large sums to families of suicide bombers.


He certainly didn't have anything like the capability of causing "mushroom clouds over New York". North Korea, on the other hand probably does have that capability (though delivery may be another matter).
Yeah. And Iran should not be allowed to develop this capacity. Israel did the world a favour when they blasted Iraq's nuclear facility to smithereens, much to the howling of the lefties of the day. They will probably have to destroy Iran's by any means necessary.

Axiom
19-04-2008, 05:14 AM
Financial collapse will end the Iraq occupation, but it won't come at a time of Washington's choosing

Mike Whitney
Online Journal
Friday, April 18, 2008

"Come and see our overflowing morgues and find our little ones for us . . .
You may find them in this corner or the other, a little hand poking out, pointing out at you . . .
Come and search for them in the rubble of your "surgical" air raids, you may find a little leg or a little head . . . pleading for your attention.
Come and see them amassed in the garbage dumps, scavenging morsels of food . . .
Come and see, come . . ."
"Flying Kites” by Layla Anwar

The US Military has won every battle it has fought in Iraq, but it has lost the war. Wars are won politically, not militarily.

George W. Bush doesn't understand this. He still clings to the belief that a political settlement can be imposed through force, but he is mistaken. The use of overwhelming force has only spread the violence and added to the political instability.

Now Iraq is ungovernable. Miles of concrete blast-walls snake through Baghdad to separate the warring parties. The country is fragmented into a hundred smaller pieces each ruled by local militia commanders. These are the signs of failure not success. That's why the American people no longer support the occupation. They're just being practical; they know Bush's plan won't work. As Nir Rosen says, “Iraq has become Somalia.”

The administration still supports Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki, but al-Maliki is a meaningless figurehead who will have no effect on the country's future. He has no popular base of support and controls nothing beyond the walls of the Green Zone. The al-Maliki government is merely an Arab façade designed to convince the American people that political progress is being made. But there is no progress; its a sham.
->http://www.************.com/articles/april2008/180408Financial.htm

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2008, 10:48 AM
The US Military has won every battle it has fought in Iraq, but it has lost the war. Wars are won politically, not militarily.
The Vietcong won in Vietnam only because of the treachery of the US Leftmedia. We would have lost WW2 as well if the media were that traitorous. It would have been very easy to gloat about the thousands of deaths on just the first day of the Normandy landings, and whinge about settling with Hitler instead of fighting until unconditional surrender.


George W. Bush doesn't understand this. He still clings to the belief that a political settlement can be imposed through force, but he is mistaken.
It's a true belief. That's how the Allies imposed a political settlement on Germany and Japan. Shrubby's problem is that he is too wussy about imposing overwhelming force, and forces his troops to fight with one hand behind their backs.

In WW2, there would have been no crap about how the majority of Germans are peaceloving people, to parallel the constant bleating about the majority of peaceful Muslims, which is irrelevant (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996).

There were no qualms about bombing the Monte Cassino monastery when it was being used as an important strategic Axis lookout point, unlike the crazy practice of being verboten to fire at a mosque even when being fired upon, or entering one to capture armaments.

And if a Nazi or Japanese fanatic shot at an Allied occupying soldier from a house, it's quite likely that the whole room or even house would have destroyed by a bazooka. That would quickly make it unappetizing to harbour those who attack our troops. But Shrubby quickly dispensed with his early wisdom that those who harbour terrorists would be treated the same as the terrorists themselves.

eclectic
20-04-2008, 10:40 PM
The Vietcong won in Vietnam only because of the treachery of the US Leftmedia.

total

C R A P !!

they won because like all home grown guerilla outfits they knew their own land like the back of their hand plus they were fighting for THEIR land which makes a big difference

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2008, 09:13 AM
total

C R A P !!

they won because like all home grown guerilla outfits they knew their own land like the back of their hand plus they were fighting for THEIR land which makes a big difference
You haven't a clue, as usual for lefties. Thomas Sowell points out in Myths of '68 (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010908.php3):


The events of 1968 have continuing implications for our times but not the implications drawn by those with romantic myths about 1968 and about themselves.

The first of the shocks of 1968 was the sudden eruption of violent attacks by Communist guerillas in the cities of South Vietnam, known as the “Tet offensive,” after a local holiday.

That this sort of widespread urban guerilla warfare was still possible after the rosy claims made by American officials in Washington and Vietnam sent shock waves through the United States.

The conclusion that might have been drawn was that politicians and military commanders should not make rosy predictions. The conclusion that was in fact drawn was that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

In reality, the Tet offensive was one in which the Communist guerilla movement was not only defeated in battle but was virtually annihilated as a major military force. [About 6,300 Americans killed and 21,500 wounded vs. at 85–100 thousand Vietcong deaths] From there on, the job of attacking South Vietnam was a job for the North Vietnam army.

Politically, however, the Tet offensive was an enormous victory for the Communists — not in Vietnam, but in the United States.

The American media, led by Walter Cronkite, pictured the Tet offensive as a defeat for the United States and a sign that the Vietnam War was unwinnable.

That in turn led to the second shock of 1968, President Lyndon Johnson’s announcement that he would not run for re-election. He knew that public support for the war was completely undermined — and that is what in fact made the war politically unwinnable.

Think about it: More than 50,000 Americans gave their lives to win victories on the battlefields of Vietnam that were thrown away back in the United States by the media, by politicians and by rioters in the streets and on campuses.

Years later, Communist leaders in Vietnam admitted that they had not defeated the United States militarily in Vietnam but politically in the United States.

If the media were so inclined, they could easily have demoralized the American public during WW2, portraying equally decisive military victories as defeats. Sowell argues in Western Media: Fourth Estate or Fifth Column? (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4112):


If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining ten fatalities, that is an American victory.

But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today."

This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat in print or on TV. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.

One of the biggest American victories during the Second World War was called "the great Marianas turkey shoot" because American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes over the Marianas islands while losing just 30 American planes. But what if our current reporting practices had been used back then?

The story, as printed and broadcast, could have been: "Today eighteen American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded, as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky." A steady diet of that kind of one-sided reporting and our whole war effort against Japan might have collapsed.

Whether the one-sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in the American defeat there used to be a matter of controversy. But, in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have themselves admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.

BTW, it's so lovely that you defend the communist butchers who overran South Vietnam which was NOT their land, and killed many and threw many others into "re-education".

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2008, 09:40 AM
Worshippers of Death (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450617910806563.html)
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Wall St Journal, 3 March 2008


"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."

How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death?

The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son — if he listens to his mother — can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed. They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment's hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price.

Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others — and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops — the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.

As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at — some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."

Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about "civilians" who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets?

The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable — as the terrorists well understand.

We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 12:11 PM
If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining ten fatalities, that is an American victory.

That rather depends on how many guerillas and terrorists there are, including the potential to recruit more to replace those that have been killed.

It also depends on what contribution the killing of a hundred of them makes to the campaign as a whole, and what that campaign as a whole is actually worth to the US in terms of its national interests.

It is justified scepticism about the value of the war to the USA that makes the media campaign difficult to win in the case of Iraq and made it unwinnable in the case of Vietnam. That scepticism was not present in WWII because in that case it was not justified, and hence there is not much point thinking about what would have happened had reporting then been as "negative".

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2008, 12:43 PM
It also depends on what contribution the killing of a hundred of them makes to the campaign as a whole, and what that campaign as a whole is actually worth to the US in terms of its national interests.
But in this case, it practically finished the Vietcong as a fighting force.


It is justified scepticism about the value of the war to the USA that makes the media campaign difficult to win in the case of Iraq and made it unwinnable in the case of Vietnam.
If the Leftmedia are determined to skew reporting, then no war would be winnable. It's notable that they are relatively silent about Iraq at the moment, since the "surge" seems to be working.


That scepticism was not present in WWII because in that case it was not justified, and hence there is not much point thinking about what would have happened had reporting then been as "negative".
Actually, for quite a while, WW2 looked lost for the Allies. Hitler had taken all of Western Europe, and Britain was lucky to escape at Dunkirk. The media would have had more justification to gloat about casualties and urge suing for peace, and using their current moral relativist crap. Indeed, leftist clergy on WW2 sound much like leftist clergy and other leftists today about Iraq, as documented in The End of Illusions: Religious Leaders Confront Hitler's Gathering Storm by Joseph Loconte (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1256902/posts):


Paul L. Blakely declares that "[i]n the moment that this country goes to war, the guarantees of the American Constitution will be swept aside by a dictatorship."

Georgia Harkness calls for an "international police force in a world federation of states.... involving some surrender of national sovereignty and much economic reorganization."

Harry Emerson Fosdick asserts that "the all but unanimous judgment seems to be that we, the democracies, are just as responsible for the rise of the dictators as the dictatorships themselves, and perhaps more so."

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 01:42 PM
But in this case, it practically finished the Vietcong as a fighting force.

Ten Americans dying to kill a hundred insurgents doesn't necessarily finish anything except for a hundred and ten human lives.


If the Leftmedia are determined to skew reporting, then no war would be winnable.

Then what does the winning of some wars suggest? That the "Leftmedia" were not determined to skew reporting about those wars?


It's notable that they are relatively silent about Iraq at the moment, since the "surge" seems to be working.

What is it doing that counts as "working", in terms of a long-term solution?


Actually, for quite a while, WW2 looked lost for the Allies. Hitler had taken all of Western Europe, and Britain was lucky to escape at Dunkirk. The media would have had more justification to gloat about casualties and urge suing for peace, and using their current moral relativist crap.

I was talking about whether the war could be portrayed as worth winning, not about how winnable it was. It is easy for the public to lose interest in an arguably winnable war if it isn't worth winning anyway. A difficult war that is worth winning is a different matter.

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2008, 02:49 PM
Ten Americans dying to kill a hundred insurgents doesn't necessarily finish anything except for a hundred and ten human lives.
OK, same applies to the Marianas Turkey Shoot then. And it is still a huge leftmedia propaganda ploy to report only the 10 Americans who died while omitting the 100 terrorists killed.

BTW, how can foreign terrorists in Iraq be "insurgents" in someone else's country? The use of this word is another Leftmedia ploy.


Then what does the winning of some wars suggest? That the "Leftmedia" were not determined to skew reporting about those wars?
That's right! And in WW2, the media would not have released details of plans to cope with the Axis, e.g. the fact that we were decoding their signals, the way the NYT exposed how America was tracking the funds of terrorists.


What is it doing that counts as "working", in terms of a long-term solution?
Getting the Iraqis to help against al Qaida for one thing.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2008, 03:30 PM
BTW, how can foreign terrorists in Iraq be "insurgents" in someone else's country? The use of this word is another Leftmedia ploy.

Do you know what proportion of the opponents are foreigners?


That's right!

Well if that's the case then the "Leftmedia" are obviously discerning about which wars they talk down instead of being out and out peaceniks for all occassions.


Getting the Iraqis to help against al Qaida for one thing.

Will they do that indefinitely?

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2008, 01:42 AM
Do you know what proportion of the opponents are foreigners?
Al Qaida is not Iraqi, it's late leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was Jordanian, and his successor may be an Eqyptian.


Well if that's the case then the "Leftmedia" are obviously discerning about which wars they talk down instead of being out and out peaceniks for all occassions.
Or they were loyal to their country 65 years ago. But the point remains that they could easily have demoralized the public about WW2 by the same kind of selective reporting that they are doing now.


Will they do that indefinitely?
Quite likely, since they are realising that al Qaida are not their friends. About the only thing to encourage al Qaida would be the Surrendercrats winning the presidency and cutting and running.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2008, 01:51 AM
Al Qaida is not Iraqi, it's late leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was Jordanian, and his successor may be an Eqyptian.

While Al-Q certainly have a paw in the mix, do you have any evidence they are a large proportion of the "insurgents"?

I did find this (http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesA98.html) from the LA Times which says that even most Al-Q operatives inside Iraq are Iraqis, but they don't tend to fill the suicide bomber role within the group.


Or they were loyal to their country 65 years ago. But the point remains that they could easily have demoralized the public about WW2 by the same kind of selective reporting that they are doing now.

I'm not convinced that people would have bought it.


Quite likely, since they are realising that al Qaida are not their friends.

OK, so assuming they do realise that, once al Q get bored and go away, are the remaining Iraqi insurgent groups going to lose interest in resisting?

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2008, 02:02 AM
I did find this (http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimesA98.html) from the LA Times which says that even most Al-Q operatives inside Iraq are Iraqis, but they don't tend to fill the suicide bomber role within the group.
Interesting that the article is called:


Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined:
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.


I'm not convinced that people would have bought it.
Tell a lie often enough ... the lie about the Tet Offensive was just as gross as the hypothetical one about the Marianas Turkey Shoot, in terms of ignoring the enormously greater casualties inflicted on the enemy.


OK, so assuming they do realise that, once al Q get bored and go away, are the remaining Iraqi insurgent groups going to lose interest in resisting?
If the Iraqis prefer their own government rather than al Q and groups similar to them, and realise if the Americans cut and run, it would be worse for them. Look what happened to the Kurds after Shrubby Sr. abandoned them after encouraging them to revolt, or the South Vietnamese when the Dems pulled the Yanks out.

pax
22-04-2008, 06:04 PM
Al Qaida is not Iraqi, it's late leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was Jordanian, and his successor may be an Eqyptian.

Yet reports out of Iraq put most of the violence at present down to Moqtada al Sadr's Shia militias and various dissident Sunni groups.. Al-Qaida is there, but it is far from clear that most of the insurgents/terrorists are foreign.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2008, 12:03 PM
"Let's be clear about Howard's reasons for war. In the legal opinion he tabled last March, the only reason canvassed was to eliminate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. No humanitarian reason was advanced."
— Kevin Rudd, The Australian, 4 February 2004


"We’re talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from the child’s parents. This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs in order to force a confession or compliance. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed the crime of criticising it would be punished by the amputation of tongues. Since Saddam Hussein’s regime came to power in 1979 he has attacked his neighbours and he’s ruthlessly oppressed ethnic and religious groups in Iraq — more than one million people have died in internal conflicts and wars. Some four million Iraqis have chosen exile. Two hundred thousand have disappeared from his jails never to be seen again. He has cruelly and cynically manipulated the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He’s rorted it to buy weapons to support his designs at the expense of the well-being of his people. Since the Gulf War the people of Iraq have not only endured a cruel and despotic regime but they’ve had to suffer economic deprivation, hunger and sickness.

And we should never forget that economic sanctions imposed have had a humanitarian cost. That cost has been made worse by Saddam Hussein’s rorting of the sanctions regime. Those sanctions could have been lifted years ago if Iraq had complied with the requirements of Security Council resolutions about disarmament.

It is too easy to limit, it’s too easy for some people to limit the humanitarian considerations to the consequences of military conflict. In truth there’s nothing easy or reassuring or comfortable about the problem of Iraq. Surely it is undeniable that if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime would produce a better life and less suffering for the people of Iraq than its continuation."
— John Howard, National Press Club address, 13 March 2003 — 7 days before the Iraq invasion.

Furthermore, if Bush and Howard lied about WMDs, then so did Rudd!

Saddam "has invaded his neighbours, in complete violation of international law, and he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which in the past he has used against his own people as well as his neighbours. None of these matters are the subject of dispute."
— Kevin Rudd, Hansard, 17 September 2002.


"There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does."
— Kevin Rudd, Lateline, 24 September 2002.

Aaron Guthrie
24-04-2008, 07:24 PM
One of Chairman Rudd's falsehoods on the Iraq warWouldn't the legal opinion that Howard tabled be more apt to quote? What does quoting the national press club address show? Only that Howard advanced reasons elsewhere that there were other reasons for the war. So perhaps what Rudd said was deceptive, but you have given the Rudd quote out of context.

edit- I looked at the article, which was actually written by Rudd. He doesn't give any reason in the article for looking at the legal opinion as the representitive opinion of Howards reasons for going to war. He futher says (in the sentence following what was quoted) ""Liberating an oppressed people" has been a rationalisation advanced by the Prime Minister after the WMD argument came unstuck."

So it seems to be deceptive.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2008, 07:57 PM
Wouldn't the legal opinion that Howard tabled be more apt to quote? What does quoting the national press club address show? Only that Howard advanced reasons elsewhere that there were other reasons for the war.
Which were actually pretty standard from both GWB and JWH. WMDs were never the only reason.


So perhaps what Rudd said was deceptive, but you have given the Rudd quote out of context.

edit- I looked at the article, which was actually written by Rudd. He doesn't give any reason in the article for looking at the legal opinion as the representitive opinion of Howards reasons for going to war. He futher says (in the sentence following what was quoted) ""Liberating an oppressed people" has been a rationalisation advanced by the Prime Minister after the WMD argument came unstuck."
I.e. the WMD argument that KRudd accepted, as did many of the leading Dems including Heilary and Wilhelm!

Axiom
24-04-2008, 08:16 PM
Which were actually pretty standard from both GWB and JWH. WMDs were never the only reason.


I.e. the WMD argument that KRudd accepted, as did many of the leading Dems including Heilary and Wilhelm!
and why do you think this is ?
because they all are subject to the same intelligence directives from the same owners ?

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 11:59 AM
Iraq in Review: (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDE4MGE3MWM1YWIxMTkyZjUyNGZkODQyYTY3NmQ5ZDA=)
Is there anything left of the antiwar Left’s criticisms of the Iraq war?

By Victor Davis Hanson


Many commentators on Iraq had no strong ideas about the wisdom of removing Saddam Hussein, but often predicated their evolving views on the basis of whether we were perceived as winning or losing — and later made the necessary and often fluid adjustments. So in light of the changing pulse of the battlefield, it is time once again to examine carefully a few of the now commonplace critiques of the Iraq war.

1. We took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan by going into Iraq, thereby allowing the Taliban to regain the advantage.

Any two-theater war can result in less resources allotted to one of the two fronts. But such multiple-front wars, whether in World War II or the Cold War, have never stymied the United States military. More importantly, if we are truly in a global war against Islamic extremists — as al-Qaeda itself reminded us when it announced that Iraq was the key front in their jihad against infidel crusaders — then the problem is not necessarily fighting the insurgents in Iraq, but whether it is a theater conducive to our aims and resources — and can be won.

In other words, Iraq simply upped the ante of a larger war, promising disaster if we lost, and enormous advantages if we won. Progress in Iraq is already having positive effects in Afghanistan, where an experienced American counterinsurgency force is fighting extremists who know that their kindred are on the verge of losing militarily and politically in Iraq, and are afraid that the same bitter calculus now applies to them.

In the first years, the odds were with the terrorists — given indigenous Muslim local populations, the hostile neighborhood of a Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and anti-war fervor at home and abroad. But once the U.S. military defeated al-Qaeda in Anbar, the population turned on Islamic terrorists, and the elected Iraqi government gained stature, then Islamists in and out of Iraq suffered a terrible defeat.

We learned to fight a war of counterinsurgency and win hearts and minds far from home; they lost an insurgency — and with it the support of the local and once naturally sympathetic Muslim population. Note that suddenly journalists, intelligence analysts, and politicians are struck by al-Qaeda’s implosion, as the Muslim street turns on radical Islamists, who themselves are torn apart by internal ideological schisms.

While many critics remain too heavily invested in antiwar positions staked out between 2003–7 to cite the war as a contributory cause, the obvious catalyst for al-Qaeda’s fiasco is its terrible performance in Iraq. Remember, if Americans adjusted their own support for the war on their perceptions of the success or failure of the U.S. military, why wouldn’t millions in the Middle East do the same with radical Islamists like al-Qaeda, whose fortunes on the battlefield have only gone from bad to worse?

2. Bush lied about the war and entered it under the false circumstances of fears of WMD and Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda.

Bush erred in focusing on WMDs when the Senate and House approved over 20 writs for war, all of them as valid now as they were in October 2002. That said, it is hard to find a single prominent congressional critic of the war who has made the case that the administration itself altered intelligence information, doctored reports, or had substantially different assessments than those provided to Congress or offered up by foreign governments. The reason recent critics of the war such as Sen. Rockefeller are utterly unconvincing in their allegations of administration malfeasance is that the record shows that they themselves had access to the same information, and often outdid the President in their prewar rhetoric and saber-rattling about Saddam.

But again, the battlefield, rightly or wrongly, colors these controversies. In a world in which there is no longer a Saddam Hussein (who would now have had his hands on trillions of dollars in oil revenue), a Libyan WMD program, and Dr. Khan’s nuclear export business, the proliferation issue is becoming less contentious. (If one were to believe the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran ceased its weapons-grade nuclear track opportunely right after Saddam’s capture). Since 2003, thousands of Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda’s notables have been killed, and the organization routed and discredited; it is hard to see how Iraq has not had positive effects in curbing proliferation and damaging the organization that was responsible for 9/11. Moreover, disputes about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s post-Afghanistan odyssey, assorted terrorists in Saddam’s Baghdad in 2003, or al-Qaeda in Kurdistan during Saddam’s rule become less contentious with the knowledge that al-Qaeda, between 2003–7, tried to win, and then lost, Iraq.



7. Our military is nearly ruined and the war was never worth the cost.

We have paid a high price for our efforts with thousands of dead and wounded, and billions spent. But if the deterioration of a-Qaeda continues, America is kept safe, and the Middle East at last has some alternative to the dismal autocratic norm — one that curbs future oil-fed extremism — then Iraq will be the most important American achievement since the end of the Cold War. If we lose or quit, and Iraq devolves along the lines of the badlands of Pakistan, then, yes, the losses were not worth it.

For all the wear and tear on our military, recruitments are up, we have developed the most sophisticated and experienced anti-insurgent force in the world, and we are just beginning to shake-up the entire military by promoting a new generation of brilliant officers who came of age in the cauldron of Iraq.

In the end, the U.S. military has achieved the near impossible by removing the worst government in the Middle East and fostering what has a real chance to become by far the best. In some sense, whether Iraq was worth the high cost depends on whether one thinks the present-day liberal and humane democracies in Europe, Japan, and Korea were likewise worth the past, and far more terrible, price that America paid in blood and treasure to secure their enduring freedom.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2008, 04:28 PM
Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4221376.ece)
Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are in retreat, the surge has worked in Iraq and Islamism is discredited. Not a bad haul
Gerard Baker


... the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!”

...

Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.
...

The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings, the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.

The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed and its appeal.

This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the surge to be so effective.

But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists.

Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have turned against the movement.

There ought to be no surprise here. It's only their apologists in the Western media who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists. Those who have had to live with it have never been in much doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the Taleban.


I blame Bush and McCain!

Isolationists like Buchanan and surrender monkeys like Obama would undo all the good work and embolden the Islamofascists, as Chamberlain did for Hitler.

Axiom
28-06-2008, 05:12 PM
Jono , those last 2 articles are pure propaganda garbage

al-qaeda is a CIA invention ....z brezinski. http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war.http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_We_went_to_war_for_0626.html

Basil
28-06-2008, 05:37 PM
Cheer up. We're winning this War on Terror
The 'cringers' and the 'opposed to war because they were opposed to the government' will not permit the 'winning of the war' into the debate. However they reserve fully hysterical and diversionary rights to summon the issue of 'losing the war' into the debate at will.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2008, 02:07 PM
al-qaeda is a CIA invention ....z brezinski. http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
Someone must tell that to Osama, who Klinton let slip from his grasp.


Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war.http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_We_went_to_war_for_0626.html
Kucinich is a loopy statist, and a dishonestly opportunistic flip-flopper on abortion just to advance in the Dem party (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich022003.asp).

Axiom
29-06-2008, 02:50 PM
Someone must tell that to Osama, who Klinton let slip from his grasp. :hmm: I wonder why....



Kucinich is a loopy statist, and a dishonestly opportunistic flip-flopper on abortion just to advance in the Dem party[/URL].
jono , there are far graver crimes committed in washington !

Capablanca-Fan
13-08-2008, 11:38 AM
Misotheist Christopher Hitchens (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5924) now agrees the war in Iraq is won — and demands answers from the Defeatocrat Lefties like the Obamessiah that preached surrender (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24171171-7583,00.html):


[Democrat Carl Levin] knows perfectly well what used to happen to Iraq's oil wealth, which was prostituted through a UN program and diverted to such noble causes as the subsidy of suicide bombers in Gaza and the financing of pro-Saddam and "anti-war" politicians in London, Paris and Moscow.

While this criminal enrichment of Iraqi and overseas elites was taking place, the population of the country was living on garbage and drinking tainted water as a result of the UN-mandated international sanctions.


I remind you that, as little as a year ago, the whole of smart liberal opinion believed that the dissolution of Baathism and militarism had been a mistake, that Iraq itself was a bottomless pit of wasted dollars and pointless casualties and that the only option was to withdraw as fast as possible and let the inevitable civil war burn itself out



(Today) major combat operations appear to be over, and to that extent one can belatedly say, “Mission accomplished”. If there is any Iraqi nostalgia for the old party and the old army, it is remarkably well-concealed. Iraq no longer plays deceptive games with weapons of mass destruction or plays host to international terrorist groups.

It is no longer subject to sanctions that punish its people and enrich its rulers. Its religious and ethnic minorities—together a majority—are no longer treated like disposable trash. Its most bitter internal argument is about the timing of the next provincial and national elections.

Surely it is those who opposed every step of this emancipation, rather than those who advocated it, who should be asked to explain and justify themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2008, 06:17 PM
Victory must have been a sheer fluke, then (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/victory_must_have_been_a_sheer_fluke_then/)
Andrew Bolt, 6 September 08


Finally Barack Obama admits (kind of) the truth about the victory in Iraq (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/):


“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Er, correction, Senator. Here are two people who did anticipate that success, which is precisely why they courageously argued for the winning strategy you foolishly opposed:


George Bush.
John McCain.

Axiom
06-09-2008, 06:56 PM
Victory must have been a sheer fluke, then (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/victory_must_have_been_a_sheer_fluke_then/)
Andrew Bolt, 6 September 08


Finally Barack Obama admits (kind of) the truth about the victory in Iraq (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/):


“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Er, correction, Senator. Here are two people who did anticipate that success, which is precisely why they courageously argued for the winning strategy you foolishly opposed:


George Bush.
John McCain.

1.25 million dead iraqis , a small price to pay , for western oil corporation access to iraqi oil , and haliburton war machine profits?

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2008, 09:20 PM
1.25 million dead iraqis , a small price to pay , for western oil corporation access to iraqi oil , and haliburton war machine profits?
how many of those were killed by Saddam or the rorted UN sanctions? And it would have been much more profitable for Haliburton, in which Michael Moore holds shares, to drill ANWR or Colorado's oil shale—or just take Kuwait's.

MichaelBaron
06-09-2008, 09:45 PM
So what is the solution to the Iraq mess? Is there one?

Axiom
06-09-2008, 10:33 PM
how many of those were killed by Saddam or the rorted UN sanctions? not a fraction as many.

And it would have been much more profitable for Haliburton, in which Michael Moore holds shares, to drill ANWR or Colorado's oil shale—or just take Kuwait's.
except then they wouldn't have the tax payer foot the war bill as cover , they might actually have to put up the investment themselves !

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2008, 12:48 PM
1.25 million dead iraqis , a small price to pay , for western oil corporation access to iraqi oil , and haliburton war machine profits?
Could you please provide a credible information on how many were killed by US, what were other sources of death and what is a breakdown?

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2008, 12:55 PM
Could you please provide a credible information on how many were killed by US, what were other sources of death and what is a breakdown?
Yeah, even the leftist Lancet claimed only half that, this study has been accused of gross exaggeration (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lancet_misdiagnoses_iraq_again/), even by Iraqis (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20567099-5006003,00.html).

Conversely, even in 2000 (http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm):


U.N. officials estimate more than 1 million Iraqis have died in the last decade as a direct result of the sanctions. ... UNICEF blames the sanctions for the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 since 1991.

Axiom
07-09-2008, 02:19 PM
Could you please provide a credible information on how many were killed by US, what were other sources of death and what is a breakdown?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2008, 03:07 PM
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
I asked for:
a) Credible source.
b) breakdown of the cause of death (how many iraqis are killed by US forces,
how many are killed by US - backed government, how many were killed by Husein government, how many are killed by anti-US miliant, etc.)

Axiom
07-09-2008, 07:00 PM
I asked for:
a) Credible source.
b) breakdown of the cause of death (how many iraqis are killed by US forces,
how many are killed by US - backed government, how many were killed by Husein government, how many are killed by anti-US miliant, etc.)
a) it included the lancet source (600,000 as of 2006) !
b)none killed by hussain as these figures are post 2003 !
for a break down of the figures , i would like to know too , but where are we to find such figures ? But i suggest you do not rely on the corporate media for this information .

Axiom
07-09-2008, 07:01 PM
Yeah, even the leftist Lancet claimed only half that, this study has been accused of gross exaggeration (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lancet_misdiagnoses_iraq_again/), even by Iraqis (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20567099-5006003,00.html).

Conversely, even in 2000 (http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm):


U.N. officials estimate more than 1 million Iraqis have died in the last decade as a direct result of the sanctions. ... UNICEF blames the sanctions for the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 since 1991.
who would you trust over the lancet ?
the american puppet iraqi govt ?? :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 10:59 AM
A Truman for our times (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10309)
Edward Luttwak
Prospect, August 2008


The received wisdom is that President Bush has been a foreign policy disaster, and that America is threatened by the rise of Asia. Both claims are wrong—Bush has successfully rolled back jihadism, and the US will benefit from Asian growth

...

Of course, the Bush victory has not yet been recognised, which is very odd indeed because it has all happened in full view.

Until 9/11, Islamic militants, including violent jihadists of every sort, from al Qaeda to purely local outfits, enjoyed much public support—either overt or tacit—across most of the Muslim world. From Morocco to Indonesia, governments appeased militants at home while encouraging them to focus their violent activities abroad…

All this came to an abrupt end after 9/11. Sophisticates everywhere ridiculed the uncompromising Bush stance, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” as a cowboy stunt, but it was swiftly successful. Governments across the Muslim world quickly changed their conduct…

In different ways, other governments in Muslim countries all the way to Indonesia also took their stand with Bush and the US against the jihadists, even though jihad against the infidel is widely regarded as an Islamic duty. Suddenly, active Islamists and violent jihadists suffered a catastrophic loss of status. Instead of being admired, respected or at least tolerated, they had to hide, flee or give it up. Numbers started to shrink. The number of terrorist incidents outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq keeps going down…

Yet one hears well-informed people casually remark that Bush’s war on terror has been a total failure.... But one need not be Sherlock Holmes to recall that 11th September was meant to be the beginning of a global jihad, with a 12th September, 13th September, 14th September and so on… Instead, the global jihadi mobilisation, triggered by post-9/11 enthusiasm for Osama bin Laden, was stopped before it could gain any momentum by all that Bush set in motion: the destruction of al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, the killing or capture of most of its operatives, and, most importantly, the conversion of Muslim governments from the support of jihad to its repression.
...

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:28 AM
More on that pillock who threw like a girl (as Ann Coulter would say (http://therightangle1911.blogspot.com/2008/01/essence-of-liberal.html)) and loves the mass-murderer Che Guevara:


Interviews with Mr. al-Zaidi’s family and co-workers reveal a man with ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party (http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/brother-is-proud-of-shoe-tossing-iraqi-journalist/) … The correspondent for Al Baghdadiya, an independent Iraqi television station, had previously been detained in November 2007 by “a particular party” — his brother didn’t reveal whether American or Iraqi –- after videotaping the scene of an improvised explosive device that targeted an American Humvee… Muntader al-Zaidi was the head of the student union under Saddam Hussein ...One former colleague at al-Baghdadiya who now works for the Iraqi government said that “Muntader was very keen to attract attention to himself. He would do anything to become famous.” ... Maythem al-Zaidi said has been contacted from about 100 Iraqi and foreign lawyers offering their services free of charge — including Saddam Hussein’s lawyer…

Of course, if he had thrown shoes as his buddy Saddam (http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/12/18/suppose_the_shoe_thrower_targeted_saddam), he wouldn't have needed shoes since he would have been fed to a shredder feet first.

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2008, 10:14 PM
More on that pillock who threw like a girl

Would you have preferred him to throw a grenade?


Of course, if he had thrown shoes as his buddy Saddam (http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/12/18/suppose_the_shoe_thrower_targeted_saddam), he wouldn't have needed shoes since he would have been fed to a shredder feet first.

While there is no doubt Saddam was a very nasty piece of work responsible for numerous terrible human rights violations, the publicly available evidence that the shredder existed falls a fair way short of conclusive, IMO.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 10:27 PM
Would you have preferred him to throw a grenade?
No. But the president's bodyguards didn't know that, so were slack in allowing that pillock to throw two of anything.

Fact remains, that if this pillock had thrown shoes at his heros Saddam and Guevara, he wouldn't have got off lightly. GWB is a target with fewer consequences, so his act required no courage.

It reminds me of the big brave BBC execs who say they would throw a Bible into a wastebin a TV show, but wouldn't dare do that to the Koran (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html).


While there is no doubt Saddam was a very nasty piece of work responsible for numerous terrible human rights violations,
About 17,000 murdered according to Amnesty International; 290,000 according to Human Rights Watch. A most worthy recipient of the death penalty.


the publicly available evidence that the shredder existed falls a fair way short of conclusive, IMO.
Probably right. The main point stands though, that he meted out far harsher punishment to lesser dissenter.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2008, 11:14 AM
Britain has lost the stomach for a fight (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5375770.ece) (unlike Bush-led America)
Michael Portillo, former British conservative Defence Secretary
Sunday Times (UK), 21 Dec 2008

Last week Gordon Brown announced a date for Britain’s withdrawal from Iraq… He did not dwell on Britain’s humiliation in Basra, nor mention that this is the most inglorious withdrawal since Sir Anthony Eden ordered the boys back from Suez. ...

(Tony) Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias…

The secondary cause of failure was a misplaced British disdain for America, shared by our politicians and senior military. In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys… Pride has certainly come before a fall. British commanders underestimated both the enemy’s effectiveness and the Americans’ ability to adapt… Around the same time Jack Keane, an American general, moaned that it was frustrating to see the “situation in Basra that was once working pretty well, now coming apart"…

If a fair-minded account of the Iraq war is written, credit should go to President Bush for rejecting two years ago the report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that called for force reductions. He defied conventional wisdom and ordered a troop surge instead. It has been an extraordinary success and, unlike Britain, the Americans will not withdraw in defeat… In the end Bush was not a quitter. Blair “cut and ran”.

Britain’s shaming was completed in March 2008 when Iraqi forces, backed by the US, moved decisively against the Mahdi Army, inflicting huge casualties and removing them from Basra. Operation Charge of the Knights was supervised by Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, exasperated that Iraq’s second city was controlled not by Britain but by an Iranian-backed Shi’ite militia…

It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class… The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2009, 10:27 AM
Condi Sees Future Peace in the Middle East

Two weeks after leaving office as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice defended President George W. Bush’s Middle East policies and said she can foresee peace in the Middle East.

Rice spoke at the Anti-Defamation League’s annual dinner in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 5, where she became the first woman to be honored with the organization’s Distinguished Statesman Award.

Referring to her service in the Bush administration, Rice said, “It’s been an extraordinary eight years and, yes, quite frankly, I’m glad it’s over.”

Rice told the gathering that when she hears criticism that Bush’s policies worsened the situation in the Middle East, she wonders which Middle East they are talking about.

“Would that be the Middle East with Saddam Hussein in power, the Middle East in which he put 300,000 of his people in mass graves?” she said in remarks reported by the Palm Beach Daily News.

“Was it that Middle East that was so good in 2001? Or maybe it was the Middle East that, below the surface, was spawning al-Qaida … Or perhaps it was the Middle East that refused the agreement of Camp David in 2000 and instead launched another intifada when hundreds of Israelis died in Tel Aviv discos and pizza parlors.

“President Bush — and I’m proud to have served with him — did not accept that Middle East.”

Rice said the Middle East will change for the better “because, ultimately, men and women in the Middle East will not accept that it is all right to kill the innocent. Ultimately, men and women in the Middle East will not accept that is all right to treat women like second-, third-, and fourth-class citizens. Ultimately, men and women in the Middle East will want to live in peace with Israel.”

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2012, 02:57 AM
Syria’s Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam’s Iraq (http://clashdaily.com/2012/12/syrias-chemical-weapons-came-from-saddams-iraq/)

By Clash Daily, 6 December 2012

As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein’s air force says they were the WMDs we didn’t find in Iraq.