U.S. options in Iraq worsen as unrest grows

[STEED]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-27-iraqoptions_x.htm

Bit of a problem for Mr Bush.

[Skybird]

Disclaimer:
This thread has not been started by Skybird. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

Disclaimer:
This thread has not been started by Skybird. ;)
We knew that when we saw that the link wasn't 200 pages long. :smug:

[bradclark1]

I think that stands to reason, but there is never going to be a right time to do anything in Iraq anyway.

[STEED]

I think that stands to reason, but there is never going to be a right time to do anything in Iraq anyway.

Good Point it's a tricky situation for Mr Bush

[blue3golf]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.

[STEED]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.

If that's the case it's time for the US and the UK to pull out.

[The Avon Lady]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.
If that's the case it's time for the US and the UK to pull out.
Before we can deal with Iran... (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010340.php)

And read the accompanying comments. :yep:

[Iceman]

Funny to listen to you guys talk about world politics.If America followed the "Rules" of War...then Iraq would now be America's footstool..all opposition killed...all oil would now be in Total U.S. control...ya babble on about what to do what to do...well the choices are clear.....take the same stance as Hitler or Japan in it's thinking of warfare or do it the current way which is NOT the way of WAR.

My understanding of war in the past the spoils always went to the victor.

Don't confuse me in what I say or mean...all I mean is be careful for what you wish for....America already has the games from the old Ceaser/Roman era...It in only a matter of time till the coliseum games return and Iraqi's or whoever are cast into the arena for fun.

Great World huh? :up:
http://www.goodart.org/jgglad.jpg

[Skybird]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.
It's their place, so it is okay with me. Our effort should be to keep them where they are.

[Skybird]

And read the accompanying comments. :yep:

You eventually mean comments like this...?

That light in Bush's/Condi's eyes more closely resembles a TV test-pattern than intelligence.


:rotfl:

[STEED]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.
It's their place, so it is okay with me. Our effort should be to keep them where they are.

So we pull out of Iraq but stay put in the Middle East?

[Skybird]

Do you know what the German word "Zwickmühle" means? Generally it means that whatever you do, you loose. There is no option in terms of a solution. Stay there, or pull out - it doesn't matter. The only solution would be to go back to 1991 and then not stopping in the middle of the action again (and evading all the other traps that would have popped up after the removal of Saddam back then: for example wanting to install a democracy there - that was the mother of all follies. But noone believed me in 2003, and I assume you will not believe me today.)

[STEED]

A mess made even worst and yet there is more to come a greater mess?

[blue3golf]

We can't win either way. Pulling out means we lose everything and those that didn't come home was in vain. If we stay it's gonna be the same as now. Maybe isolationism like back in the day wass the way to go.

[Onkel Neal]

Disclaimer:
This thread has not been started by Skybird. ;)

:rotfl:

[Ishmael]

It's all about oil and petrodollars. Saddam wasn't a threat until he started demanding payment in euros instead of dollars. Then the drumbeat for war started. Iran announces it is setting up an oil bourse or market for euros instead of dollars. Now the drumbeat for war with Iran starts. Bush asks for $76 mil in emergency aid to help dissidents in Iran. The US overthrew Mossadegh in the 50's and installed the Shah. 25 years later that bears fruit with Khomeini and the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. We arm Afghani freedom fighters in the 80's. This morphs into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. God knows what seeds will sprout from this misadventure in Iraq. We already have a budding Islamic republic in the south. We should take a page from the Germans and start synthesizing diesel fuel from coal, drill anywhere in the US for oil and make this country energy independent.

I would also explore the idea of union with Mexico. A recent poll revealed that 50% of Mexicans polled would move to the US given the opportunity. Let's move the US to them. Trade our current porous 2000 mile border for a 400 mile one with Guatemala and Belize. Oh, did I mention that Mexico has oil too? I realize I am somewhat biased in this direction, but it was my ancestor Gen. Winfield Scott, who conquered Mexico in 1845. I also have more in common with my Catholic neighbors to the south than with a bunch of Muslims halfway around the world. Other benefits would be bringing all those maquilladora factories under US control and US wage and hour laws for Mexicans, not to mention a huge pool of labor for social security taxes. So say it loud!

Statehood for Mexico!

[Torplexed]

We could call it Meximerica. Or Amerexico. ;)

[Ducimus]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.

We can't win either way. Pulling out means we lose everything and those that didn't come home was in vain. If we stay it's gonna be the same as now. Maybe isolationism like back in the day wass the way to go.

I've always wondered what the average GI over there is htinking. As a veteran i think i have an idea, but honestly, i know better then think that. . Like ive told a few people about my own experiences, "you weren't there, how would you know?! how could you possibly understand?!". LIkewise, while im a vet with his own experiences - i wasnt in this particualr slice of hell, how would i know? So ive always been curious as to what the boots on the ground are thinking.

As for pulling out, im all for it, and im against it. Pulling out would mean that comrades have died for nothing. Staying put isnt exactly rosy either. What do you do? Personnaly when faced with a similar experience, i just stopped thinking about it and lived one day at a time. Not much else you can do really. When i got out of the service, i did find myself as a newfound Isolationism fan, with a through disgust of overpatriotic flagwavers wraping themselves in the flag, and watching CNN like its a football game.

[Mustang]

I've been there twice now and the funny thing is they don't want freedom or anything else. They want it their way, period.

We can't win either way. Pulling out means we lose everything and those that didn't come home was in vain. If we stay it's gonna be the same as now. Maybe isolationism like back in the day wass the way to go.

I've always wondered what the average GI over there is htinking. As a veteran i think i have an idea, but honestly, i know better then think that. . Like ive told a few people about my own experiences, "you weren't there, how would you know?! how could you possibly understand?!". LIkewise, while im a vet with his own experiences - i wasnt in this particualr slice of hell, how would i know? So ive always been curious as to what the boots on the ground are thinking.

As for pulling out, im all for it, and im against it. Pulling out would mean that comrades have died for nothing. Staying put isnt exactly rosy either. What do you do? Personnaly when faced with a similar experience, i just stopped thinking about it and lived one day at a time. Not much else you can do really. When i got out of the service, i did find myself as a newfound Isolationism fan, with a through disgust of overpatriotic flagwavers wraping themselves in the flag, and watching CNN like its a football game.

It sounds like Nam all over again, but this time those kids Opted for it. they wanted to join the military whereas in there we were forced into it. So its the same hell brought on by politics, only our kids chose this one so in a way it is worse then Nam. I wanted more for our future, not the same thing.

[Skybird]

It sounds like Nam all over again, but this time those kids Opted for it. they wanted to join the military whereas in there we were forced into it. So its the same hell brought on by politics, only our kids chose this one so in a way it is worse then Nam. (...)

Really? Is really every young and green soldier aware of what is ahead of him when as a young boy he joins the military, having seen those tasty TV spots, having lived his teenage years by an impression that war is as clean an affair like those TV pics seem to express? Could those kids really have known in advance? Could they really form independent opinions when beeing raised in an excessively patriotic climate that sometimes almost forbids to ask critical questions to the president? And news medias only report heavily streamlined infos? Ducimus called it the "disgust of overpatriotic flagwavers wraping themselves in the flag, and watching CNN like its a football game." Well, that could have been from me :) Back in 2003 I was under heavy fire here on this board when I attacked the wisdom to go to war and questioned Bush's motives and understanding again and again. But most of the time I left the regular military, the single individual soldier out of it. My anger never was with them, or the principles on which America had been founded. My anger was with the widening gap between these prionciples on paper, and today'S reality and real motives of politics. Veterans usually do not easily vote for war - they know it better. And it is not the young boy's fault that they have been born and raised in this and no other social, over-patriotic climate that teaches them misleading perceptions of what war is. Recruiters visit school classes with pupils of age 15, 16 - kids they are, and often they get talked into something that they cannot know better at that age. I never was angry on those young ones beeing sent over there. I assume most of them really believed that they were participating in something good and that they could trust the motives of their supreme commander in the WH. Naive maybe, but not evil. In a way they had my sympathy, or compassion. Having worked in the field of traumatization myself for a short while, and having red about the late conseqeunces of the war 1991 (Gulf war syndrom, post-stress-syndrom, destruction of chemical weapons sites by open explosions, oil in the atmosphere, Uranium ammunition) I must assume that the real casualties of the foreign armies in Iraq already are in the range of high tens of thousands, if not beyond the 100.000-barrier. And most people will carry their wounds invisible, inside themselves, for the rest of their lifes.

This is what recruiters in schools usually do not tell you, and what the TV commercials hide from you. From my German perspective I find this habit of recruiters poatrolling schools and streets - shameful.

So, maybe you want to be a bit more forgiving or direct your criticism into another direction instead of saying "the kids opted for it"? Or did I understand your attitude wrong here? The politcial and economical decision makers, the think tanks - this is where to look for the guilty ones. Your troops in Iraq - somehow they are joining the rows of the many civilian victims (and the latter are the one who pay the real toll for this mess).

Nichts für ungut! ;)

[August]

Stay the course.

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

Thomas Paine "The Crisis"

[The Avon Lady]

and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
In this case, who's freedom? The US' or Iraq's?

If the US', what needs to be done in Iraq with regard to US freedom?

If Iraq's, what if they don't want US style freedom, as has been pointed out?

[Skybird]

Fight or don't, there is no in between. But it is exactly such seductive words like those you quoted that deserve my disgust, August. It is the kind of talking the schoolteacher in "All quite on the Western front" uses to make the boys in his class flame up in hot emotions of passions and sacrifice and be enthusiastic to be sent into the heart of horror. It tricks people into something by absuing their emotions, and it does so to let war appear more tasty.

Auch beste Waffen sind Zeichen des Todes,
Der Weise verächtlich meidet sie,
Er wendet sich ab von ihnen.
Die Freude erfüllt sein Leben im Frieden,
Die Trauer erfüllt sein Leben im Krieg.
Waffen sind nicht des Wesens Weise,
Nur gezwungen benutzt sie ein weiser Mensch,
Wenn es garnicht mehr anders sonst geht.
Nichts weiß er von der Freude am Kämpfen,
Den Sieg zu lieben heißt mordfreudig sein.
Wer mordfreudig ist, ist außerhalb der Freude, zu leben.
Nach dem Sieg ist der Truppe die Freude,
Dem Feldherrn indes sei die Trauer,
Er begehe den Sieg wie eine Trauerfeier.
Töten heißt Trauer schaffen,
Wessen Handeln Trauer schafft,
Dem sei jeder Sieg wie ein Begräbnis.

Lao Tse: TaoTeKing XXXI
(translation by myself)

[The Avon Lady]

(translation by myself)
What translation????? :damn:

[Skybird]

(translation by myself)
What translation????? :damn:

Sorry, I did my own translation into German, since I was not satisfied with any of the German versions that I know. the numerous translations into Western languages can vary so significantly that sometimes you don't realize that it is the same passage your read when comparing various translations. you cannot translate chinese into Wetsern language in thta linear way you translate Italian into French. It is too different.

Even the best of weapons are signs of death / Auch beste Waffen sind Zeichen des Todes,
The wise man avoids them contemptuously / Der Weise verächtlich meidet sie,
He turns away from them. / Er wendet sich ab von ihnen.
Joy fills his life in peace, / Die Freude erfüllt sein Leben im Frieden,
Mourning fills his life in war. / Die Trauer erfüllt sein Leben im Krieg.
Weapons are not the way of the tao, / Waffen sind nicht des Wesens Weise,
Only if forced a wise man uses them, / Nur gezwungen benutzt sie ein weiser Mensch,
If there is no other way out. / Wenn es garnicht mehr anders sonst geht.
Nothing he knows of the delight in fighting, / Nichts weiß er von der Freude am Kämpfen,
Delight in victory means to be bloodthirsty ("murder-thirsty"). / Den Sieg zu lieben heißt mordfreudig sein.
The one who is bloodthirsty is outside of the pleasure to live. / Wer mordfreudig ist, ist außerhalb der Freude, zu leben.
After victory the army's share is of delight, / Nach dem Sieg ist der Truppe die Freude,
But the general's share shall be the mourning, / Dem Feldherrn indes sei die Trauer,
He shall celebrate victory as if it were a funeral service. / Er begehe den Sieg wie eine Trauerfeier.
Killing means creating mourning, / Töten heißt Trauer schaffen,
For the one whose acts create mouring, / Wessen Handeln Trauer schafft,
Every victory shall be like a funeral. / Dem sei jeder Sieg wie ein Begräbnis.

[August]

Fight or don't, there is no in between. But it is exactly such seductive words like those you quoted that deserve my disgust, August. It is the kind of talking the schoolteacher in "All quite on the Western front" uses to make the boys in his class flame up in hot emotions of passions and sacrifice and be enthusiastic to be sent into the heart of horror. It tricks people into something by absuing their emotions, and it does so to let war appear more tasty.

You may be disgusted but Paine says nothing about being enthusiastic or making war appear more "tasty" to foolish schoolboys with dreams of battlefield glory like your schoolteacher did in AQOTWF. You either misunderstand Paines message or you're reacting to the fact that it was me who posted it here.

FYI what Paine talks about is finishing a job that has already begun. Staying the course in the face of difficulty. Meeting the challenges of a task one has undertaken and seeing it through in spite of adversity. After all it's very easy to be a "sunshine patriot" or "summer soldier", hopping on the bandwagon when everything is going well and distancing oneself from it when things don't. It's much more difficult however to stick with a tough job and not quit when things go badly.

I personally think it would be an extreme disservice to our soldiers who have lost their lives in this conflict to just give up and go home without having done everything we can do to achieve the objectives we sent them to fight and die for.

Make no mistake. The objective of a free and democratic Iraq is indeed a worthy goal. If it can be achieved it sets the entire region on a path to peace and prosperity. But such things do not come easily, nothing worthy and good ever has in the entire history or man.

If we abandon the Iraqis now we might as well also abandon the Israelis and everyone else that we consider our friends and who need our protection. I thank God every day that I don't live in a country where such two faced cowardice comes easily.

[August]

and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
In this case, who's freedom? The US' or Iraq's?

If the US', what needs to be done in Iraq with regard to US freedom?

If Iraq's, what if they don't want US style freedom, as has been pointed out?

I disagree with the premise that Iraqis don't want freedom and I think the millions of purple Iraqi thumbs back up that belief. There are those who advocate withdrawing our support of your nation as well. Should we listen to them?

[Skybird]

I've red the quote by Paine again, and it still does not sound well in my ears. And I see no sign of that "glorious triumph" in sight. In fact I said from the beginning that the whole enterprise is doomed to fail and would go much the way as it did so far. Maybe you think it is bad service to your dead to give up the mission now. I say it is bad service to increase their numbers on and on, all for nothing. The dead are dead, my concern is about the living - life still is theirs.

And no, I did not react to the circumstance that it was you posting that answer. We disagree again, like so very often, and we both had time enough to get used to that, right? :)

[Bort]

FYI what Paine talks about is finishing a job that has already begun. Staying the course in the face of difficulty. Meeting the challenges of a task one has undertaken and seeing it through in spite of adversity. After all it's very easy to be a "sunshine patriot" or "summer soldier", hopping on the bandwagon when everything is going well and distancing oneself from it when things don't. It's much more difficult however to stick with a tough job and not quit when things go badly.
However, when Paine made this statement, he was writing of a nation fighting for its own liberty, not of a nation led by an imbecile trying to shove the institution of democracy down anothers throat against the will of armed resisters. If the Iraqis are so inclined to seek inspiration from Paine's words, than let them fight for their own future. But the same words have little meaning for the United States at this time.

[Bort]

Make no mistake. The objective of a free and democratic Iraq is indeed a worthy goal. If it can be achieved it sets the entire region on a path to peace and prosperity.
Yeah, sort of like how Hamas is going to set the Palestinians on a path to peace and prosperity- be careful what you wish for. :o

[The Avon Lady]

* Bort]Make no mistake. The objective of a free and democratic Iraq is indeed a worthy goal. If it can be achieved it sets the entire region on a path to peace and prosperity.
Yeah, sort of like how Hamas is going to set the Palestinians on a path to peace and prosperity- be careful what you wish for. :o
Sometimes I just can't get a word in here edgewise. :-?

;)

[August]

* Bort]However, when Paine made this statement, he was writing of a nation fighting for its own liberty, not of a nation led by an imbecile trying to shove the institution of democracy down anothers throat against the will of armed resisters. If the Iraqis are so inclined to seek inspiration from Paine's words, than let them fight for their own future. But the same words have little meaning for the United States at this time.

Again with the imbicile slam. Let me ask you Bort, what gives you the standing to call another person an imbicile? A person who holds the highest office in our nation through very difficult times no less? Can you do a better job? If so, why aren't you? If not, then might I suggest that you keep your pot to yourself Mr. Kettle.

Contrary to what you believe Iraqis are not all armed resisters and they are most definitely fighting for their own future as the millions of purple thumbs have proven and the people who risk death to line up at police recruiting stations testify.

Were it a purely local squabble i might see a point to leaving them to fight it out amongst themselves but we both know it isn't just a local squabble. Regimes like those in Iran and Syria and terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda are all heavily invested in making sure the Iraqi people never get a chance to experience such basic human concepts like freedom and self determination lest the rest of the oppressed middle eastern peoples see how life could be and throw off the yoke of tolitarianism and step into the modern world.

Paine was indeed talking about his own people, although at the time Americans felt far more loyalty to their own states than some new and ill defined concept called the United States of America so the point remains valid. Yet even then a large measure of credit for our success belongs to our friends in France who supplied us with money, arms, men and material in order to keep our revolution going.

Did they do it for their own interests? Sure, but the fact remains they did, and it made the difference. Yet according to you that was a bad thing for France to do and they should have left us to the tender mercies of King George and his armies. Sorry but i cannot and will not agree. We needed France as much as the Iraqis need us. I think it's extremely callous of you to demand that we deny then the same assistance that was given our fledgling nation when it needed it.

Now on this board we have people who advocate the isolation and/or destruction of the entire middle east. Here and on other anonymous internet forums the ME peoples are commonly described as backward savages who neither understand or desire the freedoms we here in the west have enjoyed all our lives. I find such comments to be both racist and elitist and have no respect for them.

Others wish for America to ultimately fail in the ME. Some because of jealousy or because their country no longer has the sand to do the right thing if it is at all difficult. Others wish it simply for no other reason than they believe it will make the Republicans look bad and maybe loose in the next elections so we can all get back to the business of appeasing dictators and tyrants hoping they will not cause us trouble.

I reject such weak and defeatist attitudes and i'm glad our President does as well.

[Iceman]

I've red the quote by Paine again, and it still does not sound well in my ears. And I see no sign of that "glorious triumph" in sight. In fact I said from the beginning that the whole enterprise is doomed to fail and would go much the way as it did so far. Maybe you think it is bad service to your dead to give up the mission now. I say it is bad service to increase their numbers on and on, all for nothing. The dead are dead, my concern is about the living - life still is theirs.

And no, I did not react to the circumstance that it was you posting that answer. We disagree again, like so very often, and we both had time enough to get used to that, right? :)

You seem like a defeatist Skybird....not one of your posts ever seem to incure hope of anykind or offer any solutions to anything only trying to point out the obvious downfalls of any situation...maybe that's a German thing....or hopefully just a Skybird thing.

Avon Lady you come across as someone who has lived too long in a battle zone....your heart seems hard as stone...but that is not mis-understood either....living in a country surounded by people who try to kill you every day could probably do that to a person...not to mention your race experiencing what is has over the centuries.

The goings on in the world today cannot be simply summed up in neat tidy little posts...it is wayyyy to complex....the world turns....things change...change and death are the only surites....count your blessings ...smell the roses.

Fox Bort I'd bet you also waved the flag in fierce patriotic fever when the twin towers fell....if you did'nt then you are no American....I am not saying the president or America for that matter has not made mistakes....but it AMAZES me how ...as an old boss of mine put it...."Throw the president under the bus"...when it comes to what has happened in Afgan and Iraq....like he was the SOLE person who passed a decree down from his mountain castle and procalimed WAR on the Infidel terrorists....

It is as simple as when the going gets tough, the tough kick azz...and the spineless ...well... jelly swim away I think is what that quote from August means to me.

If America gives up on trying to do a good thing....WHO WILL...pick up the flag of freedom and carry on???

I will...

live free or die.

[Skybird]

I've red the quote by Paine again, and it still does not sound well in my ears. And I see no sign of that "glorious triumph" in sight. In fact I said from the beginning that the whole enterprise is doomed to fail and would go much the way as it did so far. Maybe you think it is bad service to your dead to give up the mission now. I say it is bad service to increase their numbers on and on, all for nothing. The dead are dead, my concern is about the living - life still is theirs.

And no, I did not react to the circumstance that it was you posting that answer. We disagree again, like so very often, and we both had time enough to get used to that, right? :)

You seem like a defeatist Skybird....not one of your posts ever seem to incure hope of anykind or offer any solutions to anything only trying to point out the obvious downfalls of any situation...


Maybe that is because things were messed up very professionally, and beyond repair. :hmm:

First you mess it up - and then you complain that although I warned you in advance that it cannot be repaired, I am not able to tell you how to repair it...?

This queer logic of yours fits my sense for black humour :lol:

Okay. the war in Iraq is going well, victory is near, people will enjoy their new democracy, and the Ayatollahs soon will fall. American families will burst with pride of their fallen ones. The state of the EU is full of promises. Soon it will be at the top of global economy. China is a dwarf, they will find out thermselevs in time and thehn shut up. Bush probably is one of the smartest persons who ever got elected into office, he is a blessing for the country and a compliment for the voters. Believing is a virtue, but if it is in God than it's a real hit - better is only the old testament. The future of global climate is bright, the economy does well, all pollution reports are exaggerated, and I canot wait for the takeover of Europe by Islam. We are lucky to have so many wars that buy our wqeapons and fills our treasure chests. Oh, and I must confess: I burst with laughter when watching the latest sitcom. Sitcoms rule, especially in the capitals of the world.

Since we agree that everything is nice and well, I hope the world around you shines in a bit brighter pink again, now. :smug:

[Ducimus]

Stay the course.



August, im not picking on you, only these 3 words that orginally came out of George W Bush's mouth.

These words are hallow, empty, meaningless rhetoric. Spoken, trumpeted, repeated, and is the patriotic battle cry by people who have absolutely nothing to directly deal with the situation they're supporting. Its easy to support "the course" when your not the one who has to travel it. Its as if your in support of gambling with other peoples lives, with zero risk to yourself.

These words are meaningless unless spoken by the men doing the fighting. If your not there, nor you, or i, have any buisness speaking words like these.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) This was the likely outcome of the American invasion into Iraq. The invasion reminds me of the word "Backfire".

[Skybird]

:) This was the likely outcome of the American invasion into Iraq. The invasion reminds me of the word "Backfire".
And me it reminds of the term "Blowback". but I wouldn't put a smiley into that line.

[blue3golf]

I'll say it like this. During and after the invasion me and all the others there felt as though we had accpmplished something. After this last year long tour the only thing we felt(guys from the original company), is that we accomplished staying alive. There's no longer a direction there, it's a political war now and if soldiers were allowed to do their job instead of tryiing to keep everything neat and tidy this would be alot easier of a war.

[Iceman]

The wizard is back.

[The Avon Lady]

The wizard is back.
Don't tell me you want me to bring you another broom?!?!?! :damn:

[Iceman]

I was refering to Nostro-Skybird and his predictions of the future....."Yeeeeeeeep I told ya so". I can't wait for his next exciting episode of "Gaze into the Future" ...all those 37 years of his experience just ooze from him.....oooo man I can't wait for the next prediction.Wax on/Wax off Skybird....I think you need to go find the balance Daniel son....lol.

First you mess it up - and then you complain that although I warned you in advance that it cannot be repaired, I am not able to tell you how to repair it...?

WTH are you talking about?...No one is asking you how to fix anything....your like a vulture picking at open wounds.

but hey... I will say he did warn us.

[The Avon Lady]

Suggested reading:

Civil War in Iraq? (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3423), by Daniel Pipes

US should repair to Kurdistan and let the Sunnies and Shiites have a go (http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=275), by Ted Belman, IsraPundit

EDIT: "Sunnies"??? Heh, heh! :sunny:

[STEED]

WTH are you talking about?...No one is asking you how to fix anything

A very good point :up:

[Skybird]

I was refering to Nostro-Skybird and his predictions of the future....."Yeeeeeeeep I told ya so". I can't wait for his next exciting episode of "Gaze into the Future" ...all those 37 years of his experience just ooze from him.....oooo man I can't wait for the next prediction.Wax on/Wax off Skybird....I think you need to go find the balance Daniel son....lol.

First you mess it up - and then you complain that although I warned you in advance that it cannot be repaired, I am not able to tell you how to repair it...?

WTH are you talking about?...No one is asking you how to fix anything....your like a vulture picking at open wounds.

but hey... I will say he did warn us.

A thinking like yours brought us/America into Iraq. But a thinking like yours won't get us/you out. You let your troops staying there all for nothing now. That is called "staying the course", doesn'T it sound heroic. And while they risk their heads, it simply is because politicians do not want to admit that it was a big mistake, and that it even is no wishable option for the West to have a democratically elected Islamist rulership over there.

They cannot accomplish a mission there anymore, for the mission is gone, and it was a mission impossible from the beginning. And noone cares if sad little Iceman likes that or not. ;) Get your countrymen out of there if you really care for patriotic sentiments. The game is over. You lost.

And listen to guys like blue3gulf, or Ducimus. ;)

[August]

Stay the course.



August, im not picking on you, only these 3 words that orginally came out of George W Bush's mouth.

These words are hallow, empty, meaningless rhetoric. Spoken, trumpeted, repeated, and is the patriotic battle cry by people who have absolutely nothing to directly deal with the situation they're supporting. Its easy to support "the course" when your not the one who has to travel it. Its as if your in support of gambling with other peoples lives, with zero risk to yourself.

These words are meaningless unless spoken by the men doing the fighting. If your not there, nor you, or i, have any buisness speaking words like these.

Well obviously i disagree. "Stay the course" as a term was not invented by George Bush. No war has ever gone well from the beginning. One should never start anything that one isn't willing to see through.

For example in 1862 things looked pretty bad for the Union. There were many calls to quit on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line but thank God for our nation that there were people like Lincoln in charge who stayed the course and kept this country from fragmenting into a collection of nation states.

Skip to 1940. Hitlers u-boats were roaming the atlantic squeezing the lifeblood from England while his bombers raided London day and night.

In these and many other conflicts throughout our history there were voices calling for us to quit or stay out of it. Leave the British and French to fend for themselves.

Support for a conflict MUST come from BOTH the troops "over there" and the folks back home. Maybe my opinion is indeed meaningless but then again i don't see the opposite side of this debate asking the troops over the what they want either.

I have relatives, friends and former comrades, people i served with in the Army, "over there" and they are telling me their biggest fear is that they will be pulled out before they can finish the job. If that happens their sacrifices will indeed be meaningless.

[STEED]

Is this mess ever going to have a good ending?

Hard to see that at the moment.

[August]

I was refering to Nostro-Skybird and his predictions of the future....."Yeeeeeeeep I told ya so". I can't wait for his next exciting episode of "Gaze into the Future" ...all those 37 years of his experience just ooze from him.....oooo man I can't wait for the next prediction.Wax on/Wax off Skybird....I think you need to go find the balance Daniel son....lol.

First you mess it up - and then you complain that although I warned you in advance that it cannot be repaired, I am not able to tell you how to repair it...?

WTH are you talking about?...No one is asking you how to fix anything....your like a vulture picking at open wounds.

but hey... I will say he did warn us.

A thinking like yours brought us/America into Iraq. But a thinking like yours won't get us/you out. You let your troops staying there all for nothing now. That is called "staying the course", doesn'T it sound heroic. And while they risk their heads, it simply is because politicians do not want to admit that it was a big mistake, and that it even is no wishable option for the West to have a democratically elected Islamist rulership over there.

They cannot accomplish a mission there anymore, for the mission is gone, and it was a mission impossible from the beginning. And noone cares if sad little Iceman likes that or not. ;) Get your countrymen out of there if you really care for patriotic sentiments. The game is over. You lost.

And listen to guys like blue3gulf, or Ducimus. ;)

And thinking like yours kept the Coalition in Desert Storm from finishing the job that was started way back in 1991. The US and Britain have been in Iraq since then, keeping the lid on Saddam. Being shot at and being killed to keep that monster from regaining his strength.

Germany was quite happy to have the Americans and British do that dirty job forever. All the while making back door deals with Saddam to rebuild his military capabilites. Should we now see you as the voice of reason? I think not.

[STEED]

Germany was quite happy to have the Americans and British do that dirty job forever. All the while making back door deals with Saddam to rebuild his military capabilites. Should we now see you as the voice of reason? I think not.

That's a hard sell, but don't forget Germany stared two world wars and these days they keep a low profile. But on saying that it's a good case August.

[The Avon Lady]

[And thinking like yours kept the Coalition in Desert Storm from finishing the job that was started way back in 1991.
Can you tell us why Papa Bush did not eliminate Saddam back then and why the US did not stand behind the Shi'ite revolt against Saddam shortly thereafter?

[August]

[And thinking like yours kept the Coalition in Desert Storm from finishing the job that was started way back in 1991.
Can you tell us why Papa Bush did not eliminate Saddam back then and why the US did not stand behind the Shi'ite revolt against Saddam shortly thereafter?

My personal opinion is that GB senior was afraid of the potential political backlash both at home and abroad if he allowed Swartzkopf to do anything more than just eject Iraq from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I have long been ashamed that we abandoned the Kurds and Shi'ites after encouraging them to revolt. No fly zones helped a little but obviously not nearly enough.

[The Avon Lady]

And thinking like yours kept the Coalition in Desert Storm from finishing the job that was started way back in 1991.
Can you tell us why Papa Bush did not eliminate Saddam back then and why the US did not stand behind the Shi'ite revolt against Saddam shortly thereafter?

My personal opinion is that GB senior was afraid of the potential political backlash both at home and abroad if he allowed Swartzkopf to do anything more than just eject Iraq from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I have long been ashamed that we abandoned the Kurds and Shi'ites after encouraging them to revolt. No fly zones helped a little but obviously not nearly enough.
Just so you should know where I'm coming from:

1. I don't believe the US waged war in Iraq for oil.

2. I do believe that WMDs was an actual security concern.

3. I do believe that US security agencies failed (and that's an understatement) in their on-the-ground assessments.

4. I do not know if said WMDs were snuck out of Iraq or simply did not exist.

5. I do believe the US did the right thing in attacking Iraq at the time.

6. I don't believe the US made a good assessment of what would happen after the invasion (same said security agencies are to blame - along with overly optimistic and seemingly ignorant top military planners).

7. I do believe that an Islamic Sha'ria law government will arise in Iraq, whether the US does or does not succeed in Iraq.

8. I do not believe that such an Islamic government will be an ally of the US.

9. I do believe that getting rid of Saddam was overall a good thing.

10. I do believe that had the coalition forces not been fighting Al Qaeda now in Iraq, there would have been many more 9/11s, Madrids and Londons over the last 3 years.

11. I do believe that the Coalition should expedite whatever is needed to prepare the present Iraqi government to fend for itself and wish them "goodbye and goodluck" ASAP.

12. I do believe in cutting one's losses and hedging one's bets.

13. I don't believe that the west has seen the last of military conflict in the region, even should the Coalition forces leave Iraq tomorrow.

14. I do believe that I'm am a patriotic US citizen, proud of my county's attempts to free Iraq of the tyranny that gripped it for some 40 years and that suggesting that the US get out of the way and let the 2 battling sides within Iraq go at each other's throats is in the best interests of the Coalition and possibly even the vast majority of Iraqis.

15. There is no 15th thingy. :smug:

[Skybird]

And thinking like yours kept the Coalition in Desert Storm from finishing the job that was started way back in 1991.
Certainly not me. I have always criticised that decision to stop that war and leave Saddam untouched. I always sdaid that it was an unfisniehd job. And I always said that I regarded it as a betrayel of the troops that were enaged on that conflict.

And finally I never said anythign different from that 1991's silly decision was the triggering event that lost the Iraq issue once and for all in the next 15 years. It is like in chess, sometimes one player makes a silly move, and then can never recover from that stupid move, and thus inevitably looses the match.

Tell me one thing, what do you prefer: a brutal tyrant and suppressor ignoring democratical legitimation but by use of furce keeps fundamentalism in check, or a Sharia-based fundamentalist government with democratical legitimiation that nevertheless is hostile towards the West? Before making your selection simply assume that you cannot have both.

Your country was pressing hard on Mubarak to allow more democratical elections in 2005. the direct result is that mubarak now has to deal with a fundamentalist oppositon formed by the extreme Muslim Brotherhood, they increased their size and influence from 17 seats to 84, that's a factor of five. Their "parliament" has 454 seats. There are other minor extremist groups as well. If the election would have been fully democratic, you now would have one open enemy more in the ME.

I red the biography of Steven Kuhn, who was tanker in that war of 91 (he was member of that crew that won the Canadian Army Trophy 1987). He did a very impressive job in describing how the troops felt when seeing the massacre against the Shias and they themselves were not allowed to do anything about it while in their viewing range hundreds and thousands were slaughtered down and Iraqi soldiers laughed at the namercians on the other side of the red line. (Kuhn'S book
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3861532999/qid=1141227558/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/303-2277241-5714605
is that critical and bitter that until today no american publisher was willing to publish his book, it is available in German only. Today Kuhn lives in Berlin, deeply disappointed, but still considering himself an american patriot. After he had broken down after the war, suffering from GWS, he once said: "America made me a man/male, but Germany turned me into a human"). It needs more than a star and a rifle to command men, I think. You also need the ability to "climb" inside your fighters heads and minds, you need to feel how they feel in their hearts. Both Bushs fail with flying colours in this, that's what makes them so miserbale leaders, they are clever in fishing people by using the right words, and that is all. That's why I call them the greatest betrayers to their own people since Vietnam. You may complain about Junior being called an imbecile by someone above, because he got elected and is in office. Okay, than he is an elected imbecile in the wrong office, then. Isn't it great what offices are in reach for such a man if only he has enough hundreds of millions of dollars to spend and enough contacts in the economy are supporting him for their own interests?

You are loyal to someone who does not deserve your loyalty, and who is lying to your people and is betraying your countrymen who in good belief sacrifice their lifes for this Zero. That way you put the interests of that man above the interests of your people. And this you call patriotism? I call it a personal cult. The american system, on paper, is a good one, but it also holds great risks. In germany we have no figure like your president, the power is more diverted, enabling the parties to act in their own interst to a greater degree, and preventing a strong "centre" to form decisions and see them through. That way political situation in germany often appears to be paralysed. This weakness was wanted by the Allied who insisted on the Grundgesetz beeing designed like that, so thta no central "Führer" shall be able to emerge again. The American president, on the other hands, is such a strong figure, that he can act with greater independence from the parties (of which there are only two), enabling him to impose his political course more easily on the country, and the parties. this comes at the risk of that this concentration of power is more easily abused and corrupted, because the mechanisms for countercontrolling the president (weakening him that way, like in germany: several german chancellors had not been brought down not by the opposition but their own parties!) are weaker. Unfortunately the current guy in the white house makes maximum use of this weakness, deactivating major principles of your constitutional order that way.

Concerning Germany's deals with Saddam - it was not alone in doing so. Your country did as well. And all Western countries supported Saddam and enabled him to build chemicals. And we all hailed him when he slaughtered the Iranians after his aggression, and we did not oppose when he gassed the Kurds. It is of no use to selectively pick up those notes only that fits your views. No Western country deserves any fame for it's role towards Iraq.

[August]

....

Sky it would take simply too much of my time to argue each and every one of your points in that post.

It is, i believe, a tactic you commonly employ here. Sort of like an internet debate version of the Chinese human wave attack. IE: Overwhelm the opposition with posts that are so lengthy and that cover so many topics that it would take an inordinate amount of time and effort to counter each and every one.

Suffice to say i disagree with nearly all of it. I do recognize however your claim to have been against the premature ending of Desert Storm.

[Skybird]

No tactic. Just doing justice to the fact that things in reality are not so simple that they allow solutions that can be described in 20 seconds news-spots, or a headline without a report.

You may be surprised, but I think on a theoretical level we are not so far apart. Just in our judgement to what degree theory is implemented in practice we start to differ. But some basic splits would remain, admitted.

Nichts für ungut,
Sky

[TteFAboB]

The only tactic I see here is smoke-screen.

The future of Iraq goes to the backstage and George W Bush and Saddam come into the scene again.

[Kapitan]

Dont believe america waged war just for oil what else is there to wage war about in that region ? they went into afghanistan that is also an oil rich country now iraq that too is oil rich and iran is on the books oh and that has the 2nd largest oil reserves on earth.

Amazing they are not waging war for oil.

I personaly see america as a greedy arrogant nation that is big headed and pompus (note not the people just the policy). why would you go to war on a whim because some one might be telling the truth about them wanting to use nuclear power for domestic reasons?

In going to war with arabs all the time it only creates more problems for all sides.

1) people on both sides die
2) economys slump
3) millaterys become over streached
4) creates more terrorism because people are hacked off with the west for what they are doing to thier home land.

if america acctualy got its head out of its arse for once and see they aint doing good to the world but more damage then maybe we could all get along nicely.

America is the police state and just like the real police there a bunch of W***ers

( NOTE THIS IS NOT TO OFFEND AMERICANS IT IS A RANT ABOUT THIER POLICY AND JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED BY THIS STATEMENT!)

[Iceman]

15. There is no 15th thingy. :smug:

Lol...

Skybird....Have you ever heard the saying when you are green you grow when you are ripe you rot?
.... please...no more I told you so's ... it sounds like something a child would keep saying,really I think it is beneath you.

and Kaptain don't bother with trying to hide behind a smoke screen of ...I'm not trying to offend the American people....the American people elected it's officials so we stand behind our government in it's decisions...it's ok...we as Americans don't really trust Germany for that matter either possibly because of your past worldly ambitions...and I recognize it is your people to blame not your government...the people are the governments don't try to dance around the truth....we still think ya suck it's ok. :)

[SmokinTep]

Maybe we should just let them kill each other off.........

[The Avon Lady]

Maybe we should just let them kill each other off.........
That is indeed one of the assumed occurrences should the Coalition pack up.

Kaptain, so where is all this extra oil the US is basking in? And check your facts: Afghanistan is not an oil producing country. And are you saying that the US attack on Afghanistan was not justified? Do you recall the reason for the offensive or did it slip your mind?

[STEED]

I edited the bad langue from this quote and for the record I did not think this one up I found it. It's part of a comment.

These B******** would still be scratching around in the dirt eating camel s**** if it wasn’t for the oil

[Skybird]

15. There is no 15th thingy. :smug:

Lol...

Skybird....Have you ever heard the saying when you are green you grow when you are ripe you rot?

No. And yourself?

[TteFAboB]

The american system, on paper, is a good one, but it also holds great risks. In germany we have no figure like your president, the power is more diverted, enabling the parties to act in their own interst to a greater degree, and preventing a strong "centre" to form decisions and see them through. That way political situation in germany often appears to be paralysed. This weakness was wanted by the Allied who insisted on the Grundgesetz beeing designed like that, so thta no central "Führer" shall be able to emerge again. The American president, on the other hands, is such a strong figure, that he can act with greater independence from the parties (of which there are only two), enabling him to impose his political course more easily on the country, and the parties. this comes at the risk of that this concentration of power is more easily abused and corrupted, because the mechanisms for countercontrolling the president (weakening him that way, like in germany: several german chancellors had not been brought down not by the opposition but their own parties!) are weaker. Unfortunately the current guy in the white house makes maximum use of this weakness, deactivating major principles of your constitutional order that way.

Don't be so quick to jump on this. While a President holds more power than a Prime-Minister, a President without popular support dies, while a Prime-Minister like Berlusconi can dance around the parliament like no American President could ever dream of.

There's more to it than the Presidential system itself, Bush has already dug his own grave, he is merely waiting for his own funeral, which gives him greater liberty to burn himself even more when needed or join in populist adventures when desired.

While politically a German chancellor may seem weak, as a representative of the German state he is very, very strong. As you said, it is difficult for the opposition to bring down a chacellor in the 47% tax state-wellfare paradise.

So you have good Presidents and bad Presidents. You have good Prime-Ministers and Prime-Ministers who abuse their systems just aswell. Having lived in a country that's been a Monarchy (I wasn't alive during this period :P), a Parliamentary Republic, a soft and hard Dictatorships, and a Presidential Republic, I say having a President is not a choice, it's a priviledge. The Presidential imperial powers can be used for good or not, so it's the people behind the system that will make it worth it or not, and a President who abuses his power must be prepared to visit the graveyard, if that doesn't happen, he's no President and you can call him a King. :lol:

[Skybird]

The american system, on paper, is a good one, but it also holds great risks. In germany we have no figure like your president, the power is more diverted, enabling the parties to act in their own interst to a greater degree, and preventing a strong "centre" to form decisions and see them through. That way political situation in germany often appears to be paralysed. This weakness was wanted by the Allied who insisted on the Grundgesetz beeing designed like that, so thta no central "Führer" shall be able to emerge again. The American president, on the other hands, is such a strong figure, that he can act with greater independence from the parties (of which there are only two), enabling him to impose his political course more easily on the country, and the parties. this comes at the risk of that this concentration of power is more easily abused and corrupted, because the mechanisms for countercontrolling the president (weakening him that way, like in germany: several german chancellors had not been brought down not by the opposition but their own parties!) are weaker. Unfortunately the current guy in the white house makes maximum use of this weakness, deactivating major principles of your constitutional order that way.

Don't be so quick to jump on this. While a President holds more power than a Prime-Minister, a President without popular support dies,
How is that? What do you mean? bush'S polls are in the cellar, and he still is there. Constitution forbids a third trial. So what?
while a Prime-Minister like Berlusconi can dance around the parliament like no American President could ever dream of.

There's more to it than the Presidential system itself, Bush has already dug his own grave, he is merely waiting for his own funeral, which gives him greater liberty to burn himself even more when needed or join in populist adventures when desired.

Pardon? He sits out the remaining time, after which he will be off the scene anyway, it's his second term. And this you call his funeral? He will have had 100% of the trials american presidents are allowed. I hardly can see that as a sanctioning of his poor performance. That'S as if a manager makes a bad job, gets fired with millions of dollars and all payments for the remaining time of his contract, earning all that for free - and says he get'S penalized by not beeing allowed to work.

I would love to be penalized that way. :up:

While politically a German chancellor may seem weak, as a representative of the German state he is very, very strong. As you said, it is difficult for the opposition to bring down a chacellor in the 47% tax state-wellfare paradise.

I did not say that it is difficult for the opposition. I said that parties are so strong that they do not hesitate to bring down their own chancellor if that helps their own interests, at the cost of the interests of the community. A chancellor is only as strong as the inner-party opposition to him is weak. We have half a dozen parties... when was the last time an american president was "killed" by his own party?

So you have good Presidents and bad Presidents. You have good Prime-Ministers and Prime-Ministers who abuse their systems just aswell. Having lived in a country that's been a Monarchy (I wasn't alive during this period :P), a Parliamentary Republic, a soft and hard Dictatorships, and a Presidential Republic, I say having a President is not a choice, it's a priviledge. The Presidential imperial powers can be used for good or not, so it's the people behind the system that will make it worth it or not, and a President who abuses his power must be prepared to visit the graveyard, if that doesn't happen, he's no President and you can call him a King. :lol:

Then Bush obviously has become a king. What can happen to him now? Almost nothing. The low scores in polls must not worry him. His party maybe, but not him. I still cannot see how the system puts sanctions on him. that is only possible in the first trial of his, not in the second. The second is safe ground, as long as he is not subject to "Amtsenthebungsverfahren", which was considered by some people in the wake of the Iraq war, but never had a real chance.

[TteFAboB]

when was the last time an american president was "killed" by his own party?

J. F. Kennedy... :rotfl: :arrgh!:

"Amtsenthebungsverfahren"

That sounds scary, I wouldn't wish that for my worst enemy! :hulk:

Bush is dead alright, you give him too much credit. You can thank the incompetence of the opposition to much of his level of tolerance. King Bush becomes considered the lesser of two evils when part of his critics are lunatics and idiots themselves.

If the tendency of Republicans giving up on Bush for a true Republican continues, Bush will loose his presidential power, even if only artificially. An impeachment will be welcomed when the alternatives to him are good and solid.

[August]

A few points Skybird:

It's "term", not trial. According to the US Constitution the President can serve a maximum of two 4 year terms and the people do have the ability to remove a sitting President in either term through a process called "impeachment".

The real power in America is, and has always been, held by Congress. THEY are the only ones who can write, pass or repeal laws. They are the ones who control the nations purse strings and decide such things like whether we go to war or not and whether we stay in Iraq or not.

The President can propose new laws but that's it. He has veto power over laws created by Congress but that veto can be overridden by a simple 2/3rds majority and has been many times throughout our history.

As for polls, they are of little value since the results can be construed any way the pollsters want. Besides, popularity polls in particular have always been low for 2nd term presidents. Bush's popularity is still higher than Bill Clinton was at the same point in their 2nd terms for example.

Bush is no king, not even close. If Congress demanded it the troops would be out of Iraq within days. It always amazes me when Europeans attribute god like powers to a US president when we here know that is far from the truth. He serves at the pleasure of the people and the US Congress and that's the whole people, not just one party or another.

[August]

Bush is dead alright, you give him too much credit. You can thank the incompetence of the opposition to much of his level of tolerance. King Bush becomes considered the lesser of two evils when part of his critics are lunatics and idiots themselves.

That is very true. The concept of a President Kerry or President Gore, self appointed inventor of the internet, scared the heck out of me and I have my doubts that the Democrats will nominate anyone better in 2008.

[Skybird]

Terms and trials, I admit, there is a difference. after some people's terms, there should be a trial... :hmm: :-j



On the topic, I found this at Al Jazeera:

U.S. troops know they’re dying for a lie

By: Kevin Zeese



A unique poll of active duty troops in Iraq shows a huge disconnect between the Commander in Chief and his troops in battle. It is evident that the President views the war very differently than the troops on the ground. The loss of the troops may be the final straw in the illegal occupation turned into a failed war.

The foreign policy establishment had already told the President they thought Iraq War was a mistake. The people have been saying the war was a mistake. All that is left are President Bush and the hawkish leaders of the two parties – only they are calling for staying the course or sending more troops.

A poll by Le Moyne College and Zogby shows that if you want to support the troops you should be calling for an end to the war. An overwhelming majority, 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year. Among Reserves 90% favor withdrawal compared to 83% of the National Guard, 70% of the Army, and 58% of the Marines. Moreover, about three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within 6 months.

It seems Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who has called for an immediate withdrawal to be completed within six months, is more in tune with the troops than their Commander in Chief.

In a speech given on November 17, 2005 Murtha said: “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course.”

Even leading conservative commentators (Pat Buchanan, Francis Fukuyama, Paul Craig Roberts) now describes the invasion as a mistake and that the occupation has failed. William F. Buckley has called on the administration to admit defeat and change strategy.

The poll also shows that the troops are confused by the mission in Iraq. Forty-two percent acknowledge their confusion. And, while 58% think they know why they are there, in fact they are acting on inaccurate information. When troops are asked why they are in Iraq, 85% said it was “to retaliate for Saddam's roll in the 9-11 attacks” – when in fact Sadam had no role in 9-11. And, 77% of soldiers thought it was “to stop Saddam from protecting Al Qaeda in Iraq” – again Sadam and Al Qaeda were never allies, indeed they were enemies.

The troops have figured out that they are not there for the reason stated by the President – 93% recognize they are not there to remove Weapons of Mass Destruction. The vast majority (76%) also do not believe that the United States is establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab world. But they do not accept that securing oil was the major purpose – only 11% accept that rationale.

Not only do an overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq want the occupation to end rapidly but the foreign policy establishment of the United States is opposed to the war and is speaking out against the president's policies. These include:

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star general, was Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command (1991-94) and commanded the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war, who described the Iraq War as “wrong from the beginning, and so as is often the case, it's very hard to make it right once you start down the wrong road.”

General William Odom, a Retired General, Former national security adviser to President's Carter and Reagan who wrote "What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?" in which he persuasively argued that the war is serving the interests of Osama bin Laden, the Iranians, and is fomenting civil war in Iraq. He describes the Iraq War as “the most strategic foreign policy disaster in U.S. history.”

Brent Scowcroft, President George H.W. Bush's national security adviser, who described the Iraq War as a “failing venture” weeks before the last presidential election and argued in 2002 before the decision to invade Iraq that: “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, describes President George W. Bush's foreign policy as “suicidal statecraft” in a Los Angeles Times commentary and writes “Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming 'I will stay the course' is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.”

John Deutch, head of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1995 and 1996 and deputy defense secretary 1994-1995, who called for U.S. troops to immediately leave Iraq in June 2005.

These are just a few among many. In fact, in March 2003, shortly before the war began hundreds of retired military officers wrote President Bush requesting a meeting before a final decision was made to invade. They expressed grave concerns about a war with Iraq. Their letter foretold the future, saying:

". . .we strongly question the need for a war at this time. Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the Security Council and the testimony of others in the administration, we are not convinced that coercive containment has failed, or that war has become necessary.

"Our own intelligence agencies have consistently noted both the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq and reliable evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Again, we question whether this is the right time and the right war.

"Further, we believe the risks involved in going to war, under the unclear and shifting circumstances that confront us today, are far greater than those faced in 1991. Instead of a desert war to liberate Kuwait, combat would likely involve protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, and Iraqi civil conflict. If that occurs, we fear our own nation and Iraq would both suffer casualties not witnessed since Vietnam.

"We fear the resulting carnage and humanitarian consequences would further devastate Iraqi society and inflame an already volatile Middle East, and increase terrorism against U.S. citizens."

President Bush and his advisers ignored their request.

The only other poll of U.S. soldiers was reported by Military News this January. This poll of Military Times readers, who are more career and officer military, found large drops in support for the Iraq War. Over the course of the last year support for the Iraq War dropped 9 percent, and barely a majority, 54 percent, view the commander-in-chief's performance as positive. In 2004, 38 percent believed the U.S. was very likely to succeed in Iraq, in 2005 that was down to 31 percent.

Now that the views of active duty troops are known it is time for the Congress, both the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties, to tell the president – end this war now. And, it is time for those in the Administration to urge the Commander in Chief to listen to his troops.

Kevin Zeese is the director of DemocracyRising.U.S. and a candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland (www.KevinZeese.com).


http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=10820

[Iceman]

Terms and trials, I admit, there is a difference. after some people's terms, there should be a trial... :hmm: :-j

On the topic, I found this at Al Jazeera:

U.S. troops know they’re dying for a lie



U.S. troops know they are dying for a lie....that is your pompas,arrogant opinon.. and the fact you are quoting from a source like Al Jazeera only re-enforces the proof of your liking to sniff for dirty underwear.

[CCIP]

And where is your reinforcement that it is, in fact, not a lie?

"Truth" without a proof is a lie by default.

Also, I call to your notice that the source is not Al Jazeera directly but a US politician... oh wait, what have we learned about US politicians? :roll:

[Bort]

That is very true. The concept of a President Kerry or President Gore, self appointed inventor of the internet, scared the heck out of me and I have my doubts that the Democrats will nominate anyone better in 2008.
:nope:
Okay, just to clear things up Al Gore never said he invented the internet, the particulars of the story can be found here http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/. Gore bashers love to drag that BS up all the time, particularly when they have nothing of substance to attack him with, as in this case. And as far as John Kerry goes, why you would be afraid of a man who has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, but openly accept a coke snorting boozer who could not even serve out a short stint in the Air National Guard honorably is beyond me.

[PeriscopeDepth]

* Bort]And as far as John Kerry goes, why you would be afraid of a man who has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, but openly accept a coke snorting boozer who could not even serve out a short stint in the Air National Guard honorably is beyond me.

Well said Fox.

PD

[blue3golf]

Men with very few vices have very few virtues.

[Skybird]

Terms and trials, I admit, there is a difference. after some people's terms, there should be a trial... :hmm: :-j

On the topic, I found this at Al Jazeera:

U.S. troops know they’re dying for a lie



U.S. troops know they are dying for a lie....that is your pompas,arrogant opinon.. and the fact you are quoting from a source like Al Jazeera only re-enforces the proof of your liking to sniff for dirty underwear.

Like always when you run out of arguments you somewhat become personal, to demonstrate how superior your case is. Check that link and you will see that the headline is not by me. American wannabe-Senators probably do not write essays for Al Jazeera (who knows...) and so I think the newspaper picked up that essay that was originally published somewhere else. But I don't know. Instead of picking at me, counter the arguments in it - if you can.

[STEED]

Terms and trials, I admit, there is a difference. after some people's terms, there should be a trial... :hmm: :-j

On the topic, I found this at Al Jazeera:

U.S. troops know they’re dying for a lie



U.S. troops know they are dying for a lie....that is your pompas,arrogant opinon.. and the fact you are quoting from a source like Al Jazeera only re-enforces the proof of your liking to sniff for dirty underwear.

Skybird has informed us all the other side of the coin the problem is Al Jazeera are bigger liars than our own politicians, it’s our duty to expose the lies and cut away the dead wood. :hmm:

[Kapitan]

Kaptain, so where is all this extra oil the US is basking in? And check your facts: Afghanistan is not an oil producing country. And are you saying that the US attack on Afghanistan was not justified? Do you recall the reason for the offensive or did it slip your mind?

Hardly worth going to war is it declaring war on a country that one man came from just simply because he flew a plane into a building, thats like me declaring war on my town because some one hit my car, why should the majority suffer because of the minority?

Whats more why didnt american invade chechnya thats where most active al quieda terrorists are and yes chechen rebels do form part of al quieda.

America invaded a sovrign country regardless they just didnt care as they too often dont, but if they asked the government who were willing to help america im sure an agreement would have been made without a declaration of war.

Avonlady would you like to be caught in the middle of a war simply because your nieghbor bombed something and now you have to take the flak regardless wether your involved or not because of your nationality?


What about the oil well afghanistan has untapped oil so now america has influence the will probly want to "help" them get the oil and i bet they whack sanctions on so that america and britian get it cheaper than france or what ever.
why do you think the soviets invaded in the 1980's was more than just the reason specified!






NOTE THIS IS TO PROVIDE A COUNTER ARGUMENT AND NOT REALY MY PERSONAL BELIEFS JUST SOME POINTERS.

[Skybird]

Invading Chechnya would mean war with Russia, and a major world war next. Russia has learned from it's experience with the Germans that it can only win a war if attacking, not defending only. Anyhow, who in the West cares for Chechnya. It's strategical value in the new global world order of America is extremely limited.

Afghanistan'S oil, if there is any, is not the case at stake. the case was the strategical protection of planned pipeline projects in the whole region, to protect them higher influence and military bases in the region were/are in need. It also was about closing the curtain around Iran. All that probably would have created actions of whatever a kind with regard to Afghnaistan, even without 9/11, but not that openly and directly. But while the war in Iraq already had been decided long before 9/11 and had nothing to do with 9/11, Afghanistan was a reaction that was triggered by 9/11. Which somehow could be understood. If the expectations on what can be reached in Afghnaistan were realistic is somethign different. But the motivation to go for it were understood and accepted in europe. That'S why public opinion in Europe supported the Afghan war - and opposed the Iraq war.

[STEED]

9/11 caused a massive out cry for revenge without stopping to think of the consequences and Afghanistan was a nice easy target. Iraq was nicely softened up for the ground invasion and now we are all stuck in the jam pot with no real answers to the mess. It’s easy to hit a soft target than a hard one like North Korea. One of our problems we don’t stop to think and then go on to justify are actions right or wrong.

[August]

* Bort]Okay, just to clear things up Al Gore never said he invented the internet, the particulars of the story can be found here http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/. Gore bashers love to drag that BS up all the time, particularly when they have nothing of substance to attack him with, as in this case. And as far as John Kerry goes, why you would be afraid of a man who has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts, but openly accept a coke snorting boozer who could not even serve out a short stint in the Air National Guard honorably is beyond me.

John Kerry was my senator (Massachusetts) until recently and i've followed his career since 1982 when he was became Lt. Governor. Believe me when i say he would have been a terrible president. The guy has no substance, no backbone. He was a peacenick when it was politically advantageous, and a war monger when that would help his career.

As for his war record, check out what his fellow veterans had to say about it: http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php

Whether you believe them or not, the fact remains he lied to congress about witnessing war crimes during the winter soldier hearings, deliberately tarnishing the honor of his fellow veterans then turned around and attempted to use his war record to help his presidential campaign. Not something that i will ever respect him for.

As for Al Gore, he said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

If you want to quibble about the differences between "creating" and "inventing" be my guest. The point is that he was exaggerating his acomplishments, a habit he is known for.

[blue3golf]

Since everyone is still arguing their point I'll throw this in here.

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/americas_defense/index.cfm

[Salvadoreno]

i hate the middle east.. :damn:

[Ducimus]

i hate the middle east.. :damn:

All things put together, Its getting increasingly harder not to.

[Iceman]

Since everyone is still arguing their point I'll throw this in here.

http://www.grouchymedia.com/other_videos/americas_defense/index.cfm

:up:

"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

[U-552Erich-Topp]

Now it's Canadas' turn to start bringing home the body bags of soldiers with regard to keeping the peace under the NATO umbrella in Afganistan.

This new prime minister (Steven Harper) has a real "KNEE JERK" reaction to world events involving the United States. The problem is, Canadians will grow tired of the mounting body bags of Canadian soldiers over time. Then the next time the United States really needs Canadas' help, the people of Canada won't assist the United States.

[The Avon Lady]

Then the next time the United States really needs Canadas' help, the people of Canada won't assist the United States.
There is nothing new under the sun (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51588-2005Feb24.html). :sunny:

[U-552Erich-Topp]

I don't see any ribbons flying here in Canada at all, in support of our troops over there. That kind of sums up what Canadians think of our troops going over there in the first place.