Immanuel Wallerstein *
It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."
As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy.
Let us see what is happening. This month, Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commanding general in Iraq, suggested that it may be possible to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq next year by 30,000, given improvements in the ability of the Iraqi government's armed forces to handle the situation. Almost immediately, this position came under attack from the war party, and the Pentagon amended this statement to suggest that maybe this wouldn't happen, since maybe the Iraqi forces were not yet ready to handle the situation, which is surely so. At the same time, stories appeared in the leading newspapers suggesting that the level of military sophistication of the insurgent forces has been growing steadily and remarkably. And the increased rate of killings of U.S. soldiers certainly bears this out.
In the debate on the Iraqi constitution, there are two major problems. One is the degree to which the constitution will institutionalize Islamic law. It is conceivable that, given enough time and trust, there could be a compromise on this issue that would more or less satisfy most sides. But the second issue is more intractable. The Kurds, who still really want an independent state, will not settle for less than a federal structure that will guarantee their autonomy, the maintenance of their militia, and control of Kirkuk as their capital and its oil resources as their booty. The Shiites are currently divided between those who feel like the Kurds and want a federal structure, and those who prefer a strong central government provided they can control it and its resources, and provided that it will have an Islamic flavor. And the Sunnis are desperate to maintain a united state, one in which they will minimally get their fair share, and certainly don't want a state governed by Shia interpretations of Islam.
The U.S. has been trying to encourage some compromise, but it is hard to see what this might be. So, two possibilities are before us right now. The Iraqis paper over the differences in some way that will not last long. Or there is a more immediate breakdown in negotiations. Neither of these meets the needs of the U.S. Of course, there is one solution that might end the deadlock. The Iraqi politicians could join the resisters in a nationalist anti-American thrust, and thereby unite at least the non-Kurd part of the population. This development is not to be ruled out, and of course is a nightmare from the U.S. point of view.
But, for the Bush regime, the worst picture of all is on the home front. Approval rating of Bush for the conduct of the Iraqi war has gone down to 36 percent. The figures have been going steadily down for some time and should continue to do so. For poor George Bush is now faced with the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. She is a 48-year-old mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq a year ago. Incensed by Bush's statement that the U.S. soldiers died in a "noble cause," she decided to go to Crawford, Texas, and ask to see the president so that he could explain to her for what "noble cause" her son died.
Of course, George W. Bush hasn't had the courage to see her. He sent out emissaries. She said this wasn't enough, that she wanted to see Bush personally. She has now said that she will maintain a vigil outside Bush's home until either he sees her or she is arrested. At first, the press ignored her. But now, other mothers of soldiers in Iraq have come to join her. She is getting moral support from more and more people who had previously supported the war. And the national press now has turned her into a major celebrity, some comparing her to Rosa Parks, the Black lady whose refusal to move to the back of the bus in Atlanta a half-century ago was the spark that transformed the struggle for Black rights into a mainstream cause.
Bush won't see her because he knows there is nothing that he can say to her. Seeing her is a losing proposition. But so is not seeing her. The pressure to withdraw from Iraq is now becoming mainstream. It is not because the U.S. public shares the view that the U.S. is an imperialist power in Iraq. It is because there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Or rather there is a light, the light an acerbic Canadian cartoonist for the Calgary Sun drew recently. He shows a U.S. soldier in a dark tunnel approaching someone to whose body is attached an array of explosives. The light comes from the match he is holding to the wick that will cause them to explode. In the month following the attacks in London and the high level of U.S. deaths in Iraq, this is the light that the U.S. public is beginning to see. They want out. Bush is caught in an insoluble dilemma. The war is lost.
* Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu; fax: 1-203-432-6976.
Full Version: "The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War"
You wish. 
Posting a long article without commentary is against the forum rules. Just a friendly warning.
The problem of public support for the war is indeed a troubling one, but I feel we can overcome it, even with a blatantly hostile media creating a biased image of the war at home.
The problem of public support for the war is indeed a troubling one, but I feel we can overcome it, even with a blatantly hostile media creating a biased image of the war at home.
You tell 'em Benny! Now, let's sit back and watch this individual heed your advice. 
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Dec 31 2005, 12:33 PM)
The problem of public support for the war is indeed a troubling one, but I feel we can overcome it, even with a blatantly hostile media creating a biased image of the war at home.
Really? Please explain how you hope to achieve this?
As for a "blatantly hostile media" - well, it could just be that the news coming out of Iraq just isn't that good. How can you expect widespread public support when the situation shows little sign of improving, despite the president claiming to have prevailed. Slightly premature don't you think?
I guess reports such as this don't help much.
Zarqawi militants seize key town in western
Iraq Al Qaeda group flies banner from rooftops
By Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post | September 6, 2005
BAGHDAD -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's foreign-led Al Qaeda in Iraq took open control yesterday of a key western town at the Syrian border, deploying its guerrilla fighters in the streets and flying Zarqawi's black banner from rooftops, said tribal leaders and other residents in the city and nearby villages.
A sign newly posted at the entrance of Qaim declared, ''Welcome to the Islamic Kingdom of Qaim." A statement posted in mosques described Qaim as an ''Islamic kingdom liberated from the occupation."
Zarqawi's fighters were killing officials and civilians seen as government-allied or anti-Islamic, witnesses, residents, and others said.
On Sunday, a woman was found shot to death in a street of Qaim. A sign left on her body declared, ''A prostitute who was punished."
Zarqawi's fighters had shot to death nine men in public executions in the city center since the weekend, accusing the men of being spies and collaborators for US forces, said Sheik Nawaf Mahallawi, a leader of a Sunni Arab tribe, the Albu Mahal, that had battled the foreign fighters.
Dozens of families were fleeing Qaim daily, Mahallawi said.
''It would be insane to attack Zarqawi's people, even to shoot one bullet at them," Mahallawi said yesterday. We cannot attack them. But we will not stand still if they attack us. We hope the US forces end this in the coming days. We want the city to go back to its normal situation."
In other developments across Iraq yesterday:
Insurgents launched a daylight assault against the Interior Ministry in Baghdad, killing two police officers in a surge of attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Thunderous explosions and volleys of heavy gunfire rattled the downtown soon after sunrise as about four carloads of insurgents staged a lightning raid on the Interior Ministry, which is responsible for police and paramilitary units nationwide.
The insurgents, who fired automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, withdrew after about 15 minutes, leaving two police officers dead and five wounded. There was no report of insurgent casualties.
A statement posted on an Islamic website claimed responsibility for the attack in the name of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
In Tal Afar, at least eight Iraqi civilians, including five children, were killed in fighting yesterday. There was no report of casualties among the combatants, including the US Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is trying to wrest control of Tal Afar, 260 miles north of Baghdad, from insurgents and foreign fighters.
Two British soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in the flash-point city of Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, Britain's Ministry of Defense said.
Captain Jeffrey Pool, a US Marine spokesman in Ramadi, capital of the western province that includes Qaim, said Marines in the area of Qaim had no word of any unusual activity in the city. Numerous Marines are stationed near the town, although Marines said they were not involved in recent ground fighting between pro-government tribal fighters and Zarqawi's group.
According to a pool report, the Iraqi government has no forces in Qaim.
Qaim, which is within a few miles of the Syrian border, has been a major stronghold for insurgents ferrying fighters, weapons, and money from Syria into the rest of Iraq along a network of Euphrates River towns.
Many of the towns along the river have appeared to be heavily under the insurgents' domination, despite repeated Marine offenses along the river since May. Residents and Marines have described insurgents escaping ahead of the offensives, and returning when the offensives are over.
And the good news:
While the stepped-up US offensives have been unable to drive out insurgents permanently, the US attacks are credited by some with helping disrupt insurgent networks and reduce the number of car-bombings and suicide attacks in the rest of Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeas...own_in_western/
Ah, at least some give credit where credit's due.
For those of you unfamiliar with Al-Qaim, here's the check out the wikipedia entry.
"What about the elections?", i hear you cry.
It looks like they didn't work out quite to plan either.
Iraq is a giant, messy albatross hanging from President George W Bush's neck. The faith-based American president believes "we are winning the war in Iraq". The reality-based global public opinion - not to mention 59% of Americans, and counting - know this is not true.
Bush felt that "God put me here" so he could conduct a "war on terror". Somebody up there must have a tremendous sense of humor - once again manifested in the way He allotted winners and losers in Iraq's December 15 parliamentary elections.
The Shi'ite religious parties in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) were the big winners - from 70% to 95% of the vote in the impoverished southern provinces; 59% in Baghdad; and nationally, well over 40% of the total (they've won in nine of Iraq's 18 provinces plus the capital). It's a relatively unexpected success considering the dreadful record of Ibrahim Jaafari's Shi'ite-dominated government.
All those intimately allied with the US invasion and occupation were big losers. The Iraqi National List of US intelligence asset and former prime minister Iyad Allawi, also known as "Saddam without a moustache", the man who endorsed the Pentagon bombing of the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf and Sunni Arab Fallujah - got a pitiful 14%.
Convicted fraudster and former Pentagon ally Ahmad Chalabi received less than 1% in Baghdad. The neo-conservatives of the American Enterprise Institute were predicting 5% for Chalabi (their overwhelming favorite) and 20% for Allawi; that's proof enough they have no clue about what's going on in Iraq.
Bush's new Iraq is pro-Iran. It will not recognize Israel. And it wants the Americans out; one of the first measures of an emerging, powerful parliamentary alliance between roughly 38 Sadrists of Shi'ite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and roughly 50 Sunni Arabs will be to call for an immediate end of the occupation.
The details to be ironed out hinge on whether the UIA majority aligns itself with the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds, or with both in a government of "national unity" - as it is being called by the current vice president Abdel Mahdi (a free marketer) as well as current president Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.
"National unity" is improbable; the Shi'ites simply won't forgo their majority. The Kurds for their part know it will be a foolish move to try to break their strategic alliance with the UIA. Sunni Arab votes were split between the neo-Ba'athist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak and the Islamist, Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. But what matters is that they are both part of the Sunni Arab resistance. Their common line is that their presence in parliament develops a new political front - what we have called the Sinn Fein component of the Sunni Arab resistance.
The big problem is that once again in Iraq Shi'ites voted for Shi'ites, Sunnis for Sunnis (they won in four provinces, Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, but got only 20% in Baghdad) and Kurds for Kurds (they also won in four provinces, including Kirkuk). Liberal democrats who were dreaming of a democratic, federal, anti-sectarian Iraq have been totally sidelined. Arguably no politician in Iraq is thinking about the future of the country as a whole. No national projects are being discussed.
The constitutional vote in October had already institutionalized the sectarian division - 80% of the Sunni Arabs in the four main Sunni provinces voted against what they saw as an American-designed charter. Washington believed the vote would undermine the resistance. The exact opposite happened. The December elections now paint a vivid picture of a country fractured on sectarian lines. But this is what the Americans wanted in the first place.
Elections or no elections, Iraq enters 2006 mired in the same, usual, gruesome rituals. The Pentagon believes it can subdue the Sunni Arab resistance by bombing them to death while the resistance keeps bombing, suicide bombing and assassinating en masse.
http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/
I must say that is some achievement. Congratulations Mr. Bush, you have managed to create an Iraq which pro Iran, not bad when considering they were mortal enemies until you interfered.
[quoe]As for a "blatantly hostile media" - well, it could just be that the news coming out of Iraq just isn't that good. How can you expect widespread public support when the situation shows little sign of improving, despite the president claiming to have prevailed. Slightly premature don't you think?[/quote]
To state that "the news coming out of Iraq just isn't that good" is either a gross error or a lie. In under three years the United States has taken a country that was a rotting failed state under a fascist dictator to a rapidly liberalizing democracy with a constitution, free and fair elections, and a quickly growing independent military. This more or less cannot be denied, so war detractors will often attempt to make claims that the New Iraq is pro-Iran and anti-Israel. This is basically a lie,and I have never seen anyone making this popular assertion credibly source it. The War News Blog does not do so either. The United States plan to make major troop reductions soon, going from 150,000 to 94,000 troops after the next troop rotation, according to the Department of Defense.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/n...51107-5075.html
The United States will be able to overcome dwindling public support because the war simply isn't going to be going on much longer. It has basically been won. Public support for the Insurgency and terrorism across the Middle East in general has plummeted since Zarqawi's bombing in Jordan, the large majority of the Iraqi military can now operate completely independently save air and artillery support (the supposedly "one" totally independent unit is a unit that can provide its own air cover and artillery).
Expect to see large troop reductions before the 2006 elections. What will happen as a result of this will not be a falling apart of the new Iraqi state but a strengthening of it.
As for Qaim, such things are nothing new, they are always crushed within days. It is only a matter of time until the Iraqis are able to crush them without US support.
It is, by the way, intellectually dishonest to call Al Qaeda in Iraq "Zarqawi's fighters" because it is much more than likely that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead and rotting.
The Daily War News blog does not even attempt to keep up the pretense of unbiased coverage or intellectual honesty. If you wanted to support an assertions that the news coming out of Iraq is poor, you could have done better than a single Globe article about a momentary Insurgent victory that will soon be squashed and a blatantly biased blog.
To state that "the news coming out of Iraq just isn't that good" is either a gross error or a lie. In under three years the United States has taken a country that was a rotting failed state under a fascist dictator to a rapidly liberalizing democracy with a constitution, free and fair elections, and a quickly growing independent military. This more or less cannot be denied, so war detractors will often attempt to make claims that the New Iraq is pro-Iran and anti-Israel. This is basically a lie,and I have never seen anyone making this popular assertion credibly source it. The War News Blog does not do so either. The United States plan to make major troop reductions soon, going from 150,000 to 94,000 troops after the next troop rotation, according to the Department of Defense.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/n...51107-5075.html
The United States will be able to overcome dwindling public support because the war simply isn't going to be going on much longer. It has basically been won. Public support for the Insurgency and terrorism across the Middle East in general has plummeted since Zarqawi's bombing in Jordan, the large majority of the Iraqi military can now operate completely independently save air and artillery support (the supposedly "one" totally independent unit is a unit that can provide its own air cover and artillery).
Expect to see large troop reductions before the 2006 elections. What will happen as a result of this will not be a falling apart of the new Iraqi state but a strengthening of it.
As for Qaim, such things are nothing new, they are always crushed within days. It is only a matter of time until the Iraqis are able to crush them without US support.
It is, by the way, intellectually dishonest to call Al Qaeda in Iraq "Zarqawi's fighters" because it is much more than likely that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead and rotting.
The Daily War News blog does not even attempt to keep up the pretense of unbiased coverage or intellectual honesty. If you wanted to support an assertions that the news coming out of Iraq is poor, you could have done better than a single Globe article about a momentary Insurgent victory that will soon be squashed and a blatantly biased blog.
I admire your loyalty and marvel at your optimism.
It would be wonderful if all that you hope for (and all that Bush has promised) in Iraq comes true but sadly it will not happen.
Those free elections you are so proud of have elected people who are utterly against what you are trying to achieve. Kind of a bummer that.
Ah, gotcha. I recall you pulled the same stunt a few years back in Vietnam. I think the result was a draw, wasn't it?
America, which should be the presidents' primary concern, is sick of this pointless and futile war in Iraq. That is why the government is beginning to consider troop reductions which will hopefully lead to a complete withdrawal. But if you think that Iraq will continue on as a peaceful and stable democracy then you are naive to the point of complete abandon my friend. The Iraq which you so hoped would shower you with flowers and blowjobs for it's "liberation" will hate you and all that you stand for. I believe you have created just another monster and this one will piss all over that beacon of democracy you try to ram down it's throat.
Actually if you check the article it dates back to September. US forces should be able to crush them, I agree. You are largest and most powerful miliary force on the planet. This is not my point. The point is that this is very bad news. This is not winning the war. The war is not almost won. You are being forced to concede... again. Incidently I haven't found any further reports that this insurgency at Al Qaim has been crushed. Maybe you can.
You appear to have a lot of faith the Iraqi military. I have heard many reports to the contrary. Reports of them refusing to fight and running away when it all kicks off. I'll find some if it helps. The police force seem to be similarly incompetent.
There have been 2,376 coalition deaths, 2,177 Americans, one Australian, 98 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of December 30, 2005.
All because your stupid president wanted his stupid war. And yet he hasn't even bothered to attend just one funeral or even attend the arrival of the dead soldiers who died for their country.
The saddest thing is it was all completely unecessary. A complete waste of life and money.
I don't know how he sleeps at night.
It would be wonderful if all that you hope for (and all that Bush has promised) in Iraq comes true but sadly it will not happen.
Those free elections you are so proud of have elected people who are utterly against what you are trying to achieve. Kind of a bummer that.
QUOTE
The United States will be able to overcome dwindling public support because the war simply isn't going to be going on much longer.
Ah, gotcha. I recall you pulled the same stunt a few years back in Vietnam. I think the result was a draw, wasn't it?
America, which should be the presidents' primary concern, is sick of this pointless and futile war in Iraq. That is why the government is beginning to consider troop reductions which will hopefully lead to a complete withdrawal. But if you think that Iraq will continue on as a peaceful and stable democracy then you are naive to the point of complete abandon my friend. The Iraq which you so hoped would shower you with flowers and blowjobs for it's "liberation" will hate you and all that you stand for. I believe you have created just another monster and this one will piss all over that beacon of democracy you try to ram down it's throat.
QUOTE
As for Qaim, such things are nothing new, they are always crushed within days. It is only a matter of time until the Iraqis are able to crush them without US support.
Actually if you check the article it dates back to September. US forces should be able to crush them, I agree. You are largest and most powerful miliary force on the planet. This is not my point. The point is that this is very bad news. This is not winning the war. The war is not almost won. You are being forced to concede... again. Incidently I haven't found any further reports that this insurgency at Al Qaim has been crushed. Maybe you can.
You appear to have a lot of faith the Iraqi military. I have heard many reports to the contrary. Reports of them refusing to fight and running away when it all kicks off. I'll find some if it helps. The police force seem to be similarly incompetent.
There have been 2,376 coalition deaths, 2,177 Americans, one Australian, 98 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of December 30, 2005.
All because your stupid president wanted his stupid war. And yet he hasn't even bothered to attend just one funeral or even attend the arrival of the dead soldiers who died for their country.
The saddest thing is it was all completely unecessary. A complete waste of life and money.
I don't know how he sleeps at night.
QUOTE
Ah, gotcha. I recall you pulled the same stunt a few years back in Vietnam. I think the result was a draw, wasn't it?
America, which should be the presidents' primary concern, is sick of this pointless and futile war in Iraq. That is why the government is beginning to consider troop reductions which will hopefully lead to a complete withdrawal. But if you think that Iraq will continue on as a peaceful and stable democracy then you are naive to the point of complete abandon my friend. The Iraq which you so hoped would shower you with flowers and blowjobs for it's "liberation" will hate you and all that you stand for. I believe you have created just another monster and this one will piss all over that beacon of democracy you try to ram down it's throat.
America, which should be the presidents' primary concern, is sick of this pointless and futile war in Iraq. That is why the government is beginning to consider troop reductions which will hopefully lead to a complete withdrawal. But if you think that Iraq will continue on as a peaceful and stable democracy then you are naive to the point of complete abandon my friend. The Iraq which you so hoped would shower you with flowers and blowjobs for it's "liberation" will hate you and all that you stand for. I believe you have created just another monster and this one will piss all over that beacon of democracy you try to ram down it's throat.
The rudeness and condescension makes your argument much more convincing. Really, it does.
Pick up a history book. The Vietnam war was lost because the democratic congress refused to fund Nixon's Vietnamization plan. The strategy itself, before it's funding was cut out from under it, was performing quite admirably. Assuming funding not cut from the Iraqization plan, there is every reason to believe it will be a success, as the Vietnamization was was.
You state that Bush should care about America and yet he does not. Then you state that the Iraq pullout is a result of dwindling public support. Self-contradictory.
You state that the Iraqi people will hate America and all it stands for and that as soon as the US leaves Iraq will revert to being a fascist dictatorship. You offer no support for this conclusion, but see fit to make it anyways. For some reason you felt a necessity to make it in a vulgar and offensive manner. The anti-war crowd seems to have some feeling that they are entitled to make assertions about Iraq without offering evidence as to why those assertions are credible ones. That they are exempt from operation under the same rules of burden of proof that the rest of us are obligated to follow if we wish to be taken seriously.
QUOTE
Actually if you check the article it dates back to September. US forces should be able to crush them, I agree. You are largest and most powerful miliary force on the planet. This is not my point. The point is that this is very bad news. This is not winning the war. The war is not almost won. You are being forced to concede... again. Incidently I haven't found any further reports that this insurgency at Al Qaim has been crushed. Maybe you can.
Operations Matador and Squeeze Play seem to have flushed out much of the Insurgent control in the area, from what a Google search told me.
QUOTE
You appear to have a lot of faith the Iraqi military. I have heard many reports to the contrary. Reports of them refusing to fight and running away when it all kicks off. I'll find some if it helps. The police force seem to be similarly incompetent.
Your operating on outdated information.
QUOTE
Iraqis know their people, they know their language, and they know their culture -- and they know who the terrorists are. Iraqi forces are earning the trust of their countrymen -- who are willing to help them in the fight against the enemy. As the Iraqi forces grow in number, they're helping to keep a better hold on the cities taken from the enemy. And as the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight -- and this will take time and patience. And it's worth the time, and it's worth the effort -- because Iraqis and Americans share a common enemy, and when that enemy is defeated in Iraq, Americans will be safer here at home. (Applause.)
The training of the Iraqi security forces is an enormous task, and it always hasn't gone smoothly. We all remember the reports of some Iraqi security forces running from the fight more than a year ago. Yet in the past year, Iraqi forces have made real progress. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi battalions ready for combat. Now, there are over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions in the fight against the terrorists -- typically comprised of between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces. Of these, about 80 Iraqi battalions are fighting side-by-side with coalition forces, and about 40 others are taking the lead in the fight. Most of these 40 battalions are controlling their own battle space, and conducting their own operations against the terrorists with some coalition support -- and they're helping to turn the tide of this struggle in freedom's favor. America and our troops are proud to stand with the brave Iraqi fighters. (Applause.)
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.
The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space -- hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block-by-block. To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order -- and reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope.
One of the Iraqi soldiers who fought in TAL Afar was a private named Tarek Hazem. This brave Iraqi fighter says, "We're not afraid. We're here to protect our country. All we feel is motivated to kill the terrorists." Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it. And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of TAL Afar were able to vote in October's constitutional referendum.
As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in the fight against the terrorists, they're also taking control of more and more Iraqi territory. At this moment, over 30 Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility. In Baghdad, Iraqi battalions have taken over major sectors of the capital -- including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Last year, the area around Baghdad's Haifa Street was so thick with terrorists that it earned the nickname "Purple Heart Boulevard." Then Iraqi forces took responsibility for this dangerous neighborhood -- and attacks are now down.
Our coalition has handed over roughly 90 square miles of Baghdad province to Iraqi security forces. Iraqi battalions have taken over responsibility for areas in South-Central Iraq, sectors of Southeast Iraq, sectors of Western Iraq, and sectors of North-Central Iraq. As Iraqi forces take responsibility for more of their own territory, coalition forces can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-value targets, like the terrorist Zarqawi and his associates.
We're also transferring forward operating bases to Iraqi control. Over a dozen bases in Iraq have been handed over to the Iraqi government -- including Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit, which has served as the coalition headquarters in one of Iraq's most dangerous regions. From many of these bases, the Iraqi security forces are planning and executing operations against the terrorists -- and bringing security and pride to the Iraqi people.
Progress by the Iraqi security forces has come, in part, because we learned from our earlier experiences and made changes in the way we help train Iraqi troops. When our coalition first arrived, we began the process of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from external threats, and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders. The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training -- they proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. So the approach was adjusted. Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi Army, we changed the way they're trained and equipped, and we focused the Army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external.
Now, all Iraqi Army recruits receive about the same length of basic training as new recruits in the U.S. Army -- a five-week core course, followed by an additional three-to-seven weeks of specialized training. With coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for the Iraqi military services, an Iraqi military academy, a non-commissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school -- and NATO has established an Iraqi Joint Staff College. There's also an increased focus on leadership training, with professional development courses for Iraqi squad leaders and platoon sergeants and warrant officers and sergeants-major. A new generation of Iraqi officers is being trained, leaders who will lead their forces with skill -- so they can defeat the terrorists and secure their freedom.
Similar changes have taken place in the training of the Iraqi police. When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures -- and they received limited training in the use of small arms. This did not adequately prepare the fight they would face. And so we changed the way the Iraqi police are trained. Now, police recruits spend more of their time outside the classroom with intensive hands-on training in anti-terrorism operations and real-world survival skills.
Iraq has now six basic police academies, and one in Jordan, that together produce over 3,500 new police officers every ten weeks. The Baghdad police academy has simulation models where Iraqis train to stop IED attacks and operate roadblocks. And because Iraqi police are not just facing common criminals, they are getting live-fire training with the AK-47s.
As more and more skilled Iraqi security forces have come online, there's been another important change in the way new Iraqi recruits are trained. When the training effort began, nearly all the trainers came from coalition countries. Today, the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are being taught by Iraqi instructors. By training the trainers, we're helping Iraqis create an institutional capability that will allow the Iraqi forces to continue to develop and grow long after coalition forces have left Iraq.
As the training has improved, so has the quality of the recruits being trained. Even though the terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and army recruits, there is no shortage of Iraqis who are willing to risk their lives to secure the future of a free Iraq.
The training of the Iraqi security forces is an enormous task, and it always hasn't gone smoothly. We all remember the reports of some Iraqi security forces running from the fight more than a year ago. Yet in the past year, Iraqi forces have made real progress. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi battalions ready for combat. Now, there are over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions in the fight against the terrorists -- typically comprised of between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces. Of these, about 80 Iraqi battalions are fighting side-by-side with coalition forces, and about 40 others are taking the lead in the fight. Most of these 40 battalions are controlling their own battle space, and conducting their own operations against the terrorists with some coalition support -- and they're helping to turn the tide of this struggle in freedom's favor. America and our troops are proud to stand with the brave Iraqi fighters. (Applause.)
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.
The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space -- hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block-by-block. To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order -- and reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope.
One of the Iraqi soldiers who fought in TAL Afar was a private named Tarek Hazem. This brave Iraqi fighter says, "We're not afraid. We're here to protect our country. All we feel is motivated to kill the terrorists." Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it. And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of TAL Afar were able to vote in October's constitutional referendum.
As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in the fight against the terrorists, they're also taking control of more and more Iraqi territory. At this moment, over 30 Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility. In Baghdad, Iraqi battalions have taken over major sectors of the capital -- including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Last year, the area around Baghdad's Haifa Street was so thick with terrorists that it earned the nickname "Purple Heart Boulevard." Then Iraqi forces took responsibility for this dangerous neighborhood -- and attacks are now down.
Our coalition has handed over roughly 90 square miles of Baghdad province to Iraqi security forces. Iraqi battalions have taken over responsibility for areas in South-Central Iraq, sectors of Southeast Iraq, sectors of Western Iraq, and sectors of North-Central Iraq. As Iraqi forces take responsibility for more of their own territory, coalition forces can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-value targets, like the terrorist Zarqawi and his associates.
We're also transferring forward operating bases to Iraqi control. Over a dozen bases in Iraq have been handed over to the Iraqi government -- including Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit, which has served as the coalition headquarters in one of Iraq's most dangerous regions. From many of these bases, the Iraqi security forces are planning and executing operations against the terrorists -- and bringing security and pride to the Iraqi people.
Progress by the Iraqi security forces has come, in part, because we learned from our earlier experiences and made changes in the way we help train Iraqi troops. When our coalition first arrived, we began the process of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from external threats, and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders. The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training -- they proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. So the approach was adjusted. Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi Army, we changed the way they're trained and equipped, and we focused the Army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external.
Now, all Iraqi Army recruits receive about the same length of basic training as new recruits in the U.S. Army -- a five-week core course, followed by an additional three-to-seven weeks of specialized training. With coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for the Iraqi military services, an Iraqi military academy, a non-commissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school -- and NATO has established an Iraqi Joint Staff College. There's also an increased focus on leadership training, with professional development courses for Iraqi squad leaders and platoon sergeants and warrant officers and sergeants-major. A new generation of Iraqi officers is being trained, leaders who will lead their forces with skill -- so they can defeat the terrorists and secure their freedom.
Similar changes have taken place in the training of the Iraqi police. When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures -- and they received limited training in the use of small arms. This did not adequately prepare the fight they would face. And so we changed the way the Iraqi police are trained. Now, police recruits spend more of their time outside the classroom with intensive hands-on training in anti-terrorism operations and real-world survival skills.
Iraq has now six basic police academies, and one in Jordan, that together produce over 3,500 new police officers every ten weeks. The Baghdad police academy has simulation models where Iraqis train to stop IED attacks and operate roadblocks. And because Iraqi police are not just facing common criminals, they are getting live-fire training with the AK-47s.
As more and more skilled Iraqi security forces have come online, there's been another important change in the way new Iraqi recruits are trained. When the training effort began, nearly all the trainers came from coalition countries. Today, the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are being taught by Iraqi instructors. By training the trainers, we're helping Iraqis create an institutional capability that will allow the Iraqi forces to continue to develop and grow long after coalition forces have left Iraq.
As the training has improved, so has the quality of the recruits being trained. Even though the terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and army recruits, there is no shortage of Iraqis who are willing to risk their lives to secure the future of a free Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051130-2.html
QUOTE
There have been 2,376 coalition deaths, 2,177 Americans, one Australian, 98 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, two Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of December 30, 2005.
All because your stupid president wanted his stupid war. And yet he hasn't even bothered to attend just one funeral or even attend the arrival of the dead soldiers who died for their country.
The saddest thing is it was all completely unecessary. A complete waste of life and money.
I don't know how he sleeps at night.
All because your stupid president wanted his stupid war. And yet he hasn't even bothered to attend just one funeral or even attend the arrival of the dead soldiers who died for their country.
The saddest thing is it was all completely unecessary. A complete waste of life and money.
I don't know how he sleeps at night.
Notwithstanding, I assume you mean, the fact that Saddam Hussein had and was pursuing illegal weapons materials/programs, was being held in material breach of his disarmament obligations, actively supported international terrorism, and, after twelve years of stalling that culminated in seven months of hemming and hawing, finally turned down a US issued ultimatum for peace that would have granted him total immunity from his many crimes against humanity.
Your command of insults and conceit is clear, your command of hte facts remains heavily in question.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2004-435.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2005-351.pdf
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle....=10101&o=DIB004
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A76_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A75_0_2_0_C/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
The Bush administration's casus belli stands vindicated by history. I can't help but be less than shocked that we don't hear much about it on the front page news.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jan 1 2006, 09:44 AM)
The rudeness and condescension makes your argument much more convincing. Really, it does.
Pick up a history book. The Vietnam war was lost because the democratic congress refused to fund Nixon's Vietnamization plan. The strategy itself, before it's funding was cut out from under it, was performing quite admirably. Assuming funding not cut from the Iraqization plan, there is every reason to believe it will be a success, as the Vietnamization was was.
You state that Bush should care about America and yet he does not. Then you state that the Iraq pullout is a result of dwindling public support. Self-contradictory.
You state that the Iraqi people will hate America and all it stands for and that as soon as the US leaves Iraq will revert to being a fascist dictatorship. You offer no support for this conclusion, but see fit to make it anyways. For some reason you felt a necessity to make it in a vulgar and offensive manner. The anti-war crowd seems to have some feeling that they are entitled to make assertions about Iraq without offering evidence as to why those assertions are credible ones. That they are exempt from operation under the same rules of burden of proof that the rest of us are obligated to follow if we wish to be taken seriously.
Operations Matador and Squeeze Play seem to have flushed out much of the Insurgent control in the area, from what a Google search told me.
Your operating on outdated information.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051130-2.html
Notwithstanding, I assume you mean, the fact that Saddam Hussein had and was pursuing illegal weapons materials/programs, was being held in material breach of his disarmament obligations, actively supported international terrorism, and, after twelve years of stalling that culminated in seven months of hemming and hawing, finally turned down a US issued ultimatum for peace that would have granted him total immunity from his many crimes against humanity.
Your command of insults and conceit is clear, your command of hte facts remains heavily in question.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2004-435.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2005-351.pdf
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle....=10101&o=DIB004
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A76_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A75_0_2_0_C/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
The Bush administration's casus belli stands vindicated by history. I can't help but be less than shocked that we don't hear much about it on the front page news.
Pick up a history book. The Vietnam war was lost because the democratic congress refused to fund Nixon's Vietnamization plan. The strategy itself, before it's funding was cut out from under it, was performing quite admirably. Assuming funding not cut from the Iraqization plan, there is every reason to believe it will be a success, as the Vietnamization was was.
You state that Bush should care about America and yet he does not. Then you state that the Iraq pullout is a result of dwindling public support. Self-contradictory.
You state that the Iraqi people will hate America and all it stands for and that as soon as the US leaves Iraq will revert to being a fascist dictatorship. You offer no support for this conclusion, but see fit to make it anyways. For some reason you felt a necessity to make it in a vulgar and offensive manner. The anti-war crowd seems to have some feeling that they are entitled to make assertions about Iraq without offering evidence as to why those assertions are credible ones. That they are exempt from operation under the same rules of burden of proof that the rest of us are obligated to follow if we wish to be taken seriously.
Operations Matador and Squeeze Play seem to have flushed out much of the Insurgent control in the area, from what a Google search told me.
Your operating on outdated information.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051130-2.html
Notwithstanding, I assume you mean, the fact that Saddam Hussein had and was pursuing illegal weapons materials/programs, was being held in material breach of his disarmament obligations, actively supported international terrorism, and, after twelve years of stalling that culminated in seven months of hemming and hawing, finally turned down a US issued ultimatum for peace that would have granted him total immunity from his many crimes against humanity.
Your command of insults and conceit is clear, your command of hte facts remains heavily in question.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2004-435.pdf
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2005-351.pdf
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle....=10101&o=DIB004
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A76_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A75_0_2_0_C/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
The Bush administration's casus belli stands vindicated by history. I can't help but be less than shocked that we don't hear much about it on the front page news.
As usual Benny, you vomit pro-Bush lies and distortions, completely ignoring the fact that the CIA helped install Saddamy as dictator in the 60's completely ignoring or denying the fact USA armed Saddamy with WMDs and conventional weapons during that period upto Bush I's first crusade when they lured Saddamy to attack Kuwait. You completely ignore or deny the fact that there were no WMDs in iraq before you morons invaded, You completely ignore or deny the fact there was no "El Qaeda" or "terrorism" in iraq before you morons invaded,
Reap what you sow you mentally deformed morons.
THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ
By RALPH PETERS
IRAQ made impressive progress in 2005. You wouldn't have known it from the daily news coverage or the surrender-now demands of left-wing extremists, but the long-suffering nation marched forward.
Here and abroad, the enemies of freedom insisted that failure was inevitable. Terrorists, insurgents, journalists with agendas, global America-haters and the Democratic Party's national leadership all tried to force our troops out of Iraq, no matter the consequences for the 26 million human beings who'd be left behind.
But the Iraqis refused to fail. Our troops refused to fail. And the Bush administration refused to fail.
Thank God.
Over the last 12 months, the pessimists called every major development wrong. But that won't stop them from doing everything they can again this year to devalue freedom, discredit democracy, drive Iraq toward civil war, encourage the terrorists and, above all, embarrass the Bush administration.
Our critics, foreign and domestic, will continue to ignore the human rights of millions while shrieking over the "mistreatment" of imprisoned terrorists and demanding a "fair" trial for Saddam (in Europe, with no death penalty). But the left's self-righteous bluster sounds more like sour-grape nagging every day.
CONSIDER just a dozen of the many reasons for optimism about Iraq:
1) Despite left-wing arguments that the peoples of the Middle East aren't ready to rule themselves through the ballot box, Iraq just held its third nationwide vote — with higher levels of participation than an American presidential election.
2) Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who were supposed to doom democracy, came out in masses to vote this time. They were disappointed that their minority numbers didn't magically give them a majority (sound familiar?), but their largest parties are maneuvering for places in the new government.
3) The terrorists lost a lot of ground last year, figuratively and literally. Their savagery backfired with the population, and more Iraqi security forces stood up for their country. Meanwhile, our troops killed terrorists in satisfying and lopsided numbers. The result? The terrorists still can create nasty local problems — but they can't destroy Iraq's future.
4) The Sunni Arab insurgents lost steam. Attacks still make headlines, but Iraq's major cities are far more secure than they were a year ago. Major combat operations moved from big cities to smaller cities — and then down to dusty border towns.
5) Every terrorist and insurgent tactic failed. Bombs may kill individuals, but they haven't been able to kill the new Iraq — or dishearten our troops. Extremist atrocities alienated Iraqis, and attacks on the country's infrastructure haven't won the bad guys any new friends. At present, they've shifted their efforts to concentrate on Iraq's oil industry. They'll fail this time, too.
6) Our military leaders are so confident about the situation that they believe we can reduce our troop levels significantly in 2006. So much for being defeated.
7) The international community became much more supportive of the new Iraq, forgiving Saddam-era debts while increasing aid and loans to the government. Foreign investment soared in peaceful Kurdistan (even the Turks invested).
8) The Middle East is changing, thanks to our removal of Saddam and our military presence. The process may seem glacially slow to our impatient tempers, but until our tanks reached Baghdad there was no hope of change at all. Now, Syrian troops are out of Lebanon, the Damascus regime is shaking, the whacky-for-Allah president of Iran is panicstricken, and even the Saudis have decided that supporting evil in Iraq is bound to come back at them. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is next.
9) Far from being discouraged, our Army and Marine veterans of Iraq have been re-enlisting in startlingly high numbers — knowing they'll be sent back to Iraq. The let's-just-surrender trio of Dean, Reid and Pelosi may believe we're bound to fail, but our troops are voluntarily betting their lives on a win.
10) President Bush found his voice again. After allowing the give-it-all-to-the-terrorists crowd to shape our domestic debate for far too long, Bush came out swinging — and raised his popularity ratings significantly. Deeds weren't enough. The president had to sound like a wartime leader. These days, he does.
11) The American people displayed their inborn common sense again. As antiwar activists betrayed our troops with lies that we were losing, their fellow citizens shifted back behind the administration late last year. Abandoned by nervous Democrats, Cindy Sheehan had to go to Spain to attract an audience (even in Madrid, she didn't get much of one).
12) After failing to convince America's citizens or our troops that Iraq was doomed, our get-Bush-at-all-costs media shifted to exaggerating the domestic threat from intelligence surveillance. To hear the pundits howl, you'd think the National Security Agency had microphones in our showers and the CIA kept agents under our beds. But the dictatorship-of-the-intellectuals bunch failed again — instead of being outraged, a large majority of Americans support using any intelligence means necessary to get the terrorists before they get us. Made-in-Missouri common sense wins again.
WE should be encouraged by the progress in Iraq and heartened by the American people's distrust of elitist propaganda. From Hollywood's latest anti-American rant to the decaying New York Times, the stars of the America's Most Arrogant Show have had to learn yet again that we don't take orders from trust-fund snots, campus cowards or actors (when Alfred Hitchcock said, "Actors are cattle," he was being far too kind).
We, the people, support our troops. And we don't like it when cynical activists and political hacks try to exploit those in uniform. Americans will always trust G.I. Joe (and Jane) over the latte lizards at moveon.org.
As we enter this new year, much could still go wrong in Iraq. The remarkable Arab genius for failure still might thwart the progress made to date. Minority and women's rights are threatened. The old grudges haven't vanished. Corruption, the developing world's favorite contact sport, could undo Iraq's new government. Many Iraqis may have to learn for themselves that theology and government don't mix.
Even as they falter, insurgents and terrorists will continue to generate headlines — their last, best hope. More of our troops will bleed in the cause of universal freedom. And as our own midterm elections approach, we'll hear no end of defeatist rhetoric from the Democratic Party and its partisans in the media.
But most Iraqis chose to vote, rather than shoot. Iraqis bear more and more of their own security burden. The world has begun to realize how high the stakes are in Baghdad. And global terror lost ground in 2005.
Every American reading these words should be proud of our troops, our country and our cause.
By RALPH PETERS
IRAQ made impressive progress in 2005. You wouldn't have known it from the daily news coverage or the surrender-now demands of left-wing extremists, but the long-suffering nation marched forward.
Here and abroad, the enemies of freedom insisted that failure was inevitable. Terrorists, insurgents, journalists with agendas, global America-haters and the Democratic Party's national leadership all tried to force our troops out of Iraq, no matter the consequences for the 26 million human beings who'd be left behind.
But the Iraqis refused to fail. Our troops refused to fail. And the Bush administration refused to fail.
Thank God.
Over the last 12 months, the pessimists called every major development wrong. But that won't stop them from doing everything they can again this year to devalue freedom, discredit democracy, drive Iraq toward civil war, encourage the terrorists and, above all, embarrass the Bush administration.
Our critics, foreign and domestic, will continue to ignore the human rights of millions while shrieking over the "mistreatment" of imprisoned terrorists and demanding a "fair" trial for Saddam (in Europe, with no death penalty). But the left's self-righteous bluster sounds more like sour-grape nagging every day.
CONSIDER just a dozen of the many reasons for optimism about Iraq:
1) Despite left-wing arguments that the peoples of the Middle East aren't ready to rule themselves through the ballot box, Iraq just held its third nationwide vote — with higher levels of participation than an American presidential election.
2) Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who were supposed to doom democracy, came out in masses to vote this time. They were disappointed that their minority numbers didn't magically give them a majority (sound familiar?), but their largest parties are maneuvering for places in the new government.
3) The terrorists lost a lot of ground last year, figuratively and literally. Their savagery backfired with the population, and more Iraqi security forces stood up for their country. Meanwhile, our troops killed terrorists in satisfying and lopsided numbers. The result? The terrorists still can create nasty local problems — but they can't destroy Iraq's future.
4) The Sunni Arab insurgents lost steam. Attacks still make headlines, but Iraq's major cities are far more secure than they were a year ago. Major combat operations moved from big cities to smaller cities — and then down to dusty border towns.
5) Every terrorist and insurgent tactic failed. Bombs may kill individuals, but they haven't been able to kill the new Iraq — or dishearten our troops. Extremist atrocities alienated Iraqis, and attacks on the country's infrastructure haven't won the bad guys any new friends. At present, they've shifted their efforts to concentrate on Iraq's oil industry. They'll fail this time, too.
6) Our military leaders are so confident about the situation that they believe we can reduce our troop levels significantly in 2006. So much for being defeated.
7) The international community became much more supportive of the new Iraq, forgiving Saddam-era debts while increasing aid and loans to the government. Foreign investment soared in peaceful Kurdistan (even the Turks invested).
8) The Middle East is changing, thanks to our removal of Saddam and our military presence. The process may seem glacially slow to our impatient tempers, but until our tanks reached Baghdad there was no hope of change at all. Now, Syrian troops are out of Lebanon, the Damascus regime is shaking, the whacky-for-Allah president of Iran is panicstricken, and even the Saudis have decided that supporting evil in Iraq is bound to come back at them. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is next.
9) Far from being discouraged, our Army and Marine veterans of Iraq have been re-enlisting in startlingly high numbers — knowing they'll be sent back to Iraq. The let's-just-surrender trio of Dean, Reid and Pelosi may believe we're bound to fail, but our troops are voluntarily betting their lives on a win.
10) President Bush found his voice again. After allowing the give-it-all-to-the-terrorists crowd to shape our domestic debate for far too long, Bush came out swinging — and raised his popularity ratings significantly. Deeds weren't enough. The president had to sound like a wartime leader. These days, he does.
11) The American people displayed their inborn common sense again. As antiwar activists betrayed our troops with lies that we were losing, their fellow citizens shifted back behind the administration late last year. Abandoned by nervous Democrats, Cindy Sheehan had to go to Spain to attract an audience (even in Madrid, she didn't get much of one).
12) After failing to convince America's citizens or our troops that Iraq was doomed, our get-Bush-at-all-costs media shifted to exaggerating the domestic threat from intelligence surveillance. To hear the pundits howl, you'd think the National Security Agency had microphones in our showers and the CIA kept agents under our beds. But the dictatorship-of-the-intellectuals bunch failed again — instead of being outraged, a large majority of Americans support using any intelligence means necessary to get the terrorists before they get us. Made-in-Missouri common sense wins again.
WE should be encouraged by the progress in Iraq and heartened by the American people's distrust of elitist propaganda. From Hollywood's latest anti-American rant to the decaying New York Times, the stars of the America's Most Arrogant Show have had to learn yet again that we don't take orders from trust-fund snots, campus cowards or actors (when Alfred Hitchcock said, "Actors are cattle," he was being far too kind).
We, the people, support our troops. And we don't like it when cynical activists and political hacks try to exploit those in uniform. Americans will always trust G.I. Joe (and Jane) over the latte lizards at moveon.org.
As we enter this new year, much could still go wrong in Iraq. The remarkable Arab genius for failure still might thwart the progress made to date. Minority and women's rights are threatened. The old grudges haven't vanished. Corruption, the developing world's favorite contact sport, could undo Iraq's new government. Many Iraqis may have to learn for themselves that theology and government don't mix.
Even as they falter, insurgents and terrorists will continue to generate headlines — their last, best hope. More of our troops will bleed in the cause of universal freedom. And as our own midterm elections approach, we'll hear no end of defeatist rhetoric from the Democratic Party and its partisans in the media.
But most Iraqis chose to vote, rather than shoot. Iraqis bear more and more of their own security burden. The world has begun to realize how high the stakes are in Baghdad. And global terror lost ground in 2005.
Every American reading these words should be proud of our troops, our country and our cause.
America must the dependence on the Saudi consultations for her rescue from Iraq mud ...
QUOTE (saudi2000 @ Jan 1 2006, 03:53 PM)
America must the dependence on the Saudi consultations for her rescue from Iraq mud ...
Please go back and edit. Your English is less than understandable.
Its messy over there, for sure, but its better than what they had before. I think the US had good intentions, despite the WMD issue. Give the place some time to see what happens before assuming the worst.
QUOTE (John L @ Jan 1 2006, 10:37 AM)
THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ
By RALPH PETERS
IRAQ made impressive progress in 2005. You wouldn't have known it from the daily news coverage or the surrender-now demands of left-wing extremists, but the long-suffering nation marched forward.
Here and abroad, the enemies of freedom insisted that failure was inevitable. Terrorists, insurgents, journalists with agendas, global America-haters and the Democratic Party's national leadership all tried to force our troops out of Iraq, no matter the consequences for the 26 million human beings who'd be left behind.
But the Iraqis refused to fail. Our troops refused to fail. And the Bush administration refused to fail.
Thank God.
By RALPH PETERS
IRAQ made impressive progress in 2005. You wouldn't have known it from the daily news coverage or the surrender-now demands of left-wing extremists, but the long-suffering nation marched forward.
Here and abroad, the enemies of freedom insisted that failure was inevitable. Terrorists, insurgents, journalists with agendas, global America-haters and the Democratic Party's national leadership all tried to force our troops out of Iraq, no matter the consequences for the 26 million human beings who'd be left behind.
But the Iraqis refused to fail. Our troops refused to fail. And the Bush administration refused to fail.
Thank God.
Excellent!
Bush and the American leaders do not accept the another opinion ..
And the Saudis say always ( you take from us advices until you do not fall in Iraq mud as its previous are Vietnam and Afghanistan ) but Bush and the new governors refuse that .. And that pays the price is the American soldier who the fire eats every day in Iraq ..
And he incites it the American needy from the taxes for the support of the war at the expense of the morsel of his life and his treatment ..
And the Saudis say always ( you take from us advices until you do not fall in Iraq mud as its previous are Vietnam and Afghanistan ) but Bush and the new governors refuse that .. And that pays the price is the American soldier who the fire eats every day in Iraq ..
And he incites it the American needy from the taxes for the support of the war at the expense of the morsel of his life and his treatment ..
QUOTE (DERAB @ Dec 30 2005, 10:44 PM)
Immanuel Wallerstein *
It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."
As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy.
Let us see what is happening. This month, Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commanding general in Iraq, suggested that it may be possible to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq next year by 30,000, given improvements in the ability of the Iraqi government's armed forces to handle the situation. Almost immediately, this position came under attack from the war party, and the Pentagon amended this statement to suggest that maybe this wouldn't happen, since maybe the Iraqi forces were not yet ready to handle the situation, which is surely so. At the same time, stories appeared in the leading newspapers suggesting that the level of military sophistication of the insurgent forces has been growing steadily and remarkably. And the increased rate of killings of U.S. soldiers certainly bears this out.
In the debate on the Iraqi constitution, there are two major problems. One is the degree to which the constitution will institutionalize Islamic law. It is conceivable that, given enough time and trust, there could be a compromise on this issue that would more or less satisfy most sides. But the second issue is more intractable. The Kurds, who still really want an independent state, will not settle for less than a federal structure that will guarantee their autonomy, the maintenance of their militia, and control of Kirkuk as their capital and its oil resources as their booty. The Shiites are currently divided between those who feel like the Kurds and want a federal structure, and those who prefer a strong central government provided they can control it and its resources, and provided that it will have an Islamic flavor. And the Sunnis are desperate to maintain a united state, one in which they will minimally get their fair share, and certainly don't want a state governed by Shia interpretations of Islam.
The U.S. has been trying to encourage some compromise, but it is hard to see what this might be. So, two possibilities are before us right now. The Iraqis paper over the differences in some way that will not last long. Or there is a more immediate breakdown in negotiations. Neither of these meets the needs of the U.S. Of course, there is one solution that might end the deadlock. The Iraqi politicians could join the resisters in a nationalist anti-American thrust, and thereby unite at least the non-Kurd part of the population. This development is not to be ruled out, and of course is a nightmare from the U.S. point of view.
But, for the Bush regime, the worst picture of all is on the home front. Approval rating of Bush for the conduct of the Iraqi war has gone down to 36 percent. The figures have been going steadily down for some time and should continue to do so. For poor George Bush is now faced with the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. She is a 48-year-old mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq a year ago. Incensed by Bush's statement that the U.S. soldiers died in a "noble cause," she decided to go to Crawford, Texas, and ask to see the president so that he could explain to her for what "noble cause" her son died.
Of course, George W. Bush hasn't had the courage to see her. He sent out emissaries. She said this wasn't enough, that she wanted to see Bush personally. She has now said that she will maintain a vigil outside Bush's home until either he sees her or she is arrested. At first, the press ignored her. But now, other mothers of soldiers in Iraq have come to join her. She is getting moral support from more and more people who had previously supported the war. And the national press now has turned her into a major celebrity, some comparing her to Rosa Parks, the Black lady whose refusal to move to the back of the bus in Atlanta a half-century ago was the spark that transformed the struggle for Black rights into a mainstream cause.
Bush won't see her because he knows there is nothing that he can say to her. Seeing her is a losing proposition. But so is not seeing her. The pressure to withdraw from Iraq is now becoming mainstream. It is not because the U.S. public shares the view that the U.S. is an imperialist power in Iraq. It is because there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Or rather there is a light, the light an acerbic Canadian cartoonist for the Calgary Sun drew recently. He shows a U.S. soldier in a dark tunnel approaching someone to whose body is attached an array of explosives. The light comes from the match he is holding to the wick that will cause them to explode. In the month following the attacks in London and the high level of U.S. deaths in Iraq, this is the light that the U.S. public is beginning to see. They want out. Bush is caught in an insoluble dilemma. The war is lost.
* Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu; fax: 1-203-432-6976.
It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."
As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy.
Let us see what is happening. This month, Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commanding general in Iraq, suggested that it may be possible to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq next year by 30,000, given improvements in the ability of the Iraqi government's armed forces to handle the situation. Almost immediately, this position came under attack from the war party, and the Pentagon amended this statement to suggest that maybe this wouldn't happen, since maybe the Iraqi forces were not yet ready to handle the situation, which is surely so. At the same time, stories appeared in the leading newspapers suggesting that the level of military sophistication of the insurgent forces has been growing steadily and remarkably. And the increased rate of killings of U.S. soldiers certainly bears this out.
In the debate on the Iraqi constitution, there are two major problems. One is the degree to which the constitution will institutionalize Islamic law. It is conceivable that, given enough time and trust, there could be a compromise on this issue that would more or less satisfy most sides. But the second issue is more intractable. The Kurds, who still really want an independent state, will not settle for less than a federal structure that will guarantee their autonomy, the maintenance of their militia, and control of Kirkuk as their capital and its oil resources as their booty. The Shiites are currently divided between those who feel like the Kurds and want a federal structure, and those who prefer a strong central government provided they can control it and its resources, and provided that it will have an Islamic flavor. And the Sunnis are desperate to maintain a united state, one in which they will minimally get their fair share, and certainly don't want a state governed by Shia interpretations of Islam.
The U.S. has been trying to encourage some compromise, but it is hard to see what this might be. So, two possibilities are before us right now. The Iraqis paper over the differences in some way that will not last long. Or there is a more immediate breakdown in negotiations. Neither of these meets the needs of the U.S. Of course, there is one solution that might end the deadlock. The Iraqi politicians could join the resisters in a nationalist anti-American thrust, and thereby unite at least the non-Kurd part of the population. This development is not to be ruled out, and of course is a nightmare from the U.S. point of view.
But, for the Bush regime, the worst picture of all is on the home front. Approval rating of Bush for the conduct of the Iraqi war has gone down to 36 percent. The figures have been going steadily down for some time and should continue to do so. For poor George Bush is now faced with the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. She is a 48-year-old mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq a year ago. Incensed by Bush's statement that the U.S. soldiers died in a "noble cause," she decided to go to Crawford, Texas, and ask to see the president so that he could explain to her for what "noble cause" her son died.
Of course, George W. Bush hasn't had the courage to see her. He sent out emissaries. She said this wasn't enough, that she wanted to see Bush personally. She has now said that she will maintain a vigil outside Bush's home until either he sees her or she is arrested. At first, the press ignored her. But now, other mothers of soldiers in Iraq have come to join her. She is getting moral support from more and more people who had previously supported the war. And the national press now has turned her into a major celebrity, some comparing her to Rosa Parks, the Black lady whose refusal to move to the back of the bus in Atlanta a half-century ago was the spark that transformed the struggle for Black rights into a mainstream cause.
Bush won't see her because he knows there is nothing that he can say to her. Seeing her is a losing proposition. But so is not seeing her. The pressure to withdraw from Iraq is now becoming mainstream. It is not because the U.S. public shares the view that the U.S. is an imperialist power in Iraq. It is because there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Or rather there is a light, the light an acerbic Canadian cartoonist for the Calgary Sun drew recently. He shows a U.S. soldier in a dark tunnel approaching someone to whose body is attached an array of explosives. The light comes from the match he is holding to the wick that will cause them to explode. In the month following the attacks in London and the high level of U.S. deaths in Iraq, this is the light that the U.S. public is beginning to see. They want out. Bush is caught in an insoluble dilemma. The war is lost.
* Immanuel Wallerstein, Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu; fax: 1-203-432-6976.
The writer has been truthful .. Bush and his leaders their seniors they refused all of the solutions suitable to their exit with dignity from Iraq ..
QUOTE (DERAB @ Dec 30 2005, 10:44 PM)
Immanuel Wallerstein *
First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil.
First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil.
Since the Constitution was agreed to it shows we can achieve our goals even when the chances are "almost nil". MARK
Hmm, well, besides being the only english person here i know of here Derab, the general feeling over here in England is partly summed up by what you said in your first post.
I can safely say that support for the Iraq war is pretty much nil over here in England, Bush has a major reputation for being an idiot, lol you would be suprised as how many piss-take comedies he appears in now days over here, with Tony Blair being a more intelligent but sly version of bush on the whole.
The majority of people who have any mild interest in politics in England generally feel this way- im afraid though that most people here in this forum, ironically most are americans too, will argue to the grave that Bush is probably one of the best things to hit america since coca cola and that the iraq war is great/justified no matter how you look at it. "sigh" . I guess its one of the those things when only time will open the americans eyes.
I have to agree on the whole that the iraq war has been a big cock up as far as the americans go no matter what you support it for, wether it be oil, democracy, freedom, human rights, war on terror etc...If any of this things will ever be achieved, it will probably be when Bush has been kicked off the scene
!
I can safely say that support for the Iraq war is pretty much nil over here in England, Bush has a major reputation for being an idiot, lol you would be suprised as how many piss-take comedies he appears in now days over here, with Tony Blair being a more intelligent but sly version of bush on the whole.
The majority of people who have any mild interest in politics in England generally feel this way- im afraid though that most people here in this forum, ironically most are americans too, will argue to the grave that Bush is probably one of the best things to hit america since coca cola and that the iraq war is great/justified no matter how you look at it. "sigh" . I guess its one of the those things when only time will open the americans eyes.
I have to agree on the whole that the iraq war has been a big cock up as far as the americans go no matter what you support it for, wether it be oil, democracy, freedom, human rights, war on terror etc...If any of this things will ever be achieved, it will probably be when Bush has been kicked off the scene
!
Always amusing to see the British ranting against the iraq war as if their own government was powerless to make its own decisions. MARK
QUOTE (DERAB @ Feb 24 2006, 05:53 AM)
The writer has been truthful .. Bush and his leaders their seniors they refused all of the solutions suitable to their exit with dignity from Iraq ..
5 months of hindsight show how wrong he was. MARK
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Feb 24 2006, 03:40 PM)
Always amusing to see the British ranting against the iraq war as if their own government was powerless to make its own decisions. MARK
Nope- theres as little support and/or faith between us for our own government as there is for yours. Well, actually, i guess most Blair supporters dont see themselves as big an idiots as the bush supporters i guess...But at least alot/most people over here have come to the realisation of how nasty/materialistic/stupid our government is alot of the time.
QUOTE (Tokis-phoenix @ Feb 24 2006, 08:44 AM)
Nope- theres as little support and/or faith between us for our own government as there is for yours. Well, actually, i guess most Blair supporters dont see themselves as big an idiots as the bush supporters i guess...But at least alot/most people over here have come to the realisation of how nasty/materialistic/stupid our government is alot of the time.
Always amusing to see the British ranting against the iraq war as if they were powerless to make their own decisions. MARK
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Feb 24 2006, 04:58 PM)
Always amusing to see the British ranting against the iraq war as if they were powerless to make their own decisions. MARK
Why did you repeat yourself? Who said/implied we were powerless to make our own decisions?
"British people think Bush is dumb" is not an effective argument against the war. People also thought Ronald Reagan was dumb and Winston Churchill was a kook.
QUOTE (Tokis-phoenix @ Feb 24 2006, 08:44 AM)
Nope- theres as little support and/or faith between us for our own government as there is for yours. Well, actually, i guess most Blair supporters dont see themselves as big an idiots as the bush supporters i guess...But at least alot/most people over here have come to the realisation of how nasty/materialistic/stupid our government is alot of the time.
(*sarcasm*)Why don't you run for office, then, Sweetie? I'm sure with the wide support of your views, and your deep insight you'd win.
(*Serious here*) And, you have your whole life ahead of you to do so. If you don't like it, change it.
(*Sarcasm*) Personally, I'm satisfied by being an idiot who supports my President elected by the majority of other Idiots of this nation. And, you'd better bet your sweet bippy that if your little island is ever attacked, us idiots will most likely come to YOUR defense. Whereas, if those of your crowd were in power over here, they would look on and say what you are saying about the people of Iraq.
You need to seriously consider this conundrum.
Conundrum
A riddle in which a fanciful question is answered by a pun.
A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem; a dilemma.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Feb 24 2006, 07:04 PM)
(*sarcasm*)Why don't you run for office, then, Sweetie? I'm sure with the wide support of your views, and your deep insight you'd win.
(*Serious here*) And, you have your whole life ahead of you to do so. If you don't like it, change it.
(*Sarcasm*) Personally, I'm satisfied by being an idiot who supports my President elected by the majority of other Idiots of this nation. And, you'd better bet your sweet bippy that if your little island is ever attacked, us idiots will most likely come to YOUR defense.
(*Serious here*) And, you have your whole life ahead of you to do so. If you don't like it, change it.
(*Sarcasm*) Personally, I'm satisfied by being an idiot who supports my President elected by the majority of other Idiots of this nation. And, you'd better bet your sweet bippy that if your little island is ever attacked, us idiots will most likely come to YOUR defense.
Lol, you seem to get so offended when you dont see one of your own kind. I was just pointing out what the majority of people feel over here, me included- its no matter of sarcasm, but then again i guess thats how one veiws such opinions with such intellect or open-mindness as yours(by the way, no need to try and understand these words i type, if you want to play the sarcasm game).
What you are you trying to indicate when you say "If you dont like it, change it"? I could apply that phrase to so many of your opinions thats all, thus not quite sure where your point was in saying it.
QUOTE (Tokis-phoenix @ Feb 24 2006, 12:23 PM)
Lol, you seem to get so offended when you dont see one of your own kind. I was just pointing out what the majority of people feel over here, me included- its no matter of sarcasm, but then again i guess thats how one veiws such opinions with such intellect or open-mindness as yours(by the way, no need to try and understand these words i type, if you want to play the sarcasm game).
What you are you trying to indicate when you say "If you dont like it, change it"? I could apply that phrase to so many of your opinions thats all, thus not quite sure where your point was in saying it.
What you are you trying to indicate when you say "If you dont like it, change it"? I could apply that phrase to so many of your opinions thats all, thus not quite sure where your point was in saying it.
I'm offended by your ignorance and ease of opinions which are based on illogical and uninformed thought, especially when you call our those who support our President idiots, while overlooking the precariousness of your own island if we idiots weren't here. You are in no way open-minded, my dear. You are young and ignorant. Don't assume that passes for being open-mindedness.
"If you don't like it, change it" Get up off your arse and quit complaining from the comfort of your apartment. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, especially with an airhead. I am doing something to change what I don't like. Every day. It's part of my vocation and advocation.
I can see you are avoiding my points I'm making and attacking the fact that I'm not agreeing with you.
Enjoy your crumpets and tea.
Don't forget to buy Danish pastries in support of freedom of expression of the Danes. You do believe in that, don't you?
Ladies, kindly act like it.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Feb 24 2006, 07:52 PM)
I'm offended by your ignorance and ease of opinions which are based on illogical and uninformed thought, especially when you call our those who support our President idiots, while overlooking the precariousness of your own island if we idiots weren't here. You are in no way open-minded, my dear. You are young and ignorant. Don't assume that passes for being open-mindedness.
"If you don't like it, change it" Get up off your arse and quit complaining from the comfort of your apartment. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, especially with an airhead. I am doing something to change what I don't like. Every day. It's part of my vocation and advocation.
I can see you are avoiding my points I'm making and attacking the fact that I'm not agreeing with you.
Enjoy your crumpets and tea.
Don't forget to buy Danish pastries in support of freedom of expression of the Danes. You do believe in that, don't you?
"If you don't like it, change it" Get up off your arse and quit complaining from the comfort of your apartment. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, especially with an airhead. I am doing something to change what I don't like. Every day. It's part of my vocation and advocation.
I can see you are avoiding my points I'm making and attacking the fact that I'm not agreeing with you.
Enjoy your crumpets and tea.
Don't forget to buy Danish pastries in support of freedom of expression of the Danes. You do believe in that, don't you?
Hmm, well, if wern't for us i doubt america could have ever gained the budget or support for the war it had to go to war with iraq. Works both ways hun.
Sure im young, perhaps even ignorant, but at least i accept thats a part of any human being including me. Its basically not an insult if thats what you are intending.
What points were you making exactly in your previous post? I wasn't asking nor replying/typing for nothing u'know.
QUOTE (Tokis-phoenix @ Feb 24 2006, 01:10 PM)
Hmm, well, if wern't for us i doubt america could have ever gained the budget or support for the war it had to go to war with iraq. Works both ways hun.
Sure im young, perhaps even ignorant, but at least i accept thats a part of any human being including me. Its basically not an insult if thats what you are intending.
What points were you making exactly in your previous post? I wasn't asking nor replying/typing for nothing u'know.
Sure im young, perhaps even ignorant, but at least i accept thats a part of any human being including me. Its basically not an insult if thats what you are intending.
What points were you making exactly in your previous post? I wasn't asking nor replying/typing for nothing u'know.
Ignorant means untaught. Not an insult if you know it's meaning.
You've lost me, Tokis. It is useless to try to debate with you. Your memory...........
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Feb 24 2006, 09:05 PM)
Ignorant means untaught. Not an insult if you know it's meaning.
You've lost me, Tokis. It is useless to try to debate with you. Your memory...........
You've lost me, Tokis. It is useless to try to debate with you. Your memory...........
Ah well, shame then, really hope you find a worthy opponent to debate with some day.
And yes, ignorant does technically mean untaught although im sure most people will agree with me its not the most positive thing to say to somone else while having a friendly debate or whatever- here are the definitions of "ignorant" on the web by the way if you are interested
;# uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication; "an ignorant man"; "nescient of contemporary literature"; "an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issues"; "exhibiting contempt for his unlettered companions"
# uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field; "she is ignorant of quantum mechanics"; "he is musically illiterate"
# unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge; "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances"; "an unknowledgeable assistant"; "his rudeness was unwitting"
Yep, that's what ignorant means, alright.
Psst, tell John hello for me the next time he writes.
Psst, tell John hello for me the next time he writes.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ Feb 25 2006, 12:37 AM)
Yep, that's what ignorant means, alright.
Psst, tell John hello for me the next time he writes.
Psst, tell John hello for me the next time he writes.
How would i know when he next writes by any other means than what you can? If you have somthing to say to him, you dont need me to say it
. Do you want to continue debating with me on-topic on this thread or is this it 
?
QUOTE (Tokis-phoenix @ Feb 24 2006, 05:46 PM)
How would i know when he next writes by any other means than what you can? If you have somthing to say to him, you dont need me to say it . Do you want to continue debating with me on-topic on this thread or is this it ?
. Do you want to continue debating with me on-topic on this thread or is this it ?Over and out.
William F. Buckley has called for "acknowledgement of defeat" in Iraq.
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buck...00602241451.asp
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buck...00602241451.asp
QUOTE
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure.
Seems to be verifiably non-factual, considering that the Iraqi Security Forces restored peace without American aid.
The crux assertion on which Buckley's argument rests is verifiably false, and as such the entire argument is false.
Not particuarly surprising. Buckley's support for the war crumbled ages ago, at the slightest hint that the campaign might be difficult.
QUOTE (Roadster @ Feb 24 2006, 09:23 PM)
William F. Buckley has called for "acknowledgement of defeat" in Iraq.
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buck...00602241451.asp
"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buck...00602241451.asp
Bummer, I guess we'll have to settle for the fall back objective...... These cretinous, emotional, stone age neandrethals are now preoccupied with killing each other instead of westerners. Mission accomplished!!
Regardless the outcome immediately, Iraq is destined to be divided into at least three seperate countries, with Kurdistan being finally a homeland for the Kurds. I still say that it is going to happen.
Countries eventually break up into their lowest common functional denominator. Keeping all the different groups together artificially, will ultimately not work. However, this latest event does not really mean the total defeat of things. It will just slowly devolve into what I suspect should have been done from the beginning.
I wonder where the Christian Assyrians will finally fit in this mix?
Countries eventually break up into their lowest common functional denominator. Keeping all the different groups together artificially, will ultimately not work. However, this latest event does not really mean the total defeat of things. It will just slowly devolve into what I suspect should have been done from the beginning.
I wonder where the Christian Assyrians will finally fit in this mix?
The Kurds will end up independent.
You are correct that countries break up into their lowest common functional denominator. The problem is that neither Sunni or Shi'ite states would be capable of surviving on their own. They need each other, as much as they hate each other.
You are correct that countries break up into their lowest common functional denominator. The problem is that neither Sunni or Shi'ite states would be capable of surviving on their own. They need each other, as much as they hate each other.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Feb 25 2006, 12:14 AM)
The Kurds will end up independent.
You are correct that countries break up into their lowest common functional denominator. The problem is that neither Sunni or Shi'ite states would be capable of surviving on their own. They need each other, as much as they hate each other.
You are correct that countries break up into their lowest common functional denominator. The problem is that neither Sunni or Shi'ite states would be capable of surviving on their own. They need each other, as much as they hate each other.
Ok, which one will be the enabler here? And which will be the abusive spouse?
Oh I imagine they'll calm down eventually. They've been living together since 1932 in relative calmness. Things are flairing up lately because of the breakdown of order since Saddam's fall, but it isn't their default stance.
Also, the threat of Iran will eventually loom large enough that they won't be focused on each other anymore.
Should they become independent, teh Shiite region will become an Iranian puppet, the Irannians will invade Saudi Arabia, the region will explode in warfare, and any hope we ever had of winning the Global War on Terror will be gone.
Should they ever become independent nations, we ought to pull all of our troops out of the Middle East and start pouring money into an alternative energy source, because the region will be consumed by constant warfare for an unforseeable amount of time.
Also, the threat of Iran will eventually loom large enough that they won't be focused on each other anymore.
Should they become independent, teh Shiite region will become an Iranian puppet, the Irannians will invade Saudi Arabia, the region will explode in warfare, and any hope we ever had of winning the Global War on Terror will be gone.
Should they ever become independent nations, we ought to pull all of our troops out of the Middle East and start pouring money into an alternative energy source, because the region will be consumed by constant warfare for an unforseeable amount of time.
It's Iran's gain which means we are less secure. And it's Bush's war and Bush's failure as well as the failure of the neocon agenda. The GOP will almost certainly see a huge loss in the upcoming elections. The public just isn't buying any more of Bush's caca de toro. Watch the GOP candidates try to distance themselves from the total scam of the Bush gang of criminals. But if the Dems win a majority it will be by default, not because they have a better plan for America. They don't. Too many of them were and still are rubber stamps for Bush's monumental corruption and incompetence.
Impeachment becomes a bit less of an impossibility every day and with every lie that comes from the Bush administration.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022506.html
Impeachment becomes a bit less of an impossibility every day and with every lie that comes from the Bush administration.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022506.html
What has Iran gained exactly?
Nothing. They are pretty royally screwed, in fact. They are surrounded on all sides by American military might and backed into a corner by the international community on the nuke issue. Theres about 15 days left until Israeli jets take off from their secret bases in Kurdistan and start bombing Iran.
Nothing. They are pretty royally screwed, in fact. They are surrounded on all sides by American military might and backed into a corner by the international community on the nuke issue. Theres about 15 days left until Israeli jets take off from their secret bases in Kurdistan and start bombing Iran.
QUOTE
It's Iran's gain which means we are less secure. And it's Bush's war and Bush's failure as well as the failure of the neocon agenda. The GOP will almost certainly see a huge loss in the upcoming elections. The public just isn't buying any more of Bush's caca de toro. Watch the GOP candidates try to distance themselves from the total scam of the Bush gang of criminals. But if the Dems win a majority it will be by default, not because they have a better plan for America. They don't. Too many of them were and still are rubber stamps for Bush's monumental corruption and incompetence.
Impeachment becomes a bit less of an impossibility every day and with every lie that comes from the Bush administration.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022506.html
Impeachment becomes a bit less of an impossibility every day and with every lie that comes from the Bush administration.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022506.html
Iran and the end is here for Iraq to include the implosion of Democrats as well. Now that is prophetic and funny at the same time.
Likewise, Road Kill, I see you have seen the light of reality as to the impediments faced in the impeachment of GW finally. Wisdom does eventually rise to the top of the most septic of detestation eventually.
As to Iran, first, it is not like they are not already involved in destabilizing events in Iraq. That is a fact.
But, it is an Iran, as Ben T pointed out, who now stands nearly alone and militarily surrounded by a superior and most capable force. While at the same time standing against most of the world with their Nuke and cut off of oil threats.
Then, if we were to see them adding to that dementia of reality, an Iran that would take an active role militarily, economically and politically in an Iraqi Inter- religious Civil War against Sunni’s and likely Kurds as well. This would be a US dream come true. Better than the 70's Iraq/Iranian war of fanatical containment.
Given these previous predictments mentioned, they would find themselves unnerving most of their neighbors who are mostly Sunni including especially Syria, Saudi, UAE and many more.
Add this to their already stated commitment to fund the Israeli Eradication ambitions of Hamas and we have a double hat trick of the US merely going from a military containment that combines nicely with this self created international isolatation, into a super containment position, very reflective in reminiscences of Saddam’s world economy impacting adventures into Kuwait a few years back.
Now that will win them friends and influence maybe San Francisco and or Cindy, Hugo’s alternet-Dimmer, Sheehan, but few others.
Iran does not win in an Iraqi inter-religion Civil War. we do. As it scares neighbors and reinforces the world already developing opinions that this current regime running Iran are an unstable and most dangerous ideological HOUSE OF SUBMISSION likely to cause the world much stress and economic devastation.
Yo! No hablo espanol bandaho! Habol Spanglish hey!!!
“caca de toro,” now that is a topic you should know well. Hey, pedón, me amigo. I wear my hip boots at every posting of this `La Muerte y la Sangre'' to keep it off my good clothes. Se, el comprehenda.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Feb 25 2006, 08:00 PM)
What has Iran gained exactly?
Nothing. They are pretty royally screwed, in fact. They are surrounded on all sides by American military might and backed into a corner by the international community on the nuke issue. Theres about 15 days left until Israeli jets take off from their secret bases in Kurdistan and start bombing Iran.
Nothing. They are pretty royally screwed, in fact. They are surrounded on all sides by American military might and backed into a corner by the international community on the nuke issue. Theres about 15 days left until Israeli jets take off from their secret bases in Kurdistan and start bombing Iran.
Surrounded on all sides by American military might? Then why is the death and violence only increased rather than brought under control by all this military might? Nothing could be more out of control. Iraq has become a showcase to the world of the limitations of American power. No amount of power can overcome the complete alienation of the Iraqi people caused by a liberation that quickly became an invasion and a brutal occupation.
The danger from Iran, in addition to its nuclear program, is in the growing influence of Iranian style Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and elsewhere.
"The bankruptcy of the Bush-Cheney Iraq policy is revealed in the fact that the United States has succeeded in pitting itself now against two major 'resistance' groups in Iraq. The first is the Sunni led, mostly Baathist and military resistance, which has battled US forces in Baghdad and the so-called Sunni triangle to the north and west. The second, which is growing in the ferocity of its anti-Americanism, is the Shiite religious forces led by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi army, and their allies, who have begun routinely to to denounce the United States for its opposition to their plans to create a Shiite-dominated, Iranian-allied Islamic Republic of Iraq."
"Like the Sarajevo assassination that precipitated world war I, the attack on the mosque may trigger a war, but it won't be the cause. The cause is far more deep-rooted, embedded in the chaos and bitterness that followed the US invasion of Iraq and America's deliberate efforts to stress sectarian differences in creating the Iraqi Governing Council and subsequent government institutions. If the current crisis doesn't spark a civil war, be patient. The next one will."
"With Iraq perched at the very precipice of an ethnic and sectarian holocaust, the utter failure of the Bush administration's policies is revealed. Iraq may or may not fall into the abyss in the next few days and weeks, but what is no longer in doubt is who is to blame: If Iraq is engulfed in civil war then Americans, Iraqis and the international community must hold President Bush and Vice-President Cheney responsible for the destruction of Iraq."
http://www.tompaine.com/print/on_the_brink_in_iraq.php
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Feb 25 2006, 01:00 PM)
What has Iran gained exactly?
Nothing. They are pretty royally screwed, in fact. They are surrounded on all sides by American military might and backed into a corner by the international community on the nuke issue. Theres about 15 days left until Israeli jets take off from their secret bases in Kurdistan and start bombing Iran.
Nothing. They are pretty royally screwed, in fact. They are surrounded on all sides by American military might and backed into a corner by the international community on the nuke issue. Theres about 15 days left until Israeli jets take off from their secret bases in Kurdistan and start bombing Iran.
I think Russia would have someting to say about any strikes directed at Iran.
QUOTE
Iran and Russia strike nuclear deal
Iran has reached a mysterious "basic agreement" with Russia on a joint venture to enrich uranium, according to Iran's nuclear chief, Gholamreza Aghazadeh.
Originally, it was proposed that Iran's uranium should be enriched within Russia, which would calm Western fears that the fuel was being diverted into a weapons programme...
Iran has reached a mysterious "basic agreement" with Russia on a joint venture to enrich uranium, according to Iran's nuclear chief, Gholamreza Aghazadeh.
Originally, it was proposed that Iran's uranium should be enriched within Russia, which would calm Western fears that the fuel was being diverted into a weapons programme...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html
Many other countries won't sit back and watch like they did with Iraq.
QUOTE ("Tuatara")
Many other countries won't sit back and watch like they did with Iraq.
You are probably right. Most will be climbing all over each other to be the first to take part in the operation. They are aware that they would, not could, be candidates for nuclear extortion.
Wow, the Bushites are trying to predict what will happen with Iran. Will your predictions be as correct about your predictions on Iraq? Let see who predicted the insurgency, the civil war that is starting to break out? Who said that it would turn out to be a mess that it is? Anyone paying attention now knows that The Administration was warned that if Iraq was not handled properly after the invasion, a Civil War could erupt. GW was warned by General Shinseki, by Colin Powell, by the CIA, and a good portion of the left-leaning American People.
You keep on stating your predictions and keep listening to the administration. Keep ignoring the words of Palast, Chomsky, Albert and Frisk.
You keep on stating your predictions and keep listening to the administration. Keep ignoring the words of Palast, Chomsky, Albert and Frisk.
So, you are a Chomsky afficinado, eh. That explains EVERYTHING!
QUOTE (John L @ Feb 26 2006, 12:42 PM)
So, you are a Chomsky afficinado, eh. That explains EVERYTHING!
I'll match Chomsky against anyone you mention. Who does the right have? Laughable excuses for human life like Robertson, Coulter and O'Reilly.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.