Post War Iraq: Now in Progress

[Jedieb]

It would seem to me that since body bags continue to be filled, there's still plenty to discuss.


All six soldiers in a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter were killed today when their aircraft went down near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, a U.S. military source said. The cause of the crash is under investigation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/07/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Whether the cause is mechanical failure or enemy action, it's 6 more combat deaths.

[Jedieb]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark (news - web sites) said on Thursday the United States should resist pressure for an early exit in Iraq (news - web sites), and laid out steps to build international involvement there and mend relations with Europe.

Clark, in the fourth and last in a series of speeches designed to sketch out his positions on domestic and foreign policy, said the United States needed to develop a strategy for success in Iraq that gave Iraqis a bigger stake in their future and developed greater international participation.

"Early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither," Clark said a speech on Iraq and foreign policy given at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, South Carolina, site of a crucial primary on Feb. 3.

"First we must end the American monopoly on the occupation and reconstruction. Then we must develop the right force mix to fight and win guerrilla war," he said. "Finally, we must give Iraqis a rising stake in our success."

Clark, a retired general and former NATO (news - web sites) commander, made several references to U.S. efforts in the Balkans in which he was a leading figure as a guide to step the United States should take in Iraq.

He called for development of an Iraqi Reconstruction Council to internationalize the occupation, and for an Iraqi interim government and constitution written by Iraqi representatives.

GRADUAL AUTHORITY OVER OIL


He said the interim government should be given gradual authority over oil revenues and other domestic issues to give civilians a stake in stemming the violence.


He also recommended the United States appoint an allied high representative to guide Iraq's reconstruction while shifting the military operation to NATO forces under U.S. command.


Despite continued chaos in Iraq and attacks on U.S. troops, most of Clark's eight Democratic rivals for the right to challenge President Bush (news - web sites) in 2004 have agreed the United States must stay in Iraq until order is restored and a representative government takes control.


"Failure in Iraq will not only be a tragedy for Iraq, it will be a disaster for America and the world," Clark said. "It will give the terrorists of al Qaeda a new base of operations."


Clark, a political rookie who entered the presidential race in September, said a new Atlantic Charter would help define the common threats faced with European allies and demand more action from allies to meet them, but offer a promise to act together as a first choice, not last.

"We have seen that it is foolish to act alone as a first resort," said Clark, who has criticized Bush's failure to build international support for the Iraq war and what he said was his rush to invade Iraq despite the lack of an imminent threat.


Clark also endorsed "an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency" military effort in Iraq, saying better border protection was needed to stem the flow of foreign fighters into the country.


Clark demanded an effort to secure weapons dumps throughout the country, where he said an estimated 500,000 tons of ammunition remains unguarded.

Withdrawal isn't an option right now. But as this drags on it will become more and more unpopular. I want to see the UN dragged into this eventually. The more nations involved the more credibility the occupation receives. Eventually, this occupation will end. I just don't believe the Iraqi government that emerges from this will be one the administration is hoping for.

[Jedieb]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/sprj.irq.main/index.html


Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told reporters that the number of attacks in Iraq has risen from five to six daily in May to an average of 30 attacks per day within the last month.


Watch your backs boys and girls.

[JediBoricua]

I read on Sunday that the Pentagon is banning reporters from showing bodybags and pictures of dead soldiers being unloaded from planes in flag covered caskets...

Shameful, is the only word to describe how this administration is trying to give a makeover to a war they have no idea how to end or even control

[Pierce Tondry]

You would prefer sensationalist reporting which overloads the public with sensitive and graphic images?

Well... whatever floats your boat.

[JediBoricua]

No, but I do mind the government trying to censor the media while spending millions on a publicity campaign with gabinet members and the president himself promoting the war.

[Ryan Pode]

The government has censored photos like that for years.

[JediBoricua]

But why censor now?

They had no problem or restrictions until negatives news began pouring in and attacks escalated.

[Ardath Bey]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
But why censor now?

They had no problem or restrictions until negatives news began pouring in and attacks escalated.

Why not? Why must journalists include morbid images?!

[JMK]

I think what he's getting at is why do they mainly show the images of victory and happy Iraqis and exclude the hardships and tragedies?

*Not getting involved, just calling it the way I see it. I may be off*

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by JMK
I think what he's getting at is why do they mainly show the images of victory and happy Iraqis and exclude the hardships and tragedies?

*Not getting involved, just calling it the way I see it. I may be off*

That's exactly what he means as I see it.

On another note, I see the Supreme Court has taken the case of the detainees at Guantanamo bay.

[Jedieb]

All you have to do is look at Vietnam for the reasons why the government is censoring journalists. It wasn't sensationalism when Americans saw images of body bags and bloody soldiers during Vietnam. It was an unblemished look at war.

During the Gulf War the media was effectively controlled. You saw great tapes of smart bombs, but very little in the way of what those bombs did to bodies. There were times when Dan Rather and company were even used as disinformation to throw off the occupying Iraqis. This isn't a question of a Republican or Democratic administration dealing with the media during a war IMO. It's a government that will go to great lengths to avoid some of the mistakes of Vietnam. I think that only having images of sleek aircraft taking off of carriers does a disservice to the images getting burned into the minds of the soldiers on the ground. War isn't pretty and the dirty side of it should be shown back home every once in awhile. Numbers aren't enough sometimes. As bad as what it'll look like, you still won't have to live and smell it. Those sometimes grusome images will be a minimal discomfort when viewed from a living room instead of a ditch in the desert.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JMK
I think what he's getting at is why do they mainly show the images of victory and happy Iraqis and exclude the hardships and tragedies?


Well, if that's what he's getting at...

WHAT?!?! Dude, we are only shown images of hardships and tragedies. The media CEOs don't seem to think that a shipment of school desks from the U.S. to Nasiriyah is newsworthy, nor an image of a man in Baghdad spray painting a graffiti warning on the side of a building that foreign suicide bombers will face brutal revenge if cought, nor a story about the bravery of the Iraqi Police. What do they show us instead? Exploded IEDs and reports of suicide bombings and mortar attacks. Nothing else. No balance. Even Fox News Live. Happiness and liberation don't boost ratings.

I'll try to avoid mentioning the terms "massive left-wing conspiracy" or "media involvement", but it's dang hard when just about every domestic TV-based media outlet is so skewed towards reporting on only the negative aspects of the war. Consequently, I've started disintermediating the commercial salesmen and going straight to the source (Iraqis) when I want to read about Iraq. Gotta love them Iraqi bloggers.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
I'll try to avoid mentioning the terms "massive left-wing conspiracy" or "media involvement", but it's dang hard when just about every domestic TV-based media outlet is so skewed towards reporting on only the negative aspects of the war.

What are the positive aspects of the war in its current phase, in your opinion?

[Darth Viscera]

We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Every day, Iraqis come up in droves and inform CPA authorities of Fedayeen holdouts or Syrian terrorist cells. Iraqis are calling for revenge against the Syrian bastards who keep blowing up themselves and their kids, and they voluntarily send gunmen to protect the schools that we've rebuilt from any intruders.

Iraqi salaries are increasing steadily due to the fact that Saddam was a stingy SOB and was only interested in his own wealth, and every day the rate at which the Iraqis pump oil increases. Soon they'll be pumping 3 million barrels a day, and the domestic needs of Iraq call for only 850,000 barrels a day, so that'll be 2.15 million barrels exported a day. This means the GDP per capita is going up. I'd venture to say that within 10 years the GDP per capita will be at $15,000, which matches Kuwait currently.

Iraqi police are brave, and they return to work every day, even if they saw their buddy get shot in the face by a Yemeni mujahadeen last week. The numbers of the IP are swelling far, far beyond any angry terrorist's ability to kill them. No 30 attacks a day is going to shut down the collective aspirations of 25 million people to achieve peace and prosperity.

The coalition is starting to transfer authority back to the Iraqi people. Last month the Al Thawath facility, which used to aspire to produce nuclear weapons, was given back to the Iraqi people, who are going to use it as an institute for civilian science and technology. The Iraq Civil Defense Corps is gradually taking command of many areas that used to rely on U.S. troops, so much so that even Objective Jaguar (a 12km ammo dump) is in the hands of the ICDC now.

Iraqis have always been a political bunch, and lots of them are seeing the Arab League as the backwards assembly that it really is, and wishing that Iraq would leave the League.

The steps that Iraq is taking to reconstruct and become a modern country far eclipse the relatively diminutive attempts by mujahadeen to keep them from peace and prosperity.

I'm sure you can find more positive stuff than this. Here are some links:

Healing Iraq (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/)
The Independent Voice of Iraq - IRAQ TODAY (http://www.iraq-today.com/) -I'll try to avoid mentioning the irony that their website is down today, but I was reading their articles just a week ago so it must be a temporary ISP problem. Either that or the bloody Syrians...;)
Boots on the Ground (http://bootsonground.blogspot.com/)

[Jedieb]

Great documentary on PBS tonight about recent history of press coverage and war. Those "left-wing conspirators" being sensored from reporting minute stories such as fighter pilots reading girly magazines when they're killing time. Reporters being detained and stripped of their credentials because they dared to want to go somewhere without "escorts." Yeah, there's a conspiracy allright. It's a conspiracy of CONTROL. They're not going to let Vietnam happen again. You're not going to see images of bloodied troops anytime soon. You'll see smart missiles and great explosions, but you're not going to see their aftermath.

This time around the amount of live coverage was incredible. But where was the substance? How can reporters give you information and substance when they're seeing the bombs right along with you? We're not getting reflection. We're getting controlled snapshots.

[Jedieb]

http://www.pbs.org/weta/reportingamericaatwar/chronology/#

Good series and the web site has an interesting timeline on war correspondants. Here's a quick except showing just what reporters had to go through to get a story:

February 25, 1991:
An Iraqi "Scud" missile strikes a barracks in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soliders and injuring 98. Reporters descend on the scene, but are prevented from taking pictures by military police. Associated Press photographer Scott Applewhite is punched, handcuffed and has the film ripped from his cameras.

It's not about sensationalism, it's about having access to the truth. Not the military's version of it. People should be able to make up their own minds about what's going on. They shouldn't have it done for them.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedieb
People should be able to make up their own minds about what's going on. They shouldn't have it done for them.

I could say the same thing in support of my own argument. I dislike the media censoring the liberation just as much as you dislike the government censoring the war.

[Dutchy]

Darth Viscera, that seems to be a lil too positive, but fair enough: there's some positive news to report as well.

On the negative side: 12 Soldiers Die in Iraq Helicopter Crash
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20031115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_helicopter)

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Jedieb
February 25, 1991:
An Iraqi "Scud" missile strikes a barracks in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soliders and injuring 98. Reporters descend on the scene, but are prevented from taking pictures by military police. Associated Press photographer Scott Applewhite is punched, handcuffed and has the film ripped from his cameras.
Okay, that is a small article, which means details will have been ommitted. MAYBE the pictures weren't allowed because they cordoned off the area, so nothing could be seen without venturing through. Maybe Mr Applewhite broke this barrier. Maybe he was looking at confidential material. You don't know he wasn't.

[Dutchy]

Death toll has risen to 17.

November in Iraq is an absolute nightmare month for America.

[Darth Viscera]

Must be because of Ramadan or something. Or has that ended already?

[Darth Viscera]

Good news from Baghdad today via Healing Iraq:


::Huge anti-terrorism demonstrations were held in Nassiriyah yesterday by students association condemning the attacks on the Italian force carrying signs such as 'No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace', and 'This cowardly act will unify us'. I have to add that there were similar demonstrations in Baghdad more than a week ago also by students against the bombings of police stations early this Ramadan. I hope the demonstrations advocates that bugged me are satisfied now. There are also preparations for anti-terror demonstrations before Id (end of Ramadan holidays).

::IP [Iraqi Police] thwarted another suicide bombing attempt in Basrah and captured the culprits, two of them foreign Arabs and one Iraqi. I also heard that four other Arabs were arrested in Baghdad suspected of being behind the bombings against police stations and the Red Cross on the first of Ramadan. Relieving news, if only we could watch some public trials of these criminals on tv, I'm sure it would make a great diference.

::Ahmad Kathum Ibrahim, the Minister of Interior deputy (a really tough looking guy which I admire hugely) has been taking groups of poor Baghdadis in tours around Baghdad in one of Uday's gold plated Rolls-Royce's. He said that this car will be used from now on by newly wed IP officers and recruits on their wedding day celebrations zeffa.

[JediBoricua]

Bad news today, at least for me, I think.

Some of you may know that my uncle is the 'congressman' for Puerto Rico. Anyway, he just decided he will be traveling to Iraq to visit the puertoricans stationed there. When he told me today I asked him if he was part of the USO, he's really not that funny, because I don't see any real reason for him to go there (he wont tell me, but I'm sure it has to do with the fact that he is now running for governor and he will get plenty of photo-ops).

I'm not that worried though, he will be a part of a delegation of Congress, so I'm sure security will be tight. Besides, I'm shouldn't be complaining, some of you have relatives there in real danger.

One good thing about it though is that I will have hands on information about the situation there.

[Jedieb]

I wish your uncle a safe journey and return. And have him give a shout to the Cubans over there! ;)

[Darth Viscera]

So what did you all think of Bush's thanksgiving visit to our troops in Baghdad? I was completely elated to the point of sputtering with joy when I heard it, and moreso when I heard of his warm and witty remarks to the GIs. The idea that he risked death to give some soldiers a memorable thanksgiving makes me really admire the man and his enormous degree of testicular fortitude.

It's regrettable that he couldn't stay longer and say something nice directly to the Iraqi people, but it's also a good thing he stayed safe, because he's no good to anyone dead.

I bet the terrorists are banging their heads against the wall right about now because they couldn't get our wily president.

[Jedieb]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20031130/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Worst month since March.

[JediBoricua]

I must admit it was a gutsy move.

A great way to seal a pretty good month for Bush's re-election bid next year.

Victories with Medicare, the economy grew, and his turkey carrying stunt in Iraq give him some points and make him an even stronger opponent for the democrat that finally wins.

A couple of months ago I said he was in trouble (election wise), now he seems to be getting out of it. Although the war is no better, and it will cause him more trouble in the next months.

[Dutchy]

I also agree (!) with Darth Viscera. A gutsy move indeed.

[Darth Viscera]

*hell freezes over*

[JediBoricua]

We liberals are pretty reasonable guys Visc, you just have to give us a chance! ;)

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8040635%255E2,00.html

I guess I found this one amusing, given the lack of WMD. Now lack of bodies.

[TCM'74]

I just don't know about that darned French press ya know? (heh) Anyways that is a somewhat unnerving article. Interesting. Will keep tuned for further developments.

[Darth Viscera]

I don't see how our boys in either of those 2 convoys would be able to gauge the total strength, including support personnel, of the attackers, if this was taking place in a city. From what little I've heard, it seems as though our convoys adopted a purely defensive posture and high-tailed it out of there before stopping and realizing they'd just rebuffed major attacks. It doesn't sound as if the convoys immediately started pursuing the ambushers or anything, after all their mission is probably just to get from Point A to Point B.

But then, I haven't read the CENTCOM press briefings on this particular skirmish or anythign, I'm just assuming we left the enemy in command of the field for a while, long enough for the convoys to get out of there and a reaction force to be deployed to that site.

[TCM'74]

Here is one of the top stories I found via my newspage: 'Samarra fight reveals new Iraqi tactics'. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000044.asp?pne=msntv)

I am always concerned about how delicate and volatile the circumstances are over in Iraq. And dread any new surgence of guerrilla sympathizers. The coallition forces over there have to be very careful how they handle things. To staunch any widespread anti-american sentiments.

[Jedieb]

Well, this should brighten Bush's day.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002197.asp?0cv=CA01

[Darth Viscera]

As it should brighten the days of all the free world. The terrorists have decided to confine themselves to an area with the highest concentration of western military assets in the world. They're leaving their caves! If it's a war of attrition they want, then it's a war of attrition they'll get. They can't possibly hope to match the numbers of the Coalition and its allies.

At least they're apparently not congregating en masse in an area where we have minimal control, such as Pakistan or the backwoods of Afghanistan, or zero control, such as Iran.

We are best equipped to deal with them in Iraq than any other place on the planet. Let the terrorists trap themselves.

[Marcus Telcontar]

They can't possibly hope to match the numbers of the Coalition and its allies.

That's not their purpose. Any fool knows they cant match military with the USA. What they want to do is turn Iraq into a resource and bodycount sinkhole like Vietnam. Their aim is political embarrassment and GI deaths.

Bin Laden is not a fool. He sees an opportunity to further his cause and he's taking it. Personally, I'd be rather worried because it's a logical move on his behalf.

[Darth Viscera]

It's already a resource and bodycount sinkhole like Vietnam, thanks to the media, who are more than willing to overemphasize whatever bad news they can dig up or fabricate in order to make more money on that new 40% stronger-acting detergent commercial. Positive representation of the war in the media, from my chair, is zero.

[Charley]

Agreed. The Media has really been chomping at the bit to call the Iraq scenario a "quagmyre". Even days into the attack, with the initial resistance at al Nasiriyah, they were doing just that. Its utterly ludicrous.

[Dutchy]

Yeah, bad media. Pooh on them. Boo-hoo. :\

[Marcus Telcontar]

Media being unbalanced? Well, then go looking. The BBC and the aust ABC have been quite fair.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/08/1070732136278.html

Interesting reading with the current discussion

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Yeah, bad media. Pooh on them. Boo-hoo. :\

With nothing to offer, you concede the point?

[JediBoricua]

What truth is there to the news that the turkey W brought to Iraq was fake? Supposedly it was a prop designed for the picture that circled the world.

Some of my friends have told me about it, and in a talk radio show here they were talking about it.

They said the Washington Post reported about it, but I have been unable to track the original newsbit.

[Marcus Telcontar]

I believe that it's true, the turkey was a fake.

[JediBoricua]

The perfect complement to a fake war then.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
The perfect complement to a fake war then.

what was a great PR move has been turned into a poor and backfiring stunt. Surely they could have had a real turkey.

[JediBoricua]

Air Force one has a big kitchen right?

[Charley]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I believe that it's true, the turkey was a fake.

Link?

[ReaperFett]

Big deal, the turkey was fake. Makes a nice picture though.

Oh, and on another board a posters brother was there. The feeling was apparently very appreciative that Bush took the time to go out there. So who cares about PR, it made their day.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Agent Charley
Link?

Go look it up in Google and the Washington Post. There's plenty on it there. Or www.smh.com.au

[JediBoricua]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3294501.stm

Here is one from the BBC.

I'm trying to look for the original source, the Washington Post article, but can't find it.

The problem is Reaper that the WH is using the whole Thanksgiving visit as a makeup operation on the war. It leaves a lot to be desired to watch the president carry a gourgeous looking bird, to only learn that the troops were served regular meals.

[Charley]

smh had nothing on it. Thanks for the BBC link.

So this is about the turkey being for decoration?

:rolleyes

Pardon me while I fail to find this newsworthy. Did somebody expect the troops there to be fed by this one single superturkey? Should Bush have pulled a "bread and fish" style miracle out for the crowd?

Get over it.

[JMK]

I fail to see the newsworthyness as well. But as was stated, the visit was appreciated enough. But then what the hell was the point of the turkey? The visit was enough of a gesture, why pull a lame stunt like that? For the sake of PR and a pretty cliched picture? Please.

[JediBoricua]

The problem is that there was no media at Iraq, so this is the picture the WH decided to distribute.

They could as easily distributed a picture of him shaking hands, hugging soldiers, telling a joke, but no, Karl Rove decided to wash the face of the worst month in Iraq by having W carry the most important symbol of Thanksgiving...a fake turkey.

[Charley]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
The problem is that there was no media at Iraq, so this is the picture the WH decided to distribute.

They could as easily distributed a picture of him shaking hands, hugging soldiers, telling a joke, but no, Karl Rove decided to wash the face of the worst month in Iraq by having W carry the most important symbol of Thanksgiving...a fake turkey.

Re-read. The turkey was real. Incidentally, turkey was served to the troops.

What do you want? Sterling silverware and fine china?

[Darth Viscera]

The perfect complement to a fake war then.

|I

Sorry bud, you'd have to lube me up with 55 minutes of moorish propaganda before you could get that bird to fly.

I can just see it now. Coming to a TV near you Christmas 2003, Treegate. The president puts special emphasis on his christmas decorations, but this investigative reporter went under cover to find out the real truth behind George W. Bush's plastic christmas tree. We'll unravel this tree of lies, tonight at 10. :rolleyes

The vast right-wing conspiracy must be spinning in its grave.

lolz @ turkeygate

[ReaperFett]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20031208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_executions_5


And I quote someone who rana death comparison:

Human Rights watch puts mass murders at 290,000
People that disappeared and prosumed dead at 200,000

Chemical attacks in 1983- 30,000
Kurds 75,000
Kids that have dead from hunger or turture, and ect... because of the regime in the last 5 years. 400,000
Prisoners executed
4000
3000
2500
122
23
130

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030404-1.html


If you just average and not take the time such as the kids in 5 years instead of 20, we get this

1,004,775 in 20 years
that equals to 4187 a month

The innocent deaths since March is around 5000
(This includes all those that were killed by Saddam's men)

There has been 9 months since the start of the war.

4187 X 9 = 37,683

37,683 > 5000


adjust and cut the number in half and Saddam has still killed more.

[Darth Viscera]

You forgot a lot of stuff, like all the Iranians Saddam killed, many of whom were my cousins, and then there were the Iraqis living outside the major cities who simply died of neglect because all Saddam cared about was getting electricity to Baghdad. I've done those calculations before, and came up with a rough figure of an average of 324 deaths a day between 1979 and 2003 as a result of Saddam. That assumes that he was responsible for 3 million deaths, which I think is a rather liberal estimate.

[ReaperFett]

Oh yeah, I'm sure the figures aren't exact. But when you can estimate that casualties would be up by 700% if there hadn't been a war, you start to wonder how bad this war was.

[Jedieb]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/48hours/main587140.shtml

There are more soldiers coming home like this than in body bags. Keep working guys, you're home now.

[TCM'74]

It is ugly. I admire the courage and bravery of our troops over there. But living every day with the potential sapper and insurgentant attacks. Literal meatgrinder and every american and allie are a target. I feel President Bush and his chiefs of staff need to reanalyze the way they are dealing with post-war Iraq. President Bush should be more considerate on his boys.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by TCM'74
It is ugly. I admire the courage and bravery of our troops over there. But living every day with the potential sapper and insurgentant attacks. Literal meatgrinder and every american and allie are a target. I feel President Bush and his chiefs of staff need to reanalyze the way they are dealing with post-war Iraq. President Bush should be more considerate on his boys.

Get ahold of yourself man! Think this out logically for a second, and press the mute button on CNN's coverage of Cemetery 2003: The ongoing pool of American blood in Iraq. Clearly you have no conception of what constitutes a literal meatgrinder. During World War I, an average of 13,990 allied soldiers became casualties PER DAY. Compare that with our own casualty rates in Iraqi Freedom. This is not a quagmyre, meatgrinder, or any other attention-getting word that can easily fit on a poster or in a slogan. The death rate of our troops in Iraq is only half of the death rate of ordinary civilians in the United States! Take a sample of 130,000 people from the U.S., and in the course of a year 1,097 of them will have died just in everyday life. In 8 months and 20 days there have been 446 U.S. deaths in Iraq. 8.44 people out of 1,000 die in America every year. Perhaps 4.5 U.S. troops out of 1,000 die in Iraq every year. OMG AMERIKKKA IS A MEATGRINDER!

Of course you probably won't listen anyways and will go on thinking of Iraq as a meatgrinder. That's what happens when you slave your common sense to the Democratic National Committee and begin exchanging the thought process for the politically correct process.

[TCM'74]

Thanks for sharing your insensitivities to the troops who are permanently mutilated or the loved ones who have lost someone over in Iraq. They aren't even fighting a fully functional regular army anymore, FOR CRISSAKES!!!!! A bunch of ragtag Saddam loyalists using GUERRILLA tactics. It would be too hard to imagine what a grisley sight it would be to witness US soldiers being shot down or blow to pieces.

[Darth Viscera]

Yes, I know, I'm a horrible person for not tuning into the sensationalism that's supposed to leave me desperately wanting to bring our troops home and vote for a democratic candidate. Maybe one day I'll turn over a new leaf, become a good person and start whoring my emotions out to the democratic national committee.

[TCM'74]

Sensationalism is not the word. It is grim reality. There are american soldiers being wounded everyday but the newspaper and media never state the nature of the injuries. Plenty are amputees or burn-ward victims. These people are forced to make new adjustments when they arrive home. Many will require serious counseling and medical care. So no, sensationalism is not the word. Because it has been fairly sanitized, only small pieces have leaked out through the media. And media is only revealing to us one other facet that should never be forgotten while you sit at your dinner table eating your breakfast wheaties, meeting your daily dietary requirements and watching your sanitized newscasts that never hit home the horrors of ruined lives. Then step outside to your safe, pampered world and scream Yippi-Ki-Ya!

[Darth Viscera]

No, the media is not reporting on the reality of Iraq. When you overemphasize the negative and avoid the positive repercussions completely, this is not reality, grim or otherwise. If you let yourself be fooled by all the half-truths that are spread about, then you're dishonoring what those boys are fighting and dying for.

It's weird. It's like you acknowledge that they're heroes, and they're working hard over there, but then you refuse to acknowledge the effects of that work.

[Anbira Hicchoru]

This is a risk they were made aware of when they signed up. To infer any change in position over these expected casualties is rather presumptuous. I'm honored and indebted to the men and women who serve, but I also know that they are aware of the consequences of their actions, and serve regardless.

[Tear]

Im gonna have to agree with Anbira and Viscera.

The men and women fighting did sign up into the armed forces for some reason or another. They knew the risks. They were trained and conditioned to be Soldiers.

In WW1 and WW2 and Vietnam things were slightly different because of being Drafted and that larger scale of both World wars. Where inconcievable amounts of people were killed everyday. It was a very tragic.

Im not saying oh hey only 4 people a day die in Iraq so thats ok. Its horrible that they had to die because of fighting. But in the grand scheme of things if you had a choice would you rather die fighting for a purpose and a cause that will impact and affect a country of people in a positive way? Or..die walking across the street from some drunk that hit you by accident. Im not saying the first option is better for everyone but the people that enlisted probably think so?

..Bah i promised myself i wouldnt get involved in anymore Iraq war stuff.

[TCM'74]

Well, now for some sobbering facts.

Link. (http://www.american-reporter.com/2,214/366.html)

Link. (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/05/26/loc_homelessvets26.html)

Link. (http://www.peaceactionnewyorkstate.org/human_iraq_vets.shtml)

Link. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/archive/2003/10/14/hmlssvetsintro.DTL)

Link. (http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/news/War_and_Homelessness.html)

Link. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0213-03.htm)

Link. (http://www.anti-sheep.com/articles/03071-Depleted-Uranium.php)

Link. (http://www.livejournal.com/community/sos_usa/1047014.html)

Link. (http://www.vrna.org/actionnews/20030318.lasso)



__________________________________________________ ______
By STEPHEN SINGER - AP Writer - News Day - October 1, 2003
HARTFORD, Ct -- The U.S. mission in Iraq continues, but
already one Connecticut soldier who served in the conflict is
homeless and living at the state Veterans Home and Hospital in
Rocky Hill.

There are about 1,800 members of the state National Guard and
Reserve currently on active duty, in addition to those state
residents enlisted in the armed forces.
State Veterans Affairs Commissioner Linda Spoonster Schwartz said
she doesn't know how many of those soon-to-be veterans will be
seeking state help. But last week, 15 vets, including a National
Guardsman who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, sought shelter
at the veteran's home, she said.
"I was a little bit jolted that we had 15 in one week," she told
The Associated Press this week.

The Connecticut General Assembly this year increased access to
state veterans' services, allowing military personnel in
Connecticut who served 90 days or more of active duty after 1990
access to state benefits.

To qualify for federal assistance, veterans must have been on
active duty for 180 days.
State benefits range from care at the Veteran's Home and Hospital
to free tuition at public colleges and universities.
While expanding eligibility for these benefits, lawmakers did not
increase her agency's budget this year, Schwartz said.
On Wednesday, Gov. John G. Rowland said he is committed to
ensuring veterans in Connecticut get the care they deserve.
"You have a changing veteran population," he said. "What I'm
afraid is that our mission right now with Rocky Hill is to take
care of the World War II population, but guess what - there's
really NOT a lot of World War II veterans there."

"In this new world that we live in and this new war that we're
living with, we have to make some changes, alterations and
improvements," the governor said.
Rowland said the state will consider relying more on outpatient
care for younger veterans or moving some hospital care to federal
veterans hospitals.
Schwartz said she has been working with the federal VA in an
effort to ensure the state and federal government minimize
duplicative services and veterans aren't waiting for federal beds
when state beds are available.
A Vietnam War veteran - one of 300 homeless vets at Rocky Hill -
said the full effects of problems associated with servicemen
returning from Iraq will likely emerge in several years.
"You're talking about years, especially if they have
psychological problems," said Eddie Wilson, 49, a resident at
Rocky Hill for 18 months.
The Rocky Hill facility currently serves about 500 veterans.
Stays are limited to two years. The hospital also treats chronic
diseases and substance abuse.
John Brieden, commander of the American Legion, said homelessness
is not an immediate issue facing Iraq war veterans.
"Medical care is a more immediate problem," he said.

At two Army hospitals he visited, he said he saw "some of the
worst of the casualties," including servicemen who lost limbs or
suffered severe burns.
"Treatment will go on for the rest of their lives," he said.
In addition, veterans officials and doctors do not know what
potential health problems may emerge such as the Gulf War
syndrome a decade ago, he said.
The state isn't waiting for members of the military to return
from Iraq before offering them assistance.
State workers called to active duty are receiving paychecks that
make up the difference between their military pay and the salary
they received from the state. And Rowland has been urging private
corporations to follow suit.

Maj. Gen. William A. Cugno, the commander of the Connecticut
National Guard, has set up a foundation designed to assist
families of its members with medical or other emergency expenses
they may incur while their loved ones are overseas, said Maj.
John Whitford, spokesman for the National Guard.
The National Guard also has a family program, with 10 offices statewide. They take families on trips to the West Point commissary, can find a plumber or carpenter to do free repair
work, even provide free tickets to baseball games or plays.
"General Cugno is very much focused on what I would call the
quality of life for our soldiers," Rowland said.

Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press
__________________________________________________ _____________

_

[Jedieb]

DNC and evil media .... controlling my mind.... everything's going perfect..... nothing to see here..... must turn to FOX News to see the light...... troops really will leave next summer...... once we leave everything will be fine and dandy..... :rolleyes

[Darth Viscera]

I wouldn't trust FOX News to report equitably either. Their business is to deliver content to as many people as possible, which means catching someone's eye, which means sensationalism. It's still train-wreck live.

[Jedieb]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/13/sprj.irq.main/index.html
Two more. It looks like the Army is going to have to raise the pay of Iraqi soldiers.

[Jedieb]

Opps, we made a "goof."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/24/white.house.uranium/index.html

[Darth Viscera]

old news. we went to war with saddam 8 months ago, stop trying to argue that the justification for the war was insufficient, it's moot now.

[Dutchy]

Bremer contradicts Blair on mass destruction weapons in Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031228/wl_uk_afp/britain_us_iraq_blair_031228000947)

Wheheh... the lies. :p

[Darth Viscera]

zing!

[Dutchy]

...

[Darth Viscera]

*adds it to the blooper reel*

[Dutchy]

Is my English really this bad that I don't understand 2 posts in a row?

[Darth Viscera]

ah, my bad. i thought you knew what it was. a blooper reel is when they're shooting footage for a movie or TV show or news program and someone gets their lines wrong. They add the fouled up footage to a "blooper reel" and release it separately. My reply was jocular in nature.

[Dutchy]

Then I did know what it means, but didn't know what you meant with it.

Care to explain? This discussion is going nowhere anyway. :)

[Jedieb]

Powell admits 'No Smoking Gun' between Iraq and Al-Queda:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

And another 9 soldiers die.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Tihs all in the wake of the NON-PARTISAN Carnegie Institute's report on the lack of WMD in Iraq. So, 2 of the administration's main reasons for going to war have pretty much been proven false. I wonder if they would have been able to garner the support of the American people with only Saddam's track record as an argument? I doubt it. Cubans have been trying to get rid of Fidel for decades with that same argument to no avail. The adminstration NEEDED WMD and an Al-Queda conncection to sell this war, and both arguments were exaggerated and false.

Ooops.

[Darth Viscera]

I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein complied with the U.N. resolutions and actually destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction? Please tell me you're not that naive and ignorant of the facts.

P.S. the connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is debatable. It would be completely irresponsible to assert that such a connection never existed.

[JediBoricua]

[i]P.S. the connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is debatable. It would be completely irresponsible to assert that such a connection never existed.

It is equally irresponsible to assert that such connection did exist without solid evidence.

As we stand right now, we went to Iraq on a 'hunch'.

[Darth Viscera]

Well, we invaded Iraq because Saddam failed to uphold his end of the agreement which was reached at the cessation of hostilities in 1991. Were we supposed to allow him to pull the wool over our eyes and string us along into perpetuity? We gave him 12 years of leeway, which is more than fair and positively generous if you go by historical precedent.

[Jedieb]

But remember, you know where you can find PLENTY of conncections between Al-Queda, 9/11, and a foreign government; SAUDI ARABIA! There's a hell of a lot more evidence linking people in the Saudi government that there EVER was in the Iraq government. Oopps, I mean Iraqi 'regime.' When you're an ally, you get your name blacked out in an embarrasing report, when you're a target you get exaggerated connections and illigitimate sounding nouns to replace simple words like government.

[Darth Viscera]

I disagree. Al Qaeda seems to enjoy hitting targets in the KSA.

[JediBoricua]

Read today that the 400+ team assigned to find the WMD's has been removed from Iraq...

Anyway this debate will get us nothing, what's done is done, now is time for rebuilding and making sure that the iraqis are the ones benefiting the most from the process.

[Jedieb]

The whole team is leaving? I know the man in charge was leaving but I had no idea the whole team was being removed. I thought they'd stay in place for most of this year.

[Jedieb]

A demonstration turns deadly.
The chopper WAS shot down.
And a couple of Iraqi policeman were shot and killed by U.S. troops.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/10/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

But, there's a ray of hope in the search for WMD.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/10/sprj.irq.chemicals/index.html

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
I disagree. Al Qaeda seems to enjoy hitting targets in the KSA.

Please go a googling. There's been plenty reported on Saudi connections and Al-Quada. Bin Laden is Saudi and his main reason to form Al-Quada was to get rid of the USA from his homeland.


But, there's a ray of hope in the search for WMD.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...cals/index.html

Havent we heard that type of report before? And it usually is proven false soon after?

[Jedieb]

Yeah, it is, but to be fair I thought I'd throw it up there. The missiles seem to be leftovers from the Iran/Iraq war. I doubt they'd be in any shape to do significant damage.

But here's a bit of embarrassment for the administration. Seems Bush didn't need 9/11 to get the invasion on the table.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

[Marcus Telcontar]

I was hearing Rumsfield and co always considered Iraq unfinished business before 11/9. 11/9 bought the hawks the willpower to go ahead with the plan - 11/9 hastened the plans and gave them a way to sell it to the USA Joe Sixpack. It would have been a big political challenge without 11/9 I believe.

[Charley]

Call me Macchiavellian in this regard, but good for them. I'm glad they got the job done.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Please go a googling. There's been plenty reported on Saudi connections and Al-Quada. Bin Laden is Saudi and his main reason to form Al-Quada was to get rid of the USA from his homeland.


Well, he also wants to turn the KSA into the IRA (Islamic Republic of Arabia) and overthrow the house of saud, so I'm pretty sure we have the saudi government on our side.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Now this is bad
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040302/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_1

I think its clear that Al'Quadi is involved in Iraq, I can't see anybody else pulling something like this off. I have read reports that they are trying to start a civil war there if so how can there possibly be a vote by June?

[Darth Viscera]

Definitely Al Qaeda, too large scale to be anyone else, it seems. I doubt they'll be able to start an Iraqi civil war, all they're doing is polarizing the Iraqi people against terrorism. bah, i think polarizing is the wrong word :x

[ReaperFett]

If they were Polarising, I think they'd need to be going in two directions.

[Darth Viscera]

yeah i know, i was too lazy to load the dictionary and look for an alternative word. ^_^; 3/2/04 nevar forget

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't know them throwing rocks at the US troops and the head cleric saying we are to blame aren't good signs. Really we need UN peacekeepers there. To me there aren't enough troops to handle security and the Iraqi Police look like the Keystone cops or something.

[Darth Viscera]

LOL keystone cops

[Jedi Master Carr]

Heh well it was the first that came to my mind. I have to admit it is an exageration of course. My point is really they just aren't prepared for these type of security issues.

[Jedieb]

March turned out to be the second bloodiest month for U.S. troops since the "end" of major hostilities. Five G.I.'s were killed by a roadside bomb and what happened to those four poor souls in Fallujah today was just horrible.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/index.html

The NY Times has some gruesome photos. Not for the squemish.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2004/03/31/international/20040331_FALLUJAH_6.html

[Darth Viscera]

"Fallujah". I'm really starting to hate that name.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Things are getting worse it shows when the civilians are doing stuff like this that the place is getting better.

[Darth Viscera]

civilians don't normally desecrate bodies like that. I smell infiltration from al qaeda or a like-minded group

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
civilians don't normally desecrate bodies like that. I smell infiltration from al qaeda or a like-minded group

Did you borrow Bush' nose?

[Jedi Master Carr]

They did in Somillia, those people looked like average people to me, there might just be some people in Iraq who hate us you can't say there aren't.

[Darth Viscera]

Mogadishu was infiltrated by Al Qaeda, you know that.

[Jedieb]

Yes, that 10 year old who was standing on a corpse's head was definitely an Al Aquida infiltrator.... :rolleyes

Fallujah is a city of around 500,000. Many of those residents were Saddam layalists and the city had its share of prosperity under him. There's a well of anti-American sentiment there. The 4,000 Marines stationed nearby didn't respond for a reason. If they had gone in to retrieve those bodies it would have been a bloodbath. Primarily because they could have easily found themselves in a situation in which they would have had to plow through civilians. IRAQI civilians, certainly not al-Qaida operatives.

Are there Al Qaida operatives running amok in Iraq? Most definitely, but the invasion has been a boost not just for Al Qaida, but other extremists groups acting on behalf of Al Qaida. We're an occupying force and there's no getting around the fact that our mere presence in Iraq is going to continue to cause violence. We may probably find ourselves in Iraq for years to come. Every soldier and civilian employee in Iraq will have to have their head on a swivel for years to come.

I don't care who wins the election this November, a mass pull out isn't an option right now. We're trapped. I'd like to see the occupation turned over to the U.N. with a significant reduction of US forces supplanted by more international troops. But if we keep bearing the brunt of this the body bags are going to continue to be filled. It will NOT stop. Month after month, attacks on US personnel will continue and the death toll will keep going up and up. Don't expect things to get magically better on June 30. They'll be some positive press for a day or two, provided insurgents don't manage to pull off something horrific, but within a week of that date our forces will still be dealing with an average of 20 attacks a day.

[Jedieb]

Another 10 U.S. soldiers killed today. Not many details have come out so far. Eight of the casualties were the result of violent protests in 4 different cities and 2 marines were killed in the province of Anbar. Could April be even bloodier than March?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040404_978.html

[Jedi Master Carr]

This is bad, IMO, read this

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

This is the leader of some of this rioting, this guy hates the U.S but he was an enemy of Saddam this proves that just because we got rid of Saddam that some in Iraq aren't happy with us being there.

[Jedieb]

Muqtada al-Sadr is a powerful Shite Cleric. He's got a loyal following and you could put the percentage of the Shite majority that sympathize with him at around 10-15%. His arrest is probably necessary, but his capture or death could turn him into a martyr. Take him down, and someone else will pop up.

These next couple of months are going to be chaotic. In order to quell much of this violence we're going to have to start cracking down. Everyone from military analyst to Congressmen are beginning to call for MORE troops. There's rumblings that some generals in the field are getting ready to ask for more troops as well. More troops is not what the American public wants to hear. The casualties this summer aren't going to sit well either.

Let's say we do crack down. How is that going to sit with many of the Iraqis? How can that possibly not play into the hands of insurgents and foreign terroists? How many angry, but moderate Iraqis will get pushed over the line by a U.S. crackdown or an increase in American troops? And let's be honest, the June 30th date of sovereignty is NOT a pull out date. Even if the transfer of power goes through, the troops will remain. You're also going to have an Iraqi government made up of U.S. friendly Iraqis. The Iraqi on the street will read a newspaper on July 1 announcing the transfer of power only to look up and see a Humvee still patrolling the street. Some Iraqis will simply NOT tolerate this. This Iraqi style of "Vietnamization" could be just as disastrous as its predecessor.

[Darth Viscera]

^^^
So what do you suggest?

[Dutchy]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040406/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

More dead US soldiers.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
^^^
So what do you suggest?

I can say what I wished. That Bush and co had realised how vastly dumb their strategy in Iraq was and how the worst predictions are threatening to come true. Troops and civilians are dying due to the admin's stupidity.

There's still time to fix things. But I doubt the present administraiton are the ones who can do it.

[Darth Viscera]

errr
that's one heckuva decisive plan you've got there

[Jedi Master Carr]

I bring in the UN. We need more troops there that is why there is so much trouble, you bring in the UN and you get a larger force to control the country also bring in Arab troops that could help control the problem too. Unfortuntely I don't see this current president doing that. But this is effecting him he is now got 43%approval on how he is handling Iraq and 42% job approval. Those are his lowest numbers ever.

[Jedieb]

that's one heckuva decisive plan you've got there
About as decisive as the Bush administration's.

Frankly, I don't think there's ANY plan that's going to turn Iraq into the fantasy democracy that the administration envisioned. 12 more soldiers were killed just a few hours ago. The violence of the past few days has occured in several cities, not just Fallujah. And insurgents are emerging from BOTH the Sunnis and the Shites. We need MORE troops. More international troops. But even with those troops, I don't see Bush's misguided vision of a democratic Iraq ever coming true. Eventually, our troops will HAVE to leave. And when they do, whatever government they've helped to set up is probably going to fall. It just won't carry much legitimacy with millions of Iraqis.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Of course it wont come true. You cant force a democracy onto people. A democracy is a ground up thing, not top down.

Frankly, what would have been best was to leave the Iraqi people to decide for themselves. Oh NOES but that government, even if it was democratic, could have been hostile to US interests! Well, that would be tough titties, wouldnt it?


We need MORE troops. More international troops

Yes, you do. But because of the adminstrations utterly appalling way they went gungho and bitchslapping old allies and world opinion, they wont get them. Spain wants out, Poland has said they were lied to, other countries wont commit more troops, What a fine ol' mess Bush and co have landed themselves in. And now that the war itself has been outed as being baseless (Where's the WMD? Anyone? Where's the clear and present danger? Where's the terrorists?)

Meanwhile, Afghanistan, the place where terrorists really are, also gets more out of control. Never mind Pakistan, with a USA supported military dictactorship.

Clinton underwent impeachment proceedings for not tellign the truth about getting his knob polished, I seriously dont get why Bush aint in deep, deep political troube, as he should be.

[Jedieb]

A poll that shows some hope;
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html

I just hope we can get some more international cooperation. Maybe if we elect a new president this November, one who hasn't burned so many bridges....

[Jedi Master Carr]

Who knows how accurate that poll is, it is hard to know what every Iraqi thinks. Also Southern Iraq is a mess. That hard line Clerk is causing a mess, and if the troops take them on there is going to be blood on both sides.

[Marcus Telcontar]

12 Marines and 66 Iraqis dead in just one clash - isnt that already blood on both sides?


Still, the heavy battles over the past three days showed that even with limited backing, al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia is capable of a damaging fight.

Which is more than Hussein did. The danger here is, Iraqis not happy will see this guy having some sucess in fighting and will be willing to support him. while this cleric has no real support now, he could gain it. That's dangerous. The "war" isnt over by a long shot, it appears.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I mean more dead I guess. Also this cleric is a very holy city and if they send troops in there it could be bad in that more iraqis will be against us.

[Darth Viscera]

We should retaliate against Iran for this insurgency with 100 B-52's against regime targets. It's Iran who's funding all the offices that al-Sadr established in the south to harass the IP. Iran provided the equipment and Pasderan and intelligence offers posing as Shia pilgrims. This is a clear and blatant violation of the neutrality they proclaimed at the onset of the war, and they need to know that we're not going to allow them to infiltrate and sabotage the new Iraq.

[Morgan Evanar]

That would be great, but we're all buddy buddy with Iran.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Who knows how accurate that poll is, it is hard to know what every Iraqi thinks.

If the selectors on the poll are truly randomized (and I'm not sure how that was done) then its actually pretty easy to gauge a population's thoughts from a very small number of queries (~350). Its got a lot of validity.

[Darth Viscera]

@morg
yeah, Iran and China. what a sordid cast of characters we're consorting with.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah lets open up another front and make the matter even worse.

[Darth Viscera]

open up another front? the other front is open. Iranian saboteurs and militants are sneaking through the border into the Shia regions every day. Thousands have snuck through since the end of the war. They've bided their time until there's enough of them, and now we're seeing the results. We have to respond.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Thousands have snuck through since the end of the war.

Since the temporary end, you mean?

[Darth Viscera]

What's happening now is not a war. It's limited pacification and widespread reconstruction.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
What's happening now is not a war. It's limited pacification and widespread reconstruction.

True, though "peace" is not a word that pops up in my mind looking at the past days images.

[Darth Viscera]

ditto

[Jedieb]

That poll offered a glimmer of hope. I posted it to try to balance things out a bit. But take that poll after another month of this week's violence and you can guarantee much different results. Also, I just don't know how accurate a poll administered in Iraq can be at the moment.

This IS a war, it's a guerilla war. It's about the only kind of war those insurgents can fight. And I'm pretty sure the G.I.'s getting shot at and wounded would call it a war. I'm not sure the families of the 30 soldiers who've been killed the last few days would use the term "limited pacification," I sure as hell wouldn't.

I found this commentary by Bill Moyers that I really like. Especially the end where he recalls the scarifices Americans made during WWII. This is one of the reasons I'm so pessimistic about this whole mess. We don't do this anymore. Hell, we've got a President who used every resource at his family's disposal to make sure he didn't get his butt shot off in Vietnam. We have over 100,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq, many of them making just over 16K a year. That's right, 16K. But we B&M because gas is topping $2. If we really were serious about this "war on terror" then we'd start sucking it up on the home front. But that's not going to happen. We just don't do that anymore. Not on the scale that's necessary.


Winning the War on Terror

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Bill Moyers

President Bush spoke eloquently the other day about what the war on terror requires of us. He said, "The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation." Those words ring true. Whatever drives them, whatever grieves them, Islamic fanatics have declared war and seem willing to wage it to the death. If they prevail, our children will grow up in a world where fear governs the imagination and determines the rules of life. Mr. Bush clearly believes what he said: The war on terror is an inescapable calling of the generation now in charge.

Like most Americans, I want to support him in that work; I want to do my part. But the president makes it hard. He confused us by going after Saddam Hussein when the villain behind the mass murders of 9/11 was Osama bin Laden. He seems not to realize how his credibility has been shredded by all the false and misleading reasons put forth to justify invading Iraq; Lyndon Johnson never recovered from using the dubious events at the Gulf of Tonkin as an excuse to go to war in Vietnam, and even if Mr. Bush wins reelection this November, he, too, will eventually be dragged down by the powerful undertow that inevitably accompanies public deception. The public will grow intolerant of partisan predators and crony capitalists indulging in a frenzy of feeding at the troughs in Baghdad and Washington. And there will come a time when the president will have no one to rely on except his most rabid allies in the right wing media; he will discover too late that you cannot win the hearts and minds of the public at large in a nation polarized and pulverized by endless propaganda at odds with reality.

So what to do? How to assure we win this war?

The hearings in Washington suggest a start. It is clear now the Bush White House bungled the warnings about Al Qaeda, but it's also clear that the Democrats under Bill Clinton made plenty of mistakes, too. Why can't both parties come clean, apologize, and start over? Either party could lose this war but both parties together just might win it. Why not a wartime cabinet to serve a wartime nation? Al Gore as head of Homeland Security. Gary Hart at Defense. The independent-minded John McCain or Warren Rudman at State. The world would get the point: This time we mean it, all of us -- the war on terror no longer a partisan cause.

Surely, too, there are ways to subject all of us to the moral equivalent of the draft. The president put it well in another speech last week when he said, "I've seen the spirit of sacrifice and compassion renewed in our country. We've all seen our country unite in common purpose when it mattered most." Those words ring true, as well. But so far sacrifice has been asked only of the men and women in uniform and their families: Nearly 600 dead since the war began -- over 400 of them since the President landed on that aircraft carrier under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished."

Even now the privates patrolling the mean streets of Baghdad and the wilds of Afghanistan, their lives and limbs constantly at risk, are making less than $16,000 dollars a year in base pay. Here at home, meanwhile, the rich get their tax cuts -- what Vice President Cheney calls "their due." Favored corporations get their contracts, subsidies and offshore loopholes. And as the president praises sacrifice he happily passes the huge bills that are piling up on to children not yet born.

My thoughts started running on this track a couple of weeks ago when my wife Judith came across a relic of the past in our attic -- a ration book, issued by the OPA (the Office of Price Administration) with stamps for the purchase of essential goods. It's dated 1943 and it's aged so much you can barely make out the name on it -- "Billy Don Moyers," the alias my mother gave me at birth.

I was nine years when this ration book was issued, and America was fighting a war on two fronts, against Nazis and Japanese warlords. Just about everything vital was going to feed the war machine, so just about everything was rationed: gasoline, tires, sugar, butter, meat, tea, diapers, kitchen utensils, lawnmowers. When stockings became scarce, women painted seams down their calves to simulate the real thing. You stood in line to get scarce items; and all of us were called upon to eat less, drive less do without.

Kids weren't exempt. I took this book with me to the store, and tore off exactly the number of stamps required to buy something. I never used all the stamps in this one book -- that's how parsimonious people were. Or maybe it was patriotism. Anyway, I think of this now as a kind of war souvenir, a keepsake to remind me that victory on the home front began at 801 East Austin Street.

Where does the home front begin today? President Bush hasn't told us. I believe him when he says the war on terror is the inescapable calling of our generation. But it is one thing to say it, and yet another to lead all of us, and not just a partisan few, to answer it.

[Jedieb]

There's something else I wanted to bring up. Over the last few days, Bush hasn't just been getting criticism from Bush bashers and Democrats on the Hill. He's been getting it from Republicans and foreign leaders as well. There ARE Republicans out there who've publicly challenged Bush on issues such as the June 30 sovereignty date. And you've got critical allies such as Pakistan that are now starting to sound off on the administration.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040407/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistan_qaeda_iraq_040407081034

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1187132,00.html

[Marcus Telcontar]

What gets to me is the "war on Terror" Epiptath. You cant win against terrorism by bombing the crap out of villages or invasions - look at Israel and see exactly how screwed up fighting to the hilt gets. The only way to win is to cut the support from under the terrorists. What is being done to stop young men and boys from gettign so angry that they are willing to die for a cause?

Does people really think terrorists have no better reason than becuase we're just Americans / Aussies/ Brits / etc?

Once you get below the surface, you find the reasons why people turn to terrorism. Hopelessness. Fear. Hunger. Anger. The real causes of terrorism can be defeated, if the politicians have the guts to target them. That's how terrorism is erased.

And for those who are terrorists now -

Heh, who's going to care if they get vapourised if their support is gone? Terrorism is another name for mass murder. Terrorism dies when the terrorists support base is gone. what worries me is that the USA is simply provoking more men and boys to contemplate terror for what they see are wrongs done to them and their nation.

Lets have a war against starvation and poverty! Hey, that'll be somethign worth fighting for! It might even fix a root cause of terrorism!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Good points both of you. DV we can't take on Iran, where are we going to get the man power? We would have to draft troops there is no way we could just find another 100k troops lying around who aren't already busy (90% of our troops are in one country or another). Besides I don't think that is the issue, I think we need more troops to control the situation in Iraq and we should go to the UN and get them, unfortunely Kerry would have to get elected for that to happen.

[Darth Viscera]

Manpower? It takes 100,000 extra ground troops to launch a bombing offensive against regime targets in Iran to get them to back off? I think you're severely misinterpreting my proposed measured response against Iran.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Somehow I doubt Iran is behind this latest attempt at Iraqi resistance against occupying powers. The war's not over yet, we've just seen the end of a relative ceasefire

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9230543%255E401,00.html

Now it's gotten worse. Hostages are bad, bad news.

What's becoming a bit more clear is that Sada was seen as a maverick until now - however, he's won respect for his successes in the last few days and he is winning supporters and allies, not just his Shia, but Sunni. He has some sort of an army behnid him

Watch this space, it looks like. I'd liek to be optimistic, but somehow, I dont think that's justified

[Jedieb]

Is there a military force that could defeat the U.S. military on a battlefield? I don't believe so. But this is now an occupation. We're not dealing with Saddam's Republican National Guard pitifully trying to stop us from overruning Baghdad and ousting Saddam. We're not dealing with Iraqi troops being routed and decimated and chased out of Kuwait. We now have a primarily HOMEGROWN insurgency. Masked insurgents fighting from homes, mosques, and alleyways with rifles and RPG's. They don't want to engage us in an open battlefield. They want to make this occupation as bloody as possible. They want to win the hearts of Iraqis who are sitting on the fence. This last round of violence has caused groups of Sunnis and Shites to actually work TOGETHER. You've got Iraqis giving blood and sending supplies to SUPPORT insurgents in Fallujah. Sada is a low rent maverick in the grand scheme of things. But his hatred and contempt for American forces are SPREADING. He will not emerge from this as some grand Iraqi leader. But his IDEAS and contempt for the U.S. occupation will continue. That's the real danger here. Cities all over Iraq are burning right now. The Iraqi police force we've been training and funding has proven to be a JOKE. Some of these insurgents are actually driving around in police cars WE bought and paid for. Some of the Iraqi police we trained have not only handed over car keys and weapons, but joined some of the insurgents.

Besides I don't think that is the issue, I think we need more troops to control the situation in Iraq and we should go to the UN and get them, unfortunely Kerry would have to get elected for that to happen.
Call this a partisan sentiment, but I wholeheartedly agree. Right now, a President NOT named Bush has the best chance of going to the international community and turning this occupation into an international one with some legitimacy in the eyes of many of these insurgent Iraqis.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Jedieb, the reasoning that some have joined isnt because they are backstabbers.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/08/1081326872050.html

I heard a report on ABC radio much like this one, how Sadr's revolt and stand is much bigger than the US realised, but also the reasons why perfectly normal Iraqi's are joining in droves.


They want to win the hearts of Iraqis who are sitting on the fence

And a lot of the actions of the Marines, while seen in context seem okay, but are just fanning fires of hatred when presented from a Iraqi POV.

I keep on getting surprised by how much support this Sadr has and the reports that the allied occupation has actually lost control of several cities.

[Darth Viscera]

This is not a homegrown insurgency. The insurgents are foreigners - Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Yemenis, Saudis, Egyptians, etc. They're everyone but Iraqis.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
This is not a homegrown insurgency. The insurgents are foreigners - Iranians, Syrians, Jordanians, Yemenis, Saudis, Egyptians, etc. They're everyone but Iraqis.


BULL......... yeah, you get what I was about to say. Have you been rbrainwashed by Fox again?

[Darth Viscera]

sigh

right, whatever helps you sleep at night. they're not foreign terrorists who are being coordinated from Tehran and Damascus at all, they're just ordinary Iraqi freedom fighters. The thousands of guys who sneak over the border at night with AK-47s slung over their backs? They're Shia pilgrims, in Iraq to tour the holy cities. The reason that these terrorists all have Syrian accents when they get caught is because of a plot by the zionist entity.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Right now, I've hauled up a link that says your wrong. The news reports say your wrong.

Forgive me if I dont believe you for a second

[Darth Viscera]

Don't take my word for it, ask the Iraqis.
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

[Marcus Telcontar]

And even after reading, I still call BS

[Jedi Master Carr]

Come you can't believe they are all foreign. This Sadr has hundreds of followers and they are Iraqis, also those guys in Fallah(sp) who dragged those bodies through the streets sure weren't foriegn.

[Darth Viscera]

I'm not referring to baathists ATM

yes, he has thousands of pious men at his command-cutthroats, thieves, rapists and looters, no doubt some of whom are Iraqis. But even the Mahdi army members are receiving their US dollars and their supplies and their orders from Iran. Make no mistake, this insurgency is being planned, coordinated and prosecuted by foreigners. Maybe some of the grunt-level men are Iraqi cutthroats who are being paid, but they are not the driving force behind these attacks.

[Jedieb]

OMG, you've got to be joking. Most of these insurgents are CLEARLY Iraqis. That's not even being debated right now. But I guess Fox is pretty desperate to try to put some blame somewhere.

We've got around $130,000 troops in Iraq right now. The number will rise when reinforcements begin arriving soon. That is, they WERE reinforcements. Now they're just additional troops because thousands of troops who were scheduled to go home soon are now going to be told their tours are being EXTENDED. So how many soldiers is it going to take? Well, if you agree with what the Army Chief of Starff told Congress before the war it's going to take "several hundred thousand troops." But Gen Eric Shinseki's reward for telling the truth was a public slap by Rummy. Rummy even fired the Army Secretary, a former general, who had the audacity to back Shinseki in public. But we know one of the major reasons the Adminstration called for only 130,000 troops was because they expected the Iraqis to be tripping over themselves, waving American flags and welcoming us as liberators. A year later, that's not what we're seeing.

So let's see, we DON'T have a couple of hundred thousand troops laying in wait to deploy in Iraq to effectively occupy the country. Even if we did have them, how doubling or trippling the number of American soldiers in Iraqi will ease resentment towards American forces is beyond me. If we want to win this war in Iraq on our own, without a significant number of international troops I don't see how we're going to avoid a draft. But a draft is unlikely and it sure as hell won't be popular. So, our troops in Afgahnistan and Iraq will continue to be stretched thin, and the violence will continue. But don't worry, if you just ignore everyone one OUTSIDE of the White House, then every thing in Iraq is going just fine and these are just some rabble rousers who came in from outside the country. They'll be gone in no time.

[Jedi Master Carr]

We couldn't bring in more troops independitely without draft, or without taking all of our troops out of Afghanastan, South Korea, and Bosnia. Also the Sadr thing is a mess more people could join his cause. It is a growing problem, IMO.

[Jedieb]

Crazy Brit. Somebody needs to tell these guys that homegrown Iraqi insurgents are a figment of people's imaginations.

"It is plainly the fact today that there are larger numbers of people, and they are people on the ground, Iraqis, not foreign fighters, who are engaged in this insurgency," the UK Press Association quoted Straw as saying.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/09/iraq.straw/index.html

[Marcus Telcontar]

Someone needs to tell this reporter he's making up stuff too. It's all Iran Instigators and lies, I tell you. Lies! Iraq loves it's liberators! FOX tells the truth, 24hours a day!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/12/1081621847374.html

[Jedieb]

I'm sure that there is some positive media out there. But here's a sampling of negative press from around the world. If someone can find a collection of favorable international press accounts, please post them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3617889.stm

[Darth Viscera]

Marcus, has anyone ever told you that you're obsessed with FOX?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
Marcus, has anyone ever told you that you're obsessed with FOX?

Because they are lying facist bunch of retards, brainwashing the masses with Bush Admin crap at a level that is simply beyond propoganda?

[Darth Viscera]

:uhoh
those...bastards!
:lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

I personally see them nothing more than tabloid conservative journalist. (most of them did the tabloid circuit before joining Fox)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I found this interesting

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040412/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_6

Also I have to say Bush preparing us more causaulities is very similar to Johnson who said almost the same thing.

[Darth Viscera]

LOL

I think I stopped reading sometime around here:



Elsewhere, there were daring rebel attacks on U.S. supply convoys Monday


now that's what I call an objective analysis :rolleyes

odd that this article isn't written by Fox News Live journalists, eh Marcus?

[Jedi Master Carr]

actually that was by the AP. I don't see how that isn't objected. Daring there means to me, extremly risky, I don't see it as a postive thing.

[Darth Viscera]

Don't try and rationalise it. This is editorialising, plain and simple. A proper journalist would have written it as "Elsewhere, there were rebel attacks on U.S. supply convoys Monday". We don't need to know the author's opinion on Iraqi insurgents and their attacks.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

You're grasping at straws, Visc.

[Darth Viscera]

More like exercising a great deal of restraint. I'm saving my right arguments for people who are actually sitting on the fence, as opposed to manning machine gun emplacements way on the other side of it :p there's persistence, and then there's wasting your breath.

And I'm pretty sure my complaints about that tainted article are valid. You know that the media's bias towards thoughtless leftwingery has gotten out of hand when they start glorifying the scum of the earth.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Vis... WTF? Tell me, isnt a raid against a USA supply line, by definition, rather daring? I sure as hell would be thinking that if I was an Iraqi, leaping out and saying boo! at a GI is a wish to see Allah - which is granted usually.

Attacking a supply convoy, even with RPG rounds, is just asking for a counter resonse. Yeah, that's daring allright. Especially 20 kms from Baghdad, where the majority of US forces seem to be.

Daring? Yes. Potential death wish? Yes.


I personally see them nothing more than tabloid conservative journalist. (most of them did the tabloid circuit before joining Fox)

Living in a country where Murdoch has long corrupted his holdings, I see them as a a mouthpiece for Murdoch and Murdoch only. You step out of line, you are sacked. Why is it that out of 149 papers Murdoch owns around the world... not one deviated from the Murdoch line?

[Darth Viscera]

I thoroughly refuse to apply a single positive adjective to that group of thugs and rogues. I don't care if they passed through all hell to reach the convoy in the first place, they are no good.

[Eluna Thals]

Now where's the impartiality?

[Darth Viscera]

I'm not obliged to be impartial. I'm not a journalist!

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
I thoroughly refuse to apply a single positive adjective to that group of thugs and rogues. I don't care if they passed through all hell to reach the convoy in the first place, they are no good.


And what if these so called thugs and rogues were good men and boys whom are so desperate because of what they see as evil committed against them, they are willing to attack and kill?

Maybe you should be impartial. Not all of these Iraqis are evil - most of them are nothing more than like you and me - and would very much prefer not to have their homes and fellow citizens bombed and killed!

Hey and lets think impartially - it's not like the USA are all good guys. The vast, vast majority of you are indeed good folks with good intentions - but you have a handful of evil bastards who murder and destroy in the name of God - and are willing to go to any lengths to crush any Iraqi resistance. Thankfully, it's a handful. Just like there's a handful of evil buggers in Iraq.

It just so happenes the majority who die in battle would rather be somewhere else, if they were able to tell the truth.

[Darth Viscera]

but they AREN'T good men and boys! they're looters, mercenaries, thieves, murderers, and criminals who were released in late 2002 from Iraqi prisons. Just ask the Iraqis. If there is a good man or boy among them, then they're by far the exception, not the rule.

[Jedieb]

The President's press conference is wrapping up. Make of it what you want, I wasn't terribly impressed. He's just been asked for what seems the 4th time if he's made any kind of mistakes in issues ranging from Iraq to 9-11. Not once has he made any kind of acknowledgement that he's made ANY mistakes. He keeps pounding away with "I mean what I say." Laying the groundwork for flip-flopping attacks on Kerry.

His poll numbers SHOULD jump up after this. But I'm interested in seeing what happens when the magic date of June 30 comes around and things don't automatically get better. Rummy should be asking for an additional 20,000 troops tomorrow or later in the week.

[Jedieb]

Good Time article on why Fallujah is presenting us with more than just a military problem.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,610388,00.html

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
but they AREN'T good men and boys! they're looters, mercenaries, thieves, murderers, and criminals who were released in late 2002 from Iraqi prisons. Just ask the Iraqis. If there is a good man or boy among them, then they're by far the exception, not the rule.


Aftyer all the news stories, dissection and posting, your still goignt to insist in believeing that rubbish?

That's almost as dumb as what Miss USA said yesterday - a shining example on why beauty pageant entrants are percieved as stupid that was. she's a laughing stock outside the USA, big time.

[Jedieb]

Not that Pipes is one of my favorite people, but his pessimistic editorial on the future of democracy in Iraq is a sobering one.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-pipes14.html

And who knows how Bush and Sharon's press conference is going to play in the Middle East.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_sharon

[Jedieb]

Another gruesome milestone is reached; 700 casualties and April's toll is right around 100.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html

Over 1,500 civilian engineers and contractors have fled Iraq this month for fear of being kidnapped or murdered. That has to be taking a toll on reconstruction efforts. And it looks like Spain is tripping over themselves to remove their troops as soon as possible. On a bright note, the adminstration has finally seen some reason and asked the UN to help with the creation of the interim government. Man, some people might call that a flip flop..... Nevertheless, this might actually help give whatever fledgling government that comes to power on July 1st some legitimacy. Certainly more than if we'd continue to stubbornly create the government on our own. But I tell you this, if Chalabi has any kind of major role in this new government it's going to be considered a joke by millions of Iraqis.

[Darth Viscera]

Spain is tripping over themselves to remove their troops ASAP? Where'd you read that? Last time the new Spanish PM said anything big about bringing trips home to Al-Andalus (that I noticed - I keep CNN on 24/7) was the time of the bombing.

Kofi Annan is pretty much adamant that the UN not redeploy anybody to Iraq ever since last year. I've seen nothing to indicate that they've changed their minds about not wanting to be too involved in Iraq's reconstruction. Far from flip flopping, they've been rather consistent on the matter.

[Force Master Hunter]

Spain removed troops this morning. Source - ABC Radio

And I think the flip flop referred to the Bush Admin, not the UN.

[Darth Viscera]

According to a CNN report 46 minutes ago, Spain is merely making plans to withdraw them on short notice.

Even if the Bush admin is flip flopping, what does it matter? the secretary general has made it clear again that he will not recommit UN assets to Iraq, ironically because of the security situation :P

I suppose that Iraq would have to be a very secure place for the UN to deploy assets with the goal of restoring security :p

[ReaperFett]

From what I'm learning, you will have someone who is called a flip-flop in power unless Nader wins :)

[Jedieb]

On a bright note, the adminstration has finally seen some reason and asked the UN to help with the creation of the interim government.
That's what I said. I never said anything about the U.N. sending troops. I was directly paraphrasing Bush's OWN words and the administration's change of direction over the creation of the interim government, not security.

According to a CNN report 46 minutes ago, Spain is merely making plans to withdraw them on short notice.
By now it's pretty common knowledge that Spain IS removing their troops. The new PM made the announcements literally hours after being sworn in. He made no bones that he was PULLING THEM OUT, not just making "plans." It also looks like Honduras may follow Spain's lead and remove the scant troops they have in Iraq as well.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040419/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_spain_7

I believe Woodward's book comes out tomorrow. So it's another bad week for the adminstration. Saudi election oil deals, Powell being kept out of the loop but then towing the line out of loyalty, Bush making the decision to go to war months ahead of what the Administration had previously said, Bush redirecting over $700M to Iraqi war planning WITHOUT telling Congress and Woodward calling that likely "illegal." Damn, I wonder how the admnistration will start attacking Woodward? :rolleyes

From what I'm learning, you will have someone who is called a flip-flop in power unless Nader wins
Yeah, but some are more hypocritical about it than others.
Bush V. Bush! :lol
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=13&p=stewart

[Darth Viscera]

better an election deal with the Saudis than with the ChiComs, I say.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It is weird the White house hasn't said anything bad about Woodward except the Powell thing. It is probably because if they bash Woodward he will find more skeltons in their closet the man just has sources.

[Darth Viscera]

the democratic attack machine looks to be powering up.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Yeah, but some are more hypocritical about it than others.
No, it's just who you like most.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Bob Woodward isn't necessarily a democrat here, he did write a book about Clinton that wasn't very flattering. The man is just a great journalist and probably one of the best alive today.

[Jedieb]

No, it's just who you like most.
No, it really is about one side being more hypocritical than the other. Today a bunch of Republicans got on the floor of the Senate to trash Kerry's war record. Some of them were Vietnam vets who never forgave Kerry for speaking out against the war when he got back. They gave him tired nicknames like 'Hanoi John.' They've got the right, especially the vets, to voice their displeasure, but they should be honest about their disdain dish it out to their Chickenhawk Commander-in-Chief as well. Gee, I wonder if any of these guys were on the floor blasting Bush when his Guard service was under the political microscope. They're full of crap. If it were the other candidate who's used family connections to jump over more qualified candidates to get into a cushy Guard unit, then missed several drills while guys his same age were getting their brains blown out, and THEN gotten out of the last few months of his service alltogether so he could start a semester at Harvard, THEY'D BE ALL OVER HIM. People who coddle Bush's weak military record while at the same time going after veterans like Cleland and McCain are SCUMBAGS, plain and simple. Rove and his buddies did it to McCain in South Carolina and you can bet they'll try to do it to Kerry as well. I hope it blows up in their damn faces.

Years ago I read Woodward's book on Clinton and Dole. It was an even handed and objective look at the candidates of 96. To be honest, Dole got the better end of the book. Woodward's journalistic reputation is something the adminstration can't start attacking. Especially when you consider they gave their CONSENT! Woodward had multiple interviews with the President and all the principals involved. About the only thing they can do is quibble over semantics and hope the whole thing blows over before the election.

[Jedieb]

Somebody else gets pissed like I do.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4739243.html

I swear, if a Democrat ever tried that crap against someone like McCain he'd be skinned alive. And I be one of the people telling him to shut his damn mouth.

[Marcus Telcontar]

That really is disgusting and low.

[Darth Viscera]

the "far right" smeared John McCain? I hope that's not true. I like McCain even more than I like Bush.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
the "far right" smeared John McCain? I hope that's not true. I like McCain even more than I like Bush.

Oh yeah. McCain was smeared, by nearly all accounts, in the South Carolina primary campaign. He was starting to look like a formidable challenger to Bush for the nomination in 2000 and the GOP hierarchy saw to it that W. would win.

McCain got off the mat a few days later for a win in Michigan, but he never totally recovered. McCain was painted by Bush and co. as a Democrat in Republican clothing. Really sickening.

McCain was the first - and so far only - politician I've ever been a "true believer" in. I nearly cried when he dropped out on Super Tuesday.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I like McCain too, he is a good man, it is horrible the way the republicans treated him. Also this attack on Kerry is sickening too, the man is a war hero how could you say he didn't deserve his purple hearts those attacks are just low.

[Darth Viscera]

Egyptian Arab comes to the conclusion that Al-Jazeera is not entirely fair and balanced (http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/) (April 26th entry)

coulda fooled me... :p

[Dan the Man]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
the "far right" smeared John McCain? I hope that's not true. I like McCain even more than I like Bush.

In the most infuriating way imaginable. Nothing made me more angry in that election as that.

[Jedieb]

McCain and South Carolina

I'm going to miss a few things here because I'm in a hurry, but I'll try to give a quick recap as to what was done to McCain back in the race for the Republican nomination. After winning Hew Hampshire McCain was picking up steam and seriously challenging Bush. When they got to SC "opponents" of McCain began calling voters and posing questions such as this; "What would your reaction be if you found out John McCain had fathered an illegitimate Vietnamese child?" They posted fliers about McCain that contained some really foul stuff. McCain even showed one of those fliers to Bush during a debate. The rumors have always been that Karl Rowe and people working for him were behind these tactics. And they did it for their candidate, Dubya. What's happening now is going to force Kerry to go on the offensive and start taking shots at Bush's Guard Service. Kerry is no Dukakis, he's not going to take these kinds of attacks without fighting back.

The sad thing is, McCain would have CRUSHED Al Gore. There would have been no Florida fiasco. Because McCain easily would have dominated Independents and he even would have gotten many Democrats to vote for him. Hell, I probably would have voted for him.

[Dan the Man]

McCain had my vote wrapped up in gold leaf until that happened. :(

[Darth Viscera]

yeah, McCain had my vote too (well, in theory anyways - my 18th birthday was 7 weeks after the 2000 election :p)

[Jedieb]

There's an editorial in the Washington Post that covers the partisan bashing that took place on the floor of the Senate last week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44999-2004Apr26.html

It also goes over what some of the same people did to McCain in 2000.

It seems to be a habit. When Bush faces a Vietnam War hero in an election, a Vietnam veteran perfectly happy to trash his opponent always turns up. In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with "the Manchurian Candidate." Now, Sampley says that Kerry "is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. . . . To us, he is 'Hanoi John.' " Is that where Sam Johnson got his line?

One person who is outraged by the attacks on Kerry is McCain. When I reached the Arizona Republican, I found him deeply troubled over the reopening of wounds from the Vietnam era, "the most divisive time since our Civil War." He called Sampley "one of the most despicable characters I've ever met." McCain said he hoped that in the midst of a war in Iraq, politicians "will confront the challenges facing us now, including the conflict we're presently engaged in, rather than refighting the one we were engaged in more than 30 years ago."

McCain recalled that he had worked with Kerry on "POW/MIA issues and the normalization of relations with Vietnam" and wanted to stand up for his war comrade because "you have to do what's right." Speaking of Kerry, McCain said: "He's my friend. He'll continue to be my friend. I know his service was honorable. If that hurts me politically or with my party, that's a very small price to pay."
And that's a perfect example of why so many people hold John McCain in high regard. There's nothing wrong with Bush or his surrogates attacking Kerry on issues. But to go after him in this manner is just shameless and I hope it blows up in their faces.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah don't attack his war record attack his issues that is where he is fair game. To me Karl Rove and his Nazi goons (that is what they seem like sometimes) are horrible and I hope it blows up in their faces.

[Jedieb]

Earlier in the thread I posted a poll that showed some hope. A recent poll has just been released and it's not very encouraging.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/index.html

What's really disconserting is that these mixed results came BEFORE this latest wave of violence really heated up. You can bet the next poll of this kind will give the occupation even worse numbers.

[Darth Viscera]

I hope that one day they'll thank us.

[Darth007]

Um. Either I took the article the wrong way but uh, didn't they say that getting rid of Hussien was worth the hardships, hinting at the fact that they were thankful? Because of course any kind of war would cause harm.

[Darth Viscera]

Well they have a funny way of showing it!

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9421484%255E421,00.html

A good article to read. I'm glad SOME US politicans have some good sense

[Jedieb]

Um. Either I took the article the wrong way but uh, didn't they say that getting rid of Hussien was worth the hardships, hinting at the fact that they were thankful? Because of course any kind of war would cause harm.
If the results began and ended with them saying getting rid of Hussien was worth the hardships it would be encouraging. It's all the negative aspects concerning the occupation and the U.S.'s presence. The longer we're there the more anti-American sentiment will build. It'll eventually get to the point where it's; "Thanks, but you can now get the hell out."

These are some of the numbers that give me pause:

But the Iraqis surveyed were split on whether ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was justified. Fifty-two percent said it was not, while 47 percent said it could be justified.

Asked about when they wanted U.S. and British forces to leave, 57 percent chose immediately, as in the next few months, the poll said; 36 percent said troops should stay longer.

At the time the question was asked, 53 percent said they would feel less safe if the U.S.-led coalition left immediately. About half as many -- 28 percent -- said they would feel more safe. Sixty-nine percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.


And this was all before things really heated up in April. When sovereignty gets handed over but U.S. troops are still around tolerance for those American and British forces will be even less. The new government will be put in the position of having to criticize coalition forces or they'll lose credibility with the populace.

[Jedieb]

And these numbers from an extensive CBS poll can't make the Administration feel too good.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/opinion/polls/main614605.shtml



THE IRAQ WAR

Worth it
Total 33%
Military households 33%

Not worth it
Total 58%
Military households 60%

Mistake
All 48%
Military households 48%

Not a mistake
All 46%
Military households 48%

Bush Administration too quick to get military involved
All 61%
Military households 62%

Right thing
All 47%
Military households 48%

Stayed out
All 46%
Military households 43%


The numbers have taken a real dive these last few months. If violence continues well after June 30 they're only going to get worse.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Of course, the USA treats prisioners humanely and justly, right?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

Of course, it's a minor minority of idiots doing things liek that. But WTG guys, you really are good PR value - not.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is just disgusting. I don't care what they done, what was done to them is just not right this isn't the middle ages, we are suppose to be civilized. Some of them are saying they are following orders though they could be lying about that.

[JMK]

Awful. Just awful. :thumbdown

[Darth Viscera]

oh those poor fedayeen prisoners :huh

who cares if they're being treated like the scum of the earth that they are? it's not like they go around consulting international law before they put on wedding dresses, climb into suicide ambulances and go chuck a few grenades into preschools and kitten factories. Go ahead and torture the animals, then when they're dead wrap their corpses in pig skin.

[JMK]

I'm not going to get too involved with this, but if you ask me, once they've been captured, they're beaten. It's over for them. Just the fact that they've failed to bomb someone and become a martyr is humiliating enough for them. There's no need to cook them. That's not to say that I feel for them, because they are the scum of the earth, but surely those soldiers that are doing the torturing have other useful stuff to do.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Also we are suppose to be higher than them. If we beat them up we are no better than them. We are suppose to be civilized not show the brutality people of the middle ages showed to its prisoners.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
oh those poor fedayeen prisoners :huh

who cares if they're being treated like the scum of the earth that they are? it's not like they go around consulting international law before they put on wedding dresses, climb into suicide ambulances and go chuck a few grenades into preschools and kitten factories. Go ahead and torture the animals, then when they're dead wrap their corpses in pig skin.

-_-

I'm not biting today, troll. It should be perfectly obvious why such behaviour is the height of stupidity

Back on topic, news that British soldiers have been photoed abusing Iraqis too. Woudl t you think that such pictures do the cause and undermine the 'freedom and democracy' arguments? How are the US and Britian looking any different from saddam, even if it a small minority of idiots doign this?

Very much a PR distaster

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well hopefully this is just a few stupid individuals I know the ones in the US are facing Court Martial they are saying they were following orders but they could be lying or trying to cover their butts about that.

Edit
Here is the story on that

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=13&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_prisoner_abuse_3

[Darth Viscera]

Also we are suppose to be higher than them. If we beat them up we are no better than them.

We're no better than the people who set up medical centers for the sole purpose of determining more painful ways to torture humans? This is a highly dubious assertion.


We are suppose to be civilized not show the brutality people of the middle ages showed to its prisoners.

What an appalling comparison. You know perfectly well that middle-ages methods of brutality were 1000x worse than this.

Let's see, it's 10am in Iraq. Right about now our favorite civilised Arabs are flipping out because of the mistreatment of their hated tormentors, and Imams have their fingers on the "politically provocative fatwah©" button.

[Marcus Telcontar]

We're no better than the people who set up medical centers for the sole purpose of determining more painful ways to torture humans? This is a highly dubious assertion.

Guatanamo Bay.

Where the USA is illegaly holding people like an australian named Habib, a 47 year old taxi driver in a tiny cell, without any concern for any rights, without charge and very likely tortured and treated inhumanely

Or David Hicks, who was not doing anything illegal when caught in Afghanistan and can not be charged except in a highly dubious military tribunal where the outcome is pretty much fixed against him

What damn well annoys me about the "Were fighting for freedom and democracy, truth and Justice" is that there is ample evidence it applies to only US citizens and there is a rank double standard that applies to even your frikkign allies.

Now listen well, because your simply not grokking this fact. IF your goign to hold yourself as a beacon to the rest of the world, then things like this abuse of the prisoners stinks and undermines those words, reveals them as hollow and rank hypocracy.

11/9 is NOT an acceptible excuse for Guatanamo Bay. A war in Iraq is NOT an excuse for prisoner abuse. And terrorism is not an excuse for the fact the FBI and the NSA can lock up any person without trial and without evidence. read the PATRIOT act, it's truly scary.

Quit with the double standards and blatant hypocracy and then the world may actually believe some of the words of Shrub and his idiot chickenhakws.

And now I roundly infuriated and trolled the right wing patriots, I'll say that the vast majority of USA people are actually pretty decent and are a good advert for democrac and freedom. It's a pity you have the morons in power that you do and a few idiots like these Marines. I know most americans really do believe in what they say - you know, that great. I know many of you, even here share the same kind of disgust I do for some of the abuses in the name of the war on terror that have happened since 11/9. I know that, in the eyes of the right wingers, that makes you Un-american, but if anything, that disgust at the wrongs makes you more Amercian and worthy of respect.

But can you please silence the idiots? It spoilts it for the rest of you.

dont worry, I'm pretty disgusted at the right wingers and the party in power in Australia too. All's not right here too and I could think of many examples of Howard and Co running rampant over rights and lies they tell. I'm so goign to vote that lying creep out next election.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Obviously our govt. agrees with me because they are court martialing these people. I think its important that we follow the geneva convention torturing people is never right, not next do we just line them all up right now and gas them or something.

[Jedieb]

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated,"
"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America."
George Bush

That's exactly what the President should be saying. There's NO excuse for this. This goes against American ideals and beliefs and it sure as hell goes against democratic ideals that we say we're trying to bring to Iraq. This is yet another disaster for the occupation. It really is a PR nightmare. Once again we've provided those who oppose us with the perfect ammunition.


Go ahead and torture the animals, then when they're dead wrap their corpses in pig skin.
Yeah, that's exactly what Bush's response should have been. Better yet, why not have Bremer hold a press conference in Baghdad and chide the Iraqi population and Arabs across the Middle East for their outrage over these images? It's that kind of attitude and arrogance that's going to turn moderate Iraqis against the occupation.

Also, comparing these few acts of American abuse to the crimes of Saddam's regime, DOES NOT condone them. I'm sure most Iraqis will readily agree that Saddam was far worse, but that doesn't give the U.S. and British forces a free pass. What it does is make the occupation that much more unpopular and increase the danger our troops are under. These images will dominate the airwaves of the Middle East for days to come. They're living recruitment posters for al-Qaeda and other terroist groups. Yet another way this invasion has been a boon for terroists and actually made us less safe.

[Jedieb]

In March, the U.S. Army announced that six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade faced court martial for allegedly abusing about 20 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The charges included dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another person.

In addition to those criminal charges, the military has recommended disciplinary action against seven U.S. officers who helped run the prison, including Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the commander of the 800th Brigade.

This bothers me a great deal and I think it underscores just how damaging these images are. If it were just a few soldiers then we could say they were isolated incidents carried out by a few undisciplined soldiers. But when officers get involved, including a Brig. Gen., it gives the impression that the toruture was condoned and quite possibly ORDERED. I was hoping that May would offer some respite, that the death toll for both U.S. forces and Iraqis would decrease significantly, but I'm afraid we could be headed for yet another bloody month.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9483620%255E28102,00.html

Oh dear. It just gets worse

[Jedieb]

What are you talking about? Didn't you hear what OxycontinBaugh said? These guys were just blowing off some steam! :rolleyes




CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?
LIMBAUGH: And these American prisoners of war -- have you people noticed who the torturers are? Women! The babes! The babes are meting out the torture.

The news on Sunday was dominated by the escape of Hill. I'm happy the man got away, but if not for that nothing would have preempted the torture scandal here in the states. I doubt that's happening overseas and especially in the Middle East. Earlier this week the Pentagon announced that it plans to maintain over 130,000 troops in Iraq until the end of 2005. I really am starting to believe that no matter who gets elected President, U.S. troops will continue to suffer attacks and casualties from now on. And we really don't have an appettite for this. Support for the occupation will continue to drop until it bottoms out to die hard neo-con supporters.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Are you telling me that was a seroius statement by Limbaugh?

The man is a oxygen theif

Edit - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/06/1083635239939.html

[Sanis Prent]

I'm mixed on that. On one hand, I hate to see anything unduly censored. On the other hand, Michael Moore is a sensationalistic whore who has no objective scruples and yet stole an oscar anyway for his "documentary".

I say let the movie be released, on the condition that we get to publically flog Moore :)

[Jedieb]

It's typical Limbaugh blathering. He should pay attention to what the President is actually saying. How anyone could condone those acts is beyond me. I think the soldiers will be made scapegoats to an extent. They should not be the only ones held accountable. The officers and "contractors" who directed some of these interrogations should be held accoutable. The system that dropped these soldiers in situations they were ill-prepared for should be held accountable.

The Moore flap is ridiculous. Disney is just giving the film free publicity now. They should back off and let Miramax distribute it. Weinstein will lose money if they have to go to another distributor, but this film WILL get picked up by someone. The more Disney fights it the higher profile it will get and the bigger impact. If they had just let them release it they might have lessened the film's impact.

[Jedi Master Carr]

About Limbaugh I would love to see what he would say about the Holocaust. Oh the Nazi guards were just fooling around. Actually I am almost certain Limbaugh has denied the holocaust in (saying it was an exageration) in some past show years ago. I know he hates FDR very badly saying he was the worst president ever.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Let Moore release the film - then we can judge it on merit. To deny distributorship actually gives creedence to his possible claims.

That wasnt a joke by Limbaugh?

That guy is a loony

[ReaperFett]

I heard a conspiracy theory that as the "documentary" is in part about censorship, there is no better publicity than to try and censor it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9492119%255E401,00.html

-_-

WTG.

[Jedieb]

So who thinks Rumsfield has to go? Forcing him to resign would buy a sliver of good will, but I'm not sure just how much good it will do. I'm not sure what Kerry would want. If Bush cans Rummy he'll say, "Well it's about time. I called for his resignation months ago." If he doesn't, he has something to criticize Bush on as the campaign continues.

I didn't think it was possible, but the pictures are getting worse. Now there are pictures of DEAD Iraqi prisoners. I kept reading reports of a prisoner that was killed, packed in ice, and then taken out of the prison with an IV. Part of me didn't want to believe something like that but now there are pictures of dead men packed in ice. MP's are coming home and saying beatings were commonplace. This is such a CF it's a nightmare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/politics/07DEAT.html

[CMJ]

Moore makes great movies. But he's an flaming moron to the nth degree. He also is one of the biggest slanters of facts I've ever seen. Disney is taking all kinds of flack out here for the the Moore thing, but really it seems to have been blown out of proportion from what I understand. F-911 will get a distributor regardless, Moore is just using the "scandal" to make the flick higher profile.

What was it that was said about T.E. Lawrence? He was the biggest self promoter since P.T. Barnum. I think the same can be said about Michael Moore.

[Jedieb]

It was unthinkable in March, but here's something watch for.

When Will the First Major Newspaper Call for a Pullout in Iraq?
The once unthinkable suddenly becomes thinkable.

By Greg Mitchell

(May 07, 2004) -- After a month of uprisings in Iraq, an unexpected hike in U.S. casualties, and a prison abuse scandal that shattered goodwill in the Arab street, what do American newspapers have to say?

So far, not very much, at least in terms of advising our leaders how to clean up or get out of this mess.

But then, they are not alone. Republicans have been cackling for weeks over John Kerry's inability to distinguish his position on the war from the president's -- after Bush agreed to bring into the picture the United Nations, NATO and anyone else who might bail us out.

The two candidates also seem to agree that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq might turn the tide. Most newspapers like that idea, too. Last month an E&P survey revealed that the vast majority of America's large newspapers favored this approach to Iraq: Stay the course.

There's no easy strategy for success, but the question is: are newspaper editorial pages ready to sustain that position now? And if that means calling for more troops, or remaining in Iraq at present levels indefinitely, are they willing to accept responsibility (along with the White House, Pentagon and Congress) for the continuing carnage and the unmentionable expense?

This, of course, must also be considered in the context of whatever other responsibility newspapers share for embracing the dubious pre-war claims on weapons of mass destruction and endorsing the invasion in the first place. In fact, one might argue that the press has a special responsibility for helping undo the damage.

In a remarkable episode of ABC's "Nightline" last night, retired Army Lt. General William Odom, director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, called for a phased U.S. pullout from Iraq over the next six to nine months. And yet no major newspaper has explored this idea.

That is not to say that calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq is the only moral, rational or political choice. But if newspaper editors are not going to endorse that -- then what is YOUR solution?

A month ago, few questioned that the U.S. ought to stay in Iraq. Maybe we went to war based on lies and fabrications; but now we had to make things right for the average citizens. As Colin Powell put it: we broke it, we owned it, but maybe we could patch it up, or buy a better one.

Now this must be contemplated: After our military adventures of the past month and, particularly, after Abu Ghraib, is the U.S. actually the problem and not the solution? In other words, as hostile occupiers -- and, in some cases, torturers -- we are no longer facilitating but possibly standing in the way of progress in Iraq.

If we are doing more harm than good, then all arguments about our duty to stay (after we build a few dozen more hospitals and schools) become moot.

And an argument that has been out there all along -- that we should be deploying our limited military personnel and resources against terrorists elsewhere (who really can do us harm) -- becomes even more pertinent.

No one should underestimate the impact of the prison torture scandal, whether Donald Rumsfeld loses his job or not. Last month, when I interviewed The Washington Post's Rick Atkinson for a column, he told me that every war inevitably becomes corrupt. "Even righteous wars corrupt soldiers," he said. Two weeks later, the pictures from Abu Ghraib appeared.

But what really got me to thinking the unthinkable -- a phased U.S. pullout from Iraq -- was a letter that Bill Mitchell (no relation) of Atascadero, Calif. wrote to his son's former commanding officer in Iraq. His son, Army SSG Mike Mitchell, was killed in Iraq in early April, as I documented in a news story last week.

In that letter, Bill wrote about the "irony" that his son "was killed by the very people that he was liberating. This is insanity!!!" He added: "I am having a major problem with being OK with his death under these circumstances and I really do not believe that Iraq, the world, or the lives of his family and friends are better due to his death." Imagine the pain behind those lines.

Steve Chapman, in a Chicago Tribune column last weekend, played a cruel game of logic. He applied it to Sen. Kerry's position on the war but he could have been referring to the editorial positions of most American newspapers.

Chapman summed up the "stay the course" predicament like this: "We can't manage an increasingly turbulent Iraq with the forces we have. We don't have many extra troops to send. We can't turn over security to Iraqis because they can't be trusted. We can't get other countries to help us out. And things keep getting worse."

Yet, he pointed out, "Democrats and Republicans agree that we have to go on squandering American lives because we don't know what else to do."

So what do the editors of American newspapers think we should do?

Are you ready, now, to think the unthinkable? Who will be the first in line to call for a phased withdrawal, not more troops? As with Vietnam, one brave voice (remember Walter Cronkite on Feb. 27, 1968) may inspire others.


Can things continue to deteriorate to the point where newspapers and others start calling for a phased pullout?

[Jedi Master Carr]

There have also been rape accusations at these prisons it is just getting riduculous. I think a special panel needs to be called to look into it.

[Dutchy]

Poor Mr. Rumsfeld. He looked like such a lil boy yesterday. :\

[Darth Viscera]

How so? I thought he held his own pretty well against what, 8 hours of questioning?

John McCain surprised me with his severity. He really flew off the handle at Rumsfeld.




I wonder if Fallujah will become a microcosm of Iraq. I worry that now that we have empowered Major-General Jassim Mohammed Saleh in order to alleviate our short-term security concerns, it will not be so easy to disempower him in the long term if he should some day aspire to something more malevolent than commander of Iraqi security forces in Fallujah.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
How so? I thought he held his own pretty well against what, 8 hours of questioning?

He was no where near the big mouthed, arrogant Rumsfeld that we've all become so used to.

[Darth Viscera]

in what way?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
in what way?

Open your eyes and look. It was totally plain.

For one thing, he actually admitted somethign was wrong. Now that's incredible

Rumsfield is a true chickenhawk. I'm glad the end of his political career approahes.

[Darth Viscera]

Yeah, the administration is in damage-control mode due to the prisoner abuse scandal.

[Jedi Master Carr]

McCain was right to go on the Offensive he should have told what was going on. What these guys did is horrible and they need to be punished. Oh and I love England's family (she is the woman in most of the pictures) saying she was following orders. Well if that is true I guess if she was told to gas them then she was in the right too. Man I hate that crap it the same garbage the Nazi guards used, that is never an excuse.

[Darth Viscera]

Go on the offensive, ok. Lose his composure and start acting hostile, offputting.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It is because McCain is mad, as he should be stuff like this shouldn't be going on in the U.S military, it is not the Red Army or the Chinese Army where stuff like this went on all the time.

[Darth Viscera]

well I'm mad too, but I don't go and flip out in front of the Secretary of Defense.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
well I'm mad too, but I don't go and flip out in front of the Secretary of Defense.

And just how else are you goign to get through to the morons in the White House that this has so badly damagaed the reputation of the Allies, that all the Marines who HAVE done a great job are now tarred with war criminal staus, totally unjustly, and that it was the Administration's follishness that now breeds hate and more terrorists?

Why should we believe anything the administration about truth, justice and democracy when this type of war crimes (and lets get that right, it's war crimes), when the Red Cross TOLD the Administration over a year ago thiese abuses were happening and nothing is done until today?

McCain must feel so not proud of his country, he suffered under abuse from the Veit Cong for 5 years and now, he sees his own country doing exactly the same thing. I'm surprised he didnt punch Rumsfield in the face.


Oh and I love England's family (she is the woman in most of the pictures) saying she was following orders.

She had the choice to comply or to refuse. War crimes trials have consistently found just following orders not to be an acceptible excuse.

makes you wonder what happens at Guantanamo bay.

[CMJ]

As most of you know, I was for the Iraq war...though my enthusiasm was more tempered than some of the hawks here. I'm definitely not a dove, and despite the way some people feel Bush is not Emperor Palpatine, Rumsfield is not Darth Vader, and Cheney is not Grand Moff Tarkin.

HOWEVER, I give up on Iraq.

The whole prison abuse scandel has gone beyond my comprehension. It's. Just. F'n. Unbelievable. I should underline the word unbelievable. It's not something I believed would happen.

I know about studies in the 50s showing how prison guards quickly become sadistic, but I thought we had stuff(ie procedures, rules and regulations) to prevent this kind of junk from occuring. This is just a f'n massive breakdown in the chain of command, a failure of leadership, and breakdown in military discipline. Consequently blame should rightly go all the way up the chain of command.

The damage is f'ing done. It's over. Nothing can be done now to fix it. We're seen as no better than Hussein now. This calls for Japanese ritual suicide. Every single soldier and member of the chain of command should (in addition to their sentences) be ordered to apologize not just to the Iraqis, but to all Americans for dishonoring their country. Abu Ghraib should be leveled and turned into a parking lot. The place is cursed.

We *might* be able to salvage the Kurdish democracy. The Shias can probably handle things on their own, whatever form that turns into(and I have confidence that it will be more democratic than some assume). Everything else is f'ed. Of course, the Shias will be under continual terrorist attack from the Sunni regions. In other words spilt the country up. It's borders were drawn by the English and French after WWI without real regard for the people that lived there. After much soul searching, I've realized it just can't work without an iron fist. It just can't.

F'ing tragedy. I'm gonna go back to reading my book.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Reading your post CMJ, it realyl hits home that al the worst things the anti war people said would happen are either happening or are clearly goign to happen.

100 billion down the drain. PLEASE, do the world a favour and vote Bush out. Not becuase Kerry is better, I'm nto sure HE in himself is. But you will be gettign rid of Cheny and Rumsfield, who are more directly to blame for this quigmire than anyone else.

I've always said it's Bush's aides who are the problem. And Iraq is the proof.

Also, this kicks over the real humanitarian reason the allies had. Get rid of a murderous dictactor. But, due to the short sighted planning of the allies, what have they put in it's place?

Bush, Blair and Howard HAVE to be consigned to history ASAP.

[CMJ]

I am an independent voter and thus the left irritates me just as much as the far right. I agree with each party about half the time. Right now my vote is definitely up for grabs...and if you'd asked me a year ago I would've definitely voted for the President. So I suppose that's progress for you left leaning types. ;)

[Jedieb]

CMJ's loss of faith in the war is an example of how support for the war has eroded in the U.S. The numbers have been clear for months now. Bush's approval ratins, support for the war, they're all at or below 50%. You'll never see the numbers dip below 30%-40% because that's where Bush's rabid core lie. There's a 20-30% core for both sides that just wasn't going to change it's mind. But CMJ and others made up the middle. And when you've got him losing faith, then you've got a problem.

McCain's grilling of Rummy is a perfect example of why he should have been the Republican nominee 4 years ago. McCain is loyal to his party, but not blindly. If he thinks you've screwed up, he'll call you on it. He won't give a damn if he upsets members of his party or makes the President look bad in the process.

Now, let me see if I can get CMJ on MSN Messenger and irritate him with some wacky left wing rants.... ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL Jedieb good luck. Yeah this scandal is horrible it is real tragedy thtat doesn't help our image at all.

[Marcus Telcontar]

You'll never see the numbers dip below 30%-40% because that's where Bush's rabid core lie

Blind devotion has another name.

It's called MORON

And what disturbs me is the morons who still wont see this for what it is. an absolute disaster PR-wise.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/07/1083911402531.html

To quote one of the bestter parts of the link -


A Guardian columnist, Naomi Klein, began her piece on the opposite page: "Can we please stop calling it a quagmire? The United States isn't mired in a bog in Iraq. It is free-falling off a cliff. The only question is: who will follow the Bush clan off this precipice, and who will refuse to jump ..."

I mention this detail to show how one of the world's great newspapers, in a country fully complicit in the war against Iraq, instantly recognised how basic to disintegrating US policy were the Abu Ghraib revelations. And what about Australia, the minor of the only two warrior states to join the US invasion 15 months ago? How did this country react to the Abu Ghraib sewage?

Every capital city newspaper downplayed or ignored it. No newspaper, in those first breaking stories on Friday last week, thought it worth even mentioning on its front page. None published it any nearer the front than page 7 (this newspaper and The Australian). The Murdoch tabloid The Daily Telegraph buried it on page 33. Hobart's The Mercury published six paragraphs. No newspaper editorialised before Tuesday this week (The Australian), and then mostly to excuse "the abuses" as the "sadism" of "a tiny minority of soldiers". The Herald editorialised the next day.

The Howard Government was almost as dismissive. Alexander Downer, the first minister to comment, acknowledged in reply to questions on the Nine Network's Sunday program that he thought "the torture and humiliation" was "appalling behaviour" and "indefensible, there is no excuse". But what worried the Foreign Minister "most importantly" was the "propaganda victory for al-Qaeda". That's why, he said, "in my heart, I feel so strongly about these pictures".

No moral parameters, just more bad PR. It is the imagery, the spin, always, not the reality, that exercises this Government most.

As for the implications for US policy in Iraq, Downer could come up with nothing stronger than "a bad development", "a setback". And that was it. Despite his "regret", he did not think "there's any need for us to do anything about it." What about the PM phoning Bush or Tony Blair, as he'd done on other issues? "I certainly reflected on that," Downer said, "but ... the British and American governments have rightly condemned this disgraceful behaviour [and] I don't think there's anything much more we can do." Of course not. Good heavens, no.

What we do best is follow what "they" do.

Two days later, on Tuesday this week, the SBS network screened its usual daily "feed" of the US news program The Lehrer Hour from the Public Broadcasting Service. This time it should have been compulsory viewing, certainly for the Howard Government. A riveting panel discussion included the celebrated American journalist Seymour Hersh, whose pending story, plus graphic pictures, in the May edition of The New Yorker magazine rang the bell on the Abu Ghraib disgrace, and Hisham Melhem, the Washington correspondent for newspapers in Beirut and Qatar and the host of a weekly television program on the Arab news channel, al-Arabiya.

It was Hersh's article that blew the whistle on the military cover-up. That chain of events began with an anonymous letter last December to the army's criminal investigation unit from a US military policeman outraged by photographs he found by accident; to a 53-page report, never meant to be released, by US Major-General Antonio Taguba, completed in February after a two-month investigation of the photos.

It is the Taguba report, which Hersh got hold of, that is so utterly damning of US military intelligence - and the CIA - and their interrogation practices, going back beyond Iraq to the US invasion of Afghanistan almost 2 years ago.

Some excerpts from the The Lehrer Hour interview are just chilling:

Q: "Well, Hisham, the photos have had a few days to soak down into the various information channels in the Arab world. What's been the reaction?"

Hisham Melhem: "They were shocked, stunned, that these abuses were occurring and that the Americans were the perpetrators. The irony that these abuses were taking place in Abu Ghraib, the most notorious prison during Saddam's regime, a facility that should have been razed to the ground, these abuses were taking place in that most notorious jail.

"Also, the irony, now that the excuse of weapons of mass destruction no longer holds, we have a President who is telling the rest of the world, wrapping himself with a moral cloak, telling the world we came to Iraq to build a new Iraq.

"If you wanted to write a script as to how to undermine the credibility of the US in the Middle East today, you couldn't have done a better job. I thought last month, with the incredible violence in Iraq, with President Bush's embrace of Ariel Sharon, that America's credibility reached its nadir. I think I'm mistaken. I think one could argue now that if you have any illusions about winning hearts and minds in Iraq, and the Arab world for that matter, forget it."

Q: "You mean like, game over?"

Melham: "I think so. People wonder, how come there was no strong explicit condemnation? I mean, I would have expected a strong denunciation - this is not what America stands for, this is not why we came to Iraq, the people responsible will be punished, there will be Iraqi judges watching the procedures. None of this, none. How come the President did not take to the air and say these things to the Iraqis, first and foremost? Today the Iraqis, for the first time, saw it on their own media. Sometimes I wonder, the people in Washington have no clue as to what their policies are doing in the Arab and Muslim world."

So is abuse by US troops in Iraq a common occurrence?

Hersh told the program: "One of the things the general [Taguba] says in his report is, 'You have a systemic problem.' What his report is saying is, essentially, folks, what you saw was unusual in that it was photographed. But that's what's going on, that's what's happening [all the time]. He makes note it started in Afghanistan, this kind of abuse. So what you're seeing is the result of a decision somewhere up high in the line that we're going to turn our prisons, all of them, essentially into Guantanamos. They're all going to become factories to elicit intelligence ...

"These detainees are civilians. Over 60 per cent of people in [Abu Ghraib] were just swept up in random roadside checks. There was no rationale to the process. What you had was an institutionalised system where the military's needs and requirements drove the process. And a major component of the intelligence process were civilian contractors hired by the US Government, people not responsible under the uniform code of military justice, who can't be reached by any American laws because they're not in America. So they're the, you know, if you want to whack, they're the whackers."

Hersh did not mean across the knuckles.

I go to aother forums where the debate goes on about this and honestly, you think some people are just plain stupid. They actually thought that the Iraqi's had the torture coming and these acts were justified!

WTG. I'm glad posters here have a clue