Radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is the power broker in Iraqi politics — about the last person the Bush administration wanted in that role, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin noted in an op-ed piece on today’s opinion page. “U.S. officials mistakenly believed Iraqi secular parties would do well in the elections,” she wrote. Instead, Sadr now controls more than 30 seats in the assembly and was responsible for the weak Ibrahim Jaafari keeping his job as prime minister. That hurts us, Rubin wrote, because “America’s ability to withdraw troops from Iraq will depend on whether a new, four-year government can prevent the country from sliding further toward chaos.” And after Wednesday’s bombing of a golden-domed Shiite shrine, chaos and civil war seem increasingly likely.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
124 Comments
It make you wonder if Bush has seen the movie “song of the South”.He could relate to the story of the Tar Baby.
When Brother American President / Emperor Shrubious realizes that he replaced a brutal socialistic regime with an equally brutal theocratic regime, he’s gonna kick himself in the a$$. Then what will the “well we didn’t find the WMDs, but we deposed Saddam Hussein so this war on Iraq was worth it” crowd say?
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”Mahatma Ghandi
I still remember the Bush administration telling us how easy this would all be. How we would be welcomed with flowers; how there were no ethnic/religious devisions to deal with. I also remember saying at the time that was absolutely WRONG. Like the WMD story these were simply more misrepresentations from PNAC and the Bush administration.
As Colin Powell warned: You break it and it’s yours.
X, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for George to realize his failure. He never listened to the experts who warned him about what would happen as a result of his attempt to “spread democracy” in the Middle East, he certainly won’t ever admit he made a mistake. Get ready for more spin about “how well things are going” over there while the Iraqis continue to blow each other to pieces.
They blame everything that happens on the U.S. This is much bigger than the insurgency. It’s time to bring the boys and girls home.
Perfect time and excuse to bring the troops home.
It’s their civil war.
We never should have invaded in the first place. Bush was fully informed about what would happen – he chose to ignore the warnings and punish those who told the truth.
Where are the bushies and the war mongers this morning? No one here supports the war? No one here thought it was a good idea at the time? Everyone agreed with Ben?
Like you cant find anyone today who voted for Nixon?
“And after Wednesday’s bombing of a golden-domed Shiite shrine, chaos and civil war seem increasingly likely.”
Phillip,The civil war is already in effect, the bombing of the golden-domed shrine just significantly escalted it. The chaos began within a few short months of our occupation.
Sister American Ks,You’re just spoilin for a fight this morning aren’t ya?
Unhyphenated AmericanCX
For the money the US is pouring into it, we should just make it the 51st state.
Still havent seen anyone post here in favor of the war, and in favor of “staying the course”.
Stay the course on the War on Terror.
I meant stay the course in Iraq Joe.
But could you explain more about how you would like to see us stay the course in the war on terror?
I am in favor of the war on terror and I am in favor of staying the course.
Hey ksfarmgrrl!
I heard you begging for a little sanity! Thought I’d help!
Ben, I don’t remember Bush telling us how easy it was going to be. I remember him telling us it was going to take years to win the war on terror.
CX, typical defeatest rhetoric, you add nothing to the discussion.
ksfarmgrrl, typical liberal claptrap. We are attacked in our own country, 3,000 of our friends and family blown to bits and all you can do is call the leaders that are taking the enemy to task “war mongers”.
No my friends, my disgusting left -wing panty waists, if we lose this war on terror, if we give in to radical islamoterrorists, it will not be because we didn’t have the ability. It won’t be because we didn’t have the men and equipment necessary, it will be because we didn’t have the will.
It will be because limp wristed, pointy-headed cowards; intellectual idiots; cowards like the idiots that post here with nothing but criticism for the brave Americans that are willing to lay down their lives for freedom; are able to be influenced by the propaganda war of terrorism.
You people are worse than disgusting, you’re cowards, you’re liars and you’re traitors.
Thanks for asking me to contribute, I gotta go do chores now.
Hank
Hank,
I beg to differ with your characterizations above. I don’t think that it has been the “limp-wristed” who have let down our troops. On the contrary, I think it was Rumsfeld and others who have insisted on running this war on the cheap who let down our troops.
We do not have enough troops in Iraq to occupy the country. The current course is to train Iraqi troops to manage the situation themselves. That does not seem to be working very well.
I don’t think that there was an Al Qadea presence in Iraq until after we invaded. [You and I see that very differently]. In addition to the Geneva Conventions that say we have to stabilize a country that we invaded, I think the U.S. has a security interest in not leaving such a wonderful Al Qadea breeding swamp that Iraq currently is. That insures more terrorist attacks than anything else we could do.
I think the time to acknowledge that the current path is not working is upon us. Further it is time to decide about either adding more troops, which may not be presently possible without a draft or some other politically unpopular path – or, figure out something else.
The current half-way effort that we are evidencing is why Viet Nam was such a disaster. Iraq can be a never ending “police action” if we continue our present course. I am against that.
Hi hank and nathan…I knew they would show up if we threw out a little bait. Hank, thanks for the “sanity”. Lolololo.. I am still laughing.
Gosh Hank, I remember shrub’s men, like rummie and darth cheney, saying we would be greeted as liberators with flowers, etc. and it would be a very short war in Iraq.
Dont they work for bush? If he didnt agree, he shoulda said something then. Where is that “oversight”? Is this an example of bush’s “delegation”?
And again, boys, even the bi-partisan 9/11 commission says there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. But just keep spinning that guys. I am sure you will get your talking points updated soon.
Those of us who opposed the war from the beginning have not changed our position. So if we liberal bastards have never had the will, could it be the koolaide drinkers who now see the folly? It seems like they are the ones who are losing their “will”, not us.
What changed that will Hank?
Stay the course in Iraq and in War On Terror. Quit trembling whenever someone gets hurt. Let slip the dogs of war. Prosecute it with extreme prejudice. Then, rather than having our military hands tied behind our backs, we will be able to have a defining ‘win.’
The media vaporheads are right about the Vietnam resemblance in one respect: their use of emotion to sway the world is working to derail our efforts at winning. Good job to the 4th column.
Simple KS-girl. 9/11 attack came mostly from Saudi Arabia. So, in an attempt to ingratiate ourselves with the Saudis we take out their enemy. The idea is that if we placate them enough they won’t attack us again.
The WOT stopped when we invaded Iraq. If Bush used Iraq as a ‘magnet’ for terrorist, he doomed a whole lot more innocent people that the mere 3000 killed here. But then they aren’t home boys so they don’t count do they?
Rumfilled when asked how long with the war in Iraq last, “could be six days, six weeks, I doubt six months.”
F****ing A, it’s going on THREE YEARS. And every year, it gets WORSE.
You notice that Hank left out one little detail in his “stay the course” idiocy–the cost of the war, half a trillion with no end in sight.
I think that people like Hank who are so cock-sure we should “stay the course” should voluntarily send money to the government to fund it, don’t you.
Granted, it be the first time conservatives actually put their money where their mouths are, but, hey, there’s a first time for everything . . .
Hey, Don, why don’t you go back and singlehandly “finish the job” in Vietnam?
This isn’t the movies, you douchebag.
What should Bush Co.be doing that’s more violent and nasty than what they’re doing already?
I’d like to hear it.
By the way, it’s not the newspapers that are killing Americans in Iraq, it’s Iraqis.
The last election was a referendum on whether Iraq wanted secular American puppets leading their country, or firebrand theocrats who want America out now.
They went with the latter.
The American media not only weren’t to blame, they didn’t even cover WHAT Iraqis came out to vote for.
Blaming the hell-hole of Iraq and the natural response of Americans to get out of a place we should have never gotten into is not the fault of the news media.
It is the fault of the POS who’s sitting in the Oval Office.
Look out you bloggers – the Jihad is targeting you next:
Jihad Goes Cyber
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/jihad-goes-cyber.html
This was the plan all along people! Our zionist government wants sunni and shiite at each other’s throats and civil war. It was a unified secular Iraq that posed a threat to the filthy zionists and that threat is gone now. Also, the chaos has resulted in high oil prices and record profits for shrub’s big oil cronies, soud good? lol
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Remember those two British SAS troopers who were arrested last year, dressed as insurgents, attacking an Iraqi police station?
Given the unwillingness of the Shiite majority to form a ‘unity government’ with the Sunni minority, who else thinks civil war works to our advantage, rather than allowing Iraq to become a satellite state of Iran? That is, who else is willing to entertain the idea that the Administration would rather see civil war than the two states coming together?
Who else thinks it could have been the U.S., or its proxies, who bombed the mosque in Samarra?
Nothing I’ve seen from this Administration indicates that there’s anything they wouldn’t do if they thought it was in their interest.
CF,
You were too slow with that contention. I beat you to it! lol
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Ian,
Totally: posts crossed in the mail. I’ll get you next time!
Nonetheless, our agreement reminds me of a line from Joyce that I’m sure you’ll object to:
“Jewgreek is greekJewextremes meet”
Hank,
All your manly rhetoric doesn’t cover up what a shallow, obedient, scared little man you are.
By willingly surrendering your freedoms for the promise of safety, you’re the wuss. The girly-man. The coward. The weakling. The submissive.
I’d call you conservatives a bunch of bed-wetters, but that would be a disservice to bed-wetters, who can’t help themselves.
Hank, by contrast, prides himself on serving as a vigilante for stupidity.
CF,”Who else thinks it could have been the U.S., or its proxies, who bombed the mosque in Samarra?”There’s too many people with access to way too much high explosives to come to that conclusion quite yet. The various factions in Iraq are quite able to create chaos all on their own; our help in that endeavor would just be a waste of ordnance.
Kansas Classic Liberal asked me the other day how BushCo’s control of the Iraq oil fields benefits his fat-cat cronies.
Here’s something worth thinking over–
“If world oil production is about to peak (as some of us believe) then it would be vital for the US to be able to exert control over the remaining reserves of easily accessible, high quality crude oil and natural gas, especially so since the neocons are in charge in Washington. The neocons have been preaching a doctrine that the US must ensure it remains the only world super power and that it must use it’s military and economic strength to prevent any other countries or alliances accumulating a military powerful enough to challenge that of the USA’s armed forces.
“Oil is the lifeblood of our modern economies and military machines run on tremendous quantities of oil, not solar power and windmills. If Peak Oil does occur as some predict within the next 5 to 10 years whoever controls the remaining sources of oil will be able to exert enormous control over the rest of the world. Once we are post peak, the trend of oil production will be irreversibly downwards at the same time the growing economies of both rapidly industrializing Asian and already industrialized Western countries continue to demand ever increasing quantities of oil to fuel their economic growth. Without easy access to cheap and reliable energy the world economies will likely go into a tail spin, and as there are no immediate prospects for alternate energy sources to fill in the gap between the supply and demand, it could be a very long and painful recession at best and utter chaos at worse.”
For more information on the Neocons see the links on this page:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html
For more information on Peak Oil, just google the term “peak oil” or if you are not at all familiar with term and the implications of the Peak Oil theory, you can go here for a concise intro to the topic.
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
USA TODAY:
“Saudis won’t sign on to U.S. isolation of HamasRIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia refused Wednesday to join an American effort to deny foreign aid to a Palestinian government led by Hamas, the second Arab ally in two days to rebuff Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.Rice meets with Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in Riyadh on the second leg of her five-day tour in the Middle East.AFP/Getty Images
“We wish not to link the international aid to the Palestinian people to considerations other than their dire humanitarian needs,” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said through a translator.”
ED: It has become more than just a bit tiring watching US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice working full-time for the ghoulish interests of Israel, plus making the United States appear so foolish to the rest of the world.
Perhaps she could better her time, such as looking for a job which betters America.Certainly one which does not offer to starve the Palestinians.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/jihad-goes-cyber.html
The Zionists who now run Israel only respond to power. They wouldn’t even meet with Abbas.
The Palestinians had no other choice other than to elect Hamas to a least get Israel to respond.
The proof is that the Israelis are now responding { by at least trying to starve the Palestinians, which does bring the issue to the forefront }.
in an effort, to further world peace and democracy here in this blog i’ll jump in for ksgrrl. this monger, gosh i didn’t realize us war supporteers were mongers, always believed we should go in. 17 violated un resolutions told me that either we act or we get out of the un. sooner or later someone has to step up and be the neforcer. sure would be the germans, french or russians. remember oil for food scandal?
we are the world police force, does anyone remeber darfur and how we should be going in there. have heard that on these blogs. the un has asked us to go in now.
that being said it isn’t hasn’t gone as well as i would like. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be there, just means we should do better. don’t think bringing peace is gonna be easy, maybe they don’t want it. maybe what seems to be the beginning of a civil war will give us the answers we need.
“maybe what seems to be the beginning of a civil war will give us the answers we need.”
Is that like “there is light at the end of the tunnel”?
Kfg, I voted for Nixon. We learn from our mistakes.
Hank,”We are attacked in our own country, 3,000 of our friends and family blown to bits and all you can do is call the leaders that are taking the enemy to task “war mongers”.
Did Iraq attack us, Hank? Please show proof.
“It will be because limp wristed, pointy-headed cowards; intellectual idiots; cowards like the idiots that post here with nothing but criticism for the brave Americans that are willing to lay down their lives for freedom; are able to be influenced by the propaganda war of terrorism.”
Hank, please show me where any liberal here has criticized “the brave Americans that are willing to lay down their lives for freedom”.Otherwise, you’re just another neocon liar.
You’re a great one to call anybody a coward. You wet yourself daily over the prospect of terrorists; I don’t. I prefer to die on my feet as opposed to people like you who are happy to live on your knees. And you do live on your knees, sniveling coward.
“You people are worse than disgusting, you’re cowards, you’re liars and you’re traitors.”
Guess how many fingers I’m holding up, Hank?Screw you, buddy.
XXX – you just don’t understand. If we fight the enemies of alQuada maybe we will so ingratiate ourselves with them that they will consider us allies and leave us alone! Ain’t that right Hank?
Saddam killed more muslim extremists than our corrupt zionist government ever will. Saddam also sold us oil at very reasonable prices and was a champion of women’s rights in the region. Of course the opportunity for chaos,massive numbers of deaths of non-jews and high oil prices were too much for the treasonous shrub to pass up!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Looks like the Iranian President just blame the USA for the bombing of the shrine mosque.
Looks like the Iranian President just blame the USA for the bombing of the shrine mosque.
Brother American Hank,You are a f***ing MORON! Allow me to reiterate, You are a F***ing MORON! If you can’t see the potential civil war that could potentially erupt from the whole incident of the bombing of the Shiite shrine and that Muqtada al Sadr a prominent cleric who is blaming the new Iraqi weakling government and the “Great Satan” USA for failing to protect the shrine, and if you don’t think that these fiery accusations are not gonna motivate the majority Shia-muslims of Iraq to go absolutely bananas on the Iraqi government and the U.S. military presence there, then you truly have your head up your a$$ or more accurately, up dubya’s.
What exactly do you expect from a nation filled with 7th century religious fanatics, soccer? You can’t “reform” these people. They have no clue what democracy is, nor do they care. What they want is the freedom to kick the crap out of each other.
Pull our people out and let em do it.
Most excellent, Walker! They have no history or concept of democracy and it doesn’t look like we’re going to cram it down their throats. If they’re hell-bent to kill each other, by all means.
They’re so much better off now with Saddam out of the way.
Gentle people,
I make a few disparaging comments about your intelligence and patriotism and I’m amazed at how many of you took it so personal! I guess the stuck hog squeals the loudest!
I am also amazed at the general ignorance of the liberal bed wetters on this BLOG! Do you people really think that Saudi Arabia attacked us? Really? After over four years of this ‘war’ do you still not understand that we are fighting terrorists with no state affiliation? Do you not understand that al Qaeda is nothing more than organization that is using the religion of Islam as a means to advance their islamofacist principals?
Do you people really believe that the reason we attacked Iraq was because they attacked us? Do you not remember the first Iraq war? Do you not remember why we attacked Iraq the first time? We were at war with Iraq when Bush took office; we were just in a truce that Saddam had been violating the conditions of for 9 years with impunity. Do you not remember the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam ignored? Do you know that it was costing the US approximately 50 billion dollars a year to enforce the peace and the ‘no fly zone’ when Bush took office?
Do you really believe that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? Really? There is tons of evidence that indicate meetings between al Qaeda operatives and high officials in Iraqi intelligence before 9/11. There is tons of evidence that Iraq was funneling money to al Qaeda. There is tons of evidence that Iraq was providing facilities and training for al Qaeda. Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism and terrorist organizations with ties to al Qaeda. The Abu Nidal organization, Ansar al-Islam, Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, KWP, MEK, Palestine Liberation Front; all terrorist organizations that Iraq has been documented as funding and assisting.
Bush has been clear from the beginning, we are fighting a war on terror. Al Qaeda is a small part of that war. The war in Iraq has already provided benefits in the Mid East. It convinced Muhamar Quadafi to give up his WMD programs. It has convinced other Arab countries to quit helping the terrorists. If we let the terrorists and there propaganda take away our will to complete the fight, we will lose more than the war in Iraq.
Honestly, you people are too stupid to even discuss this topic with.
Hank
Hank,”Al Qaeda is a small part of that war. The war in Iraq has already provided benefits in the Mid East. It convinced Muhamar Quadafi to give up his WMD programs.”
Quadafi gave up his weapons before shrub was in the WH.First you say Al Quida is the problem, then you say they are a small part. Which is it? “It has convinced other Arab countries to quit helping the terrorists.” Really? Name one, and prove it. Like maybe go over there and ask them.
If Iraq attacked us, then let’s roll, but they didn’t; lets boogie out of there.
Saudi Arabia sponsers radical schools that teach there kids to hate the Satan beast USA. Hell, if Gore would have had any huevos, he would have told the Saudi rulers to close the schools. Much easier to pander to the king.
We people are too stupid to argue with? Your too ignorant to see what is really going on around both the Muslim countries, and your own United States.
HankI would rather be a “limpwristed, pointy headed cowered” then body parts laying all over the desert.
XXX At least Saddam kept his people in line and they weren’tbothering us.
To allRepublicans have always had to have a boogy-man to scare & fool the voters into thinking we had to have them to protect us. And what do you know? IT WORKS
A guy from up north
And the Democrats have always scared & fool the voters that the bad corporations and Republicans will take away their homes, money, social security, and drugs.
Remember the “pottery barn” rule as espoused by Colin Powell?
Powell knew what was coming. That is why he got out.
Iraq is worse than ever. It will descend into civil war. Iran will be strengthened by this. But maybe that was the plan……..
“The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continous” Orwell “1984″
bush made this mess and he OWNS it. Bad deal is that alot of lives and treasure far removed from him will be laid ever more on the altar of sacrifice.
It is time to defund this debacle, bring the troops home, and demand accountability.
Oh and Hankathan? Get your ass over there for “your war” take “your president with you” or shut the hell up.
Oh by the way? Given the current abuse of war powers, I have exercised my right to FORBID the military to make contact with my son.
Guess ya better send yours hank.
I bet they start drafting us again.
Good point, north guy. Saddam kept them in line.
And now?
Hank,
Three letters are missing from your diatribe: W-M-D. As in, there wasn’t any. As in, this was the crisis invoked by the Administration to precipitate the second Iraq war.
Don’t try to reinvent history, Hank. I’m a media junkie. I watched Powell’s presentation to the U.N. I listened to all the coverage and the spin, decided that they were obviously lying about the WMD, and opposed the war.
To now invoke all of these ex post facto justifications for the invasion is dishonest: the Bush Administration sold Iraq as a WMD-equipped mortal threat to America. To justify the war now, on other grounds than were insisted upon then, is dishonest.
Like your son, Hank, you lack intellectual honesty. And, as said previously, you’re a fear-ridden, reactionary, snivelling little preteen teeny-bopper.
My apologies to preteen teeny-boppers.
Great post CF.
Hank–
“Do you people really think that Saudi Arabia attacked us?”
Yes, absolutely, yes. Saudi Arabia is run as a feudal monarchy. Something like 15 of 19 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. The government of SA may not have attacked us directly, but they created the conditions–Wahhabism, intolerance, hate for the khaffir (unbeliever), and lack of opportunity for tens of thousands of its citizens as the rich sheiks hoard and gamble away billions of oil wealth.
SA also did the unthinkable to the mujahadeen when they allowed permanant US bases in the land of the “holy sites.” Osama bin Forgotten came back to SA after winning in Afghanistan to find the infidel camped practically in Mecca. (Then Sec’ry of Defense, Dick Cheney said we wouldn’t be in SA “more than a day longer than necessary.” That turned out to be a total lie, but after all the lies, who should be surprised about that.)
The first terrorist attack by Al Qaeda was the ‘93 truck bomb in the WTC, just a little more than a year after the US stationed troops in SA. The terrorist attacks never let up after that, and we never pulled our troops out of SA.
Bush finally has quietly removed troops from SA. Looks like he wasn’t willing to “stay the course” on that one, eh Hank?
As far as the 17 UN resolutions against Iraq, do you know how many UN resolutions there are against Israel? Something like 60.
I’d be surprised if there weren’t some UN resolutions against the US.
As far as the link between Al Qaeda and the UAE . . . remember about ten years ago when the CIA under Clinton had targetted Osama bin Forgotten’s location, but they couldn’t take him out because he was hosting a bunch of royals from another country? Remember that, Hank? Remember the country that the royals were from, Hank?
Here’s a news article from 2004–
“The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency’s director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.”
“Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.”
whenhttp://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
When did Saddam meet with Osama in Afghanistan, Hank?
CF-media junkie
You shouldnt need me to tell you that we didnt need the UN’s permission to go into Iraq the second time.(Gulf war 1 ceasfire agreement) WMD’s were one of about 8 different justifications to go into Iraq. You focus on WMD’s and forget about everything else.
An interesting read on Powerline. The story the media isnt telling you, from Iraqi newspapers.http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013235.phpSummation- there is much more unity between Iraqi tribes than the media is letting on.With their heavy focus on the negative the media gives the impression that they’re rooting for failure, that or they are just lazy and uninformed.
Heckler,
And the leading-edge justification for going into Iraq was none of these things: it was the allegations regarding WMD’s. Bush and Blair both knew the other pretexts wouldn’t be sufficient to marshall public support, so the Niger narrative, among others, was concocted, in full awareness that it was all false.
As for unity among Iraq tribes, it is indeed the case that the ‘civil war / sectarian conflict’ idea is somewhat external to the history of modern Iraq. Iraqis tend to identify strongly with the national history of Iraq. However, as I noted above, it isn’t the media I blame for pushing the civil war narrative: it is the Administration and the psy-ops dimension of its Iraq strategy. The need to lock down the Iraqi oil reserves is better served by sectarian conflict and a divided Iraq than by an Iraq that is a Shiite-run client state of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayahtolloahs in Iran.
Wow, I’m really glad to hear about Iraqi “unity,” Heckler, since over 200 Sunni mosques have been attacked in the last two days and they have instituted 24 curfews in the largest cities.
Here’s what I wrote exactly three years ago about how Candidate Bush and President Bush became the Jekyll and Hyde of modern American politics.
What’s happening now in Iraq has the feeling of inevitability of Greek tragedy–we warned everybody we could, but nobody was listening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/01_war.html
Great link Heckler,
Unfortunately for the poor misguided liberals on this BLOG their orgasmic elation over the fact that Bush (read America, servicemen) might fail seems to be short lived. The mosque bombing might actually unite the Sunnis and the Shiites againsts the insurgents (read al Qaeda terrorists).
Sorry children, it looks like we’re still winning!
Hank
correction–24 HOUR curfews
Hank–your assertion that liberals want Bush imperialistic adventure in Iraq to fail is a despicable lie.
1. What liberals WANT to happen in Iraq has no bearing on what HAPPENS. It’s another good example of how you reactionaries focus what people “believe” rather than what the outcomes of actions are.
2. Liberal opposition to the invasion and continued occupation is based on the failure of other similar military adventures. Failure is not what we WANT, it’s what we know usually happens in these situations thanks to actually studying history–
USSR in AfghanistanIran under the western-backed Shah (King)US in VietnamFrance in Vietnam and AlgeriaWhite rule in South AfricaEngland in IrelandEngland in IndiaFrance in HaitiSpain in MexicoEngland in the United States
About the only successful examples one can find of invasion and occupation are China in Tibet and Israel in Palestine. Both of those operations were successful because of mass-migrations of invaders into the invaded’s turf.
Barring a lot of Americans moving to Iraq, I don’t see how this military occupation on a population that wants us out is going to be any more successful than those of the past.
It’s not what I WANT that makes a difference . . . it’s what the IRAQIS WANT.
CF
A little correction. The WMD’s were the leading factor we used to try to get the UN involved, the fact that Saddam was not abiding by the ceasefire agreement wasnt good enough for the security council.(and of course the graft from the oil for food going to the French and Russians kind of slowed things down as well). We were going, with or without the UN.
If you are suggesting that the Bushites are behind the insurgency I disagree. And if that is indeed what you are saying then there is no point in me arguing the matter with you.
ProudLib said
“About the only successful examples one can find of invasion and occupation are China in Tibet and Israel in Palestine. Both of those operations were successful because of mass-migrations of invaders into the invaded’s turf.”
I guess that Germany and Japan don’t count….
Heckler–
Since you’re so outraged by the graft of France and Russia in Iraq, I wonder why you don’t also inveigh against the 8 billion dollars that cannot be accounted for.
According to a recent 60 Minutes report, American authorities have bales of 100 dollar bills shipped in and they pass them around without records or accounting. They call them “footballs.”
You’re right, they don’t count.
Totally different situation. We didn’t go into Germany and Japan to quell local nationalism. We went in at the invitation of the new government under the terms of surrender.
We also poured major reconstruction into both countries. Remember the Marshall Plan?
Two Iraqis on “The News Hour” called US reconstruction in Iraq, “a joke.”
ProudLib
The point with the money for food graft was that France and Russia weren’t going to agree to oust Saddam regardless of the evidence we presented. But that was simply a side note to the comment that we were going anyway, with or without the UN.
As for “footballs” I’m not sure I understand what your talking about or what it has to do with the subject of this thread.(not that 3/4 of what’s being said here does either)
ProudLib
“Totally different situation. We didn’t go into Germany and Japan to quell local nationalism. We went in at the invitation of the new government under the terms of surrender.”
WTF goes through your mind. WE WENT INTO GERMANY AND JAPAN BECAUSE THEY ATTACKED US AND OUR ALLIES!!!!!
God you’re dumb, Heckler.
8 billion US taxpayer dollars goes “missing” in Iraq and you don’t have a problem with that?
The same thing happened in Vietnam btw. Reconstruction money ended up in venal officials’s numbered bank accounts, and when everything went to hell, they bailed out with our money.
First it’s tragedy. Then it’s farce.
Re: Germany and Japan
I was talking about post-war occupation, obviously.
Heckler,
Don’t misinterpret my words. I didn’t say the Bush Administration was behind the insurgency. I said they may be behind the bombing of the mosque in Samarra. You’re assuming that insurgents bombed the mosque. You ought to think through this assumption from the lens of who stood to gain from the bombing.
Zarqawi is a Shiite who belongs to al Qaeda; it is difficult for me to imagine him carrying out the bombing of such a holy site. If he did so, I suspect he’d be assassinated by other Shia within and outside of al Qaeda. Ditto for the forces of Sadr’s Mehdi army, or the Shia who are loyal to Sistani.
Regarding the Sunni insurgents (who ARE different from the Zarqawi folks, by the way), they are the strongest prima facie candidates, since they had effective control over security at the mosque. But ask yourself: does inciting a civil war really benefit them directly? Yes, a large amount of the violence in the country is sectarian. But as the minority group, they stand to lose greatly if all-out hostilities break out, and fracture the possibility of a unified, future Iraqi state. The regions of Iraq controlled by Sunnis have little or no oil. If civil conflict divides the country, the Sunnis lose big time.
So, then, who stands to gain from such a civil war?
-Iran, since this enables them to unify with the Shia majority. However, considering that the Shia victors in the election had already refused to form a national unity government, Iran could probably already have counted on its eventual alignment with a Shia-led Iraq.
-The United States, since dividing the country by civil war enables us to build bases and take control of the oil fields and pipelines by playing off one side against the other.
Whether it offends your sensibilities or not, Heckler, those are the strategic dimensions of the conflict. Don’t think for a moment that all these scenarios aren’t being thought through in the Situation Room and at Centcom.
As yet, I don’t know who was responsible. But it would be blind obedience to refuse to consider the possibility that the U.S. or its proxies were involved. The strategic benefits we would reap from a possible civil are simply too great to rule out our participation in such a bombing.
Finally, for you to admit that we were going to war ‘with or without the U.N.’ concedes, amazingly, what the Administration has thus far refused to: that the plan to invade Iraq was on the table long before the issue of WMD’s was presented. I appreciate the candor, even if W might not.
ProudLib
I’m proud of you, you made 2 posts to me before you reverted to style.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong, Heck.
Oh my . . . this just in . . . Bill O’Reilly says we should “cut and run” in Iraq:
“Bill O’Reilly suggested that the United States “hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible” because “there are so many nuts in the country — so many crazies — that we can’t control them.” O’Reilly has previously called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq “pinheads” and compared them to Hitler appeasers.”
Poor Hank and Heck, sucks to be them . . .
CF
Your whole hypothesis rests on a very shaky limb- that we could really predict what kind of response the bombing of the mosque would result in. As the article posted at Powerline said, there seem to be some cool heads among the leadership in Iraq and this may bring more unity.
“-The United States, since dividing the country by civil war enables us to build bases and take control of the oil fields and pipelines by playing off one side against the other.”
If this were really our goal it would have been much simpler from the outset to go ahead and divy up the country in three regions for the three major ethnic/religious groups (as many in the country wanted to do, and as many talking heads around the world suggested) and then make under the table deals with whatever leadership emerged(or we installed)in the oil rich region.
We’ve simply gone to too much trouble to set up a unified nation with a representative government to turn around and burn it to the ground. I just don’t buy that angle.
The wackos of Iran and all of radical Islam have to much to lose if Iraq emerges as a stable democratic(or representative) state. Don’t think for a minute that they wouldnt resort to blowing up a holy place if it brought about the failure of a stable Iraq. Desperation does things to the most rational of people.
ProudLib,
Reactionaries: skilled practitioners of groupthink AND doublethink. What’s a little intellectual inconsistency between fellow-travellers?
No brain, no headache. At the moment, it must suck to be Heckler, but not at all to be Hank.
“Zarqawi is a Shiite who belongs to al Qaeda; it is difficult for me to imagine him carrying out the bombing of such a holy site. If he did so, I suspect he’d be assassinated by other Shia within and outside of al Qaeda.”
I don’t think I have heard anyone assert that al-Zarqawi is a Shi’ite. According to our media coverage of him, he plots and attempts to spur sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shi’ites.
Quoting the BBC:
“An intercepted letter released by the Americans in February 2004 seems to support their claim that targeting Shias is central to Zarqawi’s strategy in Iraq.
“In it, Zarqawi appears to share his plans for igniting sectarian conflict in Iraq as a means of undermining the US presence there.
“And he claims to have already undertaken 25 successful attacks against the enemy.
“Within days of the letter’s release, bomb attacks on recruiting centres for the Iraqi security forces had killed nearly 100 people.
“Attacks are now a daily occurrence in Iraq. Whether or not Zarqawi is behind them all, he is seen by the US as the biggest obstacle to their hopes of progress in Iraq – their most dangerous enemy in the country.”
The whole BBC article at the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
I am wondering if we know enough about Zarqawi to understand at all what he is doing. Some conspiracy people think that he is a boogy man who the U.S. uses as it is convenient for us. Given how shadowy the info is, it is maybe not possible at this point to rule that interpretation out.
The most consistent reporting on him is that he’s an illiterate criminal thug, orphan, from Jordan. I don’t get the sense that religious fanaticism motivates him as much as does the pleasure of killing. But that is only an impression — based on the lack of hard facts about this man.
Is proudlib always so emotional and lacking in clear thought?
Um, yes.
I figure at least 50% of all comments from Proudlib are attacking the poster instead of the topic.
Don Murphy Nathan
Go easy on ProudLib. People of Supreme intellect often have problems with…shall we say…instability.
Dear CF,
Of course the plans to invade Iraq were on the table bfore 9/11! The plans existed when Bush took office. When Bush took office we were spending 50 billion dollars a year to maintain the peace in the Middle East and to enforce the ‘no fly zone’. Because of our presence over there our men, ships and emabassys were a constant target of terrorists.
Iraq was the only nation in the world that was firing on our planes; violating the cease fire and 17 UN resoulions. Furthermore, the administration has never denied the fact that they had a plan to continue hostilities in Iraq that they were constantly updating and revising. It nothing more than continuing the policy of eventual ‘regime change’ that was instituted in 1998 by the Clinton administration.
Hank
“When Bush took office we were spending 50 billion dollars a year to maintain the peace in the Middle East and to enforce the ‘no fly zone’.”
And as far as we know we are spending at least $150 billion per year since March 2003. Are you arguing that we’re getting more for our money?
Funny, Don. You reactionaries think that’s clever, don’t you: when you can’t respond to the content of the argument, falsely attack the speaker of “emotionalism.”
Go back through my post on this blog and count how many points I make. Then go through and see how many unemotional and non-cheap shots Hank or Nathan or Heckler make.
This is called “quantifying” the argument. You “faith-based” people should try it sometime.
Hank,
Do you agree with Bill O’Reilly that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible?
And Don, thanks for listing your place of business in your e-mail address.
Now I know who to contact about you’re screwing off at work . . .
LOL!
Are you kidding me Proudlib?
Forget just this topic, I could post several pages worth of posts from you which did nothing but make things personal!
But lets just look at this one…
Proudlib has said:
“You notice that Hank left out one little detail in his “stay the course” idiocy…I think that people like Hank who are so cock-sure we should “stay the course” should voluntarily send money to the government to fund it, don’t you.
Granted, it be the first time conservatives actually put their money where their mouths are, but, hey, there’s a first time for everything . . .”
“This isn’t the movies, you douchebag.”
“God you’re dumb, Heckler.”
I will admit, this topic you did seem to keep a bit more on topic than many others…LOL
Point taken, Nathan.
But you gotta admit, Heckler IS really dumb . . .
And Don really IS a douchebag.
Hear, Hear, ProudLib! And how long before any of our conservative friends answer the question:
“Do you agree with Bill O’Reilly that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible?”
Let’s hear it, guys. Is O’Reilly right, or is he full of shit?
Hmmm.. Should we side with O’Reilly or should we side with Bush? Hmmmm..
TORN BETWEEN TWO LOOOVEERRSS,FEELING LIKE A FOOL!LOVING BOTH OF YOU IS BREAKING ALL THE RUUULLLEES!TORN BETWEEN TWO LOOOOVEERRSS…
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
First of all, it is the liberal who self declared that O’Reily is conservative.
I don’t even think he views himself as one.
If that is what he said about Iraq then I disagree with him.
When was Bill elected to be the offical spokesman for Republicans let alone Conservatives?!
The funny thing is that O’Reilly had been one of Bush’s biggest cheerleaders for his ill-advised invasion/occupation.
Who cares?
This topic is not about what Bill O’reily thinks.
It is nice to know that a few of you view him as an authority now though. In all future discussion where O’Reilly has a view point that supports something I am saying I will be sure to rub it in your faces…
BILL O’REILLY SAYS SO, NA NA NA NA NA… LOL
Bill O’Reilly’s a dick. And ProudLib’s a chicken shit for his cheap threats.
CF
I thought of another reason your hypothesis about the US wanting civil war for oil just doesnt fly.
Suppose the country collapsed into civil war and we seized the oil fields and exployted them for ourselves. Not only would we have to fight off every two bit jihadi in the middle east. We would seriously piss off EVERY faction in Iraq. We’d be lucky to ship ONE barrel of oil out of the country let alone millions. There’s not enough troops in all of NATO and the UN to keep those pipelines up and running with that many hacked of Iraqis after us.
Interesting theory but it just doesnt fly.
Actually, Nathan, it only shows that even a dolt like O’Reilly can finally recognize reality after it is smashed into his face enough. That makes him marginally less stupid than Bush, Hank, Nathan, Heckler …
Hey guys, how is Iraqiization going?
It figures. Just like most every other liberal I know, the personal attacks will be thrown in sooner or later…
Nathan,
You and others have been asked to post proof of the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and I am still waiting for that proof!
“Let he who hath no sword sell hiscloak and buy one.” –Jesus, Luke 22:36.
This just in. Oops, more Americans now favor the democrats in congress on national security issues than favor preznit bush.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/February%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports.htm
Check out the poll results on the left!!
Ian
Go to the weekly standard. I think the articles are by Stephen Hayes but I might be wrong. He writes about the millions of seized documents that are slowly being translated.
Some of them contain information on the training camps that Iraq was running. So far they seem to show that about 8000 foreign terrorists were trained in Iraq in the 4 or 5 years prior to our invasion. Some of it matched up with the pre-war intel we had on a couple of training camps near Baghdad but most of it was new stuff we didnt know about.
I don’t know if that constitutes proof to you but it’s out there for what its worth.
Heckler,
I recall that there were Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq prior to the war but they were in the Kurdish areas and they were outside of Saddam’s control.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Ian
I could be wrong but I think we had both satellite and human intel on a couple and I thought they were near Baghdad. One of them had an airline fuselage for training highjackers. I could be wrong, it’s been a year or more.
Heckler,
Those faciliites near Baghdad were, if I recall, last used by Palestinian faction back in the 1980’s and they were not Al Qaeda camps. Bin Laden himself often stated that the secular, socialist Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria were his blood enemies. In fact, Saddam killed well over a million muslim fanatics in Iraq and during the Iran-Iraq war.
V.L.R.B!!
Heckler,
Those faciliites near Baghdad were, if I recall, last used by Palestinian faction back in the 1980’s and they were not Al Qaeda camps. Bin Laden himself often stated that the secular, socialist Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria were his blood enemies. In fact, Saddam killed well over a million muslim fanatics in Iraq and during the Iran-Iraq war.
V.L.R.B!!
Proud Lib? I told you to ignore those idiots. You’ve bested them but you’ve done nothing when you’ve bested a fool.. or two fools….or two foolish nics pretending to be one person…..
Iraq is on the verge of civil war. That is a fact.
Whether Iraquis at large were better off before bush’s military adventure is subjective. It depends on who you ask.
They lived under tyranny…..yes. But random bombings did not occur. Fairly or unfairly, the competing factions in that so called nation, (It was a legacy of Imperial western powers that drew lines around groups of people and called that area a “nation”) existed in something resembling harmony.
Bush destroyed that….as”broken” as it already may seem to have been. And civil war is the assured result.
And given this administrations strange strategy toward national security…….open borders, ports sold to enemy interests, confiscating the rights of citizens, and what seems to be total and complete failure in Iraq; it all seems a terrible and awful waste of lives and treasure. And for what?
O Reilly now calling for withdrawl from Iraq…….while he supports UAE control of US ports.
We are through the looking glass here folks. It is way past time to figure out just who is for what and why. The most powerful nation on the planet and its chief executive and powerful pundits should not be determining the course of this nation and world security ……on the fly.
Iraq, “What a revoltin development”. Yes, I think we can all agree that Iraqis are much better off now than they were under Saddam. What the hell do they want? We painted some school houses for them! It’s like I said all along, going into Iraq was the best way to fight terror. Bush was a genius to figure out that we could destroy their infrastructure and goad them into a civil war. Bush cunningly lured all the Al Quadians into Iraq where they’ll be killed in sectarian violence. It’s going to be a little inconvenient that there’s so many US troops in Iraq when the civil war starts.
Would somebody please tell me again about all the good things happening in Iraq?
“And ProudLib’s a chicken shit for his cheap threats.”
I’m not really going to report on Don. It was a joke.
You’d have to be kind of dumb to think that I’d do that.
But then you’re the guy who doesn’t seem to mind 8 billion dollars vanishing into Iraq . . .
And it would be the kind of thing a conservative would do.
Excellent post, XXX.
I don’t know how much more of this progress we can take.
Seven Americans were killed on one day, Wednesday.
ProudLib
What’s the deal with the 8 billion dollars and what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?
If calling people dumb makes you feel better go ahead, I notice you do it a lot, but it says more about you than it says about the people you are addressing.
The whitehouse creed.
lie, misdirect, deny… lie, misdirect, deny
Darwin’sDisciple,
Indeed, the Zarqawi relationship to the Shia and to Al Qaeda is more complex than I accounted for. Having said that, I still don’t think the U.S. is automatically removed from the list of candidates for having bombed the mosque in Samarra.
Regarding Heckler’s objection, the goal of splitting up the country through civil war would be to play one faction off against the others by offering incentives and support. This is just the sort of game the Bushies think they’re good at playing.
Actually, I don’t call “a lot of people dumb,” Heck.
I save that epithet for you and you alone . . .
CF
If the goal was to split the country by factions why not do it from the outset. Do it under the guise of creating peacefull coexistance, why go to the trouble of elections and contitutions and all that goes with it.
And I’m still wondering how your going to get that oil out of the country with everyone pissed at you. You can play factions against one another all you want to but when you start taking that oil they’re going to figure out whats up.
Heckler – every claim of Saddam-alQuada linkage has been proven false. Notably, the supposed meeting in Prague was a lie. Never happened.
There was a small alQuada presense in Iraq before the invasion – in the north in US-controlled Kurdistan.
Did anyone else see the Fox News screen that says “Civil War in Iraq, is it a good thing?”
Ben Huie
According to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard Saddams own documents show that Iraq trained at least 8000 foreign (north African and middle eastern origin) terrorists in at least 6 different training camps throughout Iraq.
I havent seen the documents and Hayes seems to be the only one reporting on this so I can’t call it fact, but at least some of the documents matched up with info from pre-war intel.
For what its worth.
Steven Hayes – since when is he an authority?
According to certain sources it was the Bolshevicks who burned the Reischtagg in the late 30s. We know that was not true either.
“There is the smell of civil war everywhere,”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/23/wirq123.xml&site=5
Heckler,
Here’s a link showing that Perle/Feith/Wurmser and the other neocons countenanced the post-Saddam breakup of Iraq, greeting the prospects of civil war with a collective ’so what’? Wurmser actually wrote a paper predicting the present situation back in the 1990’s.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/24/on_the_brink_in_iraq.php
If one considers the fact that this group of ideogogues had an exclusive monopoly on Bush Administration foreign policy until fairly recently, civil war in Iraq is at best an unintended consequence, and at worst, an intended and ‘necessary’ one in the service of the grand project of remaking the Middle East.
One thing about a civil war in Iraq; at least it’ll give us a break from killing Iraqis (or at least some help). I still can’t help but wonder what the consiquences will be for our troops when the bottom falls out of this thing.
XXX the consequences will be similar to when the cops respond to a domestic disturbance call. Our troops will try to mitigate the conflict and become the unanimous target until they are either dead or withdrawn so that the factions can get back to the business of killing one another.
Ahhh bush……..the divider of not just America but other nations as well!
Hang on! Now the true heart (no brain) bushies ARE a small minority. Thankfully real Republicans are waking up to just what bush is. But these bushies are zealots! Their crazed love for their glorious leader may necesssitate civil war right here in America!
Joe? hankathan? This is not a problem for me:) To quote your great infallible leader: “bring it on”
Yes JR, kind of like being down wind when the fit hits the shan. I can’t help but think that being stuck in Iraq when total civil war breaks out might be a bad thing.
Now what were all those good things happening in Iraq we keep hearing about?
Do you suppose anybody will think we’re responsible for this mess? Surely a little thing like our invasion couldn’t have set up a disaster like this. It’s a good thing we didn’t recognize the World Court. Otherwise there’d be warrants out for half our government.
Maybe we can make up for the mess we’ve made by painting a few more school houses.
I wish Fearless Leader would go over there and talk tough. That would straighten those Islamo-whatevers out! “Bring it on!”
XX,
Darth Shrubious needs those Islamo-whatevers oil. He still needs to keep the “legitimacy” facade in the minds of his minions, so force is not an option.