Ahmed Hashim says the only policy option available that is under our control is to leave.
US policy in Iraq has become one of simply reacting to events there


And just as an example of how helpless we are over there one need only look at what has happened with the principle resource Iraq has - oil.
Insurgents, smugglers and corrupt officials syphon off oil.

My question is:

Does anybody see any policy available to this country that can have a positive outcome in Iraq other than just leaving.

If your answer to the above is yes could you describe those policies.

If your answer to the above is no could you explain why you think our only option is leaving.

Yes. Finish the job of training the Iraqi military to take over their own security. Certainly this is ongoing and only minimally affected by the “insurgents”. In fact the latest reports I heard included negotiations with some of the insurgent groups. The point will come when the insurgency will fall apart as the Iraqi army takes over security with US backup. Once it become very clear that they cannot win most insurgent groups will come to the table. The foreigners (Al Qaeda) will need to be driven out or killed. New technologies to detect and defeat the IED problem are being rushed to Iraq and this will take away the main weapon of the insurgents.

The problem is the Iraqi military
1. Has been heavily infiltrated by insurgents and insurgent sympathizers.
2. Those who are anti-insurgency tend to identify more with their local ethnic groups than any concept of the nation as a whole.
3. Corruption is generally rampant and the will to fight appears quite low.

Bush has a nice phrase about "as the Iraqi's stand up we will stand down" but like Vietnam it doesn't appear to be working.

And how's that going? After several years of work, the government not only cannot control the streets, but are in fact making very little effort to try. Those parts of the country which are peaceful (which, in case you haven't noticed, are getting fewer) are generally so because control has been handed over to local militias, of ten islamicist militias, with little or no control by the central Iraqi government, which STILL has not even managed for form a government.

In the last 2 days alone 7 US soldiers, 2 British soldiers and about 50-60 Iraqis were killed, some by roving death squads that now operate openly during the day in some areas.

I mean, in theory of course you are right Ted. The nation will become peaceful (hopefully) when the government is able to make it peaceful. You are right in theory in the same way one would be right in theory to state that everyone will be able to visit the moon once we build a giant pressurised ladder.

However, regardless of the theory, its not happening in practice. So what now?



Riiight... what new technologies exactly make one immune to a large expolsion, or a claymore mine? How exactly does one detect them on streets crowded with debris and rubble?

Besides, even if that bit of hopeful thinking had any validity, the conclusions you sraw are incorrect. Of the seven US and two British troops who died this weekend, they were killed by mortar fire, a helicopter being shot down with a SAM, and gunfire. Besides, its the people we are losing that is even more of a problem. How is it possible tht in May 2006 the vast majority of Bagdad still has less access to fresh water and electricity than it did before the invasion?

Actually, we know why. In the papers last week, investigations over the US company (Parsons Inc.) contracted to buld 142 health care clinics in Iraq, after 2 years and all its alloted money, has constructed 18, and most of them are incomplete. They say they cannot be held responsible for this failure, as the US government promised them a certain degree of peace and ecurity in which to work, which has not happened. The same is happenining for a LOT of the rebuilding contracts: money gone, time run out, nothing accomplished.

The situation is. not. getting. better. During Vietnam, the same blind can-do attitude kept the US in place for several years, and cost thousands more lives even when the situation on the ground was lost to anyone with eyes and ears. Now The Irqi situation is NOT lost, its not that bad yet... but it is losing. And simply repeating the same three-year old platitudes while burying one's head in the sand is hardly productive.

Does anybody see any policy available to this country that can have a positive outcome in Iraq other than just leaving.

Several, but none which would win votes in the USA.

What we have here is the classic case of a democracy unable to fight war because of its own self imposed restrictions.

The real problem here, and the only valid argument against GW Bush's war in any realpolitkal sense is that by invading Iraq without domestic support, and having clung to the forlorn hope that such support would materialise, the USA has made itself look weak.

Even worse is the fact that a pull out will be perceived by the Islamic/Jihadist world as yet another capitulation by the strongest military force in the west. For that reason alone the USA should not only stay in Iraq, it should up the stakes and start its own 'death squads' to impose American will upon the rebellion. Any one found with a weapon should be executed on the spot. Any one found with connections with the rebellion should be executed after interogation. Any nation found supplying the rebellion with weapons and ammunition should suffer the consequences with economic sanctions and military attack.

Iran has supplied Iraqi rebels with SAM7's so the USAF should obliterate an Iranian military target in return. Preferably an entire air base or a barracks.

That is how you fight war and win. If you are not prepared, as a people or a leader, to do what must be done in order to win, then you should not engage in warfare.

Once a war has been initiated however, there should be no question of doubt. If there is doubt, hesitation, or anti war demonstrations, then you have already lost.

This is the biggest problem with the USA (and every other democracy) and the clandestine armies of Islam know this and are banking on it to acheive their goals.

I understand that your suggestion was the essence of realpolitik and obviously not practical, but the reality is, not only is such extremism not practical, its also completely ineffective. When in history has upping the stakes of relatliation quelled a populist insurgency? I every case it is tried, it does not deter the fanatics, and with every person you kill you create another family of fanatics.

The Nazis tried this in their occupied lands, and all it did was polarise the population and draw more support to the resistance. The lesson resisters learned is not that they had to stop, but that they had to up their own level of brutality to match the opressors.



Ah, careful. The head of the US forces in Iraq is on tape telling the press he has no evidence at all to support the claim that Iran has supplied weapons to the Sunnis. SOME of the mines are similar to claymore mines, and are Iranian manufacture, but they are also widely exported in the Middle East, and exist in the arsenals of most countries. One cannot accuse the US of supporting the insurgency just because many of them carry US-made M-16 assault rifles...

I'm not saying Iran didn't supply weapons, just that there is no evidence at all that they did.

Imperial Rome was founded on such military extremism. When faced with rebellion the Romans would decimate the local population by executing every tenth person. If this didn't work they would simply remove or even kill all the people involved. The Ottoman Turks would enslave them. Stalin just shipped them to Siberia. In Africa they even go so far as to eat them.
How do you think Saddam Hussein stayed in power? Sure it works. It just depends on how far you are willing to go.

This sounds harsh by our modern perceptions, but it worked for the Romans. The city of Rome lasted 1,230 years before it was finally engulfed by the barbarians and if you look at what actually happened to the Romans, it was their affluence and 'tolerance' that destroyed them.

The risk we run today is in following the Romans by allowing our own tolerance to so hinder our ability to wage war that we are unable to defend ourselves.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not advocating this course of action. I'm merely pointing out that this is the nature of war and if you intend to use war as a political tool and expect to be successfull, then you must be prepared to do as the Romans did and kill the enemy. Not just the soldiers but every single man, woman and child and who serves to act as a threat to your authority.

Naturally this is not what the USA is attempting in Iraq today, but, I fear, it is exactly the sort of mentality the enemy has and as such, the tread-softly approach adopted by the coalition forces is, and always was, doomed to failure. All we are really doing now is putting off the inevitable, and the Iraqi's know it.

Link.

It doesn't matter whether or not the Ayatollah himself really believes what he is saying. Nor does the truth play any part in his diatribe, what matters is what the faithful believe.


The nazi's 'thousand year Reich' lasted what? 12 years?. They were rank amateurs Vermillion, surely as a historian and expert on that period you must understand that.


True.

Actually decimation was a fate reserved exclusively for legions accused of cowardice in the face of the enbemy. However your general point about brutality is truem the Rmans were quite brutal to some populations, and because of it there were widespread rebellions over the entire empire quite frequently. The only way they could stop rebellions for a generation was literally to kill any males of near the age of bearing arms, which while effective for a time, was hardly practical.

In fact the Roman empire survived based on its military innovations, and its kindness. It gave land to veterans, citizenship to foreigners who earned it, it allowed people a way to gain from the benfice of Rome, and that created fanatic loyalists. None of that had ever been done before. Tribes had been massacring each other for millenia, without ever being able to put down resistance except in the case of total genocide. The Iroquois were only able to end their struggle with the Hurons by exterminating them, there ar no Hurons left. But the act of doing so created new enemies among new tribes...



Well yes, but didn't you just say in another thread that you figure the Hussein tyranny was doomed anyways? Besides, don't forget that Hussein used carrot and stick. His Iraq had the highest standard of living, literacy rate and emancipation for women of any in the region.



Not doomed, but certainly the odds were against it.

On that note, I read a very interesting article in the Herald Tribune today. Apparently one of the Islamicist tribes that the US has turned power over to in a region of north-central Iraq has been keeping the peace quite effectively. Until recently when a bunch of men in government uniform ambushed and killed their tribal chief. As a result, the forces of this tribe just ambushed and killed a convoy of Iraqi police. They have gobe from ignoring the central government to working against it.

The point is, people like Ted tend to presume we are facing 'raghead' fanatics with long Hollywood beards and shooting AK-74s into the sky. This act shows that the enemy is damn clever, adaptive and very tactically aware.

And they are winning.

Indeed?

Ah well, the example still, clearly shows the iron will of the Roman legions.


Another alternative was to not have an empire... which is sort of my point.

If the USA were to put aside its affluent life style, get rid of its dependecy on oil and as a result deconstruct its global ambitions then it would not have to face this conflict at all...

But would that make us all safer?

People keep having to point out to the anti war crowd that 9/11 happened before the invasion of Iraq.

What no one wants to face up to though is that Islam was attacking Christianity long before Columbus ever set foot in the New World.

I know, I know. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader... I've heard that so many times its becoming a sort of background chant. Does it matter? Look at history's examples. Islamic history is full of men like Saddam Hussein. Tyrants who abuse the religion just as easily as the clerics of Iran do.

And why? Because islam justifies any actions carried out in its name. Saddam Hussein was secular when it suited his purposes. When being religious suited his purposes, he turned to Islam.


And yet, this is exactly what the western world is doing now and it is the means by which the enemy is undermining us.

By which, I'm not stating that all individual Muslims pose a deliberate threat to western society. Only that willingly or unwittingly, they are a part of a strategy to erode western democracy and replace it with a Sharia based Islamic world.


Yes, but Saddam Hussein's fall from grace was initiated by the USA. Not his own people.

The divisions that exist in Iraq were always there but Saddam was able to maintain control over them. What spelled his doom was not the internal divisions of Iraq but rather the aftermath of his invading Kuwait. From that point on, his grip was slipping and he was losing control over the internal pressures of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had the will, but not the means.

America has the means but not the will.

The Islamic extremists have both.


But who are 'they'?

Certainly not the common people of Iraq. If the US pulls out and leaves Iraq to its fate, then the winners will be the islamic extremists like Ayatollah Al-Baghdadi and they won't stop with just Iraq.

These people are turning the whole world into one big battleground.

No one expected it to be easy and those who did were wrong. The “insurgency” will collapse when 1. A truly representative government takes over and 2. when the Iraqi military reaches the point where they control the cities and borders.

At that point people will see that their best chance to “make it” in Iraq is not with the “insurgents” but with the process. Most Iraqis hate the foreigners and are now “turning them in” when they feel they are able to do that and not be later murdered by them.

IMO the country will emerge into a type of democratic state much to the chagrin of totalitarian neighbors like Iran and Syria.

And Vietnam is not an good analogy. In Vietnam we never ever controlled the North militarily or otherwise. We had half the country fighting the other half. That is not the case in Iraq as much as idiots like Teddy K would like us to believe.

The only way to lose in Iraq is by giving up. To do so would show the world we have no stomach for any conflict that cannot be ended quickly in our favor.



Come on please. Do you expect perfection and in such a short time? Maybe it’s the fact that you are Canadian. Come to Boston, NY, or Camden NJ where the murder rate is out of control. Look at most industrial countries and count the murders and crimes per day. What you have is the usual press coverage of the negatives above all else. This is not the true picture. If we just did this for one US city like NY daily you could go on for HOURS with the bad news. This is not the entire picture.

Actually, I can hardly think of a single insurgency/ rebel group which gave up as soon as a government started expressing authority, I hardly see why this one should be any different. Anyways, its academic, because you left out a critical word: IF and when, not when. And at the moment, the if looks unlikely.

The government has not even managed to form a government yet, and they are making no effort to control the streets. They have not even started to deal with either the insugents, nor the large sections of Iraq out of their control because the US handed over control to local militias.




Yes thats true, but it has now been admitted by all senior military commanders that the number of 'foreign fighters' was always far fewer than expected. The insurgency is almost all Iraqis. Some fight for political reasons, some for religious reasons, some for personal reasons, but whatever their reasons they are not going away easily.



Actually, while not a good analogy for the war, Vietnam is a very good analogy for the occupation. The US does not control the country, they don't even control the green zone. The local insurgents are roving the streets executing at will, and the US and the hapless local government are unable to do anything about it.

The analogy holds because the US poured time, money, equipment and lives into training and equipping the ARVN, and kept repeating the mantra that the US would withdraw when the ARVN took responsability for its own defence. But that NEVER happened, and all the 'can-do' and refusal to accept reality in the world could not change that.



How about progress? How about signs that things are getting better? In fact the opposite is true.




I'm not sure your point here. In Iraq over 100 people were killed on the weekend that we know about, 13 of them Western soldiers. Are you implying Camden has that kind of fatality rate? If it does, we should pull out of Camden too.

Does anybody see any policy available to this country that can have a positive outcome in Iraq other than just leaving. Yes and no.

If your answer to the above is yes could you describe those policies.

While I think leaving is probably the best course of action, we could relive ethnic tensions in Iraq by allowing autonomy among the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. While we would no longer be "working toward a united Iraq," it may be the only practical solution in the long run. If the insurgency is only getting stronger after three years of occupation, there is virtually no common ground between to be found between the two groups, and, therefore, no room for compromise. It's a possibility.

If your answer to the above is no could you explain why you think our only option is leaving.

Ultimately, I don't think setting up a new government will do anything in the long run. The legitimacy of governments set up by another nation is usually very low, the history of the region is tumultuous, and the political culture of Iraq is not adapted to democracy. Once we leave (if the government is ever functional), Iraq will be ripe to fall back into a military dictatorship. Just because a dictatorship has collapsed doesn't mean democracy will rise from the ashes, quite the opposite -- most revolutions do not result in a better form of government over the long run (think Napoleon, Nigeria's numerous coups, the numerous communist revolutions, etc.). It is my view that we are fighting against a historical inevitability.

Interesting statement, given that essentially ALL current governments were established through some sort of revolution or imposition from an external force. This would then mean that ALL current governments are worse than whatever they were prior to their revolution (think the US, England, France, Germany, Japan, etc. etc), that this cycle has been repeating for millenia (and will continue to repeat as either war or additional revolutions are used to correct the ever increasing ills of the current government) and that, therefore, the historical inevitability is the downfall of civilization. Is that your stance?

Ted,

I applaud your "optimism," but there are times when optimism is little more than tossing coins in a fountain and making a wish.

The administration has talked much about the Iraqi army standing up.

In this video, recent graduates just quit. This could easily have fit in the political joke thread.


http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/11837/I..._Ceremony_video

Good point, but I said most, not all. And I didn't say that all revolutions cause a regression to a worse form of government, I just used those examples to make a point. My point was that a great number of revolutions merely result in a regime change rather than a complete change of government, especially dictatorship to democracy. I should have phrased it better, and probably made it more specific to Iraq, but I think the point stands. The prevailing conditions in Iraq are not conducive to democracy, but that does not preclude it entirely in the future. The problem of overly agitated ethnic tensions has to be fixed before the government can be effective, and it most likely isn't a problem that will be solved even during the next decade or two considering how long it has already been going on. It is ultimately a problem that Iraqis themselves will have to work out.

I would agree that it is a valid point to consider for Iraq, and would further agree that agitated ethnic tensions is the real issue to solve. This has been used as an argument as to why democracy can't work in Iraq, with valid points. However, I think these types of issues are even stronger evidence that ONLY a democratic government can really solve the problem, as it is the only form of government in which all the various parties can have a say in the government. So, what I think is really the question is what needs to be done to convince the various parties of that. This will be particularly hard for the insurgent groups because I think they already understand this, and it is exactly what they are fighting against, since they know that in a democratic Iraq they won't have nearly the power they would like to have (and have had in the past via military force).

In theory this is probably the best solution, let each group have its own nation, its own government and let them do with it as they please.

However, it flounders on one critical practical issue: almost 100% of the oil wealth of Iraq is in the Shia region. The Sunni and Kurdish 'nations' would be destitute with little of no national feasability.

But the Shiia would be very happy...

Its not an IF unless we give up. No insurgency in Iraq or any 5 other countries like it can beat us. The Iraqi military may never crush “all” insurgency but as I said crime will never end either. It will become insignificant.




WRONG. We never ever controlled any part of the “North” – not the cities, factories etc. AND they had a well trained and equipped military there. How you can compare this to a bunch of insurgents roaming the street with small arms and IEDs is beyond me. We trained the ARVAN but they never even attacked the north much less conquered it as we have done in Iraq. WE control the entire country and the insurgents have NO standing army, no factories, no camps (in the country) and when they do attack we slaughter them at will. This is not Vietnam where 10s of thousands of NVA and gorilla troops infiltrated the south and took us on.

And as far as progress there is plenty of it but if you just listen to CNN you will never hear it.
Some good news here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjBhZ...TMxNGUwODhjZGI=

Wow, I could actually HEAR you playing a fife and drum as you typed that.

Ted, I don't want to border on the insulting here, but are you unaware of whats going on? The US is losing, and its losing pretty badly. The US is taking casualties, and spending money at a fairly impressive rate, and nothing is getting done. You can't even get the power and water flowing regularily in Bagdad.

The Iraqi government has shown itself to be completely incapable and unwilling to govern, and the insurgents literally walk the streets in daylight hours now. And above it all you make this staggering assertion that if the Iraqi government ever actually formed a government and took interest in governing, the Insurgents would sudeenly up and vanish? Where on earth do you get that wild assertion from? Has that EVER happened in human history? Is there ANY evidence at all it might happen now?

Attacks per day are on the increase, casualties among Iraqis are on the increase, and all you can do to oppse that is close your eyes and keep repeating 'we can't lose, we can't lose, we can't lose'. Are you wearing ruby slippers too?

The Iraqi military may never crush “all” insurgency but as I said crime will never end either. It will become insignificant.




The US controls the entire country? Really.
There are no camps for insurgents anywhere in Iraq? Really.
Whenever they attack, you slaughter them at will? Really.

Ok, if this is actually what you believe then I'm done here. I can't work with that. I presume you think the 2400+ US dead all died in unfortunate running-with-scisors accidents as well.


Yes, the National Review is SO much more unbiased and honest than CNN.

But even if we credit it, what's this 'good news' you keep saying needs to be heard?

"5 Kidnapped hostages were rescued"

"Over a thousand Iranians were arrested crossing the border"

"repairs on a municipal fire station were completed"


You are right Ted, those certainly are more newsworthy than the over 100 people killed in Iraq in the last 3 days, including 8 Americans and two Brits. You should write a letter to CNN expressing your ardent dismay that the repairs to a firestation were not given top news billing.

I wonder, is that firestation where the half trillion dollars the US has spent so far has gone? If so, I bet its got a nice paint job...

But while basking in the firestation-repair-triumph, you might pause to consider some of the bad news as well? Like the near anarchy in the streets, absense of law and order, daily attacks, mass killing, roving death squads, lack of any form of government presence to prevent any of the above, disillusionment of the Sunni and Shia with the system... that little stuff.

As usual the “good news” doesn’t interest you folks on the anti-Bush left. We are “losing pretty badly” whatever that means. Come on give me a break. The country is FREE and has had elections (with a participation rate higher than most industrial countries). Nothing getting done? Only if you have your eyes firmly shut – as you appear to. Do you think ANY war ever fought went better??? NAME ONE.

U.S. and Iraqi troops uncovered a massive weapons cache near Baghdad on Wednesday. The cache was largely made up of materials used to make IEDs:
…searched a house in New Baghdad and discovered 142 land mines, 58 blocks of C4 explosives, approximately 8,000 feet of detonation cord, 107 fuses, 22 rocket-propelled grenades, a launcher, 59 mortars, 40 pounds of mortar propellant, four shape charges, 43 blasting caps, explosive-formed projectile materials, two gas masks, six two-way radios, multiple mortar launching tubes, maps of Baghdad and Iraq, and anti-Iraqi force literature.
The story continues:

The discovery of weapons caches, often a result of a local's tip to Iraqi or American forces, occur nearly every day in Iraq, but the May 10 discovery was particularly large.
In a press conference this week, Major General Lynch noted that tips from Iraqis have increased significantly this year. During the first eleven days of May, Iraqis had phoned in more than 1,500 phone calls. Lynch said that 98 percent of the tips contain usable intelligence. The tips have been especially useful in the fight against al Qaeda and IEDs:
Improved intelligence and increasingly capable Iraqi security forces also led to the capture or killing of more than 161 senior leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq, as well as a marked decrease in effective improvised bombs. More than 50 percent of the bombs now are found and defused before they can kill, he said.

Among the schools getting makeovers was the Mustafa School, which serves 930 high school students in the morning and 430 elementary students in the afternoon.

The $290,000 project included 300 new interior lights, 55 ceiling fans, 11 window air conditioners, 300 square meters of new concrete playground surface, remodeling of restrooms, roof repair, raising the perimeter security wall one meter, repairing all broken glass and installing a steel mesh to protect all exterior windows, painting all interior and exterior walls, and supplying a new 80kva generator.
“It’s one of 13 public-school renovations in East Baghdad that we oversaw in the last year,” said Jeremy Way, project engineer with Gulf Region Central District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The head of Iraq’s central bank said this week the country was making progress in reforming the banking system:
He also said Iraq was on track in its financial reforms, including transformation of the banking system "from one depending on cash to a system depending on credit."
"By the end of the year God willing, our banks will have a developed payment system to carry out their settlements fast through accounts at the central banks," he said.
He also said Iraq’s foreign reserves now stand at $10 billion.
The American chamber of commerce third “Rebuild Iraq” conference ended this week on a high note for residents of Fallujah:
"Fallujah is a secure city and returning to a normal life and its soil is ready for investment". Delegates also heard from speakers of the huge resources available for utilization including 40,000 skilled and currently unemployed people in Fallujah and highlighted the many products that could be sold across Iraq and internationally including ceramics, stone and even a budding tourism sector.
MORE --http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjBhZTlkNmYzYTQzMTBhM2MxYWY0NTMxNGUwODhjZGI=

Awww....ain't that sweet? We've put $290K into a project to rebuild what we bombed the ever living snot out of. And we bombed them into oblivion to remove all those WMD from the area. Oh wait...I mean, break that link between Iraq and Al Qaida. Ooops...I mean, liberate all our Muslim friends who would do the same for us. Here's a typical response from someone in Sadr City:



Notice they don't say where this reconstruction took place because it would be instantly destroyed. Sadr City was destroyed by cluster bombs. Kids are still getting killed in alleyways because many cluster bombs did not explode. But look at the good news! Even if another kid gets blown to pieces, there is a reduction of unexploded ordinance....YIPPEE!!!!!!

Anti-Bush left? You should check your polls. The anti-Bush people now come from all sides of the political spectrum.

Give you a break? I have my eyes firmly shut? Are you serious?

The country is in turmoil and people are being pulled out of their homes by roving death squads. They are also being killed i the street at an alarming rate. But far worse than all that is the complete lack of any response from this government you keep touting.

Yes, they had free elections. Now when were those? Almost a year ago? because so far the elected party has yet to form a government, let alone take up any of the roles of responsibilities of government. Read today's Herald tribune: The Sunni population was aparently promised certain key positions in government in return for their participation, and now that they are not getting them large sections of them are repudiating the system.

I mean seriously here, look at the 'Good news' you keep touting. A school was rebuilt, repairs to a firehouse were completed. a MASSIVE stockpile of weapons and IED was discovered in the middle of the city. (Which is the perfect example of good news couched in very, very bad news)

Ok, thats your good news. I accept it. Please tell me what you make of some of the bad news.

-Over 20,000 US casualties to date, including 2450 deaths.
-Add to that 200 dead from coalition allies
-Estimates of Iraqi dead vary, from 30,000 to 50,000. Casualties about triple that number.
-Cost to the US of nearly half a trillion dollars, and rising.
-Over 70% of rebuilding contracts unfulfillable.
-Steady decrease in popularity of US presence in Iraq among Iraqis
-Death rate among Iraqi civilians increasing
-Number of attacks per day increasing

Should I continue?

So you tell me. Does the rebuilt school and repaired firehouse trump all that? But even all that could be considered 'worth it' I suppose if there were any real signs of progress on the ground. You keep telling me that I'm blind or whatever, well please show me progress. I don't mean your version of good news, I have no doubt some Iraqi kids held a soccer match yesterday. I mean signs the war may have an end. Signs the government is taking ANY control of the situation, Signs the insurgency is decreasing. In fact, in all of those cases signs point to exactly the opposite.

Like I said, the situation is not lost, but by any objectoive standard it is in the process of losing.

I mean who seriously believes the war is going well (apart from you?) The American people don't. The Iraqi people don't. So if I'm so blind, prove me wrong, show me good news that outweighs the bad news obvious to anyone who opens a paper.

Again you look only at the negatives. With your attitude we would have given up half way through every major war in history.
And to clarify what I said earlier numerous countries in the world could win this war in Iraq including CANADA, France, Germany, Russia, South Korea etc…….. All that is needed is the will to finish the job.

What is your solution???? Quit???

I am still angry that the UN didn’t do their job in 1998.

Iraq may get unity government on Saturday
By Mariam Karouny and Fredrik Dahl
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's parliament may vote on Saturday on a new government in which the country's main religious and ethnic groups will share power, officials said on Wednesday, signalling an end to months of political paralysis.

So what?

What do you expect? That a government is going to just magically appear?

Imagine the difficulties this government is going to have to overcome! It may take decades for peace and stability to return to Iraq and the USA is going to have to nurture that country the whole time because one thing is certain above all others. Even if the USA stops 'meddling' in Iraq, Iran most certainly won't.

Ted is making a pretty valid point in my opinion. Setting up a state in the chaos of Iraq is not easy and the only thing your (apparently) proposing is to give up which certainly won't do any one any good.

Stop repeating the same thing Ted, unless you intend to justify it. Are you disputing any of the facts I listed in my last post? Do you think the deaths of Americans and the expense of half a trillion dollars is somehow overemphasised, and not newsworthy?

I have asked for examples of the good news you feel outweighs the deaths and expense, and so far I have the repair of a firestation and the rebuilding of a public school. Actually, to be fair those are good news, and unusual at that since the vast majority of the US reconstruction contracts remain completely unfulfilled.

No the US would not have left every major war in history. Firstly, this war is a very rare example of a war in which the US was the aggressor, that includes only two other wars: The 1812 war (lost by the US) and Vietnam (lost by the US). But the complete unwillingness to see the bad news staring in the face of the obvious is what keeps the numbers of dollars and dead rising when no dollar value is in sight.

Todays Vietnam is seen in the US as a national tragedy, but at the time of withdrawal there were a lot of conservatives furious about the decision to leave, citing it as a national betrayal, and that all that was needed was the 'will to win'. Sound familiar? I'm willing you would have been furious about how the 'liberal press' was reporting only the 'bad news' from Vietnam, and not reporting on how the US had rebuilt a local waterway to help agriculture for a SV town.



Oh that's rich. Think back Ted, think Waaaaay back: what was the position of Canada, Germany and South Korea in the lead up to war? All three had made public statements saying they WOULD commit troops to Iraq under UN mandate. France while not being so supportive, had openly declared it would NOT veto any UN mandate. Furthermore, such a motion was in discussion and scheduled. But Bush Jr wanted to go to war so urgently he preempted the vote and attacked unilaterally.

Now the fault lies with Canada, Germany, South Korea and France because the US is failing in its post-war occupation?

Besides, at the moment Canada is busy commemorating one of its dead soldiers, and first woman fatality, who is being shipped home after being killed in Afghanistan two days ago, where Canada and several other nations took over front line duty from the US, so more American soldiers could be freed to move to Iraq.

But please, be sure to tell the Canadians that really, the worsening debacle in Iraq is really THEIR fault.



Is THAT the good news that you say outweigs the deaths and chaos, the fact that after almost a YEAR of paralysis, the Iraqi parliament might vote on a new government soon?

Well, lets hope it goes better than last week, when the fact that one of the delegates had a cellphone which rang with a traditional Shia song as its ringtone shut down the entire legeslative branch after it caused a fistfight between delegates and their armed bodyguards (They need armed personal bodyguards present during a sitting of government?) and the entire Suni delegation stormed out. Yes, things seem to be coming along just swimmingly.

Here is a bit of the 'bad news' for you. Between when the delegates stormed out and when they reconvened two days later: in that 1.5 day period there were 49 seperate attacks, 3 suicide bombings, 5 US soldiers killed, 1 UK soldier killed, dozens of Iraqis killed (number unreported) and over 60 bodies discovered left around Bagdad having been abducted, tortured and executed by roving death squads. That was just a somewhat worse than usual 36 hours.

But please, tell me more about all the 'Good news' I (and the 'liberal media') are ignoring which makes all that bad news go away.



Its getting to that point, yes. Set a deadline to the Iraqi 'government' such as it is for scaled troop withdrawal. So far they have made zero effort to stand up, and in the end standing up and governing such a fractious state may not be possible. I can't say that withdrawing will be the best thing for Iraq, I honestly do not know what would be the best for Iraq, and at this point given the terrible methodology with which the administration handled this whole affair, there may no longer BE a 'best case for Iraq'.

But let me turn the question back on you, since you maintain (against all evidence) that all that is needed is the 'will' to win. Exactly how much more money and US bodies are you willing to spend for this phantom 'will'? As some have said, in the grand scheme, 2400 US dead and total of 20,000 casualties isn't THAT much, are you happy to see that double for this 'will' you speak of? Perhaps if the total bill goes up to a full trillion, is that fine too? When people disagree will you just yell at them for 'focusing on the bad news'?

When you say 'just the will is needed', are you implying that the will is not currently there? That the military doesn't have the will? That the Bush Administration doesn't have the will? How's that 'will' been working for them? Exactly what tactical tools would you employ to harness this 'will' to salvage the situation? How can this 'will' replace the obvious and clear LACK of will of the Iraqi 'government' to govern?

How does this 'will' work Ted? How much will this 'will' cost? How long will this 'will' take to emerge victorious?

Do you think the insurgents are lacking in 'will'? They are blowing themselves up to kill Americans, how are you going to defeat their 'will'?


You know what, it is possible that opponents of the war (ie: most Americans now) focus on the masses of bad news, but thats better than the proponents who simply pretend there is no bad news at all.




A YEAR moif, they have not even named a cabinet yet, let alone made any effort to actually govern! What do I expect? I expected a lot more, and so should you.



I don't need to imagine the difficulties moif, anyone can see them, and they are vast. Three segments of society who hate each other, massacring each other in the streets, entire segments of the country that fall under the control of local militias and clerics with no care for the central government. Parts of the country which are transforming into islamicist conclaves with religious laws: women being subjugated in a nation where the women were once the most emancipated in the midle East. And Iraq police force that does not leave its barracks without US cover, and that takes no part in major combat operations even in joint actions. Two years ago we were told that out of 100 Iraqi batallions, only three were effective and combat ready. Six months ago Gneral John Abzaid stated that number had dropped to only one batallion. Since then reports have continued about mass desertions,, drop in recruitment, lack of equipment, and lack of Iraqi poitical will or capacity to reform the system. In the meantime, corruption has taken away money for the military, and the CIA estimates that as many as a fifth of all new recruits to the military have links to the insurgency.

I don't need to 'imagine' the problems moif, they are visible every day in the failures and the deaths. But then, thats just more of the 'bad news' you dismiss to easily in favour of repainting firehouses, right?



Nobody said setting up a new state would be easy.

Oops, thats not true at all, conservatives around the US thtee years ago were claiming left and right it would be easy, that the Iraqi people would welcome Americans with open arms, there would be little or no insurgency and all the rest of it.

But ignoring that, I am not claiming that setting up this new state should be easy, what I am stating is setting up this new state in the manner the US has planned for it along the lines the US have designed may simply be impossible, or at least imposible without a 'rebuilding post-war germany or Japan' level of commitment.

Heck, if the US started conscription, put its economy on a war footing and committed itself to two decades in Iraq, I'm almost POSITIVE they would succeed. Is that what you are suggesting?

No? Then pray tell, exactly what ARE you suggesting? Cause that staus quo is failing miserably. So whats the big plan then? Just gut it out, sing a few songs, ignore reality, and hope the next IED doesn't kill somebody you know?

Good posts, Vermillion. EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK (Qui habet aures audiendi audiat). The only issue I would take with your posts are your very conservative estimates of Iraqi casualties and your over emphasis on the failure of the Iraqi officials when the majority of the responsible is due to the bungled and misdirected American occupation policies and projects. I would recommend this Michael Schwartz Article for an alternative view.



And then we now have documented evidence of an Iraqi "Mai Lai" incident. This event was just better documented than other similar atrocities that were covered up with cover stories like those attempted with this incident. Of course all such ground actions pale when compared to the Iraqi civilian deaths attributable to the American air campaign which has been stepped up.

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell." See (Marines Deliberately Killed Iraqi Civilians).

A year doesn't surprise me though of course it is disapointing. Its more or less the sort of difficulties one might expect under such harsh conditions.


In effect what you are saying is that it can't be done. I don't believe adversity is an insurmountable obstacle and nor do I believe that any one has proven that Iraq cannot be tamed given time, patience and prudence.


I don't know what that means.

I'm not dismissing any bad news either. I'm merely asking you what your alternative is and what it would mean, both for the geo-political world and for the people in Iraq if America 'gave up'.


Well, I'm neither a conservative nor an American.

No body said it was going to be easy, except those who did.

On the other hand there was a whole bunch of people who said it was going to be hard. They've been hammering this message from day one and they've jumped on every possible tragedy to repeat and further emphasis their message. This is a recipe for defeat in itself. A nation which is divided when fighting a war is extremely vulnerable. So vulnerable in fact that war is not a credible option for such a state.

But the simple fact is, there are never any easy options. War is when you don't have any other choice and from the moment you've gone to war then anything but victory is a defeat.

Walking away or giving up, is not some neutral option devoid of consequence. It is a defeat.
It will be considered a defeat and used as such by the enemy to rally further attacks against the west.
The consequences of defeat in Iraq are so far reaching, both for us and for the Iraqi's that the war should never have been undertaken without guarantee's of considerable support within the fabric of Iraq's population.

That it was changes everything. From that point onwards, the option of giving up, of surrender, became null without the risk of consequences that would/will inevitably follow.


Agreed.


Yes. If that is what it takes then that is what they should do.

I don't think the Americans really understood what they were saying yes to when they re-elected GW Bush. I said at the time (...being such a far sighted sort of guy ...) that they had just validated everything that the USA had done in Iraq and I stand by that.

The only, credible way the USA can get out of Iraq is by electing a Democrat or other non republican government inthe next election, but even that is going to be perceived as a victory for botht he Iranians and the Jihadi's.

America's big mistake was in not fully understanding the public commitment they undertook when they invaded Iraq. By which I mean the United States undertook an obligation but its people didn't seem to understand that.

The good news is the dangerous lunatic with WMD sitting in the middle of ½ the world oil is out of office and on trial for just about everything. The good news is we control the country and they WILL be free and an ally regardless of how many “insurgents” blow themselves up. And the death toll and $$$ is a tiny fraction of WWII or Vietnam as I am sure you know.





Come on do you read the papers. The UN was never ever going to vote to use force in Iraq because France and Russia were not going to vote for it in the UN. We all know this so why not just get past it. IMO we should have waited up to another year and nailed them with the OFF scandal payoffs but we didn’t and the result is the same the UN did squat in 1998 and they were not about to do anything in 2003.




YES and no meaningful revolution ever happened without this kind of sacrifice.



I agree that we need to have an (internal) timetable and be pushing HARD on Iraqi forces to take over. This is happening to some extent thus the greater number of their troops killed in action etc. And its just about “the best thing for Iraq”. Like it or not this is a vital area for the US and the west. Pull out too quickly and Iran could end up with control at some level. We are too connected to the oil and Israel to just let this go down the drain. And the generals on the ground say we can win and I mean the ones THERE doing the fighting not the armchair people back here.

1- The dangerous lunatic with the WMD. Right. we've had this argument before Ted, this is the WMD he was going to use on Americans but when the time came didn't use on Americans even though they were invading his country and instead shipped off to one of his nation's worst and most hated enemies, Syria? Those WMD nobody has been able to find, and that now even White House Republicans are admitting their error about? Well, as I said, thats a topic for another (actually about 30 other) threads, so we'll call that point 'unresolved', shall we?

2- You control the country? Really, well then you might want to do something about the massacres, the roving death squads, the increasing insurgent attacks per day (Average Number of Insurgent Attacks per Day—May 2003: 10, June 2004: 52, May 2005: 70, March 2006: 76), the sectarian violence, the suicide bombings... Cause if the US controls the country, why exactly are they letting all this happen? Why also are they launching major assaults on entire towns and districts every few weeks, if they control the country? Or is it possible you don't know what you are talking about?

3- I love this argument: The Iraq war costs less than WWII, and Vietnam, so what’s the problem? Firstly, according to the Institute for Policy Studies: "Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. By comparison, the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam over the eight-year war was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation." So in fact this war is costing MORE than Vietnam.

As for WWII, that was a WORLD WAR in which the United States had conscription, had the entire country on a war economy rationing food, rubber, nylon, steel and, oh yeah, oil. Are you seriously and honestly defending the cost of Iraq because it cost less than the second world war?

4- So, back to the original point, the 'Good News' that the media should be reporting instead of all that money and deaths is that Hussein is no longer in power? Uh bad news for you Ted. I can understand how you missed this, it was such a small thing, but as I recall the planet's media MAY have devoted a couple column inches to Hussein being out of power already.

But, instead of mentioning another 11 US troops dies last weekend, or that revelations have come up that the vast majority of reconstruction contracts are unfulfilled, YOU would prefer that the weekend's headlines were:

'Hussein Still not in Power! (AP)
"Reports coming out of Iraq have confirmed today that Saddam Hussein and former leader of Iraq is still the former leader of Iraq. We are seeking independent coverage of this event, as one can never be too sure, but by all account on the ground, Hussein is still out of power. We go live to our Hussein watcher in Iraq, Phil?"
"Thanks Steven, yes I have just visited the houses of government here in Iraq and I can say I saw no sign that Iraq leader Hussein had returned to power. He is still, I repeat, still no longer in power in Iraq. Steven?"
"Thanks Phil. Well join us later for our late 'Saddam-out-of-power evening update, and tomorrow at the same time, when we will again try to ascertain the status of Saddam Hussein, will he be back in power tomorrow? Tune in and see..."



Buy you are hitting all the talking points today aren't you...

1- We don't all know this Ted, only you seems to know this. I just stated France had publicly declared they were not going to Veto any action against Iraq. They can vote against it all they like, without Veto, the resolution passes.

2- You mean the Oil-for-Food scandal which a US senate subcommittee on investigations determined 52% of which was US oil companies? The single largest beneficiary of which then turned around and donated the funds to Build Bush Jr's presidential library? You always seem to miss that point in your anti-France rants, that US companies took more of the kickbacks than any other nation on earth combined...

3- Besides, you just turned around and defeated your own point. Regardless of the veracity of your assorted unevienced allegations, Bush Jr deliberately ignored the UN and went it without them so how exactly to you justify turning around and blaming in your last post the same nations he deliberately ignored?



Ah, now I understand your logic.

Successful Revolutions have always required great sacrifice, therefore (In Tedland) since this war is demanding great sacrifice from the American people, it will be a successful revolution!

Bad news for you Ted, failed revolutions have tended to demand enormous sacrifice as well.



Yes, if only there was a man in power of Iraq who was strong enough to foil Iranian interests in the region, somebody preferably who ran a secular third-way kind of government in Iraq, not Shia or Sunni, which could keep the region divided and stable, and act as an effective brake on Iran...



Which generals on the ground exactly there Ted? Cause you have apparently been listening to different ones than the rest of the world. About a dozen retired US generals, including General Nash, the most decorated US general alive today, that the war is a badly planned failure and calling on Rumsfeld to resign.

Or perhaps you discount retired generals. So are you referring to Gen. John Abizaid, chief of US Central Command, who describes the situation as a 'slow deterioration due to the inability of Iraqi military units to perform internal security functions'?

Or Brig General Mark Kimmit, who describes Iraq as a 'long term problem requiring a substantial US presence for at least a decade to have a chance'?

Or General George Casey who has presented a specific, detailed plan for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq to the White House at least three times and been rejected every time?

I have no doubt there are occasional Generals saying it CAN be won, I have said the same thing myself. But all are calling for what they call the 'long war' to even have a chance. You never answered any of my questions Ted, how many lives and how much money is this mythical missing 'will' you speak of supposed to cost? And how exactly is 'will' supposed to succeed, given the advancing failure of the status quo?

You seem to have set the Bar at WWII, so are we to presume that you will only object when the Iraq war cost reaches that level, 418,500 dead and about 60 trillion dollars or so? Well, I certainly hope the Iraqis are grateful to you, Ted, what with your willingness to expend your nations fortune and so many of your nations young men for their sake...

Other than platitudes and wishful thinking and scenarios of modern Roman Legions turning Iraq into a waste land I haven't as yet heard a serious alternative to simply leaving as having a possible productive outcome. And that, itself, could unleash a host of problems. Perhaps we are stuck in a no-way-out situation and can only hang on hoping some international coalition will emerge to bail us out. Not under this administration I fear. As for the 3 state solution, just for starters Turkey simply won't allow an independent Kurdistan so that's a no go.

No one has yet commented on my second link which shows the extensive corruption in the transporting of oil with considerable amount being diverted to the accounts of the insurgents. How can massive amounts of funds be syphoned off to the enemy and we are supposed to overcome a resistance payed for by the American taxpayers? We're funding both sides or to put it more accurately many sides along with a large collection of just-in-it-for-the-money gangsters and corrupt government officials. According to Allawi insurgents "get 40-50 percent of all oil smuggling profits." Here from the link.


As far as a government of national unity that's kind of hard to bring about in a region of rampant ethnic cleansing. Check this out.
Iraq degenerates into ethnic cleansing

I agree the situation is bad, but I don't think leaving is an option until things get under control. This isn't new....Look at the problems they are STILL having in Kosovo, in spite of a longstanding UN presence. Look at the operations such as those in Haiti, the Balkans, East Timor, Somalia, and there is a picture of very few “liberal, democratic military peacekeeping operations” creating stable liberal democratic societies, WITH the participation of "international coalitions". In fact are there any? The Balkans is the only place that I can think of that even made legitimate forward steps in that direction. There is more or less peace in Bosnia and Kosovo at the moment because of strong military forces deployed there, but the ethnic tensions remain, and the style of democracy the international community wishes to establish is still a dream. And I might add that the population in that area is about one fifth that of Iraq.

This policy worked in Japan because we had the will to transplant our value system to that culture. They were Americanized, their own textbooks burned and ours took their place. We stayed for years and years with authority over them. We “Americanized” South Korea, too, but more slowly. Even so, look how long it took…they didn’t have a stable, truly representative government until about three decades after the cease-fire.

Frankly, I don’t see the comparison to Vietnam that many people seem to see. In Vietnam we were trying to prop up a government that was already in place and few liked. Furthermore, we faced a charismatic opponent that a lot of people liked, who would be the obvious leader choice when we left. There is nothing close to this in Iraq. The situation is infinitely closer to the one in the Balkans. Does anyone doubt that hostilities wouldn’t persist in Bosnia and Kosovo in the absence of external peace enforcement? Like in Korea, the employment of force inevitably saddled us with post-war obligations. We need to deal with it. For all of the short-term positives to leaving, there is the long-term reality of leaving a failed state in the middle of the Middle East, which likely will not be contained.

This is a list, in order, of what I think the primary purposes of any government should be:

1. Basic security for the people.
2. Basic human rights protections.
3. Basic human services for quality of life…electricity, running water, access to health care and potable water, food, ect.
4. Personal freedoms
5. Representation

Without the first three, or at least definitely the first two, the fifth is irrelevant and the fourth is impossible.

My first and foremost suggestion is controversial and won’t sit well with some, but I think it could work. The Iraqi government should hire mercenaries to protect their oil fields. They shouldn’t be interacting as a police force in people’s homes, I think that would be a bad idea for many reasons, but they could ease the pillaging of resources. Remember the situation in Sierra Leone…a few hundred Executive Outcomes people were able to chase the rebels out and bring them to the bargaining table in a month, something that thousands of UN forces couldn’t do in years, at about 3 percent of the cost. Then there won't be any Iraqi or coalition soldiers or family members taken captive by the thugs for performing this job.

Next, the government should issue a firearm to every male over the age of 18 and require them to own and know how to use it. They become the unorganized militia, and everyone will know that each home is armed and ready.

I don’t think the above two propositions are radical considering the fact that we have already basically resigned ourselves to militia control of certain areas. The situation is starting to resemble Yemen as it is….

Next, and no less important, get the electricity rolling. It is nearly summer, and the conditions in the desert will be absolutely inhumane without it. When the electricity is out, the population becomes enraged. Try living without a fan, let alone central air, when it’s over 100 degrees. We put a man on the moon, surely we can get the electricity going in Baghdad. In fact, every tax-funded desk job that involves planning for Iraq, but sits in Washington DC should have to move to homes in Baghdad. They don’t get air conditioning until the Iraqis do.

Finally, provisions requiring that Iraqis use US companies or material need to end, and the funds go directly to Iraqi firms.

That’s all I have for now…

I think those are great ideas Mrs P- better than this administration has even come close too- it is simply too incompetent to get a decent idea in it's head and go with it LOL- and your comments are close to what my cuz says over there, and another says in the Balkans- but- you are missing some key components.

1) The balkans don't have a very large and growing "insurgency" that don't mind dying for a cause, adn that hate Americans and our way of life to thier core. Eastern Europeans kinda like americans and stuff - well, a good chunk of them do anyway.

2) The total lack of will of the Iraqi "culture" (yes, I realize there are several, but this seems to be a common denominator)- a lack of will to do for themselves- in anything, and cultural bias about certain duties. Take basic thing like trash pick up- no Iraqi really wants to do it- and, my cuz says, they clean up a place, get something running, and by the next day, the area is trashed, and the stuff sabatoged. The cuz in the Balkans says that the various factions never did anything bad to thier own stuff if it didn't have strategic value to do it! Sure- go get the other guys stuff, but don't mess up your own!

Come on please. The “insurgents" know they LOSE when a new elected government takes over. What do you expect them to do? As far as killings and control of the country you need to realize, as I am sure you do, that nothing is absolute. We control New York yet we have thousands of crimes a day, including rape, murder, gang violence, etc. So I guess we should just give up all our cities to the criminals since we obviously cannot control them???

3. We lost an average of 200 men a WEEK in Vietnam. Iraq will never come close. And Iraq total $$ cannot be judged by one year as you know.




We DO know this.

Envoys admit taking oil payoffs
BY CHARLES BREMNER
France has distanced itself from two former ambassadors facing corruption charges

TWO former French ambassadors have admitted earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of oil that Iraq had assigned to them under the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme.
The disclosure tarnished France’s moral stand against the invasion of Iraq, and its Foreign Ministry scrambled to distance itself from the alleged illicit activities of Serge Boidevaix, a former director of the ministry, and of Jean-Bernard Mérimée, a former French Ambassador to the UN. Both are facing corruption charges.

Jean-Baptiste Mattei, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said: “There is no link . . . with the decision of France not to participate in the Iraq war. This stemmed from our concept of international law.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1824684,00.html

Ya right. No link my ....

We also know that the slimy French introduced a resolution in the UN in 1999 to drop all sanctions against Iraq so they could collect BILLIONS in oil contracts. So spare me the nonsense about France being innocent.


We need to win In Iraq and we will. Yes the UN should have done the job of dealing with Saddam but now we know how absolutely worthless this organization is and we need to move on.

Yes Ted. Downtown Bagdad is just as dangerous as New York City. Is this the point you were trying to make? That there is no difference between occupied Iraq and New York City? That anyone going to Bagdad would feel just as safe as if they were in New York City? Please explain to us if this is the point you were trying to make.

If it WASN'T, then please explain what on earth that reference had to do with anything. The city of Bagdad got New York's current annual number of death in SIX DAYS last week, including Iraqis and Foreign soldiers.

As for your initial point, "The insurgents know they lose when the government takes over", you are just (again) repeating the exact same assertions people have been calling you on for about three of your posts now. Reition of wild assertions does not equal evidence.

Firstly The insurgent lose when the government takes over. Out of curiosity Ted, could you do me the favour of pointing to ONE Insurgency on the planet in the history of mankind which up and surrendered when a government was elected in the nation in question? You speak with such absolute self confience on this point, it must be easy for you to come up with examples to demonstrate it. Well?

Secondly, even if your above obviously counterfactual assertion were true, it STILL depends on the New government being able to take over, and so far they have not even made an attempt to do so.

From today's Herald Tribune:

"The Iraqi police are a battered and dysfunctional force that has helped bring Iraq to the brink of civil war. Police units are accused of operating death squads for political groups, or simply for profit. Citizens, distrustful of the police, are setting up neighbourhood security squads. Killing of police officers is rampant, with at least 547 slain this year alone. (...) Not only is the police force inept and rife with corruption but fractious tribal, sectarian and criminal groups are competing to control it."

So Once AGAIN I am forced to ask you, do you have any actual evidence to back up your jingoistic assertions?



So, this will be a success as long as we keep the casualties below 200 people a week? I asked you this before. Since you seem to have no care for the half trillion spent and 20,000 casualties, exactly what is the price you are willing to pay in the lives and treasure of your countrymen for your phantom 'will'?

Oh and by the way, as an aside, your facts are quite wrong. The worst month for the US in Vietnam was April 1969 when the US lost 543 people, well short of 200 per week.

As for cost, you are correct we cannot determine costs from one year, so we look at trends, and the cost of the war has been incresing every single year. Last year the cost was annually more than Vietnam, and so far this year the cost has been higher than last year. Again, do you have any actual evidence to support your point?






Firstly To be clear, the 'evidence' you present is a news article referring to two individuals in the Oil for food scandal (both of whom have been charged under French law), also stating their corruption had nothing to do with national politics... Then following your article you give us your opinion that you disagree with it.

I am forced to repeat myself again. Repeating the same assertions again and again does not constitute evidence.

Besides, once again you seemingly forget that the nation embroiled in oil-for-food more than every other nation on the planet was the United States... Do inconvenient 'facts' like that get in the way of your insulting the 'slimy French'?

Secondly This is completely irrelevant. I never once claimed the French were 'innocent', I stated that they had promised not to VETO military action. Fine they might have voted against the bill, but Unless the UN is only composed of one country, then France voting against it would have no effect at all. Thats how voting works. You ignored that, just as you ignored the point of Bush deliberatly shunning the UN to go on his own, and you now blaming UN nations for 'not carrying their weight'.



TED. Repeating an assertion again and again and again does not constitute evidence. The UN was never given a chance to work because Bush Jr deliberately circumvented it. Who knows how things would have turned out, but Bush torpedoing the UN to rush off to his personal badly-planned war is not good evidence of the character of the UN. It is however, fairly good evidence of the character of Bush jr.

And as for the character of those who now turn around and blame the UN for Bush Jr. torpedoing it, well...

I have difficulty debating the situation in Iraq when it is such an obvious failure particularly when we are contemplating compounding the carnage by bombing Iran. Nevertheless, I couldn't resist pointing out that our military is actually recruiting street gang members and sending them to Iraq, so maybe the comparison of the streets of New York with the streets of Bagdad has some justification.