[Jane of Arc]

Why are we STILL in Iraq?

1. Iraq has WMD. 'A mushroom cloud could appear over the US,' said Condie Rice.
2. We are bringing them freedom.
3. We are fighting 'terrorism.'
4. We can't leave during a civil war.

This is all crap. The reason we are in Iraq is to dominate the fourth largest oil reserve on the planet and to enrich multi-national corporations. The Iraqi 'government' just passed a recent law to give the large oil corporations rights to pump Iraqi oil. And the world's largest American embassy city and quite a few military bases aren't complete.

That's when the Evil Emperor Bush will allow our troops to go home.

I have no respect for the leadership of the Democratic Party. None. Harry Reid will go along with Bush's call for more troops. (Wish we had real elections, so The People could clean house.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061217/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

No more death for oil.

No more death for corporate growth.

No more death for world domination.

The American People want us out now. The Iraqi People want us out now. Sixty-one percent of the Iraqi people polled said it was okay to kill Americans.

We must get out of Iraq now!

[JamesP]

Jane,

You are, as usual, correct about what the right course and, as usual, given the past 6 years, there is no possibility that we'll take it.

- Condie Rice is a disgrace

- The idea that the Bush administration cares anything about "freedom" is absurd (freedom for corporations, yes, freedom for the powerful to exploit the weak, yes, freedom for common people: NO)

- Terrorism has been an "enabler" for the Bush administration. They've come to rely on it as a "cover" and "justification" for policies aimed at further empowerment of the powerful, enrichment of the rich.

- Civil war? There is no civil war.... just grave threats, scary terrorists and the need to spend more lives and dollars in pursuit of "Big Oil" interests in the gulf.

[Palpatine77]

I hate to have to say this, but at this point we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Iraq has collapsed into Civil War because George Bush decided to invade it, but didn't have any plans for it beyond displaying a kick-ass banner stating "Mission Accomplished".

It's like Colin Powell stated way back in 2002 about invading Iraq. If we break it, we bought it. What he meant is, if Iraq collapses into civil war/sectarian violence between the Sunni's and Shiites, it's our responsibilty. But, at this point, if we stay we're part of the problem, and if we leave the country just collapses deeper into all-out Civil War. It's happening anyway, except without our presence it just happens quicker. Like I said, Damned if we do, Damned if we don't. Talk about a quagmire.

[FDRfollower]

I'd like to find out from Cheney himself (maybe with a little torture) if they deliberately fostered Shia vs. Sunni violence. Remember the two British soldiers who were dressed up as Arabs shooting police stations? It wouldn't be too hard considering.

Heck, Cheney was in Saudi Arabia promoting an Israeli/Sunni alliance against Iran.

[FDRfollower]

Well well well, guess who's going to be on CSPAN tomorrow at 11 am promoting the neo-con "surge" to turn 50,000 more young people into targets.

Yes, you guessed it. The terror twins, John McCain and Joe Lieberman!! Those silly guys. Civil war in Iraq isn't enough. No. Iran deserves to join in the chaos too! Bombs away!!

Oh, as a side note, Joe has been blabbing that the reason for sending the 50,000 extra kids, is so that we can attack Iran. What a guy.

[Jane of Arc]

And will the new Democratic Congress approve the action of sending 50,000 more kids off to die? Will they continue to fund this war? Will they continue to be enablers? If they pulled the plug on the funds for this war ... the war would slowly grind down to a halt.

But even though Pelosi says she's against the war and calls it every name in the book ... a disgrace, horrific, an abomination, illegal ... she will still fund it. She is a pragmatic politician first, rather than an idealogue, who wants to keep Democratic control and her new position. She wants to see Democrats win in 2008.

But will her 'straddling the fence', 'talking out of 2 sides of her mouth' stradegy work?

Will the American people still want Democrats in power in 2008 if they don't get us out of this war?

Look at the new boss ... same as the old boss.

[FDRfollower]

I saw this on the www.truthout.org site and got a terrific laugh out of the, umm, graphic ;) way Robert Dreyfuss describes the neo-cons war plans.

Dreyfuss editorial (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010407E.shtml)

[JamesP]

Fareed Zakaria's latest article in Newsweek can be summarized as follows:

- In a long list characterized by blunders, errors, mis-calculations and mis-judgements on Iraq, the only thing that the Bush administration was right about was the idea that a thriving Democracy there after Saddam would have been a pivotal event for the middle-east.

- The opportunity to make this happen, however, has been squandered by the Bush administration and Iraq now is a symbol for the Arab world of the "dangers of Democracy". Despotic regimes have been strengthened in the Middle-east by the mess in Iraq.

- America should dis-engage as quickly as possible from Iraq and try somehow to separate the Iraq experience from the "still great idea" of bringing pluralistic Democracies to the mid-east.

So, it seems, the Bush administration has dealt a near-lethal blow to "democracy in the middle-east", killed and maimed tens of thousands in the process, destroyed American credibility in the world and nearly broken the budget.

So, what else is new?

Oh, yes, of course........ the coming "surge".

[JamesP]

I saw a bumper sticker today.

It said:

"God bless everyone
- no exceptions."

and on the car underneath it was one of those yellow ribbons, but this one said:

"Bring 'em home"

Can you imagine.... right out in public... in George Bush's America.

It took my breath away.

[Mr. Anderson]

The rest of the world gets the war in Iraq. Why don't all Americans?

The rest of the world knows what Bush is and what he and his administration are doing in Iraq. Why don't all Americans?

The rest of the world knows it's all about the money, the oil, the power and spreading havoc like building permanant bases that enrages the population, which creates more hatred, which creates more conflict, which creates more war, which creates more money.

Why don't Americans see that Iraq is all about stealing American taxpayer's money? And borrowing trillions that unborn Americans will have to pay off in the future? Meanwhile the richest people on the planet keep stealing and getting richer, stealing and getting richer and stealing and getting richer.

If the Democrats don't stop this now that they have the power to do so ... you know they are in on it some how, some way.

Get out of Iraq now!

[Jane of Arc]

Please co-sponsor a bill and sign Russ Feingold's petition to redeploy our tropps from Iraq:

http://ga1.org/campaign/iraq0107?rk=FdeqNjK1XmrLW

"With terrorist activities increasing around the globe, it is imperative to our security that we do not continue the one nation foreign policy of this administration. It is time Congress uses its "power of the purse" to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. To that end, Senator Feingold has introduced legislation that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq in six months. Please sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of this legislation if you agree that we need Congress to act, and redeploy our troops out of Iraq."

[JamesP]

Excerpt from Newsweek Article

March 16, 2007 - “Do you hate America?” I asked Huda Ahmed, an Iraqi journalist who is a visiting fellow with the International Women’s Media Foundation “Yes,” she said without hesitation. “I hate your government, and I hate your military, but not your people. If you visited Iraq, we would welcome you.” She didn’t hate the military right away, she explained. That sentiment only crept in after the scandals—the pictures from Abu Ghraib, the houses bombed indiscriminately, the killing of innocent people. Her hostility toward the U.S. government took root much earlier, after the first gulf war when Saddam was left in place, then through more than a dozen years of punishing sanctions. “They hurt the people; they didn’t hurt Saddam,” she says, recalling the hardship. Families of five or six people would share one egg, each getting a bite. Medicines were so hard to come by that corruption took hold; you had to bribe the nurse before she would give a life-saving injection, Ahmed said.

...there were tensions, but nothing like what she sees today. “Maybe they didn’t want their children to marry (outside the faith), but they weren’t killing each other.” The sectarian divisions were ignited and inflamed by the U.S. invasion and its messy aftermath.

Asked to identify the three biggest mistakes of the war, she easily rattles them off. Leaving the borders open so foreign fighters could come across at will; disbanding the Iraqi Army so soldiers had to beg for food (“the Iraqis are a dignified people,” she adds), and firing the Baathists, who ran the ministries. Without the Baathists, the ministries collapsed, and the Iraqi people lost basic services. Going without electricity for all but two hours a day is still a commonplace in Iraq, she says. “I don’t know what’s going to be left,” she says. “This is a country of two rivers—the Euphrates and the Tigris. If you saw them today, you will cry. There are bushes in the middle.” The two rivers flow from Turkey through Iraq, and the mud that accumulates must be dredged out. It’s one of the many things that have been neglected. “Nothing is rebuilt—no sewers, no electricity,” she says. “Where did all the money go? Your companies have sucked all the money.”

[Jumpin Jupiter]

Please co-sponsor a bill and sign Russ Feingold's petition to redeploy our tropps from Iraq:

http://ga1.org/campaign/iraq0107?rk=FdeqNjK1XmrLW

"With terrorist activities increasing around the globe, it is imperative to our security that we do not continue the one nation foreign policy of this administration. It is time Congress uses its "power of the purse" to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. To that end, Senator Feingold has introduced legislation that would require the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq in six months. Please sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of this legislation if you agree that we need Congress to act, and redeploy our troops out of Iraq."


Sorry Jane, signing that wont work either. Congress cant do anything to stop Bush. He is the CIC of the military. He decides how and where the military goes. Congress already gave him the authority, now they cant take it back, no matter how much they try. (unfortunately).

Part of the problem with the Iraq situation is the politicians are running the show, both R&D. Bush has no idea what he is doing, but none of the other politicians do either. Our military people are the ones paying the price for this.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

We, the people have the right and the obligation to say NO to this illegal war in Iraq! Thank you, Jane, I just signed the petition. IMPEACH BUSH & CHANEY NOW!

[Jane of Arc]

MoveOn.org should be called "MoveBackwards.org" when it comes to the Iraq War.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/5865



JJ ~ Public pressure is what brought about the end to another crappy, illegal, useless, horrific war that needlessly tortured, maimed and killed 50,000 of our troops and needlessly killed over 3 million Vietnamese. What good came out of that war? Anything? What good is coming out of the Iraq War? Anything?

I know the majority of our troops don't want to be there. They know it's bogus. They're just watching each other's back so they can get the hell out of there alive ... hopefully without a dead heart and a dead mind and a nervous system that can somewhat function again someday.

[Jane of Arc]

Published on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
White Hot Rage
by Cindy Sheehan

I have long suspected that Blackwater Security and L. Paul Bremer (what’s his nickname? Scooter? Pookie?) were responsible for the insurgency in Iraq and subsequently the death of my son, Casey. I am reading Jeremy Scahill’s new book: Blackwater and it is doing nothing to decrease my suspicions, only confirm them.

Bremer arrived in Iraq in 2003 to oversee reconstruction and the occupation as the Assistant Fuhrer to BushCo and the war profiteers. He surrounded himself with a virtual small army ("Praetorian Guard", as Scahill calls them) of Blackwater security personnel; two helicopters; armored humvees; and armored SUVs. He traveled from place to place heavily guarded, as a hated, marked man, while Casey (a motor pool driver and mechanic) was sent to do battle in the back of a wide open trailer.

Bremer’s devastating “Orders” disbanding the Republican Guard…causing 400,000 former armed soldiers to hate and target the US; he began de-Baathification which let go myriads of professionals who could help with putting the Bush-torn country back together and the mere fact he slunk out of the country, secretly, under the cover of darkness with almost 9 billion reconstruction dollars missing only increased Iraqi hatred of Americans.

I am outraged that Congress expediently buys into Bush’s evil rhetoric that voting to cut off the funding will not be supporting the troops! THE TROOPS AREN’T GETTING THE MONEY! Blackwater security agents make more in two days in Iraq than our troops do in a month. Blackwater security agents are better equipped and armored than our troops. Our troops are dying guarding pipelines and Halliburton convoys.

whole article: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0321-32.htm

[Wafflepudding]

So according to you Jane, the solution is to shirk the responsability we picked up when we invaded. Leave the country and everything will fix itself? It doesn't make sense, and here's why:

There's a civil war going on in Iraq, a war we are responsable for. Breaking the country and then leaving it to burn is unethical and immoral, and it will cost more lives and human suffering in the long run. It is possible (but highly improbable) that as soon as the army goes, most Iraqi insurgents will put down their weapons and live in peace. The sectarian death squads WILL NOT. What is your solution to this problem?

If we get out now, Iraq might become a fundamentalist Islamic state, an Iranian puppet state, or another hellhole like Somalia. Is this acceptable to you?

In any of these outcomes, our oil-hungry economy will be deprived of Iraqi oil for the next decade or two at the least. You can complain about "blood for oil" all you want, it won't make a difference when the costs of transportation, energy and probably everything else rises and the economy stagnates or crashes like it happened during the energy crisis during the 70's. Developing a sustainable economy, althought a great solution, is not a short or mid term solution, it might take half a century. What is your solution to this? Drill in Alaska? Buy more oil from the Saudis(who ARE associated to terrorists)?

Considering this administration sent the troops to fight in thin-skinned humvees, unreliable M4 carbines, old M16A2s, 20 year old PASGT vests and defective body armor (when they were even issued armor), what makes you think if congress cuts the funding they won't pass these cuts down the ladder to the average infantryman on the ground?

As an addendum. Blackwater security agents are far less expensive to deploy, per unit, than any army private. They are also cheaper politically, the government doesn't tally their casualties and it doesn't have to.

Blackwater agents are armed with the same kind of assault rifles (M16's, M4 carbines) that the army uses. They do not use M249 machineguns, they do not have close air support by gunships, apaches, or fighter jets, they do not have Bradley IFVs or M1 tanks. They use level 3 and 5 ballistic vests while infantry uses Interceptor body armor. How is this "better equipped and armored"?

Also, troops are supposed to guard infrastructure and reconstruction personnel, would you rather have them goof off while the insurgents behead American technicians?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

wafflepudding, you say it would be immoral for the Unitied States to leave Iraq because of all the bad and awful things that would happen in Iraq if the U.S. did leave.

1) The United States' war in Iraq is illegal under international law.

2) Torture by the United States anywhere in the world is illegal under international law, not withstanding the Bush administration's non-enemy combatant status arguements, especially in Iraq itself for the reason stated in "1)" above.

Then there is Blackwater and former Haliburton Subsidiary, Kellog, Brown & Root (KBR), etc.

Name that gun:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/125621.shtml

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/inside_the_bell.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/scahill_ordower

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201435.html

http://www.rense.com/general46/hal.html

http://thehill.com/bookshelf/how-to-outsource-foreign-policy-2007-03-28.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

and what about the future of American civil liberties?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Blackwater_USA

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml

http://iraqforsale.org/diaries/2006/08/blackwater_runs_red.php

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=9601



April 15th, 2007 8:15 pm

The Story of an Ordinary Soldier Who Walked Away From the War in Iraq

By John Freeman / Louisville Courier-Journal

"Just a decade ago," Key begins, "I was playing high school football, living in a trailer with my mom and stepdad, working at Kentucky Fried Chicken, and hoping to raise a family one day . . ."

In 2002 -- in his early 20s, with his wife pregnant with their third child -- he enlisted in the Army in what he falsely was told would be a noncombat unit.

In boot camp, as Key relates it, he and his fellow soldiers are taught to call Iraqis derogatory names. In the field, they're encouraged to ransack at will.

His battalion is stationed in Ramadi, searching one to four houses a night. When nothing incriminating is found, they destroy, or they steal: gold, money, weapons, a TV. All the men in the houses they search are taken away -- where, Key doesn't know.

Key describes other, more malignant scenarios: At checkpoints, he and others take out their frustration on civilians, who are beaten or killed and left to rot in the sun. In one grisly scene, spooked soldiers butcher a group of civilians and then play soccer with their heads.

Key describes without judging -- so the reader experiences along with him his journey toward rejecting the military.

Key went AWOL while on home leave in December 2003 after being in Iraq for about six months. As an account of what that life is like, "The Deserter's Tale" holds few surprises. But as a chronicle of the experiences that led one soldier to this irrevocable step, Key's is a grim and necessary book.

Abu Ghraib Prison (journalism and photos):

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/16/abu_ghraib/index.html

Use energy alternatives:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



Ted: "Our government" is a dicey way to describe it. This is really a coupling of private industry and the military. So it's technically our government — but in reality, our elected government doesn't know what's going on. Because of defense-related issues, this sort of information is the closest kept secret there is, perhaps even more secret than the UFO issue itself.

Wynn: Is there documentation as to this reverse engineering.

Ted: Yes. Multiple witnesses talk about this in the Disclosure Book. These are guys who are captains of the Air Force and members of the NRO, plus Boeing scientists and other private scientists.

So the paper I wrote was a compilation of what these various witnesses were saying. Then I went to what the scientific literature has been doing over the last fifteen years and investigated the coupling of quantum mechanics and the zero-point energy field. Physicists are starting to look at the relationship between gravity, inertia, energy fields and EMF (radio wave) fields. They're starting to couple these things together and are finding they are all related.

If you take the research going on in the hard-core physics area together with what these scientists are saying and what Thomas Townsend-Brown was saying fifty years ago, the story emerges that not only is antigravity real, but — based on reverse engineering and our own science — we've figured it out and have created working antigravity craft.

In its conclusions, my paper dealt with the implications of this knowledge — because it's starting to leak out.

In summary, there is a change in the way we teach physics, in the way we do science, in how we go to space, and in the implications of antigravity research coupled with zero-point energy technologies. Extracting energy from the vacuum means we have a whole new way of doing things.

The depressing thing is that for forty years we could have been transporting people without using fossil fuels to push 100-year-old technology around the sky. For forty years, we have had antigravity technologies that would supersede Boeing's air buses and all of the other aircraft that are polluting our environment, using up fossil fuels, creating global warming, and contaminating and polluting the upper atmosphere and stratosphere.

[Jane of Arc]

Pudding,

Imagine that Iraq invaded the United States and occupied it for years bringing about hundreds of thousands of American deaths, hundreds of thousands of misplaced Americans fleeing to Canada and Mexico; unbearable poverty and civil war. Try to imagine an America with Iraqi soldiers kicking down the door to your home and dropping bombs on New York, Dallas, Miami and occupying Washington. Try to imagine Iraqi's torturing American citizens who've done nothing wrong ... torturing people you know, maybe a relative or maybe torturing you. Try to imagine death everywhere. You've never seen so much death and destruction. Try to imagine constant hunger, dirty water to drink and a festering wound that won't heal. Try to imagine living in hell on earth. Would you want the Iraqi occupation to continue and continue and 'help' America?

The whole world tells the Iraq government to leave America. Even the majority of Iraqi citizens know it's wrong and protest the Iraqi government. Would you want Iraq to sit on America? Would you want Iraq to build permanent Iraqi military bases on American soil? Would you want Iraq to drain and control American resources for decades? Or would you want an international group of nations to pull Iraq off our backs and provide peacekeeping forces to help us back on our feet. We would probably prefer English speaking peacekeeping forces who were our allies after being brutalized by an Islamic nation.


The fact that you can state the following speaks volumes, Pudding. You really have to re-think this arrogant, imperialistic statement:

In any of these outcomes, our oil-hungry economy will be deprived of Iraqi oil for the next decade or two at the least. You can complain about "blood for oil" all you want, it won't make a difference when the costs of transportation, energy and probably everything else rises and the economy stagnates or crashes like it happened during the energy crisis during the 70's. Developing a sustainable economy, althought a great solution, is not a short or mid term solution, it might take half a century. What is your solution to this? Drill in Alaska? Buy more oil from the Saudis(who ARE associated to terrorists)?
Are Americans thieves? That is NOT our oil. It belongs to the Iraqi people! We have no right to their oil. NONE..

Try to imagine that the US put just a fraction of the BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS we've squandered on destroying Iraq with weapons, bombs and no-bid contracts to Halliburton, on good things for the Iraqi people like schools, new jobs, infrastucture, clean water, medicine, etc. Would they like us a little better? You bet they would.

[Wafflepudding]

You're all preaching to the choir. The Invasion of Iraq was illegal and unjustified, based on forged evidence, wild speculation and manipulation and deception of the American public, with the goal of fattening the pockets of the elite behind Bush. Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, have died so far, many as a direct result of the occupation and invasion, many more as a result of the humanitarian crisis that came afterwards. This administration has consistently tried to erode civil liberties, dissidency and common sense, and silence or discredit it's opposition. Blackwater is a private army (like any other PMC, like executive outcomes), mercenaries, mostly being hired because they have links to this administration, and the political cost of losing a mercenary is much lower than losing an infantryman, they don't even have to report it, much less give him benefits or bury him. The war on Iraq is morally wrong (more than you could state in a 6000 word post), illegal (for obvious reasons) and it's taking a heavy toll on the army, on our economy, and especially on the Iraqi people. Nobody but the Iraqi peoples (Shia, Sunni and Kurds) has the right to the oil in Iraq. The torture, the attacks on the Iraqi people, and the arbitrarian detentions MUST STOP NOW. Nobody but the most closed-minded yesmen can deny all of this.

The point I'm trying to get across here is, we screwed up, we screwed up royally, and we screwed up even BEFORE the start. What are we gonna do about it now? and what's going to happen if we up and leave right now?

There are gonna be costs to staying there and there's gonna be a price for leaving. We need to look at BOTH of the costs, and so far this is a very one-sided picture.

The fact that you can state the following speaks volumes, Pudding. You really have to re-think this arrogant, imperialistic statement:

The fact that you totally ignored or failed to respond to my questions also speaks volumes to me.

I never said we had a right to that oil, I'm saying we have a NEED for that oil, and I never said the solution was to take it by force. The IDEAL solution is to buy it at fair prices and economize on its use. This WILL NOT BE DONE IN OUR LIFETIME, and as ethically and morally flawless as this reasoning is, it doesn't solve the very real and practical problem that I'm trying to expose.

If we "stay the course" strictly like Bush is saying and doing things exactly as we are now, we'll be stuck there a really long time for the benefit of the elite, I'm completely against this.

If we up and leave, the country will collapse, the regime in place is OUR puppet regime and, if Vietnam is any clue, will fall faster than Saigon. What will be the cost of this economically, politically and in lives and human suffering? Because this will not be the panacea you're trying to pitch here. Whether we leave or stay, it's gonna get worse, MUCH worse, before it gets any better.

So what I'm saying we should do is start judging and convicting the war criminals in OUR side, change army doctrinem, impeach Bush and get Blackwater out of there, and try to fix the damage we've done so far, and stay until the Iraqi government is stable enough. Considering we broke the last functional government they had, it's the LEAST we can do.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

wafflepudding, the new Iraqi constitution, among many other things harmful to the Iraqi people, outlaws unions, sets the framework for American style bank loan usery and insurance company run healthcare delivery NOT to speak of the outright theft of Iraqi people's oil wealth that is set up to go to the neo-cons, providing them with even greater world money and power to continue their plunder of this world's peoples everywhere there are valuable resources. What the new American backed Iraqi constitution really does is "profit" the neo-cons, the New World Order, at the expense of the people NOT unlike what's happening right here in the good ole' U.S. of A. No, the neo-cons must be defeated everywhere. Out of Iraq NOW! Out of American governance NOW! Down with the secret government, secret societies and the New World Order NOW! IMPEACH Bush and Cheney NOW and bring them and their right wing, neo-con administration to justice NOW! Not even a neo-con foothold must be permitted. Re-establish IMMEDIATELY the full force and effect of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights! NO economic, political, legal, police and military fascism is Iraq! No fascism in America!

Step back and envision an entirely different world from any people of Earth have ever known. What does it look like? How does it operate? How does it feel?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Oh, I forgot to post The Spirit of Maat interview link from which I quoted Theodore Loder, Ph.D. concerning alternative energy:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/mar3/loder.htm

[Wafflepudding]

We've already established the invasion of Iraq is wrong, has been carried out for the profit of a small clique, and is nothing but a capitalist sham. What exactly are you trying to prove?

I will gladly answer that question when you give me the parameters, I could visualize hundreds of different worlds (you don't even know MY worldview). Will you ever bother to answer MY questions?

[Jane of Arc]

Pudding,

I like the fact that you've thought so hard on this and come across very passionate about your beliefs, but the list of feats is WAY too much for the slow, grinding wheels of a corrupt Congress to accomplish even if they wanted to. Which they don't. Look at the things you list:

So what I'm saying we should do is start judging and convicting the war criminals in OUR side, change army doctrinem, impeach Bush and get Blackwater out of there, and try to fix the damage we've done so far, and stay until the Iraqi government is stable enough. Considering we broke the last functional government they had, it's the LEAST we can do.

If you read my scenario of Iraq invading the US, I was providing you with a solution. The US must leave Iraq and a peacekeeping, Islamic or regional faction organized by the UN must go in. And the United States must pay even more from our pockets and our children's pocket to repair the terrible damage our nation has wrought. It's very possible our country may collapse from the Bush & NeoCon fiascos. A lesson needed to be learned?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

The parameters are the search for what is possible, imagination and spirituality, wafflepudding. I'm not trying to prove. I am NOT at cause. The facts are established by the evidence for everyone to see IF they look objectively.

[Wafflepudding]

Jane: Good point. Making congress work properly is OUR responsability as citizens, and what this whole experience should teach us (if nothing else) is that democracy and good governance are a process (Okay two but you get the idea), not a goal. That's the purpose of accountability, free speech and press. This is where I agree that the country, as a whole, is responsible. While many fingers have been pointed at the executive branch, VERY few people have said anything about congress. And as long as congress is as you describe it, we are not going anywhere soon, neocons or neolibs (fake liberals), it makes no difference.

Now the problem I see with the UN is that you're handing a war over to a neutered NGO. Yes, I know it's neutered in no small part due to American influence, but America's not the only power in the security council, and not the only party bickering when taking action is necesary (or taking action unilaterally instead of using diplomacy).
Remember what happened during the Rwandan genocide? it was an unpopular operation nobody wanted to participate in and, well, look at what happened. Iraq is also a bloody quagmire nobody wants to participate in (as evidenced by the increasing number of nations pulling out of the coalition).

America should pay, yes, but the reconstruction should be delegated to local contractors to stimulate the Iraqi economy, they should be supervised by army engineers to make sure the funds are not being diverted (they could provide technical advice as well) and this information should be public to everyone who requests it. This of course could not be done if we pull out all the troops.

I don't think paying more from our pockets is necessary, we could be doing a lot more for the same amount of money if the contracts weren't inflated (and they ARE astronomically inflated). I already said it up there but it cannot be stressed enough, All contracts with corporations linked somehow to the neocons, the Bush administration or its allies MUST BE TERMINATED. Lets hit them where it hurts, in their wallets.


Either way, the US being a permanent security council member, we're bound to stay there for a long time. So perhaps there could be a compromise: Most of the security for civilians and non-priority targets handled by a middle eastern UN force and government buildings and key infrastructure (Power plants, hospitals and other essentials, not oil and gas infrastructure) still guarded by American troops. And they should be marines because they've got more experience in policing operations, not the army and much less the national guard. Keen oversight and transparency would be the key.

The reason I prefer this option is because, if America does it (assuming we wrestle back the country from the assholes running it right now), we have some say in how this will be done. If the UN does it this will be subjected to even more bureaucracy, lenghty bickering, slow responses to changes in the situation and the operation will be subject to the whims of the members of the security council and the coalition. It is VERY HARD to make progress right now, it will be even harder if we bring in more people, also with their own agenda, into the process, and at least now we could have some say in what goes on, we just need to start excercising our rights and demand full acountability, no more Fox nation.

If I had it my way, the world wouldn't need governments. At least not as we know them now anyway. We could work together when collective efforts were needed and leave each other well alone to live our lives in peace. But I don't think that's possible because there's always gonna be a few, that will try to manipulate the many for thier own ends, and they will at least ocassionally, succeed. The best we can do is keep it to a bare minimum and remain always vigilant.

Jennifer: Exactly my point, it's evident the war is everything you said and more, but two wrongs don't make a right, and just pulling the plug on everything with death squads, armed sectarian militias, a fragile corrupt government and (lets face it, there are some) terrorists roaming about on Iraq will temporarily staunch the American lives lost, but not make things any better for them, or for us on the long run.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Wafflepudding, as I see it, the choice is Neo-Con control or Iraqi control in Iraq. The so called democratic government that Neo-Cons have set up in Iraq is NOT in the interest of the Iraqi people or in the interest of the American people as it gets the Neo-Cons what they went there for in the first place and it encourages the furtherance of their goals for world domination under the guise of "terrorism." Either way, Neo-Con control or Iraqi control, there will be blood shed. It will sort itself out sooner with America gone from there , I believe, as competing internal Iraqi factions settle out with the help of other middle eastern countries and European nations interested in peace.

America, OUT OF IRAQ NOW and apologize to the world for the part America has played in bringing GREAT EVIL onto the world!

[Thelonious]

....The Invasion of Iraq was illegal and unjustified, based on forged evidence, wild speculation and manipulation and deception of the American public, with the goal of fattening the pockets of the elite behind Bush. .....

Waffle,

I agree with you on almost everything. BUT I have a huge pet peeve with the phrase "illegal war" or "illegal invasion".

WHO CARES !!!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!???????

If it causes the death, maiming, slaughter, disease and suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, IT DOESN'T MATTER what some people's ideas about international law are.
If it prevents the death, maiming, slaughter, disease and suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, IT DOESN'T MATTER what some people's ideas about international law are.
There are many things that are morally right and legally wrong. and vice versa. The world "Illegal" is completely meaningless here.

(in the days before the war, guys like Chirac were spouting that Dubya can't start a war because it's illegal. i was stunned. "is that the best argument the anti-war people have?" i thought. Chirac must be a bit looney. After all, which wars have been "legal"??? The first gulf war? the Falklands? the Iran-Iraq war? the congolese civil war? the American Vietnam war? The French Vietnam war? the French Algerian war? The Angolan civil war? the war in Darfur? ..... Were these legal or illegal wars? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the victims now, does it?)

[MAGI]

The Invasion of Iraq was illegal and unjustified, based on forged evidence, wild speculation and manipulation and deception of the American public, with the goal of fattening the pockets of the elite behind Bush. Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, have died so far, many as a direct result of the occupation and invasion, many more as a result of the humanitarian crisis that came afterwards. This administration has consistently tried to erode civil liberties, dissidency and common sense, and silence or discredit it's opposition. Blackwater is a private army (like any other PMC, like executive outcomes), mercenaries, mostly being hired because they have links to this administration, and the political cost of losing a mercenary is much lower than losing an infantryman, they don't even have to report it, much less give him benefits or bury him. The war on Iraq is morally wrong (more than you could state in a 6000 word post), illegal (for obvious reasons) and it's taking a heavy toll on the army, on our economy, and especially on the Iraqi people. Nobody but the Iraqi peoples (Shia, Sunni and Kurds) has the right to the oil in Iraq. The torture, the attacks on the Iraqi people, and the arbitrarian detentions MUST STOP NOW. Nobody but the most closed-minded yesmen can deny all of this.



I agree with you WP,
bush/cheney's plans to invade Iraq were made long before they stole the election in 2000. It was the PNAC plan. If the UN wasn't going to sanction their plans, they would find a way to pre-emptively invade Iraq. They succeeded with their created "War On Terror" and WMD lies .

Jennifer:

Wafflepudding, as I see it, the choice is Neo-Con control or Iraqi control in Iraq. The so called democratic government that Neo-Cons have set up in Iraq is NOT in the interest of the Iraqi people or in the interest of the American people as it gets the Neo-Cons what they went there for in the first place and it encourages the furtherance of their goals for world domination under the guise of "terrorism." Either way, Neo-Con control or Iraqi control, there will be blood shed. It will sort itself out sooner with America gone from there , I believe, as competing internal Iraqi factions settle out with the help of other middle eastern countries and European nations interested in peace.

America, OUT OF IRAQ NOW and apologize to the world for the part America has played in bringing GREAT EVIL onto the world

:thumbup: :thumbup: Jennifer,

I'm with you! Wolfowicz and his ladyfriend set up the puppet government in Iraq, as we now are learning, according to their Neo Con plan.
I truly believe the Iraqis can come to an agreement with each other to preserve their nation.
With the help of the other ME nations particularily, the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds should choose their own government for the sake of PEACE and prosperity in their own country!


Iraqis want the U.S. out of their country, and they are so right!

[Wafflepudding]

Wafflepudding, as I see it, the choice is Neo-Con control or Iraqi control in Iraq.
I think it's much more complex than that. Iraq is still sitting over some of the world's richest oil deposits, and although the neocons have been the most brutal and forceful faction in the pursuit of the resource, They are not the only faction out to dominate Iraq, and chances are they will not be the last ones to try. The other problem is the Shiite-Sunni divide that makes the Conservative-Liberal divide look like a lovefest, and although this is an internal issue, it is similar to other divides that have degenerated into genocide. Judging from the (official) electoral results (which I admit are unlikely to be accurate or neutral) and the apparent civil war brewing (which Bushco. has vehemently tried to deny) the country is divided along sectarian lines, this isn't likely to simmer down when US troops pull out, and will only get worse if no peacekeepers are brought in to replace them beforehand (which is not likely to be anytime soon). Who is going to want a bite out of this FUBAR? The rest of the arab world that didn't agree with the war in the first place?

The so called democratic government that Neo-Cons have set up in Iraq is NOT in the interest of the Iraqi people or in the interest of the American people as it gets the Neo-Cons what they went there for in the first place and it encourages the furtherance of their goals for world domination under the guise of "terrorism." Either way, Neo-Con control or Iraqi control, there will be blood shed.
I agree 100%.

It will sort itself out sooner with America gone from there , I believe, as competing internal Iraqi factions settle out with the help of other middle eastern countries and European nations interested in peace.

America, OUT OF IRAQ NOW and apologize to the world for the part America has played in bringing GREAT EVIL onto the world!
That's really debatable, and I think (only my opinion, no offense) wishful thinking. Although US troops are serving as an excuse to Islamic radical militants to operate in Iraq, they'll find some other reason once they're gone, like fighting the "heretics" (read Shia/Sunni). The extremist sectarian elements don't seem exactly eager to negotiate with each other so much as lop each other's heads off. Maybe the nationalists will redirect their efforts after US troops leave but again, it's hard to say and speculative. I'm also a bit concerned we might see a repeat of other civil conflicts during the last century, that is, decades of civil wars fueled by racial/sectarian hatred, and funded and supported by capitalist interests (Not just Americans) and Islamic fundamentalists (or some other local party with their own agenda) with no clear end in sight. Because it matters little if by the next election they're out of the government, they still control the capital (and largely the means of production) and mass media, more than enough to try to resume the job (or start another war elsewhere) via other shady means.

[JamesP]

Waffle,

I agree with you on almost everything. BUT I have a huge pet peeve with the phrase "illegal war" or "illegal invasion".

WHO CARES !!!!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!???????

If it causes the death, maiming, slaughter, disease and suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, IT DOESN'T MATTER what some people's ideas about international law are.
If it prevents the death, maiming, slaughter, disease and suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, IT DOESN'T MATTER what some people's ideas about international law are.
There are many things that are morally right and legally wrong. and vice versa. The world "Illegal" is completely meaningless here.



In my view, an international standard for judging the "legality" of military action is a large step toward world condemnation of "unjustified agression" and, therefore, at least a small step toward preventing it. The "war mongers" want no such standard. Reasonable, peace loving people should continue to insist on it.

The invasion of Iraq was both illegal and immoral. The world is right to view it as such and to express condemnation.

[Wafflepudding]

Also, as far as I know, the only legal wars are defensive wars or wars carried out with sufficient reason to believe an attack upon another sovereign state was imminent. Would you say this is not important?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Terrance McKenna on the repition of events in time as a priciple of universality as Earth approaches "2012 - Time Wave Zero."

http://2012eschaton.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=10

[JamesP]

Very effective new ad! The tide has truly turned. When the military joins the movement, it is really over for the Bush administration's absurd defense of the failed status-quo of the Iraq war.

The message to Republican congressmen at the end to "protect America, not George Bush" really hits home in my view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

General Discontent
By Jake Tapper
ABC News

Wednesday 09 May 2007

In an act of defiance perhaps not seen since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, today the anti-war veterans group VoteVets.org, which has been influential with Capitol Hill Democrats, is launching a half-million-dollar TV ad campaign featuring Maj Gen John Batiste (Ret.), former commanding general of the first infantry division in Iraq.

The ad begins with a clip President George W. Bush saying "I have always said that I will listen to the requests of our commanders on the ground."

Batiste then appears, saying, "Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."

The ads are targeted at Republican members of Congress seen to be wavering in their support for the war. Those targeted include GOP Senators Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (NH), John Warner (Virginia), and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and GOP Representatives Mary Bono (Calif.), Phil English (Penn.), Randy Kuhl (NY), Jim Walsh (NY), Jo Ann Emerson (Missouri), Tim Johnson (Illinois), Mike Rogers (Michigan), Fred Upton (Michigan), and Mike Castle (Del.)

The ads conclude with Batiste saying, depending on the congressperson targeted, "Senator Collins, protect America, not George Bush."

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks JamesP!!!

Here's "GENERALS AD":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn_BcR4p-CQ

Here's "BECAUSE OF IRAQ" ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfkqC_etID8

[MAGI]

As we knew......................

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/iraq-decades/

One of the comments that says IT correctly:

The Pentagon’s goal with the lily pads is to preserve U.S. interests in Iraq for years to come “in the event that Congress or the administration pushes this [withdrawal plan] forward.” As NPR details, those interests are at least three-fold: 1) Training Iraq forces, 2) Preserving economic interests, as “Iraq obviously [sits] on the second largest reserve of oil in the world,” and 3) Providing a U.S. military “presence” to deter Iran and Turkey from “getting involved” after withdrawal.

While 60 percent of Americans are calling for a withdrawal of the U.S. from Iraq, the Pentagon is instead making preparations for an unending occupying presence.

and:

get real… oil is why we’re in iraq, oil is why we’re building up those giant permanent military bases, oil is why we’re constructing an embassy complex the size of vatican city to the tune of a half billion dollars… and it’s not just iraqi oil we’re after… iraq will serve as the principal base for efforts to destabilize iran so we can access its oil resources too, and don’t forget the caspian basin with all its oil and gas resources, just a short flight away… why would we want to give all that up just to bring peace to iraq…? and why the hell would we want to leave…?

the fact is, the u.s. isn’t even INTERESTED in achieving peace… our government is merely going through the motions, trying to play out its lie of bringing democracy to the region… the only reason the bush administration is making ANY efforts toward stabilization is to insure the money keeps flowing… other than that, they simply don’t care…

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Comment by profmarcus — May 21, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Jane, in your post 25, you said and asked, "It's very possible our country may collapse from the Bush & NeoCon fiascos. A lesson needed to be learned?"

No, it's not a lesson to be learned. It's intentional. What sense does it make to reduce taxes at a time of war and to give most of it back to the wealthiest Americans and back to large corporations? It doesn't for We, the people UNLESS there is an intent to create an economic collapse of the American monetary system > Problem, Reaction, Solution. The Neo-Conservatives want a One World Government, the New World Order; one world currency, one world religion, etc. Through a hellaciously expensive war, Neo-cons create an economic collapse (the problem). The people say, "Oh no, what a catastrophe. What are we going to do? HELP!" (the reaction). Neo-cons present their plan to We, the people that is certainly preferable to existing conditions (the solution), One World Government, the New World Order. So, the Neo-cons get the natural resource wealth of the Middle East and elsewhere, and the Neo-cons get America, the biggest fish in the political, economic and military ocean to embrace their New World Order with relief out of desperation - Order Out Of Chaos. The wealthiest Americans and corporations win by paying reduced taxes. They win again during the war by profits they reap supplying the war effort. They win when they obtain more of this world's valuable resources and again when they transfer over to the New World Order offering less, likely much less, to We, the people than We, the people had before in the way of jobs, wages, benefits, rights, etc.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Really, how much more obvious can it be? The Neo-cons picked George W. Bush to be President of the United States, a guy who can't even talk. So, plausibly, We, the people will say, Oh, Bush was totally inept. Look what he did. Look what happened all because Bush was inept. Whereas, if there were an intelligent, mentally astute President in office doing the same thing Bush has been doing, there would be a greater likelyhood We, the people would see what is in the works, happening, as being intentional, a conspiracy.

[JamesP]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At a recent kindergarten graduation ceremony, young girls smiled behind their brightly colored princess dresses and the boys showed off their best dress shirts. They sipped on juice boxes, played on swings and jumped on and off seesaws.

It was a welcome relief from the war that surrounds them. But when these 5-year-olds spoke, it became apparent just how much the ongoing violence has affected them.

"I'm going to bomb, bomb, bomb the school with everybody in it," said Omar Hussein, as he clutched a pink toy airplane.

At another point, a girl enthusiastically sang, "I give a knife to my father to slaughter the chicken. He gives me a machine gun and a rifle. Now, I am a soldier in the liberation army." (Watch the children make soldier pledges )

The same kindergarten taught up to 180 children just four years ago, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. Today, the class has just 16 children, a result of families fleeing the war or parents keeping their children at home, fearful of bombs or kidnap gangs.

A report issued Tuesday by UNICEF, the United Nations' children organization, found such stories are not uncommon.

"Violence is creating widows and orphans on a daily basis, many of whom are left to struggle for survival," the report says. "Many women are afraid to walk in the street while parents are afraid to let their children play outside."

UNICEF says since the start of the war in March 2003, nearly 15 percent of Iraq's total population has fled their homes. About 2.2 million Iraqis have fled to neighboring countries -- mostly Jordan and Syria. Another 1.9 million are displaced within Iraq, the report says.

Half of the nearly 4 million displaced Iraqis are children, according to UNICEF.

It adds, "Few safety nets are available to children who fall out of the education system altogether."

Only 30 percent of Iraq's children have access to safe water, according to UNICEF.

The school's headmistress, Suhailah Ibrahim, says they try to reduce the stress level for the children as much as they can. When bombs go off or shots ring out, she says, "We usually tell them the explosions are far away from us."

Most of all, she says, they just want to "live like before."

"We want an end to the occupation," she says.

CNN's Hugh Riminton contributed to this report.

[JamesP]

Casualties of War

Boy beaten to death while mom serves in Iraq

Woman's boyfriend charged with murder after 4-year-old found dead in bed

Updated: 1:44 p.m. MT May 26, 2007
CALUMET CITY, Ill. - A man beat his girlfriend’s 4-year-old son to death after she left the boy in his care while she was deployed to Iraq, police said.

[JamesP]

Another long overdue milestone in our dark military mis-adventure in Iraq.

Internationally, Tony Blair was the primary "enabler" of the Bush administration.
He carries, along with his American neo-con friends, the suffering & wasted lives of many tens of thousands.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Britain Will Take Troops out of Iraq Regardless of US, Says PM
By Andrew Grice
Belfast Telegraph UK

Tuesday 31 July 2007

Gordon Brown has paved the way for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq by telling George Bush he would not delay their exit in order to show unity with the United States.

After four hours of one-to-one talks with the US President at his Camp David retreat, Mr Brown told a joint press conference he would make a Commons statement in October on the future of the 5,500 British troops in the Basra region.

The Bush administration, under mounting domestic pressure to produce an exit strategy from Iraq, has been nervous that a full British withdrawal would add to the criticism. But Mr Brown made clear - and President Bush accepted - that Britain would go its own way, even if that gave the impression the two countries were diverging.

Mr Brown's willingness to pursue an independent British policy in Iraq will be seen as an important break with Tony Blair. Mr Brown said the two leaders had had "full and frank discussions" - diplomatic code for some disagreements.

[JamesP]

Regardless of the number of Americans who have seen the light (and recognized the past & present lies of the Bush administration & their puppets) the war in Iraq and on the American Treasury will, unfortunately, go on as usual.

Petraeus follows another "good soldier" (Colin Powell) down the dark path of disgrace as a tool for war profiteers who can never have enough war or money.
(for them, of course: war = money)

--------------------


WASHINGTON - The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop buildup there has not worked, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress and voters for more time.

The pessimism expressed by most people - including significant minorities of Republicans - contrasted with the brighter picture offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq told Congress on Monday that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he conceded there has been scant political progress.

By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success. Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10 Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed -

[NeoCon Newbie]

Peace Through Victory

[JamesP]

OK. then.

For all of you adolescent boys (big fans of Bruce Willis movies) for whom the idea of "victory" is very meaningful:

- we've verified that there a re no weapons of mass destruction
- we've deposed Saddam (and he was tried & hung)
- we've brought democracy to the Iraqi people
- our glorious military has performed admirably (hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead or maimed compared with just 25,000 Americans troops)

Let's declare victory (again)!
and bring the troops you purport to care so much about home to their families.

If the idea of victory is what it's about..... why are we still there?

What's the new definition of "victory" and when will oil interests allow us to declare it and leave?

[JamesP]

"Success" in Iraq

The "benefits":

Unleashed chaos that murdered 1 million Iraqis and drove 4 million more out of their homes into desperate poverty. Bush's "success" created a sectarian Shia government that ethnically cleansed Baghdad of Sunnis and Christians and corruptly lined its pockets with our tax dollars.

Killed nearly 4,000 brave young Americans and maimed tens of thousands more, both physically and mentally, leading to 120 veterans' suicides each week.

Broke our military, corrupted our intelligence agencies, and embraced torture as official U.S. policy.

Empowered Osama Bin Laden and handed half of Afghanistan back to the Taliban.

Empowered dangerous dictators in Russia, Pakistan, Burma, Iran and Venezuela.

Increased global terror and hatred of the United States.

Wasted $500 billion on Iraq, with trillions more to come.

Added $4 trillion to our national debt and trillions more in future debts.

Drove the price of oil from $16/barrel to nearly $100/barrel, and tripled the price of gasoline from $1.06 to $3.11.

[FDRfollower]

Picture taken recently in San Francisco, just right as a response to James' post. :) http://www.geocities.com/laverdiereaf/gassign.jpg

[ababof]

James,

Relax about Venezuela, no, Chavez is not a very nice person and he has in many ways, abilities to become a perfect dictator, but right now, don't let the problems he has with Bush's administration affect you more than it should, we saw war plans before....

[Wafflepudding]

JamesP: Other than "Handing back half of Afghanistan back to the Taliban" and empowering dictators in Russia, Iran and Venezuela, I mostly agree.

Most Americans in my opinion, agree that "Stay the course" was not an acceptable solution, the thing right now is to look for alternatives, and just dumping everything, bailing and hoping for the best is, from what I've seen and heard personally, not a popular solution (at least not with everyone).

As for withdrawing U.S. troops I concede that it is ultimately, for the best and what we'll have to do. The thing is, I don't see it happening anytime soon. I don't need to say more about this, I've already said enough.

[jr2007sc]

"Success" in Iraq

The "benefits":

Unleashed chaos that murdered 1 million Iraqis and drove 4 million more out of their homes into desperate poverty. Bush's "success" created a sectarian Shia government that ethnically cleansed Baghdad of Sunnis and Christians and corruptly lined its pockets with our tax dollars.

Killed nearly 4,000 brave young Americans and maimed tens of thousands more, both physically and mentally, leading to 120 veterans' suicides each week.

Broke our military, corrupted our intelligence agencies, and embraced torture as official U.S. policy.

Empowered Osama Bin Laden and handed half of Afghanistan back to the Taliban.

Empowered dangerous dictators in Russia, Pakistan, Burma, Iran and Venezuela.

Increased global terror and hatred of the United States.

Wasted $500 billion on Iraq, with trillions more to come.

Added $4 trillion to our national debt and trillions more in future debts.

Drove the price of oil from $16/barrel to nearly $100/barrel, and tripled the price of gasoline from $1.06 to $3.11.

What's your source for 120 veteran suicides per week?

[JamesP]

I don't recall the source. It may not be 100% accurate.
Maybe it's not 120. It does seem high. It was in something I read.
Maybe it's 50 or 80 or 20 or 5.
I do think that, in addition to the physical casualties, we should consider the tortured & twisted psyches of those young Americans we send off to kill & be killed for us. Each one is a tragedy.

[jr2007sc]

I don't recall the source. It may not be 100% accurate.
Maybe it's not 120. It does seem high. It was in something I read.
Maybe it's 50 or 80 or 20 or 5.
I do think that, in addition to the physical casualties, we should consider the tortured & twisted psyches of those young Americans we send off to kill & be killed for us. Each one is a tragedy.

James, Ok. So you can't quote a source and concede that the number you so confidently state is likely incorrect. Thank you for being honest. Every suicide is an awful, horrible tragedy. I whole heartedly agree.

I would be very interested in your thoughts on this question; Considering that most of your posted objections to US military involvement in Iraq is based on casualty numbers, (US as well as Iraqi) would it logically follow that no military action would be justified ever? I'm curious because your abbhorence to this war seems to suggest that you are a true pacificist. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am interested in your opinon.

[JamesP]

JR:

I don't know what category I technically fit into. Here's my view:

- War is most often about money, property, resources. It benefits the rich & powerful at a horrendous & tragic cost to common people.

- Like all violence, it should be indulged only as a very last resort, when all else has failed and the barbarians are "actually at the gate".

- A great philosopher whose birthday we just celebrated would say that it is better, morally, to be a victim than a killer and that all violence is wrong. "Turn the other cheek", so to speak. I agree philosophically.
But.... I'm not quite that good or moral.

- I would defend with deadly force, if necessary, any real, imminent physical threat to myself, family or country.

It is also acceptable, in my view, to use deadly force to defend others unable to defend themselves against violent aggression.

My problems with the Iraq war are too many to list here given the time at my disposal.

Hope that helps.

[CHUQ]

Peace Through Victory

VICTORY over what?

[JamesP]

Iraqi soldier accused of killing US GIs

By Elena Becatoros / Associated Press

BAGHDAD - An Iraqi soldier is accused of turning on two decorated American servicemen and shooting them to death during a joint operation in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said Saturday.

The shooting the day after Christmas in the northern city of Mosul, which left three other U.S. soldiers and a civilian interpreter wounded, was the second known attack by a member of the Iraqi military on the American troops who train and work closely with Iraqi forces.

The suspect and another Iraqi soldier were in custody, the U.S. military said.

The military identified the slain Americans as Capt. Rowdy J. Inman, 38, of Panorama Village, Texas and Sgt. Benjamin B. Portell, 27, of Bakersfield, Calif. Both were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and were based at Fort Hood, Texas. Inman had been awarded the Bronze Star Medal and Portell the Army Commendation Medal.

"For reasons that are yet unknown, at least one Iraqi Army soldier allegedly opened fire killing" the two, the U.S. military said.

The soldier fled "but was identified by other Iraqi army personnel" and was apprehended, it said.

A memorial service was held for Inman Friday in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood. The career military man was a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. He is survived by his wife, Shannon; daughters Keeley and Casey; and a son, Gary.

Portell was recently married and on a second tour of duty in Iraq, according to an obituary in the Bakersfield Californian.

[JamesP]

A Surge of More Lies
by Congressman Robert Wexler

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's health care.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.