Iraqi cabinet approves U.S. troops agreement

If you have read the post above, #1.25.  This might give you an idea about why we are there at Iraq, minus the "do good" bs.

Bottom line:  As I indicated pre 911, we needed the Oil from the Northern and Southern Iraqis Oil Fields.

This is because pre 911, the US funded a Civil War to oust the President of Venezula.  The reason was because the President of Venezula wanted to "nationalize" the Oil Corporations and Oil Resources.  First he was offered the "carrot", money.  When he refused, the "jackals" were sent in to start a Civil War.  After the US backed Civil War failed, the President of Venezula investigated, with the result being no more oil to the US.  23% of US Daily Oil gone.

Pre 911, President Bush goes to Congress, explains, wants the exploration of the Northern Arctic Reserves for Oil.  Denied.

Only options, Pre 911, with US now at 6 months of Oil Reserves, Iraqis Northern and Southern Oil Fields, or Iran (1/3 World Supply of Oil Reserves).

That (Oil) and the Petro Dollars (since US Dollars are internationally worthless), plus employment of US Contractors, employment of US Military (over 2,923,966 that would otherwise be unemployed),  with a ratio of 1 soldier to 20 civilians (all sectors) unemployed, about 40 million US Citizens unemployed (low estimate).  And you thought that the GM, Ford, Chrysler ratio of 1 to 10 was bad?  Ok, so you send some to Afghanistan, what do we get from there that we need.

Did you really think that GM, Ford, Chrysler were really the "backbone" of the US Economy?  LOL.  Do you think other countries want US Cars that cannot even meet the TUV International Safety Standards nor the fuel mileage requirements that they pay waivers (tarrifs) for if they do buy a car built by GM, Ford, Chrysler built in Oshawa, Ontario and Toluca, Mexico (aka "American", NOT).

Were else can a US Truck Driver make over $200,000 a year.  Must be US Citizen with a security clearance to drive certain missions.

What has not been addressed in these discussions is how this ties the hands of the US Military currently there and prevents them from effectively doing their missions.  Turn over US Military and Contractors to Iraqis Authorities of crimes committed Off Duty and Off Bases?  For those that do not know, once a soldier always a soldier, that oath that was sworn and attested to is 24/7, 365 days a year, until death do you part or until Congress says otherwise.  Example:  "Off Duty" go outside of a Base, get attacked by a Insurgent(s) trying to kidnap or kill me, I am armed with my duty side arm and fight back successfully.  Now the Insurgents, that during the day are Iraqis Police, haul me in for prosecution.  Not very smart.

"The agreement calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from the streets of Iraq's towns and villages by the middle of next year, and to leave the country by the end of 2011."

How exactly is this screwing up Obama's plan for withdrawal? He can start withdrawing immediately after taking office. They are allowing us till the end of 2011 to get all our troops and equipment out of the country. That doesn't mean we have to stay till the end of 2011.

Isabelle - are you *sure* this doesnt mean we HAVE TO MAINTAIN a presence to some degree till 2011??  None of us have seen this agreement.  I sincerely hope you are correct in that we have the ability to disappear from Iraq before 2011 but I fear this agreement has us policing until then AND still pumping tons of money into their country.

ANY LEGACY LEFT BY BUSH has gotta be bad for the USA...  I can only feel pessimistic.  I dont have proof, but I have a gut feeling this is bad news one way or the other.

I have a Serbian friend who is a journalist in Iraq, and according to his sources, that's their understanding. Then again, sources have been wrong in the past. We will see when more details of the agreement are released.

Advocate, I found this in a US Today article that might answer your question about maintaining a presence to some degree:

"Officials say it would not tie the U.S. to specific troop levels or establish permanent bases in Iraq. The plan preserves the U.S. right to hunt down top foreign fighters inside Iraq's borders." 

The article also stated that they Iraqis plan to pass out copies of the agreement, so we should know exactly what the terms are in a few days.

beca #2...agreed

Hopefully this does not tied Obama to the agreement, since He has not been sworn in yet

and I am sure could not POSSIBLY agree with this NON-Sense. We already know Iraq was

the wrong Place to be...period...so Why are we going to Stay There?

No it won't tie the great one's  hands...He will do the cowardly thing and leave...If he don't then he is everything i think he is..what would that be? A liar perhaps..

Withdraw from their streets towns and villages? LOL What does that leave?

That leaves us being the police if and when they want us.  I believe we should charge them.

tired of liberals-653706

beca...please post the record of "how" the billions and "what" billions were stolen...so that we may learn from your rhetoric and parroting...o...I mean your insight

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/01/cheney.halliburton/index.html

chuck, um sorry, but that doesn't even come close to answering tired-of-liberals question.  Only one reference to Cheney getting any money from Halliburton and it's thousands NOT billions (and probably earned while working for them, not "stolen") and NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING about GW getting billions.

Throw out a baseless accusation and hope it sticks.  What a waste of time.  And it just minimizes anything that you both say.

Spirt.

"socialize oil"

wrong description.  Look up socialize

It is their oil and since the beginning of this war, the idea sold to us was that their oil reveue would pay for our occupation.  I only hope now that is true and that they build their country on their resources.

Why reverse their law? It's their country isn't it? At least that's what you Liberals tell us.

It's their country isn't it? At least that's what you Liberals tell us.

That's interesting I distinctly heard the Bush admin say the U.S. is "liberating the Iraqi people" now apparently think we should take over their country.

I thought they were a sovereign nation? At least that's what you neocons tell us.

It thought we were helping them?

Chuck..correct

When it comes to POLICING other Countries the First thing out of GW'S mouth has been

Sovereign Nation...except when it comes to Iraq...and liberating is not equivalent to

staying and OCCUPYING...So who do they think they're fooling US?..that goes to show

you the DEPTH of GW'S...IGNORANCE regarding the American People.

Lu, after 31 Dec, without a new agreement, we are there illegally. They are giving us up to three years to remove all our equipment and troops. It does not mean we have to stay there until then. We can leave anytime we want to. The new agreement says no combat troops patrolling the streets, or in the villages by the middle of next year. That means they come home. The only troops that need be there are those bringing our equipment back. This new agreement is a good thing, why no one sees that it is just escapes me.

LU, You know alot of our men and ladies fighting over there want to stay and fight. They know that these people will not stop tring to distroy Iraq and or the world.

They see first hand what these people can do and will do. My question to you and other na-sayers. Have you been there and faught? Do you know whats it's like?

You people seem to try to be the voice for those fighting overseas but do those fighting want you to be that voice?

You only have a short period of time before your Mr. Obama. Our new commander and chief takes office. When he does then if he wants to pull those troops our and just bring them all home ok thats good. But dont be shocked or upset when he doesn't.

While running for pres. he knew one thing. Now thats he's been elected he now knows alot more then anyone else does. When he doesn't pull out people will blame Bush for it. As always.

You people need to understand something. No matter what we will be in a war for the next 4-8 yrs. If not in Iraq then Afghan. What I've come to terms with is no matter what you blinded people will keep on blamin Bush for anything and everything that goes wrong. PERIOD.

I'm not a rep,dem, or Ind. I'm and AMERICAN. And if we have to leave our troops over there for the next 20 yrs to insure we dont get attacked again so be it.

Oh and when was the last time we got attacked here in the USofA. (9/11) So seems to me one thing bush was able to do and thats protect us from another attack.

Guess I'll just go back to being a neo-nazi,right-wing,fear mongering,kool-aid drinker.

See how I beat you all left-wing Pricks to the punch. hehehe.  The above gets old. We need to come together people and stop the inter-fighting and become one United States of America.

Those are my children fighting over there.   It is my job to protect my children.

We invaded the country for no reason.  We have become the fools of the world.

Iraq never was a threat to this country.   If you and Bush and Cheney want to invade counties for no reason I suggest you do it yourselves and with your children, not mine.

Isabella-37

We were there ILLEGALLY from Day ONE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE was GW'S HAIR BRAIN

IDEA the UN said NO....However I do agree we don't have to stay even if they agree

we should...We have the Nuclear Power to wipe them off of the Planet

if we choose to. We just need to get out of there ASAP. and let them continue doing

with each other what they have been doing for Thousands of Years..6 Years of our

INVOLVEMENT should have proved to EVERY ONE by Now that WE CAN NOT FIX THEIR

PROBLEMS...and NEVER WILL..Our Constitution Says NO WHERE that we were or ARE

OBLIGATED to spread DEMOCRACY around the WORLD...It was DELUSIONAL GW'S IDEA.

Probably from being in an ALCOHOLIC HAZE.

Kammando,

LU, You know alot of our men and ladies fighting over there want to stay and fight. They know that these people will not stop tring to distroy Iraq and or the world.

I think your wrong here.  Do you really think most soilders like being torn from their families and friends on back to back tours, having to risk their lives day in and day out...for not?  For that very few that still want to...maybe they should get out of the military and go there on their on...take up arms...and continue their fight. 

Guess I'll just go back to being a neo-nazi,right-wing,fear mongering,kool-aid drinker.

Ok --and we'll continue to laugh at your idiotic rants.

most of the armed force people I've spoke to say yes they dont agree with the reasons we are they but want to be there to help free the Iraq people from torment and terrorists who would kill any and all of them at a drop of a hat.

thats the point i was tring to make.

and I'm sorry your children are over there. And dont want to sound like a ass but they shouldn't have joined the military if they where not prepared to go to war. Period.

Most people who join the military so they can get the sign on bonus and or so they can go to school.  Real people join the military to protect our country from attacks and protect our allies in time on need.

I have a few friends right now thinking about joining the military. I asked why when we are at war. And they say so they want to fight and protect our country. Only a handful have said they are going only for the money they can make ( $20,000 sign on). Wrong reasons to join.

I for one would have loved to be a part of the military and fight for our freedom and help our friends out when needed but couldn't because of my past record. Mistakes I've made in life. But if they told me " hey we dont care come on in and help " I'd drop everything and go. Why because I believe we can help those who need help.

you say we should have just left Hussain. Sorry. A man who has tested his own weapons on his own people should have gotten just what happened to him.

Ty Chuck. And I'll keep laughing at all you brainwashed cowards who would just like to let terrorist run the world.

Oh if we just leave them alone they wont bother us. If we just stayed in our own country we would be safe and wouldn't have anything to worry about.

What a crock of S%^T.

Kamando,

I respect your opinion.  Its good you feel the need to help others even at the expense of your life...but we should be given the right to choose.  Initially the military was established to defend this nation...not to be the world police.  As a servicemen, I don't like the idea of being whisked acrossed the globe to partake in combat that is unnesscary.  Our goverment, in my opinion, has abused their authority.  We now engage in conflicts...not in the defense of our nation...but for profiteering and revenge (sadam hussein).

just think it's funny. people are saying we need bring all of our troop home and forget about the world and help our own country. Granted that would be nice.

but what people keep forgettin is if we do that. where are we going to get our TV's,PC's and all the other things that make us happy. 90% of all part in those items are made overseas. Yeah lets say screw everyone else and just worry about our own.

there is alot more to us just " being the world police"

kammando,

I never said bring all the troops home from all over the world.  Its good to have bases in frienly nations for stategic purposes.  And as far as the TVs and PCs...well maybe its time we start making and selling better american products.  I'm sure we could use the extra jobs.

We now have 369,000 troops abroad in 163 countries...yes our troops need to come

home..it's ridicules to believe our MISSION is to SAVE the World..because it is not and we

CAN'T...Israel has Nukes and Iraq and Iran don't...they will be fine after all didn't Israel

kick.... Briton out of the region on their own...Pakistan and India have Nukes too...We

have the Most there is no reason EXCEPT for GREED that we need to be any other

place but HOME. the World will not come to a HALT if America minds it's own

business for a CHANGE.

Wilberta,

I don't like the idea of being the "world police" but from a strategic stand point...it gives us a huge advantage if we had to take action against another nation.  With the exception of the middle east most of the places we have a bases are friendly.  Being a servicmen and having spent some time abroad visiting and learning about different customs...I'm somewhat against the idea of yanking everyone back.  I think we definitely need to pull back/scale down our operations in the middle east.

psmitty

I can agree with your position..the countries we have friendly support with and our troops

are not in CONSTANT danger..does make sense....as you stated the MIDDLE EAST is an

unfixable Fiasco and we do need to pull out from there...because there is nothing that

makes any sense to wasting PRECIOUS LIVES..on an ERROR of JUDGEMENT.

Wilberta,

You are not saying that you hope Israel uses it Nukes, are you?

...Israel has Nukes and Iraq and Iran don't...

While the statement is true, and I would like to keep it that way, If nukes are used by ANYONE in that region you can kiss the world goodbye.

martvol...of course not

I'm saying just like I and others know Israel has nukes so do Iraq and Iran...it would be

to foolish for either of them to provoke Israel to that point.....plus the UN is totally against

using Nukes and Israel knows that...of course it would be Half of a Global catastrophe.

I'm saying based on all of the above...we the USA do not need to stay in Iraq for the 

protection of Israel or any other country in the region....every one there appreciates

what a Nuclear war would DO.

Rightofcenter:

Saddam supported and funded terrorist.

Just wondering if you have a source for this.

No pressure if you don't.  I'd just be interested to see it if you do.

Thanks.

tired-

Reread it.  She said that Iraq and Iran know Israel has nuclear weapons.

upswing-

As for Iraq supporting terrorists:

• In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

 

• Iraq sheltered terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

 

• Iraq sheltered several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which was known for aerial attacks against Israel and was headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

 

• Iraq sheltered the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups had offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

 

• In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers were strict and insisted that only someone who blew himself up with a belt of explosives got the full payment. Payments were made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who was handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

 

• Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

These are a few of the instances of Iraq supporting terrorism.  You'll notice that I did not mention any links to Al Qaeda.  There is evidence that Iraq supported Al Qaeda's terrorist operations, but its accuracy is debatable.

Von:

I Greatly appreciate you taking thetime to compile this info.

Thank you for doing that.

For what it's worth, here's my response:

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

If this alleged assassination attempt is reliably attributable to the Iraqi Secret Service, then I'm not sure it could be considered a "terrorist" act under the current definition, since it is state sponsored.

If it could be considered a terrorist act -- and I have nothing against it being designated as such -- then we would need to include as terrorism the assassination plots organized by the CIA for the US as terrorist acts, along with the assassination attempts made by every country on another country's leaders.

Iraq sheltered terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

Again, while it seems accurate that Saddam Hussein was supporting the MEK in the 1970s, it's also true that this terrorism was largely inflicted on a US enemy/competitor -- Iran -- and likely with the US' full knowledge and consent.

Indeed, since that time, the United States, through the CIA, itself supports the MEK

According to a former CIA official, funding for armed separatist groups operating in Iran is paid from the CIA’s classified budget. The aim, claims Fred Burton, an ex-State Department counter-terrorism agent, is “to supply and train” these groups “to destabilize the Iranian regime.” (1) 

      The largest and most well known of the anti-government organizations is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), operating out of Iraq. For years MEQ had launched cross-border attacks and terrorist acts against Iran with the support of Saddam Hussein. Officially designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in 1997, and disarmed of heavy weaponry by the U.S. military six years later, Washington has since come to view MEK in a different light. Three years ago, U.S. intelligence officials suggested looking the other way as the MEK rearmed and to use the organization to destabilize Iran, a recommendation that clearly has been accepted. (2)

      Accusing MEK of past involvement in repressive measures by former president Saddam Hussein, the current Iraqi government wants to close down Camp Ashraf, located well outside of Baghdad, where many of the MEK fighters are stationed. But the camp operates under the protection of the U.S. military, and American soldiers chauffeur MEK leaders. The Iraqi government is unlikely to get its way, as the MEK claims to be the primary U.S. source for intelligence on Iran. (3)

      U.S. officials “made MEK members swear an oath to democracy and resign from the MEK,” reveals an intelligence source, “and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.” Reliance on the MEK began under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, and soon MEK soldiers were being used in special operations missions in Iran. “They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” said one intelligence official of the MEK’s American handlers. (4)  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070323&articleId=5165

 Apparently, both Saddam and the US support the same terrorists...?

 Iraq sheltered several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which was known for aerial attacks against Israel and was headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

 Again, there is a history of the CIA funding and supporting al Fatah.  Indeed, Bush himself has come out strongly in support of the PLO and the "two-state" solution.  As far back as Jimmy Carter, the US has been seeking to legitimize the PLO, and now they are a recognized state-level entity.

Does this official US support of the PLO change in ay way the claim that Hussein supported terrorism, particularly since this is around the time period when Hussein was considered a CIA asset? (Remember the 1983 photo of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand in Baghdad?

Apparently, Hussien and the United States supported the same terrorism in this case, too...

 Iraq sheltered the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups had offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

 Abu Nidal has actually been used as a spy by the United States to dig up/manufacture evidence that Saddam had a link with Al Qaida:

Abu Nidal, Notorious Palestinian Mercenary "was a US spy."

Secret papers claim the feared assassin was hired to find links between Saddam and al-Qa'ida. Robert Fisk reports

Saturday, 25 October 2008

Iraqi secret police believed that the notorious Palestinian assassin Abu Nidal was working for the Americans as well as Egypt and Kuwait when they interrogated him in Baghdad only months before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Hitherto secret documents which are now in the hands of The Independent – written by Saddam Hussein's brutal security services for Saddam's eyes only – state that he had been "colluding" with the Americans and, with the help of the Egyptians and Kuwaitis, was trying to find evidence linking Saddam and al-Qa'ida.

President George Bush was to use claims of a relationship with al-Qa'ida as one of the reasons for his 2003 invasion, along with Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Western reports were to dismiss Iraq's claim that Abu Nidal committed suicide in August 2002, suggesting that Saddam's own security services murdered him when his presence became an embarrassment for them. The secret papers from Iraq suggest that he did indeed kill himself after confessing to the "treacherous crime of spying against this righteous country".

 While Hussein was undeniably accommodating abu nidal, it is unclear who nidal had perpetrated his terrorist acts for, particularly in light of the CIA's close involvement with Hussein. And if the US was using nidal at the same time the Hussein was "protecting" him, aren't both the US and Hussein both harboring a known terrorist?

 In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers were strict and insisted that only someone who blew himself up with a belt of explosives got the full payment. Payments were made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who was handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

 These payments were made largely to any Palestinian who was killed in the conflict, not just the fighters. I would also add that the bombing attacks that some of the money undoubtedly was used for, were part of an ongoing tit-for-tat sequence of bombings.  Not that that makes them any less horrible and unacceptabe  It just situates them in more of a war setting, in which killing and dying is an everyday event.

This is from the Independent of May 7, 2003:

...

Saddam set aside about 20 per cent of Iraqi revenue under the oil-for-food programme for the Palestinians, according to Mr Za'anin. Contrary to the claims of the US and the Israelis, not all the money was sent to support suicide bombing.

Although a considerable proportion did go to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, millions were also sent to the families of innocent Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli military operations – something that happens almost daily in the occupied territories...

The money was distributed by the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), a pro-Iraqi Palestinian Baathist group, which has not been involved in carrying out any suicide bombings or other militant attacks. Mr Za'anin is the representative in Gaza.

He explained a simple tariff used by the Iraqis. The family of a suicide bomber would get $25,000. The family of a "martyr" – that is any Palestinian killed in the fighting, whether they were armed militants or innocent civilians – got $10,000. Saddam also sent money to Palestinians whose houses were demolished by the Israeli army; the amount was calculated based on the value of the house.

Would you see any moral equivalency to what Saddam is doing here, and the way the US paid Iraqis to "turn in" terrorists in their villages? (This bounty is one reason there are so many un-triable captives in Gitmo and elsehwere...) Isn't encouraging the citizens of a country you are occupying to turn in their possibly innocent neighbors they might have a grudge against for money an act of terrorism, too?

 Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

This one seems to be a myth, per:

Misinformation about the Iraqi special forces training camp (part of the Salman Pak military reservation that occupied a narrow peninsula formed by a bend in the Tigris river) stems from the Iraqi National Congress (the umbrella Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmed Chalabi), and through it, the timely testimony of two Iraqi defectors, both of whom the INC introduced to sympathetic political commentators shortly after the attacks. SOURCE: http://yourplanetisdoomed.blogspot.com/2005/12/salman-pak-911-pure-fantasy.html

Also:

"In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft." Seymour Hersh in an interview in May. 2003.  SOURCE:  http://larison.org/2006/01/10/beating-the-dead-horse-of-salman-pak/

 Finally, I'd respectfully point out that the source for your info (http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=863) is not only extremely biased toward a corporatist/fascist politics, it also relies on texts that are written by the same people who wrote PNAC, and who planned the war against Iraq years before 9/11.

 Futher, the Council on Foreign Relations -- your major source -- is an openly and unapologetically fascist organization that promotes Neocon warmongering.

Your sources are constantly tryng to promote the Hussein/terrorist connection to justify their failed war.  So it is no surprise that they would intepret some pretty questionable data in the partisan way that they have.

kommando__

Are you saying that we are sending men and women all over the world to fight so we can have TV's and PC's?

That is the most asinine statement I have heard in defense of continuing the good fight. If that is really the case then I say BRING OUR MEN AND WOMEN HOME IMMEDIATELY because TV's and PC's are not worth dying for...................I got to tell my brother and my nephew the real reason they are fighting for our country. If they put that in the recruiting pamphlet do you think more or less kids would join....maybe more if you put Video Games at the top of the list, ya think?

upswing, no I cannot pull a article without some research but it was widely reported that he had a standing cash payout for Palestinian suicide bomber's families, if I remember correctly it was around 10-15k. There were also the camps where terrorist were trained for seizing aircraft that were captured early in the war.

rightofcenter:

Understood.

Thanks for getting back to me with a response.

My examples are still consistent with the fact that Iraq, prior to 200 did support terrorism.  You did not really dispute or even call into question any of the statements except for the Salman Pak intelligence.

1.  We can call it a terrorist attack if you want. 

2.  MKO- was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 (under Pres. Clinton).  There is no substantive proof that the U.S. directly supported the MKO during this time period.  The U.S. did recognize them as a possible counter to Iranian influence in Iraq afer the invasion.  Your statements do not disprove MKO as a terrorist organization.

3.  The PLF and the PLO were two separate organizations during the 1970's and 1980's and the PLF actually fought against the PLO in 1976 during the Lebanese Civil War.  In 1993, the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, which the PLF opposed.  At that time, Abu Abbass agreed to abandon terrorism and acknowledged Israel's right to exist.  This was prior to the Bush administration.  The PLO has been recognized by the United Nations, including the United States, as a legitimate voice for the Palestinians. 

4.  Abu Nidal (the Abu Nidal Organization) has been designated as a terrorist organization for approximately 20 years.  Abu Nidal has a long history of terrorism.  Several countries had previously sentenced him to for terrorism committed within their borders. Read any biography about him.  Nidal often used Iraq as a base of operations during the 1970's and 1980's.  Read the history of the ANO.  In fact, Iraq claimed that they had requested that Nidal seize the Saudi embassy in Paris (September 1973).  The ANO and Abu Nidal were violently opposed to the PLO and Arafat. After Nidal was expelled from Libya, he returned to Iraq.  You are using intelligence documents from Iraqi "Special Intelligence Unit M4" as your source for Nidal working for the U.S.  How is it that you take this as automatically true, and automatically dismiss any other intelligence.  Abu Nidal's relationship with Iraq was well documented by numerous intelligence sources well before Pres. Bush took office in 2001.  It is easy enough to convolt the material when you don't put it in chronological perspective.

Your post was for evidence to support the statement that Iraq supported terrorists or terrorist organizations.  I didn't say anything about the merits of it being a justification for the invasion of Iraq.  None of those examples is false.  Iraq has a long history of supporting Palestinian terrorists ( groups that had ben designated as terrorists groups before Pres. Bush took office).

Von:

Your post was for evidence to support the statement that Iraq supported terrorists or terrorist organizations. 

I see why you'd say this, because I'm obviously not trying to argue that Hussein did or didn't do any particular thing.

If I were, I would have been a lot more blunt about it.

What I'm saying is that what we refer to as "supporting terrorism" is such a nebulous and pervasive activity, that it is a completely arbitrary justification as a cause to go to war, particularly when that alleged terrorism is not the direct cause of the war it justifies.

As for receiving your comments in the context of Bush justifying war with Iraq, I did so as a logical extension of the reason you made them:  you were indirectly refering to rightofcenter's post in which he did cite this as a justification for war with Iraq.

You were responding to my response to rightofcenter.  (Starting to sound like "known unknowns" here...)

As for proving your comments right or wrong, which was not my intent, there really isn't any way for either of us to do that.

As I mentioned, you have referenced a very pro-war, Neocon information source.  That's fine. But who is to say that that information is true?

I have pointed out, not that you are wrong, but that the terms that you are using to support your agument -- i.e. terrorist, terrorism etc -- are completley arbitrary, since they could just as easily apply to the United States' or any other forces' actions.

In short: I am not arguing with you, I am challenging the terms and premise of your argument, which is that Saddam has supported Terrorism.

It certainly seems that he has paid the same people the United States has paid to do similar work.

So, are you saying that, when the US pays these people to do their work it is not terrorism, but that when someone else pays them to do it, it is terrorism?

Because that's the only way your use of the term "terrorism" can make sense.

And if you are not saying that, then, with respect, I'm not sure what you are saying...

But I do greatly appreciate and thank you for your patience.

I am using the generally accepted version of "terrorism"(The use of/or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation).  The actions and people I have used as my example are generally recognized as being terrorists by other nations besides the United States.  Another example would be Libya, once regarded as a terrorist supporter by the security council of the United Nations.

What evidence exists that the United States paid any of these groups to actually engage civilian targets?  By no means am I saying that the United States is "lily-white" in its political dealings.

Plain and simple what I am saying is that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein supported and funded known terrorists.  I made no comparisons.

I do not, nor have I ever, believed that this was a justification for the war in Iraq.  Although I used the site for the list, the items were crossed-checked with other sources. 

Von:

Thanks for the explanation.

Plain and simple what I am saying is that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein supported and funded known terrorists. 

I would still argue that this statement can not usefully be a stand-alone comment, your general definition of terrorism notwithstanding.

For instance:

The use of/or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation)

This definition could just as easily apply to acts committed during a "legitimate" war.

This definition is even more problematic when used in the context of a declared war on a concept or a tactic -- a war on "Terror" -- as opposed to a traditional war or to a non-war context.

Paradoxically, by declaring that the whole world is a battlefield,  Bush has actually completely done away with any possible charge of "terrorism," since what used to be an attack on an innocent population is now, by default, a global battlefield attack on a potential enemy, which, Bush has said, includes everyone on the planet.

Also, Bush has doggedly attempted to decriminalize war by removing it from prosecution within our criminal courts...

I do not, nor have I ever, believed that this was a justification for the war in Iraq. 

 I understand this.

My point was that your comment was a response to someone who does, and that that was the context in which I received it.

I apologize if I misunderstood that context.

As far as sources go, at the end of the day, it all comes down to trusting the sources we trust, and distrusting the sources we distrust. 

The trick, I think, is to try to understand what it is in us that causes us to trust one source and to distrust another source, so that we can adjust our perspective accordingly.

I appreciate the exchange.

I feel as though I've said all I'd like to on this issue, but please feel free to continue to add whatever you'd like to, and I'll surely jump back in if it seems to make sense.

You guys have a great discussion going here, but I wanted to inject something in response to:

Plain and simple what I am saying is that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein supported and funded known terrorists. 

So have most US presidents, since probably  the beginning but mostly in the last 60 years or so.  So would that give Russia a legal right to invade us? or China or the EU?

While I prefer might for right. Who gets to decide what is right? The one with the might?

If Russia wants to invade the United State, they don't need a reason. They are a sovereign country that can choose its own coarse. It must weigh what the rest of the world would do in response to that. If the rest of the world agrees by action, or lack of, one could assume that Russia was right. I really love all this talk about an ILLEGAL war. As a sovereign country, anybody can attack anybody. Might will make it right.

Martvol,

Might does not make it right.  It just means no one is capable of stopping you at the moment.  That will surely change.

I think that we can all agree that Bush is no genius.

They used American emotions that were still raw after 9/11 in lie and manipulate the citizens of this country.  If anyone tried to speak out against the invasion they were considered "anti-american" and "not supporting the troops".

And let us not forget the "would you rather have Hussain in power?" manipulation.

To answer the question:  Yes, I would rather have Hussain in power than to have 5,000 dead Americans and trillions of dollars of debt.

The CIA is the one that put Hussian in power when Bush 41 was Director.  Bush 41 was also the one that recruited and trained Ben Laden. 

They've admitted that they lied about WMDs.  What was the "official" statement:  "Well, you believed it".

And all but three member of the Senate went along with the lie.

jmac -

GWB would have to be a genius to have fooled almost all of congress, our allies and the UN by coming up with the "lie" about WMD's and to be able to steal billions of dollars. 

Genius?  Hardly.    It was the HORRIBLE execution of the war from the beginning.  This war could have been OVER after the fall of Sadam.  There was no occupation plan, or an inadequate team to run the country, insufficient troops to keep order, and three edicts from the White House announced by Bremmer when he took over: no provisional Iraqi government, de-Ba'athification, and disbanding the Iraqi armed services, who all ended up FIGHTING US.

People have a way of forgetting easily in this country.  The point is, we have lost soldiers, civilians and BILLIONS of dollars because BUSH failed in the war.

Now they want us out and we need to leave as soon as we can.

Because the Senate and the House wanted to war. Why? Not easy to understand. Small victorious war stimulates an economy? Oil? Good show for american people? Favor to Israel?

LU #7.1..agreed

That was very Mean on The Bush Regimes Part ....and UNFORGIVABLE. They Played the 9/11

Tragedy like a Fiddle and Screwed us All...Especially the Families of those who have given 

LIFE and LIMB...and you are correct about Saddam he kept the region free from terrorist

because they were all AFRAID OF HIM...GW is an ARSE...and he knows it too.

wiberta, Saddam supported and funded terrorist. What is it with you leftist making things up? Do you hear it from Keith Olberman or do you just make it up as you go along? Your hero Teflon Bill said they had WMD's long before Bush took office, Congress including lots of democrats thought he had WMD's. The President repeatedly worked with other countries to work out a peaceful solution (18 months worth of running around working on UN resolutions). Tell me something, is it a new day every time you blink? All of you guys memory seems to be rather limited.  Or just selective when its convenient to fit your leftist world view.

Iraq was actually the most progressive country in the Middle East. 

The women were educated, worked, and could walk around in "normal" clothes.

Hussain was a buddy of the US for 20 years and the way he treated his countrymen didn't bother us a bit.

There is no excuse for the invasion of Iraq.  We were wrong.  We are never going to "win" because we were losers as soon as we crossed their borders.

And there is no country in the world that supports terrorists more than Saudi Arabia. 

Hell, they even did a television fund raiser for terrorists.

GWB would have to be a genius to have fooled almost all of congress,

It doesnt take a genius to fool a bunch of moronic Republicans who were they majority of congress. The Dems tried to investigate the crooked administration and Repubs blocked it every time. Not to mention , the puppeteers were cCheney and Rove not Shrub.

RightofCenter..#7.5

Saddam was FEARED by EVERY ONE in the REGION that is why he had been an Allie of

America until the Kuwait Invasion..that's how he messed up..He forgot Kuwait had

more OIL and was a friend of America Also...HE NEVER SUPPORTED OUTSIDE TERRORIST

I am going to write this information for the last time...then you can GO TO YOU KNOW 

WHERE THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE....BILL CLINTON, BOMBED 2 of Bin Ladens strong

holds on August 20th 1998....Congress and the American People ignored his efforts

because who he was or was not SCREWING seemed more IMPORTANT to MANY at the

time..He made GW aware of this during the TRANSITION and GW chose to ignore

Clinton's admonitions...Therefore the ONUS IS on GW and The REPUBLICAN dominated

CONGRESS at that time...I happen to read and Pay attention to the World around me.

I don't need to acquire Information from Talking Heads...DO YOU? ...Oh there is a Right

way to get your points across and to ask Questions...for what ever reason YOU HAVE

NOT LEARNED THIS YET...DON'T YOU EVER ADDRESS ME AGAIN!...GO F with some one

ELSE.

Wilberta you are beyond a doubt one of the most unpleasant people to have ever commented on these blogs. I and others have listened to your insults,bigotry,anger,self righteous and foul mouthed comments long enough. You need to grow up and recognize that your not the only person with an opinion. Your blind hatred makes you not only incapable of forming an educated opinion but blinds you to any possibility that your precious opinions are not as seeded in reality as you think. You need to go to the top of a really high mountain and take a deep breath of fresh air and clear your head and then return to the rest of us and act like a human being instead of a hate mongering shrike......................

Ok all you  that think that bush did the wrong thing what would you have done after we where attack? oh thats ok we don't mind that you killed over 3000 people no big deal hear why don't you just come right over here and run our country so that way you can just convert us we would like that.

vesey

I hate no one and I don't have to put up with being ATTACKED by some CYBER SPACE

LOSER. You have the OPTION of PUSHING THE IGNORE CLICK..I Have the Right to

legitimate HEALTHY DISCOURSE without being Assaulted in writing because I have

different views..I respect every ones RIGHT not to AGREE with me..However I DEMAND

the SAME RESPECT I AM WILLING TO GIVE....If you had read the rest of my POSTS I

ATTACKED NO ONE...However RIGHT OF CENTER IS ALWAYS BOTHERING ME AND I AM

NOT LEFT..or,, RIGHT OR anything else I have no Party affoliation and never have...REREAD

right of centers DIATRIBE TO ME...then put me on your Click...I don't take it kindly

being ATTACKED BECAUSE OF MY OPINIONS...and right of center can speak for it's self

as it always has...THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I will never AGREE with RIGHT OF CENTER

and it knows that.... I am an ADULT I am not a Child nor am I a PACIFIST. which is my right

jake...how about we could have just stayed in afghanistan and finished the job we were there for?...

I wouldn't have attacked afganistan.  The reason being...the people who carried out that horrific act died on the planes with everyone else.  I would of applied tremendous pressure on nations that harbor/support terrorist to get a handle on it or face some kind of punishment...not neccessary military actions.  I would of thrown all of the available resources at strenghting our securities.  I would of worked with allies to cut off Al Qaidas resources.  I would of worked with our allies in identifying and disrupting al qaida operations.  In other words this would of been job for law enforcement (FBI, CIA, whoever) and not the military.  To take a war to afgan and then to Iraqi was foolish.

psmitty,

Interesting thought i would have liked to see that just to see if it would have worked. It might have who knows.  I also think it was foolish to fight 2 wars at once they should have done one at a time, the question is wich one first they both where threats?

LU, there's no reason to inflate the number of dead American soldiers. According to CNN, as of Nov 13, 2008, 3,353 US Soldiers have died due to hostiles, 763 non-hostile.  It's a horrible enough number without exaggeration.

They've admitted that they lied about WMDs.

references please!

Wilberta Berry:

Just a quick note:

Did you know that when you capitalize words in an e-mail or a post such as you're making here, that it is typically considered to be shouting?  i.e. It's received as an aggressive act, even when it might not be intended as such.

If you did know this, then sorry to be redundant.

If you didn't, then you might want to consider bolding or italicising words that you want to emphasize.

Your choice, of course.

LU-

You must have failed history. 

Saddam Hussien seized power in 1979 after killing his political rivals.  The Iraqi government received military aid from the Reagan administration in support of their war against Iran (retribution for the deposing of the Shah and the hostage crisis).  Bush Sr. was replaced as Director of the CIA when Jimmy Carter took office on Jan. 20, 1977.  He had held the office for 355 days.  CIA backed Ba'athist coups in Iraq in 1963 (Kennedy's administration) and again in 1968 (Johnson's administration).  After the 1968 coup, Hussein became Vice-President of Iraq.

The Soviets did not invade Afghanistan until 1979, during Carter's administration.  The DCI was Stansfield Turner at the time of the invasion.  When Ronald Reagan was elected, William Casey became DCI.  Osama bin Laden was a college student until 1979.  He did not go to Afghanistan until the mid-1980's.  The Afghan resistance (muhajideen) was supported by the Reagan administration.  Bin Laden left Afghanistan after the Soviet withdraw and did not return until the Taliban gave him sanctuary in 1996.  The CIA had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden prior to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets.

You have a habit of making up "facts" as you go along.  Quit with the propaganda.  It only undermines your arguments.

North Mississippi, First thanks for your service to our country,but i have 2 stepsons one a Marine vet of Iraq and one currently serving in Iraq...They tell a completely different story than you are giving here...I asked Marine son how it felt putting his life on the line for a people who hate us and he said, where he wasthey loved the fact we were there..  They hated Sadam...Most had horror stories....

I always wonder when i read these post, how many people who post on these boards actually have served in the military.. Most have no honor,they run and hide behind a key board..

North Mississippi you have earned the right to voice your opinion ,most have not...

US Army 1966-1968

I'd rather our military be home and working to defend our own borders and building our own country.

I read yesterday that there are still Texans living in tents. 

I was in a hurricane in Puerto Rico.  The Marines were on the beach within hours providing drinking water and PR was cleaned up and rebuilt in a heart beat.

ok lu i can understand that to but where were they on 9/11 they did not protect us then?

 my point is that if you can't do the job any better then you should not beat up on somebody that has a tough job to do and if you thought you could do the job better then Bush then you should have ran for president. i have all respect for bush do i agree with all his decisions of course not and i woun't agree with all Obama's decisions either.

Jake,

I have to disagree there buddy.  We have every right to criticise our government/president.  He wanted the job (very difficult job) of president.  When you fail there is going to be a fair amount of criticism.  Comes with the territory.

psmitty,

I agree  their will be  some critices, but this is beyond critices their down right abusive.now lets hear some things that he did that was right? i perssonally beleive that mr Bush was right in going into iraq but i also think it was wrong for us to be their as long as we have i agree that it is time for us to come home but not at the expense of iraq lets finish the job we started  before we leave do i think we have finished the job yes i think we have, does mr Bush i would have to say he don't think so.

Jake,

In Bushe's defense we rarely hear about his successes only his failings.  I really can't name one thing he has done right...blame that much on the media.  I respectfully disagree that we should of went there in the first place.  I think we had him very well contained (no fly zones in the north and south along with UN inspections).  And yes we have been there much longer than we need to.  Do we risk losing everything (global standing, increasing our debt, american lives, etc...) to "finish the job"?  I don't know...it just feels like there is nothing to gain there.

chuck, what about the dems?  what about our allies, you know, the leftist rest of the world.  It wasn't just the repubs.

north mississippi, thank you for your service.  What I believe we heard most was the bad not the good that was going on in Iraq.  It only seems that since the surge we've been hearing good news.  I'm sure that hands on and by actually speaking to people you have more information (though anecdotal) than most of us do.  But we did see pictures and hear accounts of US soldiers being hailed as liberators.  We know that they've formed a government and are working toward self governing, training their army and will one day be on their own without the US.

I served in the Army ('76-'79) but never saw combat.  Thanks again for your service.

psmitty,

I don't know if their is anything to gain their or not as for the un Inspections i think that was a joke the un had to anounce when and wher they where going so if their where wmd's they had plenty of time to move them, so where their wmds who knows if their where or where not. so theguestion is do we wait and see or do we react. as far as our global standing increasing debt, american lives etc I honestaly don't know what the thinking of our government was thinking but trying to second guess what they where thinking, and really don't think that this has caused out debt but i do believe it don't help.

you are mislead, gasing of the kurds in the 80's should have been a reason for us to go into iraq, but we didn't... we did find mass graves and greg, you are so right now as a vet i thank you for your service which is why i serve. But we have to be openly honest not as soldiers only because the truth is and you know we are loyal to our country and commanders including the commander in cheif, but reality, some agree on conditions on the ground, on the ground i do not speak for all troops, some think the mission is essential, i believed in it the first rotation, and i believe in it now but the problem is the shiites are bitter at the sunnis for the years of being on the bottom. so to have a government who is bitter twoard certain people it makes the situation hard. In korea you have a divide line north and south, but in iraq you would have to divide the country into quads, never would that work. We defeated the iraqi army, it wasn't a fight and saddam knew it wouldn't be which is why he tried desperately to negotiate with GWB by leaving iraq, he was right about a few things, we would never be able to change iraq because it is to complex, and the average iraqi always say they were better off with the ruthless guy than without because other countries feared him. See the when we were attacked we could never find out who did it in the market. But when the iraqi army was with us we got attacked, they walked into the market pulled out their side arm and everyone started singing. Got the attackers and weapon caches. See i believe it when i am told the armies of the cleric AL-Sadr are so powerful, we fought them in 04, in Sadr city. He is the leader of the Shiites that are not only in Iraq but Iran to by majority they are the largest tribe even killing him would upset the tribe. The Sunnis are mostly in Saudi Arabia, Kurds in Syria and are all in northern Iraq. So Iran and Saudi Arabia play big parts in Iraq and so do Syria. Militarily we cannot change Iraq it will take them getting off their asses and producing stability which will never happen as long as we are absorbing all the explosions and bullets....... i hope it ends soon, i have had enough of that country........but i love America and most of all my commander in chief i served under bush sr. clinton, bush jr and now obama and feel they are all equal to me. . and yes i am a black american not african and proud to be American............ Also you were right because the sunnis are afraid for their live right now and after what happened to them during saddam rule i understand why. Do you think the same thing is happening in america reason for all the hatred toward obama and other blacks is because people like the kkk really believe we will reverse history and try to do them the same way we have been done. I hope decent whites understand we love all americans and a great majority of blacks do not hold history against them but want all to be loved and equal..... I know my family do.

NorthMS,

wasn't it our Goverment that supplied saddam with the mustard gas?  Were we not supporting him in his bid to defeat Iran?  Did he not use that mustard gas to put down a revolt in his country?  Are there not other atrocities taking place all over Africa, North Korea, even China?  Are we going to overthrow every goverment we don't agree with?

I have asked blogger many times if they could think of one accomplishment of the Bush administration.

One guy sited the restrictions on stem cell research..but I'm not sure that halting scientific discovery would be considered an "accomplishment".

The only thing that I could think of is that there will never again be anyone from the Bush family seeking political office.

So let me ask again:

It has been 8 years.  Can anyone list an accomplishment of the Bush Administration??

lu...courtesy of upswing... :)

http://upswing.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/06/2080335-the-long-list-of-positive-contributions-bush-made-to-the-lives-of-ordinary-us-citizens-during-the-past-eight-years-

north mississippi, I will grant you that Iraq is a mess and will take some time for a stable government to gel, but I think that CAN happen.  Whether or not it WILL happen is another story.  They hopefully will "get off their asses" and will realize that a stable government and peace are a lot better for their children than the constant warring.

I know there are whites in this country that think like the kkk,  but please know that I and most people that don't like Obama care more about his policies and what they'll do to this country than the color of his skin.   I'm sure that there are whites that think like you said and also blacks who think that "whitey will finally get his" as I heard someone say.  But, that kind of extremism, though still alive, is not as prevalent  as the press and the extremists want us to think it is.

see point proven jmac we all can disagree on some things but find common goals on another, that was well put, and i agree with you ALL people  should stop the crazy foolish thoughts and start looking at the future. I was a victim of clan violence and i do not hold all whites accountable for that. I also do not think we are being kept down. I was surprised when at work the day after election i heard racial jokes i thought the problem was over. if you hear a black person saying now whitey will get it, they are being ignorant. We are happy oboma choose to represent the black race. He didn't have to in history mixed people would choose the comfortable race, which they viewed as white. But the truth is blacks are more happy because finally the american way is showing across the world that any man or woman no matter what race or creed can be whatever you work to be, study hard, get your education and you have a chance to be great. I know I supported him, but not because he was a black man, i to supported clinton and honestly i voted for GWB because i felt like his policies were great. But no black man ever once tried to harm the president why would some one want to harm oboma. JMAC, my prayer was always and will always be to not only see a black leader as pres, but to see our children one day standing together in unity and not divided because of hate and anger. GOD bless this country........

Troop reductions in Iraq are slated by the new administratin to be transferred to Afghanistan, where the security situation is not  -  at present - as good as it is in Iraq. So we surge in Afghanistan, and the bad guys go back to hiding in the mountains, and the security situation there will once again temporarily "improve"; leaving us free to transfer those troops back to Iraq to deal with a security situation which will by then have deteriorated due to the decreased number of troops.

It's the same whack-a-mole situation, utilizing two countries instead of just one, that we've become familiar with; a shell game, to put it mildly, on behalf of the US military/industrial establishment.

As long as the "we've got a finger in the dike in both countries, and cannot pull those fingers out or the world will end" is accepted by an apparent majority of the American people (some favoring Iraq and some favoring Afghanistan as the key dike), we will keeping spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives in both endless no-decisions; ping-ponged back and forth by (most likely) successive administrations  --  much like the Israeli government switches back and forth between "soft" and "hard" liners in their endless no-decision.

That's the situation as I see it, as clearly and unemotionally expressed as is in my power.

No, situations in Iraq and Afganistan are totally different. In Iraq there is a government representing more or less all three major groups. And it's supported more or less by most of iraq's population. Nothing like that in Afganistan.

The military situation in both is guerrilla warfare with an patient opponent who has and will continue to avoid decisive confrontation. Remember when the Taliban was "crushed" a couple years ago? They've been running that show successfully for a couple thousand years, and will keep on running it, disappearing when the heat is on only to reappear when the pressure goes down.

The longer any occupier stays there, the  more the locals line up with the resistance, which increases the problem.

Good points Clikdawg

Troop reductions in Iraq are slated by the new administratin to be transferred to Afghanistan, where the security situation is not  -  at present - as good as it is in Iraq. So we surge in Afghanistan, and the bad guys go back to hiding in the mountains, and the security situation there will once again temporarily "improve"

We need to take a step further and take out the guys in the mountains and caves.  Won't be easy, but the ground work is underway now as we cross over and bomb the high priority targets in Pakistan.  I believe we can get the REAL bad guys thus ending this war and being able to leave Iraq to it's own defenses.  Killing Al queda with show of force would have a direct psychololgical effect on the Iraqi's getting their sh!t together.

My thoughts

Mmmm ... Soviets tried it with 100,000+ guys  --  Taliban played keep-away long enough to break the Russian bank. What shape is our bank in?

The nature of that country is this: The only guy to go in there and make it stick was (I kid you not) Genghis Khan. His successful method? Massive slaughter of the population; literally leveling all the major cities; and destroying their agricultural capacity for generations to come.

That's what it takes.

Y'all want to get down on that scale, more power to you  --  but after you've done that, you will still have to leave troops in there to prevent some other country filling that very important geographic vacuum.

So I'll ask you again: How's our bank doing?

 Taliban played keep-away long enough to break the Russian bank. What shape is our bank in?

Very good point and that is why we need to be fighting only ONE war.  The right war (I have a hard time saying those words) and fight it to destroy the enemy that started all this to begin with.  Now, remember, how did you feel after 9/11?  Like most of us did, I would assume.  We wanted an eye for an eye.  If the US forces get Bin Laden, the spirit of our Nation would be vindicated.  And I truly believe would restore the confidence we need to move forward.

Naw  --  you don't send whole armies to do the job of assassins; not unless you wanna make a pile of loot while you're at it.

Clickdawg,

I totally agree with your arguments.  Its kind of like trying to kill a fly with a gun.  If you look at all of the resources we have put into these wars...and then think how those same resources could of been used to bolster our security systems, secure our borders, and expand on our anti-terrorism capabilities (law enforcement).  To me dealing with terrorism has always been a law enforcement issue and not a military one.  Right now we have all kinds of fighter aircraft patrolling iraqi airspace.  Why?  It seems like that area has become one big training ground.  Somewhere we can test all of the new toys that we have bought.  Its simply overkill!! 

clikdawg #9.5

plus the Taliban had support from America at that time. because of the relationship

between the USA and Russia not being good. this country has a habit of being your Allie

one day and your foe the next....it seems to me that those type of policies need to

change also...no one can trust America with it's dismal track record of non loyalty.

wilberta, you are correct we did support them and helped dig their tunnels during the afghan russian conflict, that is why rambo3 reflected the fued between afghan rebels and the soviets. We also allied with iraq during the 8yr iraq iran war. See now we talk history and to understand it we have to see where in history we went wrong with these third world countries.

1st mistake was leaving afghanistan sorry went brain fart and couldn't remember the years but we had advisers in the country but left when we should have stayed afterwards the taliban extremeist took over.

2nd mistake not going into iraq when we had intelligencve reports of a biological agent administered to stop the uprising and possible coop against saddam hussein. failed to act

3rd the marine base bombing in 1983, reagan failed to act plus negotiation took place with the shaw of iran and iran contra took off. that was a sign of weekness to all terrorist and third world countries which is why during desert storm saddam told his country the us would not come to the aid of saudi because we run when we get our noses bloodied.

4th we destroyed the iraqi army all the way to the border of saudi, i was looking at baghdad through the sites but pre bush after taking the advise of his generals took the victory and called it a day. We should have occupied iraq then.

5th clinton should have answered the call of the 1st attacks by the taliban with swift bombings and maybe even occupied afghanastan.

6th Bush jr failed to lead a  campaign  to capture bin ladin the war in iraq caused us not to get him and he escaped in the mountains... probably dead now i still do not see how he is still alived he was on a kidney machine.......

with all of those things we see that all leaders made mistakes, that led up to 9-11.

The most likely outcome of that cluster-fu*k you mention is the implementation of Biden's partion plan, since the level of violence will reach the point that we will be able to claim that a US-policed partitioning of Iraq is the only way to save the place from itself.

Partitioning has its own dangers; it will not be taken well by the Iraqis, and the turmoil will continue  --  as will our indefinite presence.

I don't think Biden's idiotic partitioning is an option and actual for the modern Iraq. All three major groups, namely, shiites, sunnis, and kurds somehow came to an agreement. The only insurgents (against whom?) or rebels left are strange organization Al-Qaida + small sunni and shia groups. The big players want US out, they have no need to fight any longer.

Good points! But what unites the three groups at this time is the US and AQ presence  --  not any sort of long-term Brotherhood of Man. If we stay there or the next three years, look for that coalition to falter in a manner both the US and AQ can be expected to exploit.

That Biden's plan is ridiculous is patent  --  so is any scheme of Westernizing Iraq ... and yet there we are; and Joe's the Veep.

Texman, great points

This is nothing but a face saving measure for the Bush administration.  It is going to create another clusterfu*k.  I supposed the new mission of US troops will be to surround oil wells for 2 more years.

Let's hope General Petraeus has been given complete authority and that Gates can let his military run the show.  As for the oil wells, probably, we don't want another Kuwait.

I don't think that Biden's plan is all that idiotic.  Technically they have already partitioned.  When the ethic groups started fighting...did they not force out the minority group?  Ethic cleansing anyone?  We even built walls to separate the groups.  As soon as we leave they are going to eventually break apart.  So why not assist in the transition?  I just don't think they are ready for the kind of democracy that we know.  They seem to be about a hundred years behind us in the civilization process.

Seems so after an american invasion. Never was a case before. Maybe that was a goal just to destroy the country, to push it in middle ages?

  The issue at hand is the Iraq mess,  and it's difficult to imagine Obama making more of a mess than did Bush/Cheney.

(You assume too much re: "your man".)

Frank -

That was the Reagan Administration theory when it supported Saddam Hussein.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Go to the above link and see the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam

Tired -

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/condoleezza-rice-wants-to-split-jerusalem-in-half/

I think you meant this:

Rice urges Israel to split Jerusalem
Sources reveal status of secret talks to create Palestinian state this year
August 25, 2008
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, completing a visit to the region today, has been pressing Israel to sign a document by the end of the year that would divide Jerusalem by offering the Palestinians a state in Israel’s capital city as well as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to top diplomatic sources involved in the talks.

The Israeli team, led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has been negotiating the division of Jerusalem – despite claims to the contrary – but would rather conclude an agreement on paper by the end of the year that would give the Palestinians a state in the West Bank, Gaza and some Israeli territory, leaving conclusions on Jerusalem for a later date, the informed diplomatic sources told WND.

to tired-of-liberals

Why the suggestion *split Jerusalem in half* is insulting for israelis? That's just historical fact that there are jewish districts and arabic boroughs in the city and both parties had the city as their sacred place.

lol. I am sorry but what a garbage you said!

It's like when a Congressional committee approves a bill, which is then sent to the floor for ratification; nothing is (theoretically) decided until the legislature votes.

Not to add to your justifiable anger, but you will notice that this agreement is being billed as NOT an official treaty  --  and therefore does NOT have to be sent to Congress to be approved, as stated in the Constitution. But if it isn't a treaty, what the hell is it? A non-binding resolution? What legal force does it have, and can Obama just ignore it?

Bigger question: Will he ignore it?

Much hinges on the answer to that question ...

Clikdawg (may I call you dawg?)

good question

Bigger question: Will he ignore it?

 If it truly is approved by the Iraqi government, yes President Obama will respect their directives.  My opinion.  This will give him the short cut needed to exit at the promised pace without having to obtain permissions.

Sure, everybody calls me dawg ...

Wish I was as certain as you of Obama's effect on what goes on over there. Wish I believed that, basically, we will withdraw in a manner which benefits the nation and fulfills it's obvious wishes, and that the M/I complex won't continue to tell any American President just exactly what he's gonna do next.

The next administration will respond with force to the security breakdown that Texman describes so accurately  --  and after that, all non-binding agreements will be off the table, as will any troop withdrawal schedules.

Sorry if that is not a sunny, best-case scenario  --  but we've been operating on those for too long as it is. Based on performance profiles of all the players, that is, however, an extremely probable scenario.

You are pessimistic, I am optimistic...the situation needs both our kinds :-)

Al-Sadr, whose militiamen fought U.S. forces in three uprisings since 2003, has threatened to resume attacks on U.S. forces if they don't immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.

If US forces go into the cities following attacks they will not be adhering to the agreement.  Thus any protection they theoretically have under the agreement will not apply and the US will be faced with seeing its soldiers tried in Iraqi courts and again dragged through the streets of cities.

It also prohibits the U.S. from using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran.

So, not only can the US not enter the cities for counter attacks, it has to stand by and watch the resupply sources for insurgents operate freely in Syria and Iran.

Bush is getting the US out as stupidly as he got us in.  I would truly love to see what General Petreus would say about this if he was permitted to talk.  Bush sold him out.  He needs to go to Crawford for a 6 week vacation.

Petraeus not Petreus, please.

Idiot Americans elected Bush - now live with that until he is officially replaced.

Yea, I've got a problem with the Iraqi government being able to go after our troops criminally as well.

War is hell and those kids are going to get into situations where they're scared and make wrong moves.

I'm the first one to be against killing civilians, but they're kids under pressure and I've got a problem with charging them criminally when we put the gun in their hands.

Actually, the provision that our troops and contractors can be tried in Iraqi courts for crimes committed "off-duty and off base", while not engaged in "military" operations is very similar to the agreements we have with other countries where the U.S. military has trrops stationed. (For example: the rapes that occurred on Okinawa could have been tried in Japanese civilian courts.) 

wilberta...standing up and speaking as a american citizen which Obama IS...is not trying to be president before jan 20, 2009...he is a citizen first and always and a president second and only for a term...

kakel

Correct...however How Long Do YOU think it would be before the Entire Media would

be ACCUSING OBAMA of USURPING GW'S Presidency...a couple of SECONDS...Obama is

not like the ORDINARY American Citizens...HE IS PRESIDENT ELECT NOW...HUGE

difference....if being president is second then all of our voices should be reckoned

with because he is the same as anyone of us....that is not how it works..that is why

he has Secret Service and we DON'T

wilberta...Obama already is standing up and speaking by urging Congress to work next week on passing another rescue bill that includes extending unemployment benefits etc...is the media presently chastising Obama for that?...no it isn't...and i thought our government is suppose to listen to all of our voices and not just the president...i mean take a look and see where that has got us now from Congress listening to bush and not us...

kakael...lol

i know he is however doing it under the capacity of a senator...which he will resign on 12/01/08

but i feel you though...congress has preformed dismally with bush...and i like you stated 

wish congress would listen to us the people. you would think after bush the congress

would take heed to their blind trust...before verifying...hopefully they will...i guess we

will have to be vigilant and remind them that we can vote them out in two more years.

if as a representative government they should represent us our will too....maybe

it's time we showed them we know the Constitution too.

Optomyst

That being said, it would be sad that all those Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc., etc. had lost their lives in vain. 

This is so wrong on many points.  They served their country and that is what they swore to do.  We salute them for this, the outcome of the conflict/war has NOTHING to do with their courage and commitment and their heroism!

Optomyst

That being said, it would be sad that all those Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc., etc. had lost their lives in vain. 

well i lost a lot of friends in this campaign and you know what i was surrounded by a lot of angry soldiers who wanted to know why was it a honor to lose your life to an unseen enemy called a car bomb or IED. I lost a white freind who to this day i can't seem to get over. My last picture of him we were standing in the desert he wa looking into the horizon. My wife said it disturbs her because he use to mess with her all the time when she came out to my work. She said he look so distance. He had a wonderful family. We keep telling the family he died a hero, and with honor. He was blown in half and he did not see his attackers nor was they brought to justice. The citizens did not help us not because they feared the "terrorist"  but because their leaders like AL-SADR who like i said is so powerful he can dictate events from Iran, said we are occupiers and will get no help. They accuse our govt of lying to them and remaining in Iraq. They say the president is a GWB puppet not their real leader and they yarn to go back to the days of Saddam. now you say if we leave then those who died die in vain, if we stay and have to leave because democracy fails then my question is what would they have fought and died for if not in vain..... See WON the war, people forget conventional warfare. now we are tied up in an insurgency not by terrorist like people think but by the tribes in Iraqi who wants us out..... WHAT DO YOU DO........?

NorthMS,

Sorry to hear about your friend.  No amount of fighting...no victory will bring your friend back...our leaders got us into this conflict on false information...and so to that your friend and many others have and will continue to die in vain.  I'm sure there are those who desire help in iraq...but if their freedom is not worth their blood and sacrifices then they do not deserve it at this time.  They need to stand up and take control of their country.  We can not give them democracy an peace.  They have to want it.

If those brave men who fought in this country in 1776 and beyond had not been able to achieve freedom from Great Britain, would they have not all died in vain?  Certainly they join the military to fight and defend, but just like Vietnam, if we, the American people pull the rug out from them, will they not feel they have done all this for nothing?  Will the families of the men and women lost in Iraq not feel that their loved ones fought for a cause that could not be achieved.........and, I might add, a cause which we, as Americans do not care about?  I agree, we should not have been there in the first place, but let's not make a mockery of our military.  YOU ARE WRONG!  If we fail, it has all been for naught.

No I think you are, our kids volunteer out of a sense of responsibility to their country, or to get college paid for.

It is not their responsibility to make sure that the politicains do not use them selfishly or unmorally.

If a soldier dies in a battle that should not have been fought, is he any less courageous?

Its our responsibility to make sure our politicians do not decieve us and send our children into harms way without proper planning and execution.  Its our kids responsibility to be the best they can be in that role.

In no way was I questioning anyone's courage.  In no way was I questioning the soldier's purpose.  But we have to learn that just because politicoes dictate our young men and women's future, we cannot sit still and let them, at their whim, send brave men and women thither and yon without a committment from us that the battle will successfully be completed.  It happened in Korea.....MacArthur wanted to chase the enemy across the Yalu (sp?) River and Truman yelled "Stop."  All these wars are done half-assed with no total committment by our country or the military that we will finish the job.  Think about how many we have left undone........Korea, Vietnam to name two.  If The prior administration had finished the job in Iraq, we wouldn't even be discussing this. Doesn't this disgust you?  Any job worth doing is a job worth doing well, and so many brave, selfless young men and women have not had the satisfaction of being able to complete their missions with certainty that what they fought for will not happen as soon as they leave.

Optomyst,

I respect your opinion.  But i have to ask at what point is the sacrifice too much?  You say you don't want their lives to be in vain but why should we continue to send our country men into this meat grinder known as the Iraq war?  it goes back to my original statement...if they (Iraqis) don't want it...then they don't deserve it.  I think we put too much emphasis on wining.  To me this is not a football game.  Lives are at stake.  Our leaders are too concerned with their egos to let up...and put an end to this endless point less war.  Most people who share your opinion of keep fighting till we win...deep down hate the idea of losing.  I hate the idea of losing...but my pride is not as important as the lifes of americans and iraqis alike.  I'm bigger than that.  We need to seriously check our egos at the door.

One single life is too great a sacrifice if it achieves nothing.

actually Optomyst here's a really telling interview with Cheney in 1993 about why Bush Sr. didn't "finish the job"  keep in mind we had 600k troops and all the support of the world and especially the Arab countries then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk

Blearc, great Cheney link.  I have saved to My Favorites so I can watch again and again.

this we can definately agree on.  Its time for the EU and China, and yes even russia to step up to the plate and regulate the playground too.

yes finally the right answer........ drboogie

Oval,

Thats a very good question.  I think this works out well for those in our administration that want this war to continue.  If there was a draft there would tremendous pressure from the public to end this war as soon as possible.  With an all volunteer force...the only ones affected by those long tours would be the family and friends of service members.  As a service member you can not protest or challenge your superiors.  You are obligated by law to carry out the wishes of the commander in chief (Bush).  So us servicemen are left without a voice.  And Bush and his cronies get to keep their war profiteering un checked and un challenged.

The U.S. rejected the Iraq soldiers which has caused some problems. The reasons seemed ok at the time, but not after all these years.

This is all a 'little fishy':  

1) the ariticle has a small paragraph: "The agreement gives Iraq the right to try U.S. soldiers and defense contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base."  --what is their definition of a serious crime after what has happened there, 2)Why was the U.N Mandate slated to expire on a date before a new administration would be sworn in? 3) Why is this vote suddenly have a majority vote from the Iraq cabinet when they have never been able to agree on anything?

I also understand our government lied to us to keep our soldiers there until after Hussein had been executed.  Some deals have been made between Bush and the Iraq cabinet members from the beginning.  This whole ordeal has been suspect and I don't trust ANYTHING Bush or his Iraqi groupies are negotiating.

Either make an emergency mandate to put Obama as president before the 31st deadline or postpone any decisions until January 21st.

Lisa-

An emergency mandate is unconstitutional and would never happen.

Seems to me that fighting terrorism is going to cost money.  Just as carting away the remnants of the Wrold Trade Center and pieces of the Pentagon did.  So what is this really all about.  Or have you forgotten?

What?

To the frog prince

Its all about money.  Terrorism. Yeah Right. What about BUSH and his Crew warned that if Wall Street doesn't get this bailout the Economy will Tank. Guess What. We gave him the Money and the Economy still tanked. In 2004 election the GOP spread fear to the American Public about Bin Laden. To this day they still didn't capture him. For all we know Osama Bin Laden could be Hawaii sippin' cocktails, while we spend Billions of Dollars fighting  senseless WARS. Our gov't had the info about terrorists gong to flight schools in our country but chose not to act on that pertinent info. On 60 Minutes, a Delta Forces Commander had Osama Bin Laden in his sights but the Pentagon chose not to act on that.

In my opinion, If we caught Bin Laden a couple years ago, these wars would not cost us that much  money and these crooked companies will not be receiving all those Billions of dollars. Since he is still on the loose, these Wars are costing us greatly(lives included)and these Companies are gettin paid, cheatin on their taxes and we are footin the bill.

No Wars means that no one is getting Paid.

the answer is E

i saw a generator mechanic and he did not  work he brought in iraqis to do the work who didn't get paid the money went to the sheiks of the village.

in the mess hall they hire people from japan and china, why not a lot of americans, because it would cost more to bring americans to iraq to work and it is cheaper to hire the africans who do not get paid much for work. i know they told me they work for meals and some money but not as much as us.

Shame, we have lots of americans who need the jobs it is like immigration in america immigrants working for less which benefit the boss. those guys are making a killing but hiring locals who work for less.......