Iraq rant

[chm2023]

This makes me crazy. Consider these statements from last week:

General Abizaid, head of US Central Command before thd Senate Armed Forces Comm: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward a civil war:

William Paley, outgoing British ambassador to Iraq: "The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy"

From two years ago; Nation Intelligence Council report on the future of Iraq to Bush: "...continued instability and a definite possibility of civil war." Bush's response to this report: "They are just guessing as to what the conditions might be like".

Here's what makes me crazy: did we not impeach Bill Clinton for lying about his sex life? And yet for this, no accountability. Small wonder we have lost respect all across the world.

It is abundantly clear that our president has a debilitating aversion to unhappy truths--he of course a stark realist as compared to nutjob "last throes" Cheney.

I find a lot of my friends who voted for Bush and supported the war are now simply not wanting to talk about it. That's too damn bad. History is not going to be kind to us.:angry:

[chip anderson]

CHM:

You have conservative republican friends?

[chm2023]

CHM:

You have conservative republican friends?

I have some conservative republican friends, most of my republican friends I would describe as moderate--and they are the ones that really p*** me off. They know this was a bad mistake but don't want to think about it. At least the right wingers have (however misguided) passion for their position.

[JRS]

If the link is still valid, you should watch this clip CHM. I think it's a hoot!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sj4LmPtq90&NR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sj4LmPtq90&NR)

[ksquared]

chm2023 writes:
Consider these statements from last week: General Abizaid, head of US Central Command before thud Senate Armed Forces Comm: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward a civil war:
Consider these from the same hearing:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact. Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation."

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense:
“…we've seen the face of the early part of the 21st century. In this period of asymmetric warfare, irregular warfare, one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war while the other side uses them against us; one side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties while the other side uses civilians as shields and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilian in their midst; one side is held to exacting standards of near perfection -- the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all.”

“This enemy has called Iraq the central front on the war on terrorism…."

“…if terror were permitted to triumph in Iraq, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.”

“The enemy understands this as well. They're waging a psychological war of attrition, planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry.”

“They want us to believe that perseverance by us is futile, rather than necessary. They want us to focus on our casualties and losses, not on the people causing the casualties and losses. They want us to think about what will happen if our forces stay in Iraq, as opposed to the consequences if our forces were to leave prematurely."

"They want us to be divided, because they know that when we are united they lose. They want us pointing fingers at each other, rather than pointing fingers at them.”

“We should strive to think through how our words can be interpreted by our troops, by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, by our 42 allies in our coalition in Afghanistan, and our 34 allies in our coalition in Iraq. And we should consider how our words can be used by our deadly enemy.”

“The war on terror is going to be a long struggle. It's not something we asked for, but neither is it something we can avoid. “

“Americans didn't cross oceans and settle a wilderness and build history's greatest democracy only to run away from a bunch of murderers and extremists who try to kill everyone that they cannot convert and to tear down what they could never build.”


chm2023 writes:
I find a lot of my friends who voted for Bush and supported the war are now simply not wanting to talk about it. That's too damn bad. History is not going to be kind to us.

Perhaps your moderate republican friends have a better grasp on what’s at stake here. Perhaps they understand that we are at “war”. It just might be that they realize - calling the president an idiot, arguing over whether or not we should have intervened when we did, the day after day focus on the perceived inadequacies of the Bush administration and all of the rest of the political posturing -are counter productive.

I agree that History will probably not be kind. But the real question is, to which “us”.

[Stephanie Yee]

CHM, I just want to say: Amen, sister!!

The 'war on terror' is a lost cause and will never be won anywhere. It's like the 'war on drugs' -- a constant, ongoing, win-some-lose-some type of battle that never ends.

The decision to occupy Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and then 'liberate' the Iraqi people (whether they like it or not) was a mistake by the Bush administration. Assuming that Hussein possessed large amounts of WMD's to be considered a significant threat to the US or Israel was an assumption that turned out to be wrong.

Which leads me to wonder: Didn't anybody in the Bush administration learn anything from the Vietnam war????

[Steve Machol]

Which leads me to wonder: Didn't anybody in the Bush administration learn anything from the Vietnam war????
Well, since none of them saw fit to server their Country and fight in it.............

[chm2023]

CHM, I just want to say: Amen, sister!!

The 'war on terror' is a lost cause and will never be won anywhere. It's like the 'war on drugs' -- a constant, ongoing, win-some-lose-some type of battle that never ends.

The decision to occupy Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and then 'liberate' the Iraqi people (whether they like it or not) was a mistake by the Bush administration. Assuming that Hussein possessed large amounts of WMD's to be considered a significant threat to the US or Israel was an assumption that turned out to be wrong.

Which leads me to wonder: Didn't anybody in the Bush administration learn anything from the Vietnam war????


Apparently not. The violence is now mainly sectarian, the terrorists are fighting a guerilla war, and the population is taking sides and giving the terrorists cover and aid. Anyone who thinks we are the voice of the Iraqi people apparently missed the 300,000 person pro-Hezbollah rally in Baghdad last week.

And all that WMD stuff is nonsense: while a lot of people honestly thought Saddam had weapons, a lot thought otherwise but were silenced, the fix was in for invasion from the get go. And no-one really believed he had nuclear weapons, which would have been the only legitimate reason to consider invasion. I love how the Bushies want to consign all that to water under the bridge. (Hey, we took the country to war, allocated huge resources which could have been put to better use to say, secure our ports and chem plants, squandered our credibility--both moral and military, but hey, you can trust us...)

I agree the lesson of Vietnam is lost on this bunch. What is astonishing is that the Bushies still piously claim that they are looking out for our national security: 5 years after 9/11 (and how many $$$) AQ apparently still sees our civilian aviation as a ripe target, North Korea has increased its nukes by about 400%, Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons with the tacit support of Russia, the Israeli/Arab conflict has metastisized and thrown our impotence into high relief--this a particular triumph of Bush diplomacy--at the beginning of this Hezbollah aggression, the moderate Arab countries like SA and Egypt were speaking out against Hezbollah--a perfect time for us to rally the forces of moderation and try to isolate H. But no. Better to go with the plan that aligns us totally with Israel and pushes all the Arab countries to back H.

I'm guessing Bushie is still trying to wrap his mind around the idea that yes, Virginia, democracies can and do promote terrorism. What a complete and utter ***.

[drk]

chm, you sound as nuts as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. What is it about you ultra-liberals that make you so focused on George Bush? Fight the power? Tune in, turn on, drop out? Mad at your parents?

With the problems facing the world today, there's no time for this post-adolescence adolescence. The swinging sixties are not coming back, no matter how much you try to usher them in.

Time to get serious.

[chm2023]

chm, you sound as nuts as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. What is it about you ultra-liberals that make you so focused on George Bush? Fight the power? Tune in, turn on, drop out? Mad at your parents?

With the problems facing the world today, there's no time for this post-adolescence adolescence. The swinging sixties are not coming back, no matter how much you try to usher them in.

Time to get serious.


I am deadly serious. And I am focused on Bush because our foreign policy is a disaster and last I looked, this is in the job description of the president. With the problems facing the world today, it's time for a reality check.

Interesting you attack me--kill the messenger maybe? And specifically what in my post is "nuts"? Be happy to debate it with you.

And take a look at the polls--Bush can't get over 40% and the war is less popular than he is. Golly, didn't realize there were so many "ultra-liberals...."

[drk]

I assume that you subscribe to the wacky notion that "US bad, stomps on others. We are hated and we deserve it. We surrender!"

Great, CHM. Give in to the terrorists and others that would carry this country's riches away to their own, and destroy the progress of civilization. Be a slave to another culture. Give it all away, that was purchased in American blood.

The rest of America will fight, however, and you will probably complain about it when we save your hide.

Enough breath wasted.

[Optical Enigma]

I am deadly serious. And I am focused on Bush because our foreign policy is a disaster and last I looked, this is in the job description of the president. With the problems facing the world today, it's time for a reality check.

Interesting you attack me--kill the messenger maybe? And specifically what in my post is "nuts"? Be happy to debate it with you.

And take a look at the polls--Bush can't get over 40% and the war is less popular than he is. Golly, didn't realize there were so many "ultra-liberals...."


Bush, and the Iraq war are about as popular as the founding fathers were when they had the crazy idea to try to get the US off the ground. Maybe they shouldn't have even tried, given that the population was 2 to 1 for England.

I think the only mistake in Afganistan, Iraq, and currently in Israel, is the method of this diplomacy+warish thing. For instance, had Israel attacked Lebanon blitzkrieg style, without warning, they might have been rid of their problems by now, just as they did in the olden days. The same goes for Iraq. If diplomacy hadn't warned Saddam we were "eventually" going to bomb him, we wouldn't have had to search for him and the 52 faces in Rummy's deck of cards.

I say to hell with Diplomacy. It lengthens war and bloodshed resulting in needless death and destruction. You don't warn an enemy you are coming, and lose the element of surprise... Well at least terrorists don't, perhaps, because it is a better method of making an impression on ones enemies.

[Optical Enigma]

The rest of America will fight, however, and you will probably complain about it when we save your hide.


Maybe she doesn't fly out of Heathrow?

[chm2023]

I assume that you subscribe to the wacky notion that "US bad, stomps on others. We are hated and we deserve it. We surrender!"

Great, CHM. Give in to the terrorists and others that would carry this country's riches away to their own, and destroy the progress of civilization. Be a slave to another culture. Give it all away, that was purchased in American blood.

The rest of America will fight, however, and you will probably complain about it when we save your hide.

Enough breath wasted.


You can assume til the cows come home. You are just wildly throwing things out--yes, it is my dream to be a slave to another culture. What rot.

And I repeat: specifically what have I stated that is "nuts"?

"The rest of America will fight"--I assume you have signed up?? Don't forget to write.

[chm2023]

Maybe she doesn't fly out of Heathrow?


I normally fly thru Gatwick. How clever.

[chm2023]

Bush, and the Iraq war are about as popular as the founding fathers were when they had the crazy idea to try to get the US off the ground. Maybe they shouldn't have even tried, given that the population was 2 to 1 for England.

I think the only mistake in Afganistan, Iraq, and currently in Israel, is the method of this diplomacy+warish thing. For instance, had Israel attacked Lebanon blitzkrieg style, without warning, they might have been rid of their problems by now, just as they did in the olden days. The same goes for Iraq. If diplomacy hadn't warned Saddam we were "eventually" going to bomb him, we wouldn't have had to search for him and the 52 faces in Rummy's deck of cards.

I say to hell with Diplomacy. It lengthens war and bloodshed resulting in needless death and destruction. You don't warn an enemy you are coming, and lose the element of surprise... Well at least terrorists don't, perhaps, because it is a better method of making an impression on ones enemies.


When I hear someone evoke the "founding fathers" I know I am in for a piece of particularly lame argument. So you're suggesting Israel bomb Lebanon--a democracy as you know--to rid itself of one small portion of its population? Great idea because, as we all know, terrorism is confined to discrete geographies. Bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon and we'll never hear from them again--kinda like the Taliban in Afghanistan, right? Bombed them and they never....oh, wait. Never mind.

(PS, Israel did bomb without warning, surely you've heard the news reports that Hezbollah admitted to being taken by surprise by the attacks?)

[Optical Enigma]

When I hear someone evoke the "founding fathers" I know I am in for a piece of particularly lame argument.

The founding fathers were not popular. "Good things are done by unpopular people." It isn't an argument, and it isn't lame.


So you're suggesting Israel bomb Lebanon--a democracy as you know--to rid itself of one small portion of its population? Great idea because, as we all know, terrorism is confined to discrete geographies. Bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon and we'll never hear from them again--kinda like the Taliban in Afghanistan, right? Bombed them and they never....oh, wait. Never mind.
Hezbollah is 1/5 of the democratic government. I do not hold democracy as a justification for terrorism. Terrorist democracies risk being bombed, wouldn't you agree?


(PS, Israel did bomb without warning, surely you've heard the news reports that Hezbollah admitted to being taken by surprise by the attacks?)
Yes but Israel limited its bombing instead of all out attack, giving its enemies time to regroup and get into bunkers. My point is that Israel acted differently than it has in the past, and will now pay for that mistake for decades.

[hotsauce]

The founding fathers were not popular. "Good things are done by unpopular people." It isn't an argument, and it isn't lame.

Suggesting, as you seem to be, that all unpopular things are good ideas by definition seems an interesting way to make an argument. Or do you suggest we follow the minority's opinion only when things you agree with are in the minority?

[Optical Enigma]

Suggesting, as you seem to be, that all unpopular things are good ideas by definition...

I did not suggest that.

[chm2023]

Hezbollah is 1/5 of the democratic government. I do not hold democracy as a justification for terrorism. Terrorist democracies risk being bombed, wouldn't you agree?

Of absolutely--what is interesting is that democracies can be, in part or in total, terrorist. Something our President obviously never foresaw--see Iraq!!


Yes but Israel limited its bombing instead of all out attack, giving its enemies time to regroup and get into bunkers. My point is that Israel acted differently than it has in the past, and will now pay for that mistake for decades.[/quote]

Israel has warned civilians to flee time after time over the years and various wars and has been pretty scrupulous about limiting collateral damage. The problem here is obvious: trying to excise a terror group that is interwoven into the fabric of the nation--either your hands are tied by your own sense of morality or you sacrifice a lot of innocents (and ensure that Lebanon becomes further radicalized). Heads you lose, tails you lose.

[rinselberg]

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7935/54645to9.jpg

It's hardly a clearcut victory (the ceasefire) for Olmert and his Israeli government, but it does open a window of opportunity - assuming that an "enhanced UNIFIL" with a solid core of NATO-quality troops takes its expected position in southern Lebanon.

As a practical matter, Hezbollah will have to be "semi-good" for a certain time after the ceasefire. If they try to fire rockets at Israel over the heads of a revitalized UNIFIL or effect other new provocations against Israel in the wake of the ceasefire, they'll rack up some negative brownie points on the old international OpEd scene. Somebody, somewhere, might even try to restrain them ...

We don't know how long this window of opportunity will last, but if there could be some new rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians, followed by another rapprochement between Syria and Israel, it would cut all of the ground from under Hezbollah as a force dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

From our vast reading of thinly researched and misleadingly simple reports in the mass US media, we have the impression that when Bill Clinton was President, Israel and Syria drew very close to an agreement over the Golan Heights - with Israel ready to give almost all of it back to Syria. (We suspect that Syria did not want to "cut in line" ahead of the Palestinians to make peace with Israel.) Hezbollah would then have no other alternative, except to disarm and direct its gaze inward, onto the vista of internal Lebanese politics.

But if the "window" runs out with no progress on the Israel v. Palestinian and Israel v. Syria "peace tracks" - look for yet another Israel v. Hezbollah war - even more violent and costly than this latest one.

Israel has warned civilians to flee time after time over the years and various wars and has been pretty scrupulous about limiting collateral damage. The problem here is obvious: Trying to excise a terror group that is interwoven into the fabric of the nation - either your hands are tied by your own sense of morality or you sacrifice a lot of innocents (and ensure that Lebanon becomes further radicalized). "Heads you lose, tails you lose ..."RadioFreeRinsel (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80952&postcount=8) does not think that this newly suspended war can be reduced all the way down to "Heads, Israel loses" and "Tails, Israel loses" ...

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3456/54516su9.jpg

We think that Olmert signaled at the very beginning of Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah (about a month ago) that the most important Israeli objective was the insertion into southern Lebanon of a credible international peacekeeping force. Israel would no doubt have preferred a NATO-led force, but if the French Army is to be the core of an enhanced UNIFIL, that could work. There's nothing second rate about the French army as a military force - provided France has its head on straight, politically. And as far as the memories of the Hezbollah truck bombs that once ran both the US and France out of Lebanon not all that long ago - we don't think that France will want to be run out like that a second time.

Viva la France ...?


Graphics: IDF Official Website (http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=54279.EN)

[Robert Martellaro]

I think that Olmert signaled at the very beginning of Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah (about a month ago) that the most important Israeli objective was the insertion into southern Lebanon of a credible international peacekeeping force.Another possibility is to thin out the Katyusha rockets in anticipation of the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israel would no doubt have preferred a NATO-led force, but if the French Army is to be the core of an enhanced UNIFIL, that could work.The Lebanese army is scared to death of Hezbalah, so that leaves the French and any other countries who are crazy enough to stick their soldier's heads into a hornet's nest.
And as far as the memories of the Hezbollah truck bombs that once ran both the US and France out of Lebanon not all that long ago - we don't think that France will want to be run out like that a second time.I know it's a low blow..but I can't resist.

"How many gears do the French tanks have?... two- neutral and reverse."

[chm2023]

Rinslette/Robert: did you see Sy Hersh's latest in the New Yorker? Pretty interesting as always.

[Robert Martellaro]

Rinslette/Robert: did you see Sy Hersh's latest in the New Yorker? Pretty interesting as always.Thanks, I read it yesterday. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact

I don't think it was too smart, if any of this is true, to announce that Israel has broken the encrypted communications between Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Act 2 begins after Iran's response to Resolution 1696. Nothing but bad options to choose from if this goes as expected. Let's hope that for everyone’s sake Iran backs down.