"I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw"

Lieberman's behind the times.

Doesn't he know that Iraq is "Bush's" war, and therefore important that it be lost.

Doesn't he know that short term political gain trumps the long term security interests of America.

Doesn't he care that in order to gain favour with the anti-war leftist media who are so vital to his political interests, he needs to get on the Iraqi pullout bandwangon?

Not following the daily headlines? What kind of leader is he anyway?

I did not want this comment to get lost, so bear with me folks....Regarding supporting our troops in Afghanistan, I said that if we supported our troops 100%, the mission could not fail. One of our learned leftards responded by saying look how well it worked for the Germans at Stalingrad.....well, let me start by saying my wife is 100% German....her father was forced as a child into the hitler youth...he is still with us, and we have long conversations about his family's experiences during WW2....I mentioned the idiots comment to him, and I thought the top of his head was going to explode....his words to the leftard "tell that GD commie he has no idea what he is talking about, my uncle was led off at gunpoint to fight on the Russian front"...very strong language for this very religious man...once again, a leftard idiot shoots his mouth off, when he has no idea what he is talking about.....the nazis never had 100% support, MORON!

Agreed - but Al Qaeda is increasingly becoming linked to Iran - and Iran has its own agenda of imperialist control of the ME.

Al Qaeda's agenda is the maintenance of tribalism within the ME, a tribalism grounded in a fundamentalist Islam - ie, undemocratic, theocratic, non-industrial.

It arose, in part, because of the post WWs change in the ME from a non-industrial economy into an industrial - but a change via a corrupt tribalism. Since the population at the time was technologically non-industrial, the oil industry had to be developed, technologically and financially, by the West. But, rather than moving into a democracy, the ME set up militant dictatorships where one tribe ruled by military authority, funded by oil revenues - over the rest of the population who had no benefits from this new oil economy. The result - the dev't of fascism, a distorted attempt to remove the results of this new political system (military dictatorship of one tribe). However, Al Qaeda's solution is to Go Back to Our Old Purity - ie, before industrialism. It won't work; the populations are too large.

Democracy is the only solution.

BUT - Iran is moving into the chaos caused by this battle between The Old Pre-Industrial Way and Coorrupt Tribalism and a Mov't To Democracy.

Iran's agenda is imperialist - to control the whole ME. It is making use of the chaos - and moving into Iraq, assisting Al Qaeda there. Into Palestine, assisting Hamas there. Into Lebanon, assisting Hezbollah there. It's already in Syria. Watch it continue to move in, create civil wars and terrorism - and take over.

Wonder what the result would have been if WW11 had been called FDRs war. To the media and all democrats, it is the USA that is at war in Iraq, not just Pres Bush. I am sure that the troops are made up of democrats, republicans, greens, independants, libertarians and maybe even some Greens. The media has managed to spread the lie that the USA is not at war, only Pres Bush. The troops are american troops, not Bush's troops. They are fighting for Americans, not just republicans. History will not be kind to the kooks on this issue. How many fewer deaths could there have been if ALL AMERICANS and MEDIA had not let their personal hates run this war. Those comparing it to Viet Nam should realize that it was politicians, not military, who made decisions on how to fight that war, and politicians were defeated, not the military. If those kooks really want to discover the reasons VietNam became such a fiasco, go back to when France asked for help to defeat a certain group at the battle of Dien-something, and the senate defeated the motion to send help. Who cast the deciding vote not to send help, one LBJ. What goes around comes around.

Al-Qaeda is grounded in fundamentalist religious beliefs and flawed interpretations of history, not tribal identity. Rather than entrenching existing dictatorships its goal is to overthrow them and replace them with one government for all Muslims of all tribes and nationalities - the Caliphate. This is the opposite of tribalism.

Islam originally arose partly as a way to overcome constant tribal fighting and unite Arabs under one system of political and religious belief. It subsequently expanded to include many non-Arabs, but all united in the idea of the Muslim "Ummah" or community. Entrenching tribal power is NOT the goal of Jihadists.

Iran's motives and goals are unclear. They definitely seem determined to help drive the Americans out of the region, and have apparently helped their enemies (al-Qaeda) to do so.

Imperialist control of the ME by Iran? Seems highly unlikely.

Iranian control of predominately Shiite regions? That would seem a more likely objective. They'll need to remove American influence in the region to make it happen.

maryT
That's Diem Bien Phu. Apologies if the spelling is off.

Kingstonlad....agree with you 100%...but aren't you in the wrong thread...or is my 'puter being a pain again? Wouldn't be the 1st time.

This war is a complete success.
Signed
Halliburton, KBR, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater Security Consulting, terrorism, theocratic regimes and error prone geopolitical analysis paranoids everywhere.

belisaurius -I disagree. I don't think you understand the tribal political mode - which sets up authority by hereditary rather than elected and individual choices. Islam is tribal to its core. It rejects individualism, a middle class, democracy, reason - and opts for hereditary authority, focus on the group/tribe, rejects reason, rejects a capitalist economy, rejects freedom of thought, speech and action - and democracy.

Al Qaeda most certainly does not want to 'entrench existing dictatorships'. Al Qaeda emerged as a fight against these 'existing dictatorships'. It wants to remove them, and 'return' the population to the mythic Original Purity of Islamic governance - a governance which is tribal, ie, authority is by hereditary rights rather than election. The 'one government' you speak of refers to the population all following the Islamic religion.

Islam arose as a reaction to Christianity's agriculturalist economy - an expansionist economic mode that was moving into tribal lands. Islamic economy has always been, heavily, pastoral nomadic rather than settled agriculture. That's why Islam arose as a militant ideology, to fight against the agricultural expansion of the early era of 300-600AD.

In my view, Iran is most certainly interested in an imperialist control over the ME.

ET - looks like I would have flunked your anthropology class, huh?

Seriously though, your analysis of both Islam and its history has some serious flaws. The Caliphate was not originally a hereditary system of governance, although it ultimately became so. Al-Qaeda wants the original, "purer" version with the Caliph selected on the basis of religious merit. It's not democratic, but it's not a tribal dictatorship either.

Islam was certainly not a response to any Christian agricultural expansion. I'm not sure where you got that from, but there is no historical evidence of this that I am aware of. Islam was intended to trump tribal allegiances, and replace it with a higher loyalty to the religion and ummah. Theoretically, membership in a given tribe or nationality would make no difference. The union of many tribes under Islam allowed for its rapid expansion and conquest of Arabia, Persia, the Levant, Egypt, North Africa and Spain.

Islam arose in Saudi Arabia, as the Byzantine (Christian) and Persian (Zoroastrian) empires were fighting an exhausting war far to the north. An excellent overview of early Muslim history can be read in Raza Aslan's book, "No God But God".

You might be right about Iran, but it is difficult to know without more indications as to their intentions.

Who's progress in Iraq, Halliburton's?.
al Qaeda never existed in Iraq, (before the American invasion) Saddam couldn't trust or support them.
This is nothing more than an occupation of a county by America, to steel the oil. Less then two percent of the oil, gets back to the iraqi people.
Do you honestly believe you would even know where Iraq was on a map if there was no oil? The American led puppet government could never survive on its own merits.
The media needs to tell the truth 1) quit calling it a war, try an occupation 2)insurgents??? maybe freedom fighters.

Kingstonlad is not only suffering from anger management issues, he is being delusional. Supporting something that's doomed to fail due to incompetent planning will not change the outcome.

Since you're going into WW II anecdotes, my father spent five years as a forced labourer in Germany, so I've heard plenty of stories about those days. While the Germans were winning, there was plenty of support for their military's actions. In their arrogance, many Germans felt that the Soviet Union would fall in two weeks when that particular invasion started. But we all know what the outcome of that adventure was.

Bwahaha, Peter, that was awesome! You sounded just like a card carrying DemocRat, nice bit of lefty schtick there.

And speaking of DemocRats, I wonder how long its going to be before Sen. Leiberman gets thrown out of the party? Currently he's the only high profile Dem using his brain for something other than a hat rack.

Peter, what are you thick? Clearly your thought process is strictly Left of Stalin. Read some books Jackass!

Talkinghead
Left of Stalin?.
America sends people to prison (Guantanamo bay) without a trial, lawyer, or even a reason why they are there. (Most are innocent based on American accounts) Some tortured in foreign prisons for years like, Maher Arar, and others. It amazes me how far the right wing party has gone away from their principals. It wasn’t that long ago they would be out there fighting against this sort of thing, but “Im left of Stalin,” buddy; quit watching Fox news.

Peter, you were...serious? My condolences, eh?

By the way Peter. Those guys at Guantanomo? They were captured on the battlefield while shooting at Americans. Like our good Mr. Kadhr, whose name I noticed you didn't mention.

They have ALL had a trial. A -military- trial. Just like all the prisoners of war from time immemorial. Despite the fact that they aren't actually even enemy soldiers, merely armed civilians with no uniform or state backing them up. Most of them aren't even from Afghanistan.

Foreign terrorists. Like our Mr. Kadhr.

Hence my condolences one the major malfunction of yer frontal lobes there.

Those guys at Guantanomo? They were captured on the battlefield while shooting at Americans.

Some of them were innocent stooges who were sold to the Americans by bounty hunters for a cash reward.

They have ALL had a trial. A -military- trial. Just like all the prisoners of war from time immemorial.

You should change your name to "The Wrongtom", or "Wrongy Wrongalthetime".

Despite the fact that they aren't actually even enemy soldiers, merely armed civilians with no uniform or state backing them up.

Unlike the terrorists in Iraq, who I understand are often found to be wearing uniforms and carrying ID of the Iraqi Army and Police.

Ever heard of the American Revolution, or the American invasion of Canada in 1812? Or Afghanistan in 1980-1989? It turns out - many of you will find this shocking - that if a sufficiently large proportion of a nation's population is opposed to it, it is impossible for a foreign army to conquer and subdue that nation.

Terrorists in Iraq have a marked tendency to be foreigners also. Just like the aformentioned Mr. Kadhr, a Canadian with no more business in Assghanistan than my illustrious self.

I know you Lefties think Afghans are taking up arms against the Eeevile Imperial Bushites but we keep seeing captured gunmen Germany, Australia, England, Syria and even Rexdale.

You should change your name to Eeew. Or possibly Duh.

UGH
Are u rocked, They were captured on the battlefield while shooting at Americans. Most of the detainees are rounded up in sweeps to be sorted out later. They spend years in prison before they can get a military trial. You need to get a copy of the Amnesty International report on Guantanamo and read what is really going on. I'm not saying that they are all innocent, but I do think that if they shot at an American soldier then lets try them in America. (hang them i dont care) Instead of hiding behind a foreign country like Cuba where the rule of law no longer applies.

Amnesty International! Now there is an unbiased group of people!

Like the proud day a Canadian PM ordered the troops in and imposed martial law and locked up the "usual suspects," let the bleeding hearts bleed.

When someone cares more about the rights of tribes who kill innocents to make political points, then that's a comparative study course I missed on my way to an inferior education.

To hold a tag day and/or troll a blof in the name of the worlds oppressed terrorists, combatants or even a incorrectly detained prisoner, is just a bit more reductive crap than is necessary.

More lberia logic. Let's see, I don't agree with Afghanistan, therefore the leaders of the mission are incompetent and I will prove that by citing a battle where somebody lost.

It's just a coincidence, of course, that he uses a German defeat. After all they are the same as conservatives don't you know.

Yeah, buddy ride that logic right through the next election. Dion must be your inspiration with the we stopped the mean, incompetent Harperites from getting a majority government, and they're so right wing, not moderate:

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/06/16/4265264-sun.html

I know Iberia, bait and switch. Actually it's switch and bait. Will you bite?

BTW, for those who wonder why I feel Iraq invasion was a mistake, it's not because it's unwinnable. I don't believe that either. Bush argued this was to root out WMDs and he didn't find any. He should have borne the consequences for that, but didn't; in fact, he won re-election because of Kerry's muddled positions and poor communication skills.

AQ had low level only links with Iraq pre-invasion, but enough where they poured in afterwards. Saddam would never have allowed that.

But, the biggest error was not recognizing Saddam would eventually draw ire of Arab world and be defeated militarily anyway. Lack of patience, poor intelligence and groupthink led to invasion, thus reinforcing view of US as imperialist aggressor. It was not, though, about oil, unless it's oil for Russia, Germany and France.

Actually Shamrock, my logic is that if you are going to do something, make sure you do it right and not half assed. Further to that, my logic is that if you are not succeeding because you are doing things half assed, no amount of positive thinking and/or blaming others for your failure will change that.

(And for probably the 10th time, I'm not a Liberal and I don't like the Liberals, so if you think you are hurting my feelings by mocking them, you're mistaken.)

They are doing it right lberia, in my opinion. You don't think they are. So what. BTW, spare us the "I'm not a Liberal." Your words and attitudes out you as being a Liberal apologist.

BTW, what would be doing it right would be more troops, not less, to control Pakistan border and legalize opium crop. Do you support more troops? You would rather declare defeat and announce to our enemies precisely when we plan to leave.

From what I've seen from "the mission is failing" crowd, is they don't support using the proper means (troops are bomb-droppers and war criminals, tanks are, get this, an "escalation"), then declare management of war effort incompetent.

Before you freak out and explain your non-Liberalness, I am not referrring to you (because I don't care what you think, you are just a blogger like me), I mean the Jack Layton and Stephane Dion types who would rather criticize for communications issues and blather on about George Bush's war.

The reason you have a "mission is failing crowd" is because of the premature announcements of victory (the Taliban is defeated/Mission Accomplished) followed by five years of a guerrilla warefare. What's being done to remedy this? "It's all the fault of the anti-war crowd." Yeah, that makes sense. After all, the anti-war crowd controls the government and the military, eh?

If this is such a serious matter, why aren't more troops being sent in? There are only about 40,000 troops in Afghanistan...the Soviets had three times as many and they were unsuccessful in subduing that country. It doesn't take a military genius to see that unless way more troops are sent in, this current mission will be unsuccessful.

So we're going to send a few tanks there. Big deal. None of the other countries involved over there are expanding their forces, and some are even pulling out. Explain to me how that's a recipe for success. Get big, or get out.

That's "warfare," and my comments also apply to Iraq.

Well Iberia, there's two things. First, thanks to the Trudeaupian Way (let the Yanks do it!) we don't have any more guys to send. Reg force is maxed out, sending militia units wouldn't be smart.

Second, the Soviets got beat by American Stinger missiles and their own crappy combat doctrine. They had the Mujahedeen beat stone cold, they all ran away into Pakistan until the Yanks gave them Stingers. Lack of air support allowed the Afghans to rocket Russian vehicle convoys with impunity while their crews hid inside the vehicles.

Personally I don't think the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq will calm down until Iran and Syria get dealt with. Convincing the Russians and the Chicoms to stop selling 'em munitions wouldn't hurt either.

Applying modern counter-insurgency doctrine - as is finally happening in Iraq - is the way to win.