I know, I said this once before already, but here it is again; Tide's a turnin'. On this side of the fence now too.

Yahoo !!!

The best possible scenario. Wonder how it will affect the Loopy Hollywoodites and Lefties everywhere should this play out?

"Seventy percent of Iraqis are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50 percent in 2003, the year George W. Bush, who knew better than the impartial UN inspectors, took it upon himself to, "destroy Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction" that threatened America."

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070730-121104-4362r

Yeah, the military progress seems real enough, but whether Nouri al-Maliki can make the political progress that's going to necessary in order to hold onto these gains is another matter. I'd be more optimistic if the Iraqi Parliament wasn't taking August off. But, hell, it's good news here's hoping for more.

Yeah, right Alby, things were soooo much better under Hussein. Thanks for pointing that article out to us. Really good impartial source, too (no mention of infant mortality and starvation during the Oil for Food plague of Hussein's). Sheesh and c'mon, try not to make it so obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Times

'Nother albatross round the neck of AQI.
Leftists are on suicide watch.
...-

Armed group reconciles with Iraqi gov''t(1920 Revolution Brigades FLIPS)

BAGHDAD, July 29 (KUNA) -- The US military said on Sunday that the 1920 Revolution Brigades have reconciled with the Iraqi government and the US military. A statement issued by the US said the "Sunni group" had rejected the Iraqi government in the past, but had reconciled with both the government and coalition forces to eliminate Al-Qaeda....-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873806/posts

ahh, albatross- what a mental burden you are. Rejecting progress, rejecting new developments.

Did you know that the reason for the poor water in Iraq - isn't due to Bush and the USA - but to Iraq? Their years of neglect to the infrastructure of water, their inadequate maintenance of these structures, and deliberate sabotage and looting by 'insurgents'

"In 2003, Iraq's 140 major water treatment facilities were operating at about 35 percent of their design capacity (3 billion liters a day) due to inadequate maintenance, lack of plant operators, power shortages, and looting. USAID is helping improve the efficiency and reliability of existing treatment facilities, and is constructing several new facilities, especially in the south where water quality is particularly poor. Iraq has 13 major wastewater treatment facilities, operating at about a quarter of their design capacity. Baghdad's three sewage plants, comprising three quarters of the nation's total sewage treatment capacity, were not treating waste for more than six years before the conflict, allowing raw waste to flow into the Tigris River. In the rest of the country, most wastewater treatment facilities were only partly operational before the conflict, and a shortage of electricity, parts, and trained staff exacerbated the situation." www.usaid.gov

But don't let the facts affect your emotions, albatross. You just 'go on hating'. Enjoy it.

It's fascinating - and sickening - to see the left parade its emotional investment in failure. These people would cheerfully watch Iraq suffer if it satisfies their BDS.

In the other thread on Trudeau Alby's busy teling me he spent years in the Canadian military.

My money says he's an undergrad at U of T in political "science".

Tell me Alby, how does one field strip an FNC1?

Actually, the bird of ill omen apparently has graced the military during its nadir, is in his late 40's, and is an undergraduate in Manitoba pursuing a degree in (shudder) environmental studies and anthropology.

UMan used to give courses in logic. If they still do, he ought to take them.

The Phantom - "Tell me Alby, how does one field strip an FNC1?"

The same as the FNC2 other than the fact one need not remove the C2's forestock.

I am still quite skeptical...it would be little short of a miracle for Bush to pull this one off at this late time.

I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong though.

The stark reality is that despite the apparent good news getting through on the net,the MSM still has the power(and probably the partisan motivation)to make Americans believe all is still lost.

And we all know(hopefully)that perception is everything in a battle for hearts and minds.

Truly,I believe we are currently in the middle of a civil war in N.America between hardcore partisan ideologies.A war of words where everybody is talking,but very few people are listening.
And who knows what to believe as propaganda is the main weapon of choice for both sides.The biggest problem being....this internal bickering has left us exposed like a deer frozen in radical Islam's headlights.

All I do know with any certainty is that no matter what medium or forum for debate I discover on my travels,it always seems to be the conservatives who are willing to wear their love for their country,and democracy itself,on their sleeves.

And that's a sincerity I choose to put some faith in.

Some.

Oh....and to ALL the albatrosses of the world...

If you are truly incapable of adjusting your thought processes to accept any new input,then stay the hell away from the blogosphere so the rest of us can make some progress.

Thank you.

ET - "Did you know that the reason..."

Why is there still no water? Stop blaming Hussein, the Americans have had enough time to bring basic services to the Iraqi people.

You don’t like the source of this story? Do a search yourself and you can pick whichever unbiased source you like, they all tell the same story as this source. I suggest Oxfam’s own website and get it from the horses mouth.

How many billions missing in rebuilding Iraq? See the Passionate Eye tonight 10:00 E.T.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_011006.html

Fine, Iraq is a stunning success. Can we invade The Congo now?

GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- Extreme sexual violence against women is pervasive in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and local authorities do little to stop it or prosecute those responsible, a U.N. investigator said on Monday.
...
"Violence against women seems to be perceived by large sectors of society to be normal," she added in a report after an 11-day trip to the strife-torn country.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/30/congo.rape.reut/index.html?iref=topnews

Andrew, troops will only invade to stop the oppression of women in the Congo if those women happen to be sitting above few billion barrels of American oil.

How the hell did we get to the Congo so quickly???
Alby and like minded others. Spend $19.95 and pick yourself a book at that evil Joos store called "Chapters". It's called "Churchill and America". Read it and find out just what has happened over the last century in Iraq and the rest of the ME. Read,understand, and inwardly digest the history of the region.Your comments represent just a tiny fraction of time in the history of that screwed-up country.

Problems in the Congo? Well, why not just send in the UN? Sure, the blue helmets may well just start pimping the abused women or abusing them themselves, like they have elsewhere on the continent, but that's gotta be OK 'cause it's the UN, right?

albatross - you are recommending the CBC to me? Never. I don't watch propaganda.

albatross - why are you so desperate for the Iraqi people to fail? Could you explain that to me? They are now free of a dictatorship and yet, your focus, and hope, it seems, is that they will fail to take their country's governance into their own hands, and make it a success. Could you explain why you want the Iraqi people to fail?

Remember, under Hussein, only the cities were provided with basic services of water and hydro; the rural areas were ignored. The current Iraqi gov't is attempting to develop the whole country. Again - why do you want them to fail? I'd be interested in your reasons.

Again - I don't watch or read propaganda. Therefore, don't suggest it to me, ie, the CBC.

Andrew - developing countries take years to develop. After all, it took years for the US, Canada, UK, Europe etc to develop. So, don't expect overnight results in the ME. As for Africa - their behaviour is their behaviour, ie, they are responsible. The UN should do something about it - not the US. Why should the Americans always be not only held responsible for everything happening on this planet, but also, expected to fix everything?

Ha. I went to Chapters yesterday. They have three small rows of books on Canadian politics - or about a quarter of the shelf space devoted to Wicca.

albatros39a - do you manage to communicate such nonsense with a straight face? Do you even think, or just demonize by reflex?

You got two choices:

The US in Iraq is evil? Okaay...then so is the presence of China in Tibet, and UN-mandated forces in too many places to think about.

The US should be everywhere? Then so should the EU and the UN.

Ipso facto, you are being prejudiced.

You're also acting like the PETAnuts that throw blood on little old ladies in fur coats, but not on Hell's Angels in leather.

ET offers the following brilliant insight: developing countries take years to develop.

Wow. Thanks for sharing that with us ET! Deep!

And on CNN today ... story on the success and improvements in conditions in Iraq followed by (AHEM) analysis by Wolf Blitzer (who says CNN has no sense of humor?)
Wolf's analysis?
"Can anyone be sure after only 8 days of study how great an effect we are seeing here?"

Well Wolfy baby! That would be about 69,120,000 times as much study as the 10 or so milliseconds you and your pals have to it!!
Or Albatwit39eh!

As has been noted elsewhere on this blog. Listening to the interview with Petraeus on hughhewitt.com is very much worthwhile. The general literally wrote the book - the most current edition at least - on counterinsurgency tactics. Now he's putting those tactics into practice with apparently excellent results.

Let's hope his taking over the Iraq campaign happened in time unlike the guy who wrote the first edition - General Creighton Abrams who took over operations in Vietnam and had notable success with "Vietnamization" but only after the war had already been lost at home by LBJ and the left.

The question for individuals like Albatross and Andrew is whether or not they think the United States should immediately and unilaterally withdraw, and what they think the likely consequences of that would be. So c'mon boys: instead of tossing off your usual one-liners, use your enhanced ethical sense and critical faculties to show the rest of us fools the way out.

Some words of wisdom for Alby and his pals:
Life is Tough!

No hope Alby or Andy doing anything but pulling a Leftie SSD (Sneer, Smear and Disappear) on their way through to troll elsewhere.

ET...Alby cannot answer your question to him because that would expose him as the leftard,oppressionist twit he/she/it is. Leftards cannot survive without an oppressed group that they can exploit. If a group stands up and helps themseles,they have,in fact,defeated the leftards purpose...i.e....said group no longer needs their "support" or hand-outs...ergo...THEY...as in the leftards,lose an excellent money source from the government/and or "social" agencies. Prove me wrong,Alby.

And OMMAG....nothing personal...but please....don't try to show Alby and buddies what real life is. It might hurt their feelings.

Achieving security against violence -- through military means, as necessary -- are important, though ultimately futile if not followed by commensurate political and socioeconomic advances:

- news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6922347.stm
- 3w.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/30/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Politics.php

Al Qaeda may have been forced into the margins for now, but they will assuredly be back. Their self-perceived reason d'etre -- the US foreign presence in the ME -- will only be enhanced by a strong Iraq. Sectarian violence will plague the country for decades, with or without democratic governance.

The best from the Belmont Club.
...-

dla said...

Red River said...
Iraq is the Wahhabist's Guadalcanal.

Profound. And I think you are right. I hope you are right.

My personal feeling is that radical Islam has been exposed as the gangreenous sore on humanity that it is, for all the western world to see. And for once the stupidity of the MSM works in Bush's favor - by accident. All of Islam is tainted by the Wahhabbist-nutballs, and the 30 million muslims in the US are scrambling to salvage the image of "the religion of peace". Since the MSM lumps all Muslims together, Americans are solidifying a viewpoint that Islam is bad.

Perhaps America will begin to weigh in on some of the other Islamic-sponsored atrocities in the world - like Darfur. ...-
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12136206&postID=8780311671674005010

I have to respect O'Hanlan and Pollack becauase they seem to be two of the very few people who write or simply spount off about Iraq who do not manifestly suffer from severe confirmation bias of pre-existing political agendas. They actually went back to Iraq, did a comparative analysis of earlier work and came to a starkly different conclusion. A rare feat these days; one that in itself lends substantial credibility to their report.

smoke - the 'self-proclaimed reason' for the existnce of Al Qaeda is not and never was, the US presence in the ME. but the emergence of modernity in the ME.

This is a war within Islam, between those who want to live in a non-industrial tribal culture -which includes both the tribal dictators and the islamic fascists, and those who want to move into a modern industrial mode. Guess which one will win?

Albatros

"Andrew, troops will only invade to stop the oppression of women in the Congo if those women happen to be sitting above few billion barrels of American oil."

So, in your world, invading Iraq to stop the general oppression of the people there is wrong because there were a few billion barrels of oil but it's would be ok invading Congo to stop the general oppression of the people if only they had a few billion barrels of oil.

Why do you find it so difficult to say,

"I disagree with how Iraq was handled but I hope it works out for them anyway."

Instead of pointing to the worst case caused not by Americans but by people who blow up water treatment plants intentionally?

"Instead of pointing to the worst case caused not by Americans but by people who blow up water treatment plants intentionally?"

Silly IceDog. The CIA is American.

Oh, you think - in a war in which the Secretary of Defence famously raged that he would fire the next person who mentioned exit strategy - that planting fifty bucks worth of explosives is somehow unthinkable, presumably because it isn't "nice"?

When one runs an empire featuring 800 military bases in 130 countries "nice" does not enter the equation, my hideously misguided friend. For greater certainty, yes I am accusing the USA of planting bombs and doing whatever they can to incite violence in Iraq while blaming it on "the terrorists", and I suspect a good 30% of American would agree with me. This is a logical conclusion based on reason, history, and facts.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.

Albatros, I think you're a fake. You don't take the forestock off an FNC1 to field strip, and the C2 doesn't have a forestock. It has a folding bipod.

Only reason to take the forestock off is to dismantle the gas system for servicing. Not something one does the field unless a bit breaks off. Too many little teeny things to lose in the grass.

So now you're a fake as well as an idiot. Congrats.

Alby was about as much of a soldier, as I am a tree hugging leftard. Did you get your low shoes dirty when they force marched you and your fellow desk jockeys out to the ranges for your twice in a career range qualifications? Comox and Trenton. Hahahaha. Ever lay in shell scrape, in the pouring rain, waiting for the enemy to attack? Ever get rifle butted in the head by a member of the 82nd airborne? Ever get shot at delivering distilled water to remote Somali hospitals. Ever get mortared on the Golan. Go shine your low shoes, and straighten out your air force flag moron. You would have no clue as to what turdeau, the f@#$ing commie did to the "ARMY"

I mean no disrespect to current and former members of the air force. Just moonbats who try to claim otherwise.

Its sad but this is the kind of news that many Democrats don't want to hear. They are so geared to continuing to blast GWB that news of progress and fewer deaths of their troups is actually bad news for them and that is not what they want. Democrat senator after senator has publically stated that they don't want to wait for the September report on the war - they want the troups out now.

This past Sunday on Fox News Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Russ Feingold (D) and he stated that he would not believe Gen Patraeus if he testified before the Senate in September that things had turned around in Iraq and things were going much better. This guy is some piece of work. How do you work with people like this?

The American Congress is in a gridlock. The Democratically controlled Congress has accomplished next to nothing since they took over both houses. It is a sad spectacle to observe how politics and self-interest has taken over the legislative branch. Sad indeed but also very dangerous. They can't even get their act together to pass legislation that will allow the CIA to monitor communications from a terrorist organization in one foreign country to one in another foreign country. I can't believe that this is even illegal in the U.S. but I guess it is.

The terrorists know how to hamstring the Americans. They have no such legal restraints on their operations. The Democrats have better wake up and soon.

andrew - you can make as many accusations as you want about the US 'planting bombs'; you can also state that aliens populated the earth; you can claim that the moon is made of green cheese. That's all part of the ability we have, using language, to utter nonsense.

To move beyond nonsensical rhetoric - and none of your rhetoric is based on 'reason, history or facts' , you have to provide factual evidence. You haven't done so and you can't.

The fact that 30% of Americans might agree with your conspiracy theories doesn't mean that those theories have even a shred of validity. Lots of people believe in conspiracy theories, so, don't worry - you aren't alone. And a conspiracy theory has nothing, zippo, to do with logic or reason or facts.

Equally, your claim that the US is an 'empire' is fallacious - kindly look up the term, and the fact that it has military bases in many countries doesn't mean that it controls those countries.

Equally, the fact that many of our factories, industries and financial institutions are owned by foreigners doesn't mean that those foreigners control Canada.

I suggest reading a book on critical thinking and checking out various 'informal fallacies'.

Sounds like the war is going pretty well and Iraq is becoming a much safer place.

Unfortunately a lot of people just aren't getting the message.

By the time this is typed and posted:
Congrats to Kate Macmillan, SDA...for hitting 6,000,000.I appreciate your work!

Congrats from me too, Kate.

Ugh, the video is cute but meaningless.

They probably edited out some of the people who were joining up. Aside from that, however, it's irrelevant. I want my sewers to work, but I'm not going to become a plumber. I imagine you like law and order, but you're not going to become a cop. I want airplanes to land safely, but I'm not going to become an air traffic controller.

My two cents is that it appears to me that the surge is working. I have never had any doubt about US and coalition forces' ability to win militarily.

Sadly, political solutions are not keeping pace with the military, and it is hard to know to what extent we can get the various forces together for a workable political solution.

However, on the encouraging side, tribal leaders are getting sick of the conflict and are talking about a willingness to send their young men to act as police officers.

I was encouraged to see that the meetings between President Bush and Gordon Brown were very productive. It doesn't appear that the US-British relationship is going to diminsh any, and it appears that Britain is still very committed to working with us and is uncompromising in respect to their views on terrorism.

If it were up to me, I would just establish a semi-permanent base in Iraq with 100,000 troops composed of us, you guys, the Brits, and the Aussies. But people haven't been coming to me for my opinion.

No doubt about it ... invading Iraq was all about oil. That's why a whopping 19% (and dropping) of America's oil comes from the ME ... while 18% (and growing) of American oil comes from Canada, making us the number one single source for USA oil.

Iraq was all about oil alright ... Olive Oil.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/297/1413/1600/oilimports05.jpg

Andrew,
Presumaby, from your diatribe, I gather that you are STILL unable to just say

"I disagree with how Iraq was handled but I hope it works out for them anyway."

So much anger towards Americans that you seem to want to take it out on Iraqis.

I for one, wish them the best and hope their troubles are beginning to subside.

Congrats again, Kate. It seems not long ago it was congrats at 4Million then 5million. Keep up the great work!

Andrew,
"Oh, you think - in a war in which the Secretary of Defence famously raged that he would fire the next person who mentioned exit strategy - that planting fifty bucks worth of explosives is somehow unthinkable, presumably because it isn't "nice"?"

And we all know that bosses who rage are capable of planting bombs. I think I'll start checking under my car after work from now on.

Andrew,
"When one runs an empire featuring 800 military bases in 130 countries "nice" does not enter the equation"

Is there some kind of math equation where you can find the optimal number where a nation tips from being nice to not nice? If "nice" doesn't enter into the equation then why can't a nation have more than 800 military bases in 130 countries and still be nice?

"This is a logical conclusion based on reason, history, and facts."

No it isn't. It can't possibly be. The history of this hasn't been written yet.

"I suspect a good 30% of American would agree with me."

Where are your facts and reason there? Supposition only!

Ah you can just feel the love in the room. So many responses, so little time. I will respond to a few of your loving comments.

ET at July 30, 2007 5:57 PM:
Oh now ET you don’t have to tune into CBC to watch it, it’s not actually a CBC production. You can see it here.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12499.htm
I’m not desperate for the Iraqi people to fail, you really shouldn’t put words in people mouths like that. I am however hoping the Americans will learn a hard lesson for invading a nation for their own selfish benefits.

Tenebris at July 30, 2007 6:09 PM:
Now where did I say anything about Tibet? The fact is China should not be in Tibet.
Now you really did miss the point about the Congo now didn’t you. The point being, the main reason the Americans invaded Iraq (meaning it became the main reason after there were no WMD found and no al Queda connection uncovered) was to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Where then is the concern for the people suffering in Darfur and Congo?

jim at July 30, 2007 6:31 PM
Too late to leave now isn’t it, the place is in a mess. Iraq should never have been invaded in the first place. It’s not as if the world didn’t scream at the “coalition of the willing” not to invade. It’s going to cost the Americans for this mistake and maybe they will think twice before they ever vote in another neocon, but somehow they don’t learn that quickly.

OMMAG at July 30, 2007 6:32 PM
Interesting you post a picture of John Wayne, the coward that put his carreer ahead of defending his nation during WW2. Yes he had a chance to sign up to fight but felt that would damage his livelihood. When people like Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart were putting time in uniform and actually risking their lives, John Wayne continued to rake in the money making movies, usually playing a colonel or general fighting a war.

h2o2773kk9 at July 30, 2007 8:01 PM
“So, in your world, invading Iraq to stop the general oppression of the people there is wrong because there were a few billion barrels of oil but it's would be ok invading Congo to stop the general oppression of the people if only they had a few billion barrels of oil.”

Invading Iraq to stop the “oppression” of the Iraqi people was the last thing on the minds of Bush Co. After the last four years of American occupation the Iraqi people were far better off and faced a far better future under Saddam Hussein.

The Phantom at July 30, 2007 8:30 PM
“Albatros, I think you're a fake. You don't take the forestock off an FNC1 to field strip…”
Oh dear forgive me, I haven’t seen a C1 in over 22 years, I’m much more current with the browning 9mm or C7 and the SMG was a much more fun weapon. However the C2, as I pointed out, didn’t require the removal of the fore stock for field stripping for the simple reason it was a bipod. When the bipod was folded it became the fore stock.

kingstontard(formerly kingstonlad) at July 30, 2007 8:40 PM

Oh this is my favourite post.

“Alby was about as much of a soldier, as I am a tree hugging leftard. Did you get your low shoes dirty when they force marched you and your fellow desk jockeys out to the ranges for your twice in a career range qualifications?”

Sorry (tard is it?) I was aircrew and didn’t wear low shoes, I wore aircrew boots and we didn’t require carrying a weapon on most occasions. There are advantages to having a higher IQ and not being in the army.
-“Ever lay in shell scrape, in the pouring rain, waiting for the enemy to attack?” Well if you’re talking about on exorcise in Wainwright then yes I have.
-“Ever get rifle butted in the head by a member of the 82nd airborne?” (Well that explains a lot. I can’t believe you left yourself open like that, but then again there is that IQ/army thing again) No I can’t say I have ever had a rifle butt to the side of the head. Weren’t you supposed to be on the same side? Oh never mind, army.
-“Ever get shot at delivering distilled water to remote Somali hospitals.” No we got shot at delivering relief into Ethiopia, but I’m afraid I can’t seem to remember exactly what the cargo was. I hope it was worth it.
-“Ever get mortared on the Golan.” No, I’ve never been to the Golan but we did get mortared flying into Sarajevo. I hope that was worth it too.
“You would have no clue as to what turdeau, the f@#$ing commie did to the "ARMY" No that was the other board about Trudeau. Hey but his government did buy you new tanks and didn’t close Lahr like the Mulroney government did. Oh did we ever miss Lahr (and the Chinooks, you know those helicopters that the Mulroney government sold off that the Harper government is now replacing) when we needed to get things to the other side of the world.

“I mean no disrespect to current and former members of the air force. Just moonbats who try to claim otherwise.”
A little late for that now isn’t it?

albrotros you forgot jean chrétien , who , with his wry and winning Shawinigan accent, announced "zéro hélicoptres", or paul martin who grinned and did nothing.

Do you suppose that the cheif editors for the notorious NYTs have too much ROMULAN ALE or SARIAN BRANDY?

alan, you forget, Jean Chretien was elected to a majority government (democracy in action eh) after he announced that he intended to cancel the EH-101. Now I’m sure that the cons would be screaming that he had broken an election promise if he had not cancelled the EH-101.

So you think this is a good piece eh? Hmmmp. Interesting. I have some property in the Everglades you might also be interested in.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald absolutely destroys this editorial. I mean he kills it, and demonstrates that you shouldn't trust these guys to competently cut your lawn let alone comment on the situation in Iraq.

Read it and weep:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

The American Victory in Iraq may even turn out to be as glorious as the American Victory in Vietnam was!!!

alby,

You have, as I expected, fully evaded the question. It matters little at this point whether or not the Americans should have invaded Iraq; what is important is the outcome. I note in your formulation that you mention the cost of defeat to the Americans, but not to the Iraqis. Any halfway ethical individual who is not completely in the thrall of anti-Americanism realizes that the only choice is to place their support behind those most likely to produce peace in Iraq: the US Army.

All that aside, the Hussein regime's failure to play ball by international standards and respect its treaty obligations guaranteed only the continued suffering of the unfortunate denizens of that country. While Iraq in its current state fails to meet many of the standards of functioning states, it is presented with the one thing Hussein withheld from it -- the prospect of progress, and of a truly peaceful future. The major difference between the Iraq of 2002 and the Iraq of 2007 is that instability is no longer institutionalized in the form of a repressive and genocidal state security apparatus. If your IR perspective is that of the structural realist, roughly translated as supporting whatever regional badasses happen to be most congenial to the maintenance and exercise of a given hegemonic power, I applaud your dogged (if condescending) consistency but lament your immorality. Those fortunate to be born in free societies should recognize their obligation to assist struggling peoples in the assertion of their natural rights, a fact conveniently eclipsed by stances that prize power politics over that which is just. If you are a humanitarian who is interested in the best interests of the Iraqis, you will admit as much; if you are merely an anti-American, you might as well drop the pretense and admit to the same. I'm afraid there are quite few middle ground choices that can be made.

In the interests of fair and reasonable debate, I will ask you again: what do you think should be done? Do you have a plan, or does your position consist of mere opposition without substance?

Seriously... are you guys aware how badly the American's have screwed things up? They've literally handed billions and billions of dollars over to corrupt contractors who have robbed the Iraqis blind. Bush & Company belong in jail.

Your ignorance is inexcusable. That you can't see this means that you are either blind, or really, really stupid. Frankly I'm surprised you guys have survived to adulthood without choking on marbles.

John,

Childish ad-hominems aside, you fail to advance any proposal as to what should be done. Do you have any suggestions?

So far as I'm concerned, if you aren't anti-American these days, you're an idiot. The Americans have gone over to the dark side.

There have been so many lies, and so much corruption that there is no reason to trust them until they get it under control, and it's not going to be an easy job.

Frankly the only thing to do with Iraq, is for Bush to beg the UN to send in the Blue Helmets. They've helped keep the peace in troubled places around the world for nearly 50 years... when they're allowed to do their job that is.

This done... then they go after the corporations and contractors who have raped the shit out of Iraq for the sake of a greasy buck. This has been documented time and time again as part of the failed neo-con policy that even you guys would see it if you bothered to read about it.

By all means though... continue to listen to guys who've been wrong again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

I know the "agains" are a bit excessive, but the that's for all the extra failure.

The NY Times is so wrong on this it is bizarre. The corner HAS NOT been turned. Iraq is a disaster comparable to Vietnam - in the end it will probably be worse then Vietnam.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/073007.html

"Nearly a third of Iraqis need immediate emergency help as conflict masks humanitarian crisis."
OXFAM
30 July 2007

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/2007/07/nearly_a_third_of_iraqis_need.html

John,

With respect, the legitimacy of the UN extends as far as North America and Western Europe, societies stable enough to never require UN intervention. Virtually all others, and this is especially borne out by the Iraqis I have conversed with, loathe les bleus with a passion fed by the UN's own record of corruption, incompetence, and scandal. Practically without exception, the world's major and minor conflicts have been resolved by nation-states and their organized militaries, not by transnational organizations operating under rules of engagement so restrictive as to make their presence irrelevant. This much is demonstrated by the fact that between the inception of the UN and the fall of the Soviet Union, the organization was incapable of any meaningful intervention because of Cold War deadlock in the Security Council, and that once the so-called 'new world order' era came to pass it proved incapable of preventing conflict or protecting civilians. I hasten to add that any UN force would largely consist of the US forces anyways, and that the UN forces have (with the exception of some minor US-led operations in Korea) been used in a counterinsurgency role. I thus ask you respectfully to roll the dice again and come up with something a little more comprehensive..

Leftdog --

The Vietnam War produced some 314,000 coalition combat fatalities and over one million wounded against over a million NVA dead and 600,000 wounded. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-5 million civilians were killed, and large swaths of the country were devastated. While I understand the impulse towards facile historical comparisons between Iraq and past US wars, I'm afraid yours is a bit shrill.

Jim, you're feeding the trolls dude. Just ignore them and presently they will go away.

Doesn't it strike anyone here as rather coincidental that the Bush administration vowed repeatedly not to leave Iraq until "victory" is achieved, and now, with the American public now declaring the invasion to the be a mistake, the House controlled by the Dems, Bush (and, to be fair, the whole of the political elite) tracking dismal approval ratings, and a presidential election a little over a year's away, that there are signs that "the surge is working"?

Here's how Iraq is going to go down, in every sense of the word:

- Militarily, the troop surge will sufficiently quell enough violence to convince agenda-pushing freelances like Yon and even stalwarts of the MSM (see NYTimes, above) to report that military victory has been achieved.

- This assessment will be bolstered by Gen. Patraeus's report in September.

- Both these assessments will be reflected to some degree by reality, since there's no doubt that flooding a country with troops will snuff out the violence there -- temporarily. The question, however, is whether security will hold after the surge is gone. From the insurgent's perspectives, the smartest strategy is to simply lie in wait until a better opportunity for war-making presents itself.

- The US military and politicos recognize this fact -- that Al Qaeda has only been temporarily quieted in Iraq, but has not been smashed, and indeed, is back to pre-9/11 strength -- but this fact does not matter, as only a temporary peace is needed to fulfill the US's new immediate objective, which is a partial withdrawal under the false guise of "victory" (see below).

- Both these assessments will also acknowledge, but not adequately highlight, the facts that military victory in Iraq is necessary but insufficient to the security of Iraq, and that lack of progress on political, social, economic, and sectarian issues will eventually rend the country back into civil war. These insights will not be fully acted upon.

- In the meantime, this fragile peace will give the Bush administration the window of opportunity to pound home the message that the surge was successful (to be reverberated uncritically by blogs such as this) and thus a partial, gradual withdrawal may possibly begin in the spring (conveniently, 6 months prior to the election). Already, this message is being parroted by military officials, White House spokespersons, radio call-in shows, conservative pundits and bloggers, etc.

- The first troop withdrawal will begin prior to the November 2008 election. This will be accompanied by the PR message that while (a Republican-led) America has been "successful" in Iraq, the country still requires US security oversight, and thus a military presence will remain there on a semi-permanent basis. However, they will serve now only in a training capacity for the Iraq Army, which will be expected to carry out the duties of direct policing and counter-insurgency. This arms-length approach will appease the public, who object only to death tolls but not to a US foreign military presence.

- In any case, the American public will hear only that the troops are coming home, a "success" that the Republican presidential candidate will claim as sufficient evidence that Bush was right and that another Republican should thus be elected to continue to pursue the War on Terror, whereas the Dems, with their summer '07 "pull-out now" message, would have guaranteed "failure" in Iraq.

- The fact that American troops will remain there will become irrelevant, as their military actions will no longer be sufficiently interesting (i.e., low casualty rates) to warrant front-page news coverage.

- The fact that Iraq will eventually revert to sectarian civil war will also become irrelevant, as neither the American public nor the Bush admin ever really cared about the well-being of average Iraqis. The renewed violence there, which will not begin until after November '08, will, out of sight from the Western media, be met with a heavier hand by an increasingly despotic, but US-backed, Shi'a government.

- The US support for a Shi'a government in Iraq will offer the bonus of creating a back-channel with the Shi'a government in Iran, allowing for covert diplomatic negotiations while continuing to "win over" the general public with a faux-resolute stance against the "Iranian threat."

- The old strategy was always about securing US foreign policy interests overseas (including, but not limited to, energy). Either years on, with a more pressing objective looming on the horizon, the new strategy will be about re-securing the White House for the Republican Party, thus confirming the old adage that for politicians, the main goal is always to get re-elected.

Kate, I thought you dumped the moron out the door. Why is he back? Quit giving this waste of taxpayer's dollars a forum, he isn't worth it.

albratros,
"Invading Iraq to stop the “oppression” of the Iraqi people was the last thing on the minds of Bush Co. After the last four years of American occupation the Iraqi people were far better off and faced a far better future under Saddam Hussein."

This didn't answer my question and it is in fact a false statement. Please refer to the

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace"

It was number 7 on a list of 23 in http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Pretty high up on the list. Certainly not last.
Please stop projecting your own distaste for the US into the discussion

Oh, so UN involvement means that it'll become a good thing?

So John, I guess this means that you're fully supportive the UN and it's member countries actions in Afstan?

John, present evidence for your arguments or shut up. Of course, America is so evil, and only an idiot can't see that. They're free, rich and yes, a superpower. They do stupid things, like invade Iraq. So what's your point? You're drinking the Islamofascist koolaid buddy. If US was only source of nastiness and evil, you might have a point. Look around, you naive idiot.

Here's a suggestion. Stop attacking US, especially on her soil. These lefties who hate America but cheer attacks against her are utter hypocrites. US has been restrained thus far, you ain't seen nothing baby. Wait till John, Taliban Jack and other useful idiots get US into isolationist mode (can you spell Democrat?), ensuring both attack on their soil and massive, perhaps nuclear response. Oh that will be their fault too.

USA gets attacked, it's their fault; if they respond they are evil. Only an idiot can't see that, right John? Your ideas are very dangerous, but you have a right to express them, and I have a right to call you an idiot.

I'm curious Alby, what was your (or your dad's) course number at Cornwallis?

It's funny that you think pointing out how deeply flawed your arguments are is "trolling".

If I'm a little abrasive, it's because I'm so effening tired of putting up with conservatives who keep screwing up, and not acknowledging it. It's time for tough love.

As for the UN... is it flawed? Deeply. And Western nations contribute to this heavily. Any body as far reaching as the UN is going to be complex, but we still need to work it through.

The Americans in Iraq have no legitimacy. They've completely blown it with their mismanagement, lies, double standards, and over-all douche-baggery.

john,

Anyone who sees the UN as an improvement on the US is a fool. Period.

The US can't leave Iraq without the place going from bad to much, much worse. The US started the war, it owns it (think Powell's pottery barn analogy.)

Not all conservatives were for the war at the outset (I was against it on the basis of it being the wrong target - I'd have preferred Iran) but once there, the job either gets finished or the Iraqis will be the ones to suffer.

Those who were against the war have to realize that we can't go back in time. What is done is done. We start with now and go forward. To go forward means that no matter who is power in Washington, there is only one exit strategy with honour: leave a stable Iraq. Not a perfect one, not a paradise, but an Iraq that is liveable for the people of Iraq. Get behind that concept not to support the US or Bush or any of the people you hate but because you should not let your hatred of the US et al lead to the suffering of the Iraqi people. They didn't elect Bush, they shouldn't suffer for it. The left seems not to care about the suffering that would be caused in the wake of failure. They care less about human suffering and more about their hatred. It's not pretty and they left will have to answer for their sabotage and their ugliness. The left has caused more death and misery and suffering than any other idea or ideology in history. To be left is to be hate, to be death, to be viscous.

The left has become unhinged from reality (probably long ago but it's much worse now.) The idea that the whole Iraq war was to steal oil is the most absurd, illogical foolishness I've ever heard. Wouldn't you think it would be easier to bribe Saddam than kill him if all that was wanted was oil? Do you not know that the trillion dollars they spent on this war could have bought every single publicly traded oil company on the entire planet and most of the oil container shipping companies too? If it was all about oil and nothing else, they could pay for it in cash like they do the oil of other nasty countries. Chavez is no friend of the US but the US still buys their oil. Ditto Nigeria and a few dozen other crapholes.

The UN is ineffective (at best) because the very regimes most in need of UN attention have a voting bloc to protect themselves and block reform. The UN's very problem is that the worst dictators and thugs have the same vote as Canada and other democracies and there are more of them than us. To fix the UN you have to scrap it and start over. Just like the League of Nations was scraped and replaced with the UN.

In fact, those most in favour of the idea of the UN should be the most pissed off about how the organization has been mismanaged. Those most in favour of the UN should be most in favour of making it work effectively. That seems not to be the case and I can't see why.

The concept of sovereignty must also be re-evaluated. The status quo is that the leader of a country owns sovereignty over it. That is false. The only true sovereignty rests in the people. The people LEND their leader their sovereignty only through regular, fair elections. If you have not been elected, you have stolen sovereignty from its rightful owners and are illegitimate. The leader of a country serves the people, the leader doesn't own the people. A leader is a public SERVANT. The time of kings and dictators is over. The time to recognise the dignity and rights of the people.

Thugs and other illegitimate usurpers of power may be granted a voice in any new organization (in the same way that you try negotiation as a first tactic to any problem,) but they should be given no vote, no chairs on committees and no power. Only then will the organization start to be an effective and positive force on the world stage. In addition, voting membership should be suspended for any leader who overthrows a democracy. In fact, the membership of any state should be eliminated by any change in the system of government and that state should have to re-apply for membership and prove eligibility to be re-instated.

This will still remain a flawed organization (as all human endeavours must be,) but it would be a drastic improvement over the farce and caricature that the UN has become.

By Alby....Sorry (tard is it?) I was aircrew and didn’t wear low shoes, I wore aircrew boots and we didn’t require carrying a weapon on most occasions. There are advantages to having a higher IQ and not being in the army."
"“I mean no disrespect to current and former members of the air force. Just moonbats who try to claim otherwise.”
A little late for that now isn’t it?"

Guess what Alby...Kingstonlad(I refuse to call him a tard)has more respect and common sense in his little finger then you have in your entire body.
I AM EX-AIRFORCE. I wore combat boots as a Flight Engineer. I buried 22 of my fellow aircrew and civilian CASARA people in crashes involved in SAR. In 1987, my fellow FE took my flight at 0600 to help search for a missing aircraft in Kananikis(sp?).He,the two pilots,and 8 civilian CASARA died in the crash of Twin Otter 107. Guess who was first on the scene to try to find survivors? The ARMY,from Calgary!I flew out that afternoon,on another Twin Otter,with 4 SAR techs,to the crash site.They found one survivor,not publicized or known.She was so badly burned,that all they could do was give her morphine. Do you know what its like to watch a fellow member die doing their duty? Have you ever been into a crash site? Have you ever had a little guy hiding behind you in the Gaza as some nut tried to kill you,and him? Yeah Alby. I was there,with the Useless Nations,under some wierd plan called the MFO. You see Alby.That is what a Forces is. We don't care if you are Army,Navy,or Airforce.We all fight for our country.We fight for the right for you to have your freedom of speech. Kingstonlad,nor I,have nothing to apologize for. YOU have that same right because of guys like him and me. I don't know Kingstonlad.Who knows. Maybe I was one of the guys who made sure he left the Herc to do his job. But in my mind I saluted everyone of them out the door.We were sending them into Hell,and they did it willingly,so that you and I could have this forum. Oh.And for your info,20 years ago,I was buckling my ass into a Herc,on the button of runway twenty in Namao,when the tornado ripped through Evergreen trailor park. We literally sat in awe at what we were seeing.And then we helped. THAT is the military you seem to hate so much. I will,even today,save your butt,but I will expect payback.

Justthinkin

“Have you ever been into a crash site?” Oh several actually. I spent 13 years total flying SAR. I found burnt human flesh combined with avgas smells almost exactly the same as roast beef. Funny I still can’t bring myself to eat roast beef any more. Do you find that?

MFO eh? Which Roto???
Is this Neil P. maybe? Or, oh wait, maybe this is Rocky D.?

albatros39a@yahoo.ca

I guarantee if you were an FE in Namao in 87, I do know you.

BTW in the early 90s we switched from combat boots to aircrew boots. The same as combat boots with minor changes such as tread and eyelets.

Shamrock -
7816

Shamrock
No sorry 7827, my course in Borden was 7816.

h2o273kk9-
The point is there are people in the Congo being repressed more so than the people were being repressed in Iraq.
However the US who wants us to believe they were concerned with the well-being of peoples in other lands, but doesn't seem to think people in the Congo count. One must assume that repression of people isn't really the top priority in the minds that run the US. So why not the Congo if Iraqi repression was important? Is it because they are black, or that they have no oil?
The problem is with no WMD or terrorist connections to justify the war, the repression of people in Iraq is now the only excuse they have for their invasion.
Don’t for a moment believe the propaganda that the Iraqis are better off. As soon as the Americans pull out the whole country bill blow up in civil war. They were better off under the repression of Hussein than the future brought on by the Americans.

Alby - thanks. I'm one of those who sorta believes you, though it's still a mystery to me where you got your attitudes about the CF. So you went through Cornwallis in spring 78? I was course 7830 myself - 6 Platoon B Company. Paddy Doucette was my NCO.

Shamrock, in the US the black power structure essentially grew out of the 1960s Civil Rights movement.

This power structure, composed of the Congressional Black Caucus along with the Rainbow Coalition, the NAACP, and many other large black organizations, exercise a great deal of control relative to government direction in international race initiatives.

For a number of decades now this power bloc has vigorously tried to characterize all racial injustice as white people oppressing blacks.

They have very forcefully tried to turn America's eyes away from situations where blacks are responsible for atrocities to other blacks.

They have wanted to keep the onus strictly on situations where white people can be characterized as the problem. And to assist American foreign policies directed at black-on-black crime would go a long way toward creating awareness of black being the culprits in some cases.

This is exactly what they do not want to happen. We have been suffering with this situation for some time.

I direct this to you rather than to albatros39a, as he has demonstrated again and again that for some reason he simply loathes America as is regrettably such a ordinary state of affairs with the Canadian left.

The thing that an American is most struck by when reading him is how he conspicuously is never outraged at how CANADA is not doing anything to address the object of his concern. This flabbergasts Americans. He has a country, he has a government, he has government procedures for raising and distributing funds, and he never once mentions Canada doing anything.

Anyway, I've enjoyed your posts and am able to see that you have a much more even-handed appraisal and evaluation of US policy.

Alby,

No one from the Congo flew planes into any US buildings.

The US wants to overthrow evil dictators and give muslims a chance at democracy to give them hope and stop the influence of terrorists.

This was stated in the addresses to the public that Bush made pre-invasion.

You can say that this isn't gonna work, but you can't say that the US is there now for any other reason.

If they were there for revenge, they'd be home now.

If they were there just for WMD's on to kill Saddam, they be home now.

If they only wanted to kill some terrorists, they didn't have to put boots on the ground in the first place.

and no, I am not making a direct connection between saddam and 9/11.

The concept is that the bush admin thought that Iraq would be easier to turn into overthrow and turn into a functioning democracy because it was one of the more secular of the bad places that muslims live.

Implimented differently, it may even have worked. Not securing the boarder was the cardinal sin of that whole thing. Not maintaining the ba'athist infrastructure not far behind.

"though it's still a mystery to me where you got your attitudes about the CF"

Do you ever wonder why LGen Roméo Dallaire ended up as a “Liberal” Senator?

Warwick: The US wants to overthrow evil dictators and give muslims a chance at democracy to give them hope and stop the influence of terrorists...The concept is that the bush admin thought that Iraq would be easier to turn into overthrow and turn into a functioning democracy because it was one of the more secular of the bad places that muslims live.

But if that were the case, they would've stayed in Afghanistan and concentrated their democracy-exporting efforts there. No, Iraq was about US foreign policy interests, which includes but is not limited to energy needs. I refer you to this essay. No doubt, you will take one look at the source and your immediate impulse will be to dismiss it out-of-hand. I urge you instead to read it all, and reflect carefully on the fact that regime change in Iraq was part of the US foreign policy agenda long before 9/11. Fighting terrorism provided the pretext, but was not the reason, for invading Iraq.

Breaking news about the so-called "oil draft law" and foreign control of Iraq's oil deposits, as predicted by the thesis argued in the AlterNet piece I cited above.

Alby, no I don't; nor do I care. Your bad attitude about military seems to have nothing to do with your being a Liberal. You just have a bad attitude, not Liberals' fault.

Shamrock, if you really want to know, my e-mail address is albatros39a@yahoo.ca