IAP Political Forum

This is a key time not only in US history, but world history. The US is finally beginning its draw down of military forces in the country after the surge and soon enough we will see whether the surge did in fact work in helping to stabilize the country. Perhaps i'm wrong here, but it seems like the surge has been effective so far. I only have limited knowledge from what I read, but troops deaths are down, civilian deaths are down, and Al Qaeda is steadily losing its remaining forces in the region and we aren't even the ones attacking them.

Over the weekend for example, Sunni forces carried out an attack on Al Qaeda fighters and asked the US military to stay out of the fight.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0135731D-D628-4A85-887B-32ABAB700DBF.htm

Furthermore, looking back at this war, the US has achieved many objectives which were what caused it to invade and stay in the country to begin with such as:

1) Saddam Hussein, a potential threat to the world, was eliminated.

2) Iraq does not have WMD's

and

3) Al Qaeda is being removed from the country.

Now I know that Iran, a bitter rival to the US, has much influence in the region, but one has to wonder how long that relationship will last considering the Iraqi's do not want to be a puppet of a foreign country.

So with that said, it's time to start being optimistic about Iraq. All that is left which needs to be accomplished in order for the US to save its world image and history to not look back on Iraq as an utter failure is:

1) The elimination of Al Qaeda as any force in the country

and

2) Iraq to be stabilized into a country which does not go into civil war.

Objective 1 I think can be achieved, but objective 2 we will have to just wait and see. This is a very trying time for the US and Iraqi people, but I am optimistic that Iraq will not be looked at as an utter failure for US forces. What do you all think?

Afghanistan on the other hand....what a mess that country is.

Iraq - Time to be Gone.

This is the keystone of the history of human race. The first contact with an alien civilization has been officially confirmed.

Iraq is a complex structure, and so far you've been fighting with an extra-Iraqi elements most of the time. YOu couldn't defeat them until Iraqis themselves did. What's ahead? Reverting to the local Iraqi Sunni insurgency (now better armed with US-supplied weapons) and, in the event of war with Iran, being overwhelmed by the Shiite resistance. Each occupation has periods of relative calm, then another element of the power structure, so far complicit, turns against it, and things blow up.

Qaeda allowed the US to survive. It targeted Shiites much more than Americans. It prevented a united front against the occupation. It provoked fights between Sunnis and Shiite, between Sunnies and Sunnies. It blew up not only Shiite shrines and Sunni leaders, but Kurdish markets, Turkmen buildings and even Yazidi weddings. It cut the throats of Iraqi national athletes and blew up football games. It made litterally everyone tired on itself. And by doing all this crap, it allowed Americans to find space among the warring groups. Do u really think Qaeda was killing American soldiers. No. US military casualties came from local Sunni groups. Qaeda was busy blowing up mosques, markets, wedding,s funerals, cutting throats and drilling skulls. U'll see, u will miss "Al Qaeda in Iraq" when Iraqis have more time to concentrate on your soldiers. COngrats on the victory. Now that u've defeated al Qaeda, time to declare victory and be gone. Before heavier, more rooted elements turn against you. You have maybe a few years before that happens. Unless you force the issue by assaulting Iran.

Quit saying "you", because it seems like YOU are typecasting me into some ignorant category.

First of all, war with Iran I don't think should happen unless Iran really does try to get nuclear weapons and then I don't think it should be an occupation, it should be a campaign designed only to disable the program.

Secondly, correct me if i'm wrong, but it almost seems like you think I want US troops occupying Iraq indefinitely. That is just simply not true. What I want is Iraq to become a stabilized country so that the military can get the hell out of there and focus on the real problem in the war on terror, Afghanistan.

Third, I agree with you on your point that it would be time for us to start leaving if Al Qaeda is indeed defeated, but the one thing Al Qaeda has shown is a resilience to fight and until we start seeing more examples of Iraqi's taking up arms without US help, I think the US MUST stay in the region.

For example, in Afghanistan, we left many towns to fend for themselves and the Taliban just came back and instilled their form of law over the town and the towns people could not fight back because they did not have that kind of strength. This could very well happen to many Iraqi towns if the US suddenly abandoned them before they could fend for themselves.

So I said it before and i'll say it again Peis...

These should be the terms for US withdrawal from Iraq...

1) Al Qaeda unable to establish roots in the country

and

2) The country stabilized enough so that Iraq's leaders can come up with compromises to help bring lasting peace throughout the country.

What do you think Peis?

If you ask me... beware of the Tet, GI boy (metaphorically).

and who is to determine that? IAEA says no evidence, Putin says the programme is peaceful. American demand is to stop ANY enrichment unconditionally. U're going to make your own arbitrary judgment and llaunch your won arbitrary actions. So please, "unless Iran really does"....


if u're looking to total disappearance of Qaeda in Iraq, won't happen. If a terror attack every month or two is enough to say Qaeda is NOT defeated and therefore u must stay, then u'll stay forever. They will always have the ability to throw at least an average attack at least periodically. They have this ability in KSA, in Jordan, in Egypt, and will be able to blow smth up in Iraq for a very long time.


u want locals to do your job for you. Alas, they might have a different view of things. What is "terrorists" for you might be "our local dudes, bros and cousins" for them. There will be no self-sustainable pro-American government in Afgh and Iraq, so u must stay indefinitely.


but that's not what u want and not why u went there. The country was stabilized and of little danger already. U want a controllable government there. If the govenment will be pro-Iranian, u care little whether it is stable and democratic. Without American troops on the ground there WILL be a government friendly to Iran and Syria. An anti-ISraeli government supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and u'll have the Axis Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus. A democratically elected pro-Iranian government in Iraq is the reality that u 're trying to prevent. Even if Qaeda convert to Buddhism and retreat to monasteries in Tibet, a democratic stable peaceful flourishing pro-Iranian Iraq is unacceptable to you. You're fighting for geostrategic supremacy, and that is all that has ever been relevant about this war.

Who are you to say what I want. If you want to start with the accusations, i'll straight up ignore anything you say as many people already are. I demand an apology.

by "u" I mean US. You began talking in the "we" mode about the US ("in Afghanistan, we left many towns.."). So I accepted that you identify with the US and speak on behalf of it. And I said what YOU want in Iraq. Now you want an apology because I speak in your own terms. Make up your mind whether you speak in the "I, Zenter" mode or in the "We, the US" mode.

Absolutely beware of the Tet.  But for reasons you may not realize.  The Tet offensive was a major tactical defeat for the Viet Cong and NVA - it was a textbook military victory for the Americans, but so many Americans back home (who knew nothing about war) saw it as the opposite.  I think the estimates are that NVA/VC casuatlies approached 100,000 (~35,000 KIA).  The US lost just over 1,000 men (certainly, no small number).  The media and war-weary public served the Communist elements a strategic victory after those elements suffered a disasterous military defeat.

That is precisely what the terrorist and insurgent elements are trying to do in Iraq.  They are defeated tactically in nearly every instance.  But they shake the nerves of Americans and policy-makers in the US by flexing their muscles and causing just enough headaches to give the impression that progress in unattainable.  They are well aware of the American public's ability to snatch strategic defeat from the arms of tactical victory.

So beware of the Tet.  Beware of the spectatular attacks that Al Qaeda and insurgents will attempt to pull off to further discourage the American people and politicians.  The insurgents learned this lesson from the Vietnam War, our public did not.

Now I am curious... what is victory in Iraq?

1)  AQI made strategically and militarily irrelevant.  We won't erradicate the whole group, but we can make them a non-issue by exploiting their tactical and stategic mistakes.  We have had great successes in Anbar and we should further refine that strategy to make it even more effective elsewhere.
2)  Increase the security in the major population centers.  This is tough to gauge quantitatively, but qualitatively it would be realized when car-bombings and killings decrease significantly.  Again, we will never wipe out this phenomenon, but we can do much to decrease it from its current levels.
3)  Notice a significant upswing in economic prosperity.  Again, tough to define quantitatively.  But one should notice businesses coming back to life, new investment pouring into the country, schools opening, hospitals opening, and public services increasing (like power and garbage collection).  Unemployment should drop, and gas shortages should be a thing of the past.  There will be numerous indicators that this is occuring, but it is important to keep the big-picture in mind.
4)  Political reconciliation.  This to me is by far the most difficult task - and the most nebulous.  It is ridiculous to believe that all elements will be happy with one another and that fierce (often violent) opposition will simply vanish.  Indeed, one should be able to look at Iraq from outside and say, Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians.......all of these groups have representation.  The general sense should be that Civil War has been averted (difficult to judge for sure).  Sectarian violence should be down (but won't be gone).
5)  Hope for a good future.  This one is something we can learn through polling.  The average Iraqi should have a sense that his/her future is bright - or at the very least, promising.  Indeed, if we get this right, all of the other issues will fall into place.  This has to be the top priority.  People need to see and feel a difference in Iraq.  The fanatics will never be eliminated - not in our lifetimes anyways.  But good news should be coming in more often than not.  Once those numbers of hopeful Iraqis start to climb, we'll know that victory is close at hand.

The main point is that any victory in counter-terror/insurgency warfare is difficult to define, but not impossible.  No armies will be surrendering, no fortresses captured, no leaders tried at Nuremberg.....There will only be the general sense of tasks accomplished.  Once people believe, "wow, Iraq is really starting to get itself together" - then we can declare victory.

Thank you for answering. It's been a long way since I first asked and now I eventually get an answer. +1 applaud for you.

it's interesting how transfixed on al Qaeda Western public is. In Crypto's analysis, Qaeda is the only hostile force in Iraq and the only group that has to be defeated in order for the "victory" achieved. Qaeda is responsible for only a little share of the US military losses. There are Sunni groups, nationalist, Islamist and tribal, there are Shiite groups, who, together, have inflicted 95% of the American casualties. But somehow the downgrading of Qaeda is considered at least a military, if not overall political, victory in Iraq.

There have been enough reports saying that 90% of the insurgency are domestic, local Iraqi men. While most of the suicide bombers and practically all Qaeda leaders in Iraq are non-Iraqis. How about the "victory" over local Iraqi groups who have fought Americans for years, and who, depsite their current feud with Qaeda, are very likely to return to guerilla war against the occupiers? How about the victory over Shiite groups who have been in and out of the war business, and are intensely opposed to the US presence? How about the victory over the simple average dudes who may go to poll stations and vote for a pro-Iranian government? How about the victory over the Kurds who will continue to shift towards secession? They don't EVEN speak Arabic in Kurdistan, they don't consider themselves Iraqis, and they are on a long-term trend of national revival. Don't get transfixed on al Qaeda.

No.  I did not say any such thing.  In fact, I explicitly made reference to Al Qaeda AND the insurgents as disperate groups.  I am in fact aware of the difference.  You did not understand my "analysis".


Indeed Al Qaeda's effect on the US military has been insignificant in and of itself.  But you miss the bigger picture entirely.  Al Qaeda is the greatest single source of instability in Iraq.  They are the ones who targeted the mosques, civilians, leaders, etc. in order to inflame tentions and get Sunni and Shia groups fighting amongst themselves.  They knew good and well that chaos was the worst thing for Americans in Iraq, and without stoking a civil war or at the very least, sectarian violence, the US would have been free to concentrate more efforts on rebuilding instead of security.  As Iraqis became more and more furious because of the US inability to protect life and property, their overall support for the US would diminish, resulting in a flood of new recruits for Al Qaeda.  Insurgency tactics 101 - erode popular support for the occupier.  What better way than to cause so much chaos that the US could not deliver on critical promises - rebuilding infrastructure, providing medical assistance, power, clean water, jobs, and a stable, popular government. 

Eliminating the power that Al Qaeda wields has nothing to do with stopping their attacks on American soldiers.  It has to do with eliminating their ability to further incite violence and stoke tensions.  It will be impossible to put the clamps on sectarian violence if Al Qaeda is able to freely bomb any mosque in order to reignite the fight.


Again, you are only reading what is on the surface.  Of course 90% of the insurgency is domestic.  After all, the liklihood of IRAQIS forming the majority of the resistance in IRAQ seems pretty high.  There is nothing to read in this - nothing at all.  I'll also bet that the vast majority of spectacular attacks on civilian targets are from Al Qaeda.  You take that element away, and all of the sudden the picture doesn't look nearly as bad.  Furthermore, as I stated above, once the greatest power of instability is removed (Al Qaeda), reconciliation is more likely to occur.  Not before.  That is why marginalizing Al Qaeda is critical to getting on the path to victory.


They will return to insurgency if counterinsurgency operations fail.  First and foremost on the counter-insurgency agenda is building popular support.  You do this by producing tangible results on the ground that ordinary Iraqis can clearly see.  Stimulating a growing economy and creating jobs are highest on the list.  Then comes infrastructure improvements and providing services.  When the life of the ordinary Iraqi begins to improve, all of the sudden you start seeing a shift from resistance to cooperation.  You cannot have an insurgency without popular support, and that support will erode (if not fade away entirely) once the population begins to see tangible improvements.  We've seen this happen all over the world, from different cultures and different time periods.  The classic example is the British experience in Malaya and how they eventually defeated that insurgency.  Reading closely, you can see that the US is indeed persuing many of the same policies, but the sheer magnitude of chaos in Iraq at the moment makes progress slow.


And your point?  To suggest a victory can only be defined by keeping the Kurds in check and a pro-Iranian government out of power is nonsensical at best.  A pro-Iranian government is almost guaranteed, for the world will see a pro-Iranian government as one with relations no worse than those between Iran and the US.  Anything even remotely resembling cooperation will be viewed as "pro-Iranian".  They live next to each other.  They will cooperate and likely have decent relations (at least in the beginning).  To say the Iraqis will elect a pro-Iranian government is like predicting Americans will elect a pro-Canadian government.  It is essentially irrelevant, and all a matter of perspective. 

If Iraqis start having some successes and things start taking a turn for the better, they will not tolerate Iranian meddling in their affairs.  Of course, if things get worse, then it would be natural for them to turn to Iran.  The problem is that people equate "not Anti-Iranian" with "pro-Iranian".  That is a mistake.

where? here's your first, and the only military, objective towards victory:


I re-read your post, - there is only al Qaeda mentioned as a hostile force that has to be defeated.


instability but not resistance.  Victory is measured by resistance, not intability. It's not the total amount of violence but where this violence is directed. From American perspective, it is preferable that Iraqis kill each other than Iraqis kill American troops. Remember Somalia? There was whole lot of instability while the US troops were on the ground, but intra-Somalian feuds did not cause American withdrawal. What caused American withdrawal was the Somalian attack on Americans. Same in Lebanon. Lebanese factions were feuding but Americans left only after they became a target. Same in Iraq. Let Sunnies and Shiite cut each other's throat, that in itself will not make Americans leave. The real result of Qaeda's actions is that violence has been channeled AWAY from Americans. And in this respect, whether paradixically, Qaeda helped Americans.


remember how tha picture looke before Qaeda became such a salient factor: resistance in Falluja, clashes between coalition and Mahdi Army in Karballa, Najaf, Baghdad. Tribal resistance in Anbar, the biggest source of US casualties. It's actually dubious which picture looks better from the US viewpoint, - with or without Qaeda.


so far the only basis of commonality between US and Sunnies-Shiite is the common opposition to Qaeda.


US is slowly coming to bear with such perspective, but it was an anaphema before the war that Iran should outperform US in Iraqi politics. Still, a pro-Iranian Iraq is an American (and Saudi) nightmare. This will drastically change the balance of power and there will be an "Axis" stretching from Tehran through Baghdad via Damascus to Beirut. American nightmare.


true, the two are not same. BUT... then we come to issues where Iraq will have to take one side completely. Issues like the perspective war. Iraq is not exactlu well-positioned to declare neutrality. Like Irano-Syrian relations. Iran will need Iraq for its military and energy cooperation with Syria. And then, even if Iraq is completely independent from Iran AND from the US, it will take a pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah stance simply because this stance is popular. Sayyed Nasrallah is an idol to many Shiites. So the indigenous Iraqi anti-Israeli democratic populism is as unacceptable to the US as the Iranian influence.

This is all I gotta say, if Iraq no longer has Qaeda in it and the country is stabilized enough so that there isn't a massive civil war, then we will have no reason to be there. Yeah the domestic insurgents may be responsible for US military casualties....but are they going to come to US soil and attack? No. Only Al Qaeda has done that.

We are not going to have total dominance over the Iraqi people unless we pound them into submission like Saddam, but at the same time, if Qaeda is gone and Iraq is stabilized, then Iraq will be less of a threat than it was with Qaeda dominating some areas or Saddam dominating the country, or perhaps not even a threat at all besides the PKK.


One other thing, people say that Iraq will become a puppet of Iran and I question how likely that truly is. Yes, Iraq will be friendly to Iran, but the Sunni's and Kurds are not necessarily the biggest supporters of Iran and the Iranians are still viewed as Persians, not fellow Arabs. So a friend of Iran, yes...but not a puppet, or a staunch ally. Especially if the US provides Iraq with more aid than Iran does.

There was little activity on the front prior to the Ardennes offensive.

"All quiet on the western front......."

Too early to count all the chickens....prudence and vigilence should be the order of the day.

That's my feeling about it. Unless you've piled 10,000 or 20,000 corpses of dead militias, captured hundreds of tons of explosives and imprisoned tens of thousands of volunteers faster than this resources could be rebuilt (say, 3 months), it's obvious they're not gone and may be reassembling their forces to unleash them at the best moment -right while you think it's time for optimism, right while your guard is down.

Like, "a peaceful Xmas after the Surge has worked out"? ???

Forgive me for not making that distinction again in my answer to Zee.   The first post I made on the topic of Tet included, "Beware of the spectatular attacks that Al Qaeda and insurgents will attempt to pull off to further discourage the American people and politicians."  That was where I made the distinction and I am aware that they are not the same thing. 

Indeed, making Al Qaeda the #1 target on the military front was not an accident.  In fact, the insurgents will not be eliminated by military force.  The only solution to the insurgency as it stands now is political.  That is what the political reconciliation is about.  That will not stop Al Qaeda, but will dull the insurgency.  Another point is that providing essential services, while lesson #1 in counter-insurgency operations, is NOT going to deter Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda can only be defeated by military action - whether that be from the US, or Iraqis fed-up with being targets of Al Qaeda.  To be sure, I kept the insurgency OUT of the military picture on purpose, because they shouldn't be confronted militarily.  The insurgency will start to fade when the lives of the people start getting better.  That can ONLY happen in a secure environment, which Al Qaeda will not allow.  Thus, removing the threat of Al Qaeda has to be the first course of action.  Only then can reconciliation between people who actually have to live in Iraq take place.

Two distinct enemies, two distinct courses of action on how to deal with them.

I think my point has been made.

You misunderstand US goals in Iraq, Peis.
The US never ask for a war and therefore a victory against locals who had nothing to do with Saddam or al-Qaida.
They also didn't come to Iraq to stop the 3000 years old tribal warfare or to solve Kurdish desire for independance, etc. Instead the military has made clear that they were washing their hand over it.

Instinctively many iraqis fought against US occupation, outside al-qaida. Nevertheless, these iraqis finaly discovered that al-Qaida is worse than US forces.

And they also know that Iranian occupation will be worse than the US one.
No iraqi, even shiite, especialy shiite should I say, want to live under the iranian regime.
It's simple: Even iranians don't want.

If there are pro-Iranian groups, it's because Iran pay them. But the shiite population is not more pro-Iran than my left shoe.
Seriousely, I don't see why Iraqi would want to share oil revenues with Mullahs in Tehran. They already don't want to share them with Baghdad!

If you think that muslims in this region are all looking up to anything whatever it is provided it's anti-US, you are wrong. For them the US is only part of the problem.

The final point is that the US doesn't need a victory in Iraq, but iraqis do need to rebuild their country together and create a space of peace ASAP, at least among themselves.

They did it already but in 3 years instead of 3 months, and it didn't work indeed.

But the drop in violence in a situation as desperate surprised everybody.

The point which is totaly missed in this discussion is that a renewal of violence and a rebound in casualities will be a defeat much worse for the Iraqis who live there than for americans who see that only through abstract numbers.
It would be surprising that a resurgence of violence be much popular just at when Iraqis see a light at the end of the tunel and start returning to their home.
Not that there won't be any, but violence in Iraq should be increasingly unpopular.

Peis,
I don't see why Iran need Iraq and Syria for trade while 90% of their exports goes to China, India and elswhere via tankers.

how many groups, including the ruling groups, are paid by the US? How many opposition groups around the world are paid by the US, in this or that form? U have Musharraf and Bhutto   struggling for power in Pakistan, and both are paid by the US.

But Iran has reall MASS support throughout the region, as polls indicate (yes, u don't have to speculate what an average Arab thinks, - the polls exist showing pro-Iranian attitudes among Arab masses).


was your left shoe fleeing Iraq and finding refuge in Iran? The Shiite leaders were massacred, and those who escaped lived in Iran for decades, protected and funded by Iranians. By contrast, Americans left Shiites at Saddam's disposal during the 80s, then called them for an uprising, and left to be massacred by Saddam again.

Let us say, the Shiites might not be pro-Iranian, they are pro-Shiite, whether Iraq, Iran or Lebanon is concerned. They also are pro-Muslim, pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, etc. A democratic Iraq will have same policies on Hezbollah that Iran has, - not because it will be pro-Iranian, but because it will be democratic, and be guided by popular sentiments. That's what Americans are trying to prevent, throughout the Middle East, - a democratic regime, a regime guided by the popular ideas, because the bulk of population in the region are not exactly pro-American and pro-Israeli.

Unpopular...yes.

But until power vacuums are filled, an eventuality.

I agree with that.

That's why the Palestinian and the Sheeba Farms issues are so important.
It's a symbol for all muslims including Iraqis.

Now it would be very unwise for a new governement to start a pro-Hamas song and dance while they are looking for international recognition, credibility and foreign investments.
Of course, they can do it. They can play their little Amahdinejahd but it will cost them billions.

Also Iraqis will not vote for politicians who "will bash Israel and the US". They are all voting for their ethnic group candidates and their political choice stops there. Just as there won't be a pro-US/Israel party against an anti-US/Israel party.
Rather expect elected leaders, for whom Palestine is off-topic at the moment, to express the commonly accepted opinion while they are confortably sitting at their office. A little bit like Musharaf did.

.

The Iraqi situation has improved to the point of just stabilizing the young government there, as all indications are that the Iraqis are wanting peace and are fighting anyone who doesn't. In other words, just a little more time until the complete drawdown of all foreign forces as the factions sort out and find a path back to harmony and balance. Al Qaeda is a non issue now, having to force 13 year olds to do what the weak old insurgency was capable in the past is history.

Peisi, what is the MOSSAD spin on all of that, mate?   ;D

Regards
Terry


.

What ticks me off is the juvenile, petulant attitude by the political leaders of the opposing sides in Iraq. They won't talk to each other, they won't respect each other, they aren't even trying to reconcile their differences, which are huge.
As far as I can see, there has been zero political progress.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/20/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Al-Maliki.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/20/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Al-Maliki.php)

Here's what Juan Cole has to say:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iraq_11-20.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iraq_11-20.html)

Oh, come on. There in your own country your Congress and your President can't agree upon nothing for about a year and half now, and that without each side's minions gleefully murdering each other's by the thousands... ;)

In realpolitik, people does not compromise unless they're bloody afraid to not do so or they feel they're going to get the upper hand. Mutual sacrifice for sake of mutual compromise is left to extraordinary people, and that people is not common (else they would not be extraordinary).

Now, there are few things that could scare Iraqi leaders into agreement, and it's not likely that any of these things may happen soon. And so they play to get the upper hand, which means nobody wins as spoiling the neighbor's victory is easier than assure your own victory.

They are scared that their ethnic populace won't aprove. Any gesture toward agreement with the rival tribes would be seen as a treason.
The least that they want is that their supporters turn against them.

When the populations will ask for national peace and reconciliation, politicians will do better.

besides the US, no country bases it's relations with another country on issues like Hamas. Iran does not suffer a lack of investment, as the AEI study shows:

http://www.aei.org/IranInteractive/

And that despite the persistent talk of war which, by all reasons, should scare investors off a thousand miles.

Syria, despite support for Hamas and Hezbollah, has normal relations with EU, not to mention others, like Russia (arms trade), China (potential source of investment, though not for the oil-less Syria, but surely for Sudan). BTW, Syria is not even under national sanctions from the US, - only particular individuals. What, if anything, hurts Syria, is the Hariri story. Her support for Hezbollah and Hamas doesn't hurt her. Iraq is in a far better position due to the oil; not even Americans would sanction it only because of the support for Hamas.

So Americans are stuck in that they began what they can't finish. Saddam was totally lonely, isolated from both Syria and Iran. Given that the Tehran-Damascus connection already works, Iraq would naturally become the missing link between the two. That's the only thing that Americans are trying to prevent; democracy and rights and stuff are rhetorics (check the story with the Saudi rape victim, and remember that this is the #1 US ally, a closer ally than even Britain).


expect juvenile things from juvenile subjects. Iraq is immature in terms of cooperation and compromise; and how could it be differnt? Arbitrarily created by Britain, sustained by force by various foreign and native regimes.


Mossad is barely surviving under the thrust of break-heart liverals whining about every human bug crushed by the victorios march of Zionism. All these Peace-Now, Refuseniks and other kids from the campus can no longer carry the moral burden from the Nile to the Euphrates.

.


Codswollop (BS) Peisi mate!
.. except that any MOSSAD agent will meet their demise sooner rather than later.  ;)

Kind rgards  ;D
Terry


.

Peis
It hurts them. Having normal relation is all right. Yet, having good relations would be better.

.


More and more Iraqis are heading home. Now if they can put pressure on the government factions to provide more security in the police and army and to work together for all Iraqis! .. there is some hope for the future.

Items like the following are becoming more frequent:

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2007/11/22/Thousands_of_Iraqi_civilians_returning_everyday_

And the drawdown of foreign forces has started because of better condition, per the NY Times (free registration required):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin


Terry


.

1) The potential threat of Saddam Hussein was wildly exaggerated by the Bush administration. Saddam was a regional bully who we supported in the 1980's because his secular dictatorship was a bastion against the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. At a tremendous cost we have removed Iran's archenemy.

2) Iraq DID not have WMD's.

3) Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq was negligible before our invasion and occupation opened the door.


All that being said, there IS reason for optimism going forward. The Sunni tribal leaders and insurgent groups are turning against al Qaeda and enlisting our military assistance to that end. I would like nothing better for the situation to improve enough so that there is no longer a legitimate rationale for keeping 100k+ U.S. troops and military bases in Iraq.

.


(sigh)


.. Citizen4Progress, can't you read a post with sources right next to yours , or are you going to post the usual misinformed leftie drivel all over again. The only useful content of your post was contained in the last paragraph right next to a post with supported sources.  ::)


.

(sigh)

... Terry Mathis, can't you see that I was responding to the first post in this thread which contained the usual misinformed rightie drivel about the alleged reasons for the invasion of Iraq? There was no useful content in your post because it didn't attempt to rebut a single point in mine.  ::)

.


(mirroring)

-Won't work, read the whole thread. As for your 'points', you are in error all the way. Take a tourist trip to Syria and enjoy the view.  ;D

Then come back a little more educated.


Terry


.

another non-rebuttal by tm

To the "NO-WMD...Bush-lied-people-died" bobbleheads who choose to reject actual reality and replace it with their own, I suggest, for your own sake, you read the Loftus Report. It has manymany links to the secret Saddam documents...or at least the 10% we've translated so far................thanks.

.




.. not to mention that Iraqs WMD's were transferred to Syria before/early part of the war. Why people are so misinformed, or haven't read this entire thread I'll never know. The extreme left always grasp at straws.  >:(

Terrry


.

You're most likely referring to : (http://sacdcweb06.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/13/document_dump/Bush's bogus document dump[/url)Do you think for one minute that if these documents actually proved Saddam had reconstituted his WMD production the Bush administration wouldn't loudly and publicly claim they were right all along? The overwhelming public perception and the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Survey_Group) are there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the March 2003 invasion except for some corroded pre-1991 relics.

You'll believe just about anything that confirms your twisted beliefs, even if it defies all logic. In order to have those huge stockpiles of WMD there would have to be production facilities, none of which have been found after an exhaustive search. These WMD were so precious to Saddam that he'd rather risk invasion by the world's only superpower than give them up. These WMD are so potent they posed a "grave and gathering threat" to that superpower, yet Saddam carted them to Syria rather then use them to defend his own regime against the invasion.

Gee, it sure is convenient the WMD now reside in Syria. Now we can invade that country and if those pesky WMD still aren't found, they must have been carted to Iran.

Of course not. I think that in light of the information we have, to claim "No WMD's" makes you a lunatic. Clear?

I understand you are delusional and unable to produce facts or a coherent argument.

The date of manufacture has no bearing on what constitutes a chemical weapon, if said chemical weapon is inside an artilley shell, even a rusty, dented one, then you have WMD's! It seems Bush is not alone in his struggle with the truth.

Noun 1. chemical weapon - chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants


Noun 1. WMD - a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)


That's the fact, Jack...Now let's see you defend your NO-WMD's meme with 2 sentences......


YAWN

You are referring to degraded relics from before the first gulf war.

If not, prove that the Iraq Survey Group under Kay and Duelfur were wrong.

Prove Osama is alive....YAWN...
Must I repost the definition for those who would foolishly state that Iraq had no wmd's???

Your definition would no doubt confirm my point that only a relative few degraded relics were found.

Which is in stark contrast to your comment that "Iraq DID not have WMD's."

Which, in turn, supports my comment that you appear to be a lunatic.

Thank you for conceding my point about the degraded relics.

As for the rest of your comment, only a lunatic would argue Iraq NEVER had WMD. It is obvious in the context of this debate that the "no WMD" point refers to the conclusion that Iraq did not have the huge stockpiles of reconstituted WMD used as a rationale for the 2003 invasion.

When you ignore that point you grasp at straws in a failed attempt to win an argument.

You can't even un-convolute your very own logic...

"Iraq DID not have WMD's."


If you want to NOW say that we didn't find huge WMD stockpiles and active production lines, and use the phrase "Iraq DID not have WMD's." to make that point, then you are no better than Bush, Cheney, and Powell, whom I'm guessing sold you a funny line of logic...You are what they are.

I know, I know, ...you meant no proof of operational links between Iraq and AQ relating to the WTC and Pentagon attacks....that we can find....just a mountain of evidence....but still no proof.

·        “Abu Mohammed,” a former colonel of Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen fighters, told reporters long ago that Iraq was training terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

Gwynne Roberts, Sunday Times, July 14, 2002

·        Iraqi soldiers, captured during the early phases of the war on Iraq in 2003, revealed that al-Qaeda terrorists were present inside Iraq fighting alongside Iraqi troops Gethin Chamberlain, The Scotsman, 10-28-03

·        Hamsiraji Sali, Commander of the al-Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf, admitted receiving $20,000 dollars a year from Iraq. Marc Lerner, Washington Times, 3-4-03

·        Salah Suleiman, revealed that he was a former Iraqi Intelligence officer, captured on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border shuttling between Iraq and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Janes Foreign Report, 9-19-01

·        Jamal al-Qurairy, a former General in Iraq’s Mukhabarat, who defected years ago, said “that [is] ours” immediately after seeing 9/11 attacks.

David Rose, Vanity Fair, Feb. 2003, and David Rose, The Observer, 3-16-03

·        Abbas al-Janabai, a personal assistant to Uday Hussein for 15 years, has repeatedly stated that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that included training terrorists at various camps in Iraq.

CNN, 7-23-2003

Gwynne Roberts, Sunday Times, July 14,2002

Richard Miniter, TechCentralStation, 9-25-03

·        Two Moroccan associates of Osama bin Laden, arrested in Rabat in Nov 98, confirmed that Col Khairallah al-Tikriti, the brother of Iraq’s top Intelligence official (Mukhabarat), was the case officer in charge of operations with al-Qaeda in Kashmir and Manila

Jacquard, Roland, In the Name of Osama Bin Laden, Duke University Press, 2002, pg.112

·        Wali Khan Amin Shah, an al-Qaeda operative in custody, told the FBI that Abu

Hajer al-Iraq had good contacts with Iraq Intelligence Services (reported to Senate Intelligence Committee)

Stephen Hayes, Thomas Joscelyn, Weekly Standard, 7-18-05

·        Farouk Hijazi, former #3 in Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, although he denies the well documented reports of his later meetings with bin Laden, Hijazi admits that he met with Osama bin Laden to discuss antiship mines and terror training camps in Iraq during the mid-90’s.

9-11 Commission, Staff Statement 15

·        Abdul Rahman al-Shamari, who served in Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat from 1997-2002, says that he worked to link Saddam Hussein regime with Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda.

Preston Mendenhall, MSNBC, "War Diary"

Jonathan Schanzer, Weekly Standard, 3-1-04

·        Mohamed Gharib, Ansar al Islam’s Media chief, later admitted that the group took assistance from Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 10-16-03

·        Mohamed Mansour Shahab, aka Muhammad Jawad, is a smuggler who claims to have been hired by Iraq to bring weapons to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan

Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02

Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4-03-02

Richard Miniter, TechCentralStation, 9-25-03

·        Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is a senior al-Qaeda operative. Although he has changed his story, he initially told his captors that his mission was to travel to Iraq to acquire poisons and gases from Iraqi Intelligence after impressing them with al-Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

·        An “enemy combatant” being held at Guantanamo Bay, who was also a former Iraqi Army officer, admits that he served as a liaison between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi Intelligence. He was arrested in Pakistan before completing joint IIS/al-Qaeda mission to blow up U.S. and British embassies

Associated Press, 3-30-05

Stephen Hayes, Thomas Joscelyn. Weekly Standard. 7-18-05

·        Abu Hajer al-Iraqi (aka Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim) told prosecutors that he was bin Laden’s best friend and in charge of trying and procure WMD materials from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, 6-17-04

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

·        A “Former Senior (Iraqi) Intelligence Officer” has told U.S. officials that a flurry of activity between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda took place in early and late 1998, the meeting point was Baghdad’s Intelligence station in Pakistan

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

·        Wafiq al-Sammarrai, former head of Iraq’s Military Intelligence before defecting in 1994, stated that Saddam Hussein has agents “inside” al-Qaeda

Laurie Mylroie, “Study of Revenge”

·        Khidir Hamza, Saddam Hussein’s former top WMD official, says that Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda

CNN, 10-15-01

PBS Frontline "Gunning For Saddam"

·        Abu Zeinab al-Qurairy , a former high-ranking officer in Iraq’s Mukhabarat, told PBS Frontline and the New York Times that the September 11 attackers were trained in Salman Pak, as were other members of al-Qaeda

PBS Frontline "Gunning For Saddam"

·        Sabah Khodada, a former Captain in Iraq’s Army, told PBS Frontline and the New York Times that the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak included the training of al-Qaeda members airplane hijacking

PBS Frontline "Gunning For Saddam"

·        An “Iraqi Defector,” who spent 16 years working for Iraq’s Mukhabarat, told the Iraqi National Congress that Saddam Hussein’s illegal oil revenues helped fund al-Qaeda (story later corroborated by Claudia Rosett )

Radio Free Europe 9-29-2002

·        Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, a captured senior Iraqi official, said that IIS agents had met with bin Laden until the middle of 1999

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

·        Qassem Hussein Mohamed, who served in Iraq’s Mukhabarat for 20 years, told reporters that Saddam Hussein has been secretly aiding, arming and funding Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda for several years

Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4-2-02

Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02

·        Dr. Mohammed al-Masri, a known al-Qaeda spokesman, told the Sunday Times that Saddam Hussein contacted the “Arab Afghans” (al-Qaeda) in 2001. Al-Masri also said that Saddam even went so far as to fund the movement of some al-Qaeda members into Iraq and then later supplied them with arms caches and money, later to be used in insurgent attacks. Abdel Bari Atwan, Sunday Times, 2-26-06 via Thomas Joscelyn, "Saddam, the Insurgency, and the Terrorists, 3-28-06

·        Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden’s former mentor, told reporters in 2004, “Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al-Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation.” AFP, 8-30-04 Thomas Joscelyn, "What Else Did Hudayfa Azzam Have To Say About Al-Qaeda In Iraq?” 4-3-06

·        Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam, has said Iraq’s government worked closely with al-Qaeda before the war and welcomed a number of members in after they left Afghanistan and armed and funded them Thomas Joscelyn citing  AFP, 8-30-04

·        Dr. Mohammed al-Masri, a known al-Qaeda spokesman, told the Sunday Times that Saddam Hussein contacted the “Arab Afghans” (al-Qaeda) in 2001. Abdel Bari Atwan, Sunday Times, 2-26-06 via Thomas Joscelyn, “Saddam, the Insurgency, and the Terrorists,” 3-28-06

·        Haqi Ismail, a Mosul native with relatives at the top of Iraq’s Mukhabarat and spent time in al-Qaeda/al Ansar camps in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq before being caught by Kurdish security, indicated that he was working for Saddam Hussein’s Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat)

Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02

·        Moammar Ahmad Yussef, a captured deputy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, told officials that Iraq provided money, weapons, fake passports, safe haven and training to al-Qaeda members

Dan Darling, Winds of Change, 11-21-03

·        A “top Saddam Hussein official,” who was also a senior Intelligence official, says that Iraq made a secret pact with Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later al-Qaeda. Secret meetings between the two sides began in 1992.

Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03

·        Abu Zubaydah, a high ranking al-Qaeda operative in U.S. custody, has said that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had good contacts with Iraqi Intelligence Services

Thomas Joscelyn, Weekly Standard, December 2, 2005

·        Abu Iman al-Baghdadi, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, told BBC news that Saddam Hussein is funding and arming Ansar al-Islam to fend off anti-Saddam Kurds

Jim Muir, BBC, July 24, 2002

.


Even more encouraging signs for Iraq are emerging. The U.S. and Iraq are a little bit closer to making a sovereign Iraq that can stand on its own, with a little help!  :)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/africa/27iraq.php


Terry


.

it's been proven that Saddie and Osa used to watch cowboy movies together, if you remember the story told by the self-described Saddam's mistress Parisoula Lampsos. The question is: who inspired Ms. Lampos to throw such allegations? I bet, same people who produced all that other "evidence", same people who worked with Iraqi sources that who were receiving money for the info about WMD and claiming all sort of things.

 http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=+Parisoula+Lampsos+&btnG=Search&meta=

.




How does Israel deal with Iran, Peisi mate. Iran's program to push Israel into the ocean must not set well with you? Israel needs to try to make peace in the region, just as Iraq is trying so very hard to do.

Saddams WMD's, look no further than Syria.

What did the latest attack of Israel on Syria do Peisi mate? .. I believe it put a Nuke warhead assembly plant out of business, didn't it?   ;D


Kind regards
Terry aka "Admiral"  ;)


.

Hopefully we are about to have another month of dwindling casualties. Perhaps this is proof that the surge and new alliances have actually worked? Hopefully this continues to be the pattern that we see.

My one big worry is what is Muqtada Al Sadr going to do after the 6 month ceasefire he pushed for ends....

Any old lunatic can speculate about Iraqi WMD's...it takes a special lunatic to explain how harmless the WMD's that he just claimed didn't exist are.....Surely, anyone sharp enough to understand the rationale for saying "no wmd's" can also grasp that a carburetor can be built by using carburetor parts................................

SuperChicken's latest lunatic theory:
The degraded substances in the relative handful of corroded munitions scattered about Iraq could be used to construct a formidable WMD aresnal. If you actually believe those degraded relics could be reconstituted into a grave and gathering threat to the world's only superpower (the rationale for invading Iraq) you should change your user_name to ChickenLittle.

I will happily concede the existence of the degraded relics. It's no concession at all -- their existence is common knowledge. When I realized that's what you were harping on, I brought them to your attention.

.


C4P, you have no idea, just wishful assumptions. Like I said, go visit Syria and try to find out. I know what was shipped to Syria. Further, why do you suppose Israel staged an air strike on Syria recently?

I'll tell you why. It was to destroy a Nuke assembly plant. You need not throw rocks in glass houses mate. You are just a die hard leftie that won't even support all troops in the Mid-East.

Your kind don't stand behind reality and IMHO you present a 'truth' as deceit.

Have you ever served? Oh wait, of course not. The least you could do is stand by the ones that give you quiet nights and the right to spew nonsense.. the troops that keep the terrorists away from your neighborhood.

Good riddance to you!  ;D
.. because you account for nothing.  ;)


.

Do you realize what you typed above is devoid of logic? If the Syrians had a nuke assembly plant, it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not chemical and biological weapons were transported from Iraq to Syria prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Given your lack of ability to reason logically, you are not qualified to make such a judgement.

Again, devoid of logic. If combat service is a prerequisite for evaluating the issues associated with Iraq, that disqualifies GW Bush and Dick Cheney. I must assume you voted for John Kerry.

If that is an announcement that you're leaving this forum, the level of discourse here will be measurably elevated. ;D

I neglected to respond to the drivel above, mate.

There is nothing inherently "leftie" about disagreeing with GW's Iraq policy or pointing out what a Fiasco (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780143038917) it's been.

Hurling the accusation of not supporting the troops is the last refuge of someone who lacks a legitimate argument.

I read Fiasco. Excellent. Here are some snippets:

chemical weapons have been used by the Wahhabis in Iraq. U can prepare chlorine by yourself in a garage.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/17/iraq.main/index.html

Chechens used similar methods. But the most memorable, Aum Shinrikyo sect who used sarin and VX gas more than once. Sarin and VX are not jokes; these are real hardcore chemical agents that have been manufactured by a bunch of enthusiasts. Any university can make chemical weapons; any government more than easily. Century-old technology. It's absurd that Qaeda needs some government to handle WMDs to it, because Qaeda, like Shinrikyo, can produce them without aid of any state.

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

Supporting Bush's folly in Iraq is the equal of not supporting the troops.

Opposing Bush's folly in Iraq is the equal of supporting the troops.

One of the reasons I marched against the war in downtown Seattle in February, 2003, is because I support the troops. After all, I am a "troop."

--Commander, USN, Retired.

If the Army War College issued scathing reviews of the Bush administration on Iraq, it must be comprised of die-hard lefties who never served and don't support the troops.

Ad hominem wrapped in a strawman.....I never claimed any of this nonsese...This is YOUR lenghty explanation, YOUR extended definition of chemical weapon and WMD,...which is required, because your original statement that Iraq did not have any WMD's is lunacy....Keep grasping...you're arguing with yourself...why ay doubleyou enn.

Then your "carburetor" analogy was just mindless off-topic babbling.

I'm glad that you were able to get that off your chest.

.

C4P..
Look who is calling the kettle black.  ::)


.

You could always pretend that it's a ferkin MOUNTAIN of evidence....and ignore it.

You should try infusing your posts with substance, or at least an attempt to respond to an issue or point of argument.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

This article is yet another example for us to have continued optimism that Iraq can be stabilized....

Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds.

648 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November to date, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. This compares with 2,155 in May as the so-called "surge" of nearly 30,000 additional American troops gained momentum.

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq have also dropped sharply. So far this month, the military has reported 34 deaths, compared with 38 in October. In June, 101 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

In Baghdad, a bus convoy arrived carrying hundreds of refugees home from Syria. The buses, funded by the Iraqi government, left Damascus on Tuesday as part of a plan to speed the return of the estimated 2.2 million Iraqis who have fled to neighboring Syria and Jordan.

Sunnis aligning with the US against Al Qaeda, significantly reduced civilian and US troop casualties, and refugees returning home....

Sounds pretty good to me.

Now what do the doom sayers in Iraq say to that?

Thanks for that Zenter. There are more and more indications the Iraqi people demand peace, and the various Tribes and the central government need to progress even more. For example, the police and the army need to be trained by the coalition and directly controlled by the Iraqi government. The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia have gotten along before and I believe the Iraqi people will insist on it.


Regards
Terry


.

That's like saying that, during the Cold War, the Serbs and the Croats got along before. The political situation in Iraq has not gotten one bit better. There has been no progress in determining a political end state in Iraq.

.




No, you quoted a small snipet and lost the context of it all. At least quote all in context and you will understand.  ;)

You're right, your entire quote is a bit more nuanced.

Fascinating.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN27496676 (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN27496676)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying i'm thinking of planning a vacation getaway there, but just because Iraq is still too dangerous for the average American press member to visit, doesn't mean that conditions aren't improving.

Furthermore...you want to play a game of numbers JPN...LETS ROCK

These are a couple of quotes taken from that very same article.


The journalists gave high marks to the overall reporting effort, with 74 percent rating news-gathering as good or excellent. The highest marks went to coverage of U.S. troops and the war against insurgents.

70 percent of those surveyed believe overall coverage is accurate, while 15 percent say the coverage makes the situation look better than it is.


I'll let the quotes speak for themself....any response JPN?


I can spin things just like you, but i'm trying not to. The only thing i'm after is the truth and the truth is it seems like to me that conditions in Iraq are improving. If you want to show me facts that indicate otherwise that's fine, but don't manipulate those facts like you did. We're not politicians here buddy, we're human beings.

ok, this war has been won and u will stay there forever (u don't think u will withdraw once stability is achieved, do u?). U have maybe a few years, maybe a few months to prepare for the next one (the next war, that is). Hopefully, just enough time for the Reps to win the White Hose, so that the next neocon administration can wage the next war (in Iraq, that is, and very probably in a couple of other places).

I wish we would, but no I don't think so.


Unfortunately, your probably right.


This girl I know works for the Mitt Romney campaign...I thought she was a bitch even before I knew she was working for the campaign, now I know she's downright evil.

Right! Once iraqi (or other) poeple stop attacking US troops stationed in Iraq, nothing prevent them to stay there.

Americans still have bases in Germany and Japan. Go figure...

Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us and was at the frontlines of the Cold War....Iraq did not. The only reason we would have for keeping military bases in Iraq is to keep the oil fields secure (similar to what we're doing in Saudi Arabia), but I dread the day that happens for it would only lead to further radicalization of the Iraqi masses.

and what is the purpose of your presence 60 years later? Reminder? Keeping Japs in check? Protecting them from the whales? Gaining a deeper understanding of the ancient culture?

How about Spain? What are u doing in Spain? Portugal? Italy? Protecting Italianos from over-eating pizza? OK, how about Iceland? Britain? I mean Britain, U freaking K, the funny place with the accent. Protecting Britain from Ireland? From France? How about Turkey? Australia? Whachaya doing down there? Why Australia??? 30, thirty, military bases in the kangaroo country.

""Statements by top US military chief General Charles Robertson that the US needs more bases in Australia and other Asia-Pacific sites...""

http://www.anti-bases.org/no_new_bases.htm

http://www.anti-bases.org/~campaigns/NMD_StarWars_PineGap/Map_of_US_Military_Bases_in_Australia.html

Dude, you're up to the military dominination of the world, and military presence has its own logic. If you're still in places like Italy and Belgium and Australia, do u really think u went to Iraq to just fix the things and get out? Once u come, u never go. You're freaking everywhere, and u somehow talk about "protecting America".

.




Peisi, remember it is all about terrorists mate. You have the deceptive buggers as well. State sanctioned. Better worry about Hagganah, is what you need to do.  ;)


Regards
Terry

.

I'v read somewhere that the US military had 700 bases abroad.

The Cold War made this understandable. But the end of the Cold War brings this all into question, and the U.S. just hasn't faced up to these questions. For the most part, this discussion isn't even happening. No political leader in the U.S. is seriously proposing a dramatic withdrawal, and it isn't getting any play in the media.

I don't really know why this is. It doesn't occur? The politicians are afraid of being painted as unpatriotic--certain death to any politician? The power of the military-industrial complex? I don't know.

But Fred you raise a very valid issue.

Your constant assumptions of what my political philosophies are is why I don't discuss things with you Peis.

Very easy, the war on terror.. all over the globe, has been the policy of the US under the Bush administratio