Interesting and culpatory piece, ergo, you are shriven:)

Unfortunately, Alladin's Genie is a raging insatiable demon, and it's going to be a tough struggle ahead:(

RJ,

You certainly do surprise me. Sometimes you can write things so unfairly inflammatory that I swear I'll never read another of your posts -- I'm not quite the extreme left, I don't think, but I have my moments just as everybody does -- and then you can go and write something like this. We obviously don't agree politically, but I must say that it takes courage to write something as honest and conciliatory as this piece.

Even assuming Civil War doesn't break out, I think our hope of creating an ally is gone. It's scary to think about, but as they are now, the person most likely to hold Iraq together is --gulp--Muqtada al Sadr. He's calling for a unified Iraq and actually attempting to make it happen...and people are listening. It does not bode well for the U.S.

I never thought we should go in at the time and in the way that we did, but I think pulling out and leaving a further vacuum is the worst thing we could do for a variety of reasons. And for all of Bush's faults (and there are many) he knows this.

I think we need to do what we should have done two years ago: beg Europe and NATO to help us. Terror and extremist violence has hit Europe harder than the US post 9/11 so there is really common cause here to lock down Iraq, a place that *wasn't* a terrorist hotspring pre-invasion but likely is now.

"The people there hate us."

That's a very generalized statement. Which people and who? A lot of the media show just the angered people, and almost never the ones who want America to help.

What a great piece, RJ!

Even assuming Civil War doesn't break out, I think our hope of creating an ally is gone. It's scary to think about, but as they are now, the person most likely to hold Iraq together is --gulp--Muqtada al Sadr. He's calling for a unified Iraq and actually attempting to make it happen...and people are listening. It does not bode well for the U.S.

I think you may have misread al Sadr's horoscope. He's solely responsible for this 'civil war', which is basically his attempt to short circuit a political realignment which was going to shut the extremist Shiites out of a major role in government. The backlash against him is already pretty fierce and it's just going to get worse. Once things calm down the end result of all this may be that the violence is pretty much played out.

The one upside of all this is that the US is clearly not at fault for this situation and it's very clear to people in the middle east that Iran is the real villain, since al Sadr is their tool.

Dave

While I have to admire your honesty, RJ, this is exactly what I feared would happen, back when just about everyone on the right wing was gung-ho to overthrow Saddam. Getting rid of his regime was always a worthwhile goal, even if we've made some huge mistakes in the way we've gone about it.

There is never any way to guarantee success in any endeavor worth doing. There are, however, many ways to guarantee failure, and one of the surest is to give up prematurely.

Modern Americans' appetite for instant gratification leads us to give up on many projects before they ever get any real chance to bear fruit. It will be extremely costly for us in the long run, if we make the same mistake in Iraq.

One of Shakespeare's comic relief characters once said: "Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being entered, bear it that the opposed may beware of thee." In other words, if you get into a fight, make sure you win it. It was good advice, even if the Bard put it into the mouth of a buffoon.

Back when we were all deciding what to think of the Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq, far too few Americans realized the high likelihood this would be a project that could take many decades to complete. If that possibility would have changed your decision to support the invasion, you really had no business supporting it in the first place.

Now that we're there, it's far too early after only three years to proclaim that it didn't work. Now we have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleep.

"...and all we asked for in terms of repayment was their gratitude."

[...]

"So much for the expected gratitude."

Gratitude can't be "asked for" nor "expected". Gratitude is *given* or *received* freely. What and arrogant attitude from you.

How come you guys didn't want to overthrow the brutal dictators and free the people in china, palestine or north korea.

I think you would have gotten a lot more credibility if the people you chose to liberate first didn't have oil and if those oil wells were not immediately seized and dsitributed amongst american companies.

I still haven't heard any rational reason why the iraqies deserved freedom more then any other people in the entire world.


As for abu graib, if you lived in a country with free press you would have been allowed to see the people who were maimed and killed during torture in iraq. Come to think of it if you lived in a country with free press you would be able to know about all the other secret prisons and what ungodly things happen in them.

To those of you still believing that our president is just a good ol' boy trying to make the world a better place for everyone, including the poor brown people of Iraq your closed mind will never allow you to see reality for what it truly is. The greatest Democracy in the world is sham, the president sent by good is a lying thief, the planet is beyond repair, and we are on the wrong side of Hubberts Peak regarding oil. Read between the lines and realize you are a pawn in a game already over. I feel sorry for your children

I really think that you morons need to start ready some media sources outside the US. One doesn't have to travel far to get the truth, Mexico and Canada have a more independent media than our corporate controlled administration produced speakerboxx. Would you fight invaders of your country...I think you would? We have created more terrorists? Where are you idiots from? Maybe you should think for yourselves instead of just spouting off the ideas of conservative cocksuckers like Rush Limbaugh. Everything you were taught all your lives concerning our history, our culture, and our faith has all been a lie by the time your feeble minds are able to process this it will already be way to late.

RJ: this is a good article. yes you surprise me too.

I have to add that the flowers bit on arrival of US forces was kind of stage managed, as was the toppling of the statue, if I remember correctly.

I agree, it was flawed from the start.

Best
g

The loss of lives was a given. In such a venture, lives would be lost. I hate this aspect but it is the harsh reality.

The question is, was it worth it? No.

Secondly, the financial damage has been far worse. China has been emerging over this period and world sentiment which had become Pro-US post 9-11 has been diverted hugely.

The US has the responsibility now to be there till peace occurs (if ever) to avoid a consolidation of militant forces which could have a damaging impact on the world at large.

I didn't like it when the US invaded Iraq. War is not always the answe. And I do feel pissed at the current situation.

A very nice piece BTW RJ.

I have to disagree on three minor points: the 4 guys killed in Fallujah were technically (though not legally) mercenaries: they had received paramilitary training, were loaded for bear (though not for guerilla RPG squad, to their detriment) and although they did as far as anyone can tell escort a food shipment they did escort it into an area that was dangerous even for US Infantry troopers to venture into. Still, that does not justify using their corpses for comic relief as locals did.

The treatment of Abu Ghraib detainees should not be described as "hazing" IMHO - the latter does not cause lasting injuries or mental derangement, whereas Abu Ghraib incidents routinely do so. Also, a figure of three-quarters of the inmates is probably a good approximation of the number of folks in there who have at worst been asking the wrong questions to the wrong people or p'ssed off somebody with better connections to the cops (Reliable information leading to an arrest is kinda hard to come by in a coutry that is so rife with mistrust as Iraq).
As a side note, there is probably no place that signifies "bad times" and "terror" for Iraqis of all stripes as much as Abu Ghraib. This factoid is usually overlooked in our part of the world, but to Iraqis, the fact that whatever happens there now is far less atrocious than what happened there under Saddam seems to bear far lesser weight than the fact that thís most visible stain on the Iraq picture is still there. The whole compound - a veritable mini-town it is, worthy a quick look'n'see on Google Earth indeed - should have been razed to the ground first thing after the Iraqi Army had deserted away.

But I digress, and these points were more remarks about style than criticisms of the substance. I find your analysis, coming from an entirely different political angle that I stand at (I consider myself a decidedly independent Liberal Left guy - "independent" meaning I never bought this war-for-oil shenanigans etc. Nice from an ideologically point of view, but I prefer to do my own research, which naturally came to rather different conclusions. Greed as a motive, why not, but not on a scale that would imply intent or any significant level of organization), but I cannot agree more. My analyses are basically the same. I find it important to note that, as things are, Iran of all countries has benefitted most from the Iraq conundrum.

Incidentially, Iran may gain one more: From what I hear, Hamas got the lead in the PA elections not because of their "destroy Israel" stance, but because many Fatah officials, their hands often being tied and the amount they could actually do slim indeed, turned corruption into an art form. Hamas, on the other hand, distributed alms, handed out food, the works. To many people down there, Hamas handouts were the only means of survival, and, well, as Brecht said: "Food comes first, and only then comes morality" (That is not to say that there are not many folks down in Paliland who wouldn't agree with Hamas' anti-semitism. It's just that there were more important issues for most voters than politics.) As an exchange student told a mate of mine: "My family all voted for Hamas. We're pretty secular folks; we know that their politics are brainless. But they gave us food, whereas Fatah gave us squat. Period."
Now, Tehran is busy calling for aid to Hamas, so that these guys can continue their "social work". Hamas, Sunnis as they are, have traditionally been sponsored and influenced less by Iran - they always had the Hezbollah as their pet terrorists - but by the Muslim Brotherhood and its clones. This looks like it's set to change. There will be no success in combatting Islamist extremism as long as the West has not grasped the concept of zakah, every proper Muslim's obligation of giving to those in need. To islamists, this is the dandiest stepladder to moral higher ground one can imagine. And islamists, as a rule of thumb, are not prone to corruption, at least not as those folks see it. Never mind baksheesh, that's a way of life. So yes, some baksheeshy kind of "greasing the cogs of the government machineries" will exist under Hamas, but I seriously doubt they will emulate the Mafia-style corruption of the Fatah.

As for the third point where I might disagree, it's all the talk about civil war in Iraq. One hears a lot of it these days, written for Western eyes, but there seems to be less, if anything, in Iraq itself. It may be argued that this civil war has been going on since mid-2003. Usually, we define "civil war" as a war between some sort of governmental authority and an internal opposition, and that is precisely what we've seen in Iraq all the time. The assumption that just because Iraq is split between 2 major Muslim denominations a civil war has to pit these against each other instead of running along political fault-lines is preposterous.

I still do not think that a Shia-Sunni civil war is imminent. Nobody had taken responsibility for the Samarra bombing as I last looked (yesterday), or shall I say "nobody has DARED to": the mosque was a place of worship to Shia and Sunni alike, although only to the former it was really important. There's much finger-pointing, however, and more than half of that goes in the direction of the usual suspects down there, i.e. the Coalition and the "Zionists". This is completely ludicrous; the US (and Israel, though they're preoccupied with their election right now) would not want anything less than a further barrel of oil thrown into the Iraqi flames. The Bush administration most likely considers it every day Iraq does not make front-page news a happy one, so where would be their motives? Urban Iraqis are usually fairly well educated, so this absoultely cleless, reflexive game of blame-the-Great-Satan ist even more disturbing. At any rate, it seems that except for the most lunatic fringe of the radicals on both sides, nobody in Iraq, Shia and Sunni alike, would want such a conflict either. The death squads are more realistically guys seizing the opportunity to pay some old bills from Saddam's times, and though they exist (in both denominations) and in the case of Shias do seem to have government connections, the joint cause is Islamist and that is prospering, so why, seems to go the argument, risk it?

The only guys that have a conceivable motive are whatever remains of the secular ("Saddam loyalist", although this is untrue since at least 2 years), ex-Ba'ath guerilla, sidelined and only significant because on a per-individual basis, thy are still the most capable militarily. Their political influence is negligible, exactly because Shia and Sunni Islamists find it appropriate to work together: put the Sharia in the Constitution now, work out any differences about veneration of "saints" and the Mahdi or whatnot later. But is the marginal secular-nationalist guerilla really up to this? The location suggests that it is not impossible. But I don't have a good opinion on that issue.


Sorry for the length of the rant. No guarantees for reliability of my thoughts given; it's merely how it appears to me over here in Good Old Europe :)

Well at least they wont cause any problems to the world.
If the western military pulls out it will be a civil war.
Maybe after 15 years it will be stable again.
So 15 years no problems for the western world.

RJ

I think the West got caught up in a war within Islam as it struggles to find itself.

Sunni versus Shia,moderates versus fundamentalists within both sects are staging a struggle for control of the religion...and the West is a victim of that war.

As what happened centuries ago as Christianity tried to define itself during the Protestant Reformation (where bloof freely flowed throughout the European continent),the same is happening here now.

Our problem is that we never understood the cultural conflicts within Islam.

The fight for control of wone of the world's biggest religions is taking place before our eyes.

Sorry,but we may have planted a seed there that may,perhaps in decades,yield fruition.

Instead,we want a sloution now,today,which won't happen.

This is a marathon...with the thought of one fourth of the world's population at stake.....and the West's best bet is that moderates will ultimately prevail.

not to worry stockholders...

Iraq's fields have been fallow long enough...new wells will be punched - new rigs and pipelines will be constructed

the oil will flow

troll

ps - you might want to diversify you holdings with Iran/China in mind

Once the objective was obtained (which was to oust a terrible leader), we should've left Iraq thereafter and let the country work out its political problems themselves. The Iraqis loved us (US Forces), when we got Saddam out of their lives, but once we started bringing in our "bad influences", we've now become the enemy.

Somehow the higharchy of our government forces doesn't get the hint... get our forces out of there and let them work out their own problems. The United States has to stop being the policemen of the world and concentrate on solving our own domestic problems before lending a hand to other foreign countries.

I understand that we have a certain obligation to foreign relations, but at least let's have the decency to fix our problems first before we give out free money to foreign countries. But then again... this is only my opinion. So what if I pay taxes. So what if I served in the Army during the 80's. So what if I had two brothers who fought in Nam for our country, and didn't get the kind of recognition that our troops are now getting when returning from war (well, at least now they're getting some recoginition, but what did it take... 20 years or so before doing so?). It's only my opinion.

it's too bad that the iraqi's war has and always will be about american oil. It just so happened that a solution to invade iraq fell right into George W, Bushes fat lap, or rather, his buildings.

The neocon strategic objective regarding the imposition of a permanent US military presence upon Iraq was delineated in their 2000 PNAC.

As we know (See O'Neill), during their initial months in office, they obsessed over that imperialistic goal whilst ignoring the imminent threat from al Qaeda.

They exploited the terrorism of 9/11/01, immediately conflating the attacks with the disparate matter of Iraq (Rumsfeld's directive), there being no evidence of Saddam's complicity whatsoever - a fact Bush was subsequently forced to concede.

Their undeniably woeful comprehension of the inevitable aftermath of the unprovoked invasion and occupation envisioned the installation of an accomodating regime, their man Chalabi who was well remunerated to supply pretexts (i.e. his man Curveball's mobile biolabs, etc.) being their favoured boy. That the populace would democratically ratify such an imposition was, of course, absurd.

Alas, democracy rears it's ugly head and a fundamentalist cadre responsive to the majority (and antithetical to neocon objectives) accedes to power. A brutal secularist regime vanquished; an Islamist regime acceding. Sistani, who now wield as much power as anyone, has yet to bother speaking with a single official of the occupational forces.

Under the circumstances, can a mega-fortress 'embassy' in Baghdad and multiple permanent military bases be expected to project US hegemony throughout the Middle East as the neocons envisioned?

Methinks not. Best they negociate a modified permanent presence within Iraqi Kurdistan, a mutually satisfactory alternative born of necessity.

Unambiguously renounce the scheme now; diffuse the Iraqi nationalist resistance and free them to vanquish the jihadist interlopers for whom the induced chaos constitutes a grim playground, indeed. It is a cause that could well at least temporarily unite a significant percentage of indigenous Shi'ites and Sunnis.

Forestall the civil war. Save American lives.

RJ,

Interesting article. Generally well written.

I disagree with one fundamental assertion, but have no time to argue the issue right now. Will do that later when time permits.

WND's: Got from two sepaerate sources that they were moved out of the country six weeeks before the American invasion began in 2003, and are now in Syria. Guess who thy're aimed at?

Very interesting and informative set of comments.

Best
Reuven

Over a month ago, an evangelical Christian named George Sada (who had done whatever was required to achieve the second highest rank in Saddam's air force) had proclaimed his sensational, self-aggrandizing, uncorroborated hearsay evidence that, on the eve of Bush's invasion, Iraq's militaristic dictator had surreptitiously whisked away his proscribed arsenal via commercial aircraft and truck convoy (undetected by intense satellite scrutiny) to Syria. Ignoring the notion that unilateral disarmament by a militarist is a curious preparation for an imminent invasion, it is worth noting that one of the primary Bush pretexts for instigating the war was anxiety that Saddam's chimerical wmd's might be transferred to Al Qaeda or similar jihadist organisations. We have long been apprised of such folks readily traipsing over the Syria/Iraq border to reek havoc, yet somehow always failing to accessorize with the available naughty bits.

That the Bushies, desperate for a modicum of vindication amidst the current horrors, would utter nary a peep concerning Sada's fanciful tale is ample testimony to it's authenticity, imho.

Ruvy, glad to see you bringing up the relocation of the Iraqi WMDs. This seems to be pretty definitively established now, yet there's remarkable ignorance of it worldwide except among those who have gone looking for the information. The media and political leaders are both studiously avoiding it.

Dave

YOU WROTE: "What it was about, instead, was taking the public's post-9/11 rage, massaging it a bit,"

In other words, Bush lied to start a war.

YOU WROTE: "and then channeling it into support for the invasion and occupation of a weak, isolated anti-American regime in the heart of the Middle East."

That just so happened to be sitting on vast oil-fields. What a co-inky-dink!

YOU WROTE: "It was an idealistic Wilsonian attempt to re-make the entire world as safe for liberal democracy, while destroying Islamic terrorism in the process."

Wilsonian? Are you serious?

Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on the campaign slogan "He kept us out of war."

If it wasn't for the Germans resuming submarine attacks and the Zimmerman telegraph he would have preferred to keep the US out of WWI.

Wilson didn't, as you put it, "massage" the American people in order to give him an excuse to invade Europe.

After the WWI was over, Wilson's 14-points speech and League of Nations plan was designed to prevent pre-emptive wars in the future. One of the reasons the Senate didn't want to join the LON was that many Americans feared we would get dragged into more foreign conflicts.

Wilson wasn't perfect, but to spin the NeoCon agenda as "Wilsonian" is historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

I will agree with you on this point: Liberals should stop using words like "Hitler" to describe Bush. Calling people Nazis is cliche.

If you think controlling 2 of the worlds largest stockpiles of oil (afganistan and iraq), and doing so to iraq as sanctions agasint them are about to run out (they would have traded with the euro, and had a bunch of europeans going to their country to work = loss economy in u.s.) is not about controlling the worlds supply of oil you are bitter fools.

Me: "Gratitude can't be "asked for" nor "expected". Gratitude is *given* or *received* freely. What and arrogant attitude from you."

Yes, it is arrogant. Did anyone doubt that the mainspring for the neocon invasion of Iraq was anything other than arrogance? Helping the Iraqis was always a laughable pretense.

if the american leave now. then its just going to be like the vietnam war. how they left the hmong there in laos to be genocide or exerminated by the vietnamese or LPDR (something like that) so that theyll (hmong) be no more. and thats what we got for being allied to our fellow american. they didnt say ok! were pulling out and were taking you guys (hmong) with us. the hmong have to go escape on theyre own crossing mekong river on their own to get to thailand. and when they got there in thailand, women get rape and men get beat up...... well im glad my mom escape safely crossing the mekong river with my oldest bro on her back. and im glad i was born here. anywase if the american pulled out now... hopefully they dont regret it!

and one more thing. that war was about oil. my cousin which he was in the marine base in camp pendleton and went to iraq for six month. says that, that war was base on oil. and a lot of his friends there do not even want to be there fighting for something that we got already. cmon now look doesnt bush own some of them oil company here in america. i know he want more. and oil is worth more than diamonds. thats why them terroist be burning up they oil plant. and whos getting mad for that. americans are. did we not see them in the news....? after bush became president, didnt gas price went up?

bush is like my younger bro. which he has dollar signs in his eyes, thats how bush is. money money money.

Actually, Vang, Bush does not own US oil companies. And if we wanted oil all we had to do was to be nice to Saddam and he would have given us all we wanted. The idea that this war was about oil is about as ridiculous as can be.

Dave

***I really think that you morons need to start ready some media sources outside the US. One doesn't have to travel far to get the truth, Mexico and Canada have a more independent media than our corporate controlled administration produced speakerboxx. Would you fight invaders of your country...I think you would? We have created more terrorists? Where are you idiots from? Maybe you should think for yourselves instead of just spouting off the ideas of conservative cocksuckers like Rush Limbaugh. Everything you were taught all your lives concerning our history, our culture, and our faith has all been a lie by the time your feeble minds are able to process this it will already be way to late.



hey you are rite!!! i took world history in college and my professor says the same thing too. wow. and people needs to learn about other peoples history NOT u.s. history. and you know what i dont see any white people in that class.............

The goal was oil, don't be so naive.

Thanks, Dave. The American and European media can afford to ignore threats that aren't against them.

Ok RJ, The one fundamental assertion I disagree with in your article.

"What it was about, instead, was taking the public's post-9/11 rage, massaging it a bit, and then channeling it into support for the invasion and occupation of a weak, isolated anti-American regime in the heart of the Middle East. It was an idealistic Wilsonian attempt to re-make the entire world as safe for liberal democracy, while destroying Islamic terrorism in the process."

John Dolfus tried to sell us the same line of BS in 2003 when he visited here and spoke at the Israel Center at a Root & Branch presentation. Nobody here bought it then, and the same bad shmatteh won't sell now even at discount prices.

I didn't understand myself why the Bush administration went after Saddam Hussein, even though at first I thought it a great idea. Finally, now I do. Saddam Hussein was selling oil in euros. He was providing a "dugmá" - an
example - for the other oil producers to think about.

His overthrow was a message to the neighboring regimes - one which has backfired in Iran.

All that other stuff? Well, if the Americans can accomplish some "improvements" in "Iraq" it will be wonderful. But I suspect that events there have taken on a life of their own that George Bush and handlers did not anticipate at all.

Oh I think the federal government accomplished exactly what they set out to do: to put Iraq into such a state of disarray that rather than worrying about the plundering of precious resources by American corporations, the everyday Iraqi must worry about clean water, about dying from diarrhea, and about a fabricated civil war.

This was the plan. And anyone who actually claims that we were their in search of weapons of mass destruction has lost their reason.

hawaiian_son: Well, kama'aina (or are you a native haole?), the one option that could possibly have avoided most of the mess was the tribal one.

The democracy that ias introduced in Iraq (and worked remarkably well given the circumstance, as I always told people who doubted it) was Western in essence. That is not to go into the issue of values, as in Singaporean-style vs. North american-style governing, but a technical distinction: Western democracy is top-down; even though all the power by the people rhethorics, democracy as we know it is an institution that in our time is set up above the electorate. It is such for historical reasons, it developed that way. There is no comparable thing in the Arab world. What is there, however, is a populations structure (outside the metrolopes, and even there to some extent) that is based on clans, extended families. Clan heads, when deciding on some issue where Ba'ath was not nosing itself into, gathered opinions of clan members, then convened, discussed and decided. Not democratic, as there was no universal suffrage or formal ballots an all the bells and whistles, but proto-democratic enough that something could have been made out of it. The approach would obviously have been bottom-up, not staring with an interim government, but with city councils or such, and Neocon democracy-building doctrine does not seem to deal with this approach.

The advantage would have been threefold:
- Idle hands are the devil's best friends - by having locals decide upon a council staffed by locals they trust and dealing exclusively with local issues such as basic services, there would have sprung into existence a rather effective way of getting things in working shape again. Additionally, there would have been an outlet for grievances pertaining to the conduct of Coalition forces that would have been trusted more by the people at stake than Coalition.appointed governors (who were busy riding the gravy train anyway, as they had not much face to lose). Getting locally elected councils to prioritize reconstruction and assign a workforce would have millions of Iraqis doing something in a productive way, instead of just sitting around in their living rooms unemployed with no air conditioning during one of these midsummer brownouts, until their brains have been fried into thinking grabbing a gun or a bomb belt and killing people is a cool idea. Funding and supporting local reconstruction efforts and a generally sympathetic attitude towards attempts to set up local councils of representatives or contact persons was what won the Allies the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese back in 45.

- An Iraqi democracy built from the ground up would have been more acceptable to the Iraqis, by giving them a say in how exactly their democracy would look like. The current solution, while technically workable, still seems "transplanted".

- The great goal of the "model democracy" could actually have been achieved. There is no Near/Middle East country dominated by Muslims that can be called a democracy, excepting Lebanon, and Lebanon is not a model for anything as its ethnoreligious makeup is unparalleled. By giving Iraqis an opportunity to build their democracy, Iraqi-style, as they were eager to do until late summer of 2003 when things noticeably started to sour, there could have been a real precedent, a kind of democracy that would be acceptable and "native" to the Arab world. The Muslim world with its shuras, jirgas and tea-house discussions does have a mind-set that would in theory lend itself to the development of a genuinely novel form of democratic system, one that could even, by bringing up new approaches, breathe some much-needed life again the western democracies that seem to become a bit stale these days. Pro-democracy slogans were one of the most common form of political statements during the Summer 2003 protests in Iraq. Iraqis are quite well-educated and in general probably were, at that time, the most "Western" Middle Eastern people, as for example shown in a rather cosmopolitan attitude, a strong secular tradition and a very liberal view on womens' rights. Especially the latter two have taken a very drastic turn for the worse.

Ruvy and Dave: Don't mean no disrespect, but I have yet to see any reliable piece of evidence, let alone something even remotely like proof suggesting viable WMDs were exported from Iraq in 2003. They did not even have Scuds anymore (the supposed "Scud attack" did neither cause enough damage, nor was the English stencilling on the debris indicative of anything other than a Patriot or Tomahawk gone astray). Is it so hard to accept that you've been duped? (If you don't, odds are it will happen to you over and over again)

"Guess who thy're aimed at?" may be understandable if you are in Jerusalem (if one were in Tel Aviv, more so) - paranoia may be the difference between an ugly death and survival in these parts - but it is, from a purely factual basis, rather ludicrous: even if there had been WMDs that still were viable, they would have come in the form of unweaponized stocks and it is hard to see what technology Syria would employ to "point" them at somebody.

As another side note, the border issue and Far'Falastin suggest that much of the acrimonious rhetoric between Syria and the US is just that. Sure, Washington would love to see Assad gone, but they also do see the advantages to have a predictable regime in Damascus, even if that regime sucks. And assumed Lebanon boils over once again, who would intervene? Israel? Hardly, and if at all, only to secure the borderlands. The USA? Not if they can by any means avoid it. Letting Syria handle the dirty work would be an excellent means to achieve that. Both the Damascus and Washington governments depend more on each other's good will that the public perception suggests. Syria could, for example, actively promote the transit of jihad volunteers to Iraq. They don't; they turn a blind eye every time Condi has a bad hair day, but usually, they fear too much that these suckers will eventually come back armed and trained. If your claim to ruling Syria hinges on a tacit agreement between the Alawite (your guys) and the Sunni (the majority) Muslims, it is a bad idea to actively support the paramilitary/terrorist training of disgruntled Sunnis in an entrenched guerilla conflict (never forget that Syria is still pretty much secular, as these countries go. Zarqawi and his goons like Assad just about as much as OBL liked Saddam: sometimes, their goals may overlap, but generally they'd love to see the other guy dead).

Charles writes,

"And anyone who actually claims that we were there in search of weapons of mass destruction has lost their reason."

Ths is not an issue of locking someone in a rubber room. The gov't knew the weapons had been moved. The weapons were a plausible excuse that sounded lots better than saying "the Iraqis are doing us out of money by selling oil in euros and giving the locals dangerous ideas." That never would have flown. So they stalled and stalled. It was John Dollfus' opinion (what he called "think tank stuff")in 2003 that the government would use the WMD's as an 'October surprise' in the 2004 elections after overthrowing Bashir Assad. He was wrong about that.

That's one of the hazards of making predictions.

Dave: "Ruvy, glad to see you bringing up the relocation of the Iraqi WMDs."

Those dastardly Iraqis hid the WMD in the Bay Of Tonkin. Along with powerful Iraq navy, no doubt.

Bliffle,

Like I told Dave - you can afford to ignore a gun that isn't pointed at your head.

If it wasn't about oil then why did we switch the Iraqis back to Petrodollars from Euros mere days after the invasion?

We don't care about the oil, it's fungible, we do care though if they don't follow the OPEC deal from the '70s and sell their oil for dollars. Those dollars for oil are the only thing keeping our teetering economy alive.

Now that I have read the original, and all the not so intelligent comments, here is once more my assertion:

President Mr. Bush should have given the shiites good weapons, and the iraqui problem would have exterminated it's self, the iranian problem would have solved it's self and the syrians would have not received the iraqi's weapons and iran and iraque would be the enemies of the rest of islam, which would hunt for all their terrorists themselves. America and Europe could help the rest of the moslems, that are left, it would be cheaper and fewer to feed in the end, and there would be food and money for the poor africans, that are starving.

The bottom line, let people muck in their own muck without interference, they'll only hate you for any help. This includes my country "Switzerland", which is always striving for a halo, instead of putting help money to help our own swiss.

As far as Israel is concerned, let the palestinians have the whole desert, with their mentality, they'll run it down completely.
Give the Israelis a homeland in Siberia, Canada or the USA, and those countries will have an addition to intelligence and very good fighters and excellent military and civil intelligence (something for the USA), so no country will dare to attack that lucky country.

PS: I'm a christian by birth, but don't believe in my religion, but even less in any other. Religion is for people, that can't think on their own or are to lazy to do so. Even the new religion football (soccer), doesn't agree with my way of thinking.

Wow, have I been ranting again, but so have 38 before me.

Me2

I'd have to dig through my e-mails to find the ones dealing with the transport of weapons from Iraq to Syria in 2003. I'd have to check for sources and details. I know I kept hearing the same story over and over. That the weapons were stored in the "Bekaa" Valley - Bekaa means valley - guarded by Syrians.

Was Debka lying? Was Dolfus duped? If they were, the mattter is academic - there are still 10,000 missiles armed and ready to fire at us in south Lebanon. I'm just glad I don't live in Haifa, Ranaana, K'far Sava or Tel Aviv and its suburbs.

Sorry, but sorry is not enough.

Your sorry isn't good enough because it accomplishes nothing other than maybe alleviating your guilt from all those dead and injured in this failed experiment. Having the best of intentions isn't a free pass to ignore facts and history. I hope this calls into question all your beliefs and hopefully your errors won't cause so much damage to others next time.

By the way, those on the extreme left aren't always wrong. They were right about not going into Iraq, unlike you.

Also, you get a number of post-invasion items wrong as well. While the citizens were happy, that Saddam was gone, you're deluded to think they were ever in love with Bush, not counting those who posed for cameras. Looting started immediately. Everyone in Abu Ghraib wasn't a terrorist. By the way, you don't get to complain about the results of an election just because people don't vote the way you want.

"If you ask the average Iraqi on the street who is to blame for it all, they are likely to say: America."

America is to blame. The country was in the midst of civil war until Saddam took over. We removed him and now it's reverting back. It looks like Dean was right when he said things weren't better off without Saddam.

It's obvious that the 'dead enders' will cling to their fraudulent pretexts: Saddam's DubyaMD stockpiles, a 'nook-yeller' programme, mobile bilabs, al Qaeda collaboration, etc.

Nevertheless, the official conclusions pertain: WMDs destroyed prior to 1994, no nuclear programme, no mobile biolabs, no al Qaeda collaboration.

The bloody chaos those with a bit of foresight predicted is upon us. With 80% of Iraqis polled recognizing the Bush scheme, imposing a permanent US military presence upon them, it is essential that the scheme be unambiguously renounced.

End the nationalistic resistance to US occupation and allow indigenous factions to unite against the jihadist interlopers to whatever extent that is still practicable.

As Army General William Odom, former director of the NSA and head of the conservative Hudson Institute had observed last September, "The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

Begin laying a groundwork for recovery now.

the often repeated claim in #29 is obtuse - be nice to Saddam and he would have given us all the oil we wanted

we didn't invade for oil - we invaded for profit

Iraq's oil fields were nationalized and under producing under Saddam's government...US favored companies are now in a position to develop them and make a buck

all the rest is just feel good crapola

troll

US companies? what US oil companies would those be? all of the major oil companies are multinationals based outside the US.

With respect, this is a load of post-failure bollocks.

1. Why is it that the Americans are always the last to see a huge pile of shît descending?

2. It is obvious you rely on the (rubbish) mainsteam media for your information.

3. Your writing screams of "oh crap ... well, too bad, what mistakes can we make next?".

Bush is a lunatic.

There. I said it. Despite your "no personal attacks" rule, you seem in need of a clue if you supported Bush in any sense so there you have it: he's a lunatic. And if you support him, so are you.

PS. Don't just say sorry, DO SOMETHING.

#45 - 1st read more carefully

2nd - it is interesting that US troops are killing and dying for the international corporate world order

troll

"What to do from here? I don't know. All I know is this: It Didn't Work.

Sorry..."

Sorry! Now that is something that we will never get to hear from Mr. Bush. The first step towards rectifying a mistake is owning that you made one. "Incurious George" is however unable to see that.

A lot of people forget that before 9/11 helped rescue Mr. Bush's administration and took him personally to soaring approval ratings, his administration was essentially a bumbling and fumbling operation that managed to loose Jim Jeffords (and with it the Republican majority in the senate)and was a fodder for late night comedians.

Then 9/11 happened and the nation united behind Mr. Bush and for a while that helped this administration navigate the waters. However, that aura is gone, the gloves are off and people are again starting to see this administration's incompetence. Scarcely a week passes by in which the news cycle is not dominated by YABAB (Yet Another Bush Admin Blunder).

Yearn! Bill Clinton !Yearn

Why 'sorry'? We tried like hell to do the right thing, and the Iraqis were too caught up in their own issues to take advantage of the opportunity we offered them. We should be sorry that things worked out that way, but there's no reason to apologize.

Plus, as I've said before, the story is far from over. When it turns out that this 'civil war' is the violent and desperate last gasp of the Sadrists things may look a lot different.

Dave

This apology and admittance of a failed invasion/occupation by the poster does not surprise me. [Intolerable cliche deleted]

[deleted]

Dave

"We tried like hell to do the right thing"

That's crap. The administration made a number of mistakes and bad decisions while never letting the facts get in the way of their decisions. The administration constantly illustrates that their arrogance is matched by their ineptitude.

CE, please just delete and save the fuckin' commentary. We all understand you have a job to do, but I'm pretty sure adding your two cents isn't part of the deal.

Er, if you mean me, actually, that's what is currently being used for certain cliches that we've collectively decided to give a rest for a while. Personal opinion it ain't. Nor a job actually.

And unless you mean the technicality of invading someone else's sacred comment space, my two cents have just the same value as anybody else's, apart from their polish and wit of course!

Of course, my comment which he deleted wasn't even a personal attack, but we're very liberal with our definitions these days. Censorship being one of the few things where being liberal is not a good thing.

"We tried like hell to do the right thing"

That's crap. The administration made a number of mistakes and bad decisions while never letting the facts get in the way of their decisions. The administration constantly illustrates that their arrogance is matched by their ineptitude.

I didn't say the administration did the right thing WELL, just that their intentions were positive.

Dave

this piece really impressed me, it is the best thing ive read on iraq for quite a while. It could almost be about vietnam...

This piece is scary in its inability to look at why Iraq was obviously wrong from Day 1.
The WMD never materialised because - they were clearly debunked by the science world. A number of very good articles were printed in the the scientific and popular scientific press pointing out that the only people threatened by IRAQs WMD were the iraqis and there bordering neighbours. All the rest of the myth was and is an impossibility. You can make all the WMDs u can get.. Delivering it on a scale to make it worth while and any appreciable distance was well beyond Iraqs capabilities. (Even assuming there wasnt rapid and precise retailiation)

Secondly - Having the best intentions is the worst possible excuse. As my father said - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even hitler has good intentions. How about some simple ethics and morality. Things like truth are important if you want to make a difference. Neocons look so much worse now BECAUSE they lied and cheated to get to their good intentions.

Also Its palpably clear the best intentions were not there... only dreams and hope - because any intelligence or knoweldge that might have helped made this a success was ignored. It didnt fall soon after. It fell apart when the decision was made to ignore facts for faith based action. The middle east is culturally very different from the west and is very polarised. Most Westerners have no idea of how different things are. Esp. a president who had never left the USA. Nonetheless just as good intentions are no excuse. Neither is ignorance that could have been easily rectifed.

And now ... when what was obvious to most of the world before hand happens in Iraq... you try to look reasonable and say ... hey we meant the best. A unlicensed driver ploughing into a crowd of people is not allowed to please ignorance and good intentions. It DIDNT WORK. ITS the fault of people like you for being ignorant and not listening to the facts.
Now is the time to understand what has been done and ensure that in future actions are made that will atone for the incredible eneptitude that has gone before....

"There was also the PR nightmare of Abu Ghraib. I, personally, am still unable to get too worked-up over what basically amounted to a harsh fraternity hazing for terrorists."

In case you missed the 50,000 times this has been stated in the newspapers: THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN DETAINED IN IRAQ ARE 100% INNOCENT of any crimnes, arrested at traffic stops or for other mundane reasons just to question them. And once they are arrested, they are presumed guilty. If they were'nt terrorists, before your freindly "hazing", you can bet that they are afterwards.

Give him about a year, g.c. RJ is just now figuring out that the war was a bad idea. He's a little slow.

Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with all you lock-step liberal damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't, jump-down-the-nearest-available-throat commentators? I thought conservatives were supposed to be the mean-spirited, intolerant ones--where'd I get that idea? Oh yeah--from your own hypocrital, sanctimonious lips. Give it a rest.

Gordon, great passion mate but please don't force me to scrape the rust off my "hmm_was_that_a_personal_attack-dar?" Thanks.

Troll writes:

"...it is interesting that US troops are killing and dying for the international corporate world order"

You're 100% right, of course. But where's the news here? Reporting that a man bites a dog is interesting. American troops dying for the international (read giant American firms gone international or multinational) corporate world order has been going on for over a century.

Which dog did you say Bush bit? That's news!

I don't buy the argument that "maybe it's wrong that we're there but we can't pull out now".

By that logic we have an indefinite stay. The worst mistake that a strategist can make: putting the initiative in your enemies hands. But Rumsfeld and cronies talk about "the long war", which might last decades!

We pursued that strategy in Vietnam and it worsened the outcome, as well as wasting several more years than necessary and costing many lives. By contrast, Eisenhower got out of Korea expeditiously. Please note that in the first case decisions were made by amateur civilian warriors and in the second by a seasoned military strategist.

Virtually none of the Iraqis imprisoned at Abu Ghraib were "terroristst. But go ahead and tell the parents of those who were killed or raped there that it was all a harsh fraternity prank.

Yes, we're talking about civil war in Iraq, but the fun doesn't stop there.

The true monetary cost of the war has been estimated at 1 trillion dollars. In the years to come, as the political and economic consequences take hold and you see this country transformed into something you will not recognize, "it didn't work" will hardly seem like a sufficient response to the outrage of this unnecessary and ill-conceived war.

Your children will be paying the price for your foolishness for years to come.

Me2: local boy here cuz! Born and bred!

Maybe we shouldn't be quick to pick on the man in the big white house. For all we know, he could be controled by other forces (like the CIA), as Johnson was in the 60's. Or maybe he's been given all the wrong scoops as to what's really going on in the world, which causes him to make such decisions on where to send our troops.

Whatever the reason was for actually invading Iraq, Bush has to now decide on how he's going to leave in a fashion that would save face for the U.S., and not let it end as it did for us in Nam.

Isn't it great how we as US citizens, can enjoy the freedom of voicing out against our government without fear of retribution (to a certain extent)?

"Bush, and his supporters (myself included), had the best of intentions. WE were going to topple a cruel dictator and bring democracy and freedom to a land and a people that had been brutalized and oppressed for decades. WE were going to help the Iraqi people, by golly, and all WE asked for in terms of repayment was their gratitude. And for a week or two after the fall of Baghdad, WE got that gratitude."

Since the "WE" expressed above refers to the actions and sacrifices of others, wouldn't that also be cliche?

What's this "we" business, RJ? 49% of Americans tried to vote against it. There is no "we": it's "you", i.e. Bush & the neocons, along with the GOP who mindlessly supported him, and the congress - Republicans & Democrats - who spinelessly handed over authority to do whatever he wanted, thereby ducking their own responsibility & accountability.

Having said that, it was a really, Really excellent article, well written, honest, and very well done.

I think BushCo & Dubya also realize it's Over & they Lost, or he wouldn't be going around now bleating about alternative fuel sources, and weaning ourselves off of foreign fuels; he's getting ready to cut & run, at least economically. I suspect he intends to leave our military to take the fall for his failures, in which case he doubly deserves to be tried for treason; it's just a pity he can't be tried for incompetence, stupidity, and arrogance as well.

As noted above, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, altho I doubt Dubya ever had good intentions towards anything but the aggrandizement of his own fellow billionaires. He never does.

This was a war that took the taliban out of control of Afgahnistan and made Afgahnistan a democracy. This war also dismantled al quada as they are on the run and are getting little funding to pull off another big attack on the U.S. Also removing saddam and ridding the wmd threat from him is worth the money that we will be paying back for years to come.

The Taliban are making a big comeback in Afghanistan, in case you missed recent news, Tyler. So much for 'democracy' in these benighted places. They aren't ready for democracy, and frankly, if I were they, I wouldn't want the current US brand of pseudo-democracy (actually plutocratic oligarchy) either. They were going along fat & happy with what they had, which was no worse than what they'd ever had. IMO the cost in US lives as well as dollars is way, way too much, considering how little its appreciated.

I am on my second tour in Iraq, and I disagree with your assessment. Unfortunately for most of you, you only know what you read in the papers, which no longer inform, but editorialize.

Iraq is actually shaping up along realistic expectations, but most people are not patient enough to see them to fruition. The New Iraq is about like a year old child; just because it can pull itself up and walk a few steps alone does not mean it's ready to walk unassisted.

Pulling out at this time would be the worst mistake we could make, and we will have to come back here to intervene again in the near future if we leave today.

SFC SKI says "Iraq is shaping up along realistic expectations".

Sure, realistically a Police State, maybe not too different from what they had before the US invaded.

it may be a few days before I can read your explanation behind your last comment, but Iraq today could not be compared to its past as a police state, neither the government nor the police have that kind of control yet.

Sorry, Christopher--it was the meds verbally abusing.

although the meds never lie--so I take nothing back.

SFC SKI,

The argument is that regardless of the state the country is in when the US departs, once the US is gone the government will breakdown.

Stay another 5-10 years it won't make a difference. Look around the world. Every month another fledgling democracy undergoes revolution. And it will certainly happen in Iraq where there are larger lines of division than many other countries going through internal conflict.

But the fate of Iraq is really beside the point. This war was supposed to fight terror. It was supposed to make us safer. If it has accomplished this, then it is only very marginally so. And this is a big, big if.

When you talk about Iraq not working, you can't just look at how Iraq is developing. You have to look at Iraq for what it was. A strategy to fight terrorism. And you have to balance it's results against the resources the strategy cost.

In short, what is the opportunity cost of Iraq in terms of the war on terror?

Hundred's of billions that could have been spent on:

The CIA, FBI, NSA, Border Security, etc.

And most importantly, on the energy independancy that would allow us to apply economic pressure on the middle east that no current military or politican pressure can come close to.

Iraq didn't work because now we can't afford to spend money on a strategy for fighting terror that would work.

Hundred's of billions that could have been spent on:

The CIA, FBI, NSA, Border Security, etc.

Well thank god for Iraq then, because we sure don't need them spending more money on domestic spying and Patriot Act rights erosion.

Dave

"Unfortunately for most of you, you only know what you read in the papers, which no longer inform, but editorialize."

What all of us know is the false line the Bushies have been feeding us and the growing chasm between it and reality. Following the discrediting of the pretexts for an unprovoked invasion, the scoffing at "dead enders" in their "last throes" etc., whilst the violence and consequent body count mounts. The numbers are not an editorial fancy.

The neocon-stated scheme of imposing a permanent US military presence upon Iraq, masquerading as a pure, humanistic crusade (and, for some extremely naive dupes, it really was only that) has predictably failed. Would it were not so; nevertheless, that is the situation. Self-deception might endur, but it's objective is shattered.

Now, little remains but for the arrogantly righteous who contrived the fiasco to blame its victims for their folly.

As for the being Nice to Saddam and he would give u oil comment above. Saddam had switched to taking Euros for Oil. Not US dollars. To make matters worse... at the time the Euros were doing very well against the the USD and other countries - particularly IRAN - were looking at moving across to Euro's as well... Google this - its quite well documented....

Its actually trite to say the war was about oil. It was about many things - Including Oil, protecting the US economy, distracting people from internal US issues, a belief in god will make us victorious and so on.

Nonetheless. As others have states. The war was based on Lies by people who believed in their faith and dogma more than in facts and expert advice.

Learn the lesson or things will KEEP getting worse. You can ignore reality - but reality WONT ignore you.

"those on the extreme left who... claimed the war was all about oil and American empire are just as wrong as they always were"

Ive been thinking about this today. Of course the Iraq war was about oil and the persuit of american interests in the middle east. Every war, ever, has been fought as a consequence of nations persuing their national interests: be they economic, military or political - or all three, as in the case of iraq.

The point is the iraq war was a misjudgement, as the author of this piece demonstrates. Anyone who knows the first thing about Islam and the West will realise that its never going to be as easy as toppling a brutal dictator and bringing in 'democracy'. It just doesn't work like that.

The reasons for this fill volumes and volumes of history books.

Its interesting because, although the vietnam comparison is a loaded and imperfect one, it does seem that one truth applies to both: The US misunderstood the culture of the country it was trying to intervene with. And, sadly, in this case perhaps more than the last, the outcome for the people involved is far from happy. You dont have to be on the 'extreme left' to recognise this.

I must agree with SFC SKI. News outlets nowadays tend to be bias somewhat, when it comes to telling what it actually going on. And sometimes, the news media can become a liability to our troops when they disclose upcoming military operations to the GP.

I'd like to see a newspaper that is not afraid to print both sides of each story that happens in our world. Our local paper tends to "dress up" certain articles where it can make a person look good or bad. It'd be nice to know all the facts of a story, and shouldn't be "one-sided".

So unless you were (or are actually) there where the action is, and can (or saw) what is happening firsthand, let's not be too judgemental with how our government is doing it's business. I think we gotta give him the benefit of the doubt. If you think his (Bush's) job is easy, then why doesn't someone else try for his job?

Okay... I'll admit it. I was kind of being a critic about our government in my earlier posting, but now I think I'm gonna retrack what I said and not be quick to point the blame at anyone. It's easy to criticize when you aren't there in Iraq sacrificing your life for someone else.

As a former military soldier (MOS 11H-40; Co. B; 100th Batt.; 442nd Inf.), I support our troops and their efforts to make a difference in our world.

"I think we gotta give him the benefit of the doubt. If you think his (Bush's) job is easy, then why doesn't someone else try for his job?"

That might be fine for you, hawaiin_son, but I will never give a deserter like that the benefit of the doubt.

"As a former military soldier (MOS 11H-40; Co. B; 100th Batt.; 442nd Inf.), I support our troops and their efforts to make a difference in our world."

Thanx for your service to our country, but as a vet myself (USN, NavCommStaHono, '71-73), I support the troops while opposing the policy.

See the Veterans Against The Iraq War web site, www.vaiw.org/vet

"I'd like to see a newspaper that is not afraid to print both sides of each story that happens in our world."

Why would anyone assume that a simplistic, contrived "balance" would reflect reality? "Let's hear Hitler's side of the story" is a bizarre standard.

Note the findings of the about-to-be-released Zogby poll of US troops serving in Iraq:

Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."

Thanks MCH for that link. I just checked out that website and it certainly changed my mind again.

I think that after 9/11, we shouldn't have gone chasing after those responsible for committing such a violent crime against the US. After installing all of the high security measures at our nation's airports and harbors, we should've used our armed forces to strengthen our airports and harbors. In other words, beef up our defenses at home so that nothing like 9/11 could ever happen again.

But then again, what had happened on 9/11 cannot be compared to 12/7, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. What had happened back in '41, with the Naval fleet destroyed and the many lives lost back then (military and civilian), that was a valid reason for our nation to fight back. If the terrorist attacks on 9/11 had totally wiped out New York, then I can see a valid reason for getting out there and kicking ass to the troublemakers. The evidence against Iraq wasn't really 100% guaranteed, and was somewhat questionable. We should've just waited until the evidence was truly clear, and if it were so, wait and see if harm was actually going to come again to the US. And if there were actual harm coming towards us, then we should've flexed our muscles against those who threaten us.

As I said in an earlier posting, we (the United States), have to stop being the policemen of the world. Everytime a little country cries for help, we're sending our forces out. And if we keep stretching out our forces all over the world, who's gonna be protecting the homefront? Sooner or later, an enemy of ours will see that our front door will be wide open, and will hit us again when we least expect it.

Hawaiian son wrote:

I'd like to see a newspaper that is not afraid to print both sides of each story that happens in our world.

When you live in Israel, the very first thing you learn is that there is almost always more than two sides to a story. The more players there are, the more sides.

Ther are quite a number of players in this little story, so getting all the sides would quite a task - especially when you consider that most reporters in America are not ythe best educated of folks.

I guess when you work in a court of law, you need to hear both sides of the complaint in order to draw a fair judgement. If you only hear one side of the complaint, you may not be able to render a justifiable decision that would be beneficial to both parties involved.

With regards to newspaper articles that I have read locally, the paper tends to really make the public think that this person is really bad, or that the victim was really treated unfairly. From the other side of the coin, the people that the newspaper portrayed as being innocent are really trouble makers in life, and that is something that the GP doesn't know about, unless they know the individual personally.

That is why whenever I'm reading about a particular case, I always try to keep an open mind and not render any premature judgement until all the facts have been presented. Only then can a proper judgement be rendered to the parties involved. But not all judgements can satisfy everyone. There will be some who will argue the decision endlessly until they achieve what they want (Appeals).

Regarding the war in Iraq... did the United States have enough evidence to pursue this matter further? Was the GP fairly informed about such evidence? Was the United States justified about taking such a course of action against another country? It's hard for me to decide if our actions are justifiable in this case, because no proof was given about the WMD's. No proof that the WMD's was actually being aimed at us, or where they intended to point them. Sooner or later, there will come a time when the United States will have to admit being at fault and pay the price for flexing our muscles unnecessarily against others.

Hawaiian son,

In a court of law, you have two sides - the plaintiff and the respondent. The rules of procedure are written that way. A trial is a battle using words in place of swords and maces.

On the real battlefield, you may have one attacker - but you still will have several sides. In addition, the issue in dispute tends to change over time.

In this case, in addition to the United States, you have the EU, the various Shiite factions, the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Persians, the Turks, the Saudis and on the periphery, looking in, the Russian Federation. We Israelis also have our hand in the game. So you have lots more than two sides to consider, and the media is incapable presently of accurately representing the interests or views of the various sides.

RJ - I read your artical and then went looking for what I knew I'd find...a chicken hawk argument from MCH (diva). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"I can see a valid reason for getting out there and kicking ass to the troublemakers. The evidence against Iraq wasn't really 100% guaranteed, and was somewhat questionable.

Somewhat questionable? There was (and is) no evidence whatsoever that Saddam was involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. Junior Bush was forced to openly admit that on 9/18/2003 - after the Bushies had deliberately conflated Iraq with 9/11 in order to contrive their unprovoked attack. Along with the DubyaMD stockpiles, the mobile biolabs, the nuclear programme, etc., it was merely one more fraudulent pretext for the invasion and occupation they had long sought.

Be careful what you wish for.

Tyler: "This was a war that took the taliban out of control of Afgahnistan and made Afgahnistan a democracy."

But GWB let OBL escape. And only Kabul is ruled by Our Chosen Leader, Karzai.

" This war also dismantled al quada as they are on the run and are getting little funding to pull off another big attack on the U.S."

Actually, AQ is growing in size, using Iraq as a recruiting ploy. And they get to learn their war-trade with OJT, while US troops are On Parade in Iraq: sitting ducks.

" Also removing saddam and ridding the wmd threat from him is worth the money that we will be paying back for years to come."

Saddam had NO WMD threat. Didn't you get the memo? All those inspectors, all those lies from the admin.

And this war will cost us a trillion dollars before it's over. How will that be repaid?

I guess I'd better start paying more attention to world events, instead of just kicking back in the sun and watching the waves roll onto shore.

RJ: Point well received. Guess someone has to really sit down with all parties involved and listen to what each has to say about all of this.

Braddah George: Guess I must've been sleeping when Bush made his speech regarding the existence of WMD's. All I remember was seeing his face on the tube, and the next thing I know, it was time for me to get up and get ready for work. Oh well... my loss!

But I still say we should've kept the troops at home to beef up security where it's needed. If we were to show a strong front on our home turf, then maybe other countries would think twice about starting trouble with us. We gotta show them that we're ready to kick butt if someone messes around with the U.S.

But once again... it's just my own opion. I can't speak for everyone.

"RJ - I read your artical and then went looking for what I knew I'd find...a chicken hawk argument from MCH (diva). The more things change, the more they stay the same."
- Andy Marsh

Consistency, Andy babe, consistency. And speaking of "looking" for things, actually one doesn't need to look that hard to find the "chicken hawk argument" regarding this cluster-fuck of an invasion and failed occupation, considering the fact that 95% of this administration is comprised of draft-dodgers and "perfumed princes," to borrow a term from the late Col. David Hackworth...

"And this war will cost us a trillion dollars before it's over. How will that be repaid?"

Is the correct answer "tax cuts"?

Sounds good to me, Roger.

Dave

"Iraq - It Didn't Work"

Well, we'll just have to keep trying until we get it right! Next: Iran!

I'll give you that...you are consistent...or would one of these words work better?

banausic, blah, boring, colorless, dreary, droning, dull, flat, ho hum, humdrum, monotone, nothing, pedestrian, plodding, prosaic, recurrent, reiterated, repetitious, repetitive, same, samely, sing-song, soporific, tedious, tiresome, toneless, treadmill, unchanged, unchanging, uniform, uninflected, uninteresting, unrelieved, unvaried, unvarying, wearisome, wearying

Just curious, Andy,

Whch thesaurus did you drag these definitions out of? And from what word?

After all this debate, it's a nice coincedence for the BBC to release a worldwide poll on whether Iraq worked.


Here are the Countries that believe the War in Iraq was effective at reducing terrorism:


Nigeria 49% (Decreased terrorism)


Here are the Countries that believe the War in Iraq either had no effect on reducing terrorism or was responcible for increasing terrorism:

United States - 76% (Increased/no effect on terrorism)
Canada - 91%
Argentina - 87%
Brazil - 83%
Chile 70%
Mexico 69%
Finland 93%
Italy 95%
Germany 94%
Spain 91%
Great britain 94%
Poland 88%
France 84%
Russia 84%
Egypt 89%
Iran 85%
Iraq 86%
Turkey 78%
Saudi Arabia 58%
Senegal 72%
Tanzania 56%
Zimbabwe 52%
Congo 65%
South Africa 52%
Ghana 47% (30% say decreased, 23% no answer)
Kenya 51%
China 91%
South Korea 96%
Australia 92%
Indonesia 82%
Philippines 69%
India 63%
Afganistan 59%
Sri Lanka 41% (6% say decreased, 53% no answer)

Average 75%

"After all this debate, it's a nice coincedence for the BBC to release a worldwide poll on whether Iraq worked."

The BBC forgot to include Israel where 100% say it worked for them.

The BBC would very much like to forget Israel - altogether.

And I'd like to forget them.

Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.

thesaurus dot com...the word was monotonous

#88

"And this war will cost us a trillion dollars before it's over. How will that be repaid?"

Answer: Inflation.

In ten years a trillion dollars will look like only a few billion.

Invest in the Yuan.

The Chinese yuan hit a new post-revaluation high against the dollar for the fourth straight day on Wednesday, amid talk from Beijing of freer convertibility and U.S. calls for a more flexibility.

The yuan closed at 8.0369 to the dollar, up from Tuesday's 8.0402. The yuan hit an intraday high of 8.0365, its strongest level since Beijing revalued it last July.

The currency has now strengthened 0.91 percent against the dollar since it was revalued to 8.11 per dollar.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

I have avoided responding to your comments intentionally. I think my piece should stand alone, without devolving into an angry back-and-forth over minutiae.

I am commenting now only to draw your attention to this piece, which I feel is even-handed and realistic, and it comes from someone who has actually been in Iraq very recently, unlike me or 99% of the commenters here.

My question is whether you still feel as you did when you wrote this piece, RJ - now that it seems pretty clear that the mosque attack may be what ends civil strife and brings the country together in their shared hatred of Wahabis?

My question is whether 5 years down the road when Iraq invades Saudi Arabia we're going to stand back and smile secretly.

Dave

"...it seems pretty clear that the mosque attack may be what ends civil strife and brings the country together in their shared hatred of Wahabis?"

au contraire.

The hatred and the blame will be against the US.

That conforms with the law of unintended consequences.

Dave:

I believe pulling out now would be disastrous. Such a retreat would only embolden the terrorists and ensure that al-Qaeda sets up permanent shop in Western Iraq from which to attack us in the future.

As Colin Powell once said, "You break it, you own it."

But the results on this invasion have been nothing like what we were led to expect.

If you had known, Dave, three years ago, before the invasion, that there would be no major stockpiles of WMDs found, that over 2,000 US military personnel would be killed, thousands more horribly wounded, and roughly 500 billion taxpayer dollars (and counting) would be spent, so that pro-Iranian Shiite religious parties could put sharia into the Iraqi Constitution while a full-scale sectarian civil war is possibly just another high-profile suicide bombing away, would you still have supported it?

I wouldn't have. At least not the way we chose to do it.

Perhaps just arming the Kurdish militia in the North and Shiite rebels in the South and providing air-support for them would have been better for everyone involved...

"Perhaps just arming the Kurdish militia in the North and Shiite rebels in the South and providing air-support for them would have been better for everyone involved..."

Of course.

But how could our politicians profit from that?

Nitpicker wrote,

"Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message."

Shoot the messenger? I wouldn't mind blowing them up! It's not that they are particularly worse in their one sidedness on covering Israel than ABC, CNN, NPR, Agence Press France, AP, the CBC, etc. etc. etc. - it's that they are so damned self righteous and smug about it. The BBC violated their royal charter with their biased news coverage long ago.

The message was the BBC released a worldwide poll on whether Iraq worked without including Israel where 100% say it worked for them.

Where's the bias?

Where's the bias? Well, they could have mentioned that it worked for Israel - by whatever percentage. We do exist, you know.

This particular story is only a minor example. An Irishman who wants the Brits off the Emerald isle is a terrorist when he blows up the BBC building. An Arab killing 25 people at a Passover seder is a "militant?" Why isn't the Arab also a terrorist? Or are we Jews a lesser species of humanity, lower thasn Brits, perhaps.

Sorry, I'm not buying into whatever line of bullshit they peddle. They are Jew hating pigs and I have no use for them. They are damned lucky I'm not premier here. If I were, they, and most of the foregn press would do their reporting about Israel from Nicosia. Most of them are anti-Israel scum who are unneeded and unwelcome.

Ruvy has rather a subjective view of bias, although I suspect he means prejudice.

Chris, you can quibble over whether the BBC is biased or prejudiced. It is of no consequence to me.

Either way, they're still Jew-hating trash who do not belong in Israel.

That could only be true if you are either deluded or extremist yourself, Ruvy, for I have watched the BBC news all my life and the thought has never occurred to me that it was the thing you said.

Next you'll be siding with the loons that think the ACLU is evil...

BBC NEWS search results for "Israel". Yes, on second thoughts, the blatant Jew-hating of the BBC shines so brightly I'm dazzled.

Your 3,307 search results for "Israel"

Arab party avoids Israel poll ban
An Israeli Arab party narrowly avoids disqualification from next month's Israeli parliamentary vote.


Q&A: Iran nuclear stand-off
BBC News examines what is behind the row between the UN and Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme.

Palestinians welcome EU aid deal
An EU aid package worth 120m euros is hailed by Palestinians and the US but condemned by Israel.


Blast at Israeli weapons centre
Several people are injured in an explosion at a major arms research facility in Israel, police say.


Israel's stricken Sharon turns 78
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon turns 78 while remaining critically ill in a coma in hospital.

Israel seeking goal with Arsenal
Arsenal football club signs a sponsorship deal to promote Israel as a tourism destination in its new stadium.
» 97% relevance | 26/02/2006 | similar stories

Palestinian leader issues warning
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas says he may resign if he feels too constrained by a Hamas administration.
» 86% relevance | 26/02/2006 | similar stories

Deal sought in Israel burial row
Israel's supreme court names a mediator in a row over the fate of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem.
» 91% relevance | 23/02/2006 | similar stories

Israeli general in Jordan apology
An Israeli general apologises to Jordan's king for saying he might be the last Hashemite ruler.
» 83% relevance | 23/02/2006 | similar stories

CR - the ACLU isn't evil...just really really fucked up!

The BBC is (are?) still Jew-hating trash. I wouldn't expect you to see that. The ACLU is in America. They deal with American issues that, for the most part, are no concern of mine.

Well, now I'm confused. The main thing the ACLU does is defend the US Constitution from assault by powerful vested interests, to protect the rights and freedoms of Americans.

Most US folk swear up and down by the constitution yet so many of you seem to love to attack the one organisation that defends it. Yet another reason to marvel at your country.

Ruvy: Substance or silence please. I'm not in the mood for mindless aand frankly racist insults. Put up or shut up...

Put up or shut up...quoth the Comments Editor.

I went to the Honest Reporting Folder in my OE and just pulled up one piece at random, with the intent of picking up Honest Reporting's website.

I came up with...

BBC UPHOLDS COMPLAINT AGAINST PLETT'S TEARS FOR ARAFAT This is from 29 November 2005. This was the second item in the e-mail.


At the end of October 2004, HonestReporting highlighted BBC Mideast correspondent Barbara Plett's emotional attachment to Yasser Arafat following her public revelation that:

"when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning."

Despite a flood of complaints from HonestReporting subscribers, the BBC initially cleared Plett of any wrongdoing. Following an appeal, however, the BBC Board of Governors has upheld part of the complaint, stating that Plett's comments "breached the requirements of due impartiality".

According to the BBC website, the BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden has apologized for what she described as an "editorial misjudgment". She said it appeared Plett "unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause".

While this begrudging apology certainly does not go far enough in addressing the BBC's Mideast coverage, which is the subject of the majority of complaints received by the corporation, congratulations to those who kept up the pressure on the BBC and also contributed to its Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review. Following the recent deadline for submissions on 25 November, HonestReporting awaits with interest the publication of the report in the spring.

CHANGES TO BBC COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

Staying with the BBC, a number of HonestReporting readers inform us that complaints to the BBC are no longer accepted by direct e-mail. Instead, the complainant is now directed to a web-based procedure at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints. We hope that you will not be discouraged from making your feelings known to the BBC in the future.

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.


HonestReporting www.honestreporting.com

It took a year for the bastards to finally admit media bias. I stand by my words. The BBC are anti-Jewish pigs who ought to be allowed to report on Israel - from Nicosia

1. Actually, put up or shut up said I, not the Comments Editor, which is just a volunteer job I do. The two are clearly distinct and if you think I have exceeded the comments guidelines in my own remarks, you can complain -- in the first instance to the Comments Editor and, if still uncontent, to the bosses through the usual channels, as you already know, sir.

2. One case, based on "when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning.", seems very thin evidence to make your ludicrous statement respectable.

3. I visited the honestreporting site and found it to be dogmatic and blinkered, so it came as no surprise that you select it as a source.

4. Why do I keep bashing my head against the walls of divisive dogmas?

Asks Chris,

Why do I keep bashing my head against the walls of divisive dogmas?

Do you like how it feels when you stop?

Ruvy, LOL!

I suspect I'm actually daft enough to believe that one day that fucker-of-a-wall is coming down, just like the one in Berlin did the day after my last visit there!

;-)

It is likely that the BBC cannot forget that in 1946, Jewish terrorists led by Menachem Begin, blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem which housed British Army Headquarters. The attack was made at about 12 noon when most of the British officers were there.

The Near East terrorism of that time continues unabated.

While this begrudging apology certainly does not go far enough in addressing the BBC's Mideast coverage, which is the subject of the majority of complaints received by the corporation This begrudging apology took a year to get.

Chris whined that I gave merely one example of BBC's media bias. Truth is, I pulled up one e-mail with intent of copying scores of examples. And there it was in this e-mail.

Poor kid didn't like my source either. Too bad.

It still doesn't explain why when Jews die at the hands of Arabs, the Arabs doing the killing arew merely "militants" or "activists" and when Brits die at the hands of Arabs, the Arabs doing the killing are terrorists.

It is likely that the BBC cannot forget that in 1946, Jewish terrorists led by Menachem Begin, blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem which housed British Army Headquarters. The attack was made at about 12 noon when most of the British officers were there.

The Near East terrorism of that time continues unabated.

But you forget to note that the Etze"l called the King David Hotel and warned them, on Begin's orders.

The manager of the Sbarro Restaurant in J-lem had no such wa