Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Republicans like to talk about how all the Democrats are all about "defeatism." The Republicans like slogans, such as "winning the war on terrorism," "victory in Iraq," etc.

But what exactly does "victory in Iraq" mean? If you are talking about stabilizing the country and setting up some Western style democracy, it's just not going to happen. It wont. Never in a million years. The fact of the matter is, the invasion was based on lies and deceit, the Iraqi people want us out and there is really no end in sight.

There is a difference between being a defeatist and wanting to put an end to a lost cause. There are no good options, really. Obviously "Staying the course," another slogan, is a failure. Leaving Iraq, however, could be catastrophic, destabilizing the region and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. So what do you do? Phased withdrawal and talking with Iraq's neighbors seems to be the least worst option.

(1) Take out half of the military. As of now the US presence is a huge magnet for terrorists and is fueling anti-US sentiment around the world. If the US presence was reduced fifty-percent, the region could still be held together and the US pulling out half of its troops could be seen as an act of faith that they wont be there forever.

(2) Talk with Iran and Syria. The idea that the US should just flat out not talk to these countries and not try to work with them is asinine. Was Richard Nixon wrong to visit China? Was the US wrong to have diplomatic relations with the USSR during the Cold War?  So let's sit down with Iran and Syria and see if we can't put our heads together and work out some solutions to help stabilize Iraq once the US leaves.

(3) Have the Iraq's rebuild Iraq, not US contractors. It will help get their economy going and give the people a sense of empowerment.

The US government owes it to the Iraqi civilians and the US troops to end this conflict at soon as possible. So let's stop with the name calling. "Defeatist" is just plain stupid and inaccurate.

Well, as usual the right wing's claim that the Dems want out of Iraq altogether is not true, a false argument.

I'm curious how everybody is able to see into the future here? Everybody seems to have a crystal ball and knows what is going to happen when we exit? I'm supposed to believe the same people who told me "WMD", "Mushroom cloud", and "greet us as liberators", when they tell me of the ruin and destruction that will take place once we leave?

Yea right.

Since Iraq is in chaos, I don't think it's implausible that a complete withdrawal could lead to total anarchy, with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. That's more plausible than the WMD bullshit. We owe it to these people to at least try to give them a country that isn't a hell on earth. We should not have invaded and we need to leave, ASAP. But we have to be smart about it.

It is in no more chaos than Vietnam was in the 60s or Beirut was in the 80s. The people of Iraq have to work this out for themselves.

If we leave now God will bring his rath upon us. He wants us to win the war.

Not my God!

your god is dead.

and no one cares!

if there is a hell.......

I'll see you there!

I actually agree with you!!  I do not agree with some of your ideas on how to leave, but we do need to leave at some point.

As soon as Iraq can manage its security our job is done. But until that happens we need to provide the security to prevent total anarchy. If anarchy exists, some Islamic religious zealot will take power and create an even bigger mess. Most Iraqis don't want that. But Iraqis need to get their shit together and do the jobs that we are doing now.

Sure leave, and all Irakik people leave USA...peace for both!

You have a rather.........interesting view of the world Norway. How's the ducted heating? What's the weather like outside...............oh, you probably wouldn't know............

I would be willing to bet that the forces in Iraq, would again, be able to keep a lid on the pot, just like they did before we arrived.

I would also not be surprised if Bush sets up another dictator to do so. It has already been considered.

What is ducted heating, and why wouldn't I know how the weather is outside. ???

On that topic,
I'd like to see less spam on this forum and less of these assholes that has nothing better to do than start flamewars, being hostile and insultive.

Hopefully they achieve stability in irak again :peace:

Everyone in Norway has ducted heating!

You are drinking the right wing kool aide, the Dems plan is not "cut n run" as they would like you to believe. I said this in my first post.

Our problem, is that we have been so propagandized, we actually believe our system is the best. For these people, it is obviously not.

The Iraq government decided to take a month off (Taking Bush's advice I figure), the Sunni bloc of their government just left, and the Kurds are threatening civil war.

The puppet government we are tying to prop up now, can't stay together. What makes you think they can get it together at all, much less after we leave?

You hit the nail on the head here :P
USA did something, people of certain cultures bombs them and they "cutn'run" in some peoples eyes.

Not sure this is the right time for them to leave Irak since they already are there, how cool if Irak would end up respecting universal values/"rules"
You can say the same about USA tho.

It isn't the most credible messenger to say it that way, but the ideal is to achieve peace for both. :peace:

It would also be cool if you could look at the title of this thread and respect the universal spelling of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Iraq will have to endure some post war turmoil. It is a consequence of the war that was started there.

Until the country gets back on its feet, perhaps some universal peace keepers could be placed there instead of the military presence.

Irak is also the correct spelling.

Whats the point in this, starting some kind of forum-war? Try not letting your feelings do all the talking if you disagree with me hm? ?:)

"Don't post simply to complain about someone else's spelling and grammar or complain about the thread itself."
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=14144.0
They wen't there because they viewed iraq (happy now stolat? :hihi: ) as a threat for the biggest reason, now they focus more on other points.
Iraq isn't really a threat so, in that sense yes.

I'd like to see universal values respected globally tho, we'll see in the future sometime maybe. ;)

I think everybody who voted for Bush should volunteer for peace keeper work in IRAK.

Really? I've never seen it spelt that way.

I thought you comment about Iraqi people should alos get out of the US to be most offensive and racist.
Some Iraqi people are also refugees who have fled thier war torn country for various reasons. And that is why I am on your back about it. That comment you made was so insensitive but not suprising coming from you.

How 'bout a little "universal spelling" on your part? Maybe just basic grammar?

What comment is racist?

The comment from Norway:


All Iraqi people leave USA.

Many of these people are refugees!

Yea whatever.

In Australia, just before the last election the government won by playing the rascist card.

There were a number of refugees coming into Australian waters on a leaky boat which started sinking. Desperate mothers were holding their children in the air as a cry of desperation to the government officials who could see everything from the shore.

Of course, the government interpreted it as mothers throwing their children overboard. The photos of the women who held the children in the air to stop them drowning were published in the paper as "Children Thrown Overboard". Unfortunately most of the Australian public bought it.? >:(

The most vicious propaganda I've ever seen was the lead up to the Iraq invasion.

They wen't there because they viewed iraq (happy now stolat?  :hihi: ) as a threat for the biggest reason, now they focus more on other points.

Iraq isn't really a threat so, in that sense yes.

I'd like to see universal values respected globally tho, we'll see in the future sometime maybe. ;)







By the way, I have just been on the phone to an academic who write books about Iraq. He too has never seen it spelt that way.

Try doing a google search by typing in Irak - see what you get...........

If you want to talk universal laws Norway...........

My comment that went "Sure leave, and all Irakik people leave USA...peace for both!" I think he means. It's not racistic tho :P

Would 911 had happened or terror be as big issue if there was no people of certain cultures in USA?
Disturing to think about, but it has to be said too.

Modern society is so brainwashed by tv today, it's horrible. Intrepret it they way you wan't, I said exactly how it was. (nothing wrong sheltering refuges)

Not racist at all, I really respect chinese people of all things...
they had an custom where, if you left China for long without returing, you weren't viewed as chinese anymore.

A country as China would probably be much better to make a diference in stopping global heating and over-consuming than the big democratic ones for example. (but comunism suck)

It's important nations work hard to forward peace and global values, so the humans can live safe and free in their respective lands.
It's to early to write off the invasion as an waste at this time, but war is ALWAYS a defeat.
 
I didn't agree when USA did that, that it was the right thing as mostly the rest of the world did.

Oh please, give it a rest :hihi:

You should take some of your own advice Norway.

Your right, it's no use trying to talk with people who simply have no idea.

You are being rascist though (according to universal laws). I guess you are just ignorant.

Come on man, I expect a little more from you. As you know, I am FAR from the right on anything. Did I ever say ANYHING about "cutting and running." Did you even read my post? Do I not say we need to leave, completely, just not all at once?

usa should get the fuck out of iraq, koweit, europe, africa, afganistan, pakistan, yemen .... :)

Oh, if they are nice Americans thay can stay!  ;)

Racisim is about harassment :P

It's as when James Hetfield called Axl the "rock-racist", or all the people calling Jarmo a nazi and the mods the opressors :hihi:

Racism is a doctrine without scientific support, that claims the superiority of some one race.

It is borne from ignorance and becomes apparent in people's writing, words and actions.

If people are racist that may use harrassment as a means to show their superiority.

i'm talking about the military, fake NGO's, the NED and lobbies ... !

My question is on universal peace keepers.

who do you propose to be these PK's?

Le French, n'est pas?! J'aime le fromage parce que c'est tres tres bon!

get rid of security council of the UN.
get rid of the UK and make a real political EU with ONE mission : annoy the US.
things will roll on then.

this has been your plan all along. you dont give a rat's ass about iraq or bush or anything. All you've wanted all along was to get rid of the UK.

And you wonder why we hate the French.

That is the only way to counter US tyranny. Bravo dude for having the balls to say so.

 Al Qaida and terrorism is the threat, not the US.

Maybe we should have sit on our hands after 9/11 and looked the other way?  We were attacked first.

The US have killed a hell of lot more people in the last 6 years than Al Quaida ever hoped to ... but that is apples and oranges

True but not buy the anybody in Iraq .

We wasted so much time and resource going after thewrong people that the people behind the 9/11 didn't and have not gotten what the should get.

they are both a threat, EU isn't needed for an united restitance either. :peace:

i never said we gotta get stop hunting down al quaida (wich is, maybe you forget sometimes, really not the us' problem only... even talibans fight al-quaida for f*ck sake ! ) or handle other issues. I was talking at a more global level.

I'm just saying, at a global level, smoothing down the hegemony and domination of some countires (USA, EU), strengthening the worldwide?political democracy (kill the security UN council, give the poor countries a stronger voice) and make a strong political EU (with the uk, i like them, dont take my "get rid of the uk" ramblings to seriously - their gvntment just annoys me sometimes not playing along with the team and blindly supporting the usa ).


A more balanced world. Less greedy corportation and states raping africa and the poors.
Respecting other countries sovereignty. Respecting the so-called democracy we promote and stop the sneaky worldwide financial propaganda of the NED ( a so called pro-democract "independant" organization wich does "legally" now what the CIA illegaly did back then ...)

IRAQ? what can we do ?

1. delete the american presence there
2. replace it by an international force (mix between Un and Regional) in charge of the borders/people's security (ref. lebanon eu force)
3. PUBLICLY show that the USA is leaving and giving the ressources spots back to Iraq - i mean Exxon and Total : get the fuck out !
4. Organize the region security under LOCAL countries : Iran, Gulf, Syria ...
5. DO NOT make a confessional society like lebanon it's a mess.
6. DO not complain if the outcomes is an islamic republic, its their country, their religion, their history, let them do what they want

ps: of the IMF and World Bank need to go to. These hardcore capitalistic tools have wasted money faking the help of the poor where they just organized the profit of the riches raping african' ressources.

voil? :)

this has nothing to do with "The French" ... my country is pretty much on your path now ....

I'd like to see a nordic union, based on old scandiavian democracy, paganism and chistianity. :peace:
There's no need for EU for Scandinavia and i'd rather see an global union for forwarding peace and humanity that isn't limited to Europeans.
Hows the grape :hihi:
I agree, a little more international contribution would be the ideal for peace :beer:

US should also help fund rebuilding it (but pay local companies, not haliburton/foreign contractors).

i like your ideas.

yes!
the only "chance" destroyed countries have is the rebuilding growth base they can expect and basically 0% unemployment ... that was the luck of france, the luck of germany ...

what do you see in torned dow african/middle east countries after they get carpet bombed by the west or by internal (west fueled) wars? American and europeans corporation sending their troops to get advantage of it. Building pipelines and factories. Building road for their trucks and making sure there are landing space for their carriers ... school ? hospitals? nah ....

The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic - Joseph Stalin

WAT-Ever, how many times does communism need to be tried and fail before you acknowledge it's bullshit?  No one is raping the starving countries in Africa.  Foreign investment is the only thing that keeps it afloat.  You could remove the entire continent and it would virtually have no effect on the world economy.  Western involvement is helping that continent grow and develop.  I have a major problem throwing money at 3rd would countries and allowing them to use it how they see fit - that was part of the whole problem with France in Iraq before the war, remember?  If someone asks for my help, they get my help, not just a blank check.  You don't help a junkie get off the streets by handing him $5 and walking away.  The junkie would just go buy more junk.  You help them by walking them through the process. 

I see no problem in making a profit and bring the 3rd world into the 21st century.  It's nice and fine to sit there in your nice apartment, with your model girlfriend and Corporate paycheck and advocate social reform.  It's a whole other game to actually put your money where your mouth is.  So I suggest you give up your hedonistic lifestyle and go these countries that are being raped by the west (specifically the USA).  Take all the abundance of McJob working folks here who got their outlook on life through Michael Moore movies and other forms of entertainment.  As soon as the sacrifces leaves adcademic thought to their wallets, I bet their outlook changes.

fair enough ... i'll answer tomorow when i have more time.

ps: oh and the ab-hominem arguments don't make sense to me.
so i have 2 big computer screens and work for l'or?al. am i then not allowed to have opinions on the world? i am obligated to be associated to the system i am in?
Only "poor" people can complain about capitalism?
I know i am not in darfur right now helping starving kids. i know that. i still have the right, in all sincerity to believe what i believe.
maybe i'm going to quit l'or?al and go to darfur some day ? you don"t know.

I am my vote, my consumer behavior, my refusal of television, the vacations i chose to do, my refusal of fast food, there are a lot of things in life that can, at some level, be coherent with your opinions.
And yes, of course, i am not 100% coherent. but who's not.

anywa, it's not about me. it's about ideas.
and i'll get back to your arguments tomorow.

PEACE

I have a philosophical question - if there were world peace, would the war in Iraq end?

Finally, I agree with you!

AQ did attack us, you are correct.

Not Iraq.




You may speak for the fox-news-bots, but that is it.

the more i read that post the more it amazes me. The 21st century have witnessed a radical change in how the western countries apprehend the "african" problem, and not for the best ... we could say a "liberated" point of view , liberated from all moral constraints and self-criticism.

And your post is a perfect example of how our generation (i assume you're in your 20s) handle the issue.
And it's sad.

Let's go step by step.

1- I didnt acknowledge communism.
2- What "has been tried" is dictatorship with so called first generation communism. Of course it's hard for you to understand that communism refers to a social-economical system whereas what you talk about in history are political system. Now you'll stop thinking "stalin" when someone says "communism" - Joseph McCarthy is dead dude ...
3- Because "capitalism" works so well: look around the world. The average GDP of africa has decreased (yes, decreased) since 1960 under the orders of the World Bank and the IMF forcing them to embrace free market and unchained capitalism (even the USA put boundaries to their economy ...)
4- One of the great argument in favor of free market by the early thinkers was : it will be bring world peace. it did not (quite the opposite i would say). Inequalities have increased by 20% roughly. And the major environnmental issues are, and it's a general consensus, linked to our liberated worldwide economy. Poor people are poorer and rich are richer. Now if that suits you ... have fun.


Uh ... Kidding right?

First, it is not afloat. It's skinking.

Let me tell you how things work there.
1- Western european countries have dominated this continent through the colonial era. They have cut this continent like a big cake, making no fuss about ethnicities, natural borders, tribes ...
2- Western european countries have then, gradually, incoherently, given the "independance" back to these people while working 3 paramaters: creating illegitimate governements that were still sworn to the refering "white" master, creating de-facto violent local opposition and drowning these countries in local power struggle (thus unable to focus on social developement).

A very common argument is to put the blame on the irresponsible immature governments in Africa. " It's their fault ! they are corrupted, nothing is done for the people, the governments are all war lords ... ". True. They're our friends, we have placed them there and keep the busy.
This argument is very strong in the 21st century, trying to put a smoke screen on our part and our responsability.

I would really love for you to see the truth behind the "western involvment helping that continent".

Africa is a rich land. Very rich. And we know it.
Taking advantage of the unstability we created there (above) we plant our corporation there stealing the ressources.
We fix the prices ridiculously low. We use the ressource and make sure their economy does not change.
For example, the international community have made sure that the agricultural economy of africa dies. We don't want them to promote agriculture. What happens? We sell our tomatoes to them.

The big actors here are the World Bank and the IMF (the tools we use the "help").
These organizations come with money to these countries and say " here are 5 billions.... now we give it to you only if you open your economy, you let Total build that oil factory, dont tax em too much, keep salaries low ... ".
Just imagine what would be the reactions of American or French Governement if a "foreign" country want to "harvest" ressources on our land?
America have blocked chinese companies from getting close to handle Harbors.
France make sure no foreign companies get too close from Electricity/Gaz coroporation.
Why? because energy/harbors are strategical elements in a countriy's sovereignty.
And here we are completly controlling the amazing energy ressources of africa and telling them that the governements have nothing to say in these matters just let free market decide. We don't even follow this crazy free market at home for fuck sake !!!

The big Jihad of the WorldBank and the IMF is to promote hardcore free market in these countries that will only benefit the western countries.
The X billions we give are : nothing compared to what we make on the side, interested (create debts) and a tool of promoting our vision of the world.

We dont build schools or hospitals or infrastrucure. We build factories that make stuff we need and cargo airports to bring the uranium back to our home. That's it. Nothing that is coherently making these countries grow, we're keeping 'em low, dependent on our money.


No really, you are so far from the truth it's amazing.
It's funny cause i was reading, this morning in the metro, and article from Le Monde Diplomatique (http://mondediplo.com/) named :" Africa, behind the common misconception".
This continent has a lot to think about, and must get its shit together to stand on its feet. Some say it may need to lose some of its ancestral social habits. But one prerequesite is too get free from the claws of the west.



Now your comparison of Africa with a junkie is just pure insanity.


PEACE

So then you acknowledge that some society's or cultures are better controlled through methods such as colonialism?? African governments seem incapable of resolving internal problems such as the AIDS epidemic and continual genocide.? Regardless of how you spin it, for Africa to prosper and survive, it needs western aide.? I see no problem with the west aiding Africa in a way that makes them a beneficial ally.? It's a catch 22 with the west.? If we help impoverished nations we are attacked, if we do nothing, we are attacked.? The reality is there is no reason for the govt to send millions if not billions of dollars in aide if there is nothing to be gained in return.? If you want nothing back, turn to charity.
It is the responisbility of of each government to do what is in the best interest of their nation and citizens, not what is best for people who contribute nothing to their own survival.? That is part of Darwin's theory of evolution you're so proud of.

I did not acknowledge that. I said colonialism is one of the source of the current situation.
African governement are incapable of resolving internal problem because : a) we don't let them b) we have shaken these regimes many times  c) the countries are poor (because of all i said in previous post : us stealing and shaping their economy the way we need it)

An african journalist recently said " these countries are not only poor because they're badly run, they're badly run because they're poor ".


there is something to be gained in return of sending billions and not wanting to profit out of them > make this planet a peaceful place.
Fuck usa and fuck france. there is earth and the human race. that's all.
But hey we let people sleep in the streets in our own countries ....

It's the interest of earth to do what is best for the human people ...

GOP senator calls for troop withdrawals


By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Warner's call for troop withdrawals from Iraq is likely to ratchet up pressure on President Bush substantially and lend momentum to Democratic efforts to end U.S. combat.

Warner, R-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Navy secretary during the Vietnam War, said Bush should bring some troops home by Christmas. Doing so, he told reporters Thursday, would send a powerful message that the U.S. commitment in Iraq was not open-ended.

Warner says the president should get to decide when and how many troops should leave. Bush has opposed setting a date to pull out troops and contends that conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

"I'm hopeful that this (redeployment) could lead to more emphasis on the Iraqi forces taking the major responsibility, as it relates to the internal insurgency in that country," the Virginia Republican said.

Warner's suggestion comes as a new intelligence assessment says Iraqis have failed to govern effectively or reach the political compromises believed necessary to tamp down sectarian violence.

Overall, the report finds that Iraq's security will continue to "improve modestly" over the next six to 12 months, provided that coalition forces mount strong counterinsurgency operations and mentor Iraqi forces. But even then, violence levels will remain high as the country struggles to achieve national political reconciliation, and the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is likely to become increasingly vulnerable because of criticism from various Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

"The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision-making, and increased Maliki's vulnerability" to factions that could form a rivaling coalition, the document says.

Democrats say the grim report and Warner's conclusion bolster their position that Bush should change course and start bringing troops home this fall. Party leaders this year tried to pass legislation ordering troops home this fall, but repeatedly fell short of the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass.

"Our military has performed their duties excellently, but the purpose of the escalation in Iraq was to create a secure environment in which political change could occur, and it is clear that the Iraqi leaders have failed to make progress," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Republican leaders countered that the intelligence assessment bolsters their position that U.S. troops should stay. The report warns that limiting the mission of U.S. forces to a support role and counterterrorist operations ? as Democrats and some Republicans suggest ? would "erode security gains achieved thus far."

"The fact that Democratic leaders continue to push for precipitous withdrawal despite the significant progress our troops are making shows just how deeply invested they are in failure," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Democrats agree the military has made substantial gains in Iraq, but they say the progress made is useless if the Iraqi government is unable to take control.

Not sure if this article passed around here (pretty sure it did)

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY, Op-Ed Contributors / New York Times

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

very good read.

I agree.? The U.S. should also scale back to what other countries give as far as economic and humanitarian aid regardless of wealth.? It would solve a lot of problems.? I think the European Union should take the lead and let the U.S. take a back seat.

you mean scale UP?
i was talking about military presence and economic propaganda.

The US donates less of a percentage of its GDP than just about any European country in humanitarian aid. In dollar terms it's about the same as any two of the UK, France and Germany combined.

No I mean down..% wise no country lives up to it's promises, but in dollar for dollar ratio the U.S. should give just as much as the highest European Nation. ?That's why I said regardless of wealth; meaning the U.S. supposedly is the wealthliest but just for that reason doesn't mean the US is responsible to give more and it shouldn't be used to gain allies, it should be just aid. ?It goes both ways too. ?The US should take less aid as well. ?Same goes for trade: Equal shares imported and exported. ?If any. ?The US should become self reliant, especially in regards to fuels too. ?There is enough of it in the US so why export it. ?The US should drill and refine it's own oil, and find a real alternative to fossil fuels. ?The space station?? Out ?It's not international if the US pays the most to keep it going. ?And last but not least remove our military from all the places you have mentioned and Korea as well. ?That also means military weapons and parts. ?The US should take a back seat to The European Union because of the current anti-american movement and just simple logistics. ?Europe is closer to the areas involved and the European Union may be able to alter the present course with the help of the Russians? ?I say your right. ?

I'd say that it is headed in the right direction. We are going to start pulling some troops out and the local population is finally getting fed up with Al Qaeda.

Notice no one has posted in this thread since we started getting positive news from Iraq. People were bitching for troop withdrawals, now that its going to happen.....silence.

Getting out of Iraq and not leaving a complete utter mess behind is possible, it is  a huge improvement over the way things looked last year. Look at Anbar, for example. Iraqis are finally stepping up. That is the only way it was going to happen.

Isn't that the point of "bitching" as you call it?  And as for your positive news in Iraq...wait until Ramadan is over and you'll see another spike in violence.  It's unstable...simple as that.  No matter if we put 100,000 more troops in or take 30,000 more out...it's going to remain unstable.

The people that were' bitching' were the people who said the war was lost. Now that we have some positive results and can start bringing troops home while maintaining the same level of security is the best case scenario.
The war has gotten way too politicized, a stable Iraq with no US troops needed to maintain security is what we all should want to happen.

Do you truly believe this?  Or do you simply and automatically "counter" non-Republican arguments?

So the logic is that America has finally found a winning strategy in Iraq (although the Bush administration - and you, I presume - has claimed to have a winning strategy since the wars beginning), and you want to discontinue it?

And if it wasnt successful, you would argue to continue it?

Maybe you can explain this logic.

I understand it could take awhile, so in the meantime, Ill post an article detailing the the extraordinary progress taking place:

Sadr's movement pulls out of Iraq alliance (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070915/ts_nm/iraq_dc_4;_ylt=Au5e_0hT8iWbyRS3M0gFrjEE1vAI)
By Dominic Evans and Waleed Ibrahim
Sat Sep 15, 3:23 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The political movement loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr quit Iraq's ruling Shi'ite Alliance on Saturday, leaving Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's coalition in a precarious position in parliament.

The move further weakens the ruling coalition, which even before the defection had failed to push through laws aimed at reconciling Iraq's warring majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs.

Maliki's government now enjoys the support of only about half of Iraq's 275 lawmakers, although it could survive with the support of a handful of independent lawmakers.

"The political committee has declared the withdrawal of the Sadr bloc from the (Shi'ite) alliance because there was no visible indication that the demands of Sadr's bloc were being met," the Sadr movement said in a statement released at a news conference in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

An adviser to Maliki said the government had no immediate comment.

The decision by Sadr's movement to quit the Shi'ite Alliance in parliament was not unexpected after the cleric pulled his six ministers from the cabinet in April.

Maliki can still count on the backing of two other Shi'ite Islamist parties and the two main Kurdish parties in parliament, and so far no party has launched any push for a no-confidence vote in his government.

Sadr was instrumental in getting Maliki, a fellow Shi'ite, appointed prime minister in May last year.

His political bloc has raised a host of grievances in the past, including Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Sadr, a fiery nationalist whose stronghold in the capital is Baghdad's sprawling Sadr City, led his Mehdi Army militia in two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.

MALIKI UNDER FIRE

Maliki's government has been paralyzed by infighting. Besides the withdrawal of ministers loyal to Sadr, six cabinet members from the main Sunni Arab bloc have also quit.

Speaking in parliament on Monday, Maliki acknowledged that the term "national unity government," used to describe his cabinet had lost its meaning.

Hinting at a long promised overhaul of his cabinet, he said it was time for a "partnership government," but gave no details.

The next day Sadr's movement said it was considering withdrawing from the alliance, accusing it of failing to provide security and said political progress had been inadequate.

Criticism of Maliki's government also came from Washington.

President George W. Bush, speaking on Thursday, said it had made limited political progress despite the breathing space offered by a "surge" of U.S. troops and better security.

In a report ordered by Congress, the White House said on Friday that Iraq's leaders had made satisfactory progress on just nine out of 18 political and security benchmarks.

The political benchmarks, which include a crucial revenue-sharing oil law, are designed to build on the improved security and promote national reconciliation.

Iraqi lawmakers were not impressed.

"The Americans always try to pretend the responsibility for cleaning up this mess isn't theirs and tend to shift blame onto Iraq, Iran and Syria for everything that goes wrong," said veteran Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.

Bush, announcing plans for a limited withdrawal of around 20,000 U.S. troops by July, said on Thursday U.S. forces had helped ensure "ordinary life is beginning to return" to Baghdad.

On Saturday evening a suicide car bomber killed 10 people and wounded 15 others in southwest Baghdad. Many were queuing outside a bakery to buy bread for the evening Ramadan meal which breaks the day-long fast during the Muslim holy month.

The bombing came on the same day that an al Qaeda led group, the Islamic State in Iraq, announced a new phase of attacks to mark the month of Ramadan, which started this week.

(Additional reporting by Khaled Farhan in Najaf and Mussab Al-Khairalla in Baghdad)

Bush, announcing plans for a limited withdrawal of around 20,000 U.S. troops by July, said on Thursday U.S. forces had helped ensure "ordinary life is beginning to return" to Baghdad.

That line gets me every time.  :rofl:

AMERICA?s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush?s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. ?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,? he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam?s support for terrorism.

this notion that there is going to be a troop reduction is nonsense.  the surge was only supposed to be temporary - they HAD to bring home some troops.  bush isn't doing anyone any favors, hes simply abiding by whats already been agreed upon.

there are no more troops to send.  i read we're training the navy in infantry tactics?!?!?  by next summer troop levels will still be around 130k, the same number as in 2006.

this is Bush 101, misinform and say that things are going great.  are 1,000 attacks a day "winning the war" or positive improvements!!!?!?  How do you even define "winning" this war?!?!

  I am referring to the fact we have some positive results happening. No shit the political situation is a mess, I never said it wasn't. I am referring to the fact that we can use less troops to maintain the same level of security and that is a positive thing - being able to bring some troops home....and be able to bring them home without losing the gains that were made which the troops worked very hard for.

As far as your Bush/ republican comment- I am an independent- I disagree with the republicans and the democrats on many things.

Man you guys were all Bushbots before and during the war. Now you are all "independents" and "libertarians" since it wasn't a cake walk.

Another thing to ponder, lets just say that AQ is neutralized in Iraq - does anyone here or in the US govt actually think the sunni and shia won't go back to killing each other once their common enemy is defeated!?!?  please.

a less violent, but similar example is the Dems/Repubs after 9-11.  We were totally united for a while after the towers came down.  after the dust settled and smoke cleared and the major fighting in Afghanistan had ended (even though we're still fighting there now) things went back to normal with the finger pointing and blame game.  the same thing will happen in Iraq.

so while there seems to be alliances and coalitions amongst the sunni/shia its only b/c they both have a common enemy.  and lets also keep in mind AQ did NOT have a presence in iraq until AFTER the invasion....

Good analysis, but

I dont think they have a common ennemy there, they just have a common goal : power.
And america backing either one of this group will lead to a blowback in the future anyway. Let regional powers (iran, syria, egypt) take care of that.

AQ (as an international terrorist organization) is just fueling on local, national, struggle. Everywhere there is an oppressing power, there are "freedom fighters" and part of them will join more global fights such as AQ's.

I think that the only way to sweep the rug from beneath AQ's feet is to embrace the local *terrorists* as political counter-parts, and of course limit our (aggressive) presence in sovereign countries. The president of Iran says it clearly: americans are uninvited guests.

You cannot start discussing with the host if you crash his party.

You want to end this fucking war? Require all those with an "R" on their voter registration to sign up for duty.

Simple as that.

here is intersting the interview of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from channel 4.

> http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=1235

extracts on the war in iraq:

Q : Mr President, thank you very much for agreeing to talk to us tonight. Let me start with Iraq. Both the UK and the US have accused Iran of fighting a proxy war inside Iraq. Is that true ?

A : In the name of God, first I would like to express my greetings to all your good audience and a good evening to all the people of England.

What you are saying is an allegation ; we also accuse the English and the US of occupying and violating Iraq. I think the US and Britain should amend their own views and behaviour ; if they want to blame others for their defeat then they can be sure that their defeats will be repeated.

Obviously we do distinguish differences between England and the US in Iraq. We think that the British government has more quickly and more successfully realised the situation in Iraq, and withdrawing from Basra was the right thing to do and we hope they will continue this.

We are the country that has sustained the most damage from the lack of security in Iraq because the nations of Iraq and Iran are closely intertwined - our nations have been friends for thousands of years. Every year millions of Iraqis and Iranians travel to each others’ countries and the security of Iraq has a direct impact on our security and vice versa. We want security in Iraq. And let me tell you one thing - you know the people of Iraq are a great nation with culture and civilisation, they have always been against occupations and they still are.



and a recent article about Ahmadinejad wanting a debate with good ol' W:

> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22431065-5001028,00.html


IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants a public debate with his US counterpart George W. Bush at the UN this month and a "global referendum" on who's right.

He didn't answer the question.

he does later, it was just an extract, click the link read the rest.

But hey, he's a politician afterall, do our leaders answer questions?

(http://www.photocasket.com/funny/001z4d75i.jpg)

^ That is funny

Well Blackwater USA's Iraq contract has been pulled due to their unjustified killings of 8 Iraqi civilians and 1 Iraqi police officer.  Bush's mercenary side army is really schlepping it up.  Eh, at least we only wasted $1 Billion on their contract. 

While it might put a momentary strain on US forces, there are plenty of mercenaries that will take up the slack. I would think a good majority of Blackwater's SOFs will just change employers.

PRESS RELEASE
[contact phone numbers removed to protect privacy
since I am forwarding this to many lists around the
country - Just attend demo if you are in NYC area]

Monday, September 17, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SDS KICKS OFF THE IRAQ MORATORIUM AT THE NEW SCHOOL ON
9-21-07

New York, NY. The New School chapter of the Students
for a Democratic Society (SDS) is joining with
community organizations from around the country to
build the Iraq Moratorium and is calling for students,
workers, and faculty to participate in the first of a
series of escalating monthly actions to end the
occupation of Iraq. The first demonstration will be
held on Friday, September 21,
2007. Participants are asked to assemble at 12:00 p.m.
at the New School for Social Research on 65 5th Avenue
(between 13th and 14th Streets) in lower Manhattan.
Once assembled, participants will march north up 5th
Avenue to the Empire State Building (350 5th Ave.) to
demonstrate outside the office of Lockheed Martin, a
corporation that in
2005 reaped more than $19.4 billion in military
contracts from war and occupation in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

"Poverty grows and the killing continues while
Lockheed Martin gets rich off the suffering of others,
and we will be standing together to let them know that
they are not welcome in our city." says Atlee McFelon,
an SDS organizer at the New School for Social
Research. "It's unfortunate that the U.S. has been
engaged in a military occupation of Iraq since 2003
and yet the Left in general, and the anti-war movement
in particular, has been unable to implement effective
strategies to bring the occupation to an end and
develop visionary alternatives to the capitalist
system. We plan on changing that."

Event organizers believe that September 21st will be
the beginning of a surge in militant actions against
the imperialist occupation of the Middle East by the
U.S. According to the British Opinion Research
Business, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have been
killed by the U.S. occupation since 2003. Organizers
hope that the slow train wreck in Iraq will clarify
the present social system's inability to give the vast
majority of the world's population good jobs, quality
education, adequate shelter, quality medical services,
and peace. Only by building a movement with a critical
analysis of the present institutions of oppression, an
uncompromising revolutionary vision, and long-term
strategic programs will our generation be able to pass
on a society built on the values of solidarity,
freedom, self-management, justice, diversity, and
equality. To begin this process, the people must force
the U.S. government to immediately transfer resources
to fund the creation of jobs, universal higher
education, public housing programs, universal
healthcare, and reparations for the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan.

"Now, more than ever, with the death toll approaching
2 million, it is of utmost importance for us to
struggle for an immediate end to these horrifying
atrocities." says Meaghan Linick, an SDS organizer
from Eugene Lang College. "This series of escalating
actions is necessary for us to continue building a
movement that is visionary, strategic, and has the
size and power to effectively end the illegal
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and all forms of
U.S. imperialism and exploitation."

The occupation, torture, and mass murder in Iraq have
gone on for too long and it is time for the people of
the U.S. to stand in solidarity with the people of the
Middle East and begin raising the social costs for the
political parties and corporate institutions that
directly profit from and seek to maintain the
imperialist domination of the Middle East. Through
nationally coordinated local actions that allow
communities to choose appropriate levels of
commitment, SDS hopes to attract an increasingly
larger number of people into the anti-war movement,
solidify revolutionary commitments, and build power in
communities to abolish not only the Iraq War, but all
institutions that produce wars and injustice.

In the words of the Italian revolutionary Antonio
Gramsci, "It is necessary with bold spirit and in good
conscience, to save civilization. We must halt the
dissolution which corrodes and corrupts the roots of
human society. The bare and barren tree can be made
green again. Are we not ready?"

If YOU are ready, we will see you on September 21st,
October 19th, November 16th, and the third Friday of
every month until we bring the U.S. occupation of the
Middle East to a halt!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE! - SDS

? ? Mercs aren't usually known to the President so to protect him.? They are hired by alphabet soup agencies and Foreign governments for security reasons or for other reasons that are well? secret.? The US is paying for these groups because Iraqi government isn't.? The US isn't the only country paying either there are other countries involved.? Some of the counter terrorist units formation ideas came from the President, but never monitored or followed up on by the President.?(Not Bush either) Anyway, If caught all involved would be considered rogue and left unprotected, or gotten out of a hostile territory and arrested and then a stint at Petersburg Federal Prison would follow.? (It's now a max. security but not so much years ago).? Some prisoners had weekend passes to continue "working".
? ?During Viet Nam the CIA hired Chinese mercs for security.
? ?There are so many countries all around the world that have the same type of security companies.? It is true that after retiring from the military many guys go into the private security business.? It is also true that the Black Water guys will continue working for another company or a new company.? If it's done in the business sector than why wouldn't it happen in this area of employment after all it is a business.
? ? If you think the President is personally signing contracts for mercs. your wrong.? The defense dept., CIA and those more secretive agencies do the hiring and congress will allow the appropriations to do so.? There are some agencies that do not have to give a budget to congress.? These are the real spooks and it has to be that way for many reasons.? All countries have this stuff to some degree or they just have a country like the US, Brits, Australia or Russia, China ect..to protect their interests.
? ?"It's the game within the game" to steal the title of Walt Clyde Fraziers Book.? Which is a good read for anyone interested.

The Book, the video game or the bush hunters?

Iraq, Clusterfuck, Quagmire ... it all means the same thing.

Well played.

Polls: Distaste for Iraq war unchanged

WASHINGTON - Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress and President Bush's nationally televised address have had little impact on Americans' distaste for the Iraq war and their desire to withdraw U.S. troops, polls show.
ADVERTISEMENT

Fifty-four percent still favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, a measurement that has not changed in months, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. And despite slight improvements in peoples' views of military progress, more said the U.S. will likely fail in Iraq than succeed by 47 percent to 42 percent, about the same margin as in July.

Nearly half, or 49 percent, said Bush should remove more troops than he announced he would last week, when he said he would withdraw some forces but leave at least 130,000 in Iraq at least until next summer. Thirty-eight percent said Bush's plan goes far enough.

Overall, two out of three said their views on the war had not been changed by presentations last week by Bush and Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

In a separate survey by CBS News, fewer than a third said the roughly 30,000 additional troops Bush sent to the war zone this year have made things better, while the rest said they have had no impact or made things worse. That was similar to the findings of a CBS News-New York Times poll taken days before the remarks by Petraeus and Bush.

Only 22 percent said they are willing to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq longer than two more years, largely unchanged from the previous survey. Nearly half, or 49 percent, said they should stay less than a year while 23 percent said they should remain for a year or two.

Even so, people expect the troops to stay longer than they would like. Only a third said they believe large U.S. forces will be in Iraq for two years or less.

The Pew poll was conducted Sept. 12-16 and involved telephone interviews with 1,501 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

The CBS News poll was conducted Sept. 14-16 and involved telephone interviews with 706 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus four percentage points.

By Susan Cornwell 1 hour, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans blocked a plan on Wednesday to give U.S. troops in Iraq more home leave, defeating a proposal widely seen as the Democrats' best near-term chance to change President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy.

The measure to give troops as much rest time at home as they spent on their most recent tour overseas needed 60 votes to pass in the Democratic-controlled Senate; it received just 56 votes, with 44 against.

It had been offered by Sen. Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Navy secretary. The Democrat said U.S. troops are being "burned out" by repeated redeployments to Iraq, with tours of up to 15 months and less than a year off in between.

The plan was strongly opposed by the Bush administration -- Pentagon Secretary Robert Gates called it a backdoor attempt to pull troops off the battlefield in the unpopular Iraq war, and said he would recommend Bush veto it if it passed. A similar bill has passed the House.

Democrats have struggled all year to pass legislation winding down the Iraq war, and they have other proposals waiting in the wings, including some that explicitly require combat troop pullouts. But these are considered even less likely than Webb's to get any time soon the 60 votes often required to advance under Senate rules.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, vowed not to give up. "We on this side of the aisle are not going to stop waging the hard but necessary fight to responsibly end this war," he said before the vote, adding that Republicans were "more interested in protecting their president than protecting the troops."

After the Webb measure failed, Republicans proposed a non-binding "sense of the Senate" supporting the goal of the Webb plan if operational conditions permit. But it also failed to get the 60 votes required, after Webb announced he opposed it and asked others to vote against it.

After appearing to gain momentum in recent days, Webb's proposal won the votes of just six of Bush's fellow Republicans on Wednesday. That was one Republican less than Webb's plan persuaded in a previous vote in July.

The senator who switched was Webb's fellow Virginian John Warner, also a former Navy secretary and an influential Republican voice on military matters. He announced on Wednesday he could not support the Webb plan again because it could extend tours of duty for units already in the war zone.

"I agree with the principles that you have laid down in your amendment," the 80-year-old Warner said during debate.

"But I regret to say that I've been convinced by those in the professional uniform that they cannot do it, and do it in a way that wouldn't invoke further unfairness to other soldiers now serving in Iraq."

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a presidential contender, said the rejection of the plan was related to U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus' and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony to Congress last week and their "sound argument that we are succeeding" in Iraq.

McCain argued that Webb's plan was unconstitutional. "We have one commander in chief and one only."

Fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a co-sponsor of Webb's plan, said Republican senators were heavily lobbied by the administration against the measure.

"The White House has been very effective of making this a loyalty test for the party," Hagel said after the vote.

Webb had tried to make the proposal acceptable to the Bush administration, including a presidential waiver in operational emergencies and a 120-day enactment period so the Pentagon could make needed adjustments.

Wow, imagine that! Dim pulling numbers out of thin air again...

I think you're getting topics confused again.  I simply used the numbers Butters provided.  You're still too fucking dumb to read your own article.  Bringing the troops home as soon as possible doesn't mean an immediate withdrawl.  In fact, I would say bringing the troops home as soon as possible is what everyone wants.  Defining when "possible" is is the question.  You'd be able to grasp that though if you hadn't dropped out of college.

At least those words are spelt correctly!

Says you.

C'mon, don't get all bill Clinton on me now........ :hihi:

The problem is that you keep trying to paint those who want us out of Iraq as "extremists" and a minority, which simply is not true. Just as you try to label guys like me in the same light. To oppose waging wars on countries who didn't threaten us, adhering to international law, domestic law, the Constitution, are not "extreme."

Of course you also forget, that I was right about everything regarding Iraq, while your side was dead wrong, 100 percent.

I could give a fuck about international law.  I care only about Domestic law and our Constitution.  I will not comment on the Iraq war with regard to our Constitution.

Well that says it all right there doesn't it.

This comes from a guy who thinks our old people (Americans remember) should die in the street like dogs, simply because they are old and a waste of tax payer money.

No reasonable capitalist wants old people to die in the street like dogs. What a waste!   Rather, we drastically reduce the supply of adult diapers, build a DiaperDome, and allow them to fight it out with only one rule: "Two geezers enter; one geezer leaves."  Then we get sponsors and package it all for Pay-per-view TV!

Andy Griffith could be the host...

Michael Vick could be the Celebrity referee...could get messy.

LOL, but would you watch?

Yes you would.

Now that would be entertainment.

A cage match between Bud Fox and Dim shot, now that would be entertainment. You'd be crying "Uncle Jarmo" before it was all over.

When ever you're ready to get in the ring, let me know.  The wack pack won't be able to help you then.

Me? I'm a lover not a fighter.

Bud Fox is a motherfucker and lives up in Manhattan. Be warned, he fights dirty though.

The gig's up, you can quit with the alter ego.? Everyone knows you're Bud Fox.? You can make movie references all day long, but you're not Charlie Sheen.? The whole dirty fighting thing is fine.  I don't smack someone in the mouth and run away like some braggart around here.

And whom would that braggart be?

The "wack pack"?

Trust me, the guy has done plenty of research on wack packs.

Top Iraqis pull back from key U.S. goal
Reconciliation seen as unattainable amid power struggle

 By Joshua Partlow

Updated: 1:20 a.m. ET Oct 8, 2007
BAGHDAD - For much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in this broad goal.

Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."

MORE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21186176/)