Who said anything about the little tree hugger giving up hope? Anytime that agreement ans consensus can be reached through talk everyone is better off. But sometimes that just does not work. And when dealing with people who believe that violence will get them what they want, you need to respond to them with Violence.

RioRules, Exactly how would you have resolved the Saddam Hussein issue? 12 years of diplomacy did not get rid of him. Do you really think 12 years more would have worked.

Oh, but Saddam was only killing his own people. It really was not our business. I know that i spart of the anti-war mantra. Well Apartheid only killed South African people, but the world made it their business. The Israelies only kill Palestinians. The palestinians only kill Israelis, except when their bombs kill Arab citizens of Israel. But the whole world wants to intervene. Talk is beautiful when it works. It does not always work. I wish it did, I agree with you the world would be a nicer place.

Batsterwhodoesnotbelieveinsocialistutopias

Badseed...

--We've had several internet "conversations" before, and you know I respefct you and am not "bashing" you.

I know this BS, and actually, I consider you as one of few Ch'ers that's fair and level-headed.

--RR you live in Copacabana! The only thing that keeps the "movimento" from coming down off the hills and strippign your apartment bare is the threat of armed force (i.e. police). Saying "peace at any price" to a drugged-up gangbanger as he invades your apratment will cause him to laugh at you a bit before he shoots you.

Bs, for your information, I am working on a nonprofit project with people from the Rocinha Favela, and I am sure you know that not everyone in the favelas are drug lords, drug pushers and thieves. Most of these people are working or have their small businesses. My daughter is also working with volunteers in a favela (Intralagos) in Sao Paulo teaching out of school children art, English, reading/writing, math, nonviolence, etc. My wife, on the other hand has a project of collecting donated books here in San Francisco and distributes these to poor children in small towns and villages in the Philippines. They are now on their 4th year of doing these voluntary projects. (See: http://www.booksforlove.org)

--OK, philosophically speaking, the druglords up in Pavao and Pavaozinho and every otehr hill in Rio wouldn't be violent if they weren't part of a cycle of violendce - polcie shoot gang-bagers, gang-bangers shoot police and populace.

I always hear this argument, and my answer has always been this:

Have you seen much Doctors or architects or teachers selling drugs, holding up people lately? No, because they do not need to. They have the means to buy their food to feed their children, buy their own homes, send their children to nice schools, etc. If these same privileges are given to the children in these favelas, then the people outside these favelas will have nothing to fear, except maybe loosing their retirement money when the CEOs of big corporations run with it.

Still, no one has told me what we (adults) are going to tell the children about going to war and bombing mothers and their children.

How about we tell 'em "Shit Happens" and go do your homework.

"...if you want peace tomorrow, you should start with peace today."

I could use a piece right now. One bad thing, out of many, of getting old(er) is that once you get your piece today you kind of lose interest in getting a piece tomorrow. But the day after would be OK.

"Have you seen much Doctors or architects or teachers selling drugs, holding up people lately? No, because they do not need to. They have the means to buy their food to feed their children, buy their own homes, send their children to nice schools, etc. If these same privileges are given to the children in these favelas, then the people outside these favelas will have nothing to fear, except maybe loosing their retirement money when the CEOs of big corporations run with it."

You are not too far off. In the end what is the difference between someone who puts a gun to your head and robs you and the person/business who sucks you dry a bit at a time? Riorules, the problem I have with you do gooders is that you ignore the reality of people. There are many reasons why some people end up in the favelas while others live in penthouses. Blaming the US, the corporations, Bush, the successful, and whomever else only works part of the time. You also have to look at the failures on the part of the people at the bottom. Combine, in many cases, low intelligence with self destructive behavior and some people will never get anywhere in life. And they are usually the first ones to demand "their fair share".

Some countries are 3rd world because of simple misfortune. Cultures that cannot confront our own because they lack the materialist greed and/or religious fundamentalism that got this place started. However, many nations are a mess of over population, complete destruction of their own environment, a total lack of any concept of community beyond the immediate family or clan, and any number of other characteristics that keep them in poverty. Take a look at Haiti as a perfect example of 100% failure of a people to get their act together. If we could somehow redistribute the entire wealth of the world so that everyone was equal tomorrow within a single generation there would be vast inequities again.

I don't know what the solution to poverty is outside of maybe cutting off the dicks of anyone who has more than 2 children.

I still need a piece.

Does anyone have a naked photos of this 22 year old chick? Focus people!

Seriously though, RioRules, what was your opinion of the Japanese invasion of the PI? You were living there at the time, correct? Did the peaceful songs of the local version of "Up With People" turn the Japanese Army around?

I was very young when WWI II broke, but what I know about the Japanese occupation is that they didn't drop a single bomb when they invaded Manila, which declared itself an open city. Then, after four years, came Gen. Macarthur with his so called "liberation army" and bombed the whole city to ruins. A first aunt of mine was actually killed by an American mortar. She would have been a victim of "friendly fire", if it happened today.

This is from PBS.ORG.

--------------------------------

The Battle for Manila (February-March, 1945)

Before the Second World War, Manila was considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Overlooking a tranquil bay, the so-called "Pearl of the Orient" was home to a unique culture drawn from four continents. No stranger to conflict, the city had been seized by the Spanish in the 16th century, attacked by the Chinese in the 17th, occupied by the British in the 18th, and taken by the Americans at the end of the 19th. But even this tumultuous history could not have prepared the Filipinos for what happened in 1945, when Manila was utterly destroyed in a single month.

Manila was only one of the great cities of Southeast Asia overrun by the Japanese war machine between July, 1941 and April, 1942. But unlike Saigon, Hong Kong, Singapore, Djakarta and Rangoon -- which late in the war the Japanese surrendered to British forces without a fight -- Manila was the only city in which Japanese and Allied forces collided. The results were unspeakable: an estimated 100,000 of its citizens died. In the entire war, only the battles of Berlin and Stalingrad resulted in more casualties. Many have questioned whether MacArthur's obsessive quest to liberate the Philippines -- and Manila above all -- also helped to destroy it.

MacArthur probably never gave serious thought to bypassing either Manila or the island of Luzon itself, as some of his subordinates thought he should do. Even General Krueger, one of MacArthur's commanders on Luzon, had advocated bypassing the Japanese garrison in Manila, letting it "wither on the vine" while they focused on the main body of Japanese troops far outside the city. But as MacArthur's own intelligence chief, General Charles Willoughby, observed after the war, "From the day of his confident parting message to the Filipinos, 'I shall return,' no deviation from MacArthur's single-minded plan is discernible. Every battle action in New Guinea, every air raid on Rabaul or PT-boat attack on Japanese barges in the Bismark Sea, was a mere preliminary for the reconquest of the Philippines." And if to MacArthur the Philippines was the key to the whole Pacific campaign, Luzon was the key to the Philippines, and Manila the key to Luzon. "Go to Manila," he ordered his 1st Cavalry commander. "Go around the Nips, bounce off the Nips, but go to Manila." Its attraction was so great that it may well have clouded his military judgment.

In their analysis, a trio of British historians have likened the Battle for Manila to "a Greek tragedy, with the main actors drawn inexorably toward a bloody climax by forces largely outside their control." Indeed, neither MacArthur nor General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the Japanese commander in the Philippines, wanted to fight there. But each made decisions which made the battle inevitable: MacArthur by racing madly toward Manila without leaving the Japanese a way out, Yamashita by failing to force the commander of his Naval Defense Force to evacuate the city when he had the chance. Although greatly outnumbered, the Japanese improvised effective defenses which forced the Americans to reluctantly use major artillery to dislodge them. In fact, the American bombardment may have killed more people than the Japanese did, and certainly caused more physical damage. But whatever the factors which conspired to cause it, the destruction of Manila stands as one of the great tragedies of the Second World War.

Frankly, I think the destruction of Manila today would more likely be considered a charitable act by anyone who's ever been there. What an ugly, polluted shithole of a city it is. Hard to believe that it was somehow the southeast asian "Emerald City" before MacArthur. Just more broadcaster fantasy, I suspect.

RioRules:

So is the desturction of Manila the basis of your "Peace at any Cost" philosophy? War is hell, it's undeniable. The last resort of any civilized nation.. alhtough all too often it's the first resort and I won't even bother citing the numerous examples - all nations have sinned. But even "peaceful", always netural Switzerland has a strong army, as a matter of fact, every adult male in Switzerland is a reservist and owns a gun (nto taht I'm advocating universal gun ownership as a solution to the world's ills, I'm just giving an example). In my exeprience, in my worldview, a defense-less "peace at any price" posture will just get you run over but the goons of the world. Maybe I just grew up in teh wrong neighborhood... that being said, I don't own a gun.

About favelas, yes I'm very aware taht msot of the favelados are honest, extremely poor, and jsut trying to eke out a living. They are as much victims of teh "movimento" as the Botafogo middle-class matron that gets killed by a stray bullet in the street. In my little "though" expirement, I said go to the TOP of Cantagalo, where the druglords are. Unless you've cleared it with "o homem", you'll be shot at the first checkpoint, and you know that. In that case "Peace at any price" means not going where you'll get shot....

I dont' think we are going to change each others mind (and what a weird forum to be discussing this in!). I respect your view, but I wonder what it means taken to it's logical conclusions... after all, each one of us is implicity authorizing deadly force to be used in our defense by paying taxes to our local government which empolys police. In other words, the police are our (public) armed bodyguards. What would happen with no police in Rio? In San Francisco for that matter? I thnk ultimately what would happen would be a lot of "forced property redistribution". Maybe not a bad thing overall for society.... although for the individuals losing their "extra property" it would sure suck. On a global level, people unilaterally disbanded tehir armed forces in the hope that their neighbors would follow their peaceful example, you'd have every have-not country invading ever have country, old grievances like China-Taiwan and Arab-Israeli being settled by sheer mass, most of Eastern ERuope migrating to teh French Riveira... again mybe not a bad thing in the long run (if you take a dispassioante view of it all), but I think jsut as many people would be killed and lives ruined as is happening now. Anyway, it's not going to happen. "Peace through strength" has worked pretty well (think Switzerland, Uruguay, Malaysia other coutnries that basically say, we won't fuck with you, you don't fuck with us - OR ELSE). Ona apersonal level, as I said, I don't have a gun, nor do I want one, I just try and stay out of trouble and when trouble comes looking for me, I run! However, if cornered... (I carry a blade, way better than gun at close quarters). And I know that ultimately, tehre is nothing I own that is worth my life or even the life of whoever wants to take it (except my family! but I don't own them, only try to protect). But I am "paying" the police to do most of the protecting for me, so I can't claim to be "non-violent", can I?

Enough rambling for one day,

Abraco

BS

So Riorules did greet the Japanese Army with open arms - and his mom and aunts with open legs, no doubt!

Well guy, I'll be sure to tell my 85-year old great-uncle that he shouldn't have spent those 3.5 years in a Japanese prison camp, mining coal, after the fall of Corregidor. He should have just crossed the bay to the beautiful, peace-loving open city of Manila and joined his world-brothers in planting trees around the city.

RioRules:

Read this, about the latest genocide in Africa, writen by one of my favorite bleeding-heart NYtimes columnists (I really do like him):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/opinion/31KRIS.html

Now what is the "peace at any cost" solution to THAT mess? I can't see any meaningful solution that doesn't involve doesn't involve a lot of blue helmets (UN troops). Do you?

In the meantime, the "West" is maintaining African "peace" by just ignoring the whole problem. No suprise, there is no oil there, nor any oil conduits anywhere near, nor any meaningful Sudanese immigrant popualtions in any western democracies. (Before anyone points out Somalia as a US attempt at "humanitarian intervention", geopolitically speaking, Somalia is a the mouth of the Persian Gulf area). So we ignore African genocide and allow them to find their own "peace".

BS

I dont' think we are going to change each others mind (and what a weird forum to be discussing this in!).

BS... I guess you're right. This is not the place for intellectual discourse. Not with nihilists and cretins lurking all over the place, trying their best to dumb-down the discussions. They just can't leave you well alone.

Maybe, we can continue this discussion over a mug of choppe. I will be in Rio during the months of May through August.

Riorules, you don't give up do you? You're like a turd that won't flush.

And who would Riorules be calling a cretin? To liberals anyone who does not have an orgasm when they think about Lenin is a cretin.

Batsterwhoresemblesthat

Aldaron, Batster, hehehe, you guys seriously need some pussy. Uptight conservatives need a little lovin' too! ;-)

RioRules: I'll be bouncing thru Rio in August, maybe earlier. First choppe is on me, we can drink a toast to cretins!

BS

Cretin #1 here. Batster is the nihilist.

I am going to say something controversial here.

Consider the situation in Iraq prior to the war: Saddam was actively keeping Al-Qaida and the Shiites in check. The Kurds were safe under US air cover. The only Al-Qaida in Iraq were operating in the area protected by US air cover, and had their own organization, but which was bottled up by Saddam.

With Saddam gone, the Shiites have gone beserk and deadly, with limitless funds from Iran, al-Qaida is free to roam Iraq, terrorists from around the world can now use Iraq as a base of operations since the borders aren't guarded, plus hundreds of Americans are being killed as target practice by Iraqis who we liberated.

My question is: why are we better off now than when Saddam was keeping a lid on all this?

My point exactly. I'm a realist (and a cynic, I'll admit) - Saddam was a ruthless dictator and a menace to the world's society,but within the context of the blance of mideast power, we (USA) were better off leaving him alive but on a very tight leash. Yeah, I know tht he was funding Palestenian terrorists... and you think the Saudis aren't? Among other interesting side effects of the Iraq Invasion, we have the same Saudis, who just cut oil production AGAIN in order to keep petrol prices nice and high, their own unique way of thanking the US for ridding the region of Saddam. Let's leave aside any conspiracy theories that allege that the Bushies and the House of Saud have been in each other's pockets for at least 3 genertions..... If Saddam were still sitting in Bagdad, any sensible US administration would immediately invite the Saudi ambassador to the Oval Office and discuss withdrawing US troops from Kuwait and the Iraqi border areas and re-opening the no-fly zones... let them deal with Saddam on their own. Nothing unites two "friends" (USA and Suadi Arabia) better than a common "enemy" (Iraq). Oh well, just some crazy thoughts from a crazy old ex-conservative....

;-)

BS

Actually, one of the only benefits of the Iraq invasion is it gave us good reason (by saving face) to pull most troops out of Saudi Arabia. Let the Saud family stew for a while - it's a thousand of them against 16 million of their fellow assholes. I doubt they have many years left.

Yes, it did mean we finally pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia - supposedly UBL's main reason for attacking us on 9/11. I was stretching a bit in writing about what kind of control the US has over the Saud Family, but there's no doubt that they are one of the keys to the whole MidEast mess. And, at least in my not-at-all-humble-opion, the Bush regime is waaaaaay too cozy in it's dealings with the Sauds, thereby doign a great dis-service to the USA's broader interests. That being said, one of our principal interests is over-all stability in the Mid-East and we are probably better off with teh Suads than with a bunch of Wahabbi fundamentailist running the show in Saudi Arabia. The Sauds ae yet another dog that has to be kept on a short leash.

BS

For those who aren't watching the news, there is a localized, but singificant, uprising going on in several cities. Not quite a Tet offensive, but enough to worry the Pentagon. If the insurgency continues at this level for a while, you younger guys will get a dose of what Vietnam was like.

On the other hand, I don't see the Iraqis as tough as the Vietnamese, so its possible that a short dose of firepower will cause them to retreat for a bit.

IF this does turn into a Tet offensive, which would be defined as insurgencies in all major cities plus an attack on Coalition HQ itself, well, that's the end of Bush.

Explorer: That' swhat I'v ebeen thinking today... mini-Tet...maybe. You have to kind of read between the lines of what's in the news and on the ariwaves. For instance, what really raised my eyebrows today was a radio report by a CBS news correspondent. SHe was reporting gunfire, Marines dug in on an embankment, mortars, etc..light contact, not that you coul dhear any of that in the background.... but she was breathing in these short panicky rasps between each phrase. Maybe she's never been under fire before, but I thought it interesting that #1 she was scared shitless #2 CBS was airing it. Dunno what to make of it all yet.

For anybody old enough to remember, how was Tet reported here in the States while it was going on? Of course, the "offical word", from what I've read, is about the same as we're hearing now- minor insurgent action, we've got it under control (which, militarily speaking, we did).

Anyway, so far the news reprots attacks in 5 or so Iraqi cities and 2 local CPA headquarters bombed. 12 marines dead in one attack today, 30 total US dead in 3 days.... Sigh, doesn't ANYONE read history? Low-intensity conflict? I thought they teach that stuff at West Point and the Canoe College....

BS

You know, the real thing is how well coordinated the attacks are, and the movement of the weaponry. Hey, it's a desert
- they're not walking weapons and ammo down the jungle Ho Chi Minh trail at night, they are in open view (visual and
infrared). With 130,000 troops and electronics galore, can they please stop the cell phones from working so the
ragheads have to find a payphone to coordinate?

The next few days could prove very, very interesting. This is effectively a Shia overthrow of the existing Shia food
chain, plus they're coming after us. I feel for the kids on the ground, as do most Americans, so I hope that everyone will
finally wake up and realize that they've been lied to on a massive scale the past three years.

Or, are the thousands of partisans all "foreign Al Queda elements"? It's a fucking civil war, with us in the middle shooting
at all sides, and getting shot at from all sides. A complete clusterfuck.

This should be a nice wakeup call to the folks - 30 dead and at least a hundred wounded is a serious casualty count for
a war we "won" a year ago.

Maybe Bush should pull his flight suit out of closet and go provide close air support to the kids in the foxholes.
The next few days could prove very, very interesting. This is effectively a Shia overthrow of the existing Shia food chain, plus they're coming after us. I feel for the kids on the ground, as do most Americans, so I hope that everyone will finally wake up and realize that they've been lied to on a massive scale the past three years.


(Message edited by catocony on April 06, 2004)

We would be lucky if it is like Tet. The Commies shot their wad on the Tet offensive. It took them a long time to regroup. In Vietnam the US made the mistake of letting them regroup. I don't think that will happen this time. The insurgents do not have the same supply lines or the OPEN support from a neighboring country.

If we are lucky this will be more like the Germans with their Christmas offensive of 1944. It was their last Hurrah. All through history, it is a pattern that repeats itself.

What I find just a little morbid is that many people from left of center are happy that there would be setbacks in Iraq because it may kill Bush. Maybe none of my esteemed Hombres feel that way, but I certainly know others that do. IMHO that is pretty fucked up. Bad news for the US and US troops and bad new for the Iraqis is good news for Bush haters. Interesting priorities.

One of Sadrs cousins who is head of the Lebaneese Hezbollah, was quoted as saying " We may not be able to drive America out of Iraq, but we can drive George Bush out of the White House."

Hey, another foreign leader for John Kerry.

As far as Saudia Arabia, Iran, and Syria, I am all for regime change their also. Saudia Arabia and Iran are the two biggest supporters of terror in the world. Its time for them to go.


Badseed, I am glad you are concerned for my sex life. But for a "far right conservative" I get all the nookie I can handle. I am not a spring chicken any more. LOL

Batsterthebloodthirstyfarrightcretin

"What I find just a little morbid is that many people from left of center are happy that there would be setbacks in Iraq because it may kill Bush. Maybe none of my esteemed Hombres feel that way, but I certainly know others that do. IMHO that is pretty fucked up. Bad news for the US and US troops and bad new for the Iraqis is good news for Bush haters. Interesting priorities."

I think this is bullshit, at least the use of the words "many" and "happy". Maybe you know some people that are feeling vindicated because the arguments they presented in opposition or as concerns regarding the war are proving valid and the false premises justifying the war are falling apart. It seemed commonplace for the right to brand as traitorous any opinions that didn't fall completely in line with the "with us or against us" view of Iraq. I find this statement to be little different, a vast broadside against people on the left to describe their views as vile and anti-American, oh...except perhaps a tiny number people on this site so as not to offend the few exceptions.

I personally find the "oh you guys just hate Bush" argument tired and weak, especially when the specific reasons are so often detailed, documented, and referenced...especially here on this site. Rather than substantive rebuttals, what we too often hear is "oh you guys just hate Bush", or "oh everyone knows there is a liberal media bias", etc...

The attempt to tie terrorist leaders to Kerry is lame, too. Leaders of foreign nations need to be diplomatically discreet or completely silent with regards to who they support, especially with an administration as vindictive as BushII, but you'd really have to be politically tone deaf to world politics to believe that Bush has much support outside of the US.

I sincerely believe that all who express their opinions here stand behind the U.S., but simply disagree on the best course of action. What I find disturbing is that while the left often seems to address the specific arguments of the right and often respectfully, the right is quick to brand the left as traitors or some other insult, and/or dismissing their arguments outright with the "hate Bush/media bias" lines.

dartagnanwhooftenfeelsunjustlymalignedbyconservatives

Cretin #1 here.

I'm always amused at those that constantly make fun of Bush. He has his faults, but don't we all? Oh I forgot... we are all genuises on here. Some of us have a 6th sense into geo political events. I believe it is commonly referred to as 20/20 hindsight.

Here's a reality check. He's the President of the United States. There have only been 43 of them. That alone deserves respect. It's almost impossible to become a CEO of a company. Think about the Presidency. He's gotten further in life than you ever will. That's reality. What the fuck are you again? (I can't hear you)

Chew on that as you log off your whore mongering website.

The President of the United States pretty much has gotten further ahead in life than everyone except...past Presidents of the United States. So I guess the opinions of all of the rest of us losers are pretty much equal.

I thought the following article was interesting regarding high turnover of counterterrorism officials. Here are some quotes:

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.

Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said. ¹

From further down in the article

"There has been excessively high turnover in the Office for Combating Terrorism," said Flynt Leverett, who served on the White House National Security Council for about a year until March 2003 and is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank.

"If you take the (White House) counterterrorism and Middle East offices, you've got about a dozen people ... who came to this administration wanting to work on these important issues and left after a year or often less because they just don't think that this administration is dealing seriously with the issues that matter," he said. <sup>1

1</sup>Reuters: U.S. Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus by Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

As a reminder, there's a big event Thursday morning at 6amPST/9amEST with Condeleeza Rice testifying live in front of the 9/11 Panel. It should be interesting with the panel prepared with questions regarding contradictions with past quotes and charges brought up by Richard Clarke others. I vaguely recall some new charges brought up by John Dean, former counsel to Nixon who describes the current administration as "Worse Than Watergate", but I could be mistaken. I'll have to look for that link again.

At least this time, Rice will be under oath.

The 2.5 hour event will be on ABC, PBS, CSPAN, CNN, FNC, and MSNBC.

I forgot to mention I didn't think much of the conditions the panel agreed to in order to get Rice to testify.

The price the 9/11 panel paid for Ms. Rice's oath-taking appearance was ludicrous. It accepted the condition of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales that it agree "in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."

What if she says something then or later that calls into serious question something said, before the commission, on TV or in a newspaper interview by any other White House official? The commission won't be able to explore that contradiction or conflict?¹

and another one

In return for the president lifting the one-hour time limit he earlier had placed on meeting in private with only the chairman and vice chairman, the full 10-member panel will get to hear Mr. Bush, but together with Vice President Dick Cheney, rather than separately....an arrangement that would make it easy for them to keep their stories straight in all details.<sup>1

1</sup>Common Dreams Newscenter: Commission on 9/11 Held the Cards but Folded by Jules Witcover

Batster: regarding my comments on your ssex life, tongue was palnted firmly in cheek. I still can't believe we're having this discussion (as much fun as it is) on a pussy-hunting website...

Aldaron: I should respect the Shrub because he is the RESIDENT of the White House? PUH-LEEEEEZE!

In other news, guys it's way to early to tell what is actually happening in the current uprising in Iraq. We'll know in a week, a month, a year... the only telling clue so far is that Rummy has admited they "might" (ie. will) increase troop levels (by not rotating out the troops they were going to send home, poor bastards). And whoever wins in November will still have a mighty fine shit sandwich to deal with in Iraq, so I don't think anyone with any sense is cheering the present escalation of violence....

BS

Some answers to the above:

As you all know, I opposed the war in Iraq. This does not mean, however, that I am opposed to the effort to stabilize Iraq, I think even the hated United Nations wants to stablize Iraq. The Bush Administration has created a quagmire in Iraq - we can't get out because if we do, Iraq becomes Beirut. We can't stay because of the loss of life there. Kind of like Vietnam.

Concerning the Tet Offensive, the official US line was that this was nothing, One last gasp of the VietCong. Many US historians still maintain this, that Tet destroyed the VietCong. However, US casulaties from VietCong substantially increased after Tet, so the facts are not consistent with this viewpoint.

However, I don't think the Iraqis have the staying power of the Vietnamese, I don't think that they have the fortitude to handle casualities in the 100,000s of 1000s or even a million. Their only tactic is the surprise attack, and you can only do that so many times; the Vietnamese owned the countryside, and every time we went out there it was trouble. There is no countryside in Iraq, these are urban battles, and as soon as the Iraqis show themeselves, they get wiped out. So, I see the actual fighting as being a series of surprise attacks, followed by heavy US response, until the Iraqis learn to stop doing this.

Bob Kerrey is bitch-slapping that snaggle-toothed cunt all over the place. I think she's gonna cry!

Exlorer:

yeahbut... we (US) traditionally suck at urban warfare, and I thought (from my history books, I was still in diapers at the time of Tet) that Tet was all about the VC bringing the war from the countryside which they already controlled into the cities. As you pointed out, thatnks to the desert, there really is no countryside for the Iraqi insurgents. COIN in streets and alleys is messy work, especially if we (US) can't use massive amounts of stand-off weaponry for political reasons (ie block-buster bombs). While the Iraqis may not be able to "stomach" hundreds of thousands of casualties (I wouldn't bet against it, though), I really doubt that the US will be able to stomach Vietnam-era casualties either (100 a week/dozen a day). Again, the next 10 days or so (this period of Shiaa holy days) should prove "interesting."

Also, all confilcts revolve around supply.... they (the insurgents) have more bodies to supply, we have more beans and bullets.. or do we? After all, our logistic tail got pretty screwed up last March, and they are (presumably) getting their bullets from Iran and Syria, and from out of their basements. Very, very interesting.....

Cato: all things considered, I think our snaggle-toothed bitch did pretty well this morning. Again, to early to tell what effect the hearings will ahve, but I suspect it's all a wash - those who are already "decided" will only listen to their side, and the famous 10% undecided don't have a clue what to think and aren't paying attention anyhow. Again, need at least 1 week's perspective (a few new-cycles + polls).

Speaking of polls, what the hell are Rummy and the no-cons smoking when they say that polls in Iraq show that Iraqi's are predominantly in favor of the US occupation (Pew poll)? Gotta be something better than my cigars, that's for sure! First of all, by definition, Western poll-takers are only polling those Iraqi's that are in "secure areas" - they sure as hell aain't polling in Fallujah or Najaf!. Second, they are polling people who have been trained by a dictatorship to say whatever the "man" wants to hear. Just by the fact that an Iraqi is willing/feels safe enough to talk to a poll-taker shows that he is on the whole pro-american. Just goes to show you, oce again, that 99% of polls are crap! (Yes, I polled extensively in order to reach that 99% number)

BS

40 dead this last week. Worse numbers than the Soviets in Afganistan, but still far less than the average weekly toll in Vietnam. One of the bad outcomes from this, however, is that the US public is no longer deeply affected by combat deaths, as we were prior to this war. The Kosovo conflict had zero combat deaths, the Gulf War very few, this one is going to be in the 1000s if the warfare continues for any period of time.

This sucks. I would send Chalabi packing, invite in the UN with international troops, give up some of the oil, and general protect our troops from this fighting. But that's just me. Bush can't give up the oil, not when gas is over $2 at the pump.

By Gabriel Ash
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – After watching the images of the four unlucky American gunmen slain in Falluja, their bodies burnt then hanged, many Americans see in the crystal ball little besides more carnage. Indeed, the Sadr rebellion raises the specter of defeat. Most likely, U.S. forces can quash the immediate rebellion, but long-term prospects are hopeless. The guerilla war will intensify; the next revolt is guaranteed to be bigger and the one after bigger still. The U.S. can win every battle. It can destroy Iraq as it destroyed Vietnam. But there won't be a pro-U.S. Iraq.

Staying as a hated occupier means ever more death to both Americans and Iraqis. It also means motivating more attacks on American soil. Already, in most of the Middle East, Osama Bin Laden has a higher approval rating than George Bush. But to leave, so say all the talking heads, is unthinkable. To leave would be to show weakness; it would only embolden the anti-American rage, turn Iraq into a radical, perhaps Islamic, haven and base for those who want to fight America to the death.
Washington is befuddled. The Emperor, like the one in Hans Christian Andersen's story, is pretending nothing is wrong with his neo-con tailored war costume: He is playing baseball. The Anything-but-Bush team that won the Democratic primaries is showing its true colors, calling for staying the course, whatever that means.

George Bush finally lives up to the claim he is "a uniter, not a divider": Shi'a and Sunni rebels buried their differences and united against the occupation, often joined by the very U.S. trained police that was supposed to contain them. Meanwhile, Ariel Sharon's Washington-based vampires, William Safire in the Times and George Will in the Post, demand more Iraqi blood. Only the neo-cons keep their cool; their plan to sink the West into a millennial war is ticking like a well-rigged bomb.

Is there a way out? Yes. There is a way for Americans to quell the rage, and yet to earn respect and goodwill.

But first, Americans must come to terms with the deep origins of the current revolt.

Last year, the U.S. launched an unprovoked, wholly unjustified attack on a defenseless country. Over 50,000 Iraqis are dead as a result of that attack, 10,000 of them civilians, many children. The U.S. took over Iraq, deposed one dictator, Saddam Hussein, and imposed another, Paul Bremer. The new dictator, having installed himself in the same barricaded palace of his predecessor, immediately took to the ways of his predecessor as well -- abductions, torture, shooting into crowds, licensing, newspapers, sham elections, etc. With largely empty promises of a new dawn, the U.S. turned Iraq into a free-for-all Lootistan, awarding billions to chummy contractors and fire-selling Iraq's national assets.

All that is criminal in the highest degree. Yet over half of Americans supported it and still do. If people in the Midwest can applaud criminal leaders and support the killing of innocent civilians, so can people in the Middle East.

Compounding the outrage is the fact that Saddam Hussein's vilified Baath party rose to power with the encouragement of the CIA. Saddam, allegedly the little Hitler whose evil ways justified the war, was for many years a great friend of Washington. Much of his horrible criminal record was written while he was receiving military intelligence and help in weapon acquisition from the U.S., including help in producing biological and chemical weapons.

And even that isn't the worst. For over a decade, the U.S. imposed an international regime of sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the deaths of one million people, half of them children. The sanctions prevented Iraq from recovering from the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure during the first Gulf War, condemning children to death by poisoned water and lack of medicines. This silent, bureaucratic mass murder was the result of an intentional policy forged in Washington. Asked whether the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it, State Secretary Madeleine "Human Rights" Albright said yes.

Yet that policy was supported in the U.S. across the board, even to the extent that at the early stages of the antiwar movement, there were those who condemned Bush because they wanted the "successful" sanctions to continue.

There are ample reasons for Americans to be less than loved in Iraq. The road to Falluja wasn't paved last week. It took decades to pave.

But another road can still be paved. Despite the painful history of U.S.-Iraq relations, the firebrand leader of the rebellion, Moqtada Sadr, portrayed by the media as a hateful anti-American fanatic, still believes in the honesty of the American people. He has asked Americans publicly for help, urging the "American people to take sides with the Iraqi people, oppressed by [U.S.] leaders and the occupation army, to help them so that power is transferred to honest Iraqis."

Moqtada Sadr still sees a difference between the American people and the U.S. government. But it is up to Americans to prove that one exists.

Explorer: What IRaqi oil are we recieving in the US? Not much to none. Still, pulling out of Iraq would be political suicide for Bush - he (along with us Americans) is stuck to a tar baby. My prediciton (not hard at all to imagine) is that on or about Jun 30th we pull back to "strategic bases" (those 11 mega-bases we are building) outside of the urban centers and let the resto fIraq go to hell. Of course, the move will be papered over with all kinds of bullshit - "we are forward-postioning our troops in support of soveirgn Iraqui security forces", "we are standing off", "strategic basing", etc. But as long as we have big airbases in the desert and secure supply lines from Basra to those bases, the Bushies will ahve achieved their strategic objectives (note that the US spent mucho bucks rehabiltiating the port facilities of Basra, which are OUTSIDE teh town itself). And what are those objectives? The real reason for the IRaqi war, IMHO, is to establish American bases in the heart of the oil region - with airbases in Iraq we are now within a two-hour bombimng run of any population center in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Oil regions as well. This war is not about OIL, but about controllign the FLOW of oil... Anway, that's my reasoning behind why we are going to "redeploy" to "strategic bases"... the Pentagon is already saying that this is their eventaul strategy (standoff deployment) and FOLLOW THE MONEY - most of the Iraqi "reconstruction funds" is going into building these bases and rehabbing the Basra port (I'll google to find my references again if anyone really cares). And from day 1 we declared taht we will keep 4 "permanent bases" out in the desert...

RioRules:

I pretty much agree with your "yellow journalism" article up to the point where your writer says essentially "Sadr is our friend, if we would only come to love and understand him"... yeah, right. Sadr is an opportunist trying to capitalize on his father's reputation in the Shi'aa community to undermine Grand Ayotollah Sistani's infuluence (Sistani is like the Shiite's pope/king rolled into one). Anti-americanism is just a very conveninent, very easy to carry "banner" to unite his followers under as he starts a Sh'iaa civil war. There is so much more than meets the eye going on in Iraq - Shiaa fighting Shiaa fighting Sunni fighting Kurd fighting USA, kidnapping Japanese, etc... the Balkans, except with more sand. "We love you Moqtada Sadr" is not going to solve anything (besides being traitorous, "yellow", cowardly, etc). Consider your sources (yellowtimes.org?!?!) before posting bullshit opinions, or at least get some correlation , the Canadian newpapers, for instance, are pretty balanced.

OK, enough bullshit opinions from me...

BS

Ooops! YellowTimes IS Canadian..... now I've got egg (yellow) on my face. Hmmph, it's probably written over in FRENCH Canada.... well, fuck all Canadians, especially the ones that live in Floriduh!

;-)

BS

Badseed:

You already know the answer about the oil, its the control, not the proceeds from the little oil that is flowing, that is critical to Bush.

The people that support Bush are domestic oil producers - they benefit from high international prices for oil, since the dollar is so weak. If Iraq's oil is controlled by the US, and we can shut the spigots on the world's second largest oil reserves, high oil prices are assured, Bush gets campaign dollars, everyone is happy, but me, since I am paying $2.50 at the pump.

Its not an uprising.

Its not an insurgency.

Its an intifada. This really sucks, I would like to invite the guys that supported the war in Iraq to tell us why this is such a good idea.

Yes... read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2093154/entry/2093160/


Dispatches from Iraq by a former TIME reporter who speaks Arabic. SHe describes what is happeining "on the street" from December untill last week. Chilling....

What a clusterfuck. And in 40 years since Viet Nam haven't we, the USA, learned ANYTHING?

BS

BS

>>>everyone is happy, but me, since I am paying $2.50 at the pump

And that is precisely why GW probably won't be winning this year's election. When the people aren't happy with the economy, the incumbent is outta there. Doesn't matter what their political ideology is.

As for Iraq, as best I can tell there's no one and nothing with the muscle and the balls (except the US military) to stand up to the religious zealots who want to try and control the place. Doesn't matter when we leave - they'll wait. That place is doomed to a civil war. The only question is how many Americans do we put in harm's way, and how much anti-America hatred do we engender, before leaving them to rot in the hell of their own creation? And no - we didn't create the mess - we just made it possible for THEM to create it. Saddam would have just rounded them all up and shot them (or worse) - and anyone stupid enough to object would be shot along with them.

"Saddam would have just rounded them all up and shot them (or worse) - and anyone stupid enough to object would be shot along with them."

And the problem with this is ............. ?

Shooting the current crop of trouble makers would be quite an improvement in Iraq. Hell, even most Iraqis would agree with that. But they'll all be up in arms if someone other than a fellow Iraqi does it.

It's the "wierd uncle Harry" syndrome. The whole family can make fun of wierd uncle Harry, but when someone who's not a family member makes fun of him, look out - the whole family will turn on them.

America learned that lesson back before WWI. Woodrow Wilson knew that Mexican president De La Huerta was a bad guy, what with being a military dictator who assistanted elected president Madero and all, so he took advantage of an incident in Veracruz to send in the US military. The result, Mexicans united behind De La Huerta against the US military forces.

Somehow, Bush forget that lesson,

well that whats general pinochet did with the elected president allende in chile, while whistling with a little help from my friends(c.i.a&various american mining companies)
iggy

Dart,

I stand by what I said. I know quite a few people on the left that are very happy that things are going shitty in Iraq, because it will cause problems for Bush.

I work with a super partisan democrat who was pissed off about the 308,000 jobs supposedly created in March. He was literally bent out of shape because that number might reflect well on Bush. Good new for America is bad news for getting rid of Bush. At least in his warped mind.

There are people who equate bad news for America as good news for their politics. Its not Bullshit. The "hate Bush factor" is out there and democratic strategists are planning on using it to their advantage.

You are one of the more reasonable posters on this thread. Even if we don't agree, you always consider the arguments. I am not sure why this comment bothered you so much.

batsterwhostandsbyhisobservation

It is irrelevant at the moment what Bush opponents think or don't think, that is just a transitory issue. The fact that some people think this way will be forgotten by history. On the other hand, the fact that Bush provoked an insurrection in Iraq, and opened the door to Al Qaida operations in Iraq may not be.

Explorer,

Its way too soon to judge the outcome in Iraq. In a year or two we may have a better idea. It may be the clusterfuck you seem to expect. Or it may be a pretty good thing. Time will tell.

Germany was a real clusterfuck one year after the end of the war. That all seemed to work out OK.

I like the idea of all of the nutso isalmics rushing into Iraq. Our marines are better equipped to handle them than our local police officers.

Also its interesting that you blame Bush for the insurrection. Sadr publicly allied himself with Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad ( Both recognized by the UN as terrorist oraganizations) long before the coalition shut down his paper.

The mistake made was not hunting Sadr down and arresting him when the Iraqi judge issued a warrant for his arrest form murdering another cleric.

I am sure we agree on one thing though. The Bush crowd has done a very shitty job in Iraq. I think its great that Saddam is gone, but its obvious the Pentagon had no clue what to do after his fall. Maybe 6 months to a year of additional planning may have been a good idea before taking Saddam out.

I dunno if it is great that Saddam is gone. He kept Al Qaida under wraps, and Iraq was zero threat to us. Now we have security problems that didn't exist before the war.

As for the comparison with post war Germany, there is none. The problems in Germany stemmed from the dislocation, and the Soviets, there was never even a local insurrection there, nor was there an anti-US bloc in western Germany. The biggest problem GIs had was getting enough chocolate, cigarettes and nylons so they could get laid, and I don't think much of that is going on in Iraq these days.

In fact, that is now the Explorer Test of Security - areas are securely under our control when the GIs can get laid. Saigon was under our control, the Mekong Delta was not. In Iraq, not even Baghdad is under our control