explorer
i belive you forgot the most important factor the religion.i know that the u.s. government and the coalition dont sees that way,but that doesnt count because imams and other religious persons in muslim countries call it a cruzade against the muslim beliefs.so things can go really shitty,consider a scenario were sunni muslims,shiites muslim united agains an common enemy as they see it?perish the thought
iggy sca.

Bush the elder knew not to invade Iraq

Eugene A. Brodsky Wednesday, April 14, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle

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

The consequences of President Bush's decision to pre-emptively invade Iraq have placed the United States in a difficult and vulnerable position. Had Bush followed his father's reasoning at the end of Desert Storm, he would not have led this country into the worsening Iraqi quagmire.

In "A World Transformed," coauthored by former President George H. W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1998, the basis for the U.S. policy not to invade and occupy Iraq after the Iraqi army retreated from Kuwait is explained in detail. Bush and Scowcroft wrote that had the decision been made to pursue the retreating Iraqi army to Baghdad, the United States "would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq." This, they point out, would have collapsed the coalition and caused the Arab members to desert the coalition in "anger." The author's impression was that under those circumstances, "there was no viable 'exit strategy'... violating another of our principles."

Bush and Scowcroft also explained that the United States had been trying to "set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." Furthermore "[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

Our problems in Iraq include rising casualties of both U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, escalating federal expenditures involving billions of dollars, long-term presence of our Armed Forces and growing hatred of the United States by many Iraqi people and the Islamic world. This is the unfortunate product of the administration's decision to proceed with regime change, which was based on whatever rationale could be sold to the American people.

Former President Bush has said little, if anything, concerning his view of Iraqi policy, notwithstanding his detailed comments in his 1998 book. Scowcroft, however, a former national security adviser under Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush, did not hesitate to state his strong opposition to the administration's Iraq policy prior to the invasion. In an article he submitted to the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 15, 2002, Scowcroft argued that an invasion of Iraq "was certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack. " Invasion of Iraq would require the United States "to pursue a virtual go-it- alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive ... [and] very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation." Such actions would result in a "degradation" of international cooperation, and an "explosion of outrage against us" especially in the Muslim world. Such a policy "could even swell the ranks of terrorists."

The specific advice that George W. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, imparted to him about invading Iraq is not public knowledge. Her interview with Ed Bradley on "60 Minutes," however, does strongly suggest that her views were in agreement with the pro-war sentiments of the Department of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney's office. In response to questions on Iraq, she stated that "Iraq is a big reason, or was, for the instability in the region, [and] for the threats against the United States. Saddam Hussein's regime was very dangerous." Rice then went on to say, with misplaced optimism, that without Hussein "the world is a lot safer and the war on terrorism is well served." Unfortunately, events in Iraq, notwithstanding the repeated assurances of the president, support the views of Scowcroft, and not Rice.

The policy enunciated by Bush the elder at the end of Desert Storm has been shown to be correct. Scowcroft's 2002 objections to Bush the younger's determination to invade Iraq were prescient. It is unfortunate that George W. Bush did not choose Scowcroft as national security adviser, or that his views were not seriously considered by the current administration. The long-term implications of the administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq unfortunately echo the same problems raised by Bush and Scowcroft at the end of Desert Storm, and by Scowcroft in the Wall Street Journal commentary. The end is not in sight.

Eugene A. Brodsky is a maritime and admiralty law attorney and an adjunct professor of admiralty law at Golden Gate University Law School.

Bush the Elder was a pretty smart guy when it came to international relations. Bush the Younger is an idiot. I would hate to be Colin Powell, and have to put up with Bush telling me to do stupid things and to tell lies.

I would imagine that if Bush is re-elected, Powell won't serve another term in the administration. That is just my opinion, however.

Explorer,

There were security problems in Germany after WWII. There was some opposition to the US presence on th epart of die hard Nazis. You are right in that the Majority of Germans were not actively opposed to US occupation. But the Oxford Poll recently commisioned by the BBC also shows that the Majority of Iraqis are not actively opposed to US occupation.

The Germany/Iraq comparison is probably as good as the ever so popular Vietnam/Iraq comparison. Neither one of them are very good because they are different times, different cultures, different situations.

As far as the GI's getting laid, the difference is cultural. I have already read about several US soldiers marrying, yes marrying, Iraqi women. In part it is a way to get around cultural mores for sex. They even supposedly converted to Islam so the girls could mary them. Cultural differences r are the primary impediment to fraternization and good old mongering. Not security issues.

I also read recently that prostitution is greatly on the upswing in Baghdad. It was forbidden under Saddam. Another good reason for him to be gone. Now our Arab mongers in arms have more opportunities. Thanks be to Allah.

Powell is definitely the most moderate person on the Bush team. I don't think he is very comfortable. And Xenon and I finally agree on something. He wont stick around for a second Bush term. I think he would make a pretty good president, but I doubt he will ever run.

Security problems in Germany after WWII? Maybe some problems in the POW camps, or drunk civilians causing problems, but I have certainly not heard of any organized resistance that resulted in US casualties much after the Nazi surrender. Maybe there were some holdouts that were counted as war casualties, but I would suspect that US combat casualties in Germany after 6/1/45 were pretty close to 0.

As for the mongering/security connection, I will be happy to admit that things are great in Iraq when the first reports are posted here.

I'm glad this conversation is getting semi-sane again.

A question:

"the Oxford Poll recently commisioned by the BBC also shows that the Majority of Iraqis are not actively opposed to US occupation"

How the heck does a poll like this work? I doubt it's done over the phone, so that means it's done canvassing people on the street. Peopel on the street who are willing to talk to a bunch of gringos waving around a poll sheet are probably pre-disposed to think a postively of the presence of gringos in their country. If, by some chance they are getting polled over teh phone, they are happy that they even HAVE a phone. Add to that the fact that people who have lived under a dictatorship are likely to tell a pollster whatever they want to hear. Anyway, how nmuch of this poll was done in "safe areas" liek green zone, Baghdad or Kirkuk, and how much of it was done in Fallujah and Najaf? In other words, I dont' think the pollsters were asking any insugents or insurgent supports waht they thought about the occupation.

Most polls are bullshit, but this one is moreso...

BS

It is striking how the pro-war guys have stopped posting now that things have gone bad. Here's a 2002 quote from El Snapper:

"Who cares if there's a link between Sadam and Islamic extremist. (Although the first bombing of the WTC was linked right back to Bin Ladin and Sadam.)

We know he is trying to get nukes.

We know he has chemical and biological warfare.

Who could he possibly want to use this stuff on? I think it's in our best interest not to wait and find out.

It's because of those who have that "let's give peace a chance" mind set that the people that died on December 7, 1941, February 26,1993 and September 11, 2001 died in vein.
How soon people forget. BTW, I'll be holding a Pro-War rally in the Zona in about three weeks. You guys are welcome to join in the fun."

Who could imagine that so many statements in one post would be refuted by the Bush Administration? You have to start thinking, if someone's support for the war was based on so many misconceptions, maybe their conclusion was flawed.

Beats me, I just know they can't spell - "died in vein"? Granted, my own typing sucks....

Honestly, what scares me now is an "October Suprise" terrorist attack - OK, so call me a conspiracy freak, but even without the Bushies' help*, UBL and crew have got to realize that 4 more years of Bush is good for them and a spectacular attack in October guarantees it...

BS

*By that I mean that the jury is still out on whether the Bush Regime being "asleep at the switch" in the summer of 01 was a sin of omission or comission.... maybe I'm eating too much granola.

Powell has already announced that he would not serve another term if Bush were reelected. He cited personal reasons.

I openly wonder whether we would have invaded Iraq had we known there were not weapons of mass destruction. If we did, would have we handled it differently with the UN, Blix, France, Germany, Russia, etc?

Bush would have invaded no matter what. He is pathological about control of sources of oil supply.

If he were so pathological about sources of supply of baseball players, Cuba would be on the list.

Batster,

With all due respect, and I do mean that sincerely...

I stand by mine. I see your original message and response as a polite way to say that you know "many/quite a few" Democrats that are "happy" that US soldiers are dying, that the instability and civil war that appear to be brewing will hopelessly engulf our military and increase the threat of terrorism, and that Iraqis are dangerously uniting in their bloodthirsty perception of Americans as occupiers as opposed to liberators...or did you mean something else by "people on the left that are very happy that things are going shitty in Iraq?"

Can you identify any post on this site where anyone has expressed joy at the deteriorating situation in Iraq? If you can, please identify where because it's in the absence of this evidence that my theory on why you bring up the "many" that are "happy" is so that you can broadly paint Democrats as traitors. It's flawed and inflammatory Coulter logic couched in polite wording. (Click here to read what I'm referring to)

I do try to be reasonable, that's why I don't post stuff like "many people right of center are bible-thumping racist rednecks. (BTRR)" Maybe considering an approximate 40% of conservatives in the entire United States, it is factually true that there is a small percent yet technically large number of BTRRs...but for me to describe conservatives as such would be grossly unfair, inaccurate, and inflammatory...and a position I do NOT agree with. So how much different is it when you openly state that "many" people who share some of my political views are anti-American traitors? (besides my personal view that it is actually worse)

Is my issue with you personally? Absolutely not. My issue is with broad generalizations and some of the implications they make on our friends here that span a wide range of political philosophies (and I do consider most of us friends at the very least in interests and sexual philosophy). To be more explicit regarding what I posted earlier, I sincerely believe that as Americans our goals are mostly the same and that our differences lay in how we perceive those goals should be accomplished. I understand the conservative belief that terrorism should not be appeased and that the Iraq War is part of a comprehensive plan that will focus the battleground in faraway lands and weaken the forces that support it, thereby protecting our homeland as much as can possibly be hoped for. I doubt you could find any true American that does not want the same success and security for our country. However, there are people that believe some if not many of the actions that have been taken regarding Iraq run contrary to these goals, and for that disagreement in perception, they are inaccurately and unfairly referred to as having anti-American views, if not explicitly called traitors.

dartagnanwhodoesnotstandidlybywhenhisviewsarecomparedtotreason

Still looking for responses from those guys who are were all gung-ho on the Iraq war last year.............

This is the link for the English version of Al-Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

They actually play the news fairly straight in English, I have no idea what they say in Arabic. During the heavy fighting, their reporters are embedded on the other side, so you get a different perspective, and sometimes more data.

New book coming out from Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. In it he claims that Bush and Chainy were planing to invade Iraq right from the very begining of his administration. This was pre Afghanistan. It's interesting that Bush no longer even makes an attempt to talk about WMD. Like the fairy tale that it always was, it is has simply disappeared in the light of a new day. The book, coming right on the heels of the testimony of Richard Clarke, should be interesting.

Question: If there had never been a 9/11 what would Bush have done in the Middle East? And what would his domestic policies have been? Outside of the tax cut I can't really think of anything that has been done. And is there a viable domestic policy for the next four years? Is there a foreign policy besides blaming the Arab people for all the ills of the world?

And I voted for the guy.

Our hawkish fellow hombres have been MIGHTY quiet lately on this thread.... what's up with that?

;-)

BS

I think they are attempting to find a way to erase their old messages here.

Maybe they are getting laid instead of worrying about politics.

Hey, thats what I've been trying to say all along - Make Love, Not War!

;-)

BS

So, Colin Powell says that Cheney has an unhealthy fixation on Iraq, that Cheney was OK in the first Gulf Way, but just couldn't let go of Iraq. I wonder what that is all about, and how come our soldiers have to die so Cheney is satisfied?

What?

Bush tells Prince Bandar about our Iraq war plans BEFORE telling our Secretary of State, and in exchange for a deal for the Saudis to reduce gas prices just before the election this October? What the hell is going on? Bush might as well have told Bin Laden about our war plans once he told the Saudis.

And, Bush diverted $700 million from the Bin Laden hunt to Iraq???? Whose side is he playing on?

YEah,things are starting to get really crazy, let's watchthe Bush Regime spin machine rip into Woodward. Actually, they've been suprisingly quiet, except for a flat denial today of the oil deal. Very, very interesting.

In the meantime, the King of Jordan has postponed his scheduled meeting with El Presidente tomorrow,in protest of the Sharon/Bush blowjob. He's going to "study" the situation before resheduling a meet. And remember,the Jordanians are "moderates" and our "friends" in the Mideast, old King Abdulah even married an American chick, if memory serves me. Bad news when even our "friends" are pissed off.

Abdullah's father, the late King Hussein of Jordan is the one that married an American. Queen Noor.

Check her out here:

http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/pages/celeb/H/Previews/Plans-20838.jpg

and here:

http://www.arabacc.org/images/QueenNoorBoard.jpg

Abdullah is married to a hot Palestinian....

Check her out here:

http://dar.ju.edu.jo/nursing/rania.jpg

here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38421000/jpg/_38421601_rania-150-pa.jpg

and here:

http://update.unu.edu/images/queen_rania.jpg

Here I am getting my Jordanian royalty all mixed up! Shame on me!

Hehehe, thanks for straightening me out.

BS

The King of Jordan isn't the only moderate Arab leader backing away from Bush and the US. The president of Egypt, Mubarek, said during a visit to France that "the United States had become the target of unprecedented hatred after its invasion of Iraq and that its interests were not safe anywhere on the planet."

You now have literally hundreds of millions of people who dislike the US with a vengence. Many of their countries also supply our nation with energy that can not be replaced elsewhere. Does Bush plan on taking lessons from Sharon and just go into these countries with guns blazing and kill everyone on sight to insure "our" oil is not jeopardized? And how does Bush plan on securing our borders from what will be the inevitable future attacks of suicide terrorists? How does he plan on protecting our facilities abroad?

Throughout the decades of our neglect towards the people of the Middle East there has alway run a strong element of outright racism. The media, mostly controlled by extremely hard core pro Israeli and pro Zionism Jews, has made darn sure we are feed a steady diet which portrays the Arab and Muslim people as dirty, stupid, dishonest, ignorant, blood thirsty, backward physical and cultural rejects. We are also continually reminded of the terrible horrors of the Holacost and the debt that humanity owes the survivors by giving them some worthless, uninhabited land to create the miracle of modern Israel where hard work and intelligence has created an oasis amongst a desert of savagery. Or at least that's they way they like to paint it.

I predict another 9/11 within a forseeable future and more repeats afterwards. This is a genie who cannot be put back into the bottle. Especially not by leaders who view power and political control as who has the most aricraft carriers and long range missles. I also see attacks upon American interests throughout the Middle East including within countries that were once our moderate allies. There will be a continual rise in religious fanaticism of the worse kind simply because there is nothing to counter it. The people who once admired us have been pushed aside by our own leaders who fight to receive the benediction of whatever current leader is calling the shots in Israel. (With more that a little help from his US compatriots)

Lnydon Johnson and Richard Nixon both failed on the mistake that was Vietnam because neither saw the conflict as dealing with real human beings. Grunts, slant eyes, and whoever else lived in far off Vietman couldn't possible be the equals to fine upstanding Church reared people who spoke English and carried the flag of truth and God's will. Bush is going to arrive at the same ending.

"The media, mostly controlled by extremely hard core pro Israeli and pro Zionism Jews, has made darn sure we are feed a steady diet which portrays the Arab and Muslim people as dirty, stupid, dishonest, ignorant, blood thirsty, backward physical and cultural rejects."

Tight Fit, I think your view here might have more to do with some personal feelings and blind acceptance of the liberal media bias myth than objective fact or even logical analysis.

Consider the following:

1. If hard core Jewish people are controlling the news media and therefore feeding the public with their biased views, wouldn't it be expected that there would be much more support from the "liberal media" regarding the change of the US's position on Israeli settlements? In fact, it has been the "liberal" media that has highlighted and questioned the wisdom of this dramatic shift in US policy. The Bush Administration is primarily responsible for this policy shift, and your first two paragraphs above sound exactly like what I've been reading in the "liberal" media questioning that wisdom.

2. Almost the exact same can be said for the the Iraq War. The "liberal" view has long questioned the potential consequences of a pre-emptive war and the motives of the Bush Administration. Many of the concerns raised prior to the war are unfortunately coming true, and at the time they were raised, many left of center (and even centrist and right of center!) were labeled as treasonous for unfair and improper interpretation of "comforting the enemy". The conservative rallying cries were "traitors!" and "Bush hate!" for this "liberal bias". From your portrayal of the media, one would expect a ringing endorsement from them for the invasion of Iraq with it's "dirty Arabs". In fact, it's been been the right which has been the most supportive of the invasion, with most of the support from the public stemming from what has turned out to be false premises.

3. If we are to assume as true your mostly liberal/Jewish media bias charge with their pro-Israel, anti-Arab views, then it should follow that there is a minority view (must be just the conversative journalists) that have more objective and balanced views regarding Israel and Arabs. Would you say the Washington Times or Heritage Foundation writers portray more accurate depictions of Israel and Arabs? How about other conservative commentators?

With the exception of your third paragraph, I agree with most of the rest of your post which has mirrored my own concerns that date back to before the war started. Ironically though, I would characterize your post (-no. 3) as farther to the left than my own views. Wouldn't that be unusual for someone unfamiliar with the history of your political posts to read this one and call you a Bush-hater with treasonous thoughts because you are questioning Bush's approach to terrorism and thereby weakening American resolve and comforting the enemy?

If you want to read some inflammatory comments regarding Arabs, check out Ann Coulter's¹ "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Or consider Bush's use of the term "crusade", both in a speech² and a recent fundraising letter³.

If you can find anything from the "liberal" media even close to being as anti-Arab as the above, I'd like to see it.

It's true that the festering hatred in the Middle East may breed more terrorists than we've ever seen, but if this happens, it won't be the "liberal media's" fault. This was the Bush Administration's War...Bush's "Pottery Barn".

¹National Review Online, "This Is War"
²The Christian Science Monitor, "Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists"
³Globeandmail.com, "Bush refers again to terrorism 'crusade'"

In many ways, the situation now is much more serious than Vietnam. We were afraid that the consequences of Vietname would be a domino effect of other nations falling to the Communists if we got out of Vietnam. We did, and it turned out to be a big 'who cares'. On the other hand, the Soviets were a very pragmatic enemy, they knew that atomic war would kill everyone, so instead they played a spy-vs-spy game with us (which I think the experts in both sides enjoyed).

HOWEVER, the current war is different - the enemy has no rules, and they will take the war to America again. As we radicalize the formerly subdued Iraqis (Saddam was basically a 'spy-vs-spy' Soviet wannabe), now we will have to deal with the consequences for a generation or more. I would not be surprised if Iraqis start showing up in America with bombs.

Note that I STILL don't see the Iraqis hanging in there, overt fighting with the US for the long haul, they will turn to overt terrorism instead.

This all sucks. Bush should be canned. I would call for his impeachment, but Cheney is worse. Colin Powell got it right.

d'Art, you have some good points. I'll agree that I tend to paint a broad brush. However, the socalled liberal media, and the conservative media also, are not always consistent in their beliefs. In fact, that's one of the most fun things about the extremes is when they get tangled up in their own ideology.

The part of the media that is filled with rabid Israeli supporters is not just liberal. The Wall Street Journal editorial board is normally quite conservative but on the issue of Israel they advocate essentially giving that country a blank check with the US taxpayer footing the bill.

For a short while they had a 30 minute afternoon program on CNBC which initially begin with your typical big business attitude to the world. However, as the drumbeats started towards invading Iraq, several of the daily panalists (Dorothy Rabiniwitz being one) could only discuss the need to destroy Iraq for the good of the world and the safety of Mother Israel.

This was mirrored with a nonstop succession of long tirade pieces in the op page from a series of hard core pro Israel spokespeople (all nomally American citizens though) about the need to eliminate Arab terrorism from the Middle East. Absolutely nothing was ever said about the role of present and past Israeli governments in actually deliberating formenting state sponsered terrorism to provoke Palestinian responses.

Another conservative show, also on CNBC, was and remains Kudlow and Cramer. This show during the period leading up to the actual invasion served as outlet for daily guests who all promoted the party line of pro Israel and anti Arab/Iraq/Saddam with numerous and unproved claims of direct ties between Al Queda and Saddam.

Once the actual invasion was imminent the background of the guests took a dramatic change. Whereas before they had all been people identified with dual American/Israeli citizenship (real or not) and heavily pro Jewish/Israeli groups the guests now became intermediaries. It was now a parade of government officials who claimed to speak for the American people.

It was interesting to note that once Baghdad fell these same programs suddenly had an influx of their old gung ho Israel visitors now claiming the need to continue on into invading Syria to "finish the job". However, this time they were unable to gather any actual government support and the whole idea rapidly petered out.

To round this up, I have felt from the beginning that this war against terrorism that we are supposedly fighting is actually a creation of oil interests and the pro Israeli lobby which is made up of mostly wealthy American Jews who support the notion of a Zionist state. If you claim the first you are branded a liberal who thinks we should all ride bikes and have windmills outside our homes. If you claim the second you are labeled anti sementic and carefully but throughly marginalized by the same liberal media that would applaud you for being anti big business.

And thus, is the contridiction of the liberal media on this whole war. They can't get enough of the idea that greedy big businessmen are exploiting the poor of the world while ruining its ecosystem. At the same time they hit a road block on anything that deals with their carefully constructed image of a democratic and socially progressive Zionist society amidst the backwardness and evil that surrounds it.

Could you imagine what would happen with these people if #1) we completely pulled out of Iraq in disgrace and #2) Saddam managed to pull an escape, return, and assume power once again with the support of most of the Iraqi population? I don't wish for either of these things to happen but it would be hysterical to see the instant u-turn of this group.

I was just watching Fox News, and someone there was ranting about how evil Al Jazeera was. They claimed that they went to the Al Jazeera site and found nothing about children being killed in the Basra bombings. Out of curiousity, I checked, and here's what they say:

"Three women and two children are among the 25 wounded taken in at another hospital in Basra.

But many more children are believed dead or seriously wounded as two school buses were caught up in the blasts."

Al Jazeera's web site is only a little more pro-Arab than Reuters or any other international news outlet that doesn't parrot the Bush party line.

"To round this up, I have felt from the beginning that this war against terrorism that we are supposedly fighting is actually a creation of oil interests and the pro Israeli lobby which is made up of mostly wealthy American Jews who support the notion of a Zionist state. If you claim the first you are branded a liberal who thinks we should all ride bikes and have windmills outside our homes. If you claim the second you are labeled anti sementic and carefully but throughly marginalized by the same liberal media that would applaud you for being anti big business."

On "...creation of oil interests...branded a liberal...":
What I found so disturbing about this Iraq war was that it went a lot further than calling people liberal hippie tree-huggers. The libel and slander that was flying about painted many people opposed to or who questioned the war as unpatriotic and treasonous. I did not notice this coming much from "mainstream media" as a whole (although some because mainstream media outlets often include conservative voices), but it definitely was more prominent on "conservative media" outlets.

On "...notion of a Zionist state...labeled anti sementic[sic]...":
To be honest, I think this is understandable. Writing about race/nationality/religion/etc... can be trickier because prejudice is still alive and well today despite the integration of minorities and different backgrounds into our society and their many success stories. As for antisemitism, I don't think you would deny that there are people out there that are very strongly anti-semetic, so even if one is not, it becomes difficult to make a statement about Jewish people without sounding as though you hold that prejudice, especially to the anonymous reader that cannot gauge your tone, inflection, personality, or background.

Furthermore, the notion that there is this vast conspiracy where Jewish owners maintain some kind of well-coordinated stranglehold over mainstream media and their network of thousands of publications, editors, and journalists to promote a Zionist agenda seems incredibly far-fetched to people such as myself who view the media as well-balanced, if not in fact leaning to the right.

"And thus, is the contridiction of the liberal media on this whole war. They can't get enough of the idea that greedy big businessmen are exploiting the poor of the world while ruining its ecosystem."

I consider this statement a perfect example of one of the consequences of buying into the "liberal media bias" myth. I've read quite a few viewpoints along the lines of "greedy big businessmen...exploiting the poor of the world while ruining its ecosystem." In fact, it's been common in conservative publications to accuse people saying this (including journalists of the "liberal media") of being "liberal hippie tree-huggers", "enemy comforting traitors", "Bush-haters", or all of the above.

One who believes in the liberal media bias myth has already to some extent discounted at least 50% of the news out there, probably closer to 80% since the myth purports that most major media outlets are part of the liberal media. Logically, what media is left? Answer...conservative media...with the mistaken assumption that it is not biased.

I would not argue that there is much published that is not biased in one way or another, but I disagree strongly that there is some liberal agenda that comes from high above that dominates most of the media. The biases I believe exist are more subtle and many, they are shaped by the experiences and beliefs of the individual journalists and the economic interests of their publications. Your best chance of seeing through these biases is to read the perceptions and arguments of both sides, but one cannot do this adequately if he is already inclined to doubt 50%-80% of the news out there.

Explorer, I don't see the much of a threat coming from Iraqis in the near future, although I agree with your premise that Iraqis are much more likely to become terrorists now than before the war.

I think the real threat is the entire Middle East region, not from any particular country, but from those that have a segment of their population that hate and feel humiliated and threatened by Israel and the United States, which I believe is pretty much all of them. What I think is really scary for US in particular (world travelers and expatriates) is that American interests abroad will be much easier to target than our homeland.

Check out this letter from an Egyptian academic and writer published in Dar al hayat:
http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/04-2004/Article-20040422-0f353b9c-c0a8-01ed-0029-bea3e76ab2f9/story.html

Last paragraph:
President Bush thinks he is making fun of us. He did not know that this time everyone felt deeply humiliated, especially that the majority of Egyptians believe President Mubarak is sincere in seeking real peace. The question is: if the U.S. is treating a country that launched the peace process and betted on an honest American role the way it did, how should we expect the others to be treated? Bush's letter to Sharon is a war declaration on moderates in the region and a call for radicalism and terror. It will definitely get what it wants.

What I want to know is why so many Bush supporters are Afgan doves. Remember, folks, these are the people who trained the guys who blew up the WTC, and this is where OBL lives. Why did Bush divert $700 million from the search for Bin Laden? Why did Bush let OBL slip out of Bora Bora? Why aren't those 134,000 US troops in Afganistan, finding Bin Laden? I don't get it.

It kind of reminds me of the guy who was searching under a street light for his car keys, even though he lost them somewhere else, because the light was better where he was looking. I understand that OBL is hard to find, but he ain't in Iraq.

One more point; the closer we get to OBL, the more Chechens we find in Afganistan. When are we going to recognize that the Chechens get their support from Bin Laden (and vice versa) and recognize that Chechnia, if independent, would be a terrorist state. Instead, we are playing some Great Powers game with Russia over Chechnia, and letting the terrorists win.

Another bad day. Apart from the usual carnage, Al Qaida is putting their mark on the situation again:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/43617F94-ED23-4205-A538-C3445A61AB0F.htm

My general impression is that military style resistence is the work of leftovers from Saddam's army, mostly Sunnis.

The Shiias are fairly obvious.

Car bombs that take out large numbers of civilians are the work of foreigners, ie Al Qaida. So are ops like today, that attack infrastructure. This is different from Vietname because there is daily guerilla fighting plus terrorism all at once. Since those Al Qaida guys are basically evil madmen, they will likely hit a target that will take out a lot of our guys at once, and that will start no end of recriminations here. Some people are happy that the war is drawing a lot of terrorists where we have soldiers, but there is a down side to that equation, too - our guys are where there a lot of terrorists.

And now trhe latest and greatest is that the Marines are busy trying to "hand over" the seige of Fallujah to an "Iraqi Army". The kicker is that even the Pentagon admits that there is no "Iraqi Army" and that they are froming one on the fly from "good" ex-soldiers in the old army and Saddam's "good generals... tehy were supposed to have a battalion formed by Friday! Of course, considering that the "Army" that we formed on four months (the Iraqi Self-Defense force, or whatever they called it), basically disbanded at the first sound of gunfire, how long do you think this two-day wonder army is going to last? What a joke, whoever thought this scheme up is just trying to put up a nice-looking smoke screeen while the Marines retreat... also known as "strategic redeployment."

OK, all things considered, getting the F- out of Fallujah (and Iraq) is the only thing we CAN do, but it just underscores the whole futility. Why did Bush put OUR Marines in a postion where first they are seen as jack-booted occupiers and now the world gets to see them retreating? Yes, I've made a lot of jarhead jokes on this forum (and other places), but deep down I love them and am very proud of them. And it hurts any TRUE patriot to see the Marines forced into an untenable postion for NOTHING....

BS

Can someone please explain what happened to our original reason for attacking Fallujuah - to find those guilty of killing the four US contractors?

The only thing untenable about their position is that they would have to kill lots of innocents to get the assholes who are trying to kill any American possible. One commander on the scene the other night told a CNN reporter "We've been playing patty-cake with these insurgents. We haven't even begun offensive operations." No doubt our guys could go in and obliterate the entire town, but that's not what they went there for.

Of course the real question is - aside from getting rid of Saddam - what the hell did we go there for? It wasn't oil. Even before the Gulf War in '91 the US only got 3% of its oil from Iraq. I think Bush just had a personal vendetta against Saddam, and decided to carry it out no matter the cost.

I disagree - control of oil is more important than the short term profits from selling oil. Iraq represents the world's second largest reserves of oil. Control of those reserves allows for control of much of the market. To wit, with Saddam's oil off the market, the price of oil has spiked to all-time highs, leading to a windfall for US domestic producers, who (surprise, surprise) are Bush's biggest backers.

This is not to say that getting rid of Saddam was not a factor.

Last note: Bush today expressed 'disgust' at treatment of Iraqi prisoners by US prison guards. Perhaps I missed the part where he thanked the Arab media for breaking this story to the world.

Explorer and Phoenix:

What happened to our original reason for attacking Fallujah? Since when was that "reason" anything other than window dressing? How are you going to find a dozen faceless, nameless hooligans in a city of 200,000 hostile people using a marine brigade? Marines are for controlling territory, not police work - and impossible police work at taht, as teh "assholes" who killed and mutilated "our" mercenaries are by now long gone. So that leaves one and only one reason for our attack on Fallujah - revenge. Just like the Nazis torching an entire village to avenge the death of one german soldier in WWII, that's what we're doing in Fallujah. Classic counter-insurgency, fight fire with more fire.

And I called the Marines position untenable becuase they are damned if they do, damned if they dont - as you pointed out, we could flatten the town in an hour, we could root out every gun-toting mujahadein in a day... but at what cost? The entire arab world going apeshit. So instead the Marines sit and get shot at for nothing (10 more dead today). The bastards who put our Marines there in the first place - all sitting nice and safe in Washington - are to blame.

OK, enough ranting for today, next thing you know, I'll wind up moving to the Phillipines...

BS

In general, I don't see the Iraqis fighting us too much longer. I am surprised that they have been fighting this long. The Iraqis specialize in "spray and pray", they get all excited about killing American s, pop up, shoot wildly, and then hope they got someone. Once we starting shooting back, their excitement diminishes, and they think twice about doing that again.

I think that once our troops take on most of the Iraqi fighters once, the number of Iraqis who will continue to fight will dwindle. The only wild card is whether Al Qaida will be successful in a big hit against us that will once again get the Iraqis all excited.

This will get you guys going: apparently, the lead General in the Iraqi prisoner scandal is a woman, and Arab TV is showing video of US female soldiers humiliating naked Iraqi soldiers.

Explorer:

On topic A, you are right in general, however the problem appears to be that nearly every able bodied male in Iraq is now willing and hungry to jump up and take a few pot-shots at our troops. The only way to handle that is either to leave Iraq or to stage a few Fallujah-style "examples" where we kill so many of their men that they lose their appetite for shooting at us. But escalating violence will only spiral out of control.. what we do in Fallujah is felt not only in Bagdad but also in Tehran, Pakistan, Cairo.. even in the arab slums of Europe! Heatrs and minds indeed!

Which brings us to topic #2... the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners (especially the humiliation - some of the photos posted had female Amreican soldiers humiliating the Iraqis) do us Americans immense harm. The Pentagon is, predicatbly, distancing themsleves from the perpetrators, saying these are "individual" acts, nto condoned, will be punished, etc. As if the Arab World beleives that... even looking at teh whole mess from unbiased eyes, it's very hard to believe that all this wasn't condoned by those in charge at the prison and higher up. Oh, and we're using mercenaries to run these interrogations, mercenaries who conveniently are not answerable to the UCMJ... who thought that up? Hint - thye're sitting in that funny-shaped building across the Potomac.

This "scandal" is a real bomb wating to explode in our faces - could we have handed Al Quaeda a better recruiting video? could we have given the Iraqi insurgents a better rallying call? and what will be the effect of this on our troops? "Hey guys, you are fighting and dying so that the REMF's can torture prisoners and smear your honor" I am real interested in how the White House handles this.. so far, its' all over the European newspapers and being kept pretty quiet over here (even though CBS originally "broke" the story). Prediction - Condi Rice or one of the other toadies will declare "you can't catch terrorists (make an omlette) without breaking a few eggs" They forget that you can't fight for "freedom, democracy, and honor" without being free, democratic, and honorable....

BS

P.S. Sorry about all the self-righteous indignation today, but the last week's worth of headlines has me really disgusted.

The photo of the female soldier gesturing in front of the naked Iraqi? Kinda funny, but man, that will really get the rag pickers steamed! Infidel American woman laughing at the demasculated Arab man - what a symbol. The imams will be beside themsolves for weeks over that one :-)

it seems to me that you actually forgot that youre occypying a foreign country.so according to the u.n. they have all the legal right to shoot at any american who is there uninvited,or english,danish polish.if you u.s. government send troops to another country dont expect the red carpet treatment.and if you go to a country as you occypie i think you are pretty much responsible for what happens.
iggy sca.

Iggy:

So, at what mosque do you worship?

Explorer

non!i left the protestant church and joined the asa believers. if as you a soldier you going to an occupied country the chanses being shot at must be be quite high.going there as civilian bordes to sillienes
iggy sca

Just want to wish everyone a very happy
Mission Accomplished Day





From our illustrious "war president"



Freeing Iraq




and keeping our homeland safe from those muslim extremists.

I don't know about this war or peace thing, all I know is I want more pictures of naked ladies and fewer pictures of naked Iraqis.

Yes, but I don't want to see THAT lady naked, please.

>>I don't know about this war or peace thing, all I know is I want more pictures of naked ladies and fewer pictures of naked Iraqis.<<

I've tried to get Kerry to adopt this as his campaign slogan, but, so far he hasn't bit.

http://www.catsprn.com/cowboys.htm

Just a little something to really irritate all of you liberals out there, brought to you by your local gun-toting, ultra-conservative, god-fearing, non-american, flag-waving libertarian.