Progress in Iraq

Wow - you are gifted with 20/20 hindsight ability to call things correctly. What an amazing individual you are.

Hindsight ??????? Get real Redleg .
Its foresight , as in looking at what is likely to happen , the same in Iraq as the situation in Afghanistan .
It isn't hard you know , it only takes a little bit of thinking .
Go back and look through the topics .:book:

News to me - but then I don't watch television to get my news either.
So none of your news sources carried the White Houses appeal for donations then ?
Maybe that is why they only managed to raise 600 dollars .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wow - you are gifted with 20/20 hindsight ability to call things correctly. What an amazing individual you are.

Hindsight ??????? Get real Redleg .
Its foresight , as in looking at what is likely to happen , the same in Iraq as the situation in Afghanistan .
It isn't hard you know , it only takes a little bit of thinking .
Go back and look through the topics .:book:

---

Why don't you look back through and enlighten us with your wisdom.

Or is it just easier to spout negative opinion after the fact?

Quote:

---

News to me - but then I don't watch television to get my news either.
So none of your news sources carried the White Houses appeal for donations then ?
Maybe that is why they only managed to raise 600 dollars .

---

Or maybe the context of the appeal is not what you believe it to be. Lets see Bill Berkowitz's article might which is probably the source of your comment.

http://www.afsc.org/iraq/news/2005/0...al-ing-war.htm

Quote:

---

Bill Berkowitz reveals an initiative by USAID to engage the U.S. public in Iraq by asking them to help privately fund relief projects. US policy has disabled and prevented humanitarian agencies and international institutions from working in Iraq, the effect has been to militarize relief. He mentions AFSC and the position on compensation. If you did not receive the Peace by Pieces earlier you should really look at it.

---

The USAID announcement

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2005/pr050909.html

You might want to research what it really is since its part of an overall program that private citizens donate to projects that is sponsored by the USAID.

Quote:

---

GlobalGiving's mission is to build a highly efficient marketplace where individuals, corporations, and other institutions can find and fund projects around the world. Since GlobalGiving launched in 2002, it has facilitated the flow of more than $2 million to over 400 projects.

---

Quote:

---

GlobalGiving was sub-contracted by USAID to develop IraqPartnership. GlobalGiving develops similar customized giving portals to corporate, nonprofit, and official customers, and also supports a general site for international giving (www.globalgiving.com) that is accessible by anyone interested in giving directly to projects.

---

THe web site

http://www.iraqpartnership.org/cb/iraq/index.html

Or is it just easier to spout negative opinion after the fact?

Since it is the same "negative" opinion from the beginning then how can it be "after the fact" Red ?
Or maybe the context of the appeal is not what you believe it to be. Lets see Bill Berkowitz's article might which is probably the source of your comment.

Nope , it was Scott Mccellans announcment that was my first source , and yes I have viewed the USAid site and do know what it is and what it does .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Or is it just easier to spout negative opinion after the fact?

Since it is the same "negative" opinion from the beginning then how can it be "after the fact" Red ?

---

Just giving you some of your own arguementive style.

Quote:

---

Or maybe the context of the appeal is not what you believe it to be. Lets see Bill Berkowitz's article might which is probably the source of your comment.

Nope , it was Scott Mccellans announcment that was my first source , and yes I have viewed the USAid site and do know what it is and what it does .

---

And you seem to think it has alternative motives then what is stated - how very negative of you.

Just noticed that the forum will only go back 79 pages , so you cannot access my posts from before the invasion , the furthest back I could get was the assault on Fallujah .

And you seem to think it has alternative motives then what is stated - how very negative of you
Alternative motives ????
The government has asked its citizens to make donations to a Governmnet agency to help fund reconstuction and development in Iraq .
As the Government allocated a huge sum of money to cover these expenses already then why is there the need for extra funding ?
Because...... the administration had got its sums very wrong ....there has been a large amount of fraud and theft .....money allocated for work is being diverted to other purposes....expected revenue to the provisional/interim government has failed to materialise .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just noticed that the forum will only go back 79 pages , so you cannot access my posts from before the invasion , the furthest back I could get was the assault on Fallujah .

---

Now that is just to darn bad..

Quote:

---

And you seem to think it has alternative motives then what is stated - how very negative of you
Alternative motives ????
The government has asked its citizens to make donations to a Governmnet agency to help fund reconstuction and development in Iraq .

---

For certain spefic projects. (the part you are leaving out)

Quote:

---

As the Government allocated a huge sum of money to cover these expenses already then why is there the need for extra funding ?

---

Maybe because the expense is greater then what is planned.

Quote:

---

Because...... the administration had got its sums very wrong ....there has been a large amount of fraud and theft .....money allocated for work is being diverted to other purposes....expected revenue to the provisional/interim government has failed to materialise .

---

there you go - that is the reason why they are asking. So what is your complaint again? Or is it just that you want to see only the negative in everything?

Now that is just to darn bad..

Would you like me to direct you to another forum where you can read lots of my posts from before , during and after the invasion Redleg , on both Iraq and Afghanistan ?
The main focus was on lack of planning , containment of the inevitable local conflict and post war restructuring .
Oh and the fact that they was rushing into an unneccasary mess over a pack of lies .

Maybe because the expense is greater then what is planned.

Ah ....bad planning again , lack of foresight .
So what is your complaint again?
See above ~;)

I'm not going to wade in between Redleg and Tribesman, but I would like to point out that well before the war happened, many people (some within the US military) pointed out that Cheney and Rumsfeld's predictions were far too optomistic. When Cheney implied that the Americans would be greeted with 'flowers and candy' in the streets, many people, including myself, thought he had gone insane. The military's own estimates, from men like Shinseki, talked about 'several hundred thousand' US troops being needed. This is not hindsight. Many within the US military questioned Rumsfeld's 'war on the cheap' approach, and worried that there were not enough boots on the ground. Many analysts predicted an insurgency. And many laypeople understood that the Americans would not be greeted with flowers and candy.

I saw an interesting interview with a TV reporter the other day-- i can't remember which US network he was from, unfortunately. But he described a revealing incident. He noted that an Iraqi government commando team was about to go into an insurgent stronghold, as US military personnel looked on. The commando team was yelling in arabic to psyche itself up before charging in. The US commander asked what they were shouting. The translator replied, "Death to Sunni Arabs!"

The only possible outcome I see in Iraq right now is civil war, and I think its probably only a year or two away.

Actually Redleg, to be perfectly honest-- watching what was happening in Iraq, it was about one month after the fall of Baghdad that I felt there would surely be an insurgency.

I wanted to be wrong, but I wasn't. But it was clear to me at that very early date that things were being horribly bungled. That's some kind of sight but it sure ain't hindsight.

DA

It's weird.
Right-wing polticians underestimate potential problems in Iraq, or outright deny there are problems, whereas there was a lot of evidence at all phases of the war to show the opposite; basically just sticking their collective heads in the sand.

Left-wing politicians seem to believe all problems can be solved by withdrawing and leaving behind something of a mess, and spend most of the time slinging mud at past decisions; this doesn't help anyone in the slightest, least of all Iraqis.

Both pro- and anti-war politicians seem to lack the ability to take any kind of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and act according to how the situation really is, rather than engaging in factionalist politics and living in their little dream worlds. Sad, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Actually Redleg, to be perfectly honest-- watching what was happening in Iraq, it was about one month after the fall of Baghdad that I felt there would surely be an insurgency.

I wanted to be wrong, but I wasn't. But it was clear to me at that very early date that things were being horribly bungled. That's some kind of sight but it sure ain't hindsight.

DA

---

I got concerned a bit earlier, when the Museum in Baghdad was sacked, and I heard the Admin and Military response to it: they couldn't maintain security. Simply put, we didn't have enough boots on the ground. McCain and others were right. The Administration tried to do this on the cheap. Even now I am constantly hearing that we have problems with insurgents re-establishing themselves when we leave after a sweep. That is a clear sign that we haven't had the requisite strength for the occupation.

The unfortunate thing is the lack of adequate security sent the signal that an insurgency could and would fluorish. It is one of those things where you only get one chance to show you have control. If you fail on that first attempt, you are screwed.

The unfortunate thing is the lack of adequate security sent the signal that an insurgency could and would fluorish.
A knock on effect of the lack of security is that vital reconstruction either cannot be done , is destroyed/damaged soon after it is done , has so much of its cash allocation spent on expensive mercenary security or moved to other budgets that there is not enough money to do the work in the firstplace .
Or for example , it is done in such a slapdash manner that it remains standing just about long enough to lodge the payment , before it falls apart .(though actually the biggest example of that was in Afghanistan not Iraq)

Both pro- and anti-war politicians seem to lack the ability to take any kind of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and act according to how the situation really is, rather than engaging in factionalist politics and living in their little dream worlds. Sad, really.
Thats politicians for ya Geoffrey~:argue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now that is just to darn bad..

Would you like me to direct you to another forum where you can read lots of my posts from before , during and after the invasion Redleg , on both Iraq and Afghanistan ?

---

By all means - I rather enjoy reading your negative opinions on things. Its rather well humorous.

Quote:

---

The main focus was on lack of planning , containment of the inevitable local conflict and post war restructuring .

---

And when you find them - you will find I was rather critical myself of the number of troops being used - as being to small. However don't let that interfer with your negative spin on everything.

Quote:

---

Oh and the fact that they was rushing into an unneccasary mess over a pack of lies .

---

Can you prove they were lies - because its an easy word to say - but one that has not been shown to be fact. But don't let that interfer with how you like to only spin the negative.

Quote:

---

Maybe because the expense is greater then what is planned.

Ah ....bad planning again , lack of foresight .
So what is your complaint again?
See above ~;)

---

Again what is your complaint - I all see is negative opinion on everything you post on. ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I'm not going to wade in between Redleg and Tribesman, but I would like to point out that well before the war happened, many people (some within the US military) pointed out that Cheney and Rumsfeld's predictions were far too optomistic. When Cheney implied that the Americans would be greeted with 'flowers and candy' in the streets, many people, including myself, thought he had gone insane. The military's own estimates, from men like Shinseki, talked about 'several hundred thousand' US troops being needed. This is not hindsight. Many within the US military questioned Rumsfeld's 'war on the cheap' approach, and worried that there were not enough boots on the ground. Many analysts predicted an insurgency. And many laypeople understood that the Americans would not be greeted with flowers and candy.

---

Bingo - go back and find some of my post and thoughts about the use of only three United States divisions and one British division.

Quote:

---

I saw an interesting interview with a TV reporter the other day-- i can't remember which US network he was from, unfortunately. But he described a revealing incident. He noted that an Iraqi government commando team was about to go into an insurgent stronghold, as US military personnel looked on. The commando team was yelling in arabic to psyche itself up before charging in. The US commander asked what they were shouting. The translator replied, "Death to Sunni Arabs!"

---

Interesting - is it because that the people they happen to be fighting consist mostley of Sunni Arabs?

Quote:

---

The only possible outcome I see in Iraq right now is civil war, and I think its probably only a year or two away.

---

That is a distinct possiblity given the current political and religious/ethnic make-up of the Iraqi provisional government. Given that they can not really agree on thier constitution, nor many other aspects of their own self-governing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

It's weird.
Right-wing polticians underestimate potential problems in Iraq, or outright deny there are problems, whereas there was a lot of evidence at all phases of the war to show the opposite; basically just sticking their collective heads in the sand.

---

Correct - war never goes according to plan - and to pretend that it does is the failure of the Bush Adminstration.

Quote:

---

Left-wing politicians seem to believe all problems can be solved by withdrawing and leaving behind something of a mess, and spend most of the time slinging mud at past decisions; this doesn't help anyone in the slightest, least of all Iraqis.

---

However the slinging of mud does have some effects. It polarizes the two sides into their camps. Prevents discourse on how to solve the issues other then requiring the troops to be withdrawn. It allows them to feel good about themselves because the right-wing aspects have been shown to be either mismanaged or wrong in their interpations or implentation.

Quote:

---

Both pro- and anti-war politicians seem to lack the ability to take any kind of responsibility for the situation in Iraq and act according to how the situation really is, rather than engaging in factionalist politics and living in their little dream worlds. Sad, really.

---

Actually not completely correct - the United States and Great Britian have the obligation to fix what they have broken. That regardless of how you feel about the United States forcing the removing of Saddam's regime is indeed something that must be accomplished. Could it have been better? Sure - but only presenting an idealogue viewpoint on the issue is fun to counter when its such an obvious one at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Interesting - is it because that the people they happen to be fighting consist mostley of Sunni Arabs?

---

Yes, it was a Sunni stronghold. The reporter was saying that although the fledgling government is trying to be ethnically diverse, in practical terms the different groups stick together and are still more loyal to tribe/religion/ethnicity than to the state of Iraq. Much of the country, he opined, was being ruled by tribal or religious militias and mafias.

Quote:

---

That is a distinct possiblity given the current political and religious/ethnic make-up of the Iraqi provisional government. Given that they can not really agree on thier constitution, nor many other aspects of their own self-governing.

---

The vote on October 15th is going to be very important either way it goes, I think.

Negative Red , how about something positive .... the President has asked the Prime Minister to stand down , the Prime Minister has changed the rules on voting for the constitution , Coilition troops are on their fourth conscutive attempt to try and clear up a few villages and one of the Shia Militia(the ones who last week were apparently holding coilition troops prisoner) are doing the polices job by rescuing a captured cabinet minister .
Oops nothing positive there , maybe a change of policy would bring more postive events to write about .

Can you prove they were lies - because its an easy word to say - but one that has not been shown to be fact.
Where do you want to start ?...
"We know he has weapons of mass destruction , we know where these weapons are ....and thats a ...err....fact" good old Rummy eh ~;)
A slice of Yellowcake anyone ? 45 minutes is a very short time isn't it ? Nice pictures of mobile chemical weapons labs ?
All proven false , as are a multitude of others .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Negative Red , how about something positive .... the President has asked the Prime Minister to stand down , the Prime Minister has changed the rules on voting for the constitution , Coilition troops are on their fourth conscutive attempt to try and clear up a few villages and one of the Shia Militia(the ones who last week were apparently holding coilition troops prisoner) are doing the polices job by rescuing a captured cabinet minister .
Oops nothing positive there , maybe a change of policy would bring more postive events to write about .

---

Maybe you are just looking in all the wrong places.

Quote:

---

Can you prove they were lies - because its an easy word to say - but one that has not been shown to be fact.
Where do you want to start ?...
"We know he has weapons of mass destruction , we know where these weapons are ....and thats a ...err....fact" good old Rummy eh ~;)
A slice of Yellowcake anyone ? 45 minutes is a very short time isn't it ? Nice pictures of mobile chemical weapons labs ?
All proven false , as are a multitude of others .

---

All proven false - is correct. Now prove that they were lies. You know what constitutes a lie now don't you? It has something to do with willfully knowing what you are saying is wrong.

Now can you prove what they stated is a lie, or is it only that what was stated has shown to be false.

Maybe you are just looking in all the wrong places.

Wrong places ? OK lets try the Iraqi interior ministry for some good news....Foriegn fighters are leaving Iraq .....great news....oops it carries on .....they are taking their expertise that they have developed in Iraq and are going to spread it elsewhere .

Now can you prove what they stated is a lie, or is it only that what was stated has shown to be false.
What????the Niger documemnts were known to be forgeries , but they were still included in the claims regardless . That is an example of an outright lie . As was the 45 minute claim , they took a true statement , removed all the specifics and changed the context . As for Rummys comment , he describes it at as viewing things through a prism , when something passes through a prism it is distorted , even if what enters the prism is true then only using one facet to get your results is a distorion of the truth , distortion of the truth is a lie . The photos Powell put forward at the UN were said to be sequencial , in reality they were individual photos taken months apart .

Here is my final and standing opinion on the matter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

If we start fighting a government that WE instituted, Iraq will compltely go to crap.

We will lose all legtimicay and have to leave immediatley.

Then Iraq will suffer a horrible civil war. The Government will totally collapse and their will be no law, just regional strongmen.

The Kurds will declare independence in the North, drawing Turkey in to brutally squash it before Turkish Kurds attempt to secede.

The Sunnis will attempt to reassert their former authority by waging a genocidal war against the Shiites. Iran, mostly shiite, will get involved because they no longer have a reason not to. They still have scars from the Iraq/Iran war and will happily destroy a weakened Sunni power base.

Then the terrorists will develop new tactics in this messy environment and export this to other middle east countries in order to destabilize the region further. The Saudi Kingdom will be threatened by internal jihadists supported by foriegn terrorists.

Meanwhile, oil prices will go through the roof. Western economies will take a huge hit and inflation will soar.

With the world in chaos, China will seize the opportunity to invade Taiwan. The United States will be forced by treaty to support Taiwan and threaten military action against China. China will give us the finger and we will simultaneously invade Taiwan to liberate it and boycott all Chinese products.

Western economies will spiral further down due to the lack of cheap goods as terrorists export violence to the rest of Europe. EDIT: Pakistan will seize Kashmir. Then China, Iran, and Pakistan will declare a nuclear alliance. India will seek help from the U.S.

The U.S. and Europe will be unable to fight the middle and far east at the same time and institue conscription. A global conflict will ensue as the U.S. and Europe invade China and Iran.

Russia will be forced to make a decision, join Chinese Alliance or join Europe.

Urban battlefield tactics will be completely unnegotiable without civilan Casulaites. The west will be forced into true attrition warfare and purposely kill civilians.

Palestinains will dance in the streets. Liberals will scream that the U.S. is Evil. Bush will go down in history as the man who started WW3 with a preemptive invasion into a country without WMD or foriegn terrorists.

---

And may monkeys dance on all our graves.

Here is my final and standing opinion on the matter:

Not bad divinus , but I doubt the India /China /Pakistan alliance , all three have long standing border disputes/occupation of territory and all three have been at war with each other .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Here is my final and standing opinion on the matter:

Not bad divinus , but I doubt the India /China /Pakistan alliance , all three have long standing border disputes/occupation of territory and all three have been at war with each other .

---

You read my thing wrong. I said Pakistan, IRAN, and China will Ally, while India will seek our help. This is a real possibility if you look up Paki-Chinese relations. The only real conflict in that region is Indo-Paki over Kashmir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Maybe you are just looking in all the wrong places.

Wrong places ? OK lets try the Iraqi interior ministry for some good news....Foriegn fighters are leaving Iraq .....great news....oops it carries on .....they are taking their expertise that they have developed in Iraq and are going to spread it elsewhere .

---

Ah look still only seeing the negative in everything you look for regarding the situation in Iraq. What a wonderful world you must live in.

Quote:

---

Now can you prove what they stated is a lie, or is it only that what was stated has shown to be false.
What????the Niger documemnts were known to be forgeries , but they were still included in the claims regardless . That is an example of an outright lie . As was the 45 minute claim , they took a true statement , removed all the specifics and changed the context . As for Rummys comment , he describes it at as viewing things through a prism , when something passes through a prism it is distorted , even if what enters the prism is true then only using one facet to get your results is a distorion of the truth , distortion of the truth is a lie . The photos Powell put forward at the UN were said to be sequencial , in reality they were individual photos taken months apart .

---

Then maybe you should become a lawyer and try to get them all brought up on charges. Try Tony Blair first since he would be a closer and most likely easier choice to get convicted if a criminal act has been done. ~:eek:

It seems no-one is convince that the evidence you mentioned is a out right lie. Several investigations have been done - in two countries - and look both governments are still standing - and no one has been convicted of lieing. So try again with statements that have not been shown to be lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then maybe you should become a lawyer and try to get them all brought up on charges. Try Tony Blair first since he would be a closer and most likely easier choice to get convicted if a criminal act has been done. ~:eek:

It seems no-one is convince that the evidence you mentioned is a out right lie. Several investigations have been done - in two countries - and look both governments are still standing - and no one has been convicted of lieing. So try again with statements that have not been shown to be lies.

---

Convicted of lying? ~D

What kind of silly new crimes is this one? You can't be prosecuted for lying, can you? ~:handball:

If both UK and Us administration were not lying, they were still foolish and incompetent. I wonder if I would not prefer liars.

Otherwise.... it's not hindsight... Many people were opposing the war, and that was not out of love for Saddam, but mainly because the current situation was bound to happen. You seem to regret we got no access to backroom archive: I think it's mercifull, for that would not be a pretty sight for pro war advocate if those were raised by a necromantic bump.

Quote:

---

If you focus on that the United States screwed up because of a lack of proper planning of Occupation and fixing Iraq after we broke it - then I might just jump on the bandwagon - but going into Iraq to remove Saddam was the correct thing to do in my opinion. So why would I change my opinion on that because the adminstration and the military has made a mess of the occupation.

---

Noone liked Saddam in power. There are many other regime I don't like. But I also know that, sometimes, the cost of removal is too high, or that the alternative is no better.
War got the inconvenience of increasing the removal cost, and degrading the qualities of alternative. It's not news, it's been like this for a very long time, and Irak is no exception.
It would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991; no question about that; the case was clearer, and support from country like Syria or Saudi Arabia easier to get, and there were a real insurgency that we let down.

It was probably the right thing to do back then... But that does not make it right 10 years later.
It's a mistake to correct mistakes 10 years later.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

Convicted of lying? ~D

What kind of silly new crimes is this one? You can't be prosecuted for lying, can you? ~:handball:

---

Sure you can - what do you think Clinton was accused of? You might want to check on the defination of perjury. Here I will help you out since you seem to be unaware of the possiblity

Quote:

---

Perjury: the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing

---

Quote:

---

If both UK and Us administration were not lying, they were still foolish and incompetent. I wonder if I would not prefer liars.

---

Your getting warm - foolish incompetenet and wanting to believe the information on its face value without looking at other sources of information. Something many here are just of guilty of doing.

Quote:

---

Otherwise.... it's not hindsight... Many people were opposing the war, and that was not out of love for Saddam, but mainly because the current situation was bound to happen. You seem to regret we got no access to backroom archive: I think it's mercifull, for that would not be a pretty sight for pro war advocate if those were raised by a necromantic bump.

---

I don't regret it at all - its called sacrasm. And many who opposed the war were not thinking about the current situation - they were only opposing it because they disagreed with the necessity of the conflict. Again hindsight is always 20/20.

Quote:

---

Noone liked Saddam in power. There are many other regime I don't like. But I also know that, sometimes, the cost of removal is too high, or that the alternative is no better.
War got the inconvenience of increasing the removal cost, and degrading the qualities of alternative. It's not news, it's been like this for a very long time, and Irak is no exception.
It would have been better to remove Saddam in 1991; no question about that; the case was clearer, and support from country like Syria or Saudi Arabia easier to get, and there were a real insurgency that we let down.

It was probably the right thing to do back then... But that does not make it right 10 years later.
It's a mistake to correct mistakes 10 years later.

Louis,

---

So you would of supported allowing the sanctions to end, for Saddam to rebuild his WMD programs, and to continue to terrorize his own people?

You would of allowed his regime to remain unaccountable for the cease fire conditions that he violated - to include the returning and accounting of several thousand Kuwaiti citizens that were taken from their homes by Iraqi forces? And so many more little things that so many would just like to ignore.

How very noble of you.


(and yes I am being sacrastic once again)

Ah look still only seeing the negative in everything you look for regarding the situation in Iraq.
OK Red , post some positive things about Iraq . There was a topic about it a while ago , it turned out to be a very short topic .
What a wonderful world you must live in.

Same world as you live in , but it isn't my countries military that are getting killed in a war that they cannot win yet cannot afford to lose , and it isn't my government pouring my tax money into the quicksand .(In fact the cute whores are making money out of it , an advantage I suppose of prostituting themselves into the fringes of the coilition of the willing)
That is why you are so desperate to see it as positive , because to admit the failings would be to admit that your soldiers lives and your money are being wasted .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah look still only seeing the negative in everything you look for regarding the situation in Iraq.
OK Red , post some positive things about Iraq . There was a topic about it a while ago , it turned out to be a very short topic .

---

Probably because of all the doom saying by you. ~;)

Quote:

---

What a wonderful world you must live in.

Same world as you live in , but it isn't my countries military that are getting killed in a war that they cannot win yet cannot afford to lose , and it isn't my government pouring my tax money into the quicksand.

---

Lets see you seem to be spouting the same old line here. Guess what my postion on the occupation is very simple. We broke it - we got to fix it. How hard is that for you to understand that very simple concept. From what you have written - its a very difficult concept for you to fanthom and understand. Maybe instead of being sarcastic in every response you should try honest discourse - and maybe I will do the same in response. However if you notice I went this track off of a comment made by you.

Quote:

---

.(In fact the cute whores are making money out of it , an advantage I suppose of prostituting themselves into the fringes of the coilition of the willing)
That is why you are so desperate to see it as positive , because to admit the failings would be to admit that your soldiers lives and your money are being wasted .

---

You haven't a clue do you, why I take the postion I do.

Again see the first comment. We broke it - we have to fix it. Why are you so desperate to show only the negative aspects of what is going on?

You discount the links from the Defense Department out of hand it seems - but don't want your comments discounted in the same way. Besides I am not desperate to see only the postive - I read about it in the links I have provided several times. Does it outweigh the negative - nope - but it shows a bigger picture view of what is actually happening verus the stuff that is available in the mainstream media outlets and the anti-war outlets.

Maybe its because I am playing your own game against you. It seems you like to play the devils advocate on other subjects - but don't like it being used unless your the one doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Sure you can - what do you think Clinton was accused of? You might want to check on the defination of perjury. Here I will help you out since you seem to be unaware of the possiblity

---

I am well aware of the possibility, and thought of the same example.
Perjury is under oath. Had Clinton lied in front of the American people on TV, he would not have been charged... It's the same lie under oath that creates the possibility for perjury.
And there is a reason why perjury and lies are 2 different words. As far as I know, press conferences are not under oath, technically not a perjury. I don't think UK admnistration or US admnistration officials made any declaration about the war they could be charged with perjury.

Quote:

---

Your getting warm - foolish incompetenet and wanting to believe the information on its face value without looking at other sources of information. Something many here are just of guilty of doing.

---

Looking yourself in a mirror?

Quote:

---

I don't regret it at all - its called sacrasm. And many who opposed the war were not thinking about the current situation - they were only opposing it because they disagreed with the necessity of the conflict. Again hindsight is always 20/20.

---

And many who were opposing the war were thinking of the same situation. I remember writing about Algeria. I remember many ridiculising the notion of "welcoming with flowers".

There are reasons to disagree with the necesity of the conflict that can be that the conflict itself creates the condition for failure.

Looks like a case of people who were wrong are pissed at people who were right and calling for hindsight judgement.

Quote:

---

So you would of supported allowing the sanctions to end, for Saddam to rebuild his WMD programs, and to continue to terrorize his own people?

You would of allowed his regime to remain unaccountable for the cease fire conditions that he violated - to include the returning and accounting of several thousand Kuwaiti citizens that were taken from their homes by Iraqi forces? And so many more little things that so many would just like to ignore.

How very noble of you.


(and yes I am being sacrastic once again)

---

Yes I would. I live in a world where many other atrocities are tolerated, and noone cares. See Chechnya, Darfour, Cuba, China/ Tibet, Rwanda before, etc, etc... Saddam was not the only one to torture its own people.

There are many wrongdoings. And sometimes fixing them just makes things worse. Is war the solution to make all that stop? Or is war triggering its own set of atrocities?
There are cases where I got no doubt I prefer war. There are cases where I wish we had declared war.
In our world, Irak was not the most pressing one.
Don't you know of any other options?

It's "sarcastic". Something that bitter people enjoy when they got nothing to do other than belittle others.

What is sad is.... Your personal motivations are not that far from many French lefty loonies that were supporting Saddam removal... Saddam or many other tyran. Time for fear to change side.
But they had a lot of doubts about that war, and the way UK and US admnistrations were doing it.
The cause might be juste, but it may not be worth a fight. The fight itself will corrupt the cause... In that case, and as much as it sucked for Koweitiis and Iraqiis, it was not worth it.
In 1991, it was worth it. Because violations were more severe, and because internation law was trampled. I was quite angry when we stopped short of removing Saddam back then.

There is something called "overfixing one's mistake"; blundering even more by trying to fix the initial problem. That's right where you are.

Louis,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

I am well aware of the possibility, and thought of the same example.
Perjury is under oath. Had Clinton lied in front of the American people on TV, he would not have been charged... It's the same lie under oath that creates the possibility for perjury.
And there is a reason why perjury and lies are 2 different words. As far as I know, press conferences are not under oath, technically not a perjury. I don't think UK admnistration or US admnistration officials made any declaration about the war they could be charged with perjury.

---

LOL looks like you didn't like the answer now does it. You claim that lies was not a crime - perjury shows that you are incorrect.

Quote:

---

Looking yourself in a mirror?

---

Or was it your comments?

Quote:

---

And many who were opposing the war were thinking of the same situation. I remember writing about Algeria. I remember many ridiculising the notion of "welcoming with flowers".

---

Yes indeed hindsight - no matter how you try to gloss it over.

Quote:

---

There are reasons to disagree with the necesity of the conflict that can be that the conflict itself creates the condition for failure.

---

Maybe so - but that was not the initial arguement spewed forth by the anti-war crowd.

Quote:

---

Looks like a case of people who were wrong are pissed at people who were right and calling for hindsight judgement.

---

Not at all - who's pissed not I - hindsight is just what it is hindsight

Quote:

---

Yes I would. I live in a world where many other atrocities are tolerated, and noone cares. See Chechnya, Darfour, Cuba, China/ Tibet, Rwanda before, etc, etc... Saddam was not the only one to torture its own people.

---

So you would excuse them all. Again how very noble of you.

Quote:

---

There are many wrongdoings. And sometimes fixing them just makes things worse. Is war the solution to make all that stop? Or is war triggering its own set of atrocities?

---

War is sometimes necessary - are you attempting to say Saddam honored every ceasefire condition?

Quote:

---

There are cases where I got no doubt I prefer war. There are cases where I wish we had declared war.
In our world, Irak was not the most pressing one.
Don't you know of any other options?

---

14 years of faild diplomacy accounts for nothing it seems.

Quote:

---

It's "sarcastic". Something that bitter people enjoy when they got nothing to do other than belittle others.

---

Yep and why I am using it in this arguement - because of your comments and more to the point Tribesman's. Sarcasm is what many here like to use - as a legimate form of arguement. Now it seems you don't like it for the same reason I don't like it as a form of arguement. However as long as some wish to use it as a legimate form of discussion - I will always use it back to counter their sarcasm arguement.

Quote:

---

What is sad is.... Your personal motivations are not that far from many French lefty loonies that were supporting Saddam removal... Saddam or many other tyran. Time for fear to change side.

---

LOL - now that is funny - do you know what my personal motivations are? I doubt it very seriousily that you do.

Quote:

---

But they had a lot of doubts about that war, and the way UK and US admnistrations were doing it.
The cause might be juste, but it may not be worth a fight. The fight itself will corrupt the cause... In that case, and as much as it sucked for Koweitiis and Iraqiis, it was not worth it.
In 1991, it was worth it. Because violations were more severe, and because internation law was trampled. I was quite angry when we stopped short of removing Saddam back then.

There is something called "overfixing one's mistake"; blundering even more by trying to fix the initial problem. That's right where you are.

Louis,

---

Then I would say that you should of responded this way in your first post - verus the comments that you initially made - then maybe I would not have been sarcastic.

About progress in Iraq:

I don't see any. Progress would be a weakening insurgency, a reasonable Iraqi government that had Shia, Sunnis and Kurds cooperating, and a new constitution that had some hope of being acceptable to the factions involved.

The constitution that will be up for a vote in the next couple of weeks was drafted in such a way that the Sunnis feel that their chief interests were ignored and violated. They had very little representation in the drafting process, and the Sunni delegates that were allowed to participate were soon shut out of the process because they raised objections.

The chief Sunni fear is that the constitution will allow power in Iraq to devolve to regional units. The Kurds and Shia will form regional units in the North and South, leaving a Sunni zone in the middle of the country. All of the oil wealth is in the non-Sunni parts of the country. Under the current constitutional plan, the Shia and Kurdish regional governments might very well keep their region's oil wealth for local use... rather than having it controlled and redistributed on a federal level. That would leave the Sunni area as a poor and landlocked zone within a Shia majority-controlled federal government.

It has to be remembered that not only are the Sunni the formerly dominant group in Iraq, but that they have been targeted by de-Baathification measures, and have taken the brunt of US counter-insurgency actions. They feel persecuted, and the new constitution has done nothing to calm their fears about their position in a new Iraq.

The Sunni are likely to come out in force against the constitution... but the government just moved the goalposts so that instead of being able to defeat the constitution with a 2/3 vote in three provinces, they now need 2/3 of registered voters in three provinces. That last minute rules change alone might be enough to ensure that the Sunnis don't accept the results of the referendum.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the Kurdish president of Iraq recently called on the Shia prime minister to resign. That represents a break between the Kurdish and Shiite tribal chiefs. The primary issue dividing them seems to be the status of Kirkuk - a rich oil center that the Kurds want, but that is divided between Kurdish and Shia Arab inhabitants.

The bottom line is that there are too many fault lines in Iraqi politics at the moment, and that those fault lines seem to be hardening and widening. US soldiers can run around expending ammunition and lives, but it is the political process that has to work before the situation will calm down.

As in most things, the current US leadership doesn't seem to have any clear idea of how to manage the situation. They've been pushing the Iraqi government hard, first for the elections in January, and then for a constitution and referendum; but the political foundations weren't in place to give those events the positive outcomes that they should have had. Instead, the slap-dash process excluded and alienated the Sunnis that are the foundation of the insurgency - and may have split the various Shia and Kurdish factions.

This is not to say that the country will necessarily erupt into full scale civil war. However, many analysts believe that Iraq is already undergoing a low intensity civil war as insurgents and death squads begin to target rival ethnic groups and leaders. Widespread political violence of that kind could make Iraq truly ungovernable.



By the way, here's a link to a very detailed and useful policy briefing on Iraq's constitutional process: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/getf...d&tid=3703&l=1