Sep 16 2006
Bringing Order To Baghdad
The reason Americans are losing hope with Iraq is not because of Bush’s decisions (they have brought the country to the brink of a bright future), but more because the Iraqis and Muslims tend to run to violence to solve their issues and frustrations. The West long ago rejected the quick and easy violent response to the slow, pondering processes of working out differences. While frustrating to deal with, we in the West would never want to give up our laws for vendetta. But there are ways to try and push the Muslims into other avenues of redress. Step one seems to be to cordon off Baghdad, round up those unable to behave civilly and cool things down. It should work – but it will take time and a few rounds of this to bleed off decades of frustration and blood feuds. It is not possible to watch your children tortured or killed or threatened and not want to rip the people responsible apart. With that said, the bloodlust of the Islamo Fascists (something totally different) is a disease that cannot be allowed to feed on the emotional wounds of three decades of Hussein rule. It is good to see the US going to great lengths to work with the Iraqis to do what it takes to keep pulling Iraq into the 21st century.
First Cup 09.15.06…
……
Both Bush’s AND the Saudi’s. It seems this family is without a learning curve!
What’s wrong with our War on Terror?
If we go back in history, to look at Lincoln, we can see that he was flubbing the Union battles for about 4 years. (With the only bright spot being Grant.)
But Halleck (a real do-nothing, finger up his butt, “full-of-himself” general bamboozled Lincoln. UNTIL, finally, some sort of reality kicked in; and Lincoln corrected his mistakes. That’s when he gave the military reins to GRANT. And, he also apologized to Grant for “being in the way.” When GRANT took control, we won the Civil War. But there was an escalation to the fighting, and the death toll, that certainly lays at Lincoln’s feet.)
Too bad we don’t teach kids history. They’d be a lot smarter for it. They’d see that even the best President America has had, was a flawed man. Who did not well-understand military matters. (Which is the reason Grant’s way wasn’t seen clearly by Lincoln. Until Lincoln had no choice. OR? Lincoln could’a folded his tent.)
Meanwhile, our military has been the cream of the world’s crop. GRANT put into place behaviors that would be followed, later, by MacArthur. And, Patton. It’s imbedded now, in our military philosophy.) While Grant was the first to stay “don’t trust the philosophers!) But the good stuff does prevail.
While with both Bush’s? SO BEHOLDEN TO THEIR FRIENDS, THE SAUDI’s, we fail to see how this dog infects such sloppy ways we’re fighting in the Mideast.
Why do the Saudi’s have to end up with prizes?
Even this summer, Bush thought he could give syria to the saudi’s, ON THE CHEAP. But Israel wanted no part of taking out the Shi’a rule (assad) in syria to do this.
Then you notice, in exasperation, Bush sent Condi (as incompetent as Colin Powell), to the UN. Where she brokered a “deal.”
You don’t see how Israel’s changed, but it has! It wasn’t supposed to “want” #1701, according to Bush’s brain-set. But Israel took it with alacrity! BECAUSE ISRAEL DOES NOT WANT TO SEE THE SHI’A’s lose in syria! Hello? Is anyone listening?
France has been in the Mideast since 1914. Setbacks, and all; it’s the British who’ve been kicked out of the Mideast. (And, Tony Blair whose ship is sinking, following in the wake of Bush’s “mainline.” Too bad for him. He’s no friend of Israel’s. So eliminating a few of the “quartet” also works in Israel’s favor.)
Israel also wanted NO PART in the bargaining chips, its used previously, where the diplomatic-pants-dancers trade “occupied lands” for piss.
This time? NOTHING IN LEBANON WAS HELD. Lebanon was give three blows. ONE, it’s missiles from Iran are now useless. TWO, by not occupying even the sea water, Israel tossed the crappy bargaining chips back on the table. And, THREE, by watching CHIRAC and his french company; plus the droolers at the UN, coming into Lebanon, just has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ISRAEL.)
Lebanon s not a “trading partner” to Israel. Nor will she open the gates for tourism to go back and forth.
The Shi’a PITS will still have a say in Lebanon. Which pleases both the FRENCH, and their satellite operator: ASSAD. (The Shi’ites are still with “land” … without having Israel battling them every day, as they do down in Gazoo.)
That doesn’t mean Israel still isn’t there! Yes. Troops on the ground are clearing out the tunnels. BLOWING THEM UP. Not soon to go back in, giving the way the french will mill about, there.
And, Israel is not mothballing its fleet. So, there’s no blockade, per se. Doesn’t mean nukes are about to be brought into Beirut.
Because Beirut suffered financial losses. And, enough Lebanese are now aware of what’s ahead IF Israel “comes back.”
Will Rama-dama-ding-dong bring back the kidnapped soldiers? Whatever.
While Bush is not very pleased. He doesn’t have any action plan besides getting the Saudi’s richer. (Just as they can crap on our universities by getting tens of thousands of “students” into America. Where they don’t appear to intimidate our students at all. They just build barriers. While our kids get strapped in debt for absolutely no reason. University time is a waste of time, in most cases.) But then? That US.
Iraq and Afghanistan are being masterfully handled by our military. Just keep in mind that Lincoln, in his day, had NO EXPERIENCE in military matters. When he pulled his “I am Commander-in-Chief” crap. The long war years of the Civil War grew on a host of incompetents that fit this mindset.)
Ah. But Lincoln OWNED A LEARNING CURVE!
Bush? When 2008 rolls around a lot of people will sigh relief. Just like they did when his dad exited the White House.
Left to fix? The GOP tent. Since it as yet does not encourage the MAINSTREAM to identify with it.
Can an INDEPENDENT MAN become president in 2008? Sure. As long as he’s not exposed as a nut like Perot.
What about MAINSTREAM AMERICA? We’re a very patient people. We’ve got lots of time. And, America will grow an excellent military base in Iraq. (While france will be doing the same in syria/lebanon. Because Condi, in her incompetence, decided she needed to make “moves” at the table. And, Chirac just blew up her skirt. Hope she liked the experience.)
It’s been said that Olmert’s government is a “goner.” (Where Israelis are known to go to knew elections before prime ministers complete their turns), whose to say the news you hear is true?
Only 30,000 people have gone into the streets to demand Olmert resign. Not even enough people to make one Wal-Mart’s all that profitable. (Israel, has, I think, 6-million citizens. And, when polled, most don’t want new elections.)
Bibi Netanyahu? Too late, now. If he couldn’t bring down the government at the end of August, he hasn’t got the signatures! (Bibi needed 61 knesset members to deliver the blow to Olmert. He didn’t even come close.)
Bush? Hates Olmert. Means nothing. Bush and Blair can be out of office long before Putin goes. While the french are now enscounced IN BED in the Mideast, protecting a strong force (the Shi’as, against the Saudis.)
Too bad the Saudis have such an influence, here. But then how serious was Bush about his War on Terror, if he plays with this terrorist group?
You don’t think so?
Seeing the map as it’s emerging, Musharraf just opened the doors to the Taliban terrorists it was holding at bay. And, 10,000 have been let out, to circulate, again. So things for the Saudis, like this, are their “answered prayers.”
Strata talks in circles…the reason people are losing faith in the war is Bush’s decision to “democratise” (turn into US puppets) the people which Strata goes on to negatively describe the longstanding cultural habits of—AKA Bush’s ill-fated and impossible Wilsonian liberal attempt to nation-build. Something Bush used to deplore, pre-9/11.
Strata’s “step one” is more like “step twenty-five” and the public is weary of the back-steps, and rightly.
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060925&s=trb092506
for those who can so read, shows how Strata and the neocons
mistakenly use the term “Islamo-facist.”
Carol While doing genealogy research I found a document in the Philadelphia PA archives which contained a letter to Abe Lincoln from the man who ran the Philadelphia Armory in 1861. In this letter he informs Lincoln that when the Philadepphia Minutemen were ordered to go to Baltimore, the armory was empty. There were only a few musket loaders and there was no ammunition that matched the few guns that was there. It seems the Secretary of War in the previous administration (Jefferson Davis) had ordered the contents of the Philadelphia Armory shipped to Louisana and then sold to the Governor of Louisana. Therefore, the Minutemen reported for duty in Baltimore with only their personal firearms and no ammunition.
I do not know if the Philadelphia armory was the only federal armory cleaned out and the contents sold to governors of the southern states, but it explains the North’s poor performance and why the South nearly won the war in the first two years. It took the North that long to recover and arm their men. I never read anything about this in any of my history books either.
The bombing of the Golden Dome Mosques back in Februrary really was the last straw for some Iraqis and it will be difficult reign in the violence, but it can be done.
It will take time to go through the city and confiscate weapons while at the same time making it difficult for people to rearm by closing off the city.
BTW, I heard on Special Report the other night that the support for the war in Iraq was at 51%, that surprised me.
The amazing thing is that if Saddam wiped half his population off the face of the earth a good many of the socalled anti war people would not care, so long as they did not see it on the evening news. They long for the good old days when Saddam could lie and cheat and steal and murder and they were oblivious. Like the say, ignorance is bliss.
Pro-rated by time, the UC occupation is producing more loss of life of innocents than Saddam’s rule. Particularly when casualties of the Iraq-Iran War are included, because US complicity in siding with Saddam (just enough as deemed to keep two of Israel’s enemies warring indecisively) negates any attempt to utilize innocents therein.
To read Terrye one might believe the US always opposed Saddam unequivocally.
AJ Please read this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060915/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_1
Congress is going to investigate the Iraqi official who told the CIA just prior to invasion that Iraq DID have WMD. He was recently cited in the Senate Intel report at the end as saying Iraq was pursuing nuclear, had a small bio program and had a chemical weapons program and chemical weapons (which would explain the thousands of tons of pesticides, chemical suits, scrubbed sites, antidotes, countless amount of chemical weapon precursors).
Please take a look at that and let us know what you make of it.
AJ,
You are right to observe that Bush has chosen the slow methodical path instead of a quick violent one.
Ken, I suggest that, unlike Peter Beinhart, Bush and informed Americans know who the enemy is. And to attribute the terrorist attacks in Iraq to the occupation is to ignore the world wide conflict where there is no occupation. Passivists never can see the blood on their own hands.
Iraq…..I wanted us to go into Iraq……I never saw a choice. Do it now or do it later. Had nothing to do with WMD for me…..instead it had to do with the world getting ready to set free a killer on us (they had decided that all that containment was also a bunch of crap). Plus, he paid good wages. What did they care? He was just another one they could aim like an arrow in our direction.
So Bush has a plane downed by the Chinese, 9/11 and a Senate that was still dragging feet on confirmations. Office space was denied on time and the thugs previously in office allowed a little famous DEM vandalism. Infighting with State and CIA who happens to find time for outfighting with DoD and VP. Total MSM attack. Two wars now at the same time and all those nice little UN/EU/Internationals. Since it all occurred within the first 8 months of Bush being in office……..gosh darn……knew it was HIS Hindness’s fault (immigration created and storms from heaven called later).
So a war didn’t go according to plan. A plan the military worked on for 12 years. I bet it is the ONLY one in history.
Now history…..Bush? When 2008 rolls around a lot of people will sigh relief. Just like they did when his dad exited the White House.
Not even close Carol. I do learn. I didn’t vote for Bush Sr, second time around. I probably felt he didn’t address my issues. Heh. But I wish someone would give me another chance to vote for his son. I know, I know…..I must be too dumb…..easily lead….. Warts and all, he is much better than most of us deserve.
Carol said:
“Meanwhile, our military has been the cream of the world’s crop. GRANT put into place behaviors that would be followed, later, by MacArthur. And, Patton. It’s imbedded now, in our military philosophy.) While Grant was the first to stay “don’t trust the philosophers!) But the good stuff does prevail.”
You ever think about the difference in history if Gen Patton had been supreme commander instead of Eisenhower.
Just a guess, but the War would have ended sooner, The US would have occupied more of the European continent, instead of Soviets, many more people would have spent their lives living in freedom instead of Soviet domination. Patton would have been Pres for 8 years. He would never have let Soviets become the power they did.
Oh well, we can always dream, can’t we.
Momdear1, you said:
“but it explains the North’s poor performance and why the South nearly won the war in the first two years. It took the North that long to recover and arm their men.”
I take it you live in the North and read different history books than I did.
The civil war, in some respects, is like the Iraq war.
It was not popular in the North, the people were against the war, the media was against the war. Even tho the population in the North was 22 million vs about 9 million in the South, of which 3 million were slaves. The South wanted the war, they believed in it and supported it. That’s why the North nearly lost. When it finally got in their backyard (at Gettysburg) did they realize, hell we could lose this thing, we better get serious.
Sound like the Iraqi war? lot of similarities.
We started to get serious when the twin towers were destroyed. But we have forgotten, Is it gonna have to get in our backyard AGAIN for you to get serious about the GWOT?
KEN, you aren’t that naive, are you?
Ken:
Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people over the course of decades, not to mention the war between Iraq and Iran. There is no comparison, saying there is shows your ignorance. the fact that the press did not show you the pictures does not mean it did not happen.
In just one mass graves there were found the bodies of 13,000 children. Many of them were bound together…that way they did not have to waste two bullets. If you can remember the news break showing that atrocity I would be surprised.
So many people seem to think the 80’s and 90’s were peaceful…they were not.
BTW, Ken to read you people might think we should be Saddam’s buddy today. But the way it works is that if we tolerate people like Saddam for the sake of stability, we are bad people…if we do not…we are bad people. Your solution? Look the other way and complain…but do not actually do anything to change things. Just hold your nose and suck up to the dictators and let them turn the UN into a brothel, a cease fire into toilet paper and ignore obligations…after all it is all a bunch of crap anyway.
Mark78, you said;
“Iraqi official who told the CIA just prior to invasion that Iraq DID have WMD. He was recently cited in the Senate Intel report at the end as saying Iraq was pursuing nuclear, had a small bio program and had a chemical weapons program and chemical weapons”
And that story you linked to had this sentence:
“But U.S. troops have found no such weapons there. ”
So?
Let me give you a quote:
“If you found out that Saddam was using the still unaccounted for WMDs these “news” sources would have you believe Saddam did not have, then you might also find out just how stupid current Democrat leaders think you are. Democrat National Committee leaders think you are gullible enough to believe Saddam’s Islamo-fascists had no weapons of mass destruction. You have been convinced of that. By Democrat leadership’s press lackeys.
Right now Saddam is being tried, not for suspicion of having WMDs, but for actually using chemical and biological weapons against other nations and even his own minorities. These are the very weapons of mass destruction that left-wing, politically-correct group-thinkers would have you believe Iraq did not have!
Democrat party leaders and cronies in the elite media/press want you to be gullible and un-informed enough to believe that Saddam had no WMDs to give to other Islamo-fascists to use against us. And you soooo believe it. ”
Here’s link to that story:
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_4349786
The information is there, you just are in denial.
Terrye, just for the record, “In just one mass graves there were found the bodies of 13,000 children. Many of them were bound together…that way they did not have to waste two bullets.”
I believe many of them were killed with WMD’s that Saddam “didn’t” have, instead of bullets.
I agree with what you said.
Ken, you said:
“Pro-rated by time, the UC occupation is producing more loss of life of innocents than Saddam’s rule.”
Well, that link I provided about 2 comments above had this little quote in it:
” Saddam used chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction against the cities of people he did not like, killing tens of thousands of people without firing a bullet. Read the testimonies of survivors that were there when the old WMDs were used. Springtime in Iraq – 80,000 civilians killed with not even one tank or a single rifle used.”
You might want to bone up to avoid sounding totally ignorant on the subject.
To claim (as Ken does) that more “innocents” have been killed in Iraq since we’ve been there than during Saddam’s reign is to not be serious. If anyone really believes that statement they are either delusional or simply ignorant.
Carol’s meandering post conveniently omits 8 years between the Bush’s, and I might add, very friendly ones with the Saudis.
For some reason, the MSM ignore the fact that WMD was found, and we all know he had it before the war. Yes, we haven’t found the large stockpiles we expected, but it’s pretty well known that the russians & syrians might know something.
Hey, let’s give it up for the Pope! If only more leaders would talk straight. Confronted with the criticism that their violent jihadism doesn’t exactly mesh with a peaceful God, how do they react? As rioting thugs, underscoring the pope’s point.
Enforcement,
I am actually of the persuasiong that at least some chem weapons were moved right before invasion and I have an interview with a source I consider pretty hard to disagree with on this very subject.
Regarding the media bias in that story, of course it’s disgusting and infuriating but I am so used to it that I just take it for granted and ignore it now.
I think forcing that guy into the public can maybe bring some more answers to people that want them. The MSM will of course ignore the story as if it doesn’t exist. I’d love to be proven wrong but I’ve worked inside the MSM and know these people far too well.
Mark78, yes I agree, I re-read your post after making my comment and realized that may have been your intent.
It bothers me that the evidence is so clear that there were WMD’s, some were actually found there this year and many trails and much evidence that most had been removed just prior to the war.
In my opinion American history should be taught in high school for four years. Everyone in this country should be thoroughly grounded in this subject. Maybe some of them would then use their heads. The US has always taken allies where they found them. Once upon a time Japan, Germany and Italy were our mortal enemies and England, France and Russia were our allies. That was then. Look who are our enemies now..Russia(working against us) and France (working against us subversively)..
We back the Saudis because with them gone from the picture, radical Islam will rulethere just like in Iran. This country is a hotbed of the Islamfascists. We kept an army in Germany for decades not to contain them but to contain Russia. We backed Saddam because Iran was worse. It’s a tough choice, but one that has to be made. In trying to make Iraq a democracy we hope that the whole ME will come under this umbrella thereby eliminating radical Islam. Hopefully, the quality of life in this part of the world will become better and they will cease being envious of us and let us all live in peace. As far as I am concerned this is a worthy goal.