Was The War in Iraq Necessary

[KrustyKidd]

Israel has killed a million and a half Arabs? Wow, missed that story Bush Must Go. Israel has moved into Kuwait, Iran and poised for Saudi Arabia to control half of the worlds oil supplies? Missed that one too. Israel, who has never used WMD has resolutions againt them? You bet, and the West has absolutely nothing to fear from them. On the other hand, any Arab country that supports Hamas or acts against Israel I imagine has every right to be terrified of them.

[KrustyKidd]

No where are you getting the 85 per cent figure from? "Simple math" using what figures? Explain.

Six companies, six nations, one is American. Maybe you like this better: five out of six oil companies are non US. Better? That must be somewhere between 80 and 85 % non US right? Just did it in my head, about 84% non US.

The quote:

Yes. Since the end of the war, SOMO has drawn up contracts for the sale of approximately 34 million barrels of oil to some of the world’s largest oil companies, including British Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, ChevronTexaco, Petrobras of Brazil, China’s Sinochem International, and French concern TotalFinaElf. Most of this oil is coming from Iraq’s southern oil fields and being transported to tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal at Mina al-Bakr.

and this Iraqi Oil Sales Better Than Expected

  “Quantities sold last week to five international oil firms through tender reached 7.6 million barrels instead of 6 million as was decided earlier,” said ministry spokesman Assem Jihad. Four European firms and one from the United States last week won bids to buy 6 million barrels from the Kirkuk fields, pumped out of the country via a pipeline to Turkey’s Mediterranean terminal of Ceyhan. The pipeline became operational last month after being largely out of use since last August, following the invasion of US-led forces and the ousting of dictator Saddam Hussein. US company ExxonMobil increased the number of barrels it bought from 2 million to 2.6 million, while the Turkish company Tupras increased the number it bought from 1 million to 2 million. Taking the balance were Spain’s Repsol YPF and Cepsa, and Hellenic Petroleum from Greece. In a first auction last month no US firm was successful, the winners being Royal Dutch/ Shell, France’s Total, Eni of Italy, Repsol YPF, Hellenic Petroleum, and Tupras, with 1 million barrels each.

Guess the US lost that buying round. Must've done it on purpose to throw off the 'oil for blood' theory. Bastards.

According to you, revolutionary movements throughout history should have stopped and taken polls before proceeding. Imagine this scene unfolding across Europe circa 1943: "Well, fellas, we lost the vote, I guess we just have to learn to live under the Nazis because we don't have an expressed mandadte by the peopel to fight back."

Here in your quote from another thread Black Dog, you identify the insurgents:

I think this kind of characterization of the insurgency is not only wrong, but dangerous. It's not a single, monolithic entity, but a number highly factionalized groups (often organized along tribal lines) that includes Saddam loyalists, religious factions (like the Mutqada al-Sadr's milita), foreign mujahhadeen and nationlist elements. The problem with applying a universal identity to the insurgency is that it leads to "one solution fits all" thinking. The sheer complexity of the situation requires complex thinking.

These guys are trying to free Iraq for the Iraqis? Which group were you discussing this with? What are their goals once the US infidel is beaten? Free elections? When did they plan on holding these? Or let me guess, an Islamic State - ho hum. Chop off some chicks head, saw a few clits off with a bread knife and ban some things, no music and all. Just what the Iraqis have been hoping for! Nothing like a few stonings in the public square to make you miss Saddam.

There is an interim government in Iraq. More people support them this than the insugents as they know not who and what the insurgents want other than the US out. They are not protecting Iraq Black Dog. You know that as well as I, they are trying to seize power for their own purposes. Nothing even resembling what the people want as nobody has had a vote yet. There is nothing honorable about what they are doing, to equate what they are doing by killing their own women and children to a freedom fighter is idiotic. Simply put, the US is not wanted there, the US does not want to be there, however, in order to stabilise the country so that control freaks do not run the place according to Taliban standards they must stay there until the job is done. Then, probably as part of the repayment for liberation and a security agreement they will work out a deal with the elected government to maintain bases.

Back to the Revolution. The British did not occupy America, they owned it, they had colonized it. The Americans revolted against their own government to form America. It has no similarities with Iraq. In fact, Iraq was liberated and is now under transition. The insurgents are not protecting anything but rather fighting those who are freeing them so that they can hold power over the people in a similar fashion to other non elected dictatorships in the region. Ask the masters of the unsurgents, Al Queda, Ex Regime, Iranian, pissed off locals, I can assure you, none of them want a democratic vote by the people and that is what they are fighting against far more than the exit of the US. The US is only a step for them, a necessary hurdle to overcome in their quest for power over people.

Um..In case you've been napping, the Palestinian "issue" is a major bone of contention in the Arab world

I understand that and said that. However, Israel is no threat to any Arab country that does not attack her. In case you were napping.

Specious logic, at best, given that Iraq had no connections to global terrorism or to the 9-11 attacks. If anything, the invasion of Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse by fuelling more anti-American sentimen

OK Black Dog, you have alhiemers or something? Thought we agreed that Iraq was not the actual villan here but rather an opportunity.

Krusty Kid explaining the same argument tt Black Dog for the umpteenth time in another thread recently

Saddam was a cruel dictator in violation of UN law who was in the middle of a cease-fire after threatening to ignite the most volatile region on earth with his quest for domination of the same. Even that was not enough reason though. What provided the reason was 9 11 when the west understood quite well that the people of the ME had to be given an example, a starting point so that they could leave the middle ages with it’s ineffectual and cruel ways of governing and providing for the people and move into the modern age. Thus providing a lesser opportunity IN THE LONG RUN for terrorist recruiting.

And now international terrorist terrorist activity is at it's lowest levels in thirty years.

I don't believe democracy can be implemented by the military machinations of a foreign power. As I stated before, if the U.S. was actually interested in spreading democracy and fighting terror they would have started somewhere liek Saudi Arabia, a client state and the premier sponsor of terrorist organizations in the region. The US could have nurtured homegrown democracy movements and used their clout to push for democratic reforms. Instead, they went after Iraq, a place where any sane person would know that a foreign backed democratic experiment would have little chance of success.

It is ambitious isn't it? It would have taken decades to work in Saudi if ever. Results were needed sooner and Saddam and Iraq provided the opportunity, location, excuse and had the resources to implement it. I have always contended that I felt the WMD excuse was at best an ancillary reason but look at it this way, there is no way a war could be sold on one single issue such as freeing another nation, Saddam did have WMD or at least a secretive system of preserving that capability for use later in some way or form, the world's leaders were sure he had them and used the same intel that Bush used. Simply for humanitarian reasons, even America would not carry out an action such as this. In WWII, they didn't even enter until they themselves were attacked.

Which leaves us with two possibilities: either the U.S leadership is hopelessly incompetent and naive and honestly expected to be greeted with rose petals by throngs of jubilant Iraqis ready to take the reigns of a new democracy, or the whole business of democracy is a smokescreen, a bit of political slight of hand to dazzle the folks back home.

Or it may be sucessful. Of course that never enters your theories though. I have to ask a simple question Black Dog, what does Osama, Jihad, Hezbollah, ANO, ASG, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Jemaah Islamiya, Al-Jihad, and Lashkar I Jhangvi have in common? Well, Al Queda's goal is to establish a worldwide pan-Islamic Caliphate and so do the rest except they are merely regional at the moment. The other thing they have in common is that they like to kill kids and women on purpose, the more and bloodier the better. These are but about 50% of the world's terrorist organisations. I suppose that we are going to have to play the percentage game again but I will wait till you get back to me. Anyhow, these groups are not going away Black Dog, rather they are growing in number as they pick up recruits from poor countries which is one good reason to spread democracy as it seems that poor countries are usually not democratic and richer ones are. Simply theory but statistically factual.

They hate America, the west, Israel and all, they hate them to death. The action in Iraq doesn't make them hate us any more, you can only really hate a person or thing to death so much before it is not possible to do it more. The action in Iraq may make them act sooner than they would have but that is the way it is.

Uh. Iraq Body Count's numbers are estimates . As the U.S. general who led the invasion said "We don't do body counts.".

Here, I'll put it on a plate to spoon feed you. Black Dog, you disappoint me, this IBC site is dripping and oozing with anti US rhetoric and you don't like their numbers? This should be your homepage for crying out loud! The General is quoted as part of an anti US satire. Really, you have to do a bit of research to stay current on this forum. Glossing over crucial facts is not fair to me or to the argument. As for yourself, you had no numbers to begin with and when I presented the most Leftist numbers in credible existence you don't even look at them even though prior you were working with nothing. It seriously makes me doubt your overall basis for you beliefs as you have obviously been argueing all this time with no facts in this argument anyways. Do you do that with most of them, some of them or all of them?

Civilian deaths in “noble” Iraq mission pass 10,000

This maximum figure of reported civilian deaths, derived from reports filed by correspondents in the field, is therefore likely to be only a transitory milestone in the catalogue of tragedies endured by Iraqis as a direct result of the US/UK invasion and subsequent military occupation. Iraq Body Count calls for the immediate establishment of an independent international tribunal to establish the circumstances of as many civilian deaths as possible, and to determine an appropriate and just level of compensation for the victims of US/UK aggression and negligence.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq

There are many valid facts and reasons against this war Black Dog. You only skim the surface with your arguments. many of which are so rhetoricly based that they are defeated with easily produced facts that you obviously have not researched. The answer is not black and white and I do not hold the US as the only right rescuer as it is a multi dimensional problem. Mere anti US hatred is not the issue as they are reasonably reacting to a situation that is the making of America, Europe, Asia before today as well as the action and inaction of the entire world. Throw in oppotunistic and cultural actions of Middle Eastern Theocracies, Dictatorships, Monarchies and a Religious belief that allows itself to be used as a tool for the loudest voice. Timing is also another consideration as Militent Islam is a problem that only cropped up in the late seventies while the world was looking at Communism as the main threat. With WMD in the hands of some third world countries and the ability to purchase same from impovershed Ex Soviet Block countries it is rather importent that something be done sooner than later. If you think that this is overreadting by the US, what do you think they would do if a Chemical Weapon or a Nuke went off in a major city? Seed Democracy and negotiate? Check with the UN? What do you think the French would do if one went off in Paris? Russia in Moscow, Brotain in London and so on? Sit n their hands and wait for the next one or retaliate? There is a potential here for some real death that has to be dealt with. If you think that terrorists can be negotiated with or trusted to not seek and detonate such weapons then your world must be rosey indeed.

Do we have the luxury of decades for slow reform in countries like Saudi to take place? Would they not fight against this change anyhow? It's not like the Royal Family is suddenly going to go "Democracy! Jolly god idea, never thought of that. We'll get right on it!" No Black Dog, they would fight it every step of the way and as soon as women start getting rights you want to know terrorist activity round the world will skyrocket.

We all know that the US is not liked, we all know that Islam wants to spread. In the nuclear age we don't have decades to try to bring Dictatorships into the Democratic era, at least in all places on earth. When you mention Saudi Arabia as a country lacking human rights, what is the UN doing about it? What are they doing about the nuclear threat in North Korea? Are they solving the hot spots on earth? No, they are doing what they can, and that isn't enough. Just as you said the US missed an opportunity after 9 11 so did the UN. With luck, maybe the two can get together again.

[Black Dog]

Guess the US lost that buying round. Must've done it on purpose to throw off the 'oil for blood' theory. Bastards.

The two largest government contractors in Iraq are Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co.

These guys are trying to free Iraq for the Iraqis? Which group were you discussing this with? What are their goals once the US infidel is beaten? Free elections? When did they plan on holding these? Or let me guess, an Islamic State - ho hum. Chop off some chicks head, saw a few clits off with a bread knife and ban some things, no music and all. Just what the Iraqis have been hoping for! Nothing like a few stonings in the public square to make you miss Saddam.

There is an interim government in Iraq. More people support them this than the insugents as they know not who and what the insurgents want other than the US out. They are not protecting Iraq Black Dog. You know that as well as I, they are trying to seize power for their own purposes. Nothing even resembling what the people want as nobody has had a vote yet. There is nothing honorable about what they are doing, to equate what they are doing by killing their own women and children to a freedom fighter is idiotic. Simply put, the US is not wanted there, the US does not want to be there, however, in order to stabilise the country so that control freaks do not run the place according to Taliban standards they must stay there until the job is done. Then, probably as part of the repayment for liberation and a security agreement they will work out a deal with the elected government to maintain bases.

Yeah, i guess you're right. We certainly can't leave Iraq to the Iraqis because it's obvious that they are incapable of managing themesleves.

Like I said, the same paternalistic, racist, imperialist crap we've been hearing for hundreds of years. The language is the same and so are the motivations: pillage and plunder.

The insurgents are not protecting anything but rather fighting those who are freeing them so that they can hold power over the people in a similar fashion to other non elected dictatorships in the region. Ask the masters of the unsurgents, Al Queda, Ex Regime, Iranian, pissed off locals, I can assure you, none of them want a democratic vote by the people and that is what they are fighting against far more than the exit of the US. The US is only a step for them, a necessary hurdle to overcome in their quest for power over people.

I'm still waiting for a shred of definitive evidence connecting Al Q or Iran with the insurgency.

That aside, your entire view of the insurgency is predicated on your preconceptions of a benevolent occupier. In your mind, any resistance to the occupation is inherently antidemoctratic. It's a view point coloured by your own perceptions of what's happening in Iraq and the U.S.'s intentions. I trust the Iraqis have a better handle on the situation.

Look at Fallujah as a microcosm of Iraq: the U.S. went in to destroy the insurgency, but were forced to withdraw and turn over security to the "Fallujah Brigade" (in effect, the insurgents), led by a former Republican Guard general. Suddenly, Fallujah is quiet.

However, Israel is no threat to any Arab country that does not attack her.

But it's a tremendous threat to Arabs living within territory occupied by Israel.

And now international terrorist terrorist activity is at it's lowest levels in thirty years.

I guess it depends on how you define terrorism. Terrorism is alive and well in Rafah.

It is ambitious isn't it? It would have taken decades to work in Saudi if ever

Whereas Iraq's democracy is just humming along? We're talking about introducing democracy to a region that hasn't seen it in ages, if at all. It would have taken a long time, but the cost would have been much lower.

Christ, people keep saying the process of democracizing Iraq will be a "long hard slog"; seems strange that haste would be an issue now.

The action in Iraq doesn't make them hate us any more, you can only really hate a person or thing to death so much before it is not possible to do it more. The action in Iraq may make them act sooner than they would have but that is the way it is.

But the occupation is making more people hate "us". It's even turning people who once greeted the U.S. as liberators into resistance fighters.

Anyhow, these groups are not going away Black Dog, rather they are growing in number as they pick up recruits from poor countries which is one good reason to spread democracy as it seems that poor countries are usually not democratic and richer ones are. Simply theory but statistically factual

Ever ask why these countries people's are poor? Why they are ruled by repressive regimes? Who keeps the thugs in power? Who does business with the Saddams, Sauds and Murabeks of the region? Who benefits?

[Black Dog]

Bump.

Another voice joins the growing chorus against the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq: this time, it's the former head of CentCom.

Iraq war a "blunder": Zinni

"They've screwed up."

“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,” says Zinni. “There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.”

[KrustyKidd]

.The two largest government contractors in Iraq are Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co.

And you say they should be french or something I suppose?

Yeah, i guess you're right. We certainly can't leave Iraq to the Iraqis because it's obvious that they are incapable of managing themesleves.

Kidding right? No credible police force, no military and fellow Iraqis and ‘mysterious others’ blowing up kids, women, non combatents and themselves and you figure that we should pull out.

Like I said, the same paternalistic, racist, imperialist crap we've been hearing for hundreds of years. The language is the same and so are the motivations: pillage and plunder.

What pillaging is taking places? We already determined it is not oil so it must be the age old sin of rebuilding. Yes, very bad stuff, take over a country and build it up better than before. Hienious bastards.

I'm still waiting for a shred of definitive evidence connecting Al Q or Iran with the insurgency.

AL QUEDA HELPING INSURGENTS

Al-Qaida's alleged leader in Saudi Arabia said in an Internet statement that the militant network was helping insurgents who are battling occupation forces in Iraq.

AND THIS FROM THE OTHER DAY ....

.

BAGHDAD [MENL] -- The U.S. military has identified and located a major facility used for the smuggling of Al Qaida-inspired insurgents from Syria into Iraq.

That aside, your entire view of the insurgency is predicated on your preconceptions of a benevolent occupier. In your mind, any resistance to the occupation is inherently antidemoctratic. It's a view point coloured by your own perceptions of what's happening in Iraq and the U.S.'s intentions. I trust the Iraqis have a better handle on the situation.

No, my view of the insurgency is predicated on how when the US is too fortified they turn to killing their own authorities and failing that, the helpless of their own. This shows the intent of causing instability rather than simply getting the US out. It also reinforces my view that they give not a hoot for their own but rather the propegation of their own power.

"Muslims should realize that jihad in this country - to apply sharia (Islamic law) and expel occupying Crusaders - is a duty for all able ones," the statement said.”

Look at Fallujah as a microcosm of Iraq: the U.S. went in to destroy the insurgency, but were forced to withdraw and turn over security to the "Fallujah Brigade" (in effect, the insurgents), led by a former Republican Guard general. Suddenly, Fallujah is quiet.

They know that if it is not the US will come in and flatten it. The US does not want to do that as it makes bad press but will. Everybody understands that.

But it's a tremendous threat to Arabs living within territory occupied by Israel.

.

Gee wiz, almost three million of them. And the rest of the 300 million Arabs not living under the Israeli boot? No threat at all provided they don’t attack her.

I guess it depends on how you define terrorism. Terrorism is alive and well in Rafah

And is included in the reports the stats come from.

.

  Whereas Iraq's democracy is just humming along? We're talking about introducing democracy to a region that hasn't seen it in ages, if at all. It would have taken a long time, but the cost would have been much lower.

How long? Five years? Try generations. How many terrorists would have come and gone attaking people between then and now? How many people would Saddam have killed at the average rate of 2,500 a month (not counting wars) between then and now? At what point would the Royal Family have simply given up their authority?

Christ, people keep saying the process of democracizing Iraq will be a "long hard slog"; seems strange that haste would be an issue now.

You have been in a hurry for the US to leave before they even got there. The US is going to be there for a few more years at least so better put some beer in the fridge..

But the occupation is making more people hate "us". It's even turning people who once greeted the U.S. as liberators into resistance fighters.

Which is one reason why June 30th is an importent date. To show definate progression towards autonomy.

Ever ask why these countries people's are poor? Why they are ruled by repressive regimes? Who keeps the thugs in power? Who does business with the Saddams,  Sauds and Murabeks of the region? Who benefits?

Everybody does. If nobody did, who would feed three hundred million people? The place would look like Afganistan for crying out loud. You can’t trade with somebody who is not consistent hence the world has propped up people who kept the oil flowing. That has to change and the US is changing it. Thank goodness you finally see the light.

[Black Dog]

And you say they should be french or something I suppose?

Well, they should be teh companie sthat win the bids. Noty the Vice Presidents former company winning no-bid contracts and then over billing the government for services not rendered (like recent reports of convoys of empty Halliburton trucks driving around Iraq at the American taxpayers expense).

Kidding right? No credible police force, no military and fellow Iraqis and ‘mysterious others’ blowing up kids, women, non combatents and themselves and you figure that we should pull out.

Yes. Pull out, let the Iraqi people take charge of their destiny.

What pillaging is taking places? We already determined it is not oil so it must be the age old sin of rebuilding. Yes, very bad stuff, take over a country and build it up better than before. Hienious bastards.

You determined (from reading the U.S. State Department's web site) that it was not about oil.

Until Iraq is ruled 100 per cent by Iraqis, with no forign governments pulling the strings, then we can talk freedom.

AL QUEDA HELPING INSURGENTS

From the article.

In the statement that surfaced Friday on an al-Qaida-linked online periodical, Abdulaziz Issa Abdul-Mohsin al-Moqrin said al-Qaida is in close contact with fighters in Iraq.

"By our jihad in the Arab peninsula, we are serving Iraq's cause and helping the mujahedeen (fighters) there, whom we are in close contact with," he said. "There is mutual support between the two of us and we are working on confusing the American enemy."

It was not immediately possible to verify the statement's authenticity.

U.S. LOCATES WAY-STATION FOR IRAQI INSURGENCY

The U.S. military has identified and located a major facility used for the smuggling of Al Qaida-inspired insurgents from Syria into Iraq.

Also note that neither story has received any play in any of the "mainstream" media. What we do have here is talk of "Al Qaeda-inspired" groups forming "links" with alleged terrorists. All I can say is, Al Qaeda sure gets around for an organization that was never more than a few hundred strong at its peak, an organization that was said to have been virtually destroyed after the Afghistan invasion. Basically, "Al Qaeda" has become shorthand for any militiant islamic group, even if the connection is as tenuous as a shared ideology.

No, my view of the insurgency is predicated on how when the US is too fortified they turn to killing their own authorities and failing that, the helpless of their own. This shows the intent of causing instability rather than simply getting the US out. It also reinforces my view that they give not a hoot for their own but rather the propegation of their own power.

Iraqi authorities, such as the Iraqi police and army, are considered collaborators. However, many members of the Iraqi police and army are actually helping the insurgency on the down lo. As for "killing the helpless" I find it odd that when civilians are killed by acts of the insurgency, its considered an intentional war crime. When the U.S kills civilians (like the wedding that was just blown to hell last week), they're either terrorists or collateral damage.

"causing instability"? That was accomplished when the U.S. toppled Saddam's regime and then completely dismantled Iraq's civil infrastructure.

They know that if it is not the US will come in and flatten it. The US does not want to do that as it makes bad press but will. Everybody understands that.

Yes, because the U.S. can't use overwhelming force, as that would destory any shreds of credibility they have. So they were forced to quit the field and turn the city over to the insurgents. They have the U.S. over a barrel.

Gee wiz, almost three million of them. And the rest of the 300 million Arabs not living under the Israeli boot? No threat at all provided they don’t attack her.

3 million people living in poverty and squalor under the boot of an illegal occupation by a so-called democracy. Three million people: half the number that died in the Holocaust. You don't see a problem with this?

How long? Five years? Try generations. How many terrorists would have come and gone attaking people between then and now? How many people would Saddam have killed at the average rate of 2,500 a month (not counting wars) between then and now? At what point would the Royal Family have simply given up their authority?

You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that gradual, peaceful reform was impractical because it would take too long. Then in the very next breath, you say that the U.S. occupation needs more time time to fulfill its mission. Well, how much time?

Which is one reason why June 30th is an importent date. To show definate progression towards autonomy.

I've posted numerous articles showing how the new government will be shackeled by regulations set down by the CPA and staffed with U.S. apointees. You've ignored them all.

Everybody does. If nobody did, who would feed three hundred million people? The place would look like Afganistan for crying out loud. You can’t trade with somebody who is not consistent hence the world has propped up people who kept the oil flowing. That has to change and the US is changing it. Thank goodness you finally see the light.

Imperialism in a nutshell. You've already embraced its tenets: why not just embrace the label?

Clearly, you belive the people of the undeveloped world cannot take care of themselves and must be saved by the U.S.A.

Otherwise you would advocate less meddling interventionism, not more.

The U.S. is changing nothing. It's (literally) business as usual for them.

[KrustyKidd]

Well, they should be teh companie sthat win the bids. Noty the Vice Presidents former company winning no-bid contracts and then over billing the government for services not rendered (like recent reports of convoys of empty Halliburton trucks driving around Iraq at the American taxpayers expense).

OK. Got you. At least we are off that ridiculous ‘oil for blood’ garbage. So one of your prime reasons to be against the War in Iraq is because some US big companies beat out other US big companies using underhandedness and bribery? Wow, you have come a long way BD. Long way to go though.

Yes. Pull out, let the Iraqi people take charge of their destiny.

Read a book called ‘Night of Stone’ by Catherence Merridale. . It’s about the culture of death in Russia in the 20th century Russia that stemmed from the Revolution. Read it, or look through it a bit. You will see what happens when anarchy reigns with various power hungry, yet influential individuals here and there offering some sort of sought after organization. Horrifying, death, torture on a biblical scale everywhere. Hell cannot be worse than what can happen if what you wish is unleashed. The end? No, the beginnning. What happens afterwards is power is consolidated under ONE firm hand. It may take years for this to happen but, it will happen, and when it does, the country is united by brutality that makes the preceeding horror pale in comparrison. I would rather see the keys get turned over to the Iranians five minutes from now rather than wish this on the Iraqi people.

AL QUEDA HELPING INSURGENTS

From the article.

In the statement that surfaced Friday on an al-Qaida-linked online periodical, Abdulaziz Issa Abdul-Mohsin al-Moqrin said al-Qaida is in close contact with fighters in Iraq.

"By our jihad in the Arab peninsula, we are serving Iraq's cause and helping the mujahedeen (fighters) there, whom we are in close contact with," he said. "There is mutual support between the two of us and we are working on confusing the American enemy."

It was not immediately possible to verify the statement's authenticity.

U.S. LOCATES WAY-STATION FOR IRAQI INSURGENCY

The U.S. military has identified and located a major facility used for the smuggling of Al Qaida-inspired insurgents from Syria into Iraq.

Also note that neither story has received any play in any of the "mainstream" media. What we do have here is talk of "Al Qaeda-inspired" groups forming "links" with alleged terrorists. All I can say is, Al Qaeda sure gets around for an organization that was never more than a few hundred strong at its peak, an organization that was said to have been virtually destroyed after the Afghistan invasion. Basically, "Al Qaeda" has become shorthand for any militiant islamic group, even if the connection is as tenuous as a shared ideology.

Do us a favor Black Dog, prove me wrong then. Give me some proof that the insurgents are intent on providing for free elections once they drive the US out. Can hardly wait for the election campaign promises and the census taking methods to become public, I have to hear how this is going to happen without the normal non-violent proceedures that normally happen during an election year in any western cuntry. BTW, I see Al Aladir as a kind of Kerry. Anti Bush but no real agenda, and that Sistani guy, looks like he must be for the ecology as he is definitely not big business. Where do they stand on women's rights? Trying to peg that one down. Any others out there or is it only those two I wonder. Hmmmm, good thing that foreign influences are not at play here otherwise it would get pretty messed up and you wouldn't know what anybody was up to.

Say, you don't suppose that there is a police presence at all women's rallys do you? Are they taking away from the fight against the insurgency by keeping back the mobs of lesbians and homosexuals? Bet they will be smart enough and for the people enough that they won't do what ur guys did and vote in their own pay raise first thing. Probably send a bill out amongst the people rather than rip out a few limbs and stone dissenters to death.

  Iraqi authorities, such as the Iraqi police and army, are considered collaborators. However, many members of the Iraqi police and army are actually helping the insurgency on the down lo. As for "killing the helpless" I find it odd that when civilians are killed by acts of the insurgency, its considered an intentional war crime. When the U.S kills civilians (like the wedding that was just blown to hell last week), they're either terrorists or collateral damage.

A guy walks into a crowded market and sets off a belt bomb. “Golly” he thinks to himself, “May Allah forgive me, I thought this was coalition HQ.”

On the other hand, the US says that the place was no wedding but rather a weapons cache, prove them wrong. I know the market was full of civillians and not US army, the ‘Wedding’ is reported to not have been a wedding. Go for it. You do the proof this time.

"causing instability"? That was accomplished when the U.S. toppled Saddam's regime and then completely dismantled Iraq's civil infrastructure.

And in doing so guted the Regieme from the body. Then began rebuilding Iraq in the best form of democracy for the country. Organized, as unchaotic as possible. Unchaotic as possible If you have a better way to make this unchaotic and still know that a vote will take place soner or later then better let the US know.

Yes, because the U.S. can't use overwhelming force, as that would destory any shreds of credibility they have. So they were forced to quit the field and turn the city over to the insurgents. They have the U.S. over a barrel.

 

In that area anyhow. Damm, you really are starting to get it. I do have to laugh though, the US has by virtue of being the US destroyed credibillity before they arrived, there is nothing left to destroy. I, in talking with you here for months have not heard ONE GOOD POINT about the US - and you are not the one sufering. Think about them, expand your mind a bit. The US has sancioned them and made war on them for decades, none of them think the US is good and you think the US is over a barrel for public opinon? They have nothing to lose and all to gain.

3 million people living in poverty and squalor under the boot of an illegal occupation by a so-called democracy. Three million people: half the number that died in the Holocaust. You don't see a problem with this?

Sure do. You and I are probably closer together on this than you think. However, in the here and now, Israel is no threat to Arabs. You know it, I know it, Saudi Arabia knows it as do the rest. They are as much a threat to their well being as a mugger in Miami is to you or I. A completely separate problem as they piss off the Arab world rather than threaten them. Hence, your argument about Israel being due for a Regieme change is stupid as they threaten nobody that does not threaten them with those weapons. They are a non problem except for those that seek a problem to shift blame for problems closer to home, like poverty, lack of human rights and all.

You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that gradual, peaceful reform was impractical because it would take too long. Then in the very next breath, you say that the U.S. occupation needs more time time to fulfill its mission. Well, how much time?

 

I would say that in one year, the US will be uninvolved in the day to day affairs of Iraq. They will maintain over a hundred thousand troops there to help back up Iraqi forces to quell people like Al Sadir and to help patrol their borders. There will be violence and it will get worse in the short term and then slowely get better.

The interem government which has drafted a constitution will hold elections by mid 2005 and a true Iraq government will be formed. It will be fraught with problems as would be expected and with US help in the form of advice, aid and political intervention (with the hopeful aid of the UN) it will fall and be reborn yet again into a form that has most of the bugs out.

I should think the whole process to take about five to ten years, after which, Iraq is fully Iraqi and noboy eles. Not Iranian, not Al Sadir’s, not Sistanis, not US. Just Iraqi.

On the other hand, to effect change by economic influence when the world depends on the product those in power have control over is like banging your head against a wall. It would be so slow that a coup would probably happen first. You still never got back to me how democracy could come to Saudi Arabia. Tick tock .......

  I've posted numerous articles showing how the new government will be shackeled by regulations set down by the CPA and staffed with U.S. apointees. You've ignored them all.

Please don’t think that I have ignored them Black Dog. I value your opinion and I agree with most of them, it is the interpretation and degree of reaction from you that we differ on. Yes, the US will control much and it will decrease as Iraq consolidates itself. Do you send a child into the world on it’s sixteenth birthday? How about sixteen and a half? When? To turn over Iraq to the Iraqis is to doom it to strife, death, failure to a return of US forces as another country tries to take it over by military force or by subversion. Picture turning the controls of a 747 over to a student pilot. He is eager, confident but highly inexperienced and questionably competent. The potential for failure is extreme, not a worry but the repercussions for failure dictate that no chances for it be allowed. Not sure if you understand that, but you should. 700 US sodiers have died, over ten thousand Iraqis have also died. Given that, you should be the last person on earth to take a chance that this should be given an opportunity to happen again. Do it safe, do it right - the first time. You know, measure twice, cut once.

Clearly, you belive the people of the undeveloped world cannot take care of themselves and must be saved by the U.S.A.

You mean to say not the USA but rather the western world I suppose given the input of same. The US reacted in this instance for reasons that we already talked about and I assume you dropped for lack of refutation. The past is the past and all of western society was there dong what it does; buy resources off of places that have shit to sell except valuable resources. Who is to blame? The east for selling it or the west for buying it? What would these people be doing if they had no oil?

Look inside your home and check out the places wherre EVERYTHING is made in. USA, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, India, man, I could even find a bottle of wine in my place made in Israel! Nothing is made in some Arabian hole, nothing! I dare you to find anything in your house made in the Middle East. And what countries in the third world are unqualified uccesses without western intervention? Got to get this list.

Aid without reform is like giving money to a starving drunk. That is probably the difference that separates us.

[takeanumber]

I was lied to about the WMD.

Thankfully, my main reason for supporting the war was on the grounds of human rights.

The US should have left a long time ago and allowed Iraqi's to decide their own fate. It sounds aweful, but national self-determination is the most liberal course of action.

(PS. To the new-Anti-Liberals who opposed the war because Iraq was already contained, SHAME ON YOU, so many dead iraqi children from the sanctions, and most of you wanted the sanctions to continue in lieu of war. To the old-Anti-Liberals who shifted their logic from WMD to human rights midway through, SHAME ON YOU, you're not fooling anybody by being irridentalist one day and switching when it suits you. The only people you're fooling are yourselves.)

[Hugo]

I was lied to about the WMD.

"Lied to" implies a malicious intent. I think what's closer to the truth is that you were told something believed to be true at the time.

Regardless, for me the justification for the war lies in two words: "Saddam Hussein." There is no good case for leaving that sorry excuse for a human being in power. It should have been done a long time ago (and for those who think the US is no better, I'll concede that point when I am shown the mass graves of 300,000 American dissidents murdered by the US government).

The US should have left a long time ago and allowed Iraqi's to decide their own fate.

If the US had left a long time ago the fate of Iraq would not be decided by the Iraqi people but by a tiny minority of extremely violent religious fanatics or former Ba'athists. That would be irresponsible. In the Nixon years the US might well have handed over the reins to a friendly despot and left the evil power hierarchy alone, the fact that they are committed to staying in Iraq for the long haul and rooting out the old power structure is testament to their good intentions.

Furthermore, it took four years after WWII for Germany to become self-governed once again (or at least, half of Germany, the other half took another 44 years), and Japan was occupied for seven years. Both these countries were also completely beaten militarily and the post-war resistance was infinitesimal, whereas that is not true of Iraq, as we are seeing. It's extremely foolish to believe that Iraq could be left to her own devices after only a few months, US troops will probably still be in the country in 2010 and rightly so. Anything else will almost certainly doom the Iraqis to the evils of Islamic fundamentalism or another military dictator.

[Black Dog]

OK. Got you. At least we are off that ridiculous ‘oil for blood’ garbage. So one of your prime reasons to be against the War in Iraq is because some US big companies beat out other US big companies using underhandedness and bribery? Wow, you have come a long way BD. Long way to go though.

See, what we have here is a failure to communicate. To you, it seems the oil argument boils down to the U.S wanting control of Iraq's oil, which is fundamentally true. However, thewre are numerous complexities, such as Iraq's decision to peg oil prices to the Euro, the rising strength of India and China (which are becoming major consumers of fossil fuels), access to Central Asian gas reserves and the need for a military prescence to maintain that access, profits for American and allied corporations (in the age of globalization, corporate nationalities mean little; whether the war was fought for Exxon or TotalElfina is irrelevant, either way, control of natural resources is out of the hands of the Iraqi people), etc etc.

But by boiling the argument down to the simpelest possible level, you miss the point completely.

Do us a favor Black Dog, prove me wrong then. Give me some proof that the insurgents are intent on providing for free elections once they drive the US out.

I don't follow youir logic. There's no guarantee the insurgency (which is, as I described elsewhere, not a singular monolithic entity, nor do the various factions share objectives) will lead to a democratic Iraq, therefore, they are by default affiliated with Al Qaeda?

Again, you are viewing the Iraqi people through the distorted lens of ethoncentrism and cultural ignorance. You seem to assume that Taliban style religious dictatorships are the default mode of governance for all Arab peoples. Iraq has a strong secular tradition and, until recently, had one of the best educated populations in the region.

However the fundamental point of all this is: it's not our call what form of government the Iraqi people opt for.

On the other hand, the US says that the place was no wedding but rather a weapons cache, prove them wrong. I know the market was full of civillians and not US army, the ‘Wedding’ is reported to not have been a wedding. Go for it. You do the proof this time.

Video shows wedding perty

You seem to view the U.S. with a child's faith in a parent.

And in doing so guted the Regieme from the body. Then began rebuilding Iraq in the best form of democracy for the country. Organized, as unchaotic as possible. Unchaotic as possible If you have a better way to make this unchaotic and still know that a vote will take place soner or later then better let the US know.

People often draw parralells with the successful post-war reconstruction of Germany. Flawed as this comparason is, there's a vital point to be drawn from it: both those nations had their civil infrastructure intact. That means many former Nazi loyalists continued to hold important positions in the new government to ensure a continuity of government. By completely de-Baathifying Iraq's government, as oppossed to gradually weeding out the more egregious criminals, the U.S. threw the civil structure into utter chaos. And how are they trying to build teh new "unchaotic" Iraqi body of government? By brining in old Baathists.

In that area anyhow. Damm, you really are starting to get it. I do have to laugh though, the US has by virtue of being the US destroyed credibillity before they arrived, there is nothing left to destroy. I, in talking with you here for months have not heard ONE GOOD POINT about the US - and you are not the one sufering. Think about them, expand your mind a bit. The US has sancioned them and made war on them for decades, none of them think the US is good and you think the US is over a barrel for public opinon? They have nothing to lose and all to gain.

I've said before that the U.S. has lost the war for the hearts and minds of the Arab people. But use of brute force to quell the insurgency would destroy what gioodwill remains in the west. The U.S. would become a global pariah.

Sure do. You and I are probably closer together on this than you think. However, in the here and now, Israel is no threat to Arabs. You know it, I know it, Saudi Arabia knows it as do the rest. They are as much a threat to their well being as a mugger in Miami is to you or I. A completely separate problem as they piss off the Arab world rather than threaten them. Hence, your argument about Israel being due for a Regieme change is stupid as they threaten nobody that does not threaten them with those weapons. They are a non problem except for those that seek a problem to shift blame for problems closer to home, like poverty, lack of human rights and all.

But the crux of your argument for the legality of the war is that Iraq (which was not demonstrated to be a threat) is that Iraq violated the letter of the resolutions against them. IOsraelhas done the same, therefore, whether they pose a threat or not is irrelevant. Simple non-compliance, by your logic, is basis enough for some kind of action.

I should think the whole process to take about five to ten years, after which, Iraq is fully Iraqi and noboy eles. Not Iranian, not Al Sadir’s, not Sistanis, not US. Just Iraqi.

On the other hand, to effect change by economic influence when the world depends on the product those in power have control over is like banging your head against a wall. It would be so slow that a coup would probably happen first. You still never got back to me how democracy could come to Saudi Arabia. Tick tock .......

For starters, I think democratic reforms and the end to the police state-like tactics of the Saud regime would forestall any coups (besides, the Sauds are under constant threat of overthrow). Eventually, I envisioned that Saudi Arabia could have made the transition to a Spanish style monarchy, with the House of Saud as nominal figureheads. How long would this take? Dunno.

But as I said, haste shouldn't be a consioderation. Gradual change is necessary to allow a democratic culture to develop. Democracy simply can't exist without certain preconditions, such as a free press and an educate dpopulation. You can't just thropw open the door to the voting booth and expect people who've lived under repressive regimes to vote. But if you look at countries where oppressed people have gained democratic freddoms, you find they take them very seriously (probably more than we in the west).

Yes, the US will control much and it will decrease as Iraq consolidates itself.

Give the Iraqi people some credit. For crying out loud, Iraq was once the centre of human civilization. These people don't need a "benevolant" hand to guide them. They can find their own way, and given enough resources and time, they will.

You mean to say not the USA but rather the western world I suppose given the input of same. The US reacted in this instance for reasons that we already talked about and I assume you dropped for lack of refutation. The past is the past and all of western society was there dong what it does; buy resources off of places that have shit to sell except valuable resources. Who is to blame? The east for selling it or the west for buying it? What would these people be doing if they had no oil?

That's a rose-colored view. You make it sound liek a tit-for-tat transaction: the east gets money, the west resources. By that logice, there should be no third world but a global community of equals. However, western governments learned long ago that its easier to do business with repressive regimes that allow for maximum expolkitation of resources, often at the expense of the actual people who liv ethere (read up on the Sudan and how western companies and governments back on eof the vilest regimes on the planet there in order to ensure access to oil). Your view of east/west relations is skewed and ahistorical.

Regardless, for me the justification for the war lies in two words: "Saddam Hussein."

Don't make me run through the rogue's gallery of crooks and criminals that still enjoy the favour of western governments.

I'll concede that point when I am shown the mass graves of 300,000 American dissidents murdered by the US government.

Well, mass graves in Fallujah soccer stadiums may only hold about 600 people, but ya gotta start somewhere...

If the US had left a long time ago the fate of Iraq would not be decided by the Iraqi people but by a tiny minority of extremely violent religious fanatics or former Ba'athists.

Are you a fortune teller now?

[takeanumber]

"Lied to" implies a malicious intent. I think what's closer to the truth is that you were told something believed to be true at the time.

There was malicious intent. An intent to get moderates to support the war.

How is talking about uranium cake when they knew full well that the intelligence was faulty, NOT LYING. Seriously.

Iraq is not Germany. There are important differences. For instance, Germany is largely one nation (remember--the whole 'Nazi' phase that no Germans seem to know anything about, or what's the latest excuse now? Oh, "It vas all Hitler, I vew nothing.")

Iraq is three nations.

So-- the situations arn't analogous. Maybe it's best to let them decide how to run their country and their lives. If they make the wrong choice and choose theocracy and support of terrorism, let France/Germany go in next time.

[Hugo]

Are you a fortune teller now?

I don't really have to be. The events speak for themselves. The democratic elements of Iraqi society are weak, there's no military and a skeletal police force. The militants are strong.

Don't make me run through the rogue's gallery of crooks and criminals that still enjoy the favour of western governments.

At least that gallery no longer includes Saddam Hussein. Although that seems to make many people very angry, for some reason - perhaps they'd like to go to Iraq, meet with the families and friends of Saddam's victims and tell them they really couldn't give a crap about them as long as they don't have to hear about it on CNN?

Oh yes, those people in Abu Ghraib/Fallujah/wherever. Tell you what, Blackdog, you visit the friends and family of Saddam's victims and I'll visit the friends and family of Abu Ghraib prisoners. I guarantee I'll be back home a long, long time before you are.

My last point is that the primary duty of a state is to protect their own citizens. Bearing that in mind, Saddam's murder of his own citizens is a far worse crime than anything the US could do excepting, as I said, the mass murder of 300,000 American political dissidents.

How is talking about uranium cake when they knew full well that the intelligence was faulty, NOT LYING. Seriously.

Workers in Saddam's WMD programme have admitted that they falsified their reports and told their superiors and Saddam that WMD progress was going really well. Are you seriously telling me you expect the CIA to know more about Saddam Hussein's WMD programme than Saddam himself does?

If they make the wrong choice and choose theocracy and support of terrorism, let France/Germany go in next time.

Why don't we get the country stable enough to hold an election and then see how they vote? You seem to be arguing that if the US pulls out and allows the Islamic fundamentalists to ram Sharia law down the throats of the Iraqi people at the point of an AK-47 a la Taliban, that's somehow the Iraqi people "choosing theocracy."

I.e. complete nonsense, as much as claiming that the North Koreans chose their despotic communist regime and love living (dying) under it.

[KrustyKidd]

See, what we have here is a failure to communicate. To you, it seems the oil argument boils down to the U.S wanting control of Iraq's oil, which is fundamentally true. However, thewre are numerous complexities, such as Iraq's decision to peg oil prices to the Euro, the rising strength of India and China (which are becoming major consumers of fossil fuels), access to Central Asian gas reserves and the need for a military prescence to maintain that access, profits for American and allied corporations (in the age of globalization, corporate nationalities  mean little; whether the war was fought for Exxon or TotalElfina is irrelevant, either way, control of natural resources is out of the hands of the Iraqi people), etc etc.

But by boiling the argument down to the simpelest possible level, you miss the point completely.

The Warden from ‘Cool Hand Luke.’ Good movie.

No, to many the ‘Oil Argument’ does just what you say and is false as I have provided proof of oil sales to ‘84% non-US interests.’

  I don't follow youir logic. There's no guarantee the insurgency (which is, as I described elsewhere, not a singular monolithic entity, nor do the various factions share objectives) will lead to a democratic Iraq, therefore, they are by default affiliated with Al Qaeda?

 

Yet you say that these groups represent the will of the Iraqi people? Let them fight it out yu figure? More deatrh, more terror and children being killed. Wow Black Dog, you rock!

Again, you are viewing the Iraqi people through the distorted lens of ethoncentrism and cultural ignorance. You seem to assume that Taliban style religious dictatorships are the default mode of governance for all Arab peoples. Iraq has a strong secular tradition and, until recently, had one of the best educated populations in the region.

However the fundamental point of all this is: it's not our call what form of government the Iraqi people opt for.

So true yet is not a democratically voted in government a fair one? Leaving now as you wish would ensure that the people never get a chance to make their wishes known. In the US plan, they may vote in a dictatorship but as long as it was done out of choice is the main thing. You equate democracy with our form of government when it is not. We are parliamentary, the US is a republic however both are voted in using the democratic process. It is this process that is the issue, not the form of government that takes power afterwards. With me anyhow, the US may have their own ideas but to simply allow the insurgentS to seize power and hope for the best is bull.

  Video shows wedding perty

ANOTHER VIEW

  Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said six women were among the dead, but he said there was no evidence any children died in the raid near the Syrian border. Coalition officials have said as many as 40 people were killed.

Kimmitt said video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.

"There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations too. Bad people have parties too."

Kimmitt said troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate a wedding had been held.

Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.

I've said before that the U.S. has lost the war for the hearts and minds of the Arab people. But use of brute force to quell the insurgency would destroy what gioodwill remains in the west. The U.S. would become a global pariah.

Gee willies BD, almost like somebody is thinking in the US military. A step ahead of you all the time.

But the crux of your argument for the legality of the war is that Iraq (which was not demonstrated to be a threat) is that Iraq violated the letter of the resolutions against them. IOsraelhas done the same, therefore, whether they pose a threat or not is irrelevant. Simple non-compliance, by your logic, is basis enough for some kind of action.

No, the crux of my argument is that it was legal to invade Iraq or at the very least not illegal. Given that, we can then move on to the actual reasons which were eliminating Saddam before he succeeded in his quest for WMD, installing a democratic elected government in Iraq to slow the fermentation of terrorism in the Middle East. As I have shown and you failed to disprove, Israel is no threat to any country in the middle east that does not attack her. Yes, it does have human rights problems with Palestinians (whom I think deserve far better treatment) but to the whole Midle East they are no threat with their WMDs. Therefore, your argument that we should invade Israel is based only on one thing rather than the many that the Iraq decision was made on.

Even you would not be able to justify it based on leftist arguments. For example; Israel has no oil to steal, Israel needs no extensive rebuilding so Haliburton could not come in and do heinious things, Bush has no secret deals going to make money off of, the US already has the ability to base troops there, it is not geographicly suitable to steal oil from other countries there. So see, even with your arguments there is nowhere near the reasons to invade Israel so can we drop this?

For starters, I think democratic reforms and the end to the police state-like tactics of the Saud regime would forestall any coups (besides, the Sauds are under constant threat of overthrow). Eventually, I envisioned that Saudi Arabia could have made the transition to a Spanish style monarchy, with the House of Saud as nominal figureheads. How long would this take? Dunno.

Good thing the Saudis are implementing all these reforms, you have a lnk? What’s the rumor mill say, next week? It would be a long process, maybe even centuries, and terrorists will simply sit around and wait or try to take advantage of any freedoms coming their way to operate even more freely within these new and open societies?

But as I said, haste shouldn't be a consioderation. Gradual change is necessary to allow a democratic culture to develop. Democracy simply can't exist without certain preconditions, such as a free press and an educate dpopulation. You can't just thropw open the door to the voting booth and expect people who've lived under repressive regimes to vote. But if you look at countries where oppressed people have gained democratic freddoms, you find they take them very seriously (probably more than we in the west).

Truer words have rearely been spoken. Hopefully Iraqis learn fast.

  Give the Iraqi people some credit. For crying out loud, Iraq was once the centre of human civilization. These people don't need a "benevolant" hand to guide them. They can find their own way, and given enough resources and time, they will. 

Who’s way Black Dog? Following this logic you think that a free for all is the answer when both know that violence precipitated by horrific revolutions in the past will be the fate of the Iraqis. I can’t believe that you find something wrong with a transitional government followed by elections. You think that the most violent, heavily armed faction should control Iraq. Wow.

You must be a huge WWF fan.

That's a rose-colored view. You make it sound liek a tit-for-tat transaction: the east gets money, the west resources. By that logice, there should be no third world but a global community of equals. However, western governments learned long ago that its easier to do business with repressive regimes  that allow for maximum expolkitation of resources, often at the expense of the actual people who liv ethere (read up on the Sudan and how western companies and governments back on eof the vilest regimes on the planet there in order to ensure access to oil). Your view of east/west relations is skewed and ahistorical.

The west did business with whoever could control and deliver. Good business sense. They have learned that it has a ‘blowback’ factor. That is why they are giving Iraq to the Iraqis. We are agreeing with each other on the US action here and you don’t even know it.

[Black Dog]

Y'know, KK, I was gonna go through point by point, when it hit me: why bother? From your tone it's clear you have both feet planted firmly in the soil of American exceptionalism: America by definition can do little wrong, makes no mistakes and is always on the side of justice, truth and freedom. Faced with such a rigid, dogmatic belief system, what argument, what evidence will stand? It's like debating the existence of god with a Jehovah's Witness: their entire belief system presupposes such a thing, thus rendering discussion pointless.

You take the U.S.'s good intentions purely at face value and accept all offical decrees without an ounce of skepticism.

I don't really have to be. The events speak for themselves. The democratic elements of Iraqi society are weak, there's no military and a skeletal police force. The militants are strong.

Simple fact is: the Iraqis want the military occupation to end. they don't care about the bloodshed to follow, they want to make their own destiny.

At least that gallery no longer includes Saddam Hussein. Although that seems to make many people very angry, for some reason - perhaps they'd like to go to Iraq, meet with the families and friends of Saddam's victims and tell them they really couldn't give a crap about them as long as they don't have to hear about it on CNN?

Boy, you just cannot wrap your head around teh concept that ousting saddm Hussein (a good thing, in and of it's self) is not the issue. The issue is selective support or censure of despots, thugs, crooks, murderers the world over by western nations out of pure self-interest. Trumpeting Saddam's ouster and using dead Iraqis as props doesn't change the fact that there are similar people running around elsewhere committing the same crimes, but who do so with the license of the west. This seriously undermines the argument that Saddam's removal was predicated on humanitarian grounds.

Why don't we get the country stable enough to hold an election and then see how they vote? You seem to be arguing that if the US pulls out and allows the Islamic fundamentalists to ram Sharia law down the throats of the Iraqi people at the point of an AK-47 a la Taliban, that's somehow the Iraqi people "choosing theocracy."

The Taliban actually did have widespread popular support when they took power. They were seen by Afghanis and the western nations who backed the mujahadeen insurgents as a stablizing force.

Again, the language is telling: only "we" can stabalize Iraq and bring democracy. Of course it will be "our" democracy.

[Bushmustgo]

We come back down to WMD I see. Let's go back and put that logic into perspective anyway.

We claimed that we were going to for the stock piles that Saddam claimed he no longer had; however, Pyong in N. Korea was letting us know that he could hit California with one of these weapons...and we didn't attack him.

He even said that he would sell them and we still didn't do anything, is it because there isn't much oil in that region?

We didn't get rid of torture chambers run by Saddam, we opened them back up, "under new management," quoted by Ted Kennedy.

Was Iraq like that because of Saddam or Saddam like that because of Iraq. The country has a violent history of overthrowing the govt. and he layed down the law, which almost seems essential in that country, seeing what we're seeing today.

Black dog,

You make an excellent observation about people seeing America as a child sees a parent. It's crazy that peope think the U.S. does nothing wrong and it's always the other side...this falls under some type of blind following.

[Black Dog]

My last point is that the primary duty of a state is to protect their own citizens. Bearing that in mind, Saddam's murder of his own citizens is a far worse crime than anything the US could do excepting, as I said, the mass murder of 300,000 American political dissidents.

Furthermore, Saddam's atrocities were well known for most of the last 25 years. Yet suddenly it becomes a priority? Up until the day of the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was a fine guy. Then he slipped his leash and had to be punished. Again however, that punishment did not extend to his outster by the coalition, nor did the coalition support the rebellion of Iraqi generals and people, a uprising that was encouraged by the west. The rebels wanted access to captured Iraqi equipment and wanted the U.S. to prevent helicopters and so on from destroying them. The U.S. just backed off and effectively authorized Saddam to destroy the rebellion, which could have overthrown him. However, the overwhelminging consensus was that Saddam's iron-fist brought stability to the region, which allowed western firms and governments to continue to do business with him (even if it meant violating sanctions).

[Hugo]

Furthermore, Saddam's atrocities were well known for most of the last 25 years. Yet suddenly it becomes a priority?

Why not? Are you saying it is better to continue with an erroneous policy indefinitely, than to realise that it is erroneous and correct it?

Simple fact is: the Iraqis want the military occupation to end. they don't care about the bloodshed to follow, they want to make their own destiny.

You've asked them? I don't know that they don't care about the bloodshed to follow. After 300,000 (possibly more) murders I'd imagine they were pretty sick of bloodshed. My mother is a friend of an Iraqi dissident living in Britain, who tells me that everybody in Iraq knows someone who was "disappeared" by the Ba'ath Party. This isn't something that went on without people knowing.

Boy, you just cannot wrap your head around teh concept that ousting saddm Hussein (a good thing, in and of it's self) is not the issue. The issue is selective support or censure of despots, thugs, crooks, murderers the world over by western nations out of pure self-interest.

So I don't understand why our opinion differs on this. When George W ousted Saddam, my response was, "Good start." I hoped he'd then do something about other tyrants in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere. I also hoped he'd quit backing dictators and put pressure on friendly but despotic nations to reform.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the problem of Western backing of despots should never begin to be resolved. Your best course of action is complete inaction. Either that or you expect Rome to be built in a day.

Again, the language is telling: only "we" can stabalize Iraq and bring democracy. Of course it will be "our" democracy.

Only "we" can stabilise Iraq. Native democratic institutions are not able to defend themselves against the militants yet. What do you seriously think would happen if Coalition forces pulled out tomorrow? Do you think there'd be an election? No, there'd be an Ayatollah.

Yes, it will probably be "our" democracy. British/American democracy has been established for centuries and has proven itself extremely resilient to would-be native tyrants and foreign conquerors. They will make excellent role models for the Iraqi constitution.

If you believe that the US will "fix" Iraqi democracy in their favour, that doesn't happen. France, Germany, Italy, Japan and other democracies created or rescued by the US have proven themselves independent of and sometimes even hostile to the US. If the US wants a compliant, puppet-state Iraq current events would not even be happening. We'd already have some American mouthpiece dictator in office with the Ba'ath power structure functioning neatly under him.

[KrustyKidd]

No need to go point by point Black Dog, as you can see I have pretty well most of them covered anyhow. I must admit that the notion of voluntary social change in Saudi was pretty good. I can just see all these Arab guys petitioning for women's sufferage LOL.

Anyhow, no. I am not a ferverent USA supporter who overlooks all blemishes. I do however maintain that the left (who's arguments you seem to go along with fairly consistently) feel that they are the most evil, sinister collection of individuals who ever slithered across the face of the planet. Nothing they do has a good intention, nothing they attempt is what it appears to be, their word is crap and they love to watch babies writhe on the tips of their pitchforks. This is a caractiture of what I am up against. Is it any wonder that we don't discuss normally how Bush may have been over zealous, why things are not going perfect and such? To condeed one inch opens up a tidal wave of anti US garbage with only a few rational points which seems to have no end. So much shit is thrown into the air by the left (who's arguments you seem to go along with fairly consistently) in the hopes that some will stick that it makes realistic discussion laughable.

Take the wedding thing last week. Nowhere has any leftist given any play to the fact that insurgents, who lack military means, commonly use, out of necessity disinformation and public opinion to battle the US. They hide amongst the population in general and are not adverse to emdangering them as Saddam did by hiding Command Posts in population centers or even killing them if it furthers their cause. Is it possible that it may not have been a wedding? You bet. However, look at every leftist post on every forum, it is not mentioned ONCE as a possiblity. On the otherhand, US forces who frequently admit miscalculation and hold enquiries contend that it was what they say it was, and that there are no indications it was the innocent thing that the Iraqis say. It serves no purpose to deliberately attack innocents save give the enemy fodder to fuel anti Americanism, which, is highly opposite to what they are trying to achieve. Yet, as in the prison fiasco, they do hold them, even prior to it becomming public as it was in that case. Did we discuss that? No, the pro war camp was too busy trying to deflect an all out assualt on the integrity of the US because of this.

You ignore history and the horror and death that occurs in situations where factions fight for control amidst chaos and demand that the only stable influence leave merely to hold the Anti US banner and wave it. In order to have your way, to have the US fall into whatever leftist theory of relativity you hold dear, you would see millions of Iraqis face torture, starvation and mutilation with the end relief being, what in all probability, would be a hard Islamic Fundemamentalist Society, complete with ritual beheadings, traumatic limb amputationsand stonings. Not to mention the virtual slavery of half it's population. You don't give any thought that possibly, the US is doing what it says it is doing.

Myself, to be honest, believe that the game plan has changed all along and morphed into what it is today - bring democracy to Iraq. In the begining, GW was probably sure there were copious amounts of WMD and played it as such. Upon closer examination and challenged with providing hard proof, there was no one outstanding factor to show. It like the following Terrorist connections was a vast pool of information that left no other conclusion. Iraq's terrorist ties - you have to read it to understand it, no smoking gun but if true, lots of proof indeed. For rapid consumption though, and the 'Smoking Gun Effect,' it was not as solid as they had thought. Nothing sinister there however, as so did every other leader in the free world. To expect GW to know Iraq had none or not as many as he thought while Saddam himself thought he had them (as he was told by his scientists) is silly. The war plan was comming along nicely and the secondary reasons (and there were a lot of them) took over and they went ahead. Remember when the shift went from WMD to Regieme Change?

Anyhow, possibly the US intended to set up a Puppet Government origionally, that is not possible for them to do now as the only thing holding this together is their word and highly publicized effort to turn power over to the Iraqis. No, the US is bad and evil so we never got to that discussion point, as once again, I, and others like me had to counter stupid conspiracy theories as they cascaded from the left. Some were completely out on Mars and others were well founded but strived to extract too unreasonable a price to be agreed upon or even entertained ie; Rumsfeld resigning, US leave now, Bush impeachment and all. Like get real!

The transition will not be pell mell with complete disreguard for life as you would have it, but in stages and steps designed to avoid culture shock and leave an extremely dangerous vacum. But no, we can't go into that because they are all bad. Never good. Always make mistakes, never do anything right and the enemy is always on a higher level of morality than they. This is why I shut you down in pretty much every argument as you just have Anti US irrationally dripping from every word. We can say how the US is not acting according to it's principals but this is war and we have to be realistic. There are bad people out there who have no rules to play with except try to tie the hands of the US with world opinion while they blow up school buses full of Iraqi kids and lop Jews heads off. They have you to help them and me to counter that. Yes the US has made mistakes, yes, their reasons are selfish, yet they coincide with the interests of the world in this case. Is a free and self governed Iraq not benificial to the world? I know you will never change your opinion so I merely try to keep your rhetoric based on reality, not deliberate and easily refuted misinformation so that onthers who are undecided don't simply have one voice to listen to.

Simple fact is: the Iraqis want the military occupation to end. they don't care about the bloodshed to follow, they want to make their own destiny.

Oh well, guess that they will have to wait just a little longer then. The US is not going anywhere until these people are given the opportunity to choose their future rather than have it imposed onthem by force. Now before you come back with the usual 'but the US is forcing them ....' remember, that they are not forcing anybody except those who want to deny that choice, They have ousted a regieme that supressed Iraq, taken on those who fight for the power in Iraq and will not go until all threat to a choice is gone. This is a threat only to those who wish to sieze power in the usual manner - by force. It has little to do with the average Iraqi who has only to bear with it for however long it takes. If the average Iraqi does not understand this, who's fault is that? The US's who continually tell them they are there to give them a free vote or the insurgents, aided by people like you who provide the Insurgents with moral support by carrying out non stop US bashing telling them the US is wrong and trying to steal their country? No wonder they are suspect.

I suppose you know of Saddam's interview with Dan Rather where he said that he knew the US would never attack because of all the protestors and world opinion? Same tactics, same result. Miscalculation and death. While not causing action, you and those like you stand on the sidelines giving insurgents, who will eventually lose, hope. Hope that the resolve of the US will dissipate come November, hope that they will be victorious, hope that they will come to power and dictate thir policies and leave the people of Iraq to their mercy. It is possible that the hope you give them costs lives as they attempt to portray themselves more powerful than they actually are with atrocious acts against everyone in Iraq. These acts will get greater come June 30 as they become more desparate and then subside possibly revitalising come closer to November. In any case, the factioning of America provides great comfort to them and is a morale lowerer for the troops. 'Support the troops' is a slogan. Leftists do it by trying undermine them and get them home. Have any idea how the Insurgents would take this unlikely event? A retreat, and it, however unlikely would not be a peaceful one as they would more than likely attack US forces and the people of Iraq to solidify their power relentlesly as they left causeing even more death.

Again, the language is telling: only "we" can stabalize Iraq  and bring democracy. Of course it will be "our" democracy.

Who's quote is that? So you think that after all this high and mighty talk that the US is going to bring in Saddam's brother? How do you think that would sit with anybody? Comon BD, even people like me would jump the pro US ship if that happened. What do you think when 25 million Iraqis rise up which they would. It's a leftist dream come true for that to happen and every right winger's nightmare, you wouldn't get that liucky.

Furthermore, Saddam's atrocities were well known for most of the last 25 years. Yet suddenly it becomes a priority?

Nothing new in your usual argument. The US was bum buddies with Stalin during WWII, and at one point Stalin and Hitler were giving each other back rubs. So what is it you are getting at? That you are unable to grasp that politics is a fluid action? Comon now, see what I mean by stupid arguments? Now, if you want to go into US Hegemony and their attempts to circumvent the actions of all other powers I will, but you must also be open minded enogh to acknowledge that the Euros and Asians are attempting the same thing as are the Arabs.

His invasion of Iran was great for the US, the Invasion of Kuwait was not, the poised invasion of Saudi Arabia was not and his continual aspirations to achieve nuclear power coupled with his continuing deciet in keeping his WMD capability showed that his probable aspirations had not changed. Even as his people suffered sanctions, no fly zones and UN resolutions. What alternative was open to the world? More opportunities? Yes. How many? One more, two more? We can play this all day but the US, with 9 11 chose no more. They chose to take advantage of Saddam's miscalculation and use him as a door to change the face of the Middle East and yes, I hate to use your words for my argument, but to "force democracy."

Yes, the US let the rebels down after Gulf I and it was a moment of true shame however, remember, the last thing the US or the World needed was another Iran so a hard choice had to be made. Here, I agree with you, it was a terrible miscalculation and should have been in the planning before Desert Storm.

[Black Dog]

Why not? Are you saying it is better to continue with an erroneous policy indefinitely, than to realise that it is erroneous and correct it?

Because it's a mistake to believe the toppling of Saddam's regime represents a shift in policy rather than a continuation of the same cycle that breeds such tyrants in the first place. Realpolitik is still the order of the day.

You've asked them? I don't know that they don't care about the bloodshed to follow. After 300,000 (possibly more) murders I'd imagine they were pretty sick of bloodshed. My mother is a friend of an Iraqi dissident living in Britain, who tells me that everybody in Iraq knows someone who was "disappeared" by the Ba'ath Party. This isn't something that went on without people knowing.

Polls have consitently shown that Iraqis want the occupation to end.

And let's not forget some other important facts: Iraq under Saddam as a stable, secular society with the most educated population in the region, largely due to the support his regime recieved from the west as a bulwark against revolutionary Islam.

When George W ousted Saddam, my response was, "Good start." I hoped he'd then do something about other tyrants in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere. I also hoped he'd quit backing dictators and put pressure on friendly but despotic nations to reform.

Do you see that happening? Despotic regimes happen to be the easiest kind for western countries to do business with. Nothing promotes a stable investment environment like an iron-fisted government with a cowed population.

That's why we'll never see the U.S. go after Saudi Arabia, the biggest sponsor of terror and one of the worst human rights violaters tehre is: the ties that bind are strong.

That said, I too believe the first step is to stop supporting these bastards in the first place.

Only "we" can stabilise Iraq. Native democratic institutions are not able to defend themselves against the militants yet. What do you seriously think would happen if Coalition forces pulled out tomorrow? Do you think there'd be an election? No, there'd be an Ayatollah

Oh? Based on what, exactly? Again: are you assuming that Islamic theocracies are the default form of governance in the region?

If you believe that the US will "fix" Iraqi democracy in their favour, that doesn't happen. France, Germany, Italy, Japan and other democracies created or rescued by the US have proven themselves independent of and sometimes even hostile to the US. 

France Germany et all are flawed comparisons as all were industrialized nations with some established democratic institutions. Why not look at Iran, where the U.S ousted a democratic government for the Shah, or the oft-repeated example of Chile?

If the US wants a compliant, puppet-state Iraq current events would not even be happening. We'd already have some American mouthpiece dictator in office with the Ba'ath power structure functioning neatly under him.

By "current events" you mean the wrangling between the Council and the Coalition over the Iraqi president, it's interesting to note that this deadlock is over a dispute over the new president stems from the U.S wanting a leader who will abide by the interim constitution, a docyument that severly handcuffs the soverignty of the new Iraq.

No need to go point by point Black Dog, as you can see I have pretty well most of them covered anyhow. I must admit that the notion of voluntary social change in Saudi was pretty good. I can just see all these Arab guys petitioning for women's sufferage LOL.

Ah you obvioulsy missed the point about the U.S. using political and economic leverage to push for reforms. But then those women-hating Ay-rabs probably only respond to force, right?

I do however maintain that the left (who's arguments you seem to go along with fairly consistently) feel that they are the most evil, sinister collection of individuals who ever slithered across the face of the planet

Like you said, a caricature. The U.S. to me is more of a self-important bully, prone to high-minded rhetoric and very ugly actions. No different than any other dominant nation throughout history, but not the pure force for good its apologists see it as.

"Anti-US garbage"? It's now "antiAmerican" to step away from the preconceptions that the U.S. is inherently good, to acknowledge self-interest, greed and the desire for continued power as the drivers of a nationalist foreign policy?

Is it possible that it may not have been a wedding? You bet. However, look at every leftist post on every forum, it is not mentioned ONCE as a possiblity. On the otherhand, US forces who frequently admit miscalculation and hold enquiries contend that it was what they say it was, and that there are no indications it was the innocent thing that the Iraqis say.

Uh..no evidence? Eyewitnesses? Video footage? But I giuess we're just suppossed to swallow everything Senor and Kimmit say. After all, they wouldn't have any reason to cover up such an incident (which resembles a similar attack on an Afghan wedding party in 2002). There's no enquiry coming, because that would entail acknowledging the possibility that the U.S. err'd.

You don't give any thought that possibly, the US is doing what it says it is doing

History and past behavior have given me to reason to believe it.

To expect GW to know Iraq had none or not as many as he thought while Saddam himself thought he had them (as he was told by his scientists) is silly.

A basic rule of war is that, if possible, you don't attack anybody who can defend themselves. Iraq, with an undermanned, undergunned conscript army shattered after two devestating wars and 12 years of seige, was not a deterrent. WMD were not a deterrent, since the destruction of Iraq's WMD stockpiles was well-deocumented. As for the "intelligence": aluminum tubes? Yellowcake? Disinformation fed up the line by Chalibi's INC and the neocons in the DoD. The CIA's intelligence estimates were consistently out of step with thos eof other agencies, such as the IAEC and UN inspection teams.

Bad intelligence and more.

What we had was a combination of incompetence and delibrate distortion.

By the way: your link relies heavily on Laurie Myrolie's work" work which has never been backed by intelligence community.

Armchair Provocateur

Mary Jo White, the no-nonsense U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted both the Trade Center case and the al Qaeda bombers behind the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, told me that there was no evidence to support Mylroie's claims: "We investigated the Trade Center attack thoroughly, and other than the evidence that Ramzi Yousef traveled on a phony Iraqi passport, that was the only connection to Iraq." Neil Herman, the F.B.I. official who headed the Trade Center probe, explained that following the attacks, one of the lower-level conspirators, Abdul Rahman Yasin, did flee New York to live with a family member in Baghdad: "The one glaring connection that can't be overlooked is Yasin. We pursued that on every level, traced him to a relative and a location, and we made overtures to get him back." However, Herman says that Yasin's presence in Baghdad does not mean Iraq sponsored the attack: "We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government." In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack.

Nothing new in your usual argument. The US was bum buddies with Stalin during WWII, and at one point Stalin and Hitler were giving each other back rubs. So what is it you are getting at? That you are unable to grasp that politics is a fluid action? Comon now, see what I mean by stupid arguments? Now, if you want to go into US Hegemony and their attempts to circumvent the actions of all other powers I will, but you must also be open minded enogh to acknowledge that the Euros and Asians are attempting the same thing as are the Arabs.

His invasion of Iran was great for the US, the Invasion of Kuwait was not, the poised invasion of Saudi Arabia was not and his continual aspirations to achieve nuclear power coupled with his continuing deciet in keeping his WMD capability showed that his probable aspirations had not changed. Even as his people suffered sanctions, no fly zones and UN resolutions. What alternative was open to the world? More opportunities? Yes. How many? One more, two more? We can play this all day but the US, with 9 11 chose no more. They chose to take advantage of Saddam's miscalculation and use him as a door to change the face of the Middle East and yes, I hate to use your words for my argument, but to "force democracy."

Yes, the US let the rebels down after Gulf I and it was a moment of true shame however, remember, the last thing the US or the World needed was another Iran so a hard choice had to be made. Here, I agree with you, it was a terrible miscalculation and should have been in the planning before Desert Storm.

Nothing new here. Deliberate foreign policy decisions are shrugged off as "mistakes", and the ends always justify the means. Of course, no acknolwedgement is made between policies of the past (Oh, sure we supported Saddam then, but only because the Iranians were bad) and policies today. Everything exists in a historical vacum. No precedents, no patterns of behavior.

[Black Dog]

Feud over presidency stalls Iraqi cabinet

Differences between the Iraqi Governing Council and American authorities over who should be Iraq's figurehead president stalled a final agreement Sunday on the makeup of an interim government to take power June 30.

A council member said the United States and United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi favoured former foreign minister Adnan Pachachi, who supports keeping foreign troops in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized.

However, most of the 22 members of the council support the current chairman, civil engineer Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, who has been more critical of the U.S.-led occupation.

...

Mr. Bremer and President George W. Bush's special envoy, Robert Blackwill, attended part of a five-hour council meeting Sunday and urged the members not to vote on the presidency choice, apparently fearing that Mr. al-Yawer would win, council sources said.

The Americans warned that if the council went ahead and voted, the United States might not recognize the choice, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

The Coalition Provisional Authority, run by Mr. Bremer, has the final say in all policy decisions in Iraq.

Former Exile Is Selected As Interim Iraqi Leader

Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council on Friday unanimously nominated Ayad Allawi, a Shiite Muslim politician and former exile whose party was supported by the CIA, to be the country's interim prime minister.

Meet the new boss.

A man for all intrigues

There could be no more perfect evidence of the desperation among U.S. officials dealing with Iraq than the choice of veteran Baathist and CIA hireling Iyad Allawi as prime minister of the "sovereign" government due to take office after June 30. As one embittered Iraqi told me from Baghdad on Friday: "The appointment must have been orchestrated by Ahmed Chalabi in order to discredit the entire process." He was not entirely joking, given the fact that Chalabi joined the rest of the Governing Council in voting for Allawi despite their long and vicious rivalry.

Though he is Shiite, Allawi was once upon a time an active Baathist, a member of Saddam Hussein's political party, and is thought to enjoy much support among the officer corps of the old Iraqi army, and by extension among many former Baathists and influential Sunni. Indeed, there are reports that the reason Ahmed Chalabi, the neoconservative favorite, urged his friends in the White House to dissolve the army last year -- a decision now acknowledged to be the most disastrous of the occupation -- was Chalabi's fear of the support enjoyed by his rival (and cousin -- everyone in Baghdad is related) within the military.

So it does indeed look like we will have a return of CIA-style sovereignty to Iraq, leading up to a Sunni-dominated government that represents a melding of the pre-Saddam Baath Party and the military dictatorship that preceded it, albeit with a new pro-USA flair.

[KrustyKidd]

Feud over presidency stalls Iraqi cabinet

Differences between the Iraqi Governing Council and American authorities over who should be Iraq's figurehead president stalled a final agreement Sunday on the makeup of an interim government to take power June 30.

A council member said the United States and United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi favoured former foreign minister Adnan Pachachi, who supports keeping foreign troops in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized.

However, most of the 22 members of the council support the current chairman, civil engineer Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, who has been more critical of the U.S.-led occupation.

...

Mr. Bremer and President George W. Bush's special envoy, Robert Blackwill, attended part of a five-hour council meeting Sunday and urged the members not to vote on the presidency choice, apparently fearing that Mr. al-Yawer would win, council sources said.

The Americans warned that if the council went ahead and voted, the United States might not recognize the choice, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

The Coalition Provisional Authority, run by Mr. Bremer, has the final say in all policy decisions in Iraq.

Former Exile Is Selected As Interim Iraqi Leader

Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council on Friday unanimously nominated Ayad Allawi, a Shiite Muslim politician and former exile whose party was supported by the CIA, to be the country's interim prime minister.

Meet the new boss.

A man for all intrigues

There could be no more perfect evidence of the desperation among U.S. officials dealing with Iraq than the choice of veteran Baathist and CIA hireling Iyad Allawi as prime minister of the "sovereign" government due to take office after June 30. As one embittered Iraqi told me from Baghdad on Friday: "The appointment must have been orchestrated by Ahmed Chalabi in order to discredit the entire process." He was not entirely joking, given the fact that Chalabi joined the rest of the Governing Council in voting for Allawi despite their long and vicious rivalry.

Though he is Shiite, Allawi was once upon a time an active Baathist, a member of Saddam Hussein's political party, and is thought to enjoy much support among the officer corps of the old Iraqi army, and by extension among many former Baathists and influential Sunni. Indeed, there are reports that the reason Ahmed Chalabi, the neoconservative favorite, urged his friends in the White House to dissolve the army last year -- a decision now acknowledged to be the most disastrous of the occupation -- was Chalabi's fear of the support enjoyed by his rival (and cousin -- everyone in Baghdad is related) within the military.

So it does indeed look like we will have a return of CIA-style sovereignty to Iraq, leading up to a Sunni-dominated government that represents a melding of the pre-Saddam Baath Party and the military dictatorship that preceded it, albeit with a new pro-USA flair.

Check out the word 'interim' in the dictionary Black Dog. When the Interim Government has called elections and they get fixed, then you have a case, untyil then, you have simply a rant.

Nothing new here. Deliberate foreign policy decisions are shrugged off as "mistakes", and the ends always justify the means. Of course, no acknolwedgement is made between policies of the past (Oh, sure we supported Saddam then, but only because the Iranians were bad) and policies today. Everything exists in a historical vacum. No precedents, no patterns of behavior.

Nothing new? I would say that forming what is going to be an all Iraqi government to pave the way for free elections instead of simply installing a US Groomed dictator is fairly new. Of course, you wish that they would leave now and allow militants to take over but, unlike you (or the way you seem to be anyhow) the rest of us value human life and wish to see the people get to at least choose rather than have it dictated at the end of a gun by militents. I would answer your post point for point but, scince you are unable to see that things are a little different (until the US is proven to be doing the same as they have always done) this time, I leave you to your 'oil for blood' slogans.

Just wondering though, scince you contend that the US lies and the insurgents don't (Wedding and all) what history of inquiries do the insurgents have compared to the US? When do they admit they have made errors and such? What makes you feel that they would never use public opinion as a way of achieving their goals? I, on the other hand, am following this story before I make final judgement. There is a lot to it that is suspicious but of course, you, the hanging judge already know everything, the eye of Black Dog sees everything.

[Black Dog]

Check out the word 'interim' in the dictionary Black Dog. When the Interim Government has called elections and they get fixed, then you have a case, untyil then, you have simply a rant.

So, none of these machinations are problematic to you? All will be swept clean by the new government (CPA-approved constitution and appointees intact)?

I was right before: you have a child's faith.

Just wondering though, scince you contend that the US lies and the insurgents don't (Wedding and all) what history of inquiries do the insurgents have compared to the US? When do they admit they have made errors and such? What makes you feel that they would never use public opinion as a way of achieving their goals? I, on the other hand, am following this story before I make final judgement

That's an interesting distortion, given the inverse can be said of you. The big differnce in this situation is the insurgency, a multi-faceted movement with a variety of factions and objectives doesn't seem to have a clear cut communications strategy. Whereas propaganda and disinformation are the heart of the U.S communications strategy (remember the carefully-constructed PR event that was the toppling of Saddam's statue?). As well, the U.S. is sticking with the official line that it was an insurgents camp.

The U.S. military says it is investigating the attack, which took place in the village of Mogr el-Deeb about eight kilometres from the Syrian border, but that all evidence so far indicates the target was a safehouse for foreign fighters.

"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig.-Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly coloured beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent.

Kimmitt said U.S. troops who swept through the area found rifles, machine-guns, foreign passports, bedding, syringes and other items that suggested the site was used by foreigners infiltrating from Syria.

The videotape showed no weapons, although they are common among rural Iraqis.

Kimmitt has denied finding evidence that any children died in the raid although a "handful of women" - perhaps four to six - were "caught up in the engagement."

"They may have died from some of the fire that came from the aircraft," he told reporters Friday.

However, an AP reporter obtained names of at least 10 children who relatives said had died. Bodies of five of them were filmed by APTN when the survivors took them to Ramadi for burial Wednesday. Iraqi officials said at least 13 children were killed.

[Montgomery Burns]

Some of you seem to forget that Saddam broke his ceasefire agreement. Do you know what happens when you break a ceasefire agreement?

Bush saying "stockpiles" was a precise summary of the UN's report. There was mustard gas found on May 2. There was a shell found with 4 litres of the deadly nerve agent sarin found about a week ago. Before you say, "it's only one shell", ask yourself this: If the Mars Rover was searching Mars for life and couldn't find anything until the last day - when it found a spoon...would one not conclude that if one found a spoon that there was life on Mars? It seems like a reasonable assumption.

I believe that they are hidden (they did find buried fighter planes) or they were shipped to neighboring Baathist Syria. If the cops announced to you that they were going to conduct a drug raid on your house next month - and if you had drugs in your house - would you not get rid of the drugs?

[KrustyKidd]

So, none of these machinations are problematic to you? All will be swept clean by the new government (CPA-approved constitution and appointees intact)?

I was right before: you have a child's faith.

And you have a narrow mind. You are stuck on this interim government thing thinking that it is permanent in some way. it is a transitional phase Black Dog, they could throw GW Bush in there and it would not mean a damm thing. It is a caretaker government that is designed to pave the way. Of course you know this but simply need stuff to throw around to keep the US in place as the villan.

Hey, I got an idea! In order to make you happy we will make the transitional government more to your liking. In order to do this we will have to hold elections and run candidates and such. There, that's the solution. Of course, there being no sure way to hold even rudamentry elections at the moment we will have to have a tranisional government but ...... then again we are back to square one. Damm.

OK, how about this, we let the Iraqis pick their own guys. Where tho start, what to do .... to do .... hmmmmm. I know, hold elections. That way we can see who gets to pick the ........ Damm Black Dog, this is going nowhere.

OK, let's try it the US's way with a twist. We back an Islamic cleric and trust that he understands democracy and elections. Or, round up a few random insurgents and put them there on a rotating basis. Damm, you must like that as you seem to hold them on a pedestel as the 'Real voice of the Iraqi people.' That wouldn't work too well as they would simply start blowing the council up soon as the US left them alone. No Black Dog, looks like the only way to make it through this transitional phase is to have an interim government actually placed by somebody. Hmmm, who should place them? The Russians, French, UN? There's an idea, the Interim Council with the US pressuring. What have they recommended so far? Exactly what is happening.

There could be no more perfect evidence of the desperation among U.S. officials dealing with Iraq than the choice of veteran Baathist and CIA hireling Iyad Allawi as prime minister of the "sovereign" government due to take office after June 30.

Now, here is where you and I become like child and adult. It is a reality check Black Dog. You think the Iraqis can just go ahead and fail, you seem to have no problem just letting them do whatever they want without caring that a lot of lives have been lost in this endeavor and ten times as many still can if it fails. Sure, they want to run it for themselves, teenagers want to be free as well. You going to give your thirteen year old daughter carte blanche to a Visa card, the car, the house and everything else?

When you ask if there is anything wrong, I have to say that yes, there is. I would have hoped that things would have been better stabilized so that the US could have given it over to a more Iraqi interim government. Oh well. I don't see anything sinister in this, if the US has to impose more authority than they wanted I would imagine that they would pressure for two of their own guys rather than an unknown. Like, there is a single minded purpose here - to install an informed democratic society through vote.

Interim Council and the Presidency Choice

Two council members said other candidates may be put forward to break the deadlock.

The U.S.-run coalition maintains ultimate authority in Iraq, but the Americans must decide whether they want to risk a major breach with their Iraqi allies at a sensitive period as Washington prepares to hand control of a still-unstable, war-ravaged country to an untested leadership.

Asked what the council would do if the Americans refused to budge, Talabani said he had great respect for Pachachi, “but we will not accept an imposition.”

President Bush, facing his own election in November, must ensure that Iraqi politicians who take power next month are supportive of U.S. goals in Iraq.

Gee Black Dog, that sure sounds like a different story then the one you project with the US calling the shots period rather than influencing as they should.

If, as I said, there is no free elections then that will provide you with all the anti US rhetoric for decades to come.

As for your two comparissons of the wedding story, how do you make the determination that the US story is complety false? Gut feel? History? How? Even me being pro US cannot tell if they are right and the Iraqi story is not true. At worst however, a terrible error was made, not a deliberate killing of a Wedding party, at best, a terrorist transition point was taken out. Somewhere between the two is the truth.

[Hugo]

Because it's a mistake to believe the toppling of Saddam's regime represents a shift in policy rather than a continuation of the same cycle that breeds such tyrants in the first place.

This is speculation, and highly unrealistic speculation at that. What do you think the reaction would be at this point if George W. Bush came out of the White House tomorrow and said, "hey listen, I changed my mind. There won't be any Iraqi elections. Meet my good buddy Mustafah Al-Massacre, he'll be running the country with the help of a big gang of thugs and the CIA."

I don't think so. Time will tell, but you are leaping to a highly unlikely conclusion. Furthermore, there are many countries in the world where US involvement has created or rescued genuine democracy. There is a substantial track record for that too, which you seem to have forgotten.

Polls have consitently shown that Iraqis want the occupation to end.

Have they consistently shown the Iraqis want a full-scale civil war, or a theocratic or military dictator to step into Saddam's shoes? I'm sure the polls do say what you claim - much as polls in Canada would show people would like better-funded healthcare and schools combined with lower taxes. The trouble is that it's not possible. If the Coalition occupation ends at this time it won't produce any kind of lasting peace.

And let's not forget some other important facts: Iraq under Saddam as a stable, secular society with the most educated population in the region

Let's not forget too the autobahns that Hitler built, or the great industrial progress in the USSR that took place under Stalin.

Do you see that happening? Despotic regimes happen to be the easiest kind for western countries to do business with. Nothing promotes a stable investment environment like an iron-fisted government with a cowed population.

The only thing preventing that kind of progress is people like you. By your reactions, you have deterred the US administration from continuing on this kind of action. You have made it clear you'd rather have the dictators left well alone, than any kind of action be taken against them (unless, of course, it be the utterly laughable half-measures from the UN that would never have achieved anything in a million years).

Oh? Based on what, exactly? Again: are you assuming that Islamic theocracies are the default form of governance in the region?

OK, name me a democratic Arab country. Just one will do. One solitary example that proves your point.

France Germany et all are flawed comparisons as all were industrialized nations with some established democratic institutions.

Japan had no established democratic institutions.