Little to Celebrate in Iraq

There's little to celebrate about the US pullback in Iraq.

More than six years after the US invasion, Iraq is shattered. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead -- far more, incidentally, than even the largest estimates of the number of Iraqis who died during 35 years of Saddam Hussein's rule -- its social fabric is utterly destroyed, its economy is in ruins, and its dominant political faction is in hock to neighboring Iran.

And now what?

As we pull back, we're leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in charge. Increasingly, Maliki is taking on the trappings of a dictator. He's established a network of security agencies that report directly to him. He's built a countrywide patronage system to bribe and pay off tribal allies, in anticipation of 2010 elections. He's shown no compunction against using the army, the police, and the secret agencies he controls to eliminate rivals. He's used divide-and-conquer tactics to outflank the Sunni-led sahwa movement, known as the Awakening or the Sons of Iraq, driving some of them back into armed resistance and others into sullen resentment or fear for their lives.

And Maliki, despite his protestations that he is a born-again "nationalist," has close ties to Iran. With Iran now revealed as a fundamentalist-run, naked military dictatorship, I expect Iran to act ruthlessly vis-a-vis Iraq, and if he wants to stay in power Maliki will pretty much have to go along.

A prominent Sunni activist from northern Iraq told me yesterday that anyone who thinks about opposing Maliki in Iraq has to fear for his or her life. The fact remains that despite the resurgence of secular nationalism in Iraq, as evidenced by the results of provincial elections last February, Maliki sits atop a conspiratorial little party called Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Islamist grouping, and he is reliant on a small, secretive clique that surrounds him. During the February election, in order to appeal to Iraqi voters, Maliki posed as a nationalist of sorts, but in fact he is dependent on two outside powers. First, he's dependent on the United States, for despite his bravado about the US withdrawal from Iraq's cities, Maliki desperately needs American backing to remain in power, to build up his armed forces. And second, Maliki is dependent on the good will of Iran, who could topple him instantly if he crossed Tehran.

And Obama?

It's clear that Obama doesn't want to think about Iraq. It seems like he's hoping it just goes away, so he can worry about Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine. But Iraq's not going away.

During the campaign, Obama promised to convene an international, United Nations-led conference on Iraq. That's exactly what he ought to do: allow the US to step back, and let the world community step in to help Iraq reconcile its warring factions. The goal of the meeting ought to be to rewrite Iraq's absurd Constitution, which empowers the ruling ethnic and sectarian parties (i.e., the Shiite religious bloc, including Dawa, and the Kurds) who wrote it. Short of that, Iraq is likely to explode at some point, either this year, in advance of the 2010 elections, or soon thereafter. As the US presence in Iraq shrinks, Maliki will have less and less incentive to cooperate with any UN effort. As it is, he'd fight it tooth and nail, and it may already be too late.

Fixing Iraq means two things. First, it means that the world community has to step in to empower the secular (anti-religious party) nationalist forces that have been shut out of power by Maliki, including both Sunni elites and secular Shiites, such as former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and countless others. Only they can restore a semblance of true central government in a shattered country, make a deal with the expansionist Kurds over autonomy and Kirkuk, the oil-rich city in the north, and start to rebuild Iraq as a nation-state. And second, it means that Obama has to come to an understanding with Iran over Iraq, one that involves the full participation of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey, so that neither the United States nor Iran seek to use Iraq as a battlefield for their competing ambitions in the region.

Comments (174)

1. "... the world community has to step in to empower the secular (anti-religious party) nationalist forces ..."

   Sounds like you mean the Baathist party, the people the US invaded Iraq to overthrow ... so the world should be supporting a return of the status quo ante invasion, sans Saddam ... interesting.

   Obama doesn't wanna know? He wanted to be emperor & now he is, that means he gets the imperial problems as well as the imperial trappings. Goes with the territory, Mr. Pres.

   Posted by sloper at 06/30/2009 @ 09:26am

2. Leave it to the United States to interfere and destabilize other sovereign nations for the sake of greedy capitalist imperialism. Rape them of their natural resources, kill and drive millions of their people into refugee status. These innocent people are now living in places like Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey.

   Their young women are forced into prostituion and slave labor.

   This is the result of a miltary industrial complex that is out of control, and a country and it's people who for the most part just don't give a damn.

   We are a disgusting example of what happens to a nation who has forgotten our past and abandoned our principles.

   Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 09:47am

3. "During the campaign, Obama promised to convene an international, United Nations-led conference on Iraq. That's exactly what he ought to do: allow the US to step back, and let the world community step in to help Iraq reconcile its warring factions."

   thats a great suggestion. problem is, as you pointed out, our rapidly graying president has sooooo many issues to deal with.

   jeez...i LUV the democracy, but...

   can a unified iraq realistically go there?

   why do we insist upon throwing together people who hate each other when perhaps good fences and equitable division of land and resources are what THEY want?

   is it our inability to NOT impute our historical perspective and ideology unto all other societies? and i'm not just talking about the neocons here...

   we (especially those of us on the left side of the ailse) always assume we can fix any problem if we just try hard enough and devote enough resources to solve it.

   and perhaps we can...WITH ENOUGH RESOURCES DEVOTED...

   ah...but there's the rub. first, perhaps there are problems we cannot solve regardless of how many resources we bring to bear. sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to mind our own business and let it itself out. but even if application of more resources CAN solve every problem...

   hey Barry O...we don't HAVE the resources to save the world right now. we've squandered them and if we don't retract and devote a HELL of a lot 0f our effort to SAVE OURSELVES...

   we risk becoming increasingly irrevelant on the world stage as our power, once based upon wealth, industry, and military might, will increasingly boil down to a stockpile of aging nukes...

   but you know...considering the mighty mess we have made in the world since the triumph of american vainglory...maybe not bad for the world...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 10:11am

4. Dreyfuss: I share your dismay about what has happened in Iraq, and I share your skepticism about Iraq's future, in general. Specifically, though, with respect to Iran, while we would want Iraq to be somehow democratic and driven by Iraqi interests, is that really feasible?

   Iraq was always a project of a foreign empire. It was never an organic nation that came to exist on its own.

   Iran ultimately is a powerful neighbor with close ties to the majority of the population in Iraq through the shared Shia history. If Iran can help create an order in Iraq - and "create" is far too kind a word for what making that order likely entails, I suspect - then is it not desirable to encourage Iranian involvement, to a degree?

   Iraq is, as you clearly indicate, a shambles. It also never would exist on its own as a nation. I think its best that, over time, its neighbors - including Iran - are encouraged to help form a new order there. It might be more stable than the "orders" that Britain and the US created there.

   Posted by syfriendly at 06/30/2009 @ 11:01am

5. The US is not really leaving, nor will they "allow" Iraq to be really and truly independent. There is still the oil to think of, to say nothing of the 100,000 troops that will remain as "advisers" or whatever we are calling it these days; and that city-like-embassy. No, they are not leaving any time soon.

   Posted by kingharvest at 06/30/2009 @ 11:47am

6. once based upon wealth, industry, and military might, will increasingly boil down to a stockpile of aging nukes...

   but you know...considering the mighty mess we have made in the world since the triumph of american vainglory...maybe not bad for the world...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 10:11am

   Right On Brother!

   We no longer have wealth or industry because we have been ripped off and sold out by a bunch of greedy oligarchs who care nothing about America or what it used to stand for. They care only for personal gain and power. They are whores to the almighty dollar. And yet we sit idly by with our finger up our collective ass, instead of doing something about it.

   Our politicians are all on the take and as crooked as an Irish country road. And yet we pretend that nothing is wrong as long as Walmart has the crap from China that we think we need. And the McDonalds is still open on the corner.

   We are slaves to a service industry that pays nothing. If we had any balls we would take back our country and punish those who have degraded and seduced a once great people.

   Shame on us and our complacency.

   Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 11:53am

7. Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

   i agree, but politicians are not ALL so bad. many DO try heroically to live up to ideals.

   i understand your righteous rage and share it. having been involved in politics in the past, though, i also find the populist "throw the bums out" mantra (from right, left, or center) a tad silly considering we schmuks...

   a. keep re-electing them

   b. tend to expect everything we want while ignoring the realities of the existence of folk with differing ideas and the value of compromise.

   c. all too often fail to recognize the fact that politicians are every bit as human as voters...in a democracy is it not dangerous for the populace to expect their elected leaders to be so much wiser and morally better than they? is it not something of an eschewing of personal responsibility to hold one's elected leader to such a higher standard than one's self?

   but yeah, i'm with ya, CHAOS.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 12:14pm

8. Who can say with any semblance of truth beyond self delusion that they are "Proud to Be an American". I truly wish I could. I would feel so much better, if I could.

   I feel that this is my country for better or worse. And I will never abandon her. But for me, I find it difficult to sit idle when the forces of evil are eating the very flesh of her being.

   Maybe I am alone in this. I hope not.

   Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 12:16pm

9. Maybe I am alone in this. I hope not.

   Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   of course you are not. almost everyone who posts here feels the same, from their point of view, of course.

   i'm like you. love my country, bitch loud and long about its shortcomings not out of a desire to see it crash and burn, but quite the opposite.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 12:30pm

10. is it not something of an eschewing of personal responsibility to hold one's elected leader to such a higher standard than one's self? Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 12:14pm

    I do believe we should hold our elected officials to a higher standard. They are the ones who decided to go into public service. Human nature being what is is there will be times when our politicians fail in the area of morality. That is a personal failure that all of us share in.

    But these personal failures really have nothing to do with preserving, proetecting and defending the Constitution and the needs of the people.

    It is one thing to fail in your marriage or commit some moral outrage where it concerns matters of the flesh. But quite another to betray the public trust.

    My personal life may at times be a mess, but I never let that distract me from the preformance of my job. So, yes in the preformance of a job that has a higher purpose. I would hold public officials to a higher standard.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 12:35pm

11. Someone explain to me why the imposition on Iraq of a constitution revised by foreigners (i.e., the UN conference proposal) would be any more effective or legitimate than would have a US attempt to impose its preferred order in Iraq

    Posted by gren at 06/30/2009 @ 12:47pm

12. Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 12:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ah...the rub...

    i find the attitude that we must elect our betters and expect more from them than ourselves, though probably more realistic considering human nature, also dangerous in a democratic society.

    sure, on the one hand, if one has a choice between voting for someone as idiotic as one's self and someone who appears smarter and more morally secure than one's self...

    please, for lord's sake vote for the smarter, better guy! look what happens when you vote for the trust fund wonder who threatens you not because he appears as idiotic as you!!!

    but telling idiots to not be idiots is a cat herding sort of endeavor, since most idiots think they are some form of misunderestimated geniuses...

    but this IS the part of nature of samsara, is it not?

    LOL

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 12:50pm

13. It is probably going to be very messy, but the Iraqis have to figure it out. We may have broken it, but it is obvious that we do not own Iraq, and no one will ever own Iraq, but the Iraqis. They will fight tooth and nail to maintain their sovereignty. God help Iran or any other country that violates their sovereignty.

    Posted by pjcasey at 06/30/2009 @ 12:51pm

14. More Iraqis have died in the last 6 years than in the 35 years of Ba3thi rule? Where does Mr. Dreyfuss get his numbers? According to Saddam's own henchmen, they murdered 300,000 Iraqis in the south in April 1991 alone.

    And if his claims are true, isn't it worth it to mention that the killers of Iraqi innocents before 2003 continued to mass murder Iraqis after 2003?

    As an liberal Iraqi American, I am saddened to see so many American "liberals" who would have kept Iraqis under the tyranny of Saddam.

    Posted by Iraqimojo at 06/30/2009 @ 12:58pm

15. "A prominent Sunni activist from northern Iraq told me yesterday..."

    Ahhh, so the author is a friend of Sunni "activists". Now I understand. Did you ask him to what extent he's been involved in blowing up markets? That would be rude, I suppose, to ask a friend.

    Posted by Iraqimojo at 06/30/2009 @ 1:02pm

16. Posted by Iraqimojo at 06/30/2009 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    good points. the quoted blurb about death tolls is vague, debatable, and possibly based on statistical manipulation and/or misinterpretation of statistics.

    it IS undeniable that since our stupid, misguided crusade, life for iraqi secularists and (ironically) christians, has gotten rough to say the least. not condoning saddam (he was a monster), but in killing a monster...

    a. have we become monsters ourselves?

    b. unleashed many more monsters?

    c. avoided the deaths and suffering of millions of iraqis under saddam by causing the deaths and suffering of possibly more iraqis in an attempt to end the first cause of suffering?

    good points you made. welcome to the discussion. your viewpoint is needed here, i think.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 1:31pm

17. but this IS the part of nature of samsara, is it not?

    LOL

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 12:50pm

    Excuse the word pun. But indeed it is an idelible aspect of Samsara. Samsara is usually described as mundane existence. And all existence on this plane falls under the influence of Karma.

    But I fail to see the relationship of Samsara and Karma when it comes to political purity. Except that refusing to maintain and nuture this purity would result in a negative result in the arena of Karma.

    So are you saying that we should give our politicians some sort of Karmic litmus test before we elect them?

    Quite an amusimg idea.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 1:42pm

18. Quite an amusimg idea.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    lol...not so much...

    just saying that we should probably not be so shockingly surprised when they prove to be samsara-cally imperfect.

    although i do also find the average schmuk's inability to see his/her own karmic role in the big picture process kinda funny...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 1:50pm

19. Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The study reported in the Lancet alone would be more than sufficient to support Dreyfuss' claim and to rebut thread commenter "Iraqimojo".

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/30/2009 @ 2:27pm

20. Posted by syfriendly at 06/30/2009 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i suspect the statement is pretty much valid as well.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 2:39pm

21. Several years from today, we'll watch Iraq go the way of Iran, a repressive government at war with its own citizenry. The only difference is that the images and brutality will eminate from Baghdad instead of Tehran.

    Posted by madzpdx at 06/30/2009 @ 3:03pm

22. Maybe I am alone in this. I hope not.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/30/2009 @ 12:16pm

    You are not alone on this. There's an old movie called Mr Smith Goes To Washington that sums up the problems this country faces today. There are corny lines in it, but the general idea of the corruption in the flick hold true. It basically points out how powerful folks control politicians and the media which in turn controls public views on issues. Take Fake News as a case in point. Faux News would easily fit in the "Taylor Machine" in the movie.

    Our system is set up to where only incremental changes can be made. But, note how fast both administrations were able to get bail out cash for the banks and wallstreet. My point is that if the powerful want something to be done, it's a done deal. If the citizens of this country want something done, that's entirely a different situation. Every excuse is made to not pass any legislation that won't benefit big business directly.

    Looking back, eight years of W and Cheney's wars, doling out money for energy companies, defense contractors, helping big pharmaceuticals, deregulation, sucking up to the Saudi's and so forth evidently was enough to damage this country's economy beyond repair.

    I still maintain that the neocons intentionally ran this country into the ground to cut it up into nice pieces for themselves, liquidate it, cash it in, and turn it into another Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Oligarchs in control with an iron fist with a media continually spouting the party line out....kind of a combination of how Old Soviet Union was and what China is now is where we're headed. The rich are extremly rich and everyone else can work their asses off to serve the extremely rich.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/30/2009 @ 3:06pm

23. Dreyfuss continues with his bizarre rants. I agree the US invasion was wrong, it has destroyed Iraq etc., but apparently now IRAN is the puppet master? US troops are staying in the outskirts of the city, they will continue training the Vichy government. Iran has natural influence because Iraq's Shiite population, but I think Dreyfuss was left a little too soured after his ultra-hyping of the Green movement turned out to be made of jello.

    Posted by Communard115 at 06/30/2009 @ 3:19pm

24. The best possible outcome for Iraq IS for Iran to try to put it back together. And with regard to the question of whether it is right to hold politicians to higher standards, YES, we should. Politicians have access to information we do not and therefore should, in theory at least, be able to make better decisions. The price of access should be accountability. We wouldn't hire a comedian who isn't funny, so why should we hire a politician who does not make good decisions? Case in point, I wish Al Franken stayed where he is competent: making people laugh. But he chose to get involved with politics, where his ability to make good decisi0ns is VERY questionable, particularly with regard to the Middle East.

    Posted by DejaVu at 06/30/2009 @ 4:13pm

25. "The study reported in the Lancet alone would be more than sufficient to support Dreyfuss' claim and to rebut thread commenter "Iraqimojo"."

    Of course it would not. I tried to post a link to the New York Times article I'll be quoting from, but I got a message that the URL was too long. I would urge any open-minded, honest, serious critic of the war to search for it. It's easy to find -- it'll only take a second. Just type in a yahoo search bar: "The New York Times Regrets Only Iraq Kanan Makiya". It should be the first article that pops up. From the article:

    "By the time the American invasion began in the spring of 2003, the toppling of Saddam Hussein appeared to be one of those rare historic moments when the men of force and the men of hope could stand together. For here, in Hussein, was one of the world's indisputably evil men: he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants -- friends on friends, circles within circles -- making an entire population complicit in his rule."

    That's two million dead right there. Further, the count for the Iran-Iraq war, according to Christopher Hitchens, may be 500,000 corpses higher than the Times estimates. Plus, as you all must know, the sanctions Saddam brought on his people killed 1.2 million of them during the Clinton years, and Saddam maximized by the hundreds of thousands their toll in his implementation of the oil-for-food program.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 4:47pm

26. A bit more on the sanctions: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm#warcrimes

    The article I'm quoting was put out by the US State Department during the sanctions:

    "Since its inception, the Sanctions Committee has approved 94% of all requested oil-for-food goods. That is over $8.9 billion worth of contracts. The Sanctions Committee has put holds on less than 6% of the goods submitted to it. NONE OF THE CONTRACTS ON HOLD ARE FOR FOOD. Iraq now imports about as much food as it did before the Gulf War. Over 9,200 contracts have been reviewed by the Sanctions Committee; all but 694 have been approved. Many of these 694 contracts are delayed pending receipt of additional information from the contracting companies. Iraq usually delays submission to the UN of the list of goods it wants to order during each six-month phase of the oil-for-food program until the last minute. In this way it tries to sneak in proscribed items by forcing the UN either to halt the flow of oil-for-food goods or to approve dubious contracts. We know that the Iraqi regime is trying to use the program to import dual-use items for military uses rather than for their intended purpose of relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people. The U.S., in reviewing oil-for-food contracts, cannot and will not ignore the known intentions of the government of Iraq to obtain weapons, including chemical and biological weapons. These intentions have been demonstrated repeatedly in the past nine years. The most frequent reason for placing a hold on a contract is the information that accompanies the contract. There are currently over 250 contracts on hold because the technical information or the end-use information in the contract is insufficient to judge the dual-use potential of the ordered goods.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 5:01pm

27. Continued on the sanctions:

    "The United States has placed a hold on over 200 contracts that include dual-use items. The Security Council has created a list of items which can be used to build weapons of mass destruction and which the Security Council has said must be monitored by UNSCOM or the IAEA. With Iraq blocking those agencies from performing these missions, it would be dangerous to allow dual-use items into Iraq. There are 55 contracts on hold which are destined for the Basrah refinery, where Iraq produces gasoil which it smuggles out of Iraq in violation of UN sanctions. The profits from this illicit trade are used by the government of Iraq to procure items prohibited by sanctions, including luxuries for members of Saddam's inner circle, and continued construction of elaborate palaces. There are 90 contracts on hold because we have information that they are linked to a company that is operating or has operated in violation of sanctions. The Iraqi government continues to smuggle goods out of Iraq to get revenue for its illicit activities. In addition to illegally exporting oil and gasoil, twice in the last three months ships have been caught trying to smuggle tons of food and nursing supplies out of Iraq to get hard currency for the Iraqi regime. Although the primary responsibility for the well-being of the Iraqi people lies with the Government of Iraq, the Iraqi government spends the revenue it controls on goods not permitted under sanctions, including luxury items for the regime's inner circle, rather than the needs of the Iraqi people. Contrary to recommendations from the UN, it drags its heels in ordering nutritional supplements and other humanitarian goods needed by the people of Iraq.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 5:06pm

28. Sanctions, cont.

    here's the right link for the article, btw:

    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

    "Stark evidence of the government's callous policies was documented in a recent UNICEF survey, which found that child mortality rates doubled in South and Central Iraq, where Saddam Hussein controls distribution of humanitarian assistance, but child mortality rates actually dropped in the North, where the UN controls distribution. In this resolution, the members of the Security Council commit themselves to take all possible steps to ensure that -- despite Saddam Hussein's best efforts to prevent it -- the people of Iraq receive the humanitarian goods they require. Improvements to oil-for-food go into effect immediately. Iraq can sell as much oil as it needs to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, but all revenue remains under UN control. The resolution also makes a number of changes that should expedite delivery of humanitarian items and allows Iraqis easier access to a greater range of basic goods. "

    Got that: the UN improved their standard of living, Saddam doubled their child mortality rate. It is actually UNICEF which said as many as 1.2 million Iraqis died as a result.

    As Douglas E. Hill wrote: "Thus despite the sanctions, the mortality rate is higher only in the areas under Iraqi government control, suggesting that it is that government, rather than the sanctions, which bears primary responsibility. If the numbers are as grave as a quarter- to a half-a-million dead children, then there is a strong humanitarian argument to liberate Iraq from the tyranny holding Iraqi children hostage like this."

    Especially since Saddam also killed 2 to 2.5 million people in addition to this 1.2 million.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 5:22pm

29. In conclusion, Iraq was going to descend into chaos and civil war as soon as Saddam's regime collapsed, and prolonging his genocidal tyranny which killed as many as 3.7 million people would only have allowed the sanctions to further annhilate Iraqi society while allowing Saddam's divide-and-rule policies to maximize distrust and hatred between Iraqis.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 5:27pm

30. Further, the count for the Iran-Iraq war, according to Christopher Hitchens, may be 500,000 corpses higher than the Times estimates. Plus, as you all must know, the sanctions Saddam brought on his people killed 1.2 million of them during the Clinton years, and Saddam maximized by the hundreds of thousands their toll in his implementation of the oil-for-food program.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 4:47pm

    Citing Hitchens, a vocal supporter of the war, who has been spectacularly wrong along the way is hardly evidence.

    Hitchgens for example, dismissed the Lancet report as propaghadna, while citing the Lancet as reputable when it came to the death tooll in Darfur, so he is clearly a hack.

    The sanctions against Iraq were a fraud, brough about by Bush 41. He helped author the Resolutions that were tied to the sacntions, which called for the disarmament of Iraq.

    That same year, he stated that even if Iraq complied with the Resolutions, the sanctions would remain so long as Saddam was in power, so the blood of a million Iraqis from th e 90's is on America's hands. The the Resolutions mentioned nothgi abotu regime change in Iraq, so it was the US that violated them, not Iraq.

    UNSCOM and the IAEA both concluded that Iraq was disarmed by 1994, yet the US enforeced these resolutions until 2003.

    Remember that Madelaine Albright told the world that the half million dead children was worth the price.

    The deaths were not due to food shortages but due to blocking of basic medicines. Construction of elaborate palaces and luxury goods were not banned by the Resolutions.

    At least 2 heads of Human Rights at the UN resigned from their positions because they cited the infantacide and genocide being inflicted on Iraq.

    This was the fault of the US and no one else.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 5:35pm

31. Especially since Saddam also killed 2 to 2.5 million people in addition to this 1.2 million.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 5:22pm

    Rubbish.

    The Staet Department put the highest US estimates put the death toll due to Saddam at a maximum of 300,000.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 5:44pm

32. In conclusion, Iraq was going to descend into chaos and civil war as soon as Saddam's regime collapsed

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 5:27pm

    Pure speculation based on heresay and right wing propaghanda.

    Leading up to 2003, it was clear the sacntions were about to fall apart and that Europe, Russia and Asia were going to begin opening up trade with Iraq.

    What Washington fered is that with all that oil, all contracts were going to be given to Russia and Europe and that they were going to be ignored.

    Given this, it is safe to say that Iraq would likely have reagined it's wealth and power, resulting is a huge diplomatic embarassment for the US.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 5:47pm

33. "The Staet Department put the highest US estimates put the death toll due to Saddam at a maximum of 300,000."

    State is not spelled "staet".

    Highest US estimates: well, don't trust THEM! They're evil imperialists out to FRAME the great Saladin Saddam and steal his oil!

    Seriously, the second URL I gave on the sanctions was for a webpage from the State Department. It clearly attributed all the deaths "from the sanctions" to Saddam. So, unless the UN and UNICEF are just LYING about 1.2 million Iraqis dying from this cause, that's 1.2 million Iraqis on Saddam's conscience. Your estimates obviously are not counting these deaths, since you blame the "evil empire" America for them, nor are they counting the 1 to 1.5 million dead in the Iran-Iraq war.

    According to the liberal New York Times, Saddam killed 1 million people through his reign, not counting the war with Iran or sanctions. Maybe THEY'RE lying, too! As Iraqimojo said:"According to Saddam's own henchmen, they murdered 300,000 Iraqis in the south in April 1991 alone." Perhaps you read a state department report on that campaign of genocide. I don't know, since you cite no URL. Perhaps you think that that was the only time Saddam EVER KILLED ANYONE, and he was otherwise a benevolent leader. And, as someone above suggested, because Hitchens supported the war, he must be LYING when he cites so-called "facts" to defend it. Thank you for exposing this imperial conspiracy.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 6:22pm

34. Seriously, the second URL I gave on the sanctions was for a webpage from the State Department. It clearly attributed all the deaths "from the sanctions" to Saddam.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 6:22pm

    Of course it does, but Madelaine Al bright accepted responsibility for those deaths when she said it was a worthy price to pay.

    Yes. the UN and UNICEF reported that 1.2 million Iraqis die, but they attributed these to the sanctions, which were fraudulently impost by the US.

    Oh, and if you want to include the Iraq/Ira war, you might want to factor in the fact that the US was backing Iraq and providing his with weapons and logistics, which led to the war being prolonged. The New York Times (which gave us the Judy Miller lies that led to war), has been wring on countless occasions, but feel free to link to the report that claims Saddam killed 1 million people through his reign. Mind you, we've achieved in 6 years what took Saddam 30.

    You know you're scraping the barrel when you have to cite Saddam's henchmen. What report UN or otherwise, corroborated that 300,000 murdered Iraqis in April 1991? Oh BTW, would that happened to be the crushing of the uprising that Bush 41 whipped up, with the promise of supporting the Shiites, only to leave them to be slaughtered?

    If militias in this country rose up against Washington, woudl the national guard stand by and let them have their way? By your logic, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of others by way of the fact that he did not allow himself to be killed.

    Hitchens record on the Iraq war is well knows and lies in tatters. Hitch still maintains to this day that Saddam was friends with Al Qaeda, and that Saddam had nukes, so the less said about Hitch, the better.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 6:50pm

35. "Hitchgens for example, dismissed the Lancet report as propaghadna, while citing the Lancet as reputable when it came to the death tooll in Darfur, so he is clearly a hack." Assuming that by "tooll" you mean to say "toll," this may have something to do with the fact that every single creidible estimate on Darfur is about the same (300,000-400,000 dead) whereas The Iraqi government, American government, British government, Iraqi Ministry of Health, the Iraq body count, and the UN all have far lower estimates than the Lancet. But, they are all probably liars involved in a vast international Jewish conspiracy on behalf of oil-stealing zionists.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 6:54pm

36. "You know you're scraping the barrel when you have to cite Saddam's henchmen. What report UN or otherwise, corroborated that 300,000 murdered Iraqis in April 1991? Oh BTW, would that happened to be the crushing of the uprising that Bush 41 whipped up, with the promise of supporting the Shiites, only to leave them to be slaughtered?

    If militias in this country rose up against Washington, woudl the national guard stand by and let them have their way? By your logic, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of others by way of the fact that he did not allow himself to be killed. "

    Yes, Saddam did kill 300,000 people to crush a widespread rebellion at the end of the Gulf War. Such a rebellion indicates that the Iraqi people despised him and would have done anything to end his brutal, genocidal regime of torture chambers, concentration camps, slaughterhouses, dungeons, and rape rooms, if only for his brute force and army. How imperial of us to give them their chance at freedom. But most of those 300,000 were not rebels: they were killed just to make the population so fearful as to accept the status quo. Are you saying you think that genocide was morally defensible?

    The Nation says the URL for the NYT article is too long to post, but I assure you it's easy to find. Just type in a yahoo search bar "Regrets Only Iraq Kanan Makiya" and it will be the first article that comes up. I really encourage you to read it.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 7:06pm

37. whereas The Iraqi government, American government, British government, Iraqi Ministry of Health, the Iraq body count, and the UN all have far lower estimates than the Lancet. But, they are all probably liars involved in a vast international Jewish conspiracy on behalf of oil-stealing zionists.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009

    1. The American government hasn't actually released a death toll for Iraq. The don't do body counts remember? 2. The British government's top scientists and have stated that the Lancet was credible, while Blair was were refuting it. http://tinyurl.com/yrq9z3 3. IRB states clearly that is is a low estimate that only reports deaths reported in 2 or more news sources, one of which MUST be an English source. In fact, the IRB all but ignores deaths due to aerial bombardment. 4. Investigative reporter, Robert Fisk, has reported that the Iraqi Ministry of Health have been ordered to under report the number of deaths in Iraq.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 7:11pm

38. Saddam did kill 300,000 people to crush a widespread rebellion at the end of the Gulf War. Such a rebellion indicates that the Iraqi people despised him

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009

    To a degree yes, but that rebellion happened because those Shiites were led to believe that they had US support. They would not have done so had they believed otherwise, because it turns out, it was a suicide mission.

    Yes, the invasion was Imperial of us, because as it turns out, those torture chambers, concentration camps, slaughterhouses, dungeons, and rape rooms, never disappeared, but just came under new management.

    As for freedom, unfortunately 1 million Iraqis wont know freedom. 4 million are refugees, so freedom wont mena much to them. According to Oxfam, 3-5 million are in desperate need of food and medicine, so freedom wont mean much to them either.

    And if the deaths of 300,000 is genocide, then you would haev to agree that we inflcited genocide on Iraq, even if it was in the name of cough cough, "freedom".

    If you want to post long URL's, try this web site:

    http://tinyurl.com

    It produces a truncated link that you can post here.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 7:21pm

39. http://tinyurl.com/ytozl4 [Open in new window]

    All right, I tried the website you suggested. I think that above these words there should be a link to the NYT article. I must say, however, that I find it odd the way you on one hand say that you doubt the NYT published the figure, even as you add the caveat that even if they did, it wouldn't prove anything, because the NYT has "been wrong before." Well, they have been, but for such lapses they've been challenged and have apologized. Not only have they not apologized for their estimates here, but I'm not aware of anyone challenging them, save you.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 8:27pm

40. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07MAKIYA-t.html?e x=1349409600&en=310195565a77e9ff&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc= rss

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 8:44pm

41. Not only have they not apologized for their estimates here, but I'm not aware of anyone challenging them, save you.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009

    What estimates?

    The only mention of the deaths at Saddam's hands is one sentence that does not even bother to cite a study or report fro a credible source:

    "For here, in Hussein, was one of the world's indisputably evil men: he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. "

    I suspect that the reason it has not been challenged is that the the statement is buried in a very long article and the writer parses it's assertion carefully with the qualifier "as many as", which implies that the number is likely to be less that 1 million.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 8:45pm

42. C. Hitchens cited as expert? That's funny.

    On any subject other than whiskey, safest not to cite Hitchens as expert.

    Posted by sloper at 06/30/2009 @ 9:04pm

43. "I suspect that the reason it has not been challenged is that the the statement is buried in a very long article and the writer parses it's assertion carefully with the qualifier "as many as", which implies that the number is likely to be less that 1 million."

    Or, maybe it hasn't been challenged because there are no studies which contradict it, and they use careful language in describing it because Iraq didn't have a free press and was isolated from the international commmunity and didn't allow the UN to send in human rights inspectors hence an exact estimate of how many people Saddam exterminated could not be rendered with complete certainty. It may be less than a million, but any estimate on Iraq war casualties is also merely an estimate; all estimates may be slightly higher than is true. "And if the deaths of 300,000 is genocide, then you would haev to agree that we inflcited genocide on Iraq" If the U.S army actually murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, then, yes, that would be true. But, in reality, the army had as its goal not the murder of civilians, but the elimination of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as all the death squads and insurgents that fought with and for it. AQI merged with the Saddam regime's state-sponsored terror group, the Fedayeen Saddam. AQI was headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before we were. Let me quote now Christopher Hitchens, as he is better at explaining how the insurgency is essentially orchestrated by the former regime:"A letter from Zarqawi to Bin Laden more than a year ago, intercepted by Kurdish intelligence and since then well-authenticated, spoke of Shiism as a repulsive heresy and the ignition of a Sunni-Shiite civil war as the best and easiest way to thwart the Crusader-Zionist coalition.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:17pm

44. "The actions since then have precisely followed the design, but the design has been forgotten by the journal of record. The Bin Laden and Zarqawi organizations, and their co-thinkers in other countries, have gone to great pains to announce, on several occasions, that they will win because they love death, while their enemies are so soft and degenerate that they prefer life. Are we supposed to think that they were just boasting when they said this? Their actions demonstrate it every day, and there are burned-out school buses and clinics and hospitals to prove it, as well as mosques.

    Then we might find a little space for the small question of democracy. The Baath Party's opinion of this can be easily gauged, not just from its record in power but from the rancid prose of its founding fascist fathers. As for the Bin Ladenists, they have taken extraordinary pains to say, through the direct statements of Osama and of Zarqawi, that democracy is a vile heresy, a Greek fabrication, and a source of profanity. For the last several weeks, however, the Times has been opining every day that the latest hysterical murder campaign is a result of the time it has taken the newly elected Iraqi Assembly to come up with a representative government. The corollary of this mush-headed coverage must be that, if a more representative government were available in these terrible conditions (conditions supplied by the gangsters themselves), the homicide and sabotage would thereby decline. Is there a serious person in the known world who can be brought to believe such self-evident rubbish? "

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:21pm

45. "Ah, but why would the "secular" former Baathists join in such theocratic mayhem? Let me see if I can guess. Leaving aside the formation of another well-named group--the Fedayeen Saddam--to perform state-sponsored jihad before the intervention, how did the Baath Party actually rule? Yes, it's coming back to me. By putting every Iraqi citizen in daily fear of his or her life, by random and capricious torture and murder, and by cynical divide-and-rule among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Does this remind you of anything?

    That's not to say that the paper doesn't have a long memory. Having once read in high school that violence is produced by underlying social conditions, the author of this appalling article refers in lenient terms to "the goal of ridding Iraq of an American presence, a goal that may find sympathy among Iraqis angry about poor electricity and water service and high unemployment." Bet you hadn't thought of that: The water and power are intermittent, so let's go and blow up the generating stations and the oil pipelines. No job? Shoot up the people waiting to register for employment. To the insult of flattering the psychopaths, Bennet adds his condescension to the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, who are murdered every day while trying to keep essential services running. (Baathism, by the way, comes in very handy in crippling these, because the secret police of the old regime know how things operate, as well as where everybody lives. Or perhaps you think that the attacks are so "deadly" because the bombers get lucky seven days a week?)

    This campaign of horror began before Baghdad fell, with the execution and mutilation of those who dared to greet American and British troops. "

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:24pm

46. "To say that the attempt to Talibanize Iraq would not be happening at all if coalition forces were not present is to make two unsafe assumptions and one possibly suicidal one. The first assumption is that the vultures would never have gathered to feast on the decaying cadaver of the Saddamist state, a state that was in a process of implosion well before 2003. All our experience of countries like Somalia and Sudan, and indeed of Afghanistan, argues that such an assumption is idiotic. It is in the absence of international attention that such nightmarish abnormalities flourish. The second assumption is that the harder we fight them, the more such cancers metastasize. This appears to be contradicted by all the experience of Iraq. Fallujah or Baqubah might already have become the centers of an ultra-Taliban ministate, as they at one time threatened to do, whereas now not only have thousands of AQM goons been killed but local opinion appears to have shifted decisively against them and their methods.

    The third assumption, deriving from the first two, would be that if coalition forces withdrew, the AQM gangsters would lose their raison d'être and have nothing left to fight for. I think I shall just leave that assumption lying where it belongs: on the damp floor of whatever asylum it is where foolish and wishful opinions find their eventual home." Hitchens wrote this last statement before the surge was successful in weeeding out the bulk of the insurgency. Its goal was to engage in a campaign of systematic bombings in crowds of multi-ethnic Iraqis and in provocative religious shrines to recreate, with the Baathist regime, the fear among different Iraqis that had been physcologically brutalized into their mindset by the Baathist regime's own dividfe-and-rule policies.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:30pm

47. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 Or maybe because it was a throwaway platitude that no one has bothered? Seeing as Iraq didn't allow UN human rights inspectors, who came up with the 1 million figure anyway? The U.S army did actually murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. We call it collateral damage to make it sound acceptable, but those hundreds of thousands killed by the US did die at the hands o the US military. Al Qaeda in Iraq comprised no more than a couple of thousand fighters. As a number of Iraqi vets have told us, anyone they killed became Al Qaeda. We may never know the carnage that the US inflicted in town like Fallujah because the press were barred. Saddam is not the only one who blocks investigations it seems. AQI were not in Iraq until after long after we invaded and had no connection with Saddam. Death squads were given free reign by the US military as a means of quelling the Sunni insurgency. Saddam had not connection with Fedayeen or Zarqawi. This was debunked by the 2007 SSCI Report. http://tinyurl.com/m4zgrn In fact the report concluded that they were enemies and that Saddam had tried to kill Zarqawi repeatedly. Bush had 2 opportunities to kill Zarqawi himself before the invasion, (Zarqawi's camp was underneath US controlled air space), but chose to leave him there as a tool of propaganda against Saddam. The Zarqawi connection is one of Hitchens' favorite lies. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, he continues to refute that there was no connection with Saddam, but then again, Hitchens still thinks that Iraq had nukes until 2003. Hitchens contends that no one could enter Iraq without Saddams permission, but Zarqawi's camp was in Kurdistan, beyond Saddam's control.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 9:40pm

48. Then we might find a little space for the small question of democracy. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:21pm

    As I pointed out, there was NO AQ presence in Iraq until after the invasion, hence Osama and of Zarqawi would have had no business in Iraq.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 9:44pm

49. It did this because without the order created by Saddam's regime, the tensions that Baathist policies created and the fear they generated would lead to Iraqis of various sects embracing, out of fear, their own extremists and terrorists and militias rather than reigning them in, in order to have a promise of protection from other sects. The sectarian warfare brought out sectarian interventions and religious death squads from Iran and Saudi Arabia. The civil war they nearly succeeded in cultivating and that the US army prevented is what was responsible for almost all the deaths to which you attribute the blame towards America when you say we are guilty of genocide. Iraq's implosion, however, was inevitable. It's people did not have access to clean water (and, despite the coalition's efforts at water purification, there are still places, even now, admittedly, in Iraq where they don't.) Iraq had as much food as it did before the Gulf War, yet Saddam sold it on a black market and starved his people. Listless, malnourished children died every day of preventable diseases from the conditions created artificially by Saddam due to a lack of food, water, medicine, and electricity. Their educational system was destroyed. There was an immigration of talent and skill. The state media relentlessly preached jiihad and anti-semitism aroung the clock. Numerous terrorists and terrorist groups were funded or based there, some fled to Iraq from Afghanistan, to take advantage of another failed state (like Zarqawi). The sects of Iraqi were desperate, violent, uneducated, impoverished, deluded, propagandized, deluded. They lived in constant fear of one another, as Iraq under Saddam was a state where most of the population spied on their neighbors all day long...

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:47pm

50. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:47pm

    I have no idea what you are trying to achieve by posting this drivel.

    Is it because I have smacked down all your arguments, and you feel the best recourse is to cut and paste long screeds and hope to drown out my responses?

    That's pretty childish, don't you think?

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 9:51pm

51. Iraq's implosion, however, was inevitable. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 9:47pm

    The only people making this argument as the Hitchens types who are desperately trying to salvage a humanitarian justification for a disastrous policy. The sectarian warfare was brought about through the bungling of the invasion. Yes, the civil war was responsible for a large number of the deaths, but it was the invasion which created it and thus the blame sits squarely on US shulders.

    Iraq's people DID have access to clean water until the US invaded. In fact, the Iraqis demonstrated remarkable ingenuity by repairing much infrastructure that was damaged by the decade long bombing campaign and the previous wars.

    Iraq might have as much food as it did before the Gulf War, but it is still not getting to where it is needed. Children died every day of preventable diseases due to the blockade of medicines and food. After all, the OFF program was implemented to address this very issue.

    Even prior tot he 2003 invasion, all Iraqis were entitled to free health care and education. Iraqis were among the best educated in the Arab world. Their educational system was destroyed by Us bombings and sanctions.

    The state media did not preached jihad, because Saddam feared that this would incite threat to his power. No terrorist groups were funded or based in Iraq.

    This is all desperate hyperbole that has no basis in reality.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 10:00pm

52. I should have read through my above statement before posting it. I wrote "deluded" twice, which makes me sound stupid.

    To continue from my previous sentence:... and reported to secret police on their activities, and lied about them, and convicted them of thought crimes, and said they were disloyal to the regime. And the secret police purged them, and anyone it felt like purging or killing for fun, and the desperate people of Iraq became parts of circles within circles within circles, each trying to get on the good side of the regime. Iraq deteriorated more and more as Saddam grew crazier and crazier and the killing increased and increased and the people were willing to do anything to buy some insurance that they wouldn't be next. Imagine living for decades knowing that at any moment you could be tortured to death in a concentration camp. The entire country was traumatized and brutalized and lived in extreme fear and misery because of Saddam. And if his regime was prolonged, when it collapsed, and the artificially created state of Iraq, with its long history of sectarian war, descended into anarchy, and the people tried to stage a coup to prevent Saddam's sons from assuming power, the result would have been exactly the rebellion we saw at the end of the first Gulf War. Do you know why Bush 1 said he didn't want to intervene in stopping Saddam's 1991 campaign of genocide? He said that the various factions fighting for power would have started fighting a civil war. Given the extent to which Saddam's regime had used it's time since 1991 to further traumatize the Iraqi people, and given the way it's implementation of the Oil-For-Food program had brought about a meltdown of Iraq's civil society, and given that the founder of AQI had moved to Iraq during...

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:08pm

53. ...that time, I think it is safe to say that prolonging Saddam's regime actually had the effect, in 1991, of ensuring a far bloodier civil war when the regime finally collapsed, as it inevitably did later on down the road. Rather than leave Iraq in anarchy when it collapsed, it is good that we intervened before it had collapsed completely and thus prevented a massive civil war, and, ultimately,a mass genocide from developing, especially since, if we didn't move in eventually to bring order to a war ravaged anarchy in Iraq,it's intervening neighbors may have intervened to a greater extent than they did. Iraq could have become, to quote Hitchens, who no one here seems to like, "the Congo of the Middle East". Instead, AQI has been militarily defeated and discredited in the eyes of an Arab and Muslim people, Iraq is a democracy with a free press and free elections, their economy is growing, and they have a hopeful future. The old regime is dead, the people do not live in fear, there is more food and clean water to go around, the insurgency really is in its last throes. Saddam is dead. Long live Iraq!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:22pm

54. I should have read through my above statement before posting it. I wrote "deluded" twice, which makes me sound stupid.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:08pm

    it's not your typos that make you sound stupid, it is your incoherent ramblings (sans any links) that continue from one post to the next, without so much as stopping to address the points I've raised.

    There is no evidence that Saddam grew crazier. In fact, his worst crimes took place in the 80's and his murder campaings in the 90's were few and far between.

    What the neocons feared the most is not a crazy Saddam, but the perception of a reasonable and sensible Saddam that the world could do business with.

    No the entire country was NO traumatized by Saddam. In fact, Saddam spent a great deal of energy trying to keep to people happy, albeit in a Mafia kind of way.

    Iraq only descended into anarchy because of the invasion and the fact that the occupation had no planned for an occupation or nation building. Bush 1 incited the rebellion among the Shiites, having led them to believe he would back them up, so his claim that he didn't want to intervene for fear of starting a civil war is beside the point. In fact, his statement that US intervention would would have started a civil war, went unheeded by his moronic son.

    The Iraqi people might have been fearful of Saddam but they weren't traumatized. They knew that so long as they stayed out of trouble, the could lead regular lives. Nor did the Oil-For-Food program did not bring about a meltdown of Iraq's civil society.

    The founder of AQI would have never gotten to first base had it not been for our invasion, which created the perfect conditions for him to exploit.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 10:35pm

55. "Is it because I have smacked down all your arguments, and you feel the best recourse is to cut and paste long screeds and hope to drown out my responses? "

    Since I stopped my quotes around what Hitchens wrote, I have not been quoting anyone. In fact, I've written all this, and I'm not copying and pasting it. I'm not trying to drown out your responses; I'm sorry if they feel threatened by my prose, and I would've posted this all at once, so it did not seem choppy, but could not due to length.

    "Iraq's people DID have access to clean water until the US invaded. In fact, the Iraqis demonstrated remarkable ingenuity by repairing much infrastructure that was damaged by the decade long bombing campaign and the previous wars. "

    This is a complete, obvious, vulgar, and absurd lie, an invention of your imagination, and you know it. "Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its children's health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990. . " This is from a leftist website which blames America for the sanctions' death toll ( http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm ) Do you suppose the U.S army destroyed Iraq's water facilities in order to rebuild them? As you know if you read through that NYT article, Bush tried to plan for rebuilding Iraq BEFORE we invaded. This is because the invasion is not what destroyed that country.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:40pm

56. I think it is safe to say that prolonging Saddam's regime actually had the effect, in 1991, of ensuring a far bloodier civil war when the regime finally collapsed Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:22pm

    No it's not because all you've done is put forward theories about what might have been.

    Like I said, people like Hithcens and yourself like you repeat the mantra that the invasion staved off a collapse, while ignoring the fact that Iraq did collapse as a result of the invasion. We did not prevent a massive civil war, or a a mass genocide from developing, unless you regard 1 million deaths as something less than a genocide?

    Short a few million deaths, Iraq did become, for a while at last, "the Congo of the Middle East" and what's more, it has yet to play out what Iraq's fete will be.

    The fact that AQI has been militarily defeated is no big deal. The Sunnis were doing that without us, though there would have been no AQI without the invasion.

    Iraq is no democracy by any stretch of the imagination. The press is anything but free and there is certainly no liberty.

    Iraqis still live live in fear. There is still no reliable source of food and clean water or electricity for that matter. 4 million Iraqis are still homeless and the Iraqi government still cannot venture outside the walls of the Green Zone without massive military protection.

    The insurgency was simple re-branded the Sunni Awakening and bribed not to attack us, but that arrangement is already faltering. The sectarian tensions remains and the dispute over Kirkuck could explode at any moment.

    What;s more, we are in the red to the tune of at least 3 trillion and counting, not to mention sacrificing 4,300 Americans for an unnecessary war based on lies.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 10:45pm

57. "its social fabric is utterly destroyed, its economy is in ruins, and its dominant political faction is in hock to neighboring Iran. "

    Social fabric utterly destroyed, its economy is in ruins and its ruling (?) politicians in hock (?) to Iran

    If the social fabric of a nation is destroyed its economy won't grow at 5.8% annually and note that is projected downturn.

    Because Iraq is a democracy there is a fair chance "Dictator" Maliki will be out of a job after the next election. Hock can only mean, in this context, that Maliki has pawned Iraq to Iran. Isn't that more along the lines that Dreyfus suggests Obama do wrt Iran and America? Even if it were true why is it OK for America to go cap in hand to Iran but not Maliki?

    Dreyfus is OK on a lot of the stuff he writes. The Iran articles were informative but this opinion was probably obtained in consultation with the fairies at the bottom of his suitcase.

    "Economy / Iraq"

    Downward Growth Revision, But Solid Nonetheless

    May 2009 | Economic Analysis

    Real GDP will grow by an average 5.8% annually over the next five years, on the back of steadily increasing oil output and solid growth in the non-oil sector.

    http://tinyurl.com/mgtj4k

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/30/2009 @ 10:48pm

58. I'm sorry if they feel threatened by my prose

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:40pm

    I'm not threatened by your prose, because much of it was fiction anyway.

    I am not concerned with concerned with what politicians has to say on the matter of Iraq's clean water. After all, the water supplied were in the state they were because they had been bombed by the US Naomi Klein documented in her book that the Iraqis had been an order of magnitude more efficient in restoring their fresh water and electricity supplies and pointed out that none were allowed to participate in the no bid contracts to rebuild these, which turned out to be a massive fraud, where the contractors took the money without doing the work.

    >> Do you suppose the U.S army destroyed Iraq's water facilities in order to rebuild them?<<

    They did so with the schools and hospitals did they not? Actually, let me rephrase that. The U.S army destroyed Iraq's water facilities in order for contracts to be awarded to companies who took the money and then left the job half done.

    After all, KBR were exposed for supplying the US military with unclean and unsanitary water, resulting in the illness of US troops, so why would they go to any lengths to look after Iraqis?

    As you know if you read through that NYT article, Bush tried to plan for rebuilding Iraq BEFORE we invaded. This is because the invasion is not what destroyed that country.

    Rubbish. There was no plan for rebuilding Iraq, which is one of the biggest criticism leveled at the administration.

    BTW. Did you like my debunking of your Zarqawi-Saddam connection?

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 10:58pm

59. "What the neocons feared the most is not a crazy Saddam, but the perception of a reasonable and sensible Saddam that the world could do business with. "

    Saddam was the epitome of sensibility.

    "No the entire country was NO traumatized by Saddam. In fact, Saddam spent a great deal of energy trying to keep to people happy, albeit in a Mafia kind of way. "

    Good ol' lovable Saddam! Sure, he may be the only dictator since Adolf Hitler to have commited chemical genocide, but we have posters on message boards (like you) to remind us of his good side. By the way, this isn't true, which is why you added no URL to back it up. I would happily provide a URL to you to elaborate on any point of my "crazy rant," provided you challenge me on such a specific point to respond to.(Zarqawi, I did not say was in Iraq because of Saddam. I only stated the fact that he was in Iraq before we were, and that he founded AQI, and that AQI formed an alliance with the Feyadeen Saddam, albeit a reluctant one: they said something like "the Baathist socialists are infidels, too, but the Americans are worse!" I'm going to ignore your bizarre claim that the Feyadeen Saddam had nothing to do with Saddam: it was headed by his sons, you moron! Saddam also funded Palestinian terrorists and harbored the terrorist Abu Nidal at one point. He met with AQ several times. These are all facts. I never said one could prove that AQ and Iraq worked together as partners before the invasion, just that Iraq had had such a relationship with jihadism in general prior to it. To be fair, I'm not convinced they did.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:58pm

60. Good ol' lovable Saddam! Sure, he may be the only dictator since Adolf Hitler to have commited chemical genocide, Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 10:58pm

    actually, Winston Churchill was the first to use chemical weapons on th Kurds.

    There was no connection between Zarqawi and the the Feyadeen Saddam either. I did not claim that Feyadeen Saddam had nothing to do with Saddam. Saddam did not fund Palestinian terrorists – he supported the surviving families of suicide bombers as a means to curry favor in the Arab world. He certainly did not commission their attacks.

    Abu Nidal at one point? The connection is made by none other than Hitchens of course, without any evidence.

    Patrick Seale, who Hitchens like to cites, suggests that for some time Abu Nidal worked for Israel's Mossad intelligence agency.

    "He met with AQ several times."

    So what? Enemies often meet. They met and parted company.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 11:09pm

61. "anyone they killed became Al Qaeda"

    Then how come we've militarily defeated and discredited al qaeda, won the war, and stopped the widespread sectarian violence?

    "Rubbish. There was no plan for rebuilding Iraq, which is one of the biggest criticism leveled at the administration. "

    Read the full article. Of course there was SOME plan, just not a very good one.

    "Like I said, people like Hithcens and yourself like you repeat the mantra that the invasion staved off a collapse, while ignoring the fact that Iraq did collapse as a result of the invasion. We did not prevent a massive civil war, or a a mass genocide from developing, unless you regard 1 million deaths as something less than a genocide?" Saddam's regime did collapse because of the war, but even you must concede it would not have lasted forever, nor should anyone have wanted it to. If it collapsed and there was no massive army to bring order to Iraq (as we did with the surge, an increase in troops that came far, far later than it should have and was only barely enough), do you really believe that Iraq would have been peaceful and harmonious? 1 million dead is simply not a credible estimate, though I do grant that hundreds of thousands have died. But, again, the U.S. army did NOT kill them, and the numbers are most probably 200,000 to 300,000. A recent AP report said that only tens of thousands had died, no more than 150,000, and most mainstream media, which may be wrong, agrees. You could indirectly blame the US for their deaths, I obviously do not concur.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 11:16pm

62. Then how come we've militarily defeated and discredited al qaeda, won the war, and stopped the widespread sectarian violence? Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 11:16pm We lost because we suck at nation building. "Read the full article. Of course there was SOME plan, just not a very good one." There were plans aplenty about what to do with Iraq's oil, but infrastructure was not one of them. No regime lasts forever, but it has never been incumbent on us to step in a stave of chaos every time a leadership change occurs. There are a number of theories as to how a collapse would have come about. Perhaps a coup, perhaps a succession, who knows? Paul Bremmer's biggest mistake was firing the army and sending them home with their rifles. The surge benefited from the timing. A year before it was announced, the Sunni awakening had already begun. "1 million dead is simply not a credible estimate, though I do grant that hundreds of thousands have died." The leading scientist in the British Government says otherwise. The Lancet used tried and tested methods and has always bee regarded as credible. What's ore, it's findings have been supported by other studies. Even 200,000 to 300,000 kills by the US army over 6 years is quite an appealing figure, given that insurgents were only 10% of that number anyway.

    The US invaded a country that did not attack us and as the Geneva conventions tell us, we committed the biggest of all war crimes. Everything that results from that invasion thus becomes out responsibility, and thus, our fault.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 11:27pm

63. "So what? Enemies often meet. They met and parted company."

    I conceded this might be true. I simply said it was suspicious that Saddam's jiihadist organization later merged with them.

    "Short a few million deaths, Iraq did become, for a while at last, "the Congo of the Middle East""

    I'm glad we are short those few million deaths. I concede we don't know what is in Iraq's future, but it's the far-left like yourself that is calling for us to leave after we had finally been successful at stopping the bloodshed in Iraq and bringing relative peace and calm.

    "Abu Nidal at one point? The connection is made by none other than Hitchens of course, without any evidence. "

    Save those last three words, you've got me here.

    "actually, Winston Churchill was the first to use chemical weapons on th Kurds."

    Churchill was not a dictator nor guilty of genocide. This is the sort of thing fools who suffer from a pathological hatred of the west like to say after praising genocidal butchers on a truly epic scale like Saddam for "making people happy" as you LITERALLY did.

    "The insurgency was simple re-branded the Sunni Awakening and bribed not to attack us, but that arrangement is already faltering. The sectarian tensions remains and the dispute over Kirkuck could explode at any moment"

    Too bad we won't be there to make certain that that doesn't happen, huh?

    "They did so with the schools and hospitals did they not? " They did not. "In fact, his statement that US intervention would would have started a civil war, went unheeded by his moronic son." So you are glad that he decided to allow a campaign of genocide and contain the man guilty of genocide with sanctions, eh? For shame!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 11:37pm

64. A succession that was successful would be the worst outcome of all. If Saddam's sons took over, they would have ruled the exact same way he did for decades more. I hope you can grapse just what an unthinkable nightmare that would have been. A coup would have been attempted by all of Iraq's sects as soon as it was feasible (like when Saddam died). As Bush 1 said, struggle for power in post-Saddam Iraq was inevitably going to lead to a civil war. Why would prolonging a collapse change its outcome? Sure, maybe the Baathists would have used genocide to repress such a coup as they did last time if one of Saddam's sons was able to assert control in the chaos, but after decades of rule by Saddam 2 and the sanctions, Iraq's civil society would be a hellish nightmare far worse than anything we've seen in that countries history. And, yes, post-Saddam 2 Iraq would probably not be better than what Iraq is today, however uncertain a future it may have.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 11:49pm

65. I concede we don't know what is in Iraq's future, but it's the far-left like yourself that is calling for us to leave after we had finally been successful at stopping the bloodshed in Iraq and bringing relative peace and calm.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 06/30/2009 @ 11:37pm

    The calm has been short term bandaid and is unsustainable. We cannot maintain 150,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.

    The term dictator has become as trivial as the term terrorist, and used to label those we don't like, whether deserved or otherwise. Churchill's actions show that great men are capable of behaving like dictators. Being guilty of genocide is often in the eye of the beholder. This is not about pathological hatred of the west, but pathological hatred of of hypocrisy. No one is excusing what Saddam was and stood for, but given our history of reverence for dictators and our addiction to intervention, you can hardly blame the left for the fact that no one buys the propaganda that we invaded Iraq to save the Iraqis, or that we would have done so had there not been as Paul Wolfotwitz told us, "a sea of oil" lying beneath the surface.

    "Too bad we won't be there to make certain that that doesn't happen, huh?"

    Perhaps, but it's a buit like the boy with his finger in the dyke. He can;t stay there forever can he? "So you are glad that he decided to allow a campaign of genocide and contain the man guilty of genocide with sanctions, eh? For shame!"

    No I think he was pathologically immoral for inciting the uprising without having the guts to support it.

    It was akin to shouting FIRE in a cinema and causing a stampede.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 11:52pm

66. "No I think he was pathologically immoral for inciting the uprising without having the guts to support it. "

    But if he had helped it succeed, Iraq would have descended into civil war, hundreds of thousands may have died, and people like you would be saying the US was guilty of genocide.

    "but pathological hatred of of hypocrisy."

    How could any hatred of hypocrisy be pathological?

    "you can hardly blame the left for the fact that no one buys the propaganda that we invaded Iraq to save the Iraqis,"

    Actually, the Iraqi left does and I know Iraqi Americans who do. Even an Iraqi-American poster earlier on this thread bought it.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 12:02am

67. Google 'saddam's killing fields'

    I got the 300,000 number (the number of Iraqis Saddam's forces killed in April, 1991) from the documentary "Saddam's Killing Fields" by Michael Wood.

    Posted by Iraqimojo at 07/01/2009 @ 12:32am

68. But if he had helped it succeed, Iraq would have descended into civil war, hundreds of thousands may have died, and people like you would be saying the US was guilty of genocide.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009

    Precisely why intervention is never a good idea. Interventions simply begets further interventions.

    "Actually, the Iraqi left does and I know Iraqi Americans who do. Even an Iraqi-American poster earlier on this thread bought it."

    And I'll show you a dozen who didn't.

    Everyone knows that if Iraq's exports had been grapefruits rather than oil, most Americans would still never have heard of Saddam.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/01/2009 @ 01:52am

69. I got the 300,000 number (the number of Iraqis Saddam's forces killed in April, 1991)

    Posted by Iraqimojo at 07/01/2009 @ 12:32am

    Correction. From your source :

    "In an interview with a Washington analyst in Part 3, she explains that the head of Iraqi military intelligence told the Kurds in April, 1991 that they had killed 300,000 people in the south of Iraq during the uprising there."

    So we have second hand information from a Washington analyst (whatever that means) who claims the head of Iraqi military intelligence told her he'd told this to the Kurds (who were no friends of Saddam).

    Now why would the head of Iraqi military intelligence be telling this to the Kurds?

    BTW. Your video links don't work anymore.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/01/2009 @ 02:09am

70. It has been clear ever since 1979, when Ahmedinejad and his friends held our diplomats hostage for 444 days, that Iran's ruling mullahs are a gang of ruthless fanatic. Washington has across five years complained that Iran has been supplying the insurgents with weapons, IEDs and training. But Dreyfuss missed all that.

    It has taken recent events to let him him see and predict, >>> "With Iran now revealed as a fundamentalist-run, naked military dictatorship, I expect Iran to act ruthlessly vis-a-vis Iraq."<<<

    It is not right to say that this "journalist" remains as twisted and cuckoo as when he wrote for Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche. He is in worse shape now.

    Now he has six year of slandering Bush and the neocons to look back on. For six years he explained how wicked it was to wring Saddam's neck, how cruel to oust the fascist Baath, how foolish to think a military solution possible, how unchivalrous to oppose insurgents driving exploding cars into civilian crowds, how dumb to clutch the pipe-dream of a secular democratic Iraq. To this patriot it was unAmerican to oppose a "Resistance" that denounced freedom of speech and religious toleration, gender equality and democracy. Six years later, the Americans are leaving and leaving in power the govt they created, and Iraqis are cheering, and insurgents are weeping. And so too, Dreyfuss. He spits at Malaki, and pretends it is not happening, and stamps his feet like Rumpelstilskin, all of whose precious spinning came to nothing.

    The US was mocked for spending its blood and money on a regime change in Iraq that profited Iran. These days we are seeing Iraq's nascent democracy helping undermine the sham Islamic democracy of the sainted Khomeini. Dreyfuss wrote a book about him. No wonder he's going crazy.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 05:39am

71. Does Dreyfuss dream that there are Iranians sleeping under his bed? Human Events Magazine is still looking for hacks Mr. Dreyfuss

    Posted by Anti-imperialist at 07/01/2009 @ 05:57am

72. "More than six years after the US invasion, Iraq is shattered. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead -- far more, incidentally, than even the largest estimates of the number of Iraqis who died during 35 years of Saddam Hussein's rule"

    Not sure if Mr. Dreyfus uses a pocket calculator but if he does the battery is probably flat. 2003 minus 1979 = 24 years (minus about 3 months (see below)) which makes a big difference to average deaths during his presidency.

    "Saddam Hussein April 28, 1937 – December 30, 2006 was the President of Iraq from July 16, 1979 until April 9, 2003." wiki

    As far as those civilian Iraqis killed during Saddam's reign the Anfal Campaign alone is about the number of civilians killed (mostly by Iraqi and foreign insurgents) post March 2003 up until the present.

    The 2004 (94,000) and 2006 (654,965) Lancet reports is not about civilians actually killed by the combatants but ; "The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.)" wiki

    There is an implicit racism in refusing to accept that Iraqis were and are able to keep reasonably accurate mortality rates. The figure by that measurement and confirmed by Iraq Body Count, is about 110,000 over about 76 months which averages out about the mid 1400s.

    The highest ever published monthly figure was about 3000 and in 03-04 the monthly average was in the hundreds as it has been this year (2009).

    The 2006 Lancet figure needs about 15.5 thousand every month for 42 months. But it is not even referring to those civilians actually killed by combatants or suicide bombers.

    The comparison should be with those who died under UN sanctions.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/01/2009 @ 07:56am

73. Here is what HR organisations and others said about the "excess" numbers of Iraqis dying because of the post Kuwait war United Nations sanctions. This is what should be compared with Lancet's propaganda trips in 2004 and 2006:

    "Casualty Estimates"

    "Estimates of casualties during the sanctions regime remain a highly contested subject, due to differences in methodologies and practical difficulties. A short overview of claims:

    * "probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[37]

    * 350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[38]

    * "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[39] from multiple causes including sanctions.[40]

    * Iraqi Baathist Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5 million.[41]

    * Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).[42]

    * Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) [43]

    * Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[14][44]

    * Editor (then "associate editor and media columnist") Matt Welch,[45] Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[19][40] wiki

    So take your pick but there is more. Saddam was culpable in those deaths as the following indicates:

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/01/2009 @ 07:57am

74. In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible. He wrote:

    The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. ... The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.[46]

    Unicef studies also noted this difference, observing that child mortality actually decreased in the north.[14] In The New Republic, 2001, Michael Rubin argued that

    The difference [t]here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.[47].

    So even The Nation is helpful in confronting the sort of nonsense that Dreyfus, probably in a thoughtless moment passed on. Can't say the same for the ideologues on here whose underlying problem is either wishful thinking or (factual) ignorance.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/01/2009 @ 07:57am

75. Washington has across five years complained that Iran has been supplying the insurgents with weapons, IEDs and training.

    Iran supporting the sunni insurgency?

    don't make me laugh. it is the shia leaders, who were in exile in Iran for twenty years, which shia Iran supports.

    your revisionism is a joke.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:13am

76. "Iran supporting the sunni insurgency?"

    lrjones4 never claimed they were. Iran sent Shiite death squads to and armed Shiite death squads in Iraq. This is a fact.

    "Saddam had not connection with Fedayeen or Zarqawi. " Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 9:40pm

    "I did not claim that Feyadeen Saddam had nothing to do with Saddam. " Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 11:09pm

    "Iraq is no democracy by any stretch of the imagination." Posted by Shingo at 06/30/2009 @ 10:45pm

    Lying again, eh?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 10:32am

77. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 10:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I answered Hugo, not the "aussie".

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:50am

78. the puppet gov't, our puppet, is a client of Iran, as they had spent the last 20 years in exile there.

    this makes the Iraq war a strategic disaster for the US, as Iran has much more sway over Iraq than they did before.

    an unintended consequence to be sure.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:52am

79. "the puppet gov't, our puppet"

    I think you mean the elected government.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 11:20am

80. the elected gov't in an election the opposition did not take part in, and which is supported by hundreds of thousand american troops and contractors.

    Saddam too was repeatedly "elected"

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 11:31am

81. elections held under military occupation, are not free elections.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 11:45am

82. emile duBois at @ 11:45am wrote:

    >>>elections held under military occupation, are not free elections.<<<

    Rubbish.

    Large parts of the American south came under occupation by federal forces beginning in 1863. Three southern states did not escape federal control until 1877. In that time it was the occupying Union soldiers what made free elections possible and allowed blacks to vote and be elected. When they left so did those free elections.

    For decades after WWII the allied zones of Germany and Austria had free elections while garrisoned by GIs and Tommys. So too Japan. Those occupation soldiers did not prevent but made free elections possible.

    That the Sunnis did not initially field candidates does not mean those Iraqi elections were not free and were not contested. The wooden headed comparison with the Baath's sham elections is contemptible.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 3:33pm

83. the sunni did not field candidates and did not participate in the vote.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:49pm

84. "For decades after WWII the allied zones of Germany and Austria..."

    the allied occupation of germany ended in 1951, NOT decades after the war.

    the elections in germany and Japan were not as free as one might think. in both instances communists were not on the ballot.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 3:55pm

85. emile duBois at 10:52am said:

    >>> this makes the Iraq war a strategic disaster for the US, as Iran has much more sway over Iraq than they did before. <<<

    Such ex cathedra pronouncements, and grand "strategic disaster" phrases sound very LaRouchian, which is to say, idiotic.

    A Shia govt in Baghdad did give the Shia regime in Tehran new influence. But to call it a "strategic disaster" is ridiculous. Iraqis have always favored their Arab and nationalist and anti Persian feelings over their shared Shia faith.

    Moreover, the political views of Grand Ayatollah Sistani's were always opposed to those of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. The latter believed in Islamic jurists controlling the govt, hence his Islamic democracy. Sistani believes in mullahs staying out of politics, hence the possibility of a secular Iraqi democracy.

    Speaking of a strategic disaster, Bush and the neocons have placed, just across Iran's threshhold, an alternative to the sham democracy Iranians have been protesting since June 12. The very real cracks in the Islamic Republic are being deepened by the Iraqi example of a secular democracy whose elections are not manipulated by religious police and a Supreme Guide.

    I grant, I am overstating the case for Iraq's democracy. So far it is flawed and riddled with corruption; it is too soon to bet the farm on its success. But other, rough regimes, South Korea and Taiwan for example, have evolved into real democracies. Much must be forgiven a govt under siege for years. During our Civil War Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and was prepared to resort to harsh measures. He spoke of "the reptile in man" surfacing and having to fight that.

    Dreyfuss was happy to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, but he finds Maliki beyond the pale.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 3:59pm

86. emile duBois said at 10:13am:

    >>> Iran supporting the sunni insurgency? don't make me laugh. <<<

    The Iraqi insurgency has had both Shia and Sunni components. But it is in any case not unheard of for the Shia Iranians to support Sunni militants. They have on occasion even helpedOsama bin Laden. They certainly have been important supporters, with weapons and money, of Hamas, a Sunni organization.

    >>> it is the shia leaders, who were in exile in Iran for twenty years, which shia Iran supports. <<<

    Ho Chi Min lived for years in exile in France; he worked there as a pastry chef. Trotsky lived in New York City, Lenin in Zurich. De Gaulle spent WWII in London. Marx lived and died there. All of them remembered their hosts with burning hate.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 4:05pm

87. " Iraqis have always favored their Arab and nationalist and anti Persian feelings over their shared Shia faith."

    with the exception of those Iraqis living in exile and supported by Iran.

    the Iraq war is and always was a gargantuan blunder.

    the unintended consequence of increased Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic defeat, as the US did not intend this result, and does not welcome it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 4:07pm

88. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    irrelevant nonsense.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 4:10pm

89. germany and japan were both homogenous societies, while Iraq was and is a state of civil war.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 4:17pm

90. lrjones4 never claimed they were. Iran sent Shiite death squads to and armed Shiite death squads in Iraq. This is a fact.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 10:32am

    No it's not a fact at all. The death squads were the militias of the leaders we supported, like Hakim, who Bush even had as a guest at the White House.

    The death squads were a conseuquence of Rumsfled's Salvador opition, where the most violent psycopaths were given a police or militry uniform and allowed to run free. The death squads were riding around in US issued LandCruisers and SUV's and allowed to pass through US mannged check points.

    This came to an end when the US reversed policy and jumped on board the Sunni Awakening.

    "Saddam had not connection with Fedayeen or Zarqawi. "

    That was clearly a mistake.

    Posted by Shingo at 07/01/2009 @ 4:21pm

91. emile duBois at 3:55pm said:

    >>> the allied occupation of germany ended in 1951, NOT decades after the war. <<<

    The direct occupation by the Western allies, of Germany ended in 1955 with the signing of a peace treaty. But hundreds of thousands of US and British troops remained stationed there for decades. Around 70,000 are still there.

    >>> the elections in germany and Japan were not as free as one might think. in both instances communists were not on the ballot. <<<

    Communists usually don't manage a spot on our ballots either, does that mean our elections are rigged?

    Moreover, are you sure communist candidates did not stand for election in the Federal Republic and Japan after the war? I don't know, but would guess they did.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 4:30pm

92. By the way, Shingo, here's a story of what life was like in Iraq before we invaded: http://www.bu.edu/agni/essays/print/2001/54-arnove.html

    In Basra, Iraq's second city, power flickers on and off, unpredictably, in the hours it is available. . . . Smoke from jury-rigged generators and vehicles hangs over the town in a thick cloud. The tap water causes diarrhea, but few can afford the bottled sort. Because the sewers have broken down, pools of stinking muck have leached through the surface all over town. That effluent, combined with pollution upstream, has killed most of the fish in the Shatt-al-Arab river and has left the remainder unsafe to eat. The government can no longer spray for sand flies or mosquitoes, so insects have proliferated, along with the diseases they carry. Most of the once-elaborate array of government services have vanished. The archeological service has taken to burying painstakingly excavated ruins for want of the proper preservative chemicals. The government-maintained irrigation and drainage network has crumbled, leaving much of Iraq's prime agricultural land either too dry or too salty to cultivate. Sheep and cattle, no longer shielded by government vaccination programs, have succumbed to pests and diseases by the hundreds of thousands. Many teachers in the state-run schools do not bother to show up for work any more. Those who do must teach listless, malnourished children, often without the benefit of books, desks, or even blackboards." This is quoted from The Economist. You think Iraq's society was healthy? Read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2164824/ " All the crucial indices, from illiteracy to unemployment to the emigration of talent and skill, were rapidly heading south.Perhaps most ominously, the reaction of Saddam Hussein..."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 4:37pm

93. I don't know, but would guess they did. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you have put your finger on it. you don't know.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 4:38pm

94. "...was to ratchet up religious and theocratic rhetoric and policy, broadcasting for jihad 'round the clock, engaging in a massive mosque-building program, and launching sporadic "morals" campaigns."

    It also quotes Ali Allawi's memoir as saying: "When the Coalition arrived in Baghdad on 9 April, 2003, it found a fractured and brutalized society, presided over by a fearful, heavily armed minority. The post-9/11 jihadi culture that was subsequently to plague Iraq was just beginning to take root. The institutions of the state were moribund; the state exhausted. The ideology that had held Ba'athist rule together had decayed beyond repair."

    If Saddam was spending as much time trying to "make people happy," as you yourself I can quote as suggesting, it sure did not show.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 4:40pm

95. "The Iraqi people might have been fearful of Saddam but they weren't traumatized. They knew that so long as they stayed out of trouble, the could lead regular lives."

    Sure they would, Shingo. The 1 million people Saddam killed were ASKING FOR IT, as were the 1 to 1.5 million that died in his illegal unilateral war of aggression against Iran (not to mention Kuwait), and the (based on the earlier posted 1999 UNICEF estimates) over 500,000 Iraqi children he starved to death deserved what they got as well.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 4:51pm

96. "as it turns out, those torture chambers, concentration camps, slaughterhouses, dungeons, and rape rooms, never disappeared, but just came under new management. "

    If you have proof of this, not only are you the only person in the whole world to have seen any, but you ought to provide the evidence to the ICC.

    In all probability, you're just making a laughable assertion and will defend it only by yelling "Abu Ghraib!" repeatedly. To be clear, though, not only was that an isolated incident perpetrated by a few bad apples, but if such behavior was instituted as government policy by, say, Saddam Hussein, then the ICC and UN would have beeen able to say, without hyperbole, that human rights in Iraq had improved dramatically and immensely, and that the diffference was unarguably as profound as the difference between night and day. But, Iraq would not be free, so bleeding hearts like yourself would never have to look at pictures of the sorts of crimes Saddam used to commit in his concentration camps, and you would be blissfully ignorant of what he did, and would not care, and would not be outraged, and would not have to face the true reality of evil in this world.

    Here's a recent AP report, for a nice, healthy dose of reality:

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmKHexUQ_1xfjQXrLCqHAY9hP3Lg

    From the article:"An increasing number of Iraqi detainees are refusing to leave detention centres despite being eligible for release because they want to complete studies begun behind bars, a US general said on Sunday.

    "In the last three or four months we have begun seeing detainees asking to stay in detention, usually to complete their studies," Major General Douglas Stone told a news conference in Baghdad."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 5:14pm

97. emile duBois at 4:38pm said:

    >>> you have put your finger on it. you don't know. <<<

    That is right. I don't know for a fact, but I presume, that communist candidates ran in West German and Japanese elections after WWII.

    Whereas you declare categorically that they were not allowed to stand for election.

    Fine, produce evidence that supports you.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 7:07pm

98. "as it turns out, those torture chambers, concentration camps, slaughterhouses, dungeons, and rape rooms, never disappeared, but just came under new management. " If you have proof of this, not only are you the only person in the whole world to have seen any, but you ought to provide the evidence to the ICC.

    we've seen the pictures, read the reports. you are in denial.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 7:20pm

99. I'M in denial!?!Read the f***ing article I linked to, you illiterate fraud! Show me some of these "reports"! Capitalize at least one of your sentences if you can only hack out two! Give me some URLs! PROVE to me that the U.S. government runs concentration camps! Read this part of my post again: "In all probability, you're just making a laughable assertion and will defend it only by yelling "Abu Ghraib!" repeatedly. To be clear, though, not only was that an isolated incident perpetrated by a few bad apples, but if such behavior was instituted as government policy by, say, Saddam Hussein, then the ICC and UN would have beeen able to say, without hyperbole, that human rights in Iraq had improved dramatically and immensely, and that the diffference was unarguably as profound as the difference between night and day. But, Iraq would not be free, so bleeding hearts like yourself would never have to look at pictures of the sorts of crimes Saddam used to commit in his concentration camps, and you would be blissfully ignorant of what he did, and would not care, and would not be outraged, and would not have to face the true reality of evil in this world. " The article for which I provided a URL is headlined: "Iraqi Detainees Refusing to go Home". Prison conditions must be unbearable when the inmates are pleading not to leave after they've been made eligible to do so. Disagreement with me or anyone is fine. But argue your points, emile. Don't post hysterical, uncapitalized sets of sentences smaller than the material you quote and are responding to, wherein you proclaim wild assertions (the US runs concentation camps!) without any facts, links, URLs, or quotes to back them up, offering no detail, and then going on to declare that all who disagree are in denial.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 7:43pm

100. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/01/2009 @ 7:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     here's the latest. the communist party did stand for elections immediately after the war. it was outlawed in 1954.

     in Japan, they were outlawed before the war. they did stand for elections there after the war. there was a red purge by McArthur early on.

     so you are correct on both counts.

     the "peace" treaty you referred to in '55 is the treaty of Paris which allowed germany into NATO. the real peace was not signed until '90.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 8:33pm

101. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 7:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     you're foaming at the mouth.

     the US tortured and murdered prisoners. the fact that Saddam was much worse does not mitigate the shame.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 8:35pm

102. You responded to me stating that there was no evidence of any kind that the US governement runs concentration camps by saying I was in "denial". I see now that you are backtracking on your concentration camp alllegations:

     "the US tortured and murdered prisoners. the fact that Saddam was much worse does not mitigate the shame."

     Indeed it does not, but I think that it is for the very reason you state (that Saddam was far worse) that it is those who favored the liberation of Iraq who DESERVE to be outraged at the illegal, unjustified actions of a few sadistic bad apples, rather than those who would have left Saddam in power and left the Iraqis to suffer at his hands worse than actually befell.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 9:10pm

103. it is not the mission of the US to right every wrong, or to remove every brutal dictator. we lack the moral stature, and we lack the resources to do that.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/01/2009 @ 10:31pm

104. emile duBois at @ 8:33pm said:

     >>> here's the latest. the communist party [of Germany] did stand for elections immediately after the war. it was outlawed in 1954. <<<

     That is not true. the KPD was not outlawed in 1954, it merely lost its seats in the legislature after its total vote became minuscule in the 1953 elections. In later years as the party of Ulbricht, it was discovered to be funded and in the service of East Germany and the Soviet Union and hence was deemed the creature of a hostile foreign power and hence illegal. In the late sixties it reconstituted itself.

     >>>in Japan, they were outlawed before the war. they did stand for elections there after the war. there was a red purge by McArthur early on. <<<

     Japan's communist party, illegal before the war, was legalized by MacArthur. Though it promptly called for overthrowing the emperor and his govt it was allowed to participate in elections, won seats in the parliament, and was never banished.

     >>> the "peace" treaty you referred to in '55 is the treaty of Paris which allowed germany into NATO. the real peace was not signed until '90.<<<

     Again wrong. NATO was created in 1949. Germany was admitted into NATO in Oct 1954. In May 1955 the "Germany Treaty" took effect restoring German sovereignty to that part of Germany outside the Soviet sphere and ending the occupation by the western allies. It was West Germany's peace treaty with the US, UK and France. Russia signed on after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

     You are a fount of misinformation but have the nerve to criticize me for qualifying as a guess, a correct statement.

     I tried, but you keep proving that you are a waste of time.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/02/2009 @ 01:19am

105. By the way, Shingo, here's a story of what life was like in Iraq before we invaded:

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 4:37pm

     Wow, you really have drunk the Hitchens cools aid haven't you?

     Seeing as you're such a Hitchens fan, you should also get a look at his reaction to another book from an Iraq, "The Bomb in My Garden" by Mahdi Obeidi.

     Hitchens had convinced himself that this book was the smoking gun evidence that proved Saddam as making nukes.

     As it turned out, Hitchens idea do a smoking gun as a few rusted remains of centrifuge Obedi had kept from the early 90's. In leymans's terms, that's like finding a used spark plug in the desert and claiming it is evidence that a Nascar Race took place there a year earlier.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 02:48am

106. If you have proof of this, not only are you the only person in the whole world to have seen any Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/01/2009 @ 5:14pm

     Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident perpetrated by a few bad apples. A few grunts were made into sacrificial lambs, but the torture at Abu Graib was part of a program authorized by Rumsfeld. Janet Karpinki has confirmed that the "bad apples were following orders and that the CIA weer involved the entire time.

     In August and early September of 2003, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the man in charge of the Pentagon's torture laboratory at Guantanamo Bay, was dispatched to Iraq, allegedly to Gitmoize operations there. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/05/15/miller/

     I have no doubt that Saddam was barbaric, but given the hyperbole and massive BS we were told about Saddam, it's hard to sift fact from fiction. You will of course, recall the phony story about the human shredder.

     Of course, while that was going on, one of our allies in Uzbekistan was boiling people alive and there are certainly photographs to prove it.

     You don't know what Saddam did in his concentration camps any more than I did, because it is based on hearsay. Still our troops fired on inmates for throwing stones and all manner of other atrocities, so it is dubious that things have gotten any better.

     "From the article:"An increasing number of Iraqi detainees are refusing to leave detention centres ...." I can't believe you are using this to support your argument. Do you realize that this is revealing that conditions in Iraq itself have gotten so bad that detention centers are actually better than they are in Iraq? They obviously don't see a future in their newly liberated country.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 03:08am

107. Yeah, Shingo, I do admire Hitchens. And my second quote was from him.

     However, the first and much more damning quote was from The Economist, was not by Hitchens, was written as objective journalism, and is quoted by Anthony Arnove on the link that I actually ended up posting (as I'm sure you can imagine if you know of the hack's work, he tries to blame all the devastation on America despite documentary evidence from the State Department and UN that the blame lay solely on Saddam's hands).

     I reccommend you read Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear.

     If we artificially cultivated Iraq's civil war, then the presence of US troops in that country was the problem. How come it was only by sending MORE troops that we were able to stop the violence?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 03:18am

108. "Do you realize that this is revealing that conditions in Iraq itself have gotten so bad that detention centers are actually better than they are in Iraq? "

     I know that reading LOOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGG AP articles is difficult, but the reason they want to stay is actually as follows:

     "they want to complete studies begun behind bars, a US general said on Sunday.

     "In the last three or four months we have begun seeing detainees asking to stay in detention, usually to complete their studies," Major General Douglas Stone told a news conference in Baghdad.

     The US military offers a wide range of educational programmes to the 23,000 or so detainees -- adults and juveniles -- being held at its two detention facilities, Camp Cropper near Baghdad's international airport and Camp Bucca near the southern port city of Basra.

     Some parents of juvenile detainees, too, have asked that their children remain behind bars so they can continue their schooling, said Stone, the commanding general for US detainee operations in Iraq.

     The US military, he added, was not encouraging the trend.

     "We don't want them to remain in detention," he said. "When they are no longer considered a threat we want them to go home.""

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 03:24am

109. so they want to stay in prison because we destroyed there education system and the private contractors who were supposed to rebuild it took are money and ran. thats reason makes the united states look sooooooooo much better.

     Posted by nathantankus at 07/02/2009 @ 03:45am

110. * our money

     Posted by nathantankus at 07/02/2009 @ 03:48am

111. If we artificially cultivated Iraq's civil war, then the presence of US troops in that country was the problem. How come it was only by sending MORE troops that we were able to stop the violence? Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 03:18am

     Because the sending of troops was the least significant factor that contributed to the surge.

     1. The Sunni awakening was already a year old by the time we sent more troops and as Patreaus will admit, he/we got lucky.

     2. Another major contributor to the success of the surge was the fact that Baghdad had alrady been enthnically cleansed. http://tinyurl.com/4exz49

     3. The other factor was that we shifted policy from fighting the Sunni insurgents to talking to bribing them.

     In fact, it was revealed in this article that the Sunnis were offering the same deal as early as 2004--one that was eagerly embraced by commanders on the ground, but rejected out of hand at the highest levels of the Bush administration. http://tinyurl.com/lhapjz

     Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 07:12am

112. The US military offers a wide range of educational programmes to the 23,000 or so detainees -- adults and juveniles -- being held at its two detention facilities, Camp Cropper near Baghdad's Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 03:24am

     As nathantankus pointed out, Iraq's universities, which were the most highly regarded in the Arab world, were destroyed by us.

     It's good that something positive has come out of the mass incaceration of Iraqis, but it's hardly something to be proud of.

     I do find it paradoxical that the rigth wing are so opposed to socialised services in this country, yet take such pride in our money going towards offering free services to country's we invade and occupy.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 07:16am

113. The US military offers a wide range of educational programmes to the 23,000 or so detainees -- adults and juveniles -- being held at its two detention facilities, Camp Cropper near Baghdad's Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 03:24am

     As nathantankus pointed out, Iraq's universities, which were the most highly regarded in the Arab world, were destroyed by us.

     It's good that something positive has come out of the mass incaceration of Iraqis, but it's hardly something to be proud of.

     I do find it paradoxical that the rigth wing are so opposed to socialised services in this country, yet take such pride in our money going towards offering free services to country's we invade and occupy.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/02/2009 @ 07:17am

114. Hugo, I conceded two points where you were right and I was wrong. this is a rarity in these pages and I would have thought you could acknowledge that.

     It was banned in West Germany in 1956 by the Constitutional Court (wiki)

     McArthur did purge communists in Japan. I refer you to "Embracing Defeat" by John W Dower

     the Paris treaty was agreed to in '54 but not ratified until '55

     you are confusing east germany with west germany. Ulbricht was ALWAYS in the east.

     I don't mind dueling facts, it is a way I learn.

     in any case the point of the whole exercise was the occupation of Iraq. it's still a disaster, and very few, if any, parallels can be drawn between that occupation and those of the defeated axis.

     take a look at this chronology.

     http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/german/chronology.html

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 09:11am

115. good posts Shingo.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 09:12am

116. Whew! So many long winded posts to peruse. I only get home every 28 hours or so. Lot's goes on in between.

     One thing I have not seen covered in the media. Michael Jackson reigns supreme in the face of real news.

     Check this link:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJVhNH99c

     Glenn Beck nods in approval as guest Michael Scheuer (CIA) explains how to save the country from illegal immigration.

     Unreal in it's implications...

     Actually calling for another attack on the U.S. in order to save the country.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 09:53am

117. This should be the biggest story in the news... Two traitors and terrorists right in our midst, right on national television. I keep saying the threat is from within. But nobody listens. And the media does not care.

     Michael Scheuer is a former CIA employee with 22 years of "service" to our country..

     He "served" as Special Advisor to the Chief of the Bin Laden unit at the counterterrorist center from September 2001 to November 2004. He was an analyst at the CIA.

     This is a representation of the mindset of the CIA at the time that Vader Cheney was spending a whole lot of time at the CIA.

     September 11th anyone?

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 10:05am

118. September 11th anyone? Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 10:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

     I enjoy your posts.

     EXCEPT the 9/11 conspiracy ones. those are off the wall and off the reservation.

     the conspiracy thing is too easy. in real life, the ducks do not line up all in a row.

     it's like trying to empty a bucket of water into a thimble.

     i have made numerous points addressing your theory. no answer. I don't mind, but when you repeat, I tune out.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 10:35am

119. Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 10:35am

     I guess you do tune out. The majority of my post had nothing to do with 9/11, which was only added as an aside and food for thought.

     The crux of my post concerned the calling for renewed attacks on America by Fox News, Glen Beck and Michael Scheuer. This is the thrust of the post. But you just address an aside at the end. Odd.

     Anyway, Glen Beck and Michael Scheuer should be arrested immediately. And Fox should be shut down pending and investigation into possible conspiracy to commit or abet a terrorist act.

     If you fail to see this. I don't know what else to say.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 10:45am

120. sorry. you are right. it was an aside.

     anyway, you're a bit too totalitarian here.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 11:02am

121. anyway, you're a bit too totalitarian here.Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 11:02am |

     I'm not sure I understand how I'm being totalitarian. I was aghast when I heard the audio of that video. I thought it was important for others to know about it who may have missed it. It floored me.

     I really don't mind constructive criticism. If I tend to bloviate, I apologize. But when I see the major "news" networks giving us sickening continuous coverage of a freaky pop star instead of covering the confession of a former CIA analyst who is advocating terrorism and attacks on America for the sake of advancing a fascist agenda I become alarmed.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 11:19am

122. This is a major news network that has millions of idiots who take it as gospel. And this network is advocating renewed terrorist attacks on the U.S. to save us?

     And the media is silent? This sort of propaganda comes from the highest levels of the oligarchy that is currently oppressing us. This is Treason!

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 11:25am

123. Anyway, Glen Beck and Michael Scheuer should be arrested immediately

     you might wish to reconsider this.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 11:53am

124. instead of arresting them, which would turn them into martyrs, we should give these remarks the widest possible circulation

     these loose lips will sink the GOP ship, fer sure

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 12:03pm

125. instead of arresting them, which would turn them into martyrs, we should give these remarks the widest possible circulation

     these loose lips will sink the GOP ship, fer sure

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 12:03pm

     True enough. My only question is who, if they were arrested would consider them martyrs? It would be difficult to defend the arrest of two people who were advocating a terrorist attack on America. And it would be difficult to martyr the network that pays them.

     But you are correct in the difficulty. Already the right is saying that Media Matters is an extreme Socialist web outlet for crazy Socialist infiltrators that are being directed by George Soros.

     And that the entire video was somehow engineered by Soros clones and placed on YouTube.

     I kid you not. I have been jumping around to various sites, who right at this moment are trying to sell this to themselves.

     Weird but true. According to many the YouTube Video is a fake.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 12:17pm

126. No strangeness is being left unthoughtof, Yesterday Limbaugh tried to blame Obama for the death of Michael Jackson!. He was saying how under Reagan, Michael prospered and how under Obama he is dead.

     I shit you not..

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 12:22pm

127. thanks for reporting. shine the light on them is the best disinfectant.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 12:23pm

128. Can't even find the interview on Fox anymore. They have taken it down. They are a bit worried. That's Ok, plenty of copies out here.

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/02/2009 @ 12:46pm

129. "Janet Karpinki has confirmed that the "bad apples were following orders and that the CIA weer involved the entire time."

     I'm afraid that if you are going to take that sadist's word for it, then I am going to lose respect for the intellectual integrity of your argument. She also "confirmed" in interviews prior to the release of the abuse photos that no such abuse was going on.

     "As nathantankus pointed out, Iraq's universities, which were the most highly regarded in the Arab world, were destroyed by us. "

     Right, according to Al-Jezeera, the Iraqi Baathists, Syrian television, and Noam "Afghanistan is a silent genocide! 3-4 million Afghans are going to die!" Chomsky.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 3:30pm

130. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     nothing was destroyed. they welcomed us as liberators. the war's cost will be borne by the Iraqis, we're winning, we're number one.

     howzat?

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 3:38pm

131. "The Sunni awakening was already a year old by the time we sent more troops"

     Well, gee thanks Shingo; I was just going to say so. In fact, the Awakening movements began in 2005 with the Sunnis in the Anbar province. They caused no appreciable decrease in violence comparable to that which resulted from the surge, which is why clueless peaceniks such as yourself were declaring after a month or two of extra troops that the surge had failed and Iraq was an impossibly costly lost cause.

     The alleged ethnic cleansing in Baghdad (I concede it happened, before you ask, I just think that that is too strong a term to use to describe it) also occured before the surge. As it stands, long after it had happened, people like you were saying the surge had failed. Conditions in Baghdad could not be "more important" than the troop increase in reducing violence to a truly dramatic degree throughout the entire country, or else such an outcome would be unique to Baghdad alone. Even you have no choice, surely, but to concede the point on this matter.

     Your logic quite literally REQUIRES that an increase in troops would lead to an increase in sectarian violence. The factors you named, facile as they are, could have mitigated such an increase, but they would not be sufficient to allow for a widespread and dramatic drop in violence throughout the entire country.

     Further, the only factor as important in the success of the surge as the troop increase is the covert actions that Bob Woodward noted as having been used to weed out and eliminate AQ and other terrorists in Iraq, which were the primary fuel flaming the flare of sectarian war in that country.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 3:54pm

132. "Unreal in it's implications... "

     "This is a representation of the mindset of the CIA at the time that Vader Cheney was spending a whole lot of time at the CIA.

     September 11th anyone?"

     "They have taken it down. They are a bit worried"

     "thanks for reporting. shine the light on them is the best disinfectant."

     "Anyway, Glen Beck and Michael Scheuer should be arrested immediately "

     "And the media is silent? This sort of propaganda comes from the highest levels of the oligarchy that is currently oppressing us. This is Treason!"

     "the confession of a former CIA analyst who is advocating terrorism and attacks on America for the sake of advancing a fascist agenda I become alarmed."

     "Fox should be shut down pending and investigation into possible conspiracy to commit or abet a terrorist act.

     If you fail to see this. I don't know what else to say"

     You are the most unbelievably over the top, melodramatic, facile pseudo-pseudo intellectual I have ever had the displeasure of reading the hyperbole of.

     By the way, saying that Fox should lose First Amendment protection and be shut down by the government because it is biased around a point of view you disagree with is very hypocritical if you then go on to justify such a laughable assertion by saying that Fox advocates fascism. And what did you mean when you called Fox News "the highest level of the oligarchy that is currently oppressing us"?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 4:09pm

133. the surge was a surge of money. we are paying 100,000 sunnis, in addition to paying for the shia gov't, as well as the 100,000 contractors, and of course also paying for the 130,000 american troops. thatsa mighty big money surge.

     small wonder we have so little left for OUR citizens.

     the reason the surge is a failure is that none of the political benchmarks of agreement between the Iraqi factions have been met. the pause in violence was supposed to give space for the political settlements to be made.

     of course none of this will happen in the situation there today.

     will the americans really leave? will they continue to foot the bill? everyone in Iraq is playing both sides, just in case.

     we have been through this movie before, in Vietnam. the soldiers of our puppet preferred to let the americans do the fighting and dying. once the american troops were gone, the south collapsed.

     I will go out on a limb here. when all american troops are gone the violence will increase and the baathists will again rule Iraq.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 4:09pm

134. You are quite a cynic, emile, to say the Baathists will take over again.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 4:15pm

135. And, regardless of politics, all of us should hope and pray you are wrong.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 4:19pm

136. I did not say I wished for this result.

     the big problem in that region is that the decisions were made by foreign powers, british and french. that is how those states were created, at the treaty of Versailles. Wilson, an idealist, got rolled.

     hoping and praying will not make any impact.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 4:29pm

137. "hoping and praying will not make any impact."

     Well, of course not, since there is no invisible omniscient super-deity in the sky to listen to our prayers.

     "I did not say I wished for this result."

     Nor did I accuse you of doing so. It is very often a bad sign when someone defends themselves against charges which have not been made.

     No reason to pray. The Baathists have been defeated, the insurgency is dead, their AQ allies have been militarily defeated and discredited, the Sunnis themselves have rejected them due to their depravity. Baathists are despised and will never get elected. They are not strong enough to impose their will on the Iraqi people. Maybe they would have if we had listened to Barack Obama and withdrawn from Iraq in 2005, but it's too late for the leftists to feed the Iraqi people to the wolves in the name of the belief that nothing is worth fighting for, as they did to the Cambodians in the seventies.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 6:07pm

138. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this is wishful thinking.

     how many bomb attacks take place each and every week? many.

     somebody is blowing up these people? this fact alone renders your wishful thinking ludicrous.

     both wars are essentially stale mates.

     "I did not say I wished for this result."

     this was preemptory.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 8:01pm

139. in the name of the belief that nothing is worth fighting for, as they did to the Cambodians in the seventies.

     the Iraqis have everything to fight for, the americans have nothing to fight for there. that was the problem in Vietnam too. I don't know what you think leftists did to the Cambodians.

     I do know that Nixon expanded the Vietnam war into Cambodia. nothing good came out of that for america.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 8:05pm

140. Well, emile, you are probably correct about Iraq. Now that we have removed the genocidal regime that killed around 3 million people, destroyed that regime's insurgency, eliminated (almost completely) the AQ allies of the insurgents, and stopped the sectarian warfare (by and large), as well as set up a democracy in Iraq, it may be time to let the Iraqis fight for their freedom. We have certainly given them a lot.

     Vietnam is a whole different case. A genuinely imperial war, America divided Vietnam and set up a puppet authoritarian regime in the south. It ordered its puppet to cancel democratic elections in Vietnam that would have united it. It did this because there would have been an overwhelming Communist victory. If America had not gone in, Vietnam would have had a less radicalized, elected Communist regime that would have accepted economic and political liberalization at a faster rate than China. Instead, the US fought a South Vietnamese Communist insurgency that left South Vietnam a less viable society than the Communist North, which annexed it by force. 3 million Vietnamese died, and another million Laotians and Cambodians that were drawn into the conflict died as well. It is debatable if, in 1973, when the US left, the US had won the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese, and, if so, how much longer the US would have had to fight for them (keep in mind: the Communists killed 200,000 South Vietnamese in concentration camps, executed 70,000 and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of "boat people," who fled for freedom at sea, the survivors often coming to America). There is no room to debate if America was right to go in. America should not have divided Vietnam, it should not have sent in troops, it should not have escalated its involvement...

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 8:40pm

141. ...under LBJ. Nixon was an evil man, however. He had no intention of keeping South Vietnam as a viable country. His goal was to lose the war in the most politically expedient way possible, using resentment felt by middle America towards protestors who called for the first real defeat in American history to get elected while simaltaneously getting votes from reluctant antiwarriors by pledging to have a secret, undisclosed plan to end the war by PROSECUTING it, a plan which he never revealed even though he was elected pledging to reveal it. All of the people that died during the Nixon years in Indochina died for nothing. Nixon admitted openly in private conversations on the Nixon tapes that he simply wanted to rig the situation so that South Vietnam would collapse a couple years after the end of American involvement, so that his spin doctors could claim that South Vietnam would have survived but for the incompetence of its government.

     The North invaded and occupied chunks of neutral Cambodian land illegally to use it as a military base from which to launch attacks against the Americans. They offered some, but very little, support to the Cambodian insurgency called the Khmer Rouge. The Americans' attempts to bomb them (starting actually under LBJ) lead to them forming an explicit alliance with the Khmer Rouge. When America withdrew, the North stopped arming the Khmer Rouge and tried to force it to accept a ceasefire. It would not. Nixon's widespread bombing of Cambodia, which killed tens of thousands of civilians, failed to disrupt the Khmer Rouge and only created recruitments for it. Without the actions of North Vietnam and the US, the Khmer Rouge probably would not have had a chance to come to power. If the US had not gone into Indochina, they probably...

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 9:03pm

142. would not have come to power. But America, after signing the Paris Peace Accords, was still commmited to fighting them.

     In 1970, the pro-American general Lon Nol overthrew the prince of Cambodia (the CIA knew about this, did not aid it, but implicitly supported it). He allowed the Americans to invade his country to stop an attempt by the then-united North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge to ovverun the entire country. American and South Vietnamese forces killed almost 20,000 Khmer Rouge forces around the capital alone. Cambodia's Prince, however, endorsed the Khmer Rouge, and many peasants joined their ranks because they thought they were fighting to restore him.

     In 1973, the Democratic Congress legislated an end to all American military involvement in Indochina. The only American military activity then underway was air support for our friendly Cambodian government ally. As a result, the Khmer Rouge conquered the country. In three years, they killed two million of it's seven million people. Vietnam then invaded and occupied Cambodia in a war that cost 600,000 lives and that lead to China briefly attacking Vietnam in a war that cost 70,000 lives.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 9:25pm

143. Not that this has anything to do with Iraq.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 9:26pm

144. not that this has anything to do with liberals.

     wars have a way of spreading. the equally stupid Afghanistan war has spread to the border regions of Pakistan.

     after eight years and five years respectively, what have these wars done for americans?

     how much longer?

     Now that we have removed the genocidal regime that killed around 3 million people, destroyed that regime's insurgency, eliminated (almost completely) the AQ allies of the insurgents, and stopped the sectarian warfare (by and large), as well as set up a democracy in Iraq,

     three million? all these numbers are suspect. I once asked Juan Cole, a middle east expert, how many casualties of the Baathist regime, and he answered that there are no firm numbers.

     is the insurgency destroyed when we paid them off? what happens when we stop paying?

     by the way, even though Iraq sits on a great deal of oil, the gov't of Iraq has huge debts with many countries, including Russia. will those countries be repaid?

     the insurgency has not been eliminated. every day bombs go off all over Iraq. that is sectarian warfare. american troops have been largely confined to base, which is why their casualty numbers are down.

     we have not set up a democracy. democracy is more than just voting. democracy is settling problems sand violence. the Iraqis have settled NOTHING.

     I already mentioned the last election, which at least 20% of the population boycotted.

     now we will see "elections" in Afghanistan. the current leader is begging the Taleban to participate. his power ends at the outskirts of Kabul, it has been reported. it has also been reported that the Taleban control up to 80% of the country, which is roughly the size of Texas.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/02/2009 @ 9:52pm

145. "I already mentioned the last election, which at least 20% of the population boycotted. "

     Just like almost 40% of eligible voters in America "boycotted" the recent American election, thus PROVING that we actually didn't elect Obama and we aren't a free country. Iraqis have embraced democracy to a greater extent then we do as a people today.

     "not that this has anything to do with liberals. "

     Maybe I shouldn't have bothered trying to educate you with all this history. Liberals in Congress took actions which caused the deaths of millions in Cambodia. I was just trying to give a sense of perspective on these events, so that I did not appear to be someone who was glad we entered Vietnam.

     "wars have a way of spreading. the equally stupid Afghanistan war has spread to the border regions of Pakistan. "

     The Afghan war "equally stupid"? Please. If the Taliban was still in power, based on the rates they were killing their citizens, they would have slaughtered far, far more than have died in the war. With that in mind, think about how many lives we have saved from this war. This is from 2002: http://www.tcj.com/247/e_giuffo.html "According to UNICEF, who, coincidentally, also voiced opposition to the bombing campaign at first, the international aid agency is now able to go forward with the "biggest logistical operation for many years" in Afghanistan. In an aid update from January, UNICEF workers immunized 572,000 children in Kabul during the first two weeks of 2002, "six times higher than the total immunization coverage in 2001." They also vaccinated over 700,000 children against measles during the first two months of 2002, in a country where, as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in the Feb. 1 New York Times "virtually no one had been....

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 10:21pm

146. ...vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years." That alone will save the lives of at least 35,000 children each year. Kristof also quotes Heidi J. Larson of UNICEF saying that she expects maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan will halve as a result of improved health care over the next five years. That's another 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women saved each year. Consider that more than 1.5 million schoolchildren have been enrolled in Afghan schools this year ... double the number of children in school last year. All of the girls, who the Taliban prevented from attending school, are going to school for the first time in their lives.... the Taliban were known for pushing aid organizations out of the country for such "violations" as being Christian. The World Food Program reports that food aid is now successfully reaching 6.6 million people in Afghanistan. "

     Under the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan lived as if it were the Stone Age. They did not have access to clean water. They did not have enough food to survive. They had almost no healthcare of any kind. Women were forced to live in one room of their house, their faces almost completely covered. If they left without a male relative to escort them, they would have been stoned to death. The Taliban relentlessly persecuted the Shiite Afghans. They regard Saudi Arabia as a soft, lenient regime. They outlawed all art, literature, poetry, music, erotica, painting, pornogrophy, media, drugs, entertainment, television, movies, plays. All they allowed was the Koran. What sort of liberal would stand by and allow these Jew-hating, women-stoning, gay burning terrorists to control an entire country?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 10:31pm

147. "it has also been reported that the Taleban control up to 80% of the country, " Whatever you say.......

     "three million? all these numbers are suspect. I once asked Juan Cole, a middle east expert, how many casualties of the Baathist regime, and he answered that there are no firm numbers."

     It is widely documented and incontrovertible that Saddam's wars of aggression killed around 1.5 million people. According to the UNICEF estimates, he also was responsible for the deaths of around 500,000 Iraqis, children mostly, due to his policies' humanitarian impact on the Iraqi people. The NYT article mentioned earlier stated that, ignoring these factors, Saddam killed 1 million people. Yes, these are large numbers, the numbers could be slightly lower or higher, these are estimates, but as an estimate we can say Saddam has the blood of three million people on his hands.

     Dreyfuss is a hack. Saddam killed more people in one month in 1991 then have died in the entire war. Saddam was in power for 24, not 35 years, as someone earlier pointed out. It has not even been 35 years to this day since he was named President. Further, his use of language is simply absurd. Read his sentence again: "far more, incidentally, than even the largest estimates of the number of Iraqis who died during 35 years of Saddam Hussein's rule". He should have said "who died as a result of Saddam's actions and policies". How could he know how many died from all causes in Iraq in a random 35-year period in it's history? What 35-year period is he talking about? Even if he only counts the NYT estimate about how many died, not including through Saddam's manipulation of the Oil-for-food program or the wars against Iran and Kuwait, he would still have a figure of 1 million, yet even he can not..

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 10:54pm

148. ... quite convince himself that even 1 million died in the war; the estimates that say so are too obviously fabricated, so he uses the term "hundreds of thousands". Hence, even if he just looked at this one estimate (in the New York Times) he would have to know that what he wrote was a lie. Further, did he read any estimates, or is this just his "opinion"? Where could he have read an estimate that over 3 million Iraqis died in the war? Where he could he have read an estimate for "number of Iraqis killed during Saddam's 35-year (?) rule"? Why is his statement so vague? Why doesn't he elaborate? Why doesn't he cite any statistics, studies, articles, links, URLs, reports, books, resourses; anything of any kind that would come close to materializing his claim? And WHY ON EARTH is he so arrogant, so cocky, so SURE that he is right as to have the audacity to say "FAR more"?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 11:07pm

149. Here's more evidence of how "evil" our "imperialism" in Afghanistan is:

     http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=128003

     "KABUL - Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef is a former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. He spent almost four years in Guantanamo. He wears a black turban, has a thick beard and is never without his Apple iPhone.

     The ultra-conservative Taliban banned modern technology like the Internet and TV during its harsh 1996-2001 rule, but those items have boomed in Afghanistan since the regime's 2001 ouster, helping to bring the country into the 21st century.

     Zaeef, who reconciled with the Afghan government after being released from U.S. custody, says he uses his iPhone to surf the Internet and find difficult locations, employing the built-in GPS. He even checks his bank account balance online.

     "It's easy and modern and I love it," Zaeef said as he pinched and pulled his fingers across the iPhone's touch screen last week. "This is necessary in the world today. People want to progress."

     Beyond making life easier, some say the country's embrace of technology could help break the cycle of 30 years of relentless warfare. It puts at the tip of a finger many things that were strictly outlawed by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar music, movies, pictures of people and games like chess.

     Young Afghans see the world differently from older Afghans because of their use of the Internet and mobile phones, and their participation in sports, said Shukria Barakzai, a female lawmaker and former newspaper editor.

     Afghanistan's youth are not caught up in "the old circle of war," she said. "They are engaging with the rest of the world. That's why technology is so important for Afghanistan.".....

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 11:17pm

150. "....As an example she uses the popular television show Afghan Star, a version of the American Idol-style singing contest, which draws millions of viewers each week, both young and old. Viewers vote for a winner by text messaging, helping to promote democratic practices, she said.

     Eight years ago Afghanistan had only a few hundred cell phone users, mostly members of the Taliban government. Today it has more than 8 million, meaning roughly one in four Afghans uses a mobile phone, according to government figures.

     NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in a speech earlier this year that Afghanistan was "in the Middle Ages" when the Taliban was toppled. Today, he said, half the country is at peace and access to education and health care are up 10-fold.

     "When I saw an Afghan fellow pull out his Apple iPhone in Kabul, while I was talking on my 5-year-old NATO mobile, I saw another symbol of progress," he said of a recent trip to Afghanistan.

     The Afghan capital has one gleaming mall, with glass elevators and escalators and a rare European-style coffee shop. Electronic stores stocked with GPS units, Sony PlayStations, flat screen TVs and iPods fill the shopping center.

     Faridullah, the owner of an electronics store who like many Afghans goes by one name, said he sells about four iPhones a month to wealthy Afghans. The price in Kabul has dropped from $1,100 one month ago to about $800 today, he said.

     "The country is really progressing now. Nine years ago the country didn't know about mobile phones. We can't compare today to nine years ago," he said. "It's like a custom now in Afghanistan that even if someone doesn't have enough money to eat he'll still carry an expensive cell phone."

     The nation's leading mobile phone company, Roshan,..."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 11:19pm

151. "...added 1 million customers between June and early February, when it surpassed 3 million users. Roshan offers mobile banking services so users can send money to others through their phones, and it began offering Blackberry service in August, the first company in Afghanistan to do so.

     Still, the average annual income in Afghanistan is just $800, so shop owners must target the ultra-wealthy and foreigners. Most Afghans never have heard of an iPhone, and Roshan reaches only 56 percent of the population.

     "It's still pretty expensive," Jawid, the owner of another electronics store, said of iPhones and other modern gadgets. "The problem is the economy, otherwise people are very interested in the new technologies."

     Many shops in Kabul sell a Chinese-made iPhone copy that shop owners say can do most things a real iPhone can. The fake sells for $300. "People use the Internet on it and it goes for a reasonable price," Orash said.

     Zaeef, the former Taliban official, said he has always been interested in technology despite his militant links. He used a laptop and satellite phone to access the Internet in the late 1990s, and now he surfs the Web an hour a day, he said.

     Zaeef said he tried to persuade top Taliban officials to let Afghans have more access to modern electronics in the late 1990s, and he noted that the Taliban itself now embraces technology. Militants use remote control devices to set off roadside bombs, and they produce high-quality videos of attacks that they post on militant Web sites.

     The Taliban movement is highly fractured and is essentially a loose knitting of commanders who wield ultimate authority in their regions. As a result, some commanders have relaxed strict social rules against technology and now allow TVs and music...."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 11:22pm

152. "...But others have ripped down satellites from homes and thrown out TVs from village barber shops and tea houses.

     "All the time with the technology I tried to get them to investigate about the negative and the positive. I thought the positive outweighed the negative," he said. "I tried, but unfortunately I was not successful.""

     Wow, Bush really should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity! He waterboarded three terrorists!

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 11:23pm

153. Further, the only factor as important in the success of the surge as the troop increase is the covert actions that Bob Woodward noted as having been used to weed out and eliminate AQ and other terrorists in Iraq, which were the primary fuel flaming the flare of sectarian war in that country.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009

     Except that most of the so called Al Qaeda had already been taken care of by the Sunnis themselves or had morphed into the so called "concerned local citizens". It's no secret that the members of the Sunni who were recruited by the US were former AQI members who took a bribe.

     In fact, some of the US command were offended by the fact that the "concerned local citizens" included so many killers who had taken American lives.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 12:56am

154. "Except that most of the so called Al Qaeda"

     So-called? Well, yes, that is what they call themselves, and bin Laden did endorse them.

     "had already been taken care of by the Sunnis themselves"

     Yes, in fact, even some former Baathist allies of the jiihadists turned against them, so sickened were they by the tactics they employed. It is important to note that Iraq is indeed a war that is unwinnable: for the insurgents, whose vile, sadistic, pyscotic campaign of cleansing, raping, torturing, chainsawing, shooting and bombing everyone in sight made it impossible for them to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Even the Iraqis most suspicious of the US embraced it simply to combat these sinister thugs. We have militarily defeated, but, more importantly, completely discredited our gravest terrorist threat, al Qaeda, before the populace of an Arab and Muslim country.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 01:11am

155. The Baathists have been defeated, the insurgency is dead

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009

     Simplistic in the extreme.

     The Baathists and insurgency are Sunnis who changed tactics for the time being, but as Patreaus has said repeatedly, all the gains are reversible.

     By the, it was the right not the leftists that secretly bombed the Cambodians in the seventies.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 01:50am

156. "1 million dead is simply not a credible estimate, though I do grant that hundreds of thousands have died." The leading scientist in the British Government says otherwise"

     I would write something to respond to this, but, on second thought, why bother? lrjones4, probably the most helpul and intelligent person who has posted here, has debunked it sufficiently. He (or she, I suppose) wrote:

     "The 2004 (94,000) and 2006 (654,965) Lancet reports is not about civilians actually killed by the combatants but ; "The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.)" wiki

     There is an implicit racism in refusing to accept that Iraqis were and are able to keep reasonably accurate mortality rates. The figure by that measurement and confirmed by Iraq Body Count, is about 110,000 over about 76 months which averages out about the mid 1400s.

     The highest ever published monthly figure was about 3000 and in 03-04 the monthly average was in the hundreds as it has been this year (2009).

     The 2006 Lancet figure needs about 15.5 thousand every month for 42 months. But it is not even referring to those civilians actually killed by combatants or suicide bombers. "

     Shingo, pay attention to "The 2006 Lancet figure needs about 15.5 thousand every month for 42 months" and "The highest ever published monthly figure was about 3000 and in 03-04 the monthly average was in the hundreds as it has been this year (2009). "

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 02:05am

157. "By the, it was the right not the leftists that secretly bombed the Cambodians in the seventies."

     The bombing began under LBJ. I suppose he could not have done it in the seventies, though. If you read through my posts completely, I think we actually should agree on Vietnam. America should not have gone in. I also condemned Nixon's widespread bombing of Cambodia. Nonetheless, it was not the primary reason for the Khmer Rouge taking power. I have said that the actions of both NV and the US that resulted only because of America starting the war helped the KR gain control. Many factors contibuted to their rise. I only said that the Democratic Congress should not have legislated an end to military action against the KR, and should have instead sent in ground troops to fight them. Surely, you would agree with this? Or are you a pacifist?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 02:14am

158. It is important to note that Iraq is indeed a war that is unwinnable: for the insurgents, whose vile, sadistic, pyscotic campaign of cleansing, raping, torturing, chainsawing, shooting and bombing everyone in sight made it impossible for them to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 Again, you demonstrate a poor understanding of who these people were.

     One of the biggest opponents of the surge was Malaki because the Anbar awakening was was allied to the US, not the Iraqi government. This is why, despite pressure from General Petraeus, the government is so determined not to give the 99,000 al-Sahwa members significant jobs in the security forces. Indeed one of the weaknesses of the surge is the fact that in order to sustain it, it requires the former insurgents to be paid/bribed to play nice and Malaki has already stopped those payments.

     The Shia government may be prepared to accommodate the Sunni, but not at the cost of diluting Shia dominance.

     The other major player was Iran. While the Republicans cast Iran as the villain, the surge owed it's success to Iran, which played a central role in getting Nouri al-Maliki appointed Prime Minister in 2006, and backed his government fully.

     It wasn't the US that did away with these thugs. The thugs are still around. The Shiite militias who carries out the pyscotic campaign of cleansing are now in charge. The battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 was won by the Shia, who now control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes are permanent; Sunni who try to get their houses back face assassination.

     Ongoing violence is down, but Iraq is still the most dangerous country in the world. Mosul still has 60 and 70 attacks a week.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 02:16am

159. "Simplistic in the extreme."

     Not neccessarily. Now that a level of peace is reigning in Iraq, no normal person would join the insurgents, who would fight to quell such calm. They can win no hearts or minds. AQI is dead. The Baathists are rejected by most Sunnis. You are right, though, about certain Sunni militias.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 02:18am

160. "the surge owed it's success to Iran,"

     Now you sound like a real lunatic.

     "The thugs are still around. The Shiite militias who carries out the pyscotic campaign of cleansing are now in charge"

     Actually, I was talking about the Sunnis, who are the main problem.

     "Iran, which played a central role in getting Nouri al-Maliki appointed Prime Minister in 2006"

     No, he was elected, not appointed.

     "The battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 was won by the Shia, who now control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes are permanent"

     Permanent is too strong a word; think of what Iraq might be in a hundred years. In any case, most Iraqis ARE Shiites, so them being more dominant in a given city is not a shock.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 02:26am

161. lrjones4, probably the most helpul and intelligent person who has posted here, has debunked it sufficiently. He (or she, I suppose) wrote: Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 02:05am

     It just goes to show that intelligence is in the eye of the beholder.

     Apart from the John Hopkins Study, there was a seperaet study carried out by O.R.B., the British polling agency that has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005.

     They concluded that a total of 1,220,580 excess deaths have taken place since the invasion in 2003. In summary, it found about 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans.

     Keeping accurate mortality rates during a time of war and occupation is not a given. Paul Bremmer could not account for 9 billion of missing funds after all and Rumsfeld reported in 2001 that the Pentagon could not account for 2.6 trillion.

     As I pointed out, Iraq Body Count, provides a very low figure by way of the fact that it is Baghdad centric, only reports deaths covered by 2 or more papers and all but ignores deaths from aerial bombardment.

     The Lancet figure refer specifically to "excess deaths": so it does indeed needs include civilians actually killed by combatants and suicide bombers. Libertyfortheoppressed, pay attention to this figure In his 2005 article, Up in the Air, Sy Hersh reported a press released by the US marines in Baghdad that stated that:

     Since the beginning of the war, the press release said, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone had dropped more than five hundred thousand tons of ordnance. "This number is likely to be much higher by the end of operations," Major Mike Sexton said.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 02:55am

162. This press release refers to over a period of 16 months. Now do the math. Based on the assumption that most ordnance are 500lb bombs, this means that the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone dropped more than 2 500lb bombs every minute, every hour, 24./7 for those 16 months. This does not include the ordinance dropped by the Navy or air force.

     Now if only 1% of those ordinance his human targets, that accounts for over 220,000 deaths over 16 months alone and IBC has ignored all of them.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 02:56am

163. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/03/2009 @ 02:26am

     Like I said, your understanding of what has taken place in Iraq is very superficial.

     The government in Iraq is suported by 2 countries, the US and Iran. In fact, the regard for which the Iraqi leadership holds Iran was summarised by Barbara Boxer when she asked Rice and co why it was that when Bush arrived in Baghdad, he had to do it by stealth adn unanounced, where as Ahmadinejad was given a red carpet staet welcome.

     The Sunnis were the insurgents and the death squads were the Shiites, so no, the Sunnis, were not the main are the main problem.

     "No, he was elected, not appointed."

     No his political party was elected. Malaki was appointed. If you recall during the 2005 elections, his appointment took place after the Shiites won the election.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/03/2009 @ 04:45am

164. lrjones4, probably the most helpul and intelligent person who has posted here,

     yes he is the most helpul, the only helpul one in fact.

     most intelligent? notachance. a regurgitator of the Bush line is all he is.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 07:41am

165. I repeat my question. what benefit have the two wars brought to AMERICANS?

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 07:48am

166. anyone who has even the most superficial knowledge of political science knows that poor people with no jobs or prospects are much more likely to join paramilitant "criminal" organizations then those who have jobs and ways to move up the socioeconomic ladder. those groups come in many forms: gangs, al-qaeda, hezbollah,hamas or the irish liberation army etc . libertyfortheoppressed, i think you will be shocked to find that when we stop paying the sunni's and dont create jobs in iraq, that the insurgency will be magically revived

     Posted by nathantankus at 07/03/2009 @ 08:26am

167. create jobs in Iraq? how about we create jobs in this country?

     you are of course correct, Nate

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/03/2009 @ 08:39am

168. you would be suprised how many jobs would be created if we stopped giving their jobs to foriegn contractors and renationalized their industries.

     Posted by nathantankus at 07/04/2009 @ 05:35am

169. You are the most unbelievably over the top, melodramatic, facile pseudo-pseudo intellectual I have ever had the displeasure of reading the hyperbole of.Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/02/2009 @ 4:09pm

     My posts are original. Unlike yours, which for the most part are cut copy and paste. With a few of your own words of ignorance thrown in for good measure.

     As far as your single question to me. Concerning Fox News being the highest level of the Oligarchy that is opressing us. I find that of particular amusement.

     Since you already know the answer to that, it becomes apparent that you could not see that someone else would. Very odd...

     Posted by chaoszen at 07/04/2009 @ 11:12am

170. Chaoszen is too stupid to bother responding to.

     Shingo, let's cut to the chase. We cannot just keep debating here forever. Most of the points both of us are making are facile. We are too fixed, or so it would seem (one would hope not, but it is probably so) in our views to change the other's mind, the goal of debate. So let me just explain, as best I can, why I am right about the inevitability of Iraq's implosion, or at least why I believe that is the case.

     A coup would be attempted by all of Iraq's sects as soon as it obtained a feasible chance for success (like when Saddam died. We don't know how long Saddam would have lasted, maybe five years, perhaps another decade, maybe more, maybe less). Nonetheless, you must concede this point, and it seems to leave only two possibilities for what Iraq's future would have been without our intervention.

     Option one: One of Saddam's sons, who we know Saddam wanted to succeed him, would have asserted control of the army and secret police. He would have put down such a coup attempt with massive bloodshed, probably a mass genocide like in 1991. We then would have had decades of rule by Saddam 2 and the sanctions. When Saddam 2 died, Iraq would not have looked pretty.

     Option two: The Baathists can't agree on a successor. The army refuses to side with them. The sects of Iraq use violence to successfully overthrow the government and Iraq plunges into an anarchy. This is what you have to believe would have happened, because option one is far worse than war. You further must believe that, although Zarqawi and AQI would have been able to do so, they would not have taken advantage of the chaos unless America got involved. In addition, although there would have been looting and violence, you must believe that there would...

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/05/2009 @ 10:14am

171. ...have been little sectarian warfare unless America got involved even though Saddam's divide-and-rule policies would have been prolonged. You must further still believe that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would not have gotten involved unless America did. You must finally believe that Iraq's sects would have peacefully worked out a compromise and collaborated to create a new and better Iraqi regime without using violence. You would also have to think that America sending in troops to weed out AQ, create order, set up a new regime, and prevent outside intervention would only make things worse. Obviously, you would be dead wrong.

     (BTW, don't expect a great response on my part if you happen to come up with a brilliant rebuttal to my argument. I won't have access to the internet for the next 5 or 6 days.)

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/05/2009 @ 10:22am

172. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/05/2009 @ 10:22am

     ... or option three, their is no coup because there wasn't any sign of one happening in the near future within iraq, a highly repressive regime stays in power but iraqi's remain highly educated despite our strangling sanctions and sectarian violence doesnt break out because sectarian violence was caused by a year of the united states selling off iraqi industries and giving away the jobs to foriegn contractors, leaving iraqis with a destroyed country and a hideous unemployement rate. its amazing how the first two options completly ignores the realities of saddam's iraq. no one denies that saddam was a terrible, repressive and murderous dictator but that does'nt excuse our failiurs in rebuilding the country we took responsiblity for.

     Posted by nathantankus at 07/05/2009 @ 3:16pm

173. Posted by nathantankus at 07/05/2009 @ 3:16pm

     Addendum to Option 3:

     The sanctions regime (which was already falling apart in 2003) breaks down. Oil sales that follow bring in much needed revenue. Oil prices remain low due to increased supply. US companies like Betchtel and Halliburton, who's revenues were languishing before the war, seek government bailouts.

     Afghanistan is much quieter and stable due to the greater focus and resources allocated. Exxon does not make obscene profits for the duration of the war. 4,300 Americans are still alive. 1 million Iraqis are still alive. There are no Iraqi refugees. Valerie Plame is not outed, and her CIA front company continues to provide valuable information about nuclear proliferation. The US is $3 trillion better off.

     Posted by Shingo at 07/05/2009 @ 8:32pm

174. good call shingo i forgot about the sanctions being near collapse on the european side.

     Posted by nathantankus at 07/06/2009 @ 02:21am