The Handover of Iraq ~ 2 Days Early

[Defiant Noquisi]

So, it has finally happened. I hope things can now progress in a better manner. It will be rough for quite awhile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/in...er=rssuserland

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/in...er=rssuserland

[substand]

i dont think things have progessed badly. sure, the war was not over in 2 weeks with iraqis giving US soldiers roses like the media said it would be (although many iraqis did give US soldiers roses and the media didn't widely report it), but it hasn't progressed badly.

I'm glad the transition is in place, but I fear too many people were/are of the opinion that the US would be leaving alltogether. That view is and has been discredited over and over (even though the media in general saw fit to never mention it or completely give the impression we would leave).

We've done many good things in Iraq. Its not complete, and chances are, we will never get credit in the short term for the good things we've done. But Abu Graib will be reported throughout history for the end of time.

I'm glad the Iraqi's now have control over thier destiny, at least in political matters (and not security matters). It's just Bush's style to do something "under the table" like this and capitalize on it being a surprise (like his visit to troops in Iraq last Thanksgiving). So in that sense, it wasn't a surprise.

However, there is still a lot of work to be done. I don't think this transfer of sovereignty is going to be anything more than symbolic, nor have I ever. I criticized setting a precise date (as they did, but only deviated by 2 days), especially such an early one because it would give the false idea that we were coming home in total. It gave that idea, even though it was never said.

My hope is that the Iraqis can get away from those islamist psychos. They will still need our help in security, no doubt. If they can create (and follow, and secure) a constitution similar to Iran, without the vali-e-faq (and the religious elite in general) being as all powerful as they are in Iran, I think they will have made a bold and constructive step forward.

I think Iran is on the verge of revolution, but its taken them almost 25 yrs since the last one that instated the religious elite as rulers. I hope Iraq doesn't have to go that far backwards, and as long as we maintain a significant role there, I think it can happen.

God forbid the day we institute a repressive secular dictator like we've done in the past with the Shah and to a lesser extent Saddam.

[Defiant Noquisi]

However, there is still a lot of work to be done. I don't think this transfer of sovereignty is going to be anything more than symbolic, nor have I ever. I criticized setting a precise date (as they did, but only deviated by 2 days), especially such an early one because it would give the false idea that we were coming home in total. It gave that idea, even though it was never said.

I agree, in fact I completely agree with your entire post. It will be MANY years before things are in such a place that we could leave completely and I do hope the psychopaths are brought to their knees.

[stewey]

I think it will definately help lower violence, as now the troops there are there via request of the interim government. However, the fact there was no reported violence yesterday (the day of the handover) kind of has me worried about what may happen today and the next few days. Hopefully, it means the violence will be lower, but who knows.

[MetalMilitia]

Hopefully Iraq won't end up like Afghanistan.

The violence will increase, security will decrease. Soldiers will continue dying.

But Americans can now forget all about Iraq, just as they have forgotten Afghanistan.

That we're still at war 3 years later, that the Taleban are back in control of large areas of the country, that the rest of the country is in the hands of war lords, that record-breaking opium productions last year stand to be broken this year, that elections have been put off several times due to massacres, attacks and total inability to get out of the city of Kabul to even register anyone...

And now that US troops are to remain in Iraq for "several years" only because the "interim government" (which has no standing whatsoever with Iraqis and is seen as a US-handpicked, puppet regime) has "requested" the troops remain (even though almost 70% of Iraqis want US troops gone like yesterday) just as Allawi will soon "request" the US build permanent bases in Iraq (I guarantee ya he will), now the blissfully ignorant Americans can ignore/continue to ignore the deaths of our troops, the increasing world hatred, the fact that bush and his nasty invasion have made us all less safe and a helluva lot poorer, and get on with important things like Reality TV and Nascar.

/me takes a deep breath

As long as Iraq is ruled by a US appointed or US approved government and our soldiers remain there as defenders of the USA installed gov't we will be targets. Just as we are in Afghanistan. If we reduce our force to 50,000, or less, we will have to fort up in a number of guarded bases or military enclaves. From these we will venture out from time to time to smite the barbarians and to keep our boys in power. The leadership will be like Karsai- and unable to travel out side Baghdad without a guarding battalion of US infantry. If the media do their part they will slip Iraq off the front pages as they have Afghanistan and stop mentioning casualties.

Blind Americans will grab cold ones and cheese wiz and return their attention to basketball...something simple they understand.

-MM-

[MacRasta]

Good post, MM........, good post!

Le Mac

[Maleko]

I agree with you Substand, but what I wonder is, what will the US do if the Iraqis, in a fair election, voted themselves a radical fundamentalist Islamic leader? Would we step in to "preserve the peace" or would we back out and let them have what they asked for?

[FactsOverFiction]

And now that US troops are to remain in Iraq for "several years" only because the "interim government" (which has no standing whatsoever with Iraqis and is seen as a US-handpicked, puppet regime)



(even though almost 70% of Iraqis want US troops gone like yesterday)



-MM-

Only have a few things to pick at in your post

http://iraqcoalition.org/polls/ABC_Poll.pdf

COALITION FORCES – As noted, 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces –
but that doesn’t mean most want them withdrawn immediately, likely because of security
concerns. Fifteen percent of Iraqis say the forces should leave the country now; by
contrast, 36 percent say they should remain until a new government is in place; 18
percent, until security is restored.
How long should coalition forces remain?
Until Iraq gov’t is in place 36%
Until security is restored 18
Leave now 15
Six months or more 10
Few months 8

http://iraqcoalition.org/government/political_poll.pdf

While the individual members have yet to make themselves known, Office of Research in-depth
interviews show that many consider the establishment of the Iraqi Governing Council “the
beginning of a positive change,” “a good step forward” and “ideal for these circumstances. In
addition, a Gallup survey in Baghdad (August 18-September 4) finds that six in ten residents of
the capital have a favorable opinion of the Council (61% vs. 13% unfavorable; 27% don’t know).

Though I pay no mind to "polls" both here and abroad because well they can be made to say anything anyone wants. I needed to show the other side of the "polls" against what you where stating.
But watching CSpan when the troops returning talk about how it is better over there then the TV portrays it, well that is better then any poll anyone can come up with. A close friend of mine is scheduled to be home in about 3 weeks so when he gets home I will be on a more firm standing either for or against the situation. As it stands now the correspondense I receive is glowing at the amount of children who run and play with the soldiers while they are on patrol. (Though this practice, sadly is becoming less common due to fears of the children getting caught in the cross-fire) it is something he was very happy about. Whether this is fluff he wrote to ensure the censors don't get upset or not well we will see.


FoF

[MetalMilitia]

John Stewart (from comedy centrals "the daily show") on Larry King, talking about the handover.

STEWART: The handover.

KING: The handover.

STEWART: It's great. I'm a big handover guy. I'm a big sovereignty guy. I love handing over sovereignty. I prefer to hand it over knowing who I'm giving it to, but I like the way this administration's doing it. They're just saying, we're just handing it over. Maybe it will be a raffle. Maybe it will be the eighth caller. We don't know yet. It's very exciting.

KING: Sort of like a lottery.

STEWART: That's exactly right because nation building, why not give yourself a challenge with this? Anybody can build a nation.

KING: In other words, are you saying just walk away? Just leave them or just...

STEWART: Isn't that what handing over sovereignty is or wait, are we staying?

KING: Yes, we're staying.

STEWART: Son of a gun. I, no idea. No, I like the guy that we're giving it to, Allawi, I think he's -- you know, apparently did good work as a CIA operative and hopefully -- because Chalabi's out, right?

KING: You call it -- you call it a giant Mesopotamia.

STEWART: That is correct, sir.

KING: Explain it. What do you mean?

STEWART: A giant Mesopotamia?

KING: Yes.

STEWART: Mesopotamia, it's the fertile crescent, it's where life originated and we've gone in there and scrambled it up a little bit.

KING: Do you think it was an error to go?

STEWART: Do I think it was an error?

KING: Yes.

STEWART: Well, I established my war cabinet, you know, years ago when we talk about this sort of thing. You know, there have been four justifications that I've heard so far for the war and you tell me if I'm wrong about this. There was the weapons of mass destruction. There was the ties to al Qaeda. There was the oppressed his own people. And there was one other in there somewhere. Weapons of mass destruction, ties to al Qaeda, possible nuclear. OK.

KING: Support terrorism.

STEWART: That describes like five countries. So if that is the standard that we've set to go into a war, shouldn't we also be...

KING: North Korea.

STEWART: Iran, Sudan...?

KING: How do you know they're not next?

STEWART: What have you heard?

KING: We'll be right back. We'll take your calls later for Jon Stewart.

STEWART: Am I being drafted?

KING: Get home, there's a letter for you with no stamp.

STEWART: Oh, boy.

Now I don't normally watch CNN, but I was flipping through somewhere around the midnight hour, and it must've been a repeat from earlier in the day.

I laughed my ass off.

-MM-

[MetalMilitia]

One lunatic for another?

According to several former intelligence officials interviewed by the New York Times this month, the political group run by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in the 1990s, but financed by the CIA, "used car bombs and other explosive devices smuggled into Iraq" in an attempt to sabotage and destabilize Hussein's regime.

With such a record, it is perhaps not strange then that Allawi, who built his exile organization with defecting Iraqi military officers, is already proclaiming the need to delay elections scheduled for January and impose martial law.

There has been little media follow-up to reports in early June that Allawi's work for the CIA amounted to much more than trying to win hearts and minds. Yet what we do know is damning enough. In 1996, one of Allawi's top officers and his group's self-proclaimed chief bomb maker detailed the mechanics behind Allawi's murderous actions in a videotape subsequently obtained by a British newspaper, the Independent.

On the tape he even expresses annoyance that the CIA had shortchanged him on one job, a car bombing, allegedly paying only half the agreed-upon amount.

According to one of the New York Times' sources, Allawi's group, the Iraqi National Accord, was the only exile group the CIA trusted to unleash violence inside Iraq under the agency's direction. In those days, car bombings in Baghdad were thought to be a good thing, according to one U.S. intelligence officer who worked with Allawi. "No one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then," he said, adding, "I don't think anyone could have known how things could turn out today."

http://www.latimes.com/

-MM-

[MetalMilitia]

80% of Iraqis Want US to Stop Patrolling Cities.

41% would feel safer if the forces left Iraq altogether, and only 32% would feel less safe.

43% of those polled said they would be most likely to vote for a party which called for foreign forces to leave.

Asked if they would support a party which wanted foreign forces to stay until Iraq's army and police were adequately trained and equipped to face threats of violence, only 16% said yes.

Although the collapse of security is the population's top concern, most of those surveyed felt that the problem would be best handled by Iraqi forces and that the presence of foreign armies attracted more violence.

Almost 70% said that if foreign armies remained in Iraq after an elected government took office in January, attacks against Iraqi police and government officials would increase.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...103681,00.html

[Conservative Front]

I applaud Bush for this, It shows he is a man of his word truly. I hope Iraq will spread democracy around the middle east so these ignorant monarchys can end and peace can be achieved finally in these nations. Bush has done a great job with this war and has put quite a dent in terrorism (although it still exist) The threat of terrorism is demishing with each operative we eliminate. War is a terrible thing but it insures freedoms.

[stewey]

That we're still at war 3 years later, that the Taleban are back in control of large areas of the country, that the rest of the country is in the hands of war lords, that record-breaking opium productions last year stand to be broken this year, that elections have been put off several times due to massacres, attacks and total inability to get out of the city of Kabul to even register anyone...

Actually, Taliban controls a whopping 2% of Afghanistan, which is decreasing daily. Elections were scheduled for September, and September hasn't happened yet. For the most part, Afghanistan is headed in the right direction. I do not know where you get those facts, but it they're very inaccurate.

[stewey]

Right now, if we left, it would be horrible. Iraqi's military is not strong enough yet to defend itself. Also, I do not think that putting martial law would be bad -- I mean due to the kidnappings and bombings and such, it is understandable. It is easy to say "if we left, all violence would end!", but in reality, it is not true.

Imagine if we left Iraq and Afghanistan? That would be like letting whoever wants in control have a free ride to the top.

[MetalMilitia]

Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.

US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions (as belligerant occupiers) they were not bound by Iraqi law.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1012571727162

At least they think they're in control

-MM-

[Defiant Noquisi]

Ah yes, now the insurgents will test the limits and the patience of the new law, and they wont give a damn who it is because it will all be labelled "American" even if its one of their own. Arrogance has no boundaries.

I had a weird thought, what if that "virgin" thing was actually a "Nightmare on Elm Street" scenario? I wonder if something like that could be spread.....

[substand]

Hopefully Iraq won't end up like Afghanistan.
The violence will increase, security will decrease. Soldiers will continue dying.

Don't forget about the good things that have happened as well (in both countries). Infrastructure is being built, girls are going to school, people are starting legitimate businesses. Opium may be on the increase, people may be dying, but 3 years in the grand scheme of things is not a long time, especially not long enough to declare complete victory and success. Perhaps if our goal was to annihilate Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have been done by now and declared victory. Unfortunately our aim is much loftier and harder to acheive, so after 3 years, we've already helped bring them to the 18th century. From the stone age, thats almost infinitely successful.

As long as Iraq is ruled by a US appointed or US approved government and our soldiers remain there as defenders of the USA installed gov't we will be targets.

First, we will be a target if any government gets in, whether we support that government or hate it. Further, we were targets before we went in.

Second, any hardcore Shia Muslim won't recognize any government by man as legitimate, even if the Sharia is the law of the land. They only recognize government by the Mahdi as legitimate.

[substand]

I agree with you Substand, but what I wonder is, what will the US do if the Iraqis, in a fair election, voted themselves a radical fundamentalist Islamic leader? Would we step in to "preserve the peace" or would we back out and let them have what they asked for?

Thats a hard point. part of me says that early elections could be considered "fradulent" in a way- because extremists are more likely to participate in elections than non extremists.

In the US, its not a huge problem because we have such established, catch all parties and generally, there are so few extremists. However, (just a generality here), I'm willing to say that 90% of people who identify themselves as Greens (or Libertarians, or some other extreme 3rd party) vote, while perhaps only 50% of the population votes, and probably around 50% who ID with Dems or Reps vote.

Since there is such a lack of knowledge of democracy/freedom in Iraq, I would not be surprised to see mostly only the extremists voting. So if that happens, do we call the election valid? I don't know, but I certainly would hope that the moderate Iraqis would get out and vote and not allow that to happen. If it does happen, I don't think it would be smart for us to sit back and let it happen, but I don't think it would be smart to intervene either. On the one hand, you are getting another likely support of terrorism. On the other we look like everything those opposed to the war said we look like (even if it is for good reason).

A good example to compare this to is Iran. It can be argued for sure that most Iranians revolted and did not like the Shah's rule (though at one time long in the past, they did like it so one of my professors from there told me). It was when he started becoming more puppetlike and repressive where he lost favor (as he should have). Our continuing support for him, in my opinion, was stupid. But we looked at the religious elite's rule as worse.

In any case, the large majority revolted, but I'm not too convinced that most wanted rule by the religious elite- the merchants for sure just "joined" mostly because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In any case, they don't want it now. Now the problem is that for the past several years, the voters have been electing liberalizing "reformers" to the Majlis, but the reformers could not get anything done due to the power of the religious elite in government. The last election was a joke because the religious elite just basically vetted all the reformist candidates (a power they have by thier constitution) and so the religious zealots won the election.

Iran, in my opinion, is on the verge of another revolution.

Now would we "allow" Iraq to go down the same path? I don't know. In some ways I want to say "yes" because it would be better for our "image" and better for thier society in the long term (IMO). However, I want to say no as well because it would be better for our immediate tactical position (not neccesarily for our long term strategy- but it might not be detrimental long term either), it is possible to be better for the whole society in the long term, and I'd hate to see them have to go thru another bloody civil war/war/revolution 30 yrs from now (if you take the same time table and I'm right about Iran).

As you can tell, I haven't quite made up my mind =). What do you all think?

[stewey]

Source for Taliban control:
http://www.modernprometheus.com/desp...es/000589.html

[MetalMilitia]

The War on truth still rages

Iraq is as sovereign and has as much legal custody of Saddam Hussein as it had weapons of mass destruction, or collaborated with Al-Qaeda, or posed a threat to the United States.

The week's farce, the "handover" of power, the "transfer" of Saddam, is part of George W. Bush's ongoing war on truth.

The only brush with reality came in the historic judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court that the Bush administration cannot continue to operate above the law. It must grant due process to both citizens and foreigners ensnared in its war on terrorism.

The rebuke, a long time coming, restores a modicum of faith in a nation led by a president so deceitful on so many fronts that he cannot go abroad without drawing massive protests, as seen in recent days in Ireland and Turkey, or eliciting derision for his catastrophic failures in Iraq.

Iraqi "self-rule," proclaimed in secret in Baghdad before a handful of people guarded by U.S. troops is as real as the flowers showered on the "liberators" last year.

American rule of Iraq is over; long live the American rule. American viceroy Paul Bremer has departed; John Negroponte, master of American intrigue in Nicaragua in the 1980s, has arrived as the pasha of the largest American embassy in the world.

The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council is out; a U.S.-named new regime is in. It is led by Iyad Allawi, a paid CIA puppet for a decade and, before that, a Baathist servant of Saddam.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...tacodalogin=no

-MM-

[substand]

Iraq is as sovereign and has as much legal custody of Saddam Hussein as it had weapons of mass destruction, or collaborated with Al-Qaeda, or posed a threat to the United States.

I'd ask what mad Lib source you got this shite from but you posted the link below (presumably).

So why is it you beleive that? Its so little sovereign that what little evidence of WMD we found is greater than thier autonomy? Collaborated with AQ? Not on 911 as far as proof goes, but definitely "talked". Threat to the US? We never quite mentioned a direct threat (other than tying WMD to terrorists who might strike and then tying WMD to Iraq and terrorists to Iraq). Basically, everything mentioned there is almost irrelevant to why we invaded iraq (imo). Even if we gave "false" reasons for doing so, we did give other reasons which some people agree with (and wish we stressed more) and others think are BS. I've made my position clear in other places, but to say Iraq is as minisculely free as the 3 things that you mention (which are still unproven to be false) is still better than they were under saddam (even if they had been proven false).

The week's farce, the "handover" of power, the "transfer" of Saddam, is part of George W. Bush's ongoing war on truth.

Yes, Bush is and has been lying. In fact, he's lied so much that we can beleive the Iraqi communication minister (or whoever he was) when he said that the US was not invading, that we weren't outside Baghdad. In fact, Bush has been such a liar, according to mad libs like these articles (et al) that we can fully beleive the US invasion of iraq never took place. After all, Bush is such a liar, how can we beleive him or his mass media outlets that spew his filth about an invasion took place?

The only brush with reality came in the historic judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court that the Bush administration cannot continue to operate above the law. It must grant due process to both citizens and foreigners ensnared in its war on terrorism.

while I applaud the fact that US citizens get representation in gitmo (among others, and all of whom currently dont deserve it (even the us citizens caught in combat against us)), I again wonder where this came from. Since the "only brush of reality" comes when it is detrimental to bush, I'm concerned.

I find it funny that Bush is truthful to leftists when he (or his admin) says we went (or "are going") to war while the iraqi guy said we weren't there. Since the old Iraqi regime is beleivable when they say they didn't have illegal weapons (much less WMD's), why are they unbeleivable when they say we weren't ever there or close to attacking them?

I guess we beleive the old iraqi regime when it suits us because of "no wmd's" (ignoring any other breaches of illegal weapons. And we beleive we invaded despite the fact that they said we didn't because it also suits us because we hate Bush. So Bush was lying about WMDs and other violations, the old Iraqi regime was telling the truth about being compliant, Bush was telling the truth about the invasion, and the old Iraqi regime was lying about it. Makes perfect sense.

The rebuke, a long time coming, restores a modicum of faith in a nation led by a president so deceitful on so many fronts that he cannot go abroad without drawing massive protests, as seen in recent days in Ireland and Turkey, or eliciting derision for his catastrophic failures in Iraq.

I won't defend the deceitful comment too much - all major politicians are to some extent. Some are worse than others... but.....

Again, Bush was telling the truth on the invasion, but lying about the illegal weapons, but the old Iraqi regime was telling the truth on illegal weapons and lying about the invasion.

Bush can't go abroad without drawing protests? Well neither could Clinton- but since protests against Clinton were anti-capitalist (G-7/G-8 meetings) and not anti-US-foreign_policy, its OK. They weren't against Clinton's bombing of afghanistan and iraq without UN resolutions, much less one saying Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations" (as dubya's was (see it @ http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)) So leftist protests sponsored by commies/socialists against leftist Clinton did not count, especially because none of them occured as a result of his showing of Iraq and/or Afghanistan "serious consequences" with UN approval. No, he showed them "something besides serious consequences" in his bombings and all without even thinking of UN approval.

Iraqi "self-rule," proclaimed in secret in Baghdad before a handful of people guarded by U.S. troops is as real as the flowers showered on the "liberators" last year.

I hate to tell you, but those flowers showered on the liberators were real. As Michelle Malkin writes @ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=32002

This week, as all the world has now seen, the flowers were in full bloom. Jubilation rocked the streets. Coalition troops were showered with petals, kisses and hugs from Basra in the south to central Baghdad to the northern-most cities of Iraq.

you can also see a photo of an iraqi pinning a flower on a US soldier @ http://www.constitutionallychallenge...iraqflower.jpg

I can provide more if you really beleive there were no flowers involved.

American rule of Iraq is over; long live the American rule. American viceroy Paul Bremer has departed; John Negroponte, master of American intrigue in Nicaragua in the 1980s, has arrived as the pasha of the largest American embassy in the world.

Well, since it was Bush and company who said we invaded, I dont think I beleive him... so American rule might be over in Iraq, but IMO it never existed. =P.

The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council is out; a U.S.-named new regime is in. It is led by Iyad Allawi, a paid CIA puppet for a decade and, before that, a Baathist servant of Saddam.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...tacodalogin=no

So the US named regime is out, and a new US named regime is in. It may be led by a CIA paid puppet. He may have no other mission than to make sure the US only benefits, and that everyone else is screwed over. I guess the Iraqis are worse off now, and so is the US and everyone else involved. So we all lose?

I guess, que es el punta, senor?

[MetalMilitia]

How about some facts

• 993 dead troops, 12,000+ wounded US troops,
• nearly $200 billion USD gone,
• Iraq electricity below pre-invasion level,
• Iraq oil production still below pre-invasion level,
• unemployment rate higher than in 30 years of Iraq's history,
• A good chunk of the Iraqi people hate us and their US puppet "government" & want us gone yesterday,
• we have increased world hatred towards us due to our 'abuse' and continued abbhorent behavior,
• total loss of US crediblity, "WMD's a slam dunk case" - Right...
• we're LESS safe now, admittedly there was MORE terrorism,
• the US Army admitted tonight the US troops are stretched too thin and are near breaking point.

Threat to the US? We never quite mentioned a direct threat (other than tying WMD to terrorists who might strike and then tying WMD to Iraq and terrorists to Iraq)

Excuse the president for playing the "fear card"

Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people...more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure...materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands... had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb...sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (*cough*bullshit*cough).... the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Well he didn't have all that to give now did he? I've never said Iraq was better with Saddam, but no one likes to look back and sift through all the BS that we WERE fed on a daily basis. I maintain he should be held accountable for all the lies he's muttered.

... and I guess flowers translates to 'car bombs' in some dialects.

Let's just hope for the best. A US puppet regime suits me fine, it may not go over well with the Iraqis though.

-MM-

[Defiant Noquisi]

[b]Let's just hope for the best. A US puppet regime suits me fine, it may not go over well with the Iraqis though.

MM, we cant go over there, bomb the place up and leave it in ruin. Im not arguing the facts nor the lies, but placing those two above the importance of putting the country back together right now is disturbing.

A farce it may look, but of what intelligence would it be to just up and hand over the country and say "seeya"? If we are going to be spending billions in repairing the infrastructure of the country and its government, Id at least like someone watching over its spending and protecting what is being built.

There is too much grumbling among the various factions that want power to just leave things the way they are now. Im glad Saddam's dictator arse was spanked. But we cant just up and leave now even with all the "nefarious" information coming out. I doubt it will ever be called to account and it should.

You know as well as I that trouncing someone for a BJ is much more sensational than calling someone out for just plain old lies.

[MetalMilitia]

Agreed, but was it all warranted to go in and bomb the shit out of it in the first place? Given we had to change our story to fit what we were doing as the weeks went on. Being that I am fairly anti-war, and always anti-lie I just think Iraq has a lot of baggage that people put off and think nothing more of.

"You know as well as I that trouncing someone for a BJ is much more sensational than calling someone out for just plain old lies."

Just one post without a BJ reference.... it completely erases what I had in mind... and puts, well, you know what in it's place.

What was I doing in here again? Oh yeah, soliciting BJ's....

-MM-

[stewey]

How about some facts

• 993 dead troops, 16,000+ wounded US troops,
• nearly $200 billion USD gone,
• Iraq electricity below pre-invasion level,
• Iraq oil production still below pre-invasion level,
• unemployment rate higher than in 30 years of Iraq's history,
• A good chunk of the Iraqi people hate us and their US puppet "government" & want us gone yesterday,
• we have increased world hatred towards us due to our 'abuse' and continued abbhorent behavior,
• total loss of US crediblity, "WMD's a slam dunk case" - Right...
• we're LESS safe now, admittedly there was MORE terrorism,
• the US Army admitted tonight the US troops are stretched too thin and are near breaking point.

Excuse the president for playing the "fear card"

Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people...more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure...materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands... had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb...sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (*cough*bullshit*cough).... the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Well he didn't have all that to give now did he? I've never said Iraq was better with Saddam, but no one likes to look back and sift through all the BS that we WERE fed on a daily basis. I maintain he should be held accountable for all the lies he's muttered.

... and I guess flowers translates to 'car bombs' in some dialects.

Let's just hope for the best. A US puppet regime suits me fine, it may not go over well with the Iraqis though.

-MM-

source please. the polls and information I have read (from cnn, foxnews, etc) give much different numbers.