Sunday, May 01, 2005

Letting in the Draft?

I found this article by chance, I want you read it, and your opinion about it.

by Tom Engelhardt April 27, 2005


"An overstretched military? You bet. Things going terribly in Iraq? No kidding. Why only yesterday, Jill Carroll and Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor reminded us that, with 140,000 troops (and untold numbers of mercenaries) in Iraq, the Americans can't defend a crucial six-mile stretch of highway between the two lodestars of the American occupation -- Baghdad International Airport, a vast, fortified military encampment, and the Green Zone in the heart of the capital, another vast, fortified encampment. Carroll and Murphy write:

"The danger of the airport road also speaks to the wider problem of securing a country in the face of a dispersed and committed insurgency blended within the civilian population. Millions of cars traverse Baghdad's roads every day, and just a handful of them are carrying suicide bombers. For the Iraqi government and US forces, it's a needle-in-the-haystack problem with few practical solutions. There is limited US military manpower for adding checkpoints, but even if it was logistically possible, stopping every car on Baghdad's roads would bring the city to a grinding halt and make the airport journey even longer than it is now... The airport road is a direct link to the US headquarters in the secured Green Zone. But rather than risk the road, US diplomats fly by helicopter from the airport to the Green Zone."

As Patrick Cockburn of the British Independent commented last week, the inability to stop attacks along this stretch of highway has "become a symbol of the failure of the US in Iraq. Heavily armoured US patrols, prone to open fire unpredictably, are regarded as being as dangerous as the insurgents." On this highway, in the last week, five foreign "contractors" and the young aid worker Marla Ruzicka all died and others were wounded. The Americans undoubtedly dream of bringing in Iraqi troops, sooner rather than later, to help with the security task. Unfortunately, these highly touted, newly trained troops have evidently been deserting their posts in significant numbers in embattled parts of the country. "On the Syrian border, US troops in the Sunni city of Husaybah report mass desertions," writes Oliver Poole of the British Telegraph.

"An Iraqi unit that had once grown to 400 troops now numbers a few dozen who are 'holed up' inside a local phosphate plant. Major John Reed, of the 2nd Marine Regiment, said: 'They will claim that they are ready to come back and fight but there are no more than 30 of them on duty on any given day and they are completely ineffective.'"

In the last months, the Americans (as happened in the latter part of the Vietnam War) have also hunkered down in their bases, attempting to reduce casualties, among other things. In response, the insurgents have recently been launching more sophisticated operations, including, for the first time, serious attacks on isolated bases.

In the meantime, Baghdad continues to be an occupied city -- even at the level of symbolism. A report, translated from the Arabic and appearing at Watching America, an interesting new site featuring pieces about the U.S. from around the world, states:

"Iraq's new president has said he will not reside in the Presidential Palace, which for many Iraqis is a symbol of the country's sovereignty. Jalal Talabani said that the interim government has agreed to rent the palace to the Americans for two years. The presidential complex on the banks of the Tigris River is a maze of palaces, green lawns and orchards... President Talabani said that the Americans 'might' evacuate the palace when the lease expires."

Sovereignty anyone? In order to gain legitimacy, the Iraqis who were elected on January 30th would need to put some real distance between themselves and the American occupiers. However, as Middle Eastern expert Robert Dreyfuss comments in a canny piece at Tompaine.com, "doing so... is impossible, since the newly elected regime wouldn't last a week without the protection of U.S. forces." In any case, the new government, such as it is, will be a familiar one. "[V]irtually all of its leading actors," Dreyfuss comments, "are retreads from the IGC, which was appointed by L. Paul Bremer, and from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, the exile-dominated coalition that included Chalabi, Talabani, Abdel Aziz Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and other officials and members of the just-elected National Assembly."

To the frustration of the Bush administration, the Iraqis have proved incapable for almost two months of forming a government, in part because of the nature of Article 38 of the "interim constitution" that Bush officials so cleverly imposed upon them, as Justin Raimondo, columnist for Antiwar.com pointed out recently. And, of course, they too must meet inside the Green Zone where, Rory Carroll of the Guardian observes, "the 10,000 Iraqis who also live in the zone need passes to enter and must negotiate several checkpoints, as if they are in quarantine." Even the legislators are not immune from the indignities of occupation. As Carroll reports:

"Last week an assembly member named Fattah al-Sheikh said he was roughed up and humiliated by US troops on his way in. One allegedly grabbed him by the throat, another handcuffed him, and a third kicked his car. 'I was dragged to the ground,' he told parliament, weeping. 'What happened to me represents an insult to the whole national assembly that was elected by the Iraqi people. This shows that the democracy we are enjoying is fake.'"

Juan Cole offered the following on this incident: "[It] will seem minor to most Americans and few will see this Reuters photograph [of the legislator wiping away his tears] reprinted from al-Hayat... But such an incident is a serious affront to national honor, and Iraqi male politicians don't often weep." Naturally, Brigadier General Karl Horst of the 3rd infantry division "expressed regret" and promised "a thorough investigation"; but we've just seen, in the case of kidnapped Italian journalist Guiliana Sgrena and Nicola Calipari, the agent who died on the Baghdad Airport road after rescuing her, how such investigations generally turn out -- even when those who have suffered at American hands are citizens of the administration's second closest ally, Italy, with its government in desperate shape and its deployment in Iraq at stake.

This seems to be more or less the state of things -- impunity and quiet desperation -- as the Bush administration tries to keep the world it dreamed of dominating under some kind of control; and yet, as Michael Schwartz has made clear, it faces a daunting task simply keeping boots on the ground in Iraq. By the way, General Eric Shinseki's prewar comments -- which more or less got him laughed out of Washington by the neocons -- that we would need "several hundred thousand troops" to succeed in a post-war, occupied Iraq have often been quoted by critics, who invariably point out how right he was. I've never, however, seen anyone explain where exactly those 200,000-300,000 extra troops were going to come from. What we can now see is that, before the invasion of Iraq ever began, the Pentagon had already traded in those boots-on-the-ground for its high-tech army. (This is why, as the Boston Globe reported recently, ill-prepared Air Force and Navy personnel find themselves assigned to duties like "protecting supply convoys traveling along Iraq's violent roadways" -- and dying.)

It wasn't simply that Rumsfeld was wrong in his decision. After all, to do otherwise than he did, he would have had to strip the empire of troops. I suspect, given the numbers, that he had little choice -- of course, he and his cronies also believed in those strewn flowers and that "cakewalk" -- and that Shinseki's "several hundred thousand" statement was his way of saying exactly what they didn't want to hear: Don't do it, guys! So much for retrospect. As for the future, the Bush administration, backed into a military corner, may turn its thoughts to a future draft."

This is one of many articles about the war in iraq I found in this site.
The name of the site is Iraq Watch
Iraq Watch is a ZNet subsite providing alternative news and analysis of past, present and ongoing events, conflicts and crises in Iraq.

You can find it at "http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.cfm"

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Just to correct the semantics, that's less an "article" than an "editorial". It's an opinion piece. There's a saying in America (sorry for the crudeness) that goes "Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one."

This is not really a factual, non-biased article. It is one man on the internet (on an obviously rabidly anti-war website, judging by the other things written there) expressing his opinion and, frankly, it's so poorly written I can't even tell what his opinion is other than he selectively references some news items and basically proclaims that Iraq is a mess.

In the last paragraph he brings up the usual left-wing scare tactic of saying that there will be a military draft. I can tell you right now, TruthTeller, that will not happen.

So I guess I'm interested to know what you found compelling in this piece and why you thought it worth posting about. Can you tell us?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Tom Engelhardt went to Yale and Harvard. If these American universities are as good as they say, I suppose one must assume that his writing must be better than "poor". But then, George W. Bush went to Yale as well, so that may not be as meaningful as some people think... Afterwards Tom Engelhardt developed a career in editing, so that, again, his writing must pass the test...
Of course Anonymous is entitled to not liking his opinions, but then he should make an effort to criticize those opinions, and not try to make us believe the author is a slob who can't even spell his name...
Finally, I'm sure all young Americans will be much relieved to learn from such an authoritive source that there will be no draft... However, just in case, I would start looking for a place to stay in Canada...

Anonymous said...

Hello Truth Teller,
The news is worse than that. Jaafari is starting out the new administration with an outright purge of all Sunnis as baathists. Americans should not be getting into the middle of an ethnic war.
I read that Pacachi is leaving Iraq. Al-Amri, the commander of the Badr militia will be the new Interior Minister amid Shia cries for revenge. Bush, the perenial idiot chose to salute the new ministers, including oil czar/con man/spy Chalabi;
"I join with all Americans in congratulating Iraq's new leaders and in wishing them well as they begin to serve their country in this new government," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.
Apparently he has no idea what is going on.

Anonymous said...

Albatroz,

Why don't you try to succinctly and intelligently paraphrase the eloquent and well thought out opinions expressed by Mr. Engelhardt since it obviously eluded me. What I read was a hodge-podge of scattered quotes and references to other selected news articles or anti-war commenters, accompanied by no intelligent analysis and no original opinions other than the last line asserting there will be a draft (and that's hardly an "original" opinion, especially among anti-war types)

Maybe it's a "read between the lines" trick? Because there's not much there there. I don't care what schools the man went to. He obviously didn't learn much in the way of analysis or effective communication at those schools.

Anonymous said...

Finally, I'm sure all young Americans will be much relieved to learn from such an authoritive source that there will be no draft...However, just in case, I would start looking for a place to stay in Canada...

Would you like to place a bet? I'd be willing to put my entire life savings on the line that there will be no draft. That's how 100% positive I am. I don't need to convince you. I know there will be no draft. Anyone who brings up that tired, worn-out "watch out for the draft" scare tactic, to the detriment of more intelligent arguments, is not taken seriously by any serious-minded person. You are, of course, free to keep invoking that particular boogeymen if you want to but it does nothing to further your argument.

Anonymous said...

At that point they could turn their attention and energies away from acting to support and protect the occupation, and start protecting Iraqis.

That's what they're doing, or trying to do, now. Where did you get your information that the Iraqi forces are protecting the "occupation"? Give us specifics, please, not just generalities claiming that because the "occupation" exists Iraqi troops must exist only to protect it. The "occupation" is supplying it's own protection. The Iraqi forces are on the streets trying to protect the Iraqi people. Just because they go after "insurgents" doesn't mean they're protecting U.S. troops. If you hadn't already noticed the "insurgents" are killing many more Iraqis than Americans. Just in the past week or so "insurgents" have killed something like 10 U.S. troops and several hundred Iraqis. The ratio is running roughly 20 to 1.

Anonymous said...

You clearly keep up very well with the propaganda put out by the Bush administration.

No, I listen to people who are actually on the ground in Iraq, both Iraqis and Americans. I don't particularly like the Bush Administration nor swallow anyone's propaganda, but nice try.

Iraqi "security forces" have been from the beginning and are until this moment part of the American occupation, and take all of their orders from the American occupation commanders

Well, no one disputed that they are being trained and mentored by U.S. forces. That's acknowledged. Has anyone disputed that? Although that is slowly changing and Iraqi forces are taking more and more control in specific areas. Sorry, I don't have the time to do an extensive search right now but there have been numerous articles describing this in detail including a long article in the Washington Post or NY Times in the last week or so that specifically addressed this and the reporter riding along discussed Iraqi forces taking control of specific areas and giving, not taking, orders to the handful of U.S. military advisors riding along. Scoff all you want, as I suspect you will, but this is the direction being taken and time will bear that out. One of us will be proved wrong and I strongly suspect it will be you.

The objective of the occupation forces has never been and will never be to protect Iraqis, but to continue the occupation.

Wow, you're so brilliant. That's the goal, of course. To continue "the occupation" indefinitely because it's so much fun spending billions of dollars and absorbing 40 deaths a month. Damn. You figured it out. Can't pull the wool over your eyes. No, Sir.

P.S. - You seem to be in love with the word "occupation". You've inserted it every 7 words or so, it seems. At some point, even if you didn't reach that point after the recent election, you're going to have to come up with another word. Maybe after the next election in December when the Iraqi people again vote for their own government. Sorry to disappoint you but under such circumstances, a freely elected government under an Iraqi-written constitution, the term "occupation" does not apply under international law or under any understanding of the word. So start looking in your dictionary now.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm - I thought you said you get your information from Iraqis and Americans on the ground in Iraq...

Yes, genius, an American reporter on the ground in Iraq qualifies as an "American on the ground in Iraq". Is that difficult for you to comprehend? There are many sources in the media both foreign and domestic, in blogs and in other ways to get information from people on the ground in Iraq. Just where do you get your supposedly superior information from? Are you in Baghdad? If not, your information sources are not better than mine.


Hurria,

You've expended a lot of words in saying nothing and had not one fact to dispute anything I said.

As I said, time will tell. I am quite comfortable in what I know. You seem quite comfortable in what you know. One of us will be proved right and one of us will be proved wrong. I know which one I will be and would relish the opportunity to talk with you in a year or two. I hope you like the taste of crow.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

So, those "Iraqis and Americans on the ground in Iraq" from whom you say you get your information are actually American reporters.

Sometimes, not always. There are many other sources of information.

Evidently you are unaware that only rarely to American reporters in Iraq leave the green zone, and that with only extremely rare exceptions they get all their information from the daily press briefings by the occupation authories.

I know the difference between press briefings and on the ground reporting. I'm referring to the latter, including interviews and first-hand reportage.

And by the way, I do not claim to be a genius, just an ordinary person who knows Iraq and happens to be actually aware of the realities on the ground in Iraq

Please identify, in detail, your superior sources of current "on the ground" information. Thanks.


What you have said could not be more wrong from the perspective of both international law, and any reasonable understanding of the word occupation.

Territory is considered "occupied" when it is actually placed under the authority of foreign armed forces, whether partially or entirely, without the consent of the domestic government.

International Committee of the Red Cross

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm off to bed, it's almost 3am.

I will be waiting with bated breath for your exhaustive and compelling "on the ground" information sources, Hurria. And I mean that sincerely. I'm a very intellectually curious person who seeks the truth. If your sources are truly superior and give a factual basis to confront my understandings, I will certainly investigate with an open mind.

I also propose we meet again on this page in a year or so, if it is still up, and see whose perceptions are being proven right. I look forward to the day.

G'night.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Tom Engelhardt, writing as a reporter, tells of the many reasons why things do not seem to be going well for the American adventure in Iraq. His quotes seem to support that opinion. As to the draft, he is very likely right in his assessment that it is a most probable development. Bush and his friends think that the war in Vietnam was lost for two main reasons: television showing daily American soldiers being killed, and the use of conscripts. So, in Iraq, Bush tried to solve these problems in the following way: First: embedding journalists, so that they only tell what the military approve, and shooting independent journalists, just as happens regularly with Al-Jazeera reporters, and just happened with the Italian jornalist Giuliana Sgrena; Second: avoid the draft and use professional soldiers. Unfortunately these "professional soldiers" are not very professional. National Guards are poorly trained and only signed up to play soldier on their own backyards, not to get shot at and killed in Iraq. As the number of reenlistments in the National Guard drops, the military are forced to make a difficult choice: either they end their occupation of Iraq or they must find elsewhere the replacements for a long and bloody occupation. Forcing parttime soldiers to do three or more tours of duty in Iraq is not feasible, not only because of poor moral, but because those National Guards will refuse to reenlist. The only solution left is the draft. So, it will come, unless the Americans decide to leave Iraq. An unlikely decision, since the US does not want to lose control of all that oil.
There is another reason why the war will be increasingly unpopular: although the number of dead has not been very high - compared with the 50,000 who died in Vietnam - the number of serious injuries is pretty high, and the sight of a limbless soldier is, at least, as disturbing as was the sight of all those coffins arriving from Saigon. In a democracy (of a sort) imperialism only works if wars are short and not too costly. The present war in Iraq is getting longer and longer, and the costs are mounting. Draft or no draft, regular Americans are going to become increasingly opposed to the war. The draft will only speed up that process.

Anonymous said...

Moron99 (expert on Iraq and Europe),

You stated, "The simple truth is that they either don't know or don't accept that the US is waging ideological warfare".

In my book ideological warfare is carried out with ideas, not guns. The Soviet Union and the US waged an ideological warfare. The US are waging an old-fashioned colonial war in Iraq, where you shoot wags (or is it ragheads?) to steal their goodies (oil). Besides, Americans have no ideas worth that name on what concerns the Middle East.

"They were later joined by the Europeans who were extremely upset in the severe degredation of UN influence. It is through UN security council seats that a declining Europe enjoys more influence over world events than their economies or militaries justify".

You forget that Europe is not a nation, not even a state. Europe is a civilization. And we are quite proud of the fact that we no longer equate influence with aggression. True, the UN are seen by most of us as the ideal place to solve conflicts. That's why the UN were set up in the first place. As to our influence, I believe that economically it is still pretty high - for some reason the Euro has been gaining in value against the Dollar -, but I aggree that is is not much from a military point of view. By our own choice. We have proven that we are quite capable of senseless killing in two world wars, but we ended up by deciding that it was not a very civilized thing to do, nor very profitable. However, if attacked (in reality, not in immagination), we will defend ourselves. But we do not go around the world imposing our will on others. Eventually, maybe after one or two more defeats (Vietnam style), you will learn to act in a more civilized and responsible manner. I hope not too many Americans will have to die for the lesson to be learned.

waldschrat said...

Near Mosul the other day, a bomb at a funeral killed more than 2 dozen Iraqis according to a report. These were not faceless robots controlled by George Bush via some video game console in the White House, they were living human beings, Iraqi citizens, fellow countrymen of the heartless murderers who slaughtered them.

What did that prove, Hurria? What did it accomplish? What have the uncountable incidents like it done to improve the situation in Iraq?

I can respect honest anger against the American invasion of Iraq and the continuing American presence in Iraq. However, I believe that determined denial of any good in American motives and stubborn refusal to accept that the process of developing a government to succeed the regime of Saddam is in any way legitimate puts you logically in a position of supporting the killers, Hurria.

Saddam gained and held power by force, as I understand it. What you seem to advocate is that the regime which follows Saddam should be likewise imposed by force. I sincerely doubt that it would be a good, fair, honest regime if it were imposed that way.

Like it or not, America liberated Iraq from Saddam. It's done. It's history. Some sort of government is going to have to come into existence to replace the one which was removed.

Who would really want that new government to be imposed by the lunatic jihadi murderers who understand nothing but violence and believe political and ideological change can only be achieved via armed conflict?

Hurria, you say the Iraqi police and military are merely minions of the "occupier", following the orders of an illegitimate authority. Yet, it seems they are committing no great crimes on the orders of that illegitimate authority. If the illegitiate authority commands them to do good and reasonable deeds, and they do so, what offense have they given to common sense and justice?

The word is "liberator", not "occupier", Hurria. And the killers you mistake for "patriots" are "heartless murderers motivated by selfish interests". I don't object to your using the word "occupier" if it makes you happy, but please don't use it to justify slaughtering honest Iraqis.

Anonymous said...

"And just where do you find these people, and how do you know who they are, that they are indeed in Iraq, and that what they are telling you has any relationship to reality? " How do I know that the author of this blog really lives in Mosul? Because his posts over a period of months are consistent and convincing. It could be that this whole blog is written by somebody sitting in a CIA office somewhere in the US, but if so that person has remarkable literary skills, as do those who write the other blogs that confirm this one. I think it is simpler to accept that this and the other Iraqi blogs (which show a wide variety of opinions) are genuine.

Anonymous said...

You did not, of course, mention which reporters, or cite a specific news article - come to think of it, you were not even sure in which American newspaper it had appeared.

I acknowledged that. Sorry if I didn’t have the specific reference at my fingertips. I read many newspapers and could not remember which one that specific article appeared in. If you were as interested as I am in gathering as much information on Iraq as possible you would have already read the article I was referring to. I’m not going to go crazy searching for it. I have a job and a life. But that specific reference was only one of many similar things I’ve read. Keep your eyes and ears open and you will see them too.

How do you know the difference? What, in your minde, distinguishes one from the other? Pardon my skepticism, but so far you have demonstrated that do not know the difference between getting your information from Iraqis and Americans on the ground in Iraq, and U.S. news media such as the Washington Post - or the NYT, you are not sure which.

It’s very simple to tell a press briefing from on the ground reportage. Do I have to explain it to you? One involves “the U.S. military said [x,y,z…]”, the other involves a reporter on the ground describing what he sees and hears, interviewing people, etc. When I read a well-written article in which a reporter “on the ground” does just that then that is, by definition, an “American on the ground in Iraq” often interviewing “Iraqis on the ground in Iraq”. That is first hand information whether you want to admit it or not.

Of course - but it would be rude of me to do so before you identify, in detail, your Iraqi and American on-the-ground sources.

If you had better sources of information than mine, which you scoff at, I’d think you’d want to share them with me and the class, if only to enlighten us and show us the error of our ways. So what's holding you back?

As anyone can see, by this definition, Iraq remains an occupied state. We can certainly explore this in more detail at a future time.

Let’s go back to what was said, shall we?

I wrote:

Maybe after the next election in December when the Iraqi people again vote for their own government. Sorry to disappoint you but under such circumstances, a freely elected government under an Iraqi-written constitution, the term "occupation" does not apply under international law or under any understanding of the word.

You wrote:

What you have said could not be more wrong from the perspective of both international law, and any reasonable understanding of the word occupation.

I then showed you the relevant definition that proves I’m right.
You're going to need some facts to convince me of your argument. So far, you have none.

Anonymous said...

However, if attacked (in reality, not in immagination), we [Europeans] will defend ourselves.

No, you won't. You will ask America to defend you, as usual. And America will, as usual.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,
I presume that the ideology moving the US, in your opinion, is democracy. Democracy being, for an American, a regime based on political parties, in which the rulers are periodically elected on the basis of those same political parties. However, I suppose you will aggree that political systems are very much dependent on culture and tradition, and that different peoples will have different views on what represents a democratic and legitimate system of government. It could very well be that a legitimate government, for Iraqis, would be chosen on a very different basis from the American democratic option. In many parts of the world political parties are not good vehicles of legitimate power. Because they tend to fall prey to corruption and ignore the people's real needs. Imposing on Iraqis a system based on the American concept of democracy could thus generate a very undemocratic and corrupt power. You may say that Iraqis are now free to write their own constitution as they see fit. But the fact is that present politicians - who will decide what constitution will be written - have been chosen in a manner that seemed legitimate to Americans, not to Iraqis. In no time these bunch of Iraqi elected politicians will be seen by the majority of Iraqis as incompetent, greedy and corrupt. Which most of them probably are. Such a divorce between the rulers and the ruled will lead to violence, to revolt and to oppression. All those things that Americans wanted to avoid, but which were intrinsecally built into the provisional system imposed on the Iraqis. Better believe that in no way will Americans ever be able to foster a legitimate government in Iraq, because your idea of legitimacy does not correspond to the Iraqi's. You have been arrogant. And you are brutal, convinced that military force can change people's believes. The least disastrous thing you could do would be to get the hell out of Iraq as fast as possible. And take Saddam Hussein with you, if you will. Iraqis would then have a real chance to choose a government to their liking, although maybe not to YOUR liking. But since it's their country, not yours, that should be of no concern to you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
If you have any influence on the Bush administration please tell them not to bother to "defend" us, if ever we are attacked... I assure you we dread our "saviours" a lot more than we fear our enemies...

Anonymous said...

Ah, but it's not up to you, Albatroz. It's up to your governments. And prior examples lead to the inevitable conclusion that they will ask the U.S. to come to your rescue particularly after you have spent the last 60 years basking under the U.S. protection umbrella and letting your militaries rot.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
You are partially right. But why is it that everytime Europeans seem to be about to create a defensive alliance the US starts screaming that we are trying to destroy NATO. Could it be that the US doesn't want us to have a competing military power? It is difficult to eat your cake and to have it. Either you want to get rid of the expense of defending Europe - and then we must have our own defense capabilities -, or you want to control us and then shouldn't complain about our "basking under the U.S. protection"...

waldschrat said...

To some people the policy of trying to achieve political change through violent revolution and terrorism which is now pursued by jihadis seems reminiscent of the behavior of radical marxists in the past. Both groups also seem to share a dislike for America. By some reports, some Europeans once inclined to sympathize with Marxist ideals now find themselves sympathetic to jihadis, perhaps only for unconscious reasons they do not fully recognize.

I can see no similarity between Marxist ideology and jihadi philosophy (what little I know of it) other than the believe that violence is a legitimate way to solve problems. Yet, there are similarities in their methods. Is there some link between the two movements I have missed?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I assure you that I have more information about Iraq in my baby fingernail than you could hope to acquire in your entire lifetime.

Then why are you so afraid of sharing your sources of information with us, or even enlightening us with some relevant facts? You've done neither of those things. You can "assure" me of superior knowledge all you want but unless I see evidence of it it's useless to me.

So why don't you enlighten us all, Hurria. Consider it your duty to world peace. If I'm completely wrong convince me, with facts and evidence not opinion, of the error of my ways. Just the facts, man. Opinions are useless. We all have them.

Anonymous said...

What this all comes down to, with almost always the same cast of characters, is the same debate that's been beaten to death in other comment sections, on this blog and others.

Basically, among some other things, what Albatroz, Hurria, other certain Europeans and American leftists believe is that:

1. Iraq will not be a democracy.
2. America went to Iraq only for oil and does not want to and will never leave Iraq.
3. There will be a military draft in the U.S.

Those of us on the other side believe the opposite. We can argue these points in circles until the end of time but the truth is that, sooner or later, one side or the other will be proven right. I know which side that is and I'm quite comfortable with that. All the rantings and ravings and circular arguments can not change the truth. "The truth will out".

Anonymous said...

Dear Truth Teller,
some people ('people'?) here never learn, like this Anonymous & the aptly named Moron. They have the cheek to say 'The truth will out' (LOL! that said by the supporters of the fanatical, lying Neo-Con creed, the lies of which get exposed day after day).
So this ludicrous Moron falsely alleges, about the killing of Italian secret services man Calipari, "Now that satellite records show that her car was driving at 100Kph"!!!
As usual with this sort of 'people', Moron shamelessly lies: there were no satellite records of the incident, and none is mentioned in the official US report, so what are you hallucinating about, Moron? The quality of your 'facts' is always the same: try & follow up the story of the recently discovered mass grave (nobody said 300-400,000 bodies, but the moronic liar made it up).
As for the US official report on Calipari's murder (for Iraqi civilians these wantonly US murderers do not do any reports), it is quite interesting, Truth Teller, and all Iraqis, insurgents included, should read it. The messy US clerks wanted to censure it, but by their inadvertence the integral text can be seen.
In these last few months, the ludicrous propaganda fed by the US command to their compliant media (a propaganda as grotesque as Saddam's and as Stalin's) insisted on a fall on attacks against 'Coalition forces' (only 150-200 a month all over Iraq), and that attacks kill mainly Iraqi civilians (as these two characters, Moron & Anon, insist here). Now, look instead some of the parts of the Calipari report they wanted to censure, and make your assessment:
"Iraq. From July 2004 to late March 2005, there were 15,257 attacks against Coalition Forces throughout Iraq. The U.S. considers all of Iraq a combat zone.
Baghdad. From 1 November 2004 to 12 March 2005 there were a total of 3306 attacks in the Baghdad area. Of these, 2400 were directed against Coalition Forces.
Route Irish [like they call the road to the Airport]. Between 1 November 2004 and 12 March 2005, there were 135 attacks or hostile incidents that occurred along Route Irish. These included 9 complex attacks (i.e., a combination of more than one type of attack, e.g., an IED followed by small arms fire or mortars), 19 explosive devices found, 3 hand grenades, 7 indirect fire attacks, 19 roadside explosions, 14 rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), 15 vehicle borne explosive devices, and 4 other types of attacks".

Enough said, Moron, Anon & Dan.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Moron, lest I forget.
"ITM", i.e. 'Iraq The Minion', the fake Iraqi blog run by a couple of young Iraqis who believed they could become as useful to their masters as Allawi & Chalabi did, a blog paid for by US Neo-Cons, has never "established superior track records". It's OK to be comical, but you are exaggerating...
That's why you are a moron, Moron(and your likes). The US Admin. pays a couple of Iraqis to disseminate its propaganda; and its silly followers go to that blog, and suck up all its ludicrous contents, and take them as 'the truth'... and actually believe as gospel the lies therein, that did originate from their own US Administration!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
If we are right and you are wrong, how do you plan to compensate Iraq for all the wantonly destruction and killing?... Or do you think this is all a game between Americans and The Rest of the World?...

Anonymous said...

The US Admin. pays a couple of Iraqis to disseminate its propaganda; and its silly followers go to that blog, and suck up all its ludicrous contents, and take them as 'the truth'... and actually believe as gospel the lies therein, that did originate from their own US Administration!

Unbelievable. Now these arrogant Europeans are slandering, without proof, the very Iraqis they profess to care about. Typical.

Anonymous said...

Hey "italian", tell your compatriots to stop paying terrorists millions of ransom dollars for the carbombs that kill innocent Iraqis every day. And tell your drivers to not speed wantonly through checkpoints while chatting on their cellphones. It can be dangerous to their health.

Anonymous said...

"italian",

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that a high number of attacks would be evidence in support of the U.S. soldiers at the checkpoint because it would bolster the argument that they needed to be alert to dangers...
leaving that aside, your numbers are way off.

You wrote:

In these last few months, the ludicrous propaganda fed by the US command to their compliant media (a propaganda as grotesque as Saddam's and as Stalin's) insisted on a fall on attacks against 'Coalition forces' (only 150-200 a month all over Iraq)

I don't know where you heard this "propaganda" (European media?) but I have never heard anyone in the U.S. military claim only 150-200 attacks a month all over Iraq. That would work out to approximately 5 attacks per day. That's ridiculous. The numbers I've always heard are an average of 40-50 attacks per day, with the vast majority being ineffectual, i.e not causing casualties. During intense periods attacks have gone as high as 80 per day and during slow periods as low as 30. I have never heard any report from the U.S. claiming attacks per day in the single digits. The only way that could be possible is if they were talking only of attacks that caused casualties but that would be a completely different accounting mechanism. The number of attacks per day, as reported month by month, completely coincide with the numbers in the checkpoint report.

By the way, at least 15-20 other cars managed to successfully negotiate the checkpoint that night before the Italians came upon it. I wonder why they were all able to figure out how to slow down and the Italians weren't. Perhaps because the Italians were too distracted by their speeding, their cellphone calls and their exciting "James Bond" caper to notice a checkpoint that so many other people were able to stop at in time?

Anonymous said...

italian,

About the alleged satellite footage which the U.S. military used to calculate the speed of Sgrena's car, I have no idea if it's true or not. It was reported by CBS News from a source at the Pentagon. Either it's false information (which seems unlikely given the specificity) or it's true but the fact that satellites are recording things is not something the Pentagon wants generally known so they used it as an investigative tool but didn't choose to make it public. Either way, it was reported by a respected news organization and a respected reporter. It was not simply made up by commenters here.

By the way, italian, you also dismiss as propaganda the U.S. assertion that insurgent "attacks kill mainly Iraqi civilians". A quick glance at any day's headline will prove that's true. Do you dispute it? On what evidence? In the past week alone there have been about 200 Iraqis killed by "insurgent" attacks and roughly 10 U.S. soldiers in the same time period. That's not "propaganda", that's fact.

Both of your assertions about "propaganda" (number of attacks and whom those attacks target) are false. Care to try again?

Anonymous said...

Moron & Anon, again, you write "the sattelite [sic] photos showed how far the car traveled during the three seconds of american fire. The distance/time works out to 100Kph over a three second interval. In reality, they were probably going faster than 100Kph at first and then slowed down after being hit".
I know it was something CBS said, but there is no trace of it in the US report (uncensored). The Italian Govt. asked the Americans if there were ANY satellite recordings, in the course of the 'joint probe', but they officially stated that there were none.
So, were there any satellite photos, or not? Moron & Anon state as a fact that there were: in that case, the US Govt. did OFFICIALLY LIE to an Allied Govt.
So, Moron & Anon, what is worse? Now all Iraqis reading this blog know that the US may well be in the habit of lying to their vintage allies; and they know that they (& their propaganda agents, like these two) may lie even to the Iraqis.

Anonymous said...

'even' above = 'even more', of course.

Anonymous said...

So, were there any satellite photos, or not? Moron & Anon state as a fact that there were

Why do you insist on lying when the truth is right above your post? I did not state "as a fact" that there were satellite photos. This is exactly what I wrote:

About the alleged satellite footage which the U.S. military used to calculate the speed of Sgrena's car, I have no idea if it's true or not. It was reported by CBS News from a source at the Pentagon. Either it's false information (which seems unlikely given the specificity) or it's true but the fact that satellites are recording things is not something the Pentagon wants generally known so they used it as an investigative tool but didn't choose to make it public.

Like I said, either there is no such footage and the CBS reporter was mistaken or there is satellite footage and, for whatever reason, that fact was not officialy made public. I have no idea which is the case. But my response was simply to point out that this was something reported by a respected news organization. Your implication had been that it was something "moron" was "lying" about. Your exact words were "As usual with this sort of 'people', Moron shamelessly lies: there were no satellite records of the incident, and none is mentioned in the official US report, so what are you hallucinating about, Moron?"

Clearly, "moron" was not "lying" nor "hallucinating" as you belligerently accused him. He was merely quoting something reported by CBS News. Take the issue up with CBS News if you have a problem with their reporting of this incident.

Anonymous said...

Moron99 seems to think that any crimes Saddam Hussein may have commited justify American crimes in Iraq. As far as I am concerned I never said anything good about Saddam Hussein, so that it doesn't make any sense to try and find excuses for American actions based on previous crimes by Saddam. What Moron99 is saying to the Iraqis is: "You guys should be happy we came here and kill five of you everyday, because previously Saddam was killing ten of you". Besides, it is very unlikely that present insurgents have anything to do with the previous regime. They are fighting American invaders, they are not fighting for the return of Saddam Hussein, although it would be very convenient for the occupiers if that was the case.

Anonymous said...

The American report on the incident with the Italian journalist states the following:

"Due to it being their first full day on shift, 1-76 FA Soldiers lacked experience in issuing operational orders and in battle tracking security forces during execution of blocking missions."

In other words, at the very least the killing was the result of American incompetence. How many Iraqis and others have been the victims of this same incompetence since the beginning of occupation? How have these victims and their families been compensated for the tragic consequences of this incompetence? Or should we file all those "accidents" under "colateral damage" and forget it?...

waldschrat said...

Regarding mass graves, I wondered at the time of the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 at the unusual military activity centered about a certain cement plant in southern Iraq. The process of making cement involves very large, very hot cylindrical kilns capable of disposing of human remains very very efficiently. Mass graves are not the only way, not that Saddam's minions would need to hide their deeds.

Anonymous said...

Oooh, the "draft" bugaboo again.

I will say it again. Slowly for those with learning disabilities...


There.
Will.
Not.
Be.
A.
Draft.

Take it to the bank.

Inscribe it in neon paint on a 20 foot tall poster and hang it up in Times Square.

It ain't happening.

Anyone who thinks it will happen has zero understanding of the political and social state of America today.

You can post editorials about it all you want. It's still not happening.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Without the draft either you get out of Iraq or you will have to force your unwilling and unprofessional National Guards to go back to Iraq again and again, leading to an increasing rate of AWOL. Which is it going to be?

Anonymous said...

Without the draft either you get out of Iraq or you will have to force your unwilling and unprofessional National Guards to go back to Iraq again and again, leading to an increasing rate of AWOL. Which is it going to be?

Ummm, getting out of Iraq is part of the plan. Did you miss the memo? We've been trying to tell you that all along. Why do you think the U.S. military is expending so much time, money and energy to train and equip the Iraqi forces. For the sheer fun of it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"Ummm, getting out of Iraq is part of the plan."

Could you be more specific timewise? If you are preparing to leave within the next 12 months maybe you will still have then a few National Guards left in your armed forces. Of course, leaving within the next 12 months would probably force you to accept a less than friendly Iraq. If it is longer than that, forget it without the draft... And if the plan to attack Iran in June goes ahead you will definitely need bringing the draft back.

I wonder whether you realize what you are about to get into, in the Middle East. Maybe we (Europeans) should strive to trade our alliance with you for an alliance with Russia. It would be a lot safer and a lot saner...

Anonymous said...

Reuters report that a letter to Zarqawi was intercepted which indicated a drop of morale in the terrorists.

U.S. military says intercepts letter to Zarqawi

The U.S. military said the letter, dated April 27th, praises the sheikh for being "a thorn in the mouth of the Americans," but also addresses low morale among Zarqawi's followers and weakening support for Jihad, or Holy war.

Anonymous said...

Could you be more specific timewise?


No, I can't. Everything depends on events on the ground, as I'm sure you know. And it will, of course, be gradual, as I'm sure you also know.

And if the plan to attack Iran in June goes ahead you will definitely need bringing the draft back.

Oh, God, you Europeans are really clueless, aren't you? You really think there will be an attack on Iran in June? Really? Report back later this year and let me know how the attack on Iran went, OK?

Anonymous said...

No one is denying there will be an American presence in Iraq for a period of years, who knows how long. We were discussing the possibility (or rather non-possibility) of a military draft and in that context it is true that the plan is to not keep 150,000 troops in Iraq very much longer. The phase-out will likely begin sometime soon after hopefully successful elections in December and will intensify through 2006. That is what "getting out" refers to in the context of troop levels and the draft discussion.

Anonymous said...

The Bush administration did not invade Iraq in order to "set it free" and leave.

Your opinion. As was noted, "Opinions are like ..." Oh, you get the point.

If the plan had ever been to "get out of Iraq" they would have held real elections very early in the process...

Hee, hee. Is this what the left's arguments are now reduced to? You didn't allow elections... well, wait you did allow elections but not quite soon enough! Waaah!

Not very convincing.

The U.S. will not "get out of Iraq" unless they are forced out by the Iraqis, or unless the American public finally gets completely fed up and starts a massive opposition effort a la Viet Nam.

The U.S. will "get out of Iraq" when it's ready or when a freely elected democratic Iraqi government asks it to. Whichever comes first.

Anonymous said...

Anon, 5/3/2005 07:22:36 AM.
You write "Like I said, either there is no such footage and the CBS reporter was mistaken or there is satellite footage and, for whatever reason, that fact was not officialy made public".
Precisely. If it is like you write, in 'case 1)' your comrade Moron was giving as a fact a load of baloney. But in your 'case 2)', it means that your US Government OFFICIALLY LIED to an allied Government (the Italian one), denying that any such footage existed.
So it seems that you admit that your Bush Government may very well be a bunch of liars; and so its supporters, like yourself.

And when you say "we do not want to keep our troops in Iraq" you are, like Hurria correctly remarked, telling us another disingenuous thing, since you are building 14 (fourteen) permanent bases in Iraq.
As for the predictions made by anti-war people, anybody who followed what you warmongerers said in these two years can easily see that not one of the beautiful things you were promising the Iraqi people came true.

Anonymous said...

But in your 'case 2)', it means that your US Government OFFICIALLY LIED to an allied Government (the Italian one), denying that any such footage existed. So it seems that you admit that your Bush Government may very well be a bunch of liars...

The other scenario is that the source who gave the information to CBS News was talking out of their ass.

But to support your argument that the U.S. govt "lied" you'll have to provide a link to proof that:

#1. The Italian govt. specifically asked if there was such footage

#2. The U.S. government categorically denied there was such footage

#3. That there is such footage therefore the U.S. govt. lied to Italy

If you can't provide that then you are the one talking out of your ass.


As for the predictions made by anti-war people, anybody who followed what you warmongerers said in these two years can easily see that not one of the beautiful things you were promising the Iraqi people came true.

Really? Not one? It seems to me the 2 main "beautiful" things promised to the Iraqi people were to get rid of Saddam and his tyranny and to help Iraqis form a democracy. Check. Check.

Anonymous said...

Anon,
you wrote: "But to support your argument that the U.S. govt "lied" you'll have to provide a link to proof that:
#1. The Italian govt. specifically asked if there was such footage
#2. The U.S. government categorically denied there was such footage
#3. That there is such footage therefore the U.S. govt. lied to Italy".
As for #1 & #2, you just have to browse the Italian press & TVs (all of them) following the CBS 'revelations' about the existence of satellite footage showing that the Italian car was going at 96 kmph. The Italian Government Minister Gianni Letta stated that much, and so did the Director of the Italian military secret service, and it was all over in the Italian media.
As for #3, it is your friend Moron99 who swore that such footage did exist, not me. Now anybody having even half a brain can see that, contrary to what you write ("The other scenario is that the source who gave the information to CBS News was talking out of their ass"), the Pentagon source who gave that crap to CBS News did it rather intelligently, in order to fool and convince warmongering Americans who, like Moron99, do not even have half a brain.

As for the rest, apart that you conveniently forget the reasons given to the international community for your Iraqi criminal adventure (the inexistent WMD) and those given to more apish portion of the US public (the inexistent 911/Saddam link), the only thing you did was ridding Iraq of Saddam (and of any established State, and of any security). You gave Iraq 'democracy'? Oh, come on, be serious.

Anonymous said...

And, Anon 5/3/2005 11:25:08 PM (don't know if you are the same Anon; why don't you call yourself 'Mickey Mouse' instead, or any other nickname, like sensible people do),
why do you feel that the readers of Truth Teller's blog would be very interested in the great (oh so great!) and especially most believable (LOL!) news that a new supposed umpteenth letter addressed to the supposed al-Zarqawi has supposedly been found by the Americans &/or the Iraqi puppet troops?
Do you truly think that anybody, outside the US, does believe anymore any such piece of your psy-ops crap?
Come on, me man, stop being this comical.

Anonymous said...

You gave Iraq 'democracy'? Oh, come on, be serious.

What do you call elections? What constitutes "democracy" in your opinion?

Anonymous said...

"Waaah!"

What is the purpose of adding this syllable? Do you believe it helps to support your argument, or make it more convincing?

It's simply a typewritten representation of your whining about the elections not being on your chosen timetable. Don't be offended, dear.

Anonymous said...

How convenient this Zarqawi is!

I wasn't the one who posted about the purported letter to Zarqawi, though I do find it interesting.

I also find it interesting how eager Hurria, Italian and others are to pretend Zarqawi doesn't exist. I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

...news that a new supposed umpteenth letter addressed to the supposed al-Zarqawi has supposedly been found...

I'm supposing by "umpteenth" you mean "first", but whatever.

This is the first (not "umpteenth) "letter to Zarqawi" I've ever heard of being found. The other letter found a year or so ago was supposedly from Zarqawi.

So that makes two. Not umpteenth. But I'm guessing math is not your best subject.

By the way, Zarqawi exists, though I'm sure you'd rather pretend he doesn't.

Do you truly think that anybody, outside the US, does believe anymore any such piece of your psy-ops crap?

If the Europeans I see represented here are representative of many of those "outside the US", I don't put much stock in their opinions or beliefs one way or the other.

Anonymous said...

Is the American education system really so poor that a person can graduate from it believing that all you need for democracy is elections of some kind

Was your education so deficient that you don't understand the laws of simple logic?

Elections "of some kind" are not "all you need for democracy". Saddam had "elections of some kind" but they surely did not constitute democracy. Democracy requires free and fair elections leading to a government that represents the will of the people. That is what Iraq is accomplishing at this very moment. At the end of the year, after a constitution is written and free, democratic elections are held based on that constitution the transition to democracy will be complete.

What do you call democracy?

Anonymous said...

And just whose timetable do you THINK they were on? Certainly not the Bush administration's, which was dragged kicking and screaming into them by Sayyid Sistani!

I don't care whose timetable they were on. In the grand scheme of things, and comparing the Iraq situation to other situations, elections happened fairly quickly.

I am just fascinated with the idea that inserting this kind of thing in one's remarks is a good way to further one's argument in an intelligent, informed, mature discussion.

Oh, don't get your panties in a twist over one syllable. It wasn't meant to further the argument. It was meant to represent the ridiculous whining tone I hear in your nit-picking about which month elections happened in. If you can't deal with a little good-natured mockery you're way too thin-skinned.

Anonymous said...

Then you explain to me what you meant by statements like this:

This kind of thing would be funny if it were not such pathetically transparent propaganda nonsense.

How convenient this Zarqawi is!

It seems to me you believe Zarqawi is simply "convenient" "propaganda".

If you don't mean to say he doesn't exist then what do you mean to say? He's not in Iraq? He's not causing violence? He's not making threats? He didn't write these notes? Be specific.

Anonymous said...

They most assuredly do not. Even free and fair elections - which the "elections" in Iraq most decidedly were not - do not constitute democracy.

Please explain, in detail, what you believe constitutes democracy and then we can all agree on when, or if, Iraq will meet your criteria.

Anonymous said...

Anon,
"If the Europeans I see represented here are representative of many of those 'outside the US', I don't put much stock in their opinions or beliefs one way or the other".

Not just we Europeans, but all those 'outside the US', including the majority of the Iraqis.
So we can better understand your 'democratic' mentality, the same of criminal Gauleiter Bremer, as quoted by Hurria: "we will continue to impose our will on this country", and on all the world.
Trouble is, four-handed Anon, that most people in the world, outside the US, do not like to be ruled by a gang of bullies (who "don't put much stock in their opinions"); where it is possible, they punish any supporters of the US at the elections; where it is not, and especially where your beastly troops occupy a country, they take up arms, like in Iraq now, in Vietnam in the Sixties & Seventies.
Do you remember the 30th of April 1975, when your Gauleiter Martin had to ingloriously escape in helicopter, like a cowardly rat, from Saigon? Be sure it will happen again in Baghdad.

Anonymous said...

Not just we Europeans, but all those 'outside the US', including the majority of the Iraqis.

What are you referring to? "The majority of Iraqis" what? Are as intellectually bankrupt as the Europeans represented here? I sure hope not.

I find it interesting that when each of your accusations are challenged or shot down you just ignore it and move on to the next one. Typical.

Do you remember the 30th of April 1975, when your Gauleiter Martin had to ingloriously escape in helicopter, like a cowardly rat, from Saigon? Be sure it will happen again in Baghdad.

You just keep clinging to the "Vietnam" mantra and counting on that, Italian. The millions of Vietnamese who were vanquished to "re-education camps" after the fall of Saigon will surely hope the Iraqis have a better experience than that. As do we all. You should be hoping for a relatively peaceful and successful transition to democracy in Iraq, if only for the Iraqi's sake.

Anonymous said...

...if only for the Iraqi's sake.

That should of course read "for the Iraqis' sakes". Not just for the sake of one particular Iraqi. Ha.

Anonymous said...

It must be wondereful to sit and complain about the actions of those who are dying to try to bring your country a level of freedom it has not had in many decades. Instead of simply posting an endless series of rantings from others about what the Americans are doing wrong, perhaps as one of the intellectual elite in Iraq, you can make suggestions on what could be done differently? Maybe you could get involved in your government at the local level and try to change the way things are being done so that they are more the way you believe they should be done. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and point out what was done wrong in the past. It is much harder (and more admirable in my eyes) to stick your neck out and become a part of making the future better than the past.

I admire your entire family for their willingness to let us get a peek into your lives through your blogs. However, I have to say that the level of hindsight and finger pointing is becoming a bit tiresome. Yes, we all understand that the situation is not ideal. Yes, it is clear that the coalition troops could have done many things differently to help change the situation for the better. All the same, at some point, you have to accept that it is your country, and the actions of you and your countrymen will be what eventually shapes the future of Iraq. When American troops are long gone, will it be the people who set off bombs killing innocent Iraqis trying to prevent democracy from taking hold that will represent you and and act as the face of Iraq before the rest of the world? Or will it be the people who stood against them and fought back with new ideas and determined resolve to make Iraq a new kind of country in the middle east? I can't decide that for you, nor can any American soldier. Iraqis will decide that. Which do you want to be your future?

waldschrat said...

The slaughter continues.


An Iraqi child was killed and 15 others were wounded in two suicide bombings in Mosul today, in the fifth attack in three days against civilians in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.



If a "freedom fighter" wanted to give his life for Iraq, would it not be more civilized to get a rifle with a telescopic sight, ambush an American patrol from a concealed sniper position, and perhaps kill two or three Americans before being killed himself? Is it true that Iraqis ae such incredibly bad marksmen that they can't imagine such thngs are possible and consider a rifle only suitable for making noise at wedding ceremonies? Why in the world are these people so fascinated with the suicide bomb idea?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"If the Europeans I see represented here are representative of many of those "outside the US", I don't put much stock in their opinions or beliefs one way or the other."

As I see it, you don't put much stock in any opinions that are different from yours. You have been completely brainwashed into believing that Americans are dying in Iraq to save Iraqis. You have absolutely no understanding of other peoples' traditions, feelings and ideas. Anything outside your usual Mac Donald's fare is incomprehensible. Only one people is generous - the American people; only one system is good - your corrupt oligarchy, disguised as democracy; only one set of opinions is right - your own, which you then impose by force on any other people. You are too dumb to understand that those who rule over you couldn't care less about you or any other people in the world. You live in a violent society where force is the supreme argument. Throughout your history you have exterminated native Americans; you persecuted, discriminated, lynched racial minorities; you have bombed, shot and robbed uncounted peoples around the world. I lived in the US and know there are many good Americans, none of whom has any saying in the way your country is misruled. The rest of you is a bunch of arrogant bullies spreading like the plague all over the planet. Hopefully the Iraqis will teach you a lesson similar to that taught you by the Vietnamese. And the sooner the better, for all our sake.

Anonymous said...

http://iraqimistress.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

http://iraqimistress.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

http://iraqimistress.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

As usual people like albatroz and Bruno resort to silly insults ("war pimps") and even sillier generalizations. I suggest you both brush up on your argumentation skills because you are convincing no one who doesn't already agree with you. At every step of the way I and others have responded with facts and reasonable argument. Every time "italian", for example, brought up an unsupported accusation it was shown to be false yet he ignored it and moved on to the next unsupported accusation. That is the typical modus operandi. We, the two sides in this argument, have been down this road many times in the last 2 years.

I refuse to continue to beat this dead horse. I will let others continue and will just say again "one of us will be proved right."

By the way, your freedom fighters killed 60 young Iraqi police recruits today. You must be soooo proud.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

1. I have proved that you are, and have been historically, a violent people, so that it is in your nature to shoot your way out of any situation you do not agree with. It is not therefore in your nature to put other people's interests above your own. Any attempt at convincing us that you have mended your ways will therefore fail.

2. You have lied about WMD and about Saddam's involvement in 9/11, in order to justify your aggression. Changing another country's regime is absolutely not good enough an excuse to go to war, and you knew it, otherwise you would have used it in the first place.

3. You are indifferent to other peoples' suffering and therefore are not fit to try and solve other peoples' conflicts. Only a very cruel people would invent the expression "colateral damage" for innocent people being killed in the course of your crude attempts at silencing those you dislike.

4. You are incapable of understanding - much less sympathizing with - other peoples' cultures, traditions and ways. You are intolerant and any thing different must be evil in your eyes.

5. You should remain confined within your borders until you learn to coexist in a civilized manner with other peoples.

In my view these are arguments strong enough to prove you should leave Iraq as soon as possible. Nothing of what you have stated can effectively contradict my arguments. If Iraqis have not been very successful at ruling themselves in a legitimate way, that's their problem. You had absolutely no business in interfering with a strict Iraqi internal question. I deeply dislike your government and its policies, but that does not give me the right to try and change it by force.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,

During WW I allied propaganda claimed that Germans ate little children. Apparently some French and English people believed it. Ninety years on some people believe almost the same things...

waldschrat said...

Here is a link to a story suggesting that jobs created by the "liberating forces" were cheerfully passed out on the basis of insider influence rather than need or merit.

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_123_5_eng.txt

Some days it is harder than other days for me to believe in the worth of my fellow human beings. The systematic pillaging f offices, universities and museums reported in Iraq, the apparent tendency of the Iraqi constabulary toward brutality and corruption, the reports of widespread religious prejudice, the casual disregard of Iraqi "freedom fighters" for human life, the murderously sanctimonious determination of some factions to settle things with bullets instead of ballots, and the determined, endless lies and distortions of the truth - it would be easy to conclude that Iraqis and Arabs in general are all moral degenerates unworthy of human respect.

Thank you Truth Teller. Your writing, and the blogs of your family and other Iraqis, provide evidence that there are good people in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,
"In the early 21st century there are people who believe America is waging a war of imperialism".

Oh, how disgusting, Moron, only brainwashed people could conceive such a mischievous idea! No, no, it is just "an ideological war"!

Moron, can't you see that you contradict yourself? Cannot you see that "an ideological war" like the one your Neo-Cons (& their brainwashed supporters like you) are waging is, PRECISELY, a war of especially crazy imperialism, the same sort Hitler was waging?

And you go on, ludicrously ranting about 'opinion polls'. 'Opinion polls' in war-torn Iraq? Oh, they are reliable indeed. My four-handed friend, if you are in denial and happy to be blind, well, do keep believing that "87%" of the Iraqis support the US occupation (!!!). Only, please do spare us such 'hilarious' (as rightly Bruno called them) items; we are trying to discuss serious things, here.

Anonymous said...

I think it’s become clear, after reading the rantings of “an italian”, albatroz, bruno and others, that this really isn’t about Iraq for them. It’s about America. (Vietnam, the Native Americans, McDonalds? What does that have to do with Iraq? And do you really want to get into a discussion of historical violence or of Europe’s history over the last several hundred years? Didn’t think so.)

People like them make it clear in everything they say that they couldn’t care less about what happens to Iraq or Iraqis. Any neutral observer can see it. All they care about is seeing America fail. They are obsessed with America. It’s kind of flattering, actually, that they care so much. It must just gnaw at them every day. The movies they watch, the TV shows, the McDonalds on every corner (which most Americans don't even like, by the way), the very Internet they write on, the fact that they have to write it in English… it must just kill them that their own cultures have been subsumed by America. And so they lash out like frustrated toddlers. It doesn’t bother me, though. Just like with a tantrum-throwing toddler yelling “I hate you, Mommy”, you can’t take everything they say seriously. Just smile and humor them. The more you react emotionally to the tantrum the louder they scream.

I do love the fact that we’re so “in their heads”, though. :-)

Anonymous said...

@Anon.
"Every time 'italian', for example, brought up an unsupported accusation it was shown to be false yet he ignored it and moved on to the next unsupported accusation. That is the typical modus operandi".

If you refer to the fact that the rate of attacks on 'Coalition forces' (mainly US troops) admitted to by the US is 150-200 per week, and not per month as I was claiming, OK, you are right: I was wrong. But then another question arises (at least, for any thinking being): WHY did the Pentagon 'classify' or censure that information (and that about 20 attacks a day in Baghdad) in the Calipari report? Are they hiding what they themselves are saying? Or are they plain crazy? As a US taxpayer & voter, you should wonder, maybe.

If you refer to the al-Zarqawi discussion, the subject is rather complex, and I'm quite sure that you (and your ilk) would get bored very fast. That's why I didn't follow it up.

As for the rest of what you put on top of your post, it seems to me that that "modus operandi" is more fittingly the one you & your pals indulge to. For instance, I do not answer to the last things you said (like 'democracy', US style) now, because Hurria, Albatroz & Bruno already answered in full, in a very reasoned way, with plenty of details. Anybody possessing a human brain would have registered, and, in case, having good arguments against what the three above named were saying, answered. Not you & your fellow warmongerers: like talking to the wall. And then you & your likes go on and on with other rants.

So, Anon, whose 'modus operandi' is the one you took exception to?

Anonymous said...

I am a regular guy from a place that no one heard of in the U.S.A. I read the article and most of your comments. I can see that this war will never end and many more people will lose their lives. You all seem so smart with your witty comments and wise words. If you are so damn smart then why not figure a way to end this blood filled carnage. The real problem is ourselves. I as well as you. Most people no matter where they live or what religion they practice would not want to bury a dead son, daughter, father, mother, or any loved one. But we will for as the time I wasted on this comment I bet another person as died. I just hope it wasn't anyone I loved.

Anonymous said...

Anon,
and, about the draft, the subject of Truth Teller's post, why are you beating about the bush (no pun intended...)?
Your own General Myers stated that much yesterday: the US military cannot substain the present rate of Iraqi attrition for much longer...
Don't you believe your own General?
Oh, Anon, you are Anti-American!

'tj',
the main reason - not the only one - why myself, Bruno, Albatroz & others do counter the foolish propaganda of US warmongerers like you are is, precisely, because the criminal collection of arrogant apes & bullies you call your military (your cowardly 'American Heroes', LOL) are slaughtering Iraqis every day, flattening their towns (two forms of 'collateral damages', as you call them, you Nazis), raping the very cradle of Western civilisation, inflicting on the 'liberated' Iraqis untold misery and suffering, sowing and spreading internecine conflict and sectarian war in Iraq, engaging in terrorism and fomenting it, shamelessly lying in a truly Orwellian way. We feel - like most people outside the US - that you should stop your crazy adventures, and withdraw your beastly troops from outside your own borders (and especially from Iraq). Spreading your barbarousness (and you believe, you mindless fanatics, that you can teach the Iraqis, or anybody else!) is bringing the whole world down the slippery slope of WW3. In your totalitarian drunkeness YOU do not care, neither for the Iraqis nor for anybody else in the world, my dear 'neutral observer' (LOL). But you'll be, please God, utterly defeated anyway: so, please, do spare Iraq and the world any more crimes.

Anonymous said...

QED.


:-)

Anonymous said...

tj,

"...the fact that they have to write it in English… it must just kill them that their own cultures have been subsumed by America..."

Just in case you missed it, English was invented by the English, not by the Americans... And I could write in Portuguese, in Spanish, in French or in Dutch, but then you wouldn't understand it... Now, on what culture is concerned, you must be kidding... If there is any American culture it must be Native American...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"If you are so damn smart then why not figure a way to end this blood filled carnage"

That's easy: just pack and go...

Anonymous said...

Just in case you missed it, English was invented by the English, not by the Americans...

Never said it was invented by Americans. But "American English" has become the dominant world language.

And I could write in Portuguese, in Spanish, in French or in Dutch, but then you wouldn't understand it..

Exactly.

Now, on what culture is concerned, you must be kidding... If there is any American culture it must be Native American...

So does this formulation about native peoples apply to every country in the world or just America? Because I'm sure you realize that many countries are populated by people who are not necessarily "native".
Once again, you prove your obsession with America to the exclusion of the rest of the world. And once again, I'm flattered you care about us so much. It's good to know we occupy so much of your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

tj,

"Exactly"

Did it ever occur to you that not being able to speak and understand other peoples' languages means you will never be able to understand how they think? And then you go to Iraq and shout at people in English, and because they don't understand you, you end up by shooting them... Really smart...

Anonymous said...

Speaking other languages is not the point. Many Americans speak a second language (actually millions of Americans also speak English as a second language and some other language as their first language).

That was not the point. The point was that the Internet is overwhelmingly English and you, Bruno, italian and others feel compelled to communicate in English because it is the "universal language". And that's just one of the petty gripes Europeans struggle with (particularly the French, who are amusingly apoplectic about it and keep trying to legislate ways to force their citizens to use French instead of English.)

Anonymous said...

tj,

I speak English to you because you do not speak anything else. I use other languages on the internet when I am communicating with other people. A common language, be it English or Swahili, is convenient, but does not make native English speakers any better. In fact it makes them prisoners of one single language. Something we see in Europe as a disadvantage.

Anonymous said...

tj,

For instance, when I am doing research on the internet - about Iraq, namely -, I can access and use documents in six or seven different languages, which puts me at an advantage over people who only understand English. I can thus get a broader range of opinions, and will not be limited, for instance, to the Fox News...

Anonymous said...

I speak English to you because you do not speak anything else. I use other languages on the internet when I am communicating with other people.

You're not speaking only to me. If you're speaking, as you are on a blog like this, with people from many different countries, you speak English because it is the one language you can reasonably assume is understood by an Italian, an American, a Frenchman, a Spaniard, an Iraqi, etc. You would not speak Italian, French, Spanish or any other language in a mixed group like that because you could not reasonably assume all would speak that language. That was my point. Is that really hard to understand?


A common language, be it English or Swahili, is convenient, but does not make native English speakers any better.

When did I say it makes native English speakers "any better"? I neither said nor implied anything about anyone being "better". That's your own insecurity reading something into it that I didn't even imply. And the fact that you did that actually proves my point.

Anonymous said...

I can thus get a broader range of opinions, and will not be limited, for instance, to the Fox News..

Can someone please explain to me the European obsession with Fox News?

Unlike many European countries, the U.S. does not have any government-owned media. (For example, one of France's main news outlets, France 2, is government-owned). We have a wide range of media of which Fox News is only a small part. Fewer people watch Fox News than watch the major network news shows (ABC, NBC, CBS). The major networks are, and have been proven to be, overwhelmingly liberal. Fox News is an admittedly conservative news outlet but it is only one piece of the puzzle. There is a wide variety of news outlets and they don't speak with one voice.

Anonymous said...

The main difference is that despite the repressive and sometimes brutal nature of the regime, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis had at least a measure of normalcy in their lives...There is no normalcy, no order

And Hitler made sure the trains ran on time.

For Iraqis the number one danger is from occupation forces, number two from so-called "insurgents", and number three from Iraqi "security forces".

Switch numbers one and two to be closer to the truth these days.

Anonymous said...

Hurria,

American fundamentalists, like any other sort of fundamentalists, are insane. It is impossible to reason with them. The only solution would be to throw them in present day Iraq, with Iraqi families, and letting them see for themselves what it means to be treated like dirt by the "liberators". They don't realize it, but they are the closest thing to nazi Germany since WW II.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,

You're wasting your breath. The people you're arguing with don't want to hear anything that doesn't already conform with their preconceptions. They're not interested in truth.

They'd rather run around shouting things like this:

American fundamentalists, like any other sort of fundamentalists, are insane... They don't realize it, but they are the closest thing to nazi Germany since WW II.

Well, if I was an undecided person that kind of well-reasoned argument would sure convince me!

P.S. - Godwin's Law, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Truth Teller,

While you and your family seem to blame us for all of Iraq's troubles, while you are busy scouring the internet for as many anti-American articles or opinions that you can find, let me remind you of what the so called "insurgents" are busy doing.

Lynnette in Minnesota

Anonymous said...

Hurria - "Once I was asked in a very harsh and challenging way whether I would prefer a dictator over a democracy... I said that I would accept living with a dictator that I knew was a dictator better than I would accept living in a democracy in which the government hid its true nature."

At least in a democracy "in which the government hid its true nature" there is hope of the public discovering that "true nature" and voting the government out of office. In a dictatorship there is no such recourse. Maybe you prefer that because it makes no demands on you?

Anonymous said...

Hurria,

"They don't realize it, but they are the closest thing to nazi Germany since WW II"

It may seem excessive and unfair, but is it? If you take into account the insane sense of superiority shown by Americans, the messianic and intolerant spirit behind their policies, the disregard for the lives of "inferior" people, the extreme violence of their actions, the use of torture, their racial prejudices, you will see that the similarity is not just superficial. But they have no concentration camps, might you say. Don't they? What is Guantanamo? How are prisoners handled there? But they are a democracy, aren't they? If you read carefully the Patriot Act you will see the seeds of tyranny, the use of security as an excuse to do away with civil rights even on what Americans themselves are concerned. Bush doesn't look like Hitler, and civilian clothes are used, instead of uniforms. And there is an opposition party of sorts, although quite incapable of standing up to present policies. But I didn't say that America was exactly like nazi Germany. I just said it was the closest thing since WW II. And that it is.

Anonymous said...

Albatroz is typical of those whose irrational rants convince no one but those on the fringes who already agree with them. When even Hurria, no friend of U.S. policies or the current administration, calls you to account you know you're on the crazy fringes, Albatroz. Enjoy your time there. But be assured you convince no one, no matter how many times or how many different ways you and your friends say it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Before WW II most Germans were delighted with Hitler. Unemployment had disappeared, sovereignty was fully restored, there was a sense of pride and purpose. Any democratic elections that might have been held would just serve to show the overwhelming approval of Hitler's policies. There were even people outside Germany fascinated by nazi Germany. Even in the US Hitler's supporters gathered in the "Bund". Anyone who dared then to point to the lunacy of nazism would be placed "on the crazy fringes". The unfortunate thing is that you don't realize where you are heading. You are so sure of your democratic institutions that you can't even believe that your democracy can be subverted from the inside. The elected President of the US can't be insane. His policies can't be criminal. So, they must be good and right. So, the occupation of Iraq must have an honourable purpose. You are wrong, but once you find out how wrong you are, it may be too late.

Anonymous said...

The only thing that some of you ignorant folks have proven is that you can type a lot faster than I can. Congratulations on that lone accomplishment.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong, but once you find out how wrong you are, it may be too late.

Oh no!! Too late?!? It's the End Times!

And once you find out how wrong you are, you will just move on to the next crazy accusation. Seen it all before, my friend. Those on the left-wing fringes likened Reagan to Hitler, too and said he was going to blow up the world and the planet Earth would be destroyed in mutually assured nuclear destruction. Same old tune, different decade. You need a new tune.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Just to pick up one aspect I mentioned before: can you justify, from a democratic point of view, the way prisoners are kept and handled in Guantanamo? Does it fit with your idea of democracy? Doesn't it disturb you, not even a little bit?...

Anonymous said...

Moron99,
You are welcome to trying and answering my question to Anonymous, if you can, that is...

Anonymous said...

Just to pick up one aspect I mentioned before: can you justify, from a democratic point of view, the way prisoners are kept and handled in Guantanamo? Does it fit with your idea of democracy? Doesn't it disturb you, not even a little bit?...

Well, that's a reasonable question unlike many of your previous pronouncements so I will answer as best I can.

I am not comfortable with every aspect of the Guantanamo Bay prison. But I also understand that we are dealing with a new phenomenon of global terrorism. The old rules do not apply and the new rules have not yet been established. Those captured on this terror "battlefield" are not the same as POWs of a war between nations. There is no exchange of prisoners at the end of hostilities because there is no defineable end of hostilities. It's not a war between recognized nations. It's a war between the civilized world and a global murderous Mafia that almost exclusively and purposefully targets civilians, it's aim being terror. There need to be new rules to deal with this but no one knows what they are yet. Many of these known dangerous people can not be simply set free. The trick is to obtain information from those who have it while identifying, quickly, those who do not and who are not a danger & should be set free. I don't think a great job has been done at this but I have faith it will get better. Part of the reason it will, and has, is because of the media and congressional scrutiny that happens in a democracy.

waldschrat said...

The slaughter continues.

MOSUL, Iraq - Four Iraqi commandos were killed and five wounded Thursday when a suicide bomber detonated a car laden with explosives next to a patrol in the northern city of Mosul, police colonel Mohammed Nuri Khalaf said.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=41511

Again, another misguided fool mislead by the minions of evil chose to waste his life and deprive several families of their sons/husbands/fathers. Those attacked were doing nothing more reprehensible than trying to keep Iraq safe. They were living, breathing human beings before this heartless jerk committed his abominable act of murder.

Tell me, who are the real heros in all this.

Are they the the ones who waste their life and the lives of others in a senseless act of murder? Are they the ones who hire and equip the deluded murderers, then go home to their families and have a nice dinner and boast to their friends about their deeds? Are they the polemicists who encourage violent struggle as legitimate, deluded by their own logic into believing that America is evil and thus senseless murder is holy?

Or are they the ones who steadfastly try to keep Iraq safe from such idiots, the ones who decry lawlessness, the ones who try to lead something like a normal, peaceful life in the midst of chaos?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
You are not "comfortable" with Guantanamo, and you certainly shouldn't. There are reliable reports of torture being carried out there, and most prisoners have no access to counsel. Certainly at least some of those prisoners are innocent. How are they going to prove their innocence under such conditions? The fact that the Guantanamo facility was set up to place those prisoners outside the protection of American law is most schoking. To deny people who may be innocent the benefits of your own Bill of Rights is a shame. That's things like this that make me doubt your good intentions, and justify my extreme views on whether the US still can be considered a fully working democracy. As Americans you may be very uncomfortable with my opinions, but you must aggree that your actions justify the criticism you have been subject to.

Anonymous said...

Waldschrat,

"Again, another misguided fool mislead by the minions of evil chose to waste his life and deprive several families of their sons/husbands/fathers"

Your sense of outrage would sound more sincere if you showed the same outrage at the many cases of "colateral damage" caused by the American forces occupying Iraq. But I suppose those innocent victims do not have sons/husbands/fathers...

Anonymous said...

Or maybe I just prefer to know what I am dealing with. Maybe I am not so comfortable with someone who smiles sweetly while he stabs me in the back.

Oh, so it's the "smiling sweetly" part you don't like. You don't mind being "stabbed" by a dictator because you know he's a dictator and accept that. Just as I thought. Living under a dictatorship makes no demands on you and assigns no responsibility to you. Just sit back and accept it. It's easier that way and no one can blame you for anything.

Anonymous said...

@Hurria (& of course Truth Teller), 5/5/2005 08:53:29 PM.

Albatroz wrote "They don't realize it, but they are the closest thing to nazi Germany since WW II"; and you commented "I don't think this kind of demonization is helpful, Albatroz, and I am not at all sure it is accurate or fair".

Now, Hurria, of course we know that the US is not (or not yet) Nazi Germany in the Thirties; but when dealing with our American friends, the ultra-nationalists, the superpatriots, the fanatics in denial, the 'America can do no wrong', the 'kill them, kick butt!', those who bought into the 'IslamoFascist' arch-enemy, those who feel the US have 'a mission from beyond the stars' to civilize (!) us, the rest of the world, then you can see that their mentality is most disturbingly similar to the one of the German Nazis in, say, 1938-39. And when such a mentality is so widespread in a great nation, than one has to be very, very worried. The US are not Nazi Germany (or Stalin's Russia) yet; but with such a mentality in many of their citizens, and with these claims of their being entitled to go around invading other countries as they like, the danger IS there. Were these Neo-Cons to go on much longer, unopposed inside the US, the US themselves would become more and more similar to Nazi Germany, and WW3 would be needed to get free of these loonies. This for accuracy and fairness.

As for it being helpful or not to state this much, remember, Hurria, that we are not writing just to convince these US fanatical warmongerers posting on the comments pages of the Iraqi blogs; being such, precisely, Orwellian-minded totalitarian fanatics, I doubt they could ever be convinced through debate or reason (as this very page shows). Do you truly think that this debate could ever change the blind faith of a Moron99 or of the resident Anon, to name just two? That you (and Truth Teller) are Iraqis doesn't even register with them: they believe they know what the real situation is in Iraq much better than you do!
We (you included) write mainly for those Americans who are not already fanaticised, who bought into some of the Administration propaganda but are now realising that it doesn't fit reality. For them it is useful to see how the US superpatriots are commonly regarded in the rest of the world, and how, contrary to what the same superpatriots (or 'American Saddamists', like Iraqi blogger Abu Khaleel brilliantly called them) tell them, the prestige and image of the US in the world has never been so negative, and how America has never been loathed and hated so much.

Anonymous said...

...when dealing with our American friends, the ultra-nationalists, the superpatriots, the fanatics in denial, the 'America can do no wrong', the 'kill them, kick butt!', those who bought into the 'IslamoFascist' arch-enemy, those who feel the US have 'a mission from beyond the stars' to civilize (!) us, the rest of the world...US fanatical warmongerers...Orwellian-minded totalitarian fanatics...

What a beautiful Straw Man! May I inquire as to the kind of straw you used? I've rarely seen one so beautifully constructed!

Anonymous said...

From a NY Times article:

" When Mr. Delgado returned to Florida last year from a tour of Iraq that included a traumatic stint with a military police unit at Abu Ghraib prison, he thought he could pretty easily resume the ordinary life of a college student and leave his troubling war experiences behind.

But people kept asking him about Iraq. And he had many photos, some of them extremely difficult to look at, that were permanent reminders of events that are likely to stay with him for a lifetime.

There are pictures of children who were wounded and barely clinging to life, and some who appeared to be dead. There was a close-up of a soldier who was holding someone's severed leg. There were photos of Iraqis with the deathlike stare of shock, stunned by the fact that something previously unimaginable had just happened to them. There were photos of G.I.'s happily posing with the bodies of dead Iraqis.

This is what happens in war. It's the sickening reality that is seldom seen in the censored, sanitized version of the conflict that Americans typically get from the government and the media.

Americans' attitude toward war in general and this war in particular would change drastically if the censor's veil were lifted and the public got a sustained, close look at the agonizing bloodshed and other horrors that continue unabated in Iraq. If that happened, support for any war that wasn't an absolute necessity would plummet.

Mr. Delgado, 23, is a former Army reservist who was repelled by the violence and dehumanization of the war. He completed his tour in Iraq. But he sought and received conscientious objector status and was honorably discharged last January."

I wonder what Moron99, Anonymous, and others will say about this...

Anonymous said...

Another quote for the war crazies:

"The third battalion, seventh marines returned home in September 2004, having suffered 17 dead and many dozens wounded.

The marines of this proud battalion were deeply scarred by their experiences in Iraq. This was the same unit that had, in April 2003, spearheaded the American assault on Baghdad, helping liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. During that phase of the war, not a single marine from 3/7 was killed.

This time it was different. Rather than a sense of victory, the marines were struck by the futility, and tragedy, of what they had gone through.

"I feel like I wasted my time, caring about something that doesn't have any meaning any more," one marine was quoted as saying, speaking of his time in al-Qaim. "I felt like I was wasting time and the taxpayers' money."

His battalion commander concurred, noting that while much had been accomplished on the surface, little had fundamentally changed in Iraq as a result of the sacrifices of his marines."

Anonymous said...

Aidan Delgado's words:

"I think racism is a key motivating factor in the war. We witnessed a Marine kick a six-year-old child in the chest for bothering him about food and water. People in my unit used to break bottles over Iraqi civilians' heads as they drove by in their Humvees. A senior enlisted man in my unit lashed Iraqi children with a steel antenna because they were bothering him.

The only way people can do these sorts of things – which would never be acceptable in America – is [because of] the notion that Iraqis are somehow related to terrorists and 9/11. We completely dehumanize them. I used to come into conflict with other members of my unit who were doing these things, and [tell them] it was wrong. It made me really unpopular, the radical notion that you should treat Arabs or Iraqis as human beings."

Is he lying?...

waldschrat said...

albatroz
You said "Your sense of outrage would sound more sincere if you showed the same outrage at the many cases of "colateral damage" caused by the American forces occupying Iraq."

I am regrettably obliged to rely on reported facts. I recognize that there may be some imbalence in reporting of fatalities depending on whether they were inflicted by insurgents or "Liberating" forces.

The only online site I know of that systematically tries to track Iraqi casualties is http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/ and I invite you to examine their database.

I understand that there are casualties inflicted by the "Liberating" forces, including both casualties among theinsurgents and among ocaisional innocent bystanders. Any loss of life is lamentable. Some reports of insurgent casualties I find disturbing, as when it was reported that a US sniper killed an apparent insurgent transporting weapons from hiding without first offering an opportunity for him to surrender. Some incidents of checkpoint shootings, as for instance that of the Italian journalist and her rescuers, suggest that US troops may be triggerhappy or too easily spooked on occaision, and disinclined to admit errors. However, many many people pass such checkpoints WITHOUT getting shot up, so one has to assume that in some if not most cases there is some error on the unfortunate target's part also.

However, in the case of suicide bombers, they seem either intent on deliberately killing Iraqis as their primary target or intent on killing Americans and totally heedless of Iraqi casualties. When you drive a carbomb into an armored vehicle surrounded by Iraqi children and kill yourself and injure and kill the children without killing any Americans, I have to say that you are devoid of morals and judgement and totally contemptible. What can explain this kind of behavior?

If the events cataloged by IraqBodyCount are in any way accurate, insurgents kill far more Iraqis than Americans.

I suggest that Americans kill far more combatants than non-combatants. Regrettably I do not have solid information to back this up, but it seems evident from all stated policies and from reports of engagements that Americans will commonly hold their fire to avoid hitting non-combatants, use "minimal" force with precisinon to avoid collateral casualties, encourage non-combatants to leave combat zones as at Falluja, and keep prisoners in prisons instead of dumping their headless bodies in some dark alley.

Albatroz, I don't care if you salute the American flag or spit on it. You can believe anything you want about America. Insult me if you wish, pretend that I am callous to deaths inflicted by Americans and offended only by deaths inflicted by those who oppose America if you wish to delude yourself. It doesn't change the fact that these jihadi lunatics are contemptible in a thousand ways and for a thousand valid reasons. It doesn't change the fact that Iraqis are dying at their hands. Their intentions and their deeds are clear for all the world to see and judge.

Anonymous said...

"So what? Saddam is history. Every Iraqi knows that, and almost no one wants him back. He would not last five minutes on any street anywhere in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis moved on a long time ago. It is you Americans who are still obsessed with Saddam.
Get over it. "


The let me rephrase - Saddam is gone and there not be another tribal warlord or Sheikh to replace him. Nor will there be large payments by the government to buy the cooperation of tribal warlords and sheikhs. More simply put - Saddam is gone and there won't be another.

Anonymous said...

Bruno,

If you are so smart then explain some simple realities in Iraq.

Why are Iraqis are guaranteed the right to approve or disapprove a constitution of their own writing in a nationwide referendum?
Why will there be nationwide elections with open ballots?
Why Allawi removed from power? Why has Chalabi gained power?

Perhaps the simple truth is that the neocons are doing exactly what they say.

Anonymous said...

BTW Bruno,

your insurgency's biggest problems are not the Americans and they have only just begun.

Anonymous said...

"Why are Iraqis are guaranteed the right to approve or disapprove a constitution of their own writing in a nationwide referendum?"

Iraqis are not GUARANTEED anything at all, including this.

"Why will there be nationwide elections with open ballots?"

Maybe there will be and maybe there will not be - only time will tell.

Yes. Time will tell. All you have to offer is "i don't think that will happen", "maybe it will, maybe it won't", "that's not democracy" (and when asked for your definition of democracy so we can recognize it when/if it happens, you offer nothing).

Time will tell, you're right. Watch and see. :-)

waldschrat said...

hurria - are there any English language news sources you might recommend for someone who does not speak Arabic but is interested in events and politics in Iraq?

Anonymous said...

It's a paraphrase of your "maybe there will be and maybe there will not be" and "that's not democracy" attitude throughout.

You still have not provided your definition of democracy.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,

"The US military is incapable of winning an imperial war or of defeating an insurgency on foriegn soil."

That may be so, but not for lack of trying. Just like the late Soviet Union, the US tries to disguise their imperial wars as wars of liberation. The US "liberated" the Philipinnes and Cuba from Spain, "liberated" Panama from Colombia, "liberated" Texas from Mexico, "liberated" Hawai from the hawainese, tried to "liberate" Vietnam from the "communists", and is trying to "liberate" Iraq presumably from the Iraqis...

"The US military is under the control of elected officials and the US constitution guarantees freedom of press"

I fail to see how that would prevent the US from trying to launch an imperial war. All you need is to convince a majority of Americans (which obviously doesn't seem to be very difficult...) that your imperial war is a war of liberation, and to use most of the press - through existing economic channels - to assist in this brainwashing campaign. As long as dissenting voices are kept well away from mainstream papers and television, and as long as casualties are, or seem to be, not too important, the trick is done.

But, of course, you are very well aware of all this. Nice try, but it doesn't work.

Call Me Grandma said...

I guess??? You were a fan of Saddam Hussein. This is a bunch of garbage.
I think The New Iraqi government should shut down all the highways and streets,especially in the cities, and make you people walk, or use public transportation, that way they can keep a closer eye on the comings and goings, of the good and the bad.

Anonymous said...

Waldschrat,
You have shown to be concerned about US military behaviour in Iraq. You may want to read the following:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1947.shtml

Anonymous said...

Hurria,

I think most people reading this page would find my paraphrase accurate. Regardless, even discarding that phrase if it bothers you the rest of what you said is quite clear.

You still haven't given me your definition of democracy.

You said "Even free and fair elections - which the "elections" in Iraq most decidedly were not - do not constitute democracy."

Since you're the one saying what is "not" democracy why don't you enlighten us and tell us what is democracy so we can all agree on if/when Iraq reaches that point. Wouldn't it be good for the sake of clarity if we were all in agreement on that?

Anonymous said...

As long as dissenting voices are kept well away from mainstream papers and television, and as long as casualties are, or seem to be, not too important, the trick is done.

Ah, there's the rub. Unfortunately, that part of your plan falls apart.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Which part isn't happening? The dissenting voices part or the casualties part?... And can you prove it?...

Anonymous said...

Which part isn't happening? The dissenting voices part or the casualties part?... And can you prove it?...

Both. Casualties are always "important". Dissenting voices are heard all over the U.S. media. Tell me, are you one of those Europeans who think that FOX News is the sum total of the U.S. media?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
It took 50,000 dead to get you out of Vietnam. 1,600 may not be "important" enough...

How many Americans are exposed to dissenting voices on Iraq? How many read the New Yorker, compared to those who watch only Fox News? I find all the time on the internet American opinions against the war in Iraq. But I know they are not (yet) representative of the less educated majority of Americans. A lot more American soldiers will have to be killed and maimed in Iraq for that majority to start realizing what is happening there.

Anonymous said...

You really are clueless.

How many Americans are exposed to dissenting voices on Iraq?

Anyone who watches the news or reads the newspapers.

I find all the time on the internet American opinions against the war in Iraq. But I know they are not (yet) representative of the less educated majority of Americans.

Less educated how?

A lot more American soldiers will have to be killed and maimed in Iraq for that majority to start realizing what is happening there.

The majority realizes "what is happening there" and, at least for the time being, believes we must stay the course because a precipitous pullout would be the worst thing to do at this point.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"Less educated how?"

Less educated in terms of schooling. Fewer years in school, less awareness as far as foreign issues are concerned, less exposure to different opinions. As far as I know (from the time I lived in the US), those people represent a majority in the US, and they will more easily be convinced of the American "sacred mission" in the world...

Anonymous said...

Less educated in terms of schooling. Fewer years in school, less awareness as far as foreign issues are concerned, less exposure to different opinions. As far as I know (from the time I lived in the US), those people represent a majority in the US, and they will more easily be convinced of the American "sacred mission" in the world...

Which people "represent a majority in the US"? You can't use comparative words like "fewer years in school", "less awareness" and then use words like "majority" unless you establish what benchmarks you're using. You can say the majority have "fewer years in school" etc. than a handful of Nobel Prize Winners too. That doesn't tell you much. Also, it would be useful to compare those things, such as college educations, with other countries to get a feel for the norm.

By the way, the educational levels of voters are fairly equal between Republican and Democratic voters with a few percentage points difference that swings back and forth depending on the election.

Anonymous said...

Hurria,

If you'd read carefully, I never said that "i don't think that will happen" was a paraphrase of "maybe it will and maybe it won't". I included that quote separately. It was a paraphrase of the totality of your argument here about democracy and Iraq. You seem fairly clear you think it's not happening and you don't think it will happen in the near future. If I'm wrong and that's not your position then feel free to correct my impression and I'll freely admit I misunderstood you.

Is it your belief that elections alone constitute democracy?

Elections alone don't constitue democracy, as I already said, noting that Saddam Hussein also held "elections".

I'm really curious why you're so reluctant to explain what you think democracy is, despite my repeated entreaties, since you're so sure this isn't it.

Anonymous said...

Oh - and a foolish majority of Americans are also under the delusion that the majority of Iraqis support what the the U.S. is doing in Iraq.

They certainly suuport the democratization process in Iraq, which is what the "U.S. is doing".

By the way, what is democracy?

Anonymous said...

I am not going to play your game with you.

Whatever game you're playing, I hope you're enjoying it. But I assure you I'm not playing a game.

And I suspect, in fact I know, that the reason you refuse to articulate your definition of democracy is because you are afraid of the moment Iraq will meet the criteria you articulate, when those like me and also the millions of Iraqis who have invested themseves in this democratic process and laid their lives on the line, defying the suicide bombers and assorted grisly terrorists, will be able to say "I told you so". That's the moment you, Albatroz, Bruno and italian dread so much you are willing to see Iraq fail just to see America fail. But Iraq and America will both succeed and I look forward to talking with you about it in a couple of years time.

'Til then, fare thee well.

waldschrat said...

I found today that I can get a weather report for Mosul as easily as one for Sacraento:

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=mosul%2C+Iraq

http://www.wunderground.com/forecasts/SAC.html

waldschrat said...

Hurria -

I said
"The word is 'liberator', not 'occupier', Hurria."

and you replied
"The correct word, both de jure and de facto, is occupier. Please don't insult your own intelligence and ours by suggesting otherwise."

I suggest that because a liberator commonly liberates only by invading and holding the liberated territory, all liberators are necessarily occupiers, while not all occupiers are liberators. "Liberator" is a subset of the class "occupier" and therefore a more precise and acurate term. I admit it is a fine point, and that the quality of the "liberation" may be less than desired, but "liberator" is really a better word than occupier as far as I can tell. How about "inconvenient, semicompetent, unwanted liberator"? Certainly a perfect liberator whould have effectively swept the country free of all residual resistance and dissent and criminality, and made it a perfect place.

I suppose it might be better for me to simply step aside from this war of words, and I am hesitant to offer arguments here.

I do believe, however, that by characterizing the US as totally selfish and without concern for Iraq's population, and by characterizing all Iraqis who participate in developing institurions of Iraqi government and civil service as acting only on orders from the US, you are portraying your fellow citizens as legitimate targets for violence. I reject that portrayal, believing that violence is inappropriate and unnecessary and that the loyalties of Iraqis serving in the police, military and government, whatever they may be, are not to the US.

Semantics, the words one chooses to describe an object or event or condition, can be used to warp the truth. The most precise word is "liberator", not "occupier", hurria. Add whatever adjective you wish to describe the quality of the liberation you have received.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Hurria-

Since you seem to be under the impression that everyone besides you is woefully uninformed (contary to what you may believe, sarcasm can be overdone) why don't you share your vast knowledge with us. Obviously we're in need of it. I believe several days ago you were asked to share some of your superior sources of current information. Now's the perfect time.

GPV said...

206; with mine:207 it's a record,
I never seen so much comments on a blog.Must be controversial,I guess.
Many anonymous,strange,it means something but what???
Comments from the dark.

waldschrat said...

Here is a link to several papers including an article that calls attention to some of America's weakenesses in the "liberaton of Iraq". The article I found interesting is titled (in english) "How Arabic Translators Frustrated America's War on Global Terrorism" and there is an Arabic version and an apparently abbreviated English version on the site.

http://www.surf.net.au/writescope/translation/index.html

Meantime the slaughter reportedly continues: "Four Iraqis were killed in two roadside bombings and gunfire in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. military said." No word on whether these were police, militia, or innocent bystanders too near an armored vehicle. Four anonymous Iraqi lives extinguished, this is the only news I have available, being so far from Iraq. Why Iraqis instead of Americans? The answer is easy. Iraqis are "soft targets", less well defended, easier to kill than Americans. The killers have to kill somebody, apparently, so they kill Iraqis. I have no respect for their logic or methods.

Anonymous said...

The official death toll for U.S. troops has now passed the 1600 mark, reaching 1602. Does that make you feel better?

What a complete non-sequitur. Why would those deaths, or any deaths, make us "feel better"?

"Insurgents" are not targetting women and children any more than American forces are.

Oh yes they are. Exhibit A is the deliberate attack on an outdoor market filled with women and children just last week. Not a mistake. Not an errant missile. Not "collateral damage". A deliberate, targeted suicide attack on a market filled with innocent civilians shopping, with no military target in site.

Why such an apologist for the "insurgents" who have killed hundreds of Iraqis in just the past 2 weeks, Hurria? That dark spot eating at your soul is your hatred of Bush and America and you're allowing it lead you to a point where you don't even seem to care about the very Iraqis you profess to care about. Ironic, ain't it?

Anonymous said...

Waldschrat - "because a liberator commonly liberates only by invading and holding the liberated territory, all liberators are necessarily occupiers, while not all occupiers are liberators. "Liberator" is a subset of the class "occupier" and therefore a more precise and acurate term."

Hurria - Congratulations, Waldschrat! I have rarely seen a more twisted, convoluted word game!

Not twisted or convoluted at all. It's perfectly logical. Waldschrat is right. A liberator is always an occupier. He didn't say an occupier is always a liberator.

Please explain how a liberator can liberate without also being an occupier and we're not talking about liberation by proxy but actual on-the-ground liberation. A period of occupation is a necessity of every liberation. There is nothing erroneous about Waldschrat's very logical statement of that fact.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you are incapable of seeing into my mind, do not presume to see into my soul.

Unfortunately, you wear it right on your sleeve and I can see it quite clearly. It's not a pretty sight.

Anonymous said...

Once again, you miss the point. He said liberation is a subset of occupation (not the other way around). There can be occupations without liberation (obviously you believe the Iraq war is one of them). There can not be liberations without occupation. It's very simple, clear logic. And he's completely right.

Anonymous said...

How, exactly, does it support your position on the issues?

It doesn't. It just expresses my feelings. Your complete inability to understand basic logic, to support your assertions or to answer simple questions annoys and frustrates me. Sorry if I allowed it to get to me. Maybe you could help me out by sharing some of your sources of information, since you're so much better informed about every aspect of the current situation in Iraq than I am. I believe you've been asked since May 2nd to help us all out by enlightening us and so far you've failed to do so. Keeping all this information just for yourself, huh? You don't feel an obligation to pull the rest of us out of our pit of ignorance? How uncharitable of you.

It's really late so I'm gonna get some shut-eye but once again, as I believe I expressed several days ago, I will be waiting with bated breath for you to enlighten me. I gotta say, though, if you keep me waiting much longer I'm gonna have to assume you've got no enlightenment to share and that would sadden me because I really do love to learn.

G'night.

waldschrat said...

Hurria - I've read Orwell. I prefer Korzybski and Hayakawa. When you have something besides bullshit and insults to peddle I will listen you.

Anonymous said...

This debate has some interesting features, and some puzzling ones. On the positive side there is a clear argumentative superiority of an Iraqi - Hurria - over a couple of strange Americans - Moron99 and Anonymous. It is true that it would sometimes be helpful knowing a bit more about Hurria and his background, but if he has so far declined to tell us more about himself it will certainly be for a very good reason. Presumably having to do with his personal security.
The puzzling side of this debate has to do with the strange arguments used by those two (?) Americans. One is led to think that they aren't here by accident, and that they may very well be associated with the American repressive machine: CIA and/or US Armed Forces. They certainly must know by now that they can't convince us (Hurria, the Italian, Bruno and I, as well as many others). If they insist is because their goal must be another. Probably a preemptive move to avoid other readers of this blog turning against the American position. Or they may be using us as guinea pigs for their propaganda lines. To see how one can counter that propaganda, or to assess the degree of success of their arguments, for use elsewhere.
I don't particularly like being used as a guinea pig but, on the other hand, I hope we have shown how indefensible is the American position on Iraq. American propaganda has absolutely no chance of convincing anybody with a minimum degree of information, culture and intelligence. If we have contributed in any way to make the American propaganda less credible it was certainly worth the effort.

Anonymous said...

The last I looked, it seemed that 90% + of Iraqis felt that the US should leave

When? That's the operative question. 100% of Americans think the US should leave, also. The question is when. Without that added caveat the question is virtually meaningless. (I'm having a sense of deja vu. I believe this ground has been trod many times. These arguments have achieved a certain circularity. I think at about the 200 comment mark we may have reached the point of diminishing returns.)


P.S. - Watch out, Moron99. They're on to us. But I think Albatroz may be a double agent, waiting for us to slip up.

See ya around the CIA watercooler. :-)

Anonymous said...

Despite all of your jibber-jabber, the current situation can be summed up quite succinctly:

There was an election on January 30th (and since you're using the results of that election to buttress your points, so will I) in which the Iraqi people voted for a government. That government has not called for and is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Quite the contrary.

At the same time, all parties, Iraqis and Americans, want to see a pullout of the bulk of U.S. troops occur sooner rather than later. For that reason, Iraqi troops are being trained and equipped to take over and are doing so as they become capable. Both the U.S. military and the Iraqi government have said they see a large-scale reduction in U.S. forces sometime in 2006. That's what Iraqis want and that's what Americans want.

Now let's all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya".

By the way, moron99's point about people "east of the Tigris and south of Karbala" is quite understandable to most people. I'm not sure why it so eludes you, Hurria. He's drawing a distinction between 2 areas, one largely peaceful and the other not. The areas west of the Tigris (as a crude, but not exact, dividing line) and north of Karbala forming a triangle (where have I heard that term before? hmmm) include Fallujah, Ramadi, the rest of Anbar province, to Mosul up north, as well as the so-called "triangle of death" towns south of Baghdad. (As I said the Tigris is being used as an inexact dividing line as some cities are virtually right on the Tigris such as Mosul). Those areas obviously have a different opinion of the situation than people in other, more peaceful, areas of Iraq (the South, the Kurdish northeast), which is the point moron99 was making. I'm not sure why you find it so completely inexplicable that such a distinction would be made.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes - the so-called soony triangle blahblahblah, the triangle of death blahblahblah Soonys hate sheee-ites hate Kurds blahblahblah. Civil war blahblahblah. The same old standard utterly ignorant nonsense over and over and over again.

You OK? You need some medication?

No one said anything about civil war, did they? Do you deny that those areas are the most resistant to the present government, the most violent? Did those areas have much different levels of participation in the election than other areas of Iraq? If you deny it, you're a fool. If you don't deny it, you're agreeing with moron99 and me. Oh, the cognitive dissonance!

Anonymous said...

...in which he proved he has no clue at all what parsimony is.

"Parsimony, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme..."

Oops, sorry. Drifted off there.

Seriously, someone shoot this dead horse. It's been beaten enough already. This discussion has run its course. In fact, it's lapped itself several times around the track. The horse is dead! Kill it again!

waldschrat said...

For a change the news search I use does not indicate any fresh news of insurgent atrocities in Mosul today. Today the news from Iraq seems dominated by violence in Qaim and it seems Americans are killing more Iraqis than the insurgents are. With the estimates at 100 "insurgent" dead and 3 Americans so far, one can only hope that it is over soon and some good comes of it. For the time being, Qaim is suffering. Only the news that suspects are being captured as well as killed is encouraging, and the reported statistics of 54 captured to 100 killed are pretty gloomy - the fighting seems very heavy, and casualties among noncombatants seem inevitable. Very sad. I can't sympathize with murderous insurgents, but I really feel bad for innocent, honest folks who get hurt because some jerk wearing explosive underwear moves in next door.

Anonymous said...

Well, Anonymous, sorry to see you have once again abandoned the issues in favour of pure adolescent ad hominem stuff.

Actually, I addressed the issue quite clearly. You just chose, once again, to ignore it.

I'll repeat it again for your benefit:

No one said anything about civil war, did they? Do you deny that those areas are the most resistant to the present government, the most violent? Did those areas have much different levels of participation in the election than other areas of Iraq?

Anonymous said...

What our antagonist carefully avoids mentioning is that 13% of the respondents said that they wanted an IMMEDIATE US withdrawal, and around 80% said they wanted a PHASED US withdrawal. The point is: they wanted the US to piss off, the only argument was in which *way* they should piss off.

Hmmm, in that case you'd probably find 100% of Americans also want the US to "piss off" if that's your term for wanting a "phased withdrawal".

Anonymous said...

Waldschrat,

" I really feel bad for innocent, honest folks who get hurt because some jerk wearing explosive underwear moves in next door."

No, Waldschrat. Honest folks get hurt because American troops shoot and bomb them. Americans think it acceptable to kill a few tens of innocent people ("colateral damage"...) just to get a single insurgent. And often they miss that single insurgent.

Anonymous said...

Americans think it acceptable to kill a few tens of innocent people ("colateral damage"...) just to get a single insurgent.

And "insurgents" think it acceptable to kill a few tens of innocent people just to... get a few tens of innocent people.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
I see that your standards of behaviour for the American forces in Iraq are the same as the insurgents'...

Anonymous said...

I see that your standards of behaviour for the American forces in Iraq are the same as the insurgents'...

Nope, the American standards are better... much better. But nice try.

Anonymous said...

From a hilltop overlooking Ribat, a Times reporter traveling with members of the 2nd Marine Division could see insurgents driving to houses on the northern edge of the town, filling trucks with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers and ferrying them to the south side of the village where the battle was taking place.

Children stood near one of the houses. A woman casually hung clothes on a line. Marines held their fire.

Los Angeles Times

Just one example of how bad guys get away and ultimately US soldiers get injured or killed because the US military takes care to not harm innocent civilians whenever possible.

GPV said...

comment 259,my American ally cannot see through Iraqies' eyes,
strange,it's just like in"To kill a Mocking Bird".
Check: www.iraqbodycount.com

And try to imagine someone in New Mexico having a similar site on a parallel world.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the "Freedom Fighters" are at it again:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Three suicide bombings killed at least 50 people across Iraq on Wednesday as insurgents pressed on with an escalation of attacks.

In the deadliest attack, a suicide car bomber blew up his vehicle in Tikrit among a crowd of mainly Shi'ite migrant workers from southern Iraq who had gathered to try to find work on construction sites. Police said at least 27 people were killed and more than 60 wounded in the blast.

In the town of Hawija, southwest of the strategic oil city of Kirkuk, a man strapped with explosives walked into an army recruitment center and blew himself up, killing 19 people and wounding 25, police said.

A suicide car bomb also exploded outside a police station in the southern Baghdad suburb of Dora, killing at least four people and wounding dozens, police said.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
We are naturally schoked at the behaviour of some insurgents. But doesn't it strike you as meaningful that so many Iraqis are willing to commit suicide to hurt Americans and those who are seen as America's stooges? Would you be willing to be a "kamikaze" for any cause? Doesn't it show that Iraqis are not Americans and that they see life differently from you? That they may have different ideas about legitimate power, about political systems and priorities? Even if you were honestly trying to bring democracy - as you understand it - to the Iraqi people, are you sure that your type of democracy is wellcome? You may say that Iraqis voted in large numbers, so that they must have wellcome that form of democracy. But were they given a choice? Couldn't they have chosen, without your presence, a different and more legitimate (to them) way of selecting their leaders? If Iraq was no threat to you, doesn't it strike you as meaningless that childish attempt at converting the "heathen" to your idea of freedom? Is it worth all the killing? To save your patient must you kill or maim him? Don't you see the arrogance of it all?...

waldschrat said...

There is a difference between a moderated and an unmoderated discussion group.

In a moderated discussion group, a moderator assumes responsiblity for enforcing rules intended to preserve the peace of the group. Usually such rules prohibit commercial announcements and personal attacks on other posters, as well as other things which tend to vary from group to group but for the purpose of a particular group would be disruptive to productive discussion.

In an un-moderated discussion group, no authority exists and no rules of behavior are enforced. Posters simply do what they can to forward their own objectives, often indulging in gratuitous insults and verbal attacks on other posters. Remorseless exchanges of insults called "flame wars" often develop as individuals compete to contrive worse insults to hurl at each other.

A good moderator usually doesn't need to do much, since the objective of a discussion group is to discuss things and share ideas. The greatedst part of the task is to make it clea what the rules are, and make it clear that they will be enforced by a discussion moderator. Once participants are aware of this, they will usually adjust their behavior accordingly. When they do not, the moderator usually needs only to remind participants of the rules and remind them of his/her ability to take action against violators, such as deleting offensive posts and other recourse depending on the nature of the forum. Some software allows restriction of access, blocking messages from specific IP addresses, forcing a user to submit messages for review prior to publication, etc. Deleting posts is the only recourse with the blogger.com software, I think. It's important to emphasize that a good moderator rarely has to delete offensive messages - the existence of the rules and the clear presence of a moderator is usually sufficient to keep order. If messages need to be deleted frequently it is a sign that people are not aware of the standards expected of them.

My own experience is that a moderated discussion forum can be a very powerful tool for focusing the thoughts of many people on solving problems of common interest. I have found unmoderated discussion groups less focused and often prone to distractions related to interpersonal animosities and flame wars.

A member of one group I moderate commented there, after visiting this group, that the level of animosity between some of the posters here seemed regrettable, particularly antagonism of Iraqis by Americans.

waldschrat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
waldschrat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
waldschrat said...

I found the following post over at another forum to be more pertinent to the real problems I see facing Iraq than many I have read recently.

link to the post

I had a hard time getting the link to come out correctly and have deleted a couple of botched posts to clean up the mess I made.

Anonymous said...

@Hurria, 5/11/2005 10:20:59 AM.

The poll Moron99 refers to is most likely a poll conducted months ago (if I'm not mistaken, in early December, well before the elections) by the newspaper 'Al Sabah', by... phone! (in the period when telephone lines were off most of the time in Iraq...).
The dubious people at Iraq The Minion did their very best to refer to it over & over, beyond the limits of common sense.
Indeed 'Al Sabah' is a newspaper wholly financed by the US Administration. Not being an Iraqi, I do not know what its circulation is, but I wouldn't trust it (and the results of its supposed polls) in the least.

waldschrat said...

If nothing else, this ongoing discussion has taught me to doubt what I hear on the news and elsewhere more than I might have otherwise.

On that subject, here is a humorous link:

link


On a less humorous note, here is a news story about which I am rather skeptical:

"Normalcy Returns to Mosul"


My concept of "normalcy" does not include routine gunfights in nearby streets.

Anonymous said...

try google. you should be able to find .pdf downloads

Anonymous said...

An interesting quote from an American writer:

" Half a century ago James Baldwin wrote: "Confronted with the impossibility of remaining faithful to one's beliefs, and the equal impossibility of becoming free of them, one can be driven to the most inhuman excesses." Americans believe they're "No. 1," destined to lead the world. That is the America that's over. If we insist on that illusion, then this world is in for tough times. We will neither hold on to what we have nor create what we might have, but we will wreak untold harm (if we don't destroy the species altogether). Or we can face and embrace reality. And that reality is: There is no such thing as "No. 1" ... there is no such thing as an ideal destined country that is better than any other ... there is only us, doing the best we can, trying to live free and sanely, within limits that are about to become only too clear. Our glory days are done. What's next?"

Anonymous said...

Well, that is not exactly true. It exposes in a very clear way your inability, when the chips are down, to support your assertions.

Are you talking about yourself, Hurria? I'm still waiting for your answer to this, among other things:

Moron99 noted the difference in opinions among people "east of the Tigris and south of Karbala" as opposed to west of the Tigris and north of Karbala. Rough lines to be sure. No one said there was an exact demarcation. But those lines roughly coincide with lines that would denote areas with more vs. less violence, more vs. less participation in the election and support of the current political process, etc.

You ridiculed the entire idea that there could be any such demarcation.

You said:

Oh yes - the so-called soony triangle blahblahblah, the triangle of death blahblahblah Soonys hate sheee-ites hate Kurds blahblahblah. Civil war blahblahblah. The same old standard utterly ignorant nonsense over and over and over again.

to which I replied:

No one said anything about civil war, did they? Do you deny that those areas are the most resistant to the present government, the most violent? Did those areas have much different levels of participation in the election than other areas of Iraq?

Which you then dutifully ignored.

Just continuing to say the words "ad hominem" and accuse people of abandoning their assertions does nothing for your argument, unless you think it helps your cause to continually accuse others of the very things you engage in.

Anonymous said...

What do you support foreign troop withdrawal?
immediate, phased, don't know

I assume most responses were Bagdhad residents of relatively higher education and of relatively more secure financial status. It could easily be spun as non-representative, but the results are almost identical to all the other polls including the nationwide one done to professional standards of accuracy. The interesting thing to note is that responses across a wide range of polls render the same results and that the opinion appears to be quite stable and firm. Attempting to invalidate the findings of one requires invalidating the findings of all.

It is really simple. The new government is the first government that was selected by the people. They want to give it a chance and they realize that the insurgents wish to cause its failure. It's no secret that insurgents like to bomb police stations, kill policemen, assasinate politicians, and shoot mortars/rpg at any construction projects. Why do you think over 90% of Iraqis approved the use of extreme measures in fighting against the insurgents? alsabaah on-line link is but one poll from a mountain of data.

Are you arguing for argument's sake or do you really think that the insurgency has wide support? Why exactly do you attempt to refute or deflect public opinion?

Anonymous said...

I find it hard to believe opinion polls taken in occupied countries. I'm sure that, after "anschluss", any German opinion poll of Austrians would show 99% approval of that annexation...

I find it more interesting to read opinion polls on Americans' views on the war in Iraq. Please follow this link and be surprised...

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Anonymous said...

Try this one too:

http://people-press.org/reports/
display.php3?ReportID=206

and this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A7080-2004Jul22.html

The interesting thing is that Arab public opinion concerning the war in Iraq, the American policies, and the expected consequences of that war, are consistently more critical of the US than what is shown for Iraqis in those suposedly honest polls taken in Iraq. In other words, Iraqis would be less critical of Americans than any other Arabs. Does anyone find that a believable outcome? In my opinion either Iraqis are afraid of answering truthfully, or the samples are not representative. They may be adequate as far as gender, region, religion are concerned, but they may be biased in respect of the opinions of those questioned. In other words, it would be possible to find a group of Iraqis representative as far as gender, residence and religion are concerned, but who overwhelmingly support the US. I would immagine that any respectable propaganda machine would know how to achieve exactly such result.
But what makes me suspicious is the above referred differences between alleged Iraqi and other Arab opinions on the same questions.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,
What you are trying to make us believe is that Iraqis, who have been invaded, bombed, shot, occupied, and who have seen their cities being destroyed, their culture being spit upon, are more appreciative of their invaders, bombers, destroyers, than other Arabs who have not suffered such indignities. We must then conclude that Iraqis are crazy. Alternatively, those polls are not credible...

Anonymous said...

No hurria, you keep wishing it was the main evidence. The main evidence is the door to door poll conducted by 200 iraqi pollsters. This is just one of many tertiary polls that reach the same conclusions.

Anonymous said...

Since our Americans on duty didn't see fit to comment on polls showing that Americans are critical of Bush's war, I thought it interesting to post here their main results:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 29-May 1, 2005. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

April 29 to May 1:

Approve 42%
Disapprove 55%
Unsure 3%

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"

April 29 to May 1:

Worth 41%
Not worth 57%
Unsure 2%

"In general, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, or very badly?"

April 29 to May 1:

Very well 6%
Moderately well 36%
Moderately badly 31%
Very badly 25%
Unsure 2%

Not worth commenting about?...If the US were a democracy what should the US government do now?

Anonymous said...

Americans love Iraqis:

"Kevin Benderman (an Army sergeant, who applied for conscientious objector status before his unit deployed to Iraq for a second tour of duty) talked about the haunting memory of a young girl standing alongside the road, whose “arm was burned all the way up her shoulder, and I don’t mean just a little blistered...She had third degree burns the entire length of her arm, and she was crying in pain because of the burns.

“I asked the troop executive officer if we could stop and help the family, and I was told that the medical supplies we had were limited, and that we may need them. I informed him that I would donate my share to that girl, but we didn’t stop to help her.”

But crooked opinion polls are more important than this everyday reality, I suppose...

Anonymous said...

Moron99 and Anonymous are so busy with the Iraqi polls that they have forgotten to react to my two last posts... Lack of arguments, maybe?...

Anonymous said...

Moron99, you write "the increasing calls for extreme measures against insurgents and decreasing calls for immediate withdrawal".

Again, after ranting for days about some dubius opinion polls which never existed, or of no relevance at all to the question, you repeat this sillyness as if it were a fact. What evidence do you have of what you say? Chenkroff or some other spin-master of the pro-US propaganda, being thousands of miles afar from Iraq?

The evidence people can instead see (EVIDENCE, Moron, not your wishful thinking) points instead to a growing disappointment & dissatisfaction with that wonderful 'elected Government' protected by US troops in the Green Zone, and to an increased efficiency of the Iraqi resistance. I'm not talking about the mad bombers (possibly sectarian death squads like those commandos you blabbered about, masterminded by US 'specialists'), but about the Iraqi insurgents who have gone back to putting down four or five of your US apes-at-arms every day. If they manage to keep or to increase this rate, you'll need the draft in order to hang on to Iraq.

Any doubt at all about it, oh so truthful Moron?

Anonymous said...

Moron99,

"lack of meaningful content"

Is it meaningless that a majority of Americans "disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq"?

Is it meaningless that a majority of Americans "think it was not worth going to war in Iraq"?

Is it meaningless that a majority of Americans think "that things are going badly in Iraq"?

What does democracy mean to you? The will of the majority or the will of the minority?

And is it meaningless that American soldiers deny medical assistance to a little girl with third degree burns? Just another case of "colateral damage", I guess...

Your mind works in a very strange way, I'm afraid...

Anonymous said...

Please ignore the ignorant comments made by Anonymous and his type. They are rude and disrespectful, and do not belong on the same page as your wonderful blog.

Anonymous said...

Moron99,

Your "obligations", as you call them, were self-imposed. Your obligation was to stay away from Iraq. Now, your obligation is to get the hell out of Iraq and let the Iraqis sort out their problems, in any way they see fit. Your presence is offensive to all those who believe in the sovereignty of all peoples. Iraqis may go on for a while killing each other, if that's what they want. But that's none of your business. Nobody appointed you guardians of the world. You wouldn't be fit to fulfil that mission even if we needed such a guardian. Your arrogance is offensive and disgusting. Try and understand this, once and for all.

Anonymous said...

Moron99'

"America knew that GWB would honor the commitments he made to the people of Iraq and they voted for him instead of Kerry"

Did Iraqis vote for GWB? Did they ask for any commitment from the US? And do you think that any civil war in Iraq would be worse than Iraq's "liberation" by the US? Don't you understand when you are not welcome? When people all over the world shout: "YANKEES GO HOME!!!", what do you think they mean by that?...

Anonymous said...

Respect to Hurria, Albatroz and Bruno (and an Italian) for persevering with the deluded Moron99 et al. You have more patience than I.

In my view, there will be a draft this summer. On which day do the US schools and colleges break up - that's the day on which the draft will be reintroduced. And Fox is already softening up the American public, terrifying them with stories of how Iran is about to bomb Washington or New York with a chemical bomb or a car-borne nuclear device. History shows that when the impressionable, undiscerning American public is frightened enough, it will agree to any aggression.

Rachel, a Brit in London

Anonymous said...

From an article on the Washigton Post (May 13, 2005):

"Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

But I suppose that Moron99 et al will not be bothered by these facts. Actually they never allow facts to interfere with their propaganda...

Anonymous said...

From a Dahr Jamail report, in Amman:

"The loss of life continues unabated... in the last week at least 37 US soldiers have been killed, while at least 450 Iraqis have died amidst a huge surge of ongoing attacks since 28 April, when the Iraqi government was officially announced.

Abdul-Khaliq al-Raqwi, the director of communications for the Iraqi Government in al-Qaim, confirmed to Al-Jazeera that 2 US helicopters were shot down in Qusaybah this past Wednesday. The military denied this, even though witnesses on the ground confirmed the report as well.

Another interesting incident which occurred the beginning of the month was when two F-18 Hornet jets crashed in Iraq. The military claimed there was no indication of hostile fire, yet they crashed in different locations. On the day of their crash, Baghdad airport was closed to commercial air traffic for three days with no reason given by authorities."

Fortunately the insurgency is decreasing, with Iraqis increasingly supportive of US efforts to bring democracy to their country...

Anonymous said...

In my view, there will be a draft this summer. On which day do the US schools and colleges break up - that's the day on which the draft will be reintroduced.

LOL. Rachel, the Brit it hallucinating again.

Tell ya what, Rachel dear. If there's a draft this summer (or anytime in the near or far future) I will personally stand naked in Times Square and scream to the world "Rachel the Brit is a genius!"

Anonymous said...

*is* hallucinating.

Either way, the girl is very funny.

:-)

Anonymous said...

scott said...
Please ignore the ignorant comments made by Anonymous and his type.


Do you have something intelligent to add to this blog, scotty?

[crickets chirping]

Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

I'm not talking about the mad bombers (possibly sectarian death squads like those commandos you blabbered about, masterminded by US 'specialists'),

Oh, the typical "if the insurgents are doing anything really bad it must be 'masterminded' by the Americans" Face it, the "insurgents" you laud so highly are carbombing innocent Iraqis every day.

but about the Iraqi insurgents who have gone back to putting down four or five of your US apes-at-arms every day.

Can't do with a little dose of silly insults either. "Apes-at-arms"? What does that mean exactly? Is that like when Islamists call non-Muslims "sons of apes and pigs"? How intelligent. I bet you're one of those who calls Bush "Chimpy McBusHitler" too like our homegrown lefties do. How edifying.

If they manage to keep or to increase this rate, you'll need the draft in order to hang on to Iraq.

Any doubt at all about it, oh so truthful Moron?


Yeah, loads of doubt about that. How many times do you, Rachel and others need to be told. There. Will. Not. Be. A. Draft.

Maybe we need to organize a remedial instruction class.

Anonymous said...

@Moron99.
You said "Italian, What current evidence from Iraq do you have to support your point of view?".

Silly thing, the evidence in this case is the one provided by YOUR OWN mass media. Yes, my fanatic, I do suspect that your losses may have been more severe than 4-5 a day in the past ten days, but, anyway, your Command admitted losses of 4-5 apes-at-arms a day.
Do you doubt what your Command says, Moron?
Oh, I see that you are anti-American!
(And, indeed, anybody trying to make the US persist in this already lost war IS truly 'anti-American', like everybody but these criminal fanatics can see)

5/14/2005 02:18:05 AM

Anonymous said...

But what makes me suspicious is the above referred differences between alleged Iraqi and other Arab opinions on the same questions.

Makes ya think, doesn't it? Think long and hard enough and maybe the answer will come to you... I have faith in you. Think reaaaalllly hard.

Anonymous said...

apes-at-arms

Interesting. Racism is OK when practiced by anyone other than Americans. Every time you say "apes-at-arms", italian, you destroy any credibilty for your argument. Unless you also think it would help my argument to rant about "sand monkeys". You wouldn't like that, though, right? You'd call me a racist idiot, right?

Right back at ya, babe.

Anonymous said...

Moron99 and Anonymous are so busy with the Iraqi polls that they have forgotten to react to my two last posts... Lack of arguments, maybe?...

Your two previous posts were

1) a U.S. poll showing a majority of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. You then asked what the U.S., being a democratic govt., should do in response.

The poll significantly does not ask what should be done now so how would that possibly impact what the U.S. govt. should do now? Other similar polls in which the majority of Americans felt the war was a mistake or not going well also indicate that, conversely, they understand and believe we can not pull the troops out precipitously and must stay until Iraqi troops are sufficient. So your poll is meaningless as it regards what should be done now.

2) Your second post was an anecdote by a disgruntled U.S. soldier who recounts an incident in which U.S. soldiers didn't stop to help a burned Iraqi girl. And... That indicates what? I can recount to you hundreds of individual anecdotes that show the opposite. What would that prove? Anecdotes are interesting but they are only anecdotes.

Anonymous said...

@Resident Anon (= Mickey Mouse).
"Tell ya what, Rachel dear. If there's a draft this summer (or anytime in the near or far future) I will personally stand naked in Times Square and scream to the world 'Rachel the Brit is a genius!'" & "How many times do you, Rachel and others need to be told. There. Will. Not. Be. A. Draft. Maybe we need to organize a remedial instruction class".

Well, we take your oath at face value. After the draft, as soon as we see a galliant naked protester in Times Square (where the eff would it be? I'm not familiar with streets maps of the US), we'll know he is our honourable 'Anon'. Trouble is that your mass-media won't show it (maybe Indymedia?), so, how can we know?

We take it as a pledge, anyway. Either the draft, or you'll be out of Iraq very soon.
But we know, out of experience, that some four-handed beasties (oh, what a 'silly insult'!) are not very honourable, nor very decent, nor they do keep their promises.
Let's give you the benefit of doubt, & see.

Anonymous said...

Well, we take your oath at face value.

Good. :-) That's how it was meant to be taken. If you see a naked screaming person in Times Square... well, actually that happens every day, so let's just say if you see a naked person in Times Square screaming "Rachel the Brit is a genius", it'll be me.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it if I were you, though, unless you're really into oxygen deprivation.

Anonymous said...

Times Square (where the eff would it be? I'm not familiar with streets maps of the US)

Very interesting.

I thought it was only Americans who were ignorant about the rest of the world. Times Square is just about the most famous crossroads in America. I find it extremely interesting that one of our foreign friends here who professes to know so much about Americans, U.S. media, government, culture (or lack thereof), etc. has no idea where Times Square is.

Something to definitely take into consideration while reading your "informed" views of America.

Anonymous said...

@Usual Anon, 5/15/2005 04:35:33 AM.

"Racism is OK when practiced by anyone other than Americans. Every time you say 'apes-at-arms', italian, you destroy any credibility for your argument. Unless you also think it would help my argument to rant about 'sand monkeys'. You wouldn't like that, though, right? You'd call me a racist idiot, right?"

Wrong you are, my poor warmongerer (nice alliteration, ain't it?). Are you Bushist Ahmehwicans a 'race'? No, you are not. Physically, you come in all colours humans can have, black, white, yellow & whatever.
Trouble is that you warmongering Americans do not reason like normal human beings, but like aggressive 3-5 year olds of an especially stupid kind, with no nuances, in stark binary-thinking, gullible & cruel as they make them.
Are you a human 'race'? For sure, thanks be to God, you are not. Possibly you are the beginning of a new species, a quite nasty species of four-handed beasts, striving to rule over all humans in the world.
Am I a 'racist' for pointing that out? No, but for sure I'm a 'specist'! Human beings cannot tolerate to be lorded over by armed & bullish apes, be them chimps, or gorillas, or orang-utans, or Bushist Americans like you are.
Do you accept my explanation?

Anonymous said...

Trouble is that your mass-media won't show it

How long are you Europeans going to lie to yourselves?

Where did the world first see the Abu Ghraib pictures?

Answer: U.S. mass media. Specifically, CBS News.

Where did the world first see the video of the Marine shooting the Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque?

Answer: U.S. mass media. Specifically, NBC news.

Frankly, the old "your media is lying to you and you're brainwashed" argument is not only obviously false but getting truly tiresome in its uninformed repetition by those who have no idea what they're talking about. By the way, many of these news organizations are based in Times Square. Ever heard of it? I hear it's pretty famous.

Anonymous said...

Are you a human 'race'? For sure, thanks be to God, you are not. Possibly you are the beginning of a new species, a quite nasty species of four-handed beasts, striving to rule over all humans in the world.

It's fun watching you self-destruct in front of our very eyes, Italian. I think I'll grab some popcorn, sit back and watch the show.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous, 5/15/2005 05:22:55 AM.

OK, let's take it as a promise on your part. If we (including our host Truth Teller) are right, and you get the draft in the US this summer, then you'll be there naked in Times Square, NY (are you sure your nick of the woods is the proper centre of Planet Earth, Anon? we are not). Please, make sure you send a photo to Truth Teller, to let us know.
In that case, one would have to make a marginal reappraisal of the species you belong to; one would have to say, 'Oh, strange, these apes are able to keep their word! Why, up to now we never noticed!".
Cheers, Anon.

Anonymous said...

OK, let's take it as a promise on your part. If we (including our host Truth Teller) are right, and you get the draft in the US this summer, then you'll be there naked in Times Square, NY

Absolutely. Let's make it fair, though. If you're wrong... well, I won't make you appear naked. I wouldn't want to embarrass you. Tell ya what, all you'll have to do is make a brief note here saying "I was wrong". I think that's eminently fair. Deal?

(are you sure your nick of the woods is the proper centre of Planet Earth, Anon? we are not).

Hmmm, not sure what that means. I detect a distinctly European inferiority complex again, reading things into it that I never said. Did it say it was the center of Planet Earth? No. Simply "just about the most famous crossroads in America", which it certainly is. For someone, such as yourself, who claims to know so much about the U.S. mass media, U.S. culture and Americans in general I find your ignorance about this basic well-known place rather shocking. Seems you don't know nearly as much as you thought you did about America. Something to ponder.

In that case, one would have to make a marginal reappraisal of the species you belong to; one would have to say, 'Oh, strange, these apes are able to keep their word! Why, up to now we never noticed!".

And the self-destruction continues unabated. Oh, your buddies here must be so proud to find themselves allied with you. I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying this little unexpected sideshow. :-)

Anonymous said...

@Resident US Anon.

"Tell ya what, all you'll have to do is make a brief note here saying 'I was wrong'. I think that's eminently fair. Deal?".

For sure, Anon. Humans are able to say "I was wrong". While, after one year & a half of reading your comments on Iraqi blogs, I cannot remember one of your warmongering crowd ever admitting such a thing as "I was wrong", despite the unfounded promises they made to the poor Iraqi bloggers, the 'think positive' crap, the 'you Iraqis should be grateful', etc. etc. (because, you know, honour & decency seem to be different among some Americans from the way they are conceived among people).

As for my 'specism' you object to, I do feel that it is important that you enthusiastic Americans warmongerers get introduced to the way most people in the world see you. Where you see 'American Heroes' in action (i.e. Najaf, Fallujah, Qaim), most people in the world see instead a bunch of criminal, cowardly & undisciplined mass murderers, a street-gang of mad animals; where you believe you made & articulated a mighty point, those in the rest of the world see only some rather mentally handicapped liars blabbering like fanatical idiots, in such an incompetent way (as far as lying skills go) that no adult human ever would. Some reality check sometime, Anon., please.

@Moron99.

Do not worry. We'll see fast enough.

Anonymous said...

"Tell ya what, all you'll have to do is make a brief note here saying 'I was wrong'. I think that's eminently fair. Deal?".

For sure, Anon.

Good. Lookin' forward to it, buddy. :-)

Anonymous said...

BAH, we got there Dec 6 2004. Within one week of us patrolling the sectors around RT Irish it was reopened. They only reclosed it after they sent us to Mosul...

Thats because we're the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are going...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

"1) a U.S. poll showing a majority of Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. You then asked what the U.S., being a democratic govt., should do in response." etc.

I suppose you are telling me that invading Iraq was a mistake, but seeing that you were there you could as well compound your initial mistake... Any normal people would say: "Oops! Sorry guys, we will be leaving presently...". But you, not being quite normal, prefer to kill a couple of thousand more innocent people before being forced out. It's definitely a sign of intelligence to recognize one's mistakes and then going on making that mistake even bigger... You will have to repeat Vietnam all over again, isn't it? I suspect some of you are actually trying to win in Iraq the war you lost in Vietnam, so that the rest of the world will not be able to laugh at you anymore. Unfortunately for you, Iraq may simply become Vietnam II... with another wall in Arlington having to be built... Not that it would bother me a lot, except for the fact that Iraqis are paying the price of your stupid pride.

Anonymous said...

@Hurria.

"- but what the hell are you talking about? What is RT Irish?".

Route Irish is the funny name the US military gave to the road between the 'Green Zone' & the Baghdad Airport. Such a secret designation was 'classified' up to two weeks ago: then they made the blunder with the Calipari report (the .pdf file where it was possible to see the 'classified' parts), and the ludicrous secret name is out.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»