Dick Cheney 1991

Some­times there is really noth­ing more to say:

The notion that we ought to now go to Bagh­dad and some­how take con­trol of the coun­try strikes me as an extremely seri­ous one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d prob­a­bly have to put some new gov­ern­ment in place. It’s not clear what kind of gov­ern­ment that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved mil­i­tar­ily in deter­min­ing the out­come of the strug­gle over who’s going to gov­ern in Iraq strikes me as a clas­sic def­i­n­i­tion of a quagmire.

Sec­re­tary of Defense Dick Cheney speak­ing on NPR in 1991

Lis­ten to what he said in 1991 on NPR.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Dick Cheney 1991

  1. Chtistopher says:

    The only speech by any states­man that can bear reprint­ing from the low, dis­hon­est decade of the 90s came from Tony Blair when he spoke in Chicago in 1999. Wel­com­ing the defeat and over­throw of Milo­se­vic after the Kosovo inter­ven­tion, he warned against any self-satisfaction and drew atten­tion to an inescapable con­fronta­tion that was com­ing with Sad­dam Hus­sein. So far from being an Amer­i­can “poo­dle,” as his taunt­ing and igno­rant foes like to sneer, Blair had in fact leaned on Clin­ton over Kosovo and was insist­ing on the impor­tance of Iraq while George Bush was still an iso­la­tion­ist gov­er­nor of Texas

  2. Charles says:

    Nadia,

    Now I am off to work, night shif, as I said you can not change facts and this war started because of WMD and Iraq hav­ing links to alqaida and from there the spin­ning started.

    I think many peo­ple fail to real­ize that the US needed no spe­cial con­vinc­ing or prod­ding regard­ing the need to get rid of Sad­dam. We already fought him in 91, he had vio­lated the very terms of the cease fire bla­tantly for over a decade, and he was tar­get­ing our air­craft almost daily. We knew his track record and what we could expect from him. He had not changed one bit.

    Regard­ing WMD, we went in to ver­ify dis­ar­ma­ment once and for all because Sad­dam was inca­pable from the begin­ning of being truth­ful regard­ing dis­ar­ma­ment. Appar­ently hon­esty would have served him bet­ter. Let’s all shed a tear for dear old uncle Saddam.

    Regard­ing links to al quaeda, I think things have been spun by the lib­eral left and their fas­cist allies (what a combo!). Bush never said Sad­dam was behind 9/11. We already knew he was our enemy, we already knew he har­bored and spon­sored ter­ror­ists. These are estab­lished facts. Ter­ror­ists mur­dered thou­sands of our civil­ians in cold blood and we decided we would take the war to the ter­ror­ists and the coun­tries that sup­port terrorism.

    The 9/11 Com­mis­sion report con­clu­sions, which the lib­eral media cre­ated ban­ner head­lines scream­ing “No Con­nec­tion” between Sad­dam and Al Quaeda, have been falsely spun. The report was very clear that through­out the 90’s Sad­dam and al quaeda had made mutual offers of coop­er­a­tion and had met on numer­ous occa­sions that they knew of. One can assume they met more times that we didn’t know about. The num­ber of times is not crit­i­cal. The fact that our ene­mies were in nego­ti­a­tions and had offered each other sup­port is crit­i­cal. The report found that it had no con­vinc­ing evi­dence that Sad­dam was oper­a­tionally involved in the plan­ning and exe­cu­tion of 9/11. That doesn’t mean that their con­firmed unholy alliance was not a threat.

    Maybe that’s not enough for you. I’m not sure what is enough then. He slaugh­tered and tor­tured his own peo­ple, used WMD on them and neigh­bors, never agreed to the cease fire terms of the war that he started and lost, was in nego­ti­a­tions with al quaeda, and was by all stan­dards a nasty turd.

    Any one of the above (except the ‘turd’) should be cause enough for a just world com­mu­nity to take action.

    Only a few coun­tries did. And you blame them.

  3. Chtistopher says:

    A pos­i­tive account­ing of the efforts of United States,Great Britain and the other mem­bers of the pro=liberty Coali­tion would include:

    (1) The over­throw of Tal­iban­ism and Baathism, and the expo­sure of many highly sug­ges­tive links between the two ele­ments of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zar­qawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coali­tion inter­ven­tion, has even gone to the trou­ble of nam­ing his orga­ni­za­tion al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

    (2) The sub­se­quent capit­u­la­tion of Qaddafi’s Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction–a capit­u­la­tion that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

    (3) The con­se­quent unmask­ing of the A.Q. Khan net­work for the illicit trans­fer of nuclear tech­nol­ogy to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

    (4) The agree­ment by the United Nations that its own reform is nec­es­sary and over­due, and the unmask­ing of a quasi-criminal net­work within its elite.

    (5) The craven admis­sion by Pres­i­dent Chirac and Chan­cel­lor Schröder, when con­fronted with irrefutable evi­dence of cheat­ing and con­ceal­ment, respect­ing solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their com­mit­ment to neu­tral­ism. (One had already sus­pected as much in the Iraqi case.)

    (6) The abil­ity to cer­tify Iraq as actu­ally dis­armed, rather than accept the word of a psy­cho­pathic autocrat.

    (7) The immense gains made by the largest state­less minor­ity in the region–the Kurds–and the spread of this exam­ple to other states.

    (8) The related encour­age­ment of demo­c­ra­tic and civil soci­ety move­ments in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a ver­sion of its autonomy.

    (9) The vio­lent and igno­min­ious death of thou­sands of bin Ladenist infil­tra­tors into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarg­ing this number.

    (10) The train­ing and hard­en­ing of many thou­sands of Amer­i­can ser­vice­men and women in a bat­tle against the forces of nihilism and abso­lutism, which train­ing and hard­en­ing will surely be of great use in future combat.

  4. Charles says:

    Christo­pher,

    If you are ‘the’ Christo­pher we would all enjoy your direct par­tic­i­pa­tion in this forum.

    If you are not ‘the’ Christo­pher but rather some­one who likes his work and insists upon spam­ming it out to the forums, please refrain. Its annoy­ing when any­one does that — neo­con, islam­o­fas­cist, whoever.

    The’ Christo­pher would prob­a­bly make for com­pelling dis­cus­sion if he were to choose to engage in discussion.

    Not that I’m a mon­i­tor here or any­thing, but its just com­mon eti­quete within a dis­cus­sion forum.

  5. Chtistopher says:

    This is a pro­pa­ganda site, Charles — noth­ing so respectable as a dis­cus­sion forum unfor­tu­nately. I wish it were..

  6. Charles says:

    You are prob­a­bly right. It just irks me to the core (or at least nags at me a bit), when I read some of the igno­rant garbage posted on these sites.

  7. Chtistopher says:

    I under­stand Charles and i apol­o­gise to you per­son­ally for “pla­gia­ris­ing” the Hitch, but I feel that any tac­tic is suit­able in this kind of guerilla cyber war and with Hitch on this sub­ject it is a ques­tion of “what oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed”. It is prob­a­bly the only way this blog owner is going to get to read it.

  8. Charles says:

    Ok — Mutual apolo­gies — etc., etc. Post­ing it once is prob­a­bly fine any­way. Enough said.

  9. Halliburton Oil says:

    Sur­prise Sur­prise, “Mike” McCheesey flashes her (|) to Kat­rina on the last thread. “How Sad! Let’s hope Kat­rina flat­tens the whole of NO and LA, it’s noth­ing less than they deserve.”

    This from the gal who claimed she was a mem­ber of the Peace Move­ment in Texas not so long ago!

    Haven trou­ble keep­ing of the lies are we “Mikey”!! LOL~!!

    Once again cry babies..ALL YOUR OIL BELONGS TO US!!

  10. Halliburton Oil says:

    Girls,

    Islam The Reli­gion Of Pieces™

  11. Jon says:

    To Chtisto­pher– “This is a pro­pa­ganda site, Charles — noth­ing so respectable as a dis­cus­sion forum unfortunately.”

    And I sup­posed the right-wing rhetoric of the sites you seem to pre­fer fre­quent­ing have the straight skinny on every­thing, right?

    The truth is prob­a­bly some­where in between. Sad­dam was indeed a bas­tard, blah blah blah, and should have been killed. Bush, while pos­si­bly not lying when he made his case against Iraq blah blah blah, indeed mis­rep­re­sented the facts and the US has no legal basis for attack­ing Iraq. Yes, peo­ple can speak their minds openly on the streets of Bagh­dad. Yes, you could fill the holds of fifty oil tankers with the corpses of those who died dur­ing the process. But the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion is that Sad­dam is gone, Iraqis want the US out, the US has no right to impose it’s will over another sov­er­eign nation and the polite thing would be to get out. Let them work it out for them­selves. If Iraq requires US inter­ven­tion in the future, it’ll ask for it.

    To Every­one– BTW… this isn’t a con­test, it’s a blog. Who­ever posts (pastes) the high­est num­ber of char­ac­ters doesn’t auto­mat­i­cally win.

    Also, from what I can gather, this blog is the sole prop­erty of Lady­Bird and as such, when here, it would be con­sid­ered in many cir­cles the right thing to do, to treat her with cour­tesy and respect. You should act as if she’s invited you into her house for tea and crum­pets by allow­ing you the space to post (puke?) in her blog.

  12. Nadia_4iraqis says:

    Chtisto­pher
    “This is a pro­pa­ganda site, Charles”

    Agree some of CMARII and Charles com­ments do sound as pure pro-war pro­pa­ganda. But nev­er­the­less they have their right to say things too. The fact is this pro war pro­pa­ganda is not work­ing any­more, peo­ple have seen thru it. It can be redraped with bet­ter clever words but the con­tent is the same and many peo­ple know that now.

  13. Nadia_4iraqis says:

    But the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion is that Sad­dam is gone, Iraqis want the US out, the US has no right to impose it’s will over another sov­er­eign nation and the polite thing would be to get out. Let them work it out for themselves.”

    Thank you Jon, you have sum­moned it up perfectly.

  14. Michael says:

    Yes­ter­day was inter­est­ing, if you like that kind of thing, I wasted a great deal of it try­ing patiently to explain to Charles that the inva­sion of Iraq was all about oil, only to be met with a blank denial and dis­re­gard for the facts. Inter­est­ingly he’s unable to come up with an alter­na­tive the­ory why the USA has already spent $800 per man, woman and child in Iraq if it’s not for the oil.
    Then there was the aptly named “moron” who tried to tell us that there was no attempt by the US Gov­ern­ment to per­suade the peo­ple that Iraq had WMD, although in fact link­ing Iraq to WMD still con­tin­ues to this day.
    So what can we con­clude from this? I think it’s quite obvi­ous that many of the right wing Amer­i­cans cur­rently pol­lut­ing this blog have no inten­tion what­so­ever to be hon­est and just wish to con­tinue spout­ing the same old tired pathetic pro­pa­ganda, talk about Nero fid­dling while Rome is burn­ing. I have to say it’s not with­out humour. :)

  15. Michael says:

    Chtisto­pher wrote “but I feel that any tac­tic is suit­able in this kind of guerilla cyber war and with Hitch on this subject.”

    Well that explains it right there, not much point in tak­ing any­thing they write seriously

  16. Chtrstopher says:

    Actu­ally Jon, I invite her into MY house where SHE pukes on my screen. “She” is as far as one can infer from the evi­dence a polit­i­cal hack prob­a­bly in the pay of the pro­pa­ganda depart­ment of some tin-pot autoc­tratic goven­ment or ditto polit­i­cal party (either black or red fas­cist). I sus­pect that she has a thick black mous­tache and some­times calls her­self “Michael” who is the other reg­u­lar nihilist who posts on the rapidly chang­ing but con­stantly simple-monded anti-American themes here. How about your views on gen­i­tal muti­la­tion in the Mid­dle East­ern coun­tries who, by impli­ca­tion, are so much more civilised than the United States, Lady­bird? Do you ever think out­side the box? How about a thread invit­ing com­ments on how the tenth anniver­sary of the exe­cu­tion in Cairo of the pig Sayyid Qutb as a lit­tle vari­ety from your monot­one plaint of “Down with Amer­ica”? That scum’s ideas can be trtaced back to ama­jor cause for the USA hav­ing to come to the res­cue of Iraq.

    Michael, I would not expect you to try to wres­tle with any­thing more demand­ing that Ladybird’s anti-American slogans.Why not for a change take a look at the vile fas­cist tra­di­tions in Mohammed’s kooky reli­gion just as an intel­lec­tual exer­cise to cut your teeth on and to see if just pos­si­bly there might be some other ele­ment in the Mid­dle East oth­ere than the Amer­i­cans for all the suf­fer­ing and back­ward chaos there — surely you find your anti-American dia­tribes a lit­tle bor­ing, even to yourself?

  17. Michael says:

    Another one high on some ille­gal sub­stance. Best stick to “Looney Tunes” Hal. :)

  18. Michael says:

    Lis­ten up, You Christo-Fascist bul­lies … it’s high time some­body called you out
    http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=45684

    If he [Hugo Chávez] thinks we’re try­ing to assas­si­nate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than start­ing a war. And I don’t think any oil ship­ments will stop.” — Pat Robertson

    Mus­lims want to rule the world. They want to take over the whole world. That’s their evil pur­pose … of them are very harsh. There’s no ten­der­ness or love.” [Where do you get your infor­ma­tion about the war?]

    The Bible and the 700 Club. I also lis­ten to preach­ers who know what’s going on. Pat Robert­son.” — Mary Fowler, 54, Okla­homa House­keeper, excerpted from Rose Aguila’s “Sto­ries in America”

    Lis­ten up, Rev­erend Robert­son, Mary Fowler — every last one of you Apos­tles of Per­pet­ual Psy­chosis — it’s time that you were called out.

    Cyrano’s Jour­nal Online con­tribut­ing edi­tor Phil Rock­stroh writes: The time is long past due the rest of us ceased our cow­er­ing and stood up to you Christo-fascists bullies.

    The hour has come round that we look you straight in your bulging, true believer eyes, and told you that we’ve had it with your smug­ness, with your blood-drenched cru­sades, with your vic­tim men­tal­ity — and wit the mad­ness begot by this cracked-brain belief sys­tem of yours, which all began (accord­ing to your sacred delu­sions) more than two thou­sand years ago, when, at the behest of a wicked cabal, a mob of mammon-worshipping, blood-lusting rab­ble went on a cos­mic killing-spree and mur­dered your god.

    First off, let’s get one thing straight: No one ever killed anyone’s god (not Jews, nor Romans, nor Geeks play­ing Dun­geons and Drag­ons) — although it’s time some­body nailed you, you col­lec­tion of con­flated fail­ures at Chris­t­ian mar­tyr­dom, to a meta­phys­i­cal cross of reality.

    It’s high time some­one told you out­right that you must be suf­fer­ing from holy water on the brain, if you think we can’t see you for what you are: a klav­ern of coun­ter­feit prophets wax­ing psy­chotic for other cretinous hypocrites.

    Also, you can cease play­ing the per­se­cuted party, when­ever some­one stands up to you — because we’re no longer buy­ing that ploy.
    Remem­ber, you’re the ones who threw the first, epi­taphic stones. It was you who labeled us a mob of Hell-bound, Satan-pimping sodomist … Although — as much fun as that sounds — I must ask you, where do you get the unmit­i­gated gall to make such insane claims? When did the golden light of the sun aban­don its posi­tion in the east­ern hori­zon and begin ris­ing, each morn­ing, from out of your silly, neo-Iron Ageasses?

    And tell me this, you medieval­ist simps, you delu­sional, ret­ro­grade dip****s — how is it pos­si­ble that you became privy to such time­less truths — that the mind of the “One True God” is avail­able to you, and that God’s words and wishes res­onate through yawn­ing mil­len­nia to be under­stood only by you — and you alone?

    Look­ing back on the rise of you Christo-fascist *******s, I’m mor­ti­fied as to how it came to be socially and polit­i­cally accept­able for you to bandy such vicious and demented asser­tions in the pub­lic arena, with­out them meet­ing with the deri­sion they deserve … And don’t bother going into one of your pat victim-swoons over being called on it, because when you go so far as to claim that you alone have been bestowed with the secrets of bound­less cre­ation — and that any­one who chooses not to buy into your ver­sion of events will be con­demned to the tor­ments of eter­nal damna­tion — then you can bet your fatu­ous asses that your asi­nine asser­tions will be ridiculed. What in the blue blazes did you expect, for us sim­ply to fall to our col­lec­tive knees before you?

    Yet, I fear that’s exactly what you expect from us.

    Could I sug­gest an alter­na­tive idea? Would you sim­ply let the rest of us be? Would it be pos­si­ble for you to keep your life-defying delu­sions to your­self — keep them within the air­less con­fines of your bigotry-riddled churches and the cramped quar­ters of your own minds?

    If that’s the way you choose to spend the pass­ing hours of this finite life, it’s fine by me. But when you start your habit­ual pros­e­ly­tiz­ing, then you should be pre­pared to be told that a great many of us think your cos­mo­log­i­cal con­cep­tions are a steam­ing pile of behe­moth dung.

    And, while we’re on the sub­ject, for the longest time, I’ve been want­ing to tell you this: If Jesus died for my pathetic sins — then he flat-out overreacted.

    What makes this sit­u­a­tion all the more unset­tling is you believe these creepy, death-enamored myths are lit­er­ally true. Instead, I sug­gest you try the fol­low­ing: Rather than attempt­ing to com­mune with Jesus, the Vir­gin Mary, the Holy Ghost (or Casper the Friendly Ghost) or the Lucky Charms Lep­rechaun — why don’t you attempt to chan­nel the departed spir­its of Voltaire or H. L. Mencken? There will be no oth­er­worldly con­jur­ing (or con jobs) required to per­form this mir­a­cle: sim­ply go to the pub­lic library and check out their books.

    Once there, you might want to stop by the sci­ence sec­tion, as well, where you could hap­pen upon a few delusion-decimating tid­bits such as the fol­low­ing: While your bible tells you that the earth is a shade over seven thou­sand years old, the actual fig­ure is (approx­i­mately) 4.6 bil­lion years. How do you account for the slight dis­crep­ancy of say … 4,599,993,000 years? And that num­ber is derived when cal­cu­lated against the approx­i­mated age of the earth — not that of the uni­verse, which is esti­mated to be between ten to twenty bil­lion years old.

    You can do the math on that one, all you reality-challenged Chil­dren of the Lord.

    And those aren’t the only things in your bible that just don’t add up. In your Book of Joshua (10:13) it is stated that God com­manded the sun to stand still in the sky … Really now? Par­don me … but how is it pos­si­ble that this omni­scient god of yours, who you believe cre­ated the earth and heav­ens, all by his divine lone­some, didn’t real­ize the sim­ple fact that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth?

    Fur­ther­more, he was appar­ently igno­rant of numer­ous smaller details as well, such as, wherein Matthew (13:32) he iden­ti­fied mus­tard seeds as “[…] the small­est of seeds.” How can it be that the cre­ator of the uni­verse could have had such an embar­rass­ing lapse of basic knowl­edge on the sub­ject of botany?

    And what about the many other lapses in logic (flights of fan­tasy that are insane by any stan­dard, with the excep­tion of the sub­lime logic found in the idiom of car­toons) such as the one about the fel­low who sur­vived, for three days and three nights, in the stom­ach of a mon­strous fish (Jonah 1:17) — and what was up with that wacky, talk­ing don­key in Num­bers (22:28)? We’re in Looney Tunes ter­ri­tory now, all you highly sug­gestible Idiots of God. Plus, in a car­toon uni­verse, such as the one described in the Book of Exo­dus, why didn’t The All-Mighty, instead of lev­el­ing plagues and pesti­lence upon the guilty and inno­cent alike in Egypt, sim­ply, drop an ACME anvil down from heaven on the head of Pharaoh and been done with it?

    Which brings up the sub­ject of the deplorable cru­elty of your deity of choice. Ergo, isn’t this a lovely, lit­tle pas­sage from Deuteron­omy (32:23–25)? “I will spend mine arrows upon them … The sword with­out, and ter­ror within, shall destroy both the young man and the vir­gin, the suck­ling also with the man of gray hairs.”

    Then there is this lovely bit of divinely inspired baby killing and faith-based rape from Isa­iah (13:9,15–18): “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger … Every one that is found shall be thrust through … Their chil­dren also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes… and their wives rav­ished. Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them… [T]hey shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.”

    Worse, your striv­ing to make these patho­log­i­cal rav­ings man­i­fest have resulted in tragic con­se­quences. As is the case with your cur­rent, geno­ci­dal adven­ture in Iraq, where you believed the venge­ful ghosts of the Cru­sades could be dis­patched, dis­solved in the beatific light flar­ing from the bombs that your holy (arm­chair) war­rior, Com­man­der and Chief ordered dropped from Kabul to Bagh­dad … In your mad­ness, you believed you could make the citadels of the New Jerusalem man­i­fest in Mesopotamia. Upon every bomb det­o­na­tion, you were cer­tain that the hea­then hordes cow­ered before your right­eous fury, that ghost and demon would flee back to Hell, and the wicked would trem­bled before your sacred fury. Now, of course, that all worked out just like you saw it in your head before­hand — didn’t it?

    As we speak, your Armies of the Lord (who more closely reassem­ble a col­lec­tion of eco­nomic con­scripts) wince and stum­ble, blinded by blown blood and squalls of sear­ing sand … The desert wind taunts you true believ­ers; your visions of con­quest evap­o­rate, as the piti­less sun glares down upon the folly of yet another legion of hubris­tic Cru­saders, who came to free the hea­then hordes from their brutish igno­rance — by way of reliev­ing them of the con­fus­ing bur­den of their untapped wealth.

    Of course, the only small rec­om­pense you ask from these mon­u­men­tal ingrates is unfet­tered access to their oil. And the only rea­son for that is: a pur­pose as exalted as yours requires a great amount of energy to sus­tain its radi­ant glory; such a self­less enter­prise of holi­ness demands a few rewards for the long suf­fer­ing Chris­t­ian mar­tyrs on the home front — because American’s God-kissed flocks of pious con­sumers must be per­mit­ted to sit, in per­pe­tu­ity, high above the road­ways of the land, serene within their over-sized pick-up trucks, SUVs, and RVs — their junk food-bloated coun­te­nances must never be dark­ened by want, doubt, nor self-reproach.

    In accor­dance with this self-referential lunacy, you ser­mo­nized that Satan’s earthly emis­saries, such as Hugo Chavez, should be right­eously slaugh­tered — because he and his ilk scheme to deprive Amer­i­can dri­vers of their God-given right to the oil, which, incon­ve­niently, hap­pens to be located beneath lands belong­ing to incon­se­quen­tial people.

    Those brown-skin, oil hoard­ing wretches, down in Venezuela and their false idol-clutching coun­ter­parts in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, must be taught that God, seated upon his golden throne, scorns the sight of their iniq­ui­tous ways.

    The King­dom of the Lord stands before us, you pro­claim … If we lis­ten closely, we can hear the voice of God above as he counts his money. Fur­ther­more, the era of George W. Bush has brought a new rev­e­la­tion: If America’s plu­to­cratic class had even more blood money — then the Baby Jesus would smile.

    The Rev­erend Pat Robert­son, Mary Fowler — and every last one of you Apos­tles of Per­pet­ual Psy­chosis — lis­ten up. Given the self-evident fact that your beliefs bring lit­tle relief to your own trou­bled souls and have, on the whole, served to engen­der tragedy world­wide, don’t you think it’s time you gave it a rest for while. In other words, this is a polite way of sug­gest­ing to you that you shut your pie-in-the-sky hole and take stock of the things you’re say­ing — because your utter­ances are becom­ing sicker and sad­der, by the hour.

    If not, you could, at least, in the words, of Tom Waits, “Come down off the cross — we can use the wood.”

  19. CMAR II says:

    Nadia says:
    So yes I acknowl­edge their legal right but I do not and will never use weapons to imple­ment peace.

    Ah, yes! YOU would never use weapons to imple­ment peace. You will only cheer on the beasts who blow up cars in Iraqi streets and tar­get civil ser­vants, police, Iraqi secu­rity forces and their fam­i­lies. What about the Syr­i­ans, Jor­da­ni­ans, and Iraq­ni­ans com­ing into the coun­try to fight the Infi­del and kill Iraqis? Are their actions legal as well? Do you really believe that after the civil war starts when the Coali­tion cuts-and-runs, they will go home?

    Don’t imag­ine that because you do your work from the side­lines, you have kept your hands clean from your guys’ activ­i­ties. I’m proud to sup­port what the Coali­tion forces, the Iraqi gov­ern­ment, the Iraqi police, the Iraq secu­rity forces, and the employ­ees of the Iraq water, power, and oil depart­ments (who all risk their lives to do their jobs every­day) are attempt­ing to do build a free, pros­per­ous, and demo­c­ra­tic Iraq. Unlike you, it doesn’t weigh on my con­science to stand with my cho­sen side.

    You are wel­come to your side, Nadia. I know my side will win.

  20. moron99 says:

    Nadia, if the peo­ple of Iraq wish the MNF to leave, then they merely need to vote as such. In the new Iraq the opin­ion of each per­son is equal to that of every other. All opin­ions are counted as equal and tal­lied in the form of vot­ing. If the major­ity of Iraqis agree with you then so too will the major­ity of MPs.

    It is a new Iraq. The abil­ity of the Sunni to dom­i­nate is over. ISF offi­cers are begin­ning to emerge and the 170,000 dis­or­ga­nized troops are begin­ning to find their lead­ers. They have achieved crit­i­cal mass and by mid-winter will be able to forcibly evict insur­gent ele­ments from any province or town. The choice for Sunni lead­ers is no longer whether or not they wish to rule Iraq. It is whether or not they wish to sur­vive. The choice for you is whether or not to fol­low them.

    You should read the con­sti­tu­tion for your­self. Then com­pare it to the words of the insur­gent lead­ers. They wish to incite fear and dis­trust where no basis exists. The con­sti­tu­tion clearly states that no province may enact laws that vio­late the con­sti­tu­tion. It clearly states that no act is a crime unless a law is passed and that no law may be passed with­out leg­isla­tive approval. It places the rule of law above the will of cleric. It clearly states that oil rev­enue is a national asset and dis­tri­b­u­tion is to be con­trolled from Bagdhad. It clearly states that the court sys­tem is inde­pen­dant, that the mil­i­tary is under civil­lian con­trol, and that power shall be peace­fully rotated every four years. The cries of AMS and oth­ers are false­hoods prop­a­gated to cre­ate fear and dis­trust. What is really and truly wrong with the con­sti­tu­tion is that Iraq will never again have a dic­ta­tor for so long as it remains in effect.

  21. Michael says:

    These Yan­quis write like noth­ing is their fault. :)
    Just to bring this one back to real­ity per­haps it’s time to remind him that not a sin­gle death would be occur­ring in Iraq right now if it hadn’t been for the ille­gal oil invasion.

    The USA will and is being defeated in Iraq and the USA will also lose the eco­nomic war which they’ve brought down on their own heads, with far more seri­ous con­se­quences.
    When that hap­pens I feel Bush sup­port­ers are going to be hard to find . :)

  22. Michael says:

    Nadia, if the peo­ple of Iraq wish the MNF to leave, then they merely need to vote as such.”

    Yes right :) The USA must be pretty con­fi­dant they will not oth­er­wise they wouldn’t have planned these long term mil­i­tary bases in Iraq, par­tic­u­larly around the oil instal­la­tions.
    It’s a bit like Poland ask­ing the Ger­mans to leave, the very thought is very funny.

  23. DaKruser says:

    That’s crap, Georgy, and you know it. It must really hurt you to real­ize that Democ­racy really is at work in Iraq, and that the Sun­nis are begin­ning to under­stand that their only hope is through the ballot-box. I know our side is win­ning now, because you are begin­ning to bleat the same old “It was rigged!!! They CHEATED!!” stuff that I pre­dicted you would use a cou­ple of months ago.
    Thank you for being so very pre­dictable. We, that being the peo­ple who give 1/2 a shit about the Iraqi peo­ple are glad to see these accu­sa­tions come out. It only proves that the Iraqi peo­ple really do under­stand the con­cept of Democ­racy, and that those oth­ers have admit­ted their defeat. It is not about whether or not THIS Con­sti­tu­tion is accepted. It never HAS been about that. It is about all por­tions of the Iraqi pop­u­lace buy­ing in to the process. I’m sure you would rather use the term “co-opted”. Ok, if that makes you feel bet­ter, then I will admit that is exactly what I would have hoped for. Buying-in or being Co-opted, really just a mat­ter of seman­tics. Peo­ple real­ize that the Ballot-box is the only way to resolve dif­feer­ences in Iraq, NOT through the AK, is a good thing no mat­ter. Democ­racy, like Free­dom of Speech goes both ways. One has to take the bad with the good, and just because you don’t like what is voted on, or said, you have to deal with it and make the best out of the sit­u­a­tion.
    Get used to it Georgy. Your hopes of the US being run out of Iraq on a rail, are being squashed by the Sun­nis join­ing this process.

  24. Nadia_4iraqis says:

    You know Michael, the rul­ing par­ties one of their aims in the elec­tions was to demand the occu­pa­tion troops to leave Iraq and start­ing with a set date. That made a lot of peo­ple vote for them.

    But Jaa­fari et al are not ful­fill­ing their elec­tion promise; they are doing exactly the opposite.

    The future of Iraq; 18 stu­dent unions statement/petition for the occu­pa­tion troops to leave Iraq was pre­sented to the par­la­ment which had peo­ple who fully agreed with them but the gov­ern­ment did not lis­ten. Ama­rah the town I lived in once, a month or so ago had 1 mil­lion sig­na­tures ask­ing for the occu­pa­tion troops to leave and set a date now; nobody listens.

  25. Michael says:

    Nadia we both know that the Amer­i­cans are not going to leave even if asked politely. They haven’t spent $220 bil­lion just to leave like good lit­tle lambs, they are there for the oil and will stay for the oil, until removed of course.

  26. Michael says:

    It’s inter­est­ing just how many sim­u­la­ril­ties there are between the ille­gal oil inva­sion of Iraq by the New­World­Nazis and what the old­world­nazis got up to.

    1) One of the rea­sons Hitler gave for invad­ing Poland/Czechoslovakia was that he was lib­er­at­ing a per­cent­age of the pop­u­la­tion from oppres­sion.
    2) Hitler argued that the Gov­ern­ment of Poland and Czecho­slo­va­kia were not democ­ra­cies and that the Ger­man pop­u­la­tion of those coun­tries did not have “self deter­mi­na­tion”.
    3)Hitler invaded Czecho­slo­va­kia in par­tic­u­lar to con­trol the huge coal fields required for his war effort.
    4) Ger­many com­pletely ignored Inter­na­tional Law as set by the League of Nations and con­tin­u­ously crit­i­cised their work and efforts to bring peace..
    5) Hitler believed that if you con­tin­u­ously re-stated lies that even­tu­ally a high pro­por­tion of peo­ple would accept them as fac­tual and even when proved so, some peo­ple would con­tinue to state the lies for fear of appear­ing stu­pid.
    6) Before invad­ing Poland/Czechoslovakia Hitler used his over­whelm­ing air power to destroy enemy tanks.
    7) Hitler’s SS used ille­gal tor­ture meth­ods to inter­ro­gate the resis­tance.
    8) The Ger­mans held and killed hostages in retal­i­a­tion to Ger­mans being killed. But as far as I know never held chil­dren as hostages such as those held by the US Army in Iraq last week.
    9) Hitler claimed that Poland had actu­ally invaded Ger­many in the first instance and that they were a threat,
    10) Hitler was will­ing to destroy entire towns/villages to sup­press Resis­tance and also used what were con­sid­ered ille­gal weapons.

  27. DaKruser says:

    Georgy, PLEASE. Ttop with the bold font. It in no way makes your words more pow­er­ful, mean­ing­ful, or more true than any­one else’s. Do us all a favor, and only high­light the words you want to empha­size. Oth­er­wise you merely look like Kruschev pound­ing his shoe on the podium scream­ing “WE WILL BURY YOU!!!”.
    It really has become quite bor­ing read­ing your stuff, Georgy. It seems you and Nadia have devel­oped your own lit­tle mutual-admiration soci­ety, but I have to admit that at least Nadia’s moti­va­tions are pure. She is a paci­fist. I’m not, but at least I can under­stand her. Yours have always been that you want the US to get some sort of come-uppance in Iraq.
    It wouldn’t mat­ter to you if well over 65% of Iraqis voted on this Con­sti­tu­tion, you would still con­tend that the US some­how “FIXED” it. As I said in a pre­vi­ous post, I’m glad you have begun to wail out these accu­sa­tions. It only indi­cates that even YOU know the so-called Resis­tance is basi­cally over. Now all there is left is to drive out the Jihadis. Wait, though, I guess THEY are the only “LOYAL” Iraqis left. No, wait. They aren’t Iraqis. Nev­er­mind. THEY CHEATED!!!! BUSH LIED!!!! OIL, OIL, OIL!!!!! NO FAIR!!! How’s that? I have summed up your entire argue­ment in less than one line. I even added a bunch of !‘s to fill up the basic void of your drone.

  28. Michael says:

    David per­haps I should start call­ing you “Tokyo Rose”. I see this con­sti­tu­tion as being totally irrel­e­vant. There needs to be elec­tions that true but those can­not be car­ried out under the con­trol of an occu­py­ing power. USA out first, UN in and then it will be time for elec­tions.
    US casu­al­i­ties are far higher than being reported by the con­trolled US media, but here’s one that man­aged to get though.

    Insur­gency con­cen­trated in areas along Euphrates River
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050825/ts_
    krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_battleground_wa&printer=1;_ylt=Ak0vZJj.9BslgJSR
    8xesyaXF_8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE–
    By Tom Las­seter, Thu Aug 25, 6:03 PM ET

    RAMADI, Iraq — Iraq’s insur­gency has con­cen­trated much of its fight against U.S. and Iraqi forces in towns along the murky waters of the Euphrates River, begin­ning with Qaim on the Syr­ian bor­der and run­ning through towns such as Haditha, Haqlaniya, Hit, Ramadi and Fal­lu­jah. They’re all in Anbar province, the heart­land of Iraq’s Sunni Mus­lim minor­ity, which dom­i­nated the gov­ern­ment under Sad­dam Hussein.

    In the cities where U.S. forces have set up bases — such as Ramadi and Fal­lu­jah — the fight­ing has destroyed much of the infra­struc­ture but failed to com­pletely secure the areas. In smaller towns, Amer­i­can forces launch repeated raids to clear the streets of insur­gents only to see them return as soon as the Marines and sol­diers are gone.

    Three weeks of report­ing embed­ded with Amer­i­can troops in Anbar’s main cen­ters of guer­rilla resis­tance found that U.S. forces are fail­ing to make head­way, and some com­man­ders fear that much of the mil­i­tary effort is wasted.
    “It doesn’t do much good to push them out of these areas only to let them go back to areas we’ve already cleared,” said Lt. Col. Tim Mundy, who com­mands the 3rd Bat­tal­ion of the 2nd Marine Reg­i­ment. Mundy, 40, of Way­nesville, N.C., whose bat­tal­ion is based in Qaim, added: “We’re suc­cess­ful at tak­ing some of his equip­ment and killing some insur­gents, but the effec­tive­ness is lim­ited because we can’t stay … we go back to camp and then we get reports that they’ve come back in.”

    - In Fal­lu­jah, a city that Marines and sol­diers retook from insur­gents last Novem­ber in the heav­i­est urban com­bat since Viet­nam, fight­ers have begun to return and renew their intim­i­da­tion campaign.

    As we all know, we have muja­hedeen oper­at­ing in small squads through­out the city,” Marine Sgt. Manuel Fran­quez said before lead­ing a patrol in Fal­lu­jah last week, using an Ara­bic term that means “holy warrior.”

    On the city streets, Franquez’s men passed just north of where a sui­cide car bomber had killed five Marines, includ­ing four women, in late June. Scorch marks still blacken the pavement.

    Guer­rilla fight­ers have blown up one police sta­tion under con­struc­tion twice and kid­napped and exe­cuted a con­trac­tor who was involved in the project. At two other unfin­ished police sta­tions, con­certina wire and a series of obser­va­tion posts manned by Iraqi sol­diers with AK-47s pro­tect the bricks.

    A series of check­points locked down the city after November’s assault. Mil­i­tary offi­cials called it the safest city in Iraq. Now the area is attacked four to nine times each day, includ­ing by road­side bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and sniper fire. Car bombs aver­age two a week.

    - Ramadi, the provin­cial cap­i­tal, had a func­tion­ing down­town cor­ri­dor two years ago, where par­ents walked with chil­dren and ate lunch at tables out­side kabob shops. Today, the street is pocked with holes from bombs intended for U.S. con­voys, store­fronts are ripped by shrap­nel, bul­let holes tat­too walls, build­ings have been blown to rub­ble by Amer­i­can mis­sile strikes and insur­gent mor­tar vol­leys, and roofs are caved in by U.S. bomb­ing. At the main base in Ramadi, Amer­i­can artillery booms every night, send­ing more shells to pound insur­gent posi­tions in and around the city.

    Insur­gents attack about 77 times a day in Iraq, accord­ing to Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the top mil­i­tary spokesman in Iraq. In the Ramadi area alone, which has about 400,000 peo­ple, there are eight to 10 attacks daily, accord­ing to the office of Col. John Gron­ski, 49, of Moosic, Pa., who com­mands the Army task force that’s respon­si­ble for Ramadi.
    Guer­rilla fight­ers have badly dam­aged or destroyed eight of 10 police sta­tions. The police force there has been scrapped and is being rebuilt.

    Col. Regis Cardiff, the deputy com­mand­ing offi­cer of the U.S. Army task force that’s respon­si­ble for Ramadi, the 28th Infantry Divi­sion, rode through down­town recently.

    The last time he’d left the base, a road­side bomb hit his con­voy. A week ear­lier, an insurgent’s 82 mm mor­tar round crashed into the chow hall where he eats.

    Watch­ing the streetscape pass by, Cardiff mut­tered, “the wild, wild west.”

    You hate to see any­thing like that. I’m sure this was a pretty city at one time,” said Cardiff, who’s from Pitts­burgh. He acknowl­edged that if the fight­ing con­tin­ues he’s not sure whether a down­town will be left.

    - In west­ern Anbar, Marines have made a series of quick raids on towns includ­ing Kara­bi­lah, Haditha and Haqlaniya. But as soon as the Marines leave, typ­i­cally after about a week sweep­ing through houses, the insur­gents fil­ter back in and set up base again, mil­i­tary offi­cials said.

    If you go to an area and you don’t stay in that area, the insur­gency will return to that area and intim­i­date the local pop­u­la­tion,” said Lt. Col Lionel Urquhart, who com­mands the 3rd Bat­tal­ion of the 25th Marine Regiment.

    Urquhart said he didn’t have enough men to main­tain a per­ma­nent pres­ence in places such as Haditha.

    You’re going to have this con­stant need to go back in and clean it up again … we have to go back in and make it clear to every­body that the insur­gency does not con­trol this coun­try,” said Urquhart, 44, of Akron, Ohio. “Is that a good way of doing busi­ness? I’m not going to say that.”

    When Marines re-entered Haqlaniya dur­ing a recent oper­a­tion, vir­tu­ally every down­town store­front had pro-jihad mes­sages spray-painted on it: “Allah is our God, Jihad is our way”; “Long live the muja­hedeen”; “Long live jihad”; “It is your duty to fight for jihad in Iraq”; “Death to those who col­lab­o­rate with Amer­i­cans.”
    North of Ramadi, Marines launched a major oper­a­tion, dubbed New Mar­ket, to clean up Haditha ear­lier this year. The area has since returned to law­less­ness, mil­i­tary offi­cials said. Ear­lier this month, 20 Marines were killed just south of Haditha in an ambush and a road­side bombing.

    Since March, insur­gents have killed or wounded more than a third of the men in the two com­pa­nies in Urquhart’s bat­tal­ion that have been his main fight­ing forces for the past half-year. Lima Com­pany, with 156 men, has had 22 killed in action and 31 wounded. Kilo Com­pany, with about 150 men, has had four killed and at least 50 wounded.

    Many of the injuries have been seri­ous: Only 47 of the 98 wounded men in Urquhart’s bat­tal­ion have returned to duty.
    Down the Euphrates River from Urquhart, Army Sgt. 1st Class Tom Cof­fey com­mands a pla­toon from the Army’s 28th Infantry Divi­sion along Ramadi’s south­ern bor­der. His men are hit by road­side bombs almost every day.

    There’s no way I can con­trol this area with the men I have,” Cof­fey, 37, of Burling­ton, Vt., said in a recent inter­view. “The reports are that the insur­gents are using these south­ern con­trol points because they’re open. We can’t keep them closed because I don’t have the manpower.”

    He said that in the pre­vi­ous week a sniper had shot an Iraqi sol­dier work­ing with his com­pany in the face and killed him. Snipers also shot two Amer­i­can sol­diers, one through the hand and the other through the hand and gut.

    A few min­utes later Coffey’s radio squawked. A rocket-propelled grenade had hit one of his Bradley Fight­ing Vehi­cles. Rush­ing to the scene, he found the dri­ver and crew safe, but one of the sol­diers in the vehi­cle looked at Cof­fey with large eyes and said, “I hate being up here by my f—— self.” With­out another Bradley or Humvee close by, it’s easy for insur­gents to pop up from behind, Cof­fey said.

    I know there’re caches and bad guys out there,” said Coffey’s com­man­der, Maj. Jason Pel­letier, 32, of Mil­ton, Vt. “And they know that I don’t have the man­power to get out there. You don’t have to be that smart to real­ize that.”

  29. Nadia_4iraqis says:

    DaKruser, from your own words you are not a defender of democ­racy or free speach in Iraq. You want to hear only one opin­ion and that is the one that you have. That is what Sad­dam did too, allow­ing only one opin­ion to be the right one.

    The rul­ing par­ties in the Iraqi gov­ern­ment one of their aims in the elec­tions was to demand the occu­pa­tion troops to leave Iraq and start­ing with a set date. That made a lot of peo­ple vote for them.

    But Jaa­fari et al are not ful­fill­ing their elec­tion promise; they are doing exactly the opposite.

    The future of Iraq; 18 stu­dent unions statement/petition for the occu­pa­tion troops to leave Iraq was pre­sented to the par­la­ment which had peo­ple who fully agreed with them but the gov­ern­ment did not lis­ten. Ama­rah the town I lived in once, a month or so ago had 1 mil­lion sig­na­tures ask­ing for the occu­pa­tion troops to leave and set a date now; nobody listens.

  30. DaKruser says:

    George,
    Name me ONE time in ONE PLACE that the UN man­aged to accom­plish what you say they can do here.
    If you can, then I might agree with you. Wait, the “Resis­tance” BLEW UP the HQ of the UN in Bagh­dad dur­ing the early days after the war because the UN is “The US PUPPET”. Then, the UN cut and run. Hasn’t really been back since.
    I’m cer­tain that a few well-placed “safe-areas” will suit the bill. Then we won’t have to search for the mass-graves any longer. It’ll be like Halabja.

  31. Michael says:

    Well here’s just a few cov­er­ing the years 1961/5 , there are lots of oth­ers either before or after­wards but it just proves how stu­pid your com­ments are David.
    Set­tle­ment of major inter­na­tional dis­putes, includ­ing the trans­fer of Nether­lands New Guinea (now Papua and West Irian Jaya) to Indone­sia (1962); the removal of Soviet mis­siles from Cuba (1962); the res­o­lu­tion of the civil war in the Congo in 1963; the estab­lish­ment of a peace­keep­ing force on Cyprus (1964); and the achieve­ment of a cease-fire in the 1965 India-Pakistan War.

  32. Michael says:

    David “Then we won’t have to search for the mass-graves any longer.”

    I’m afraid some­one will have to because I don’t think the USA has been keep­ing records. Fal­luja might be a good place to start with.

  33. moron99 says:

    Michael you have fallen into a trap and you encour­age oth­ers to join you. The deep fal­lacy of your asser­tions is that the US never had any inten­tion of sub­ju­gat­ing Iraq. Which is why they never did and never will. The intent is that Iraqis form a gov­ern­ment of their own choos­ing through the will­ing con­sent of her people.

    No amount of deflec­tion and decep­tion will obscure the fact that gov­ern­ment by dialougue is bet­ter than gov­ern­ment by oppres­sion. Your pro­pa­ganda has com­pletely failed to dis­guise the illegim­i­tacy of your goals.

  34. Michael says:

    The deep fal­lacy of your asser­tions is that the US never had any inten­tion of sub­ju­gat­ing Iraq.

    Apart from the fact it’s not a fal­lacy, the USA has only one inter­est in being in Iraq and that’s the oil. It was from day 1 and they will con­tinue to have hopes of that even up to the day they are forced out. “Democ­racy & Con­sti­tu­tions are just a diver­sion, a side issue, sim­ply there to try and legit­imise what is , and will remain so, a seri­ous break of Inter­na­tional Law com­bined with numer­ous con­tra­ven­tions of the Geneva Con­ven­tion.
    The USA is quite happy to see Iraqis kill Iraqis, it saves them buy­ing their own bullets.

  35. DaKruser says:

    Nice list Georgy,
    Let’s us exam­ine it, shall we?
    1) Papua is a nice try, but the Nether­lands was look­ing to get rid of the Colony any­way, and Indone­sia paid a pretty good sum for it. I guess this one might be the exam­ple, but the two Nations would prob­a­bly have got­ten together any­way, and there was no extant vio­lence. That cer­tainly doesnt’ describe present day Iraq.
    2) The removal of the Soviet Missles was one more instance where the UN really was just co-opted by the two Super-powers to avert what oth­er­wise would have devolved into a nuclear holo­caust. Both Nations knew they had gone too far, but were unwill­ing to pull back uni­lat­er­ally, so they “allowed” the UN to dic­tate the terms of the Soviet pull-out, and the end of the US block­ade. This really wasn’t a good exam­ple of what you claim they can/could do in Iraq.
    3) Congo in ’63? That was a suc­cess?? What is the name of that nation now? Is it Zaire? or The Congo? or the Demo­c­ra­tic Peo­ples’ Repub­lic? Or is it some­thing else today? That is NOT a good exam­ple of an end to con­flict, Georgy. That Nation has the equiv­e­lant in Nat­ural Resources to Iraq (that being Dia­monds vs Oil) and they STILL can’t crawl their way out of Civil War and Poverty.
    You talk about MY lack of knowl­edge and you pull THIS lion out of your hat? Wait, that was sup­posed to be a rab­bit, right?
    4) Peace-keeping in Cyprus was demanded by NATO of two NATO mem­ber Nations (that being Greece, and Turkey). That island is STILL two seper­ate 1/2’s after what? 30 years now? And you are afraid the Iraqi Con­sti­tu­tion will divide up Iraq? Cyprus sure isn’t a uni­fied place, and prob­a­bly never will be.
    5) Paki/India War?? CEASEFIRE??? Oh MY GOD, Georgy. you just told every­body on this blog why the UN CAN“T do what you say they can. That par­tic­u­lar “Cease-fire” has been in effect for what? 40 years? but just last year they were on the brink of a nuclear vol­ley­ball match. There is no peace there! Kash­mir is STILL on fire, the Hin­dus and Moslems still drive around and chop each other up reg­u­larly. If THAT is your vision of Iraq in 40 years, then the US had BETTER stay.

    Let me see, I can come up with some bet­ter ones than your exam­ples, Korea in the ’50’s (Still in a state of war). Suez, now that was a good one, there is noth­ing but peace around that place. Rwanda, Lesotho, Timor, Liberia, Mozam­bique, Angola, Repub­lic of Congo (where the French For­eign Legion is busy sup­port­ing the local econ­omy through Child-porn and Pros­ti­tu­tion), Dar­fur in Sudan, Bosnia, ALL THOSE PLACES ARE SAFE AND SECURE now that the UN has acted as peace-keepers, right?
    Don’t try to intim­i­date me with name-calling Georgy. It won’t work when I’m right and you aren’t.

  36. Michael says:

    Try­ing to re-write his­tory David merely high­lights your stu­pid­ity. I hope you didn’t waste too much time research­ing your excuses.
    Cer­tainly some organ­i­sa­tion is going to have to clear up the mess the uSA has cre­ated in Iraq and the UN is per­fect for that based on the numer­ous suc­cesses they’ve had since their inau­gu­ra­tion. While the USA remains in Iraq in the hope of get­ting oil pro­duc­tion up to par, the sit­u­a­tion will sim­ply get worse.

  37. CMAR II says:

    These Yan­quis write like noth­ing is their fault.
    Just to bring this one back to real­ity per­haps it’s time to remind him that not a sin­gle death would be occur­ring in Iraq right now if it hadn’t been for the ille­gal oil invasion.

    (George) Michael,

    As if one needed fur­ther con­fir­ma­tion that you are a fool, this one takes the cake. Which ille­gal oil inva­sion are you talk­ing about? The one in 1991 (the same thing was said then), or the one in 2003? Which of the 300K+ bod­ies in the mass graves was put there by the Coalition?

    What about the inno­cents Zar­qawi had killed (remem­ber his orga­ni­za­tion was being har­bored by Sad­dam) before 2003? Did he do those for a love of Iraq?

    The peo­ple killing Iraqis now would be killing Afgha­nis if the Coali­tion had not removed Sad­dam. And if the Tal­iban had not been removed, they would be killing peo­ple all over the world. Here’s a good post by an Iraqi in Bagh­dad that says it as well I as ever could.

    Go have all the wet dreams about Sad­dam as want. Put up your posters of the muja­hadeen assas­si­nat­ing water min­istry work­ers. Then go shuf­fle into the dust­bin of his­tory with your heroes. Yours too Nadia.

  38. DaKruser says:

    Re-write his­tory?
    H mmmm.…not! Every one of the items I quoted is fact, not fic­tion. Hurts that I didn’t even have to do any research to debunk your list, eh?
    You still havent’ touched on the assas­si­na­tion of the UN’s top nego­tia­tor by the “Fabled Resis­tance”. The UN can’t keep peace any­where. I’ve WORN that silly blue hel­met. All it is is a good tar­get. You can’t argue with the truth, Georgy. The UN is use­less in sit­u­a­tions like Iraq, where the will and abil­ity to make vio­lence is not just pos­si­ble, but the first choice of reaction.

  39. Michael says:

    As if one needed fur­ther con­fir­ma­tion that you are a fool, this one takes the cake. Which ille­gal oil inva­sion are you talk­ing about? The one in 1991 (the same thing was said then), or the one in 2003? Which of the 300K+ bod­ies in the mass graves was put there by the Coalition?

    The one in 1991 was taken care of by a UN Res­o­lu­tion autho­ris­ing force. The one in 2003 was not autho­rised by a UN Res­o­lu­tion and is there­fore ille­gal. It’s a sim­ple point but pre­sum­ably still beyond your poers of under­stand­ing. And you call me a fool :)

    I hate to break this to you but mass graves have not been found for 300,000 or the more reg­u­larly wrongly quoted 400,000, both of which are fab­ri­ca­tions by the same peo­ple that gave us WMD and links with ter­ror­ism. Of course peo­ple like you still want to keep turn­ing out the same tired old crap, unwill­ingly to admit your own stu­pid­ity. The only mass graves I expect in Iraq are from Powell’s “turkey shoot” and the cur­rent geno­cide tak­ing place now with over 123,000 casu­al­ties. The 500,000 Iraqi chil­dren mur­dered by sanc­tions which the US refused to with­draw are prob­a­bly in the main buried sep­a­rately.
    Even Blair admit­ted as such.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html
    PM admits graves claim ‘untrue’

    Peter Beau­mont, for­eign affairs edi­tor
    Sun­day July 18, 2004
    The Observer

    Down­ing Street has admit­ted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that ‘400,000 bod­ies had been found in Iraqi mass graves’ is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

    What about the inno­cents Zar­qawi had killed (remem­ber his orga­ni­za­tion was being har­bored by Sad­dam) before 2003? Did he do those for a love of Iraq?

    Are they the fault of Iraq is the more impor­tant ques­tion? But in any case they are insignif­i­cant in rela­tion to the num­ber of deaths caused by the USA.
    The peo­ple killing Iraqis now would be killing Afgha­nis if the Coali­tion had not removed Sad­dam. And if the Tal­iban had not been removed, they would be killing peo­ple all over the world. Here’s a good post by an Iraqi in Bagh­dad that says it as well I as ever could.

    That’s non­sense and you know it. There were be no deaths apart from nat­ural right now in Iraq if the ille­gal inva­sion hadn’t taken place. How many more stu­pid com­ments can you come up with?

  40. Michael says:

    H mmmm….not! Every one of the items I quoted is fact, not fic­tion. Hurts that I didn’t even have to do any research to debunk your list, eh?

    They are your inter­pre­ta­tion of the facts David and as I know from expe­ri­ence your view of real­ity is light years away from the truth.

    Yes of course you have David, just like you were in the US Army at USAF Lakenheath.

  41. DaKruser says:

    Tell us, George, Omni­cient one,
    What makes you the font of knowl­edge on all things? You make up crap like that list of UN accom­plish­ments, then accuse me of “re-writing His­tory” because I debunked your asser­tions inside of a few min­utes. You post innu­mer­able arti­cles which agree with your asser­tions and treat them like some sort of Gospel, but claim that any that dis­agree with your point of view are lies or pro­pa­ganda. You call oth­ers fools, and use dark sar­casm to intim­i­date any who would stand against you, and then when a ques­tion of import is asked, you sim­ply “beg that ques­tion” and divert atten­tion some­where else. Any­one who has any abil­ity to read ana­lyt­i­cally rec­og­nizes this tac­tic, yet we con­tin­u­ally allow you to steer this con­ver­sa­tion as you will.
    Lady­Bird has been kind enough to give us at least 2 of the last 3 top­ics that have been of more “every­body should be able to cheer this” type and you are mute on both. So am I to this point, but I thank Lady­Bird here for try­ing to turn down the heat on this caul­dron.
    Give it a break, George. Even when you get the chance to divert atten­tion to what you choose, you can not sup­port your views. It is really quite sim­ple why that hap­pens. You are wrong on a BUNCH of things, well, actu­ally I should say MOST things. Do us all a favor. Give it a rest, will you?

  42. Michael says:

    I’ve had a lot of expe­ri­ence deal­ing with dumb Yanks, had you for­got­ten? It’s unlikely you even knew where Papua New Guinea and the Congo are with­out look­ing it up. I took my quotes about the UN achieve­ments from a Win­pekia his­tory site con­cern­ing U Thant, but you think you know bet­ter it seems. :)
    If you think I’m going to leave you a clear play­ing field to con­tinue to spout your lies and fal­lac­ies you have another think com­ing. As for the rest of the goons you seem to have attracted here, well they seem as equally stu­pid as yourself.

  43. DaKruser says:

    Ok, Genious,
    I would have THOUGHT you could have researched this for your­self, BUT since you clearly have a lack­ing for inves­tiga­tive skills, I will tell you why I was at Lack­en­heath. Try this one in your Wikipedia.…173’rd Air­borne Brigade/Vicenza…REGULARLY sends Lin­guists (of BOTH the 98G and 97E vari­ety) to Lak­en­heath for duel train­ing with the Brit SAS in the Mid­lands. Those indi­vid­u­als are placed under the OPCON of the Air­Force Cmd at Lak­en­heath.
    Now, when it comes to “Stu­pid­ity”, or using the whole Lak­en­heath thing, take bet­ter care about what you know or don’t.

  44. Michael says:

    Lack­en­heath? Yes but not at the time you could have been in the US Army, because at that time you were still pol­lut­ing blogs and writ­ing crap. In fact I doubt that you have been in the Army at all.
    You seem to have all these delu­sions of grandeur, per­haps you can let us know when you did a moon walk? :) Mmy guess is that you are an unem­ployed waster unable to find a job.

  45. DaKruser says:

    OH, and con­cern­ing the His­toric accu­racy of your exam­ples, I’m not deny­ing that the UN was involved in any of them. Their cumu­la­tive fail­ures surely show that the UN should not con­cider them to be out­stand­ing achieve­ments. I merely debunked them as exam­ples of why they would/would not work as evi­dence of UN’s abil­ity in Iraq. Don’t try to skew the argue­ment by attack­ing me instead of my infor­ma­tion.
    As for know­ing where Papua/New Guinea is, yeah, I know. I’ve been there, and to East Timor too. Do ya know where that is right off the top of your head?
    I’ll give you a cou­ple of min­utes to look it up. Try Wikipedia, or MapQuest.com. They have LOTS of good infor­ma­tion there.

  46. DaKruser says:

    Thanks for at least accept­ing the term DELUSION instead of your usual ILLUSION. I might point out that I made that dis­tinc­tion the first time you used the incor­rect term.

  47. Michael says:

    OH, and con­cern­ing the His­toric accu­racy of your exam­ples, I’m not deny­ing that the UN was involved in any of them. Their cumu­la­tive fail­ures surely show that the UN should not con­cider them to be out­stand­ing achieve­ments. I merely debunked them as exam­ples of why they would/would not work as evi­dence of UN’s abil­ity in Iraq.

    The fact remains David that while the USA remains in Iraq peace can­not be restored. With­out doubt the US being replaced by the uN would be the first step in return­ing Iraq to normality.

    As for know­ing where Papua/New Guinea is, yeah, I know. I’ve been there, and to East Timor too.

    Yes of course you have David :)

    Do ya know where that is right off the top of your head?
    I’ll give you a cou­ple of min­utes to look it up. Try Wikipedia, or MapQuest.com. They have LOTS of good infor­ma­tion there.

    I don’t need to do that, I’m not an American. :)

  48. Michael says:

    Thanks for at least accept­ing the term DELUSION instead of your usual ILLUSION. I might point out that I made that dis­tinc­tion the first time you used the incor­rect term.

    Fas­ci­nat­ing.
    Nice pic­tures on TV from LA today, it looks totally flat­tened like Falluja.

  49. DaKruser says:

    How many cities in Europe were flat­tened in WWII? No, wait, that was a “Jus­ti­fied” war, right? So, the peo­ple in French cities like Cologne didn’t feel any loss, right?
    My name is not David, and I HAVE been to Lak­en­heath AND East Timor. Is your house of cards com­ing down yet, Georgy? It should feel that way, because one of your most basic assump­tions has made an ass of you. My name is Craig, not David.

  50. Michael says:

    By the UK and USSR with the slight assis­tance of the USA it was jus­ti­fied. But it wasn’t jus­ti­fied on the part of Germany.

    So, the peo­ple in French cities like Cologne didn’t feel any loss, right?

    Sorry I’m miss­ing your point here David.

    My name is not David, and I HAVE been to Lak­en­heath AND East Timor. Is your house of cards com­ing down yet, Georgy? It should feel that way, because one of your most basic assump­tions has made an ass of you. My name is Craig, not David.

    David I know it’s David, I also know you’ve never been to Lak­en­heath and I sus­pect your claim of hav­ing vis­ited the East Indies to be also false. You are a dreamer David, liv­ing in cloud cuckoo land and it’s prob­a­bly unlikely that you even have any con­scious­ness your­self between your dream world and what is reality.