Is America ready for another lie ?

As Bush's days in the office are nearing the end .. he is still trying to commit the new Administration and the American people and their hard earned dollars to continue the war in Iraq by forcing a new treaty upon the puppet Iraqi government to keep the troops in Iraq and keep the killing grounds claim more victims and keep the war machines rolling. I wonder if America after its unfair war and occupation of Iraq still believes the liar ?

I think we should change the term " America" to "Bush", because the vast majority of American public have the opposite way of thinking to Bush.

A few months ago, Bush intended to (maybe even got it by now) give himself a presidential pardon for the war against Iraq. You know...the one only the US president can give to anyone regardless of the crime. That definitely means something no ?

Oh, absurd.

Bush is not going to "pardon" himself. For what? :p

And what "lie" are you talking about?

And why is an elected government a "puppet" government. (Because you don't like it, I suppose.)

The Iraqi government has just taken over Basra, the second largest city in the country, from the Sadrist militiamen and other gangs. They took the lead role in this operation and it was a success.

They are taking the lead role in Mosul, mopping up the last remnants of al-Qaeda in the country, which is now posting items on its internet sites saying things like, "Why we lost in Iraq".

They are continuing their successful operations in Baghdad to take back Sadr City and other neighborhoods that had been dominated by the militias, which have signed an agreement with the government, allowing it to search for stockpiled weaons.

The Iraqi government is here to stay. Whether we have a few troops there for a while or not is up to the Iraqi government and the American government. After all, we have troops in Kuwait and troops in Qatar and up until recently troops in Saudi Arabia. That's not "occupation."

But we have already transitioned from the primary military actor in Iraq to a support position for the increasingly capable Iraqi Army. You're not keeping up with the news.

And the next step on everyone's agenda, Bush and everyone else, is drawing down the forces which will begin no later than next year.

And, by the way, this man will be the next American president:

I Won't

I think we should change the term " America" to "Bush", because the vast majority of American public have the opposite way of thinking to Bush.

In the parking lot at my federal facility this lady has a huge sign on her back SUV window saying: "Impeach already." I was rolling.

Love it....

And, by the way, this man will be the next American president:

I Won't
That seems to be what'll happen. Sometimes I don't understand the Americans:

The Real McCain

Jeff, all what you say is a media propaganda, the situation on ground is very bad.

The lie, is the WMD, I think you forgot already.

Jeff, all what you say is a media propaganda, the situation on ground is very bad.

The lie, is the WMD, I think you forgot already.Sure it is ... Bad for the insurgents :yes:

In the parking lot at my federal facility this lady has a huge sign on her back SUV window saying: "Impeach already." I was rolling.

Love it....

I think everybody knows that majority of US citizens are friendly and welcoming people , you're one of them ;)

I think it's silly to paint a bad image to the whole country from the barbaric attitude of few individuals from your country such as Bush and one psychic kid in this forum :yes:

Oh, absurd.

And, by the way, this man will be the next American president:

I Won't


* لا يلدغ المؤمن من جحره مرتين
o Dawn does not come twice to awaken a man.

Arabic proverb

Apparently, it's not a "lie" for the Americans anymore. "ain't that funny?!"
May the future bring a brighter day for Iraq.

I would say another lie is to speak of the situation in Iraq as some current on-going war.

Really it is not, nor has it been for years.

Jeff, all what you say is a media propaganda, the situation on ground is very bad.

The lie, is the WMD, I think you forgot already.

Part one: Ha, ha, ha! :p Just wait and see.

Part two: What was the lie about WMD? I haven't forgotten anything!

Well, we don't listen when the rest of the world tells us what we should think!

It's the secret to our success.

I would say another lie is to speak of the situation in Iraq as some current on-going war.

Really it is not, nor has it been for years.


That's a good point. More of a minor mess than a real war.

^You know, the one where Mr. Bush says, 'I found the weapons. OVER HERE WORLD!'
And after some 'military' searching goes on, Mr. Bush goes, 'Well it WAS here. I DO remember seeing it!'

Well, I agree with two thirds of what you are saying but not the last third.

If a guy goes all out to convince his skeptical family and neighbors to help him bust into a house where the inhabitants were supposed to be holding kidnapped girls...and then they all bust in...and: "No kidnapped girls!"...my guess would be he'd made an honest mistake.

Anyone looking at the evidence before the war would have concluded Saddam had such weapons:

1. To everyone's shock, at the end of the 1st Gulf War he was found to be within a year of completing a nuclear bomb.

2. After the 1st War, after we had "found" all his weapons and he said he had no more, his son-ini-law fled into exile and revealed a huge bio weapons program heretofore unknown. Saddam admitted his lie and led inspectors to the program.

3. Saddam placed obstacle after obstacle in the way of weapons inspectors after the first war, finally driving them out of the country entirely.

4. Saddam refused to provide explanations of what had happened to stockpiles of weapons that we already KNEW about! This was one of the precipitating factors in the war. He provided a bunch of documentation to the inspectors just before this last invasion. EVERYONE took a look at it and said: Nonsense. Doesn't make sense. The UN said Saddam had not honestly answered its questions.

5. Saddam refused to allow people working in the weapons programs to be interviewed free of coercion.

6. All major intelligence agencies in the world agreed that Saddam almost certainly had ongoing weapons programs into which he was pouring money...

I could go on and on, Threadlike.

But these are universally acknowledged facts.

So, I am still scratching my head. Where's the "lie"?

If the all powerful Bush with his devilish CIA minions had really plotted a "lie" about these weapons, don't you think he would have planted a few to find after the fact?

If you have all that awesome evidence,
How the hell DIDN'T you find the damn things in there? I'm scratching my head from THAT!

But it's not IF, Threadlike. No one disputes any of those things...

WHY didn't Saddam HAVE the weapons? No one knows, he never told us.

The point is: Was it reasonable to think he had them beforehand? Or did it necessitate a "lie". I think it was more than reasonable.

He might have had them and moved them out to Syria or someplace at the last minute. There is some evidence for that, but I kind of doubt it.

The best guess of the weapons inspectors who concluded he didn't have any after all (why did Bush appoint such honest weapons inspectors? His own inspectors todl him there were no weapons and Saddam hadn't even had them!) -- the same guys who catalogued in detail that no weapons were likely to be found -- was that Saddam had played a foolish trick.

Faced with Iran which still had such weapons and with internal opposition and wanting to show that he was still "strong", he convinced his enemies inside and outside that he had such programs still.

He thought he could get away with faking it to prove he was a tough guy.

But his plan backfired.

But if you ever wonder what Saddam planned to do once the failing sanctions were effectively lifted, read "The Bomb in My Garden".

It's a fascinating book by one of Saddam's top nuclear scientiets. After the US reached Baghdad, he went to the troops and said: "I have something buried in my garden you need to see."

There were all the parts of the nuclear centrifuge Saddam had worked so hard to produce buried, ready to be dug up and made operational again in no time.

No: This "Bush lied! No weapons were found!" is just a popular song being played real loud on the radio. Everybody is singing it and it drowns everything out.

But if you listen closely, you'll soon find that the singing is out of key.

Jeff, I'm not catching around here.
If you tell people that you know somebody has weapons of mass destruction.
You show them the evidence.
You go there and there's nothing.
And there are no weapons to disarm.
You lose thousands of troop soldiers and have many people of that country dead.

That's not exactly the result an 'honest mistake'. The neighbor you mentioned will apologize and eventually get the hell out of his neighbor's house...No damage done. 'Honest mistake' is too much of an underrating of what happened; an outright misinterpretation of evidence that cost America and Iraq many lives. And an obvious bad judgment for a president of THE most controlling country in the world.

Jeff, I'm not catching around here.
If you tell people that you know somebody has weapons of mass destruction.
You show them the evidence.
You go there and there's nothing.
And there are no weapons to disarm.
You lose thousands of troop soldiers and have many people of that country dead.

That's not exactly the result an 'honest mistake'. The neighbor you mentioned will apologize and eventually get the hell out of his neighbor's house...No damage done. 'Honest mistake' is too much of an underrating of what happened; an outright misinterpretation of evidence that cost America and Iraq many lives. And an obvious bad judgment for a president of THE most controlling country in the world.

Well, I hardly expect to change your mind! And certainly not in one discussion. I certainly respect what you are saying...

I don't mind changing my mind. But it has to be on the basic of specifics, not generalities or emotionalisms.

I know some facts as I outlined above. My conclusion is: Bush was right to think there were weapons of mass destruction. I'd love to see an in-detail refutation. But I haven't ever seen one. I don't think there is one.

But I would say:

1. Most of the people who condemn Bush for the invasion of Iraq would have been just as angry if there had been such weapons found. Just as most people who condemn America's approach to Iran don't seem REALLY to care if Iran is producing nukes or not.

2. And: even if we just suspected mildly that Saddam MIGHT have been producing such weapons, there was excellent reason to depose him. It was action long, long overdue.

He had invaded his neighbor and signed--not a peace, but a truce, a cessation of hostilities with conditions. He broke every single one of the conditions repeatedly over the years.

He had many, many chances to do what he agreed to do. He simply wouldn't.

His time was up.

Don't worry: I don't expect you to agree with me! :p But perhaps you haven't heard all this before. And if someone says in the future: "How can those lunatics still support the bloodthirsty Bush!?!" you'll at least be able to say, "Well, this is their thinking, if you can call it that..." ;)

It is an ongoing mess…
Another book in the market against bush, his lies and his mess has recently been released and it is an ongoing news story these days, but this time the book authored by the White House spokesman Scott McClellan…he was once working for W Bush himself.

I don’t know what good Bush has done to the world or his country!!!

The economy is a huge mess and life is getting more difficult…I doubt the US will wage any further war, they might adopt a puppet government in Iraq…

The failure in Iraq is the main cause of Iran’s complacence in developing their weapon! That is endangering the area more than Saddam if he was ever a danger.

Stupidity goes like a chain reaction or a domino effect it leaves a trail of mess...

The new president has to make a nother lie about Iran to justify destroying it. Maybe the nuclear program won't be enough. The question is: Are all these wars the US go through worth the death of its people, losing its economy and making enemies from around the world ? Some Americans think yes.

Well, I don't think that's what's happened.

I see two fewer radical terrorist regimes in the world, Libyan nuclear program abolished, spread of nuclear weapons by Pakistani scientists decimated, dropping popularity for bin Laden and his brand of Islam all over the Muslim world, increasing stability in Iraq, leaders in Germany and France who back instead of oppose American policy....

... a pretty successful record.

One worth paying for. One worth dying for.

We heard the same complaints about "Reagan the Cowboy" and his vicious stupid policy of confronting the Soviets. Everyone hated us. We were so stupid and warlike.

But it worked! And millions are free as a result.

Bush's policy is the right one and it's working. No lies, just courage and determination not to be forced out of doing the right thing, regardless of the political cost.

I wish I could vote for him a third time!

The new president has to make a nother lie about Iran to justify destroying it. Maybe the nuclear program won't be enough. The question is: Are all these wars the US go through worth the death of its people, losing its economy and making enemies from around the world ? Some Americans think yes.

The war supporters argue (I think Gates who said it) that the expenses paid for the WWII were made up in multiples over the course of the next 50 years after that war and so they are expecting the same to happen after this war….I think that’s too optimistic given the current situation!

Well, I don't think that's what's happened.

I see two fewer radical terrorist regimes in the world, Libyan nuclear program abolished, spread of nuclear weapons by Pakistani scientists decimated, dropping popularity for bin Laden and his brand of Islam all over the Muslim world, increasing stability in Iraq, leaders in Germany and France who back instead of oppose American policy....

... a pretty successful record.

One worth paying for. One worth dying for.

We heard the same complaints about "Reagan the Cowboy" and his vicious stupid policy of confronting the Soviets. Everyone hated us. We were so stupid and warlike.

But it worked! And millions are free as a result.

Bush's policy is the right one and it's working. No lies, just courage and determination not to be forced out of doing the right thing, regardless of the political cost.

I wish I could vote for him a third time!

What's your definition of stability Jeff ? Explain the stability in Iraq which you consider as successful.

I see two fewer radical terrorist regimes in the world

And who decides who is radical terrorist regime ? Some Arabs and muslims consider the US government as a radical terrorist regime for other countries. And I am one of them.

Hmmm Jeff…
You compare Bush to Regan? and Iraq to USSR?

In Regan’s era, the world was already into two masses, Warso and Nato, so Regan being called reckless (I wouldn’t say stupid) was expected…
But what is going on in Iraq? and in the world?
He first announced the war is over and again he announced victory and in a third time asking the congress for more funds to Iraq and today the Pentagon released the suicide rate among soldiers which is the highest since 2003.

Do you think that compares to Regan at any level?




I wish I could vote for him a third time!

During the 2004 elections, I read in some Arab forums people looking forward to Bush having another term… they thought the is the way to end America, they said!
I just think they were the most unflattering supporters! :)

The war supporters argue (I think Gates who said it) that the expenses paid for the WWII were made up in multiples over the course of the next 50 years after that war and so they are expecting the same to happen after this war….I think that’s too optimistic given the current situation!

I think they should hurry up in finding an oil alternative cos marianna is already pissed off of it lol .

Well, I hardly expect to change your mind! And certainly not in one discussion. I certainly respect what you are saying...

I don't mind changing my mind. But it has to be on the basic of specifics, not generalities or emotionalisms.

I know some facts as I outlined above. My conclusion is: Bush was right to think there were weapons of mass destruction. I'd love to see an in-detail refutation. But I haven't ever seen one. I don't think there is one.

But I would say:

1. Most of the people who condemn Bush for the invasion of Iraq would have been just as angry if there had been such weapons found. Just as most people who condemn America's approach to Iran don't seem REALLY to care if Iran is producing nukes or not.

2. And: even if we just suspected mildly that Saddam MIGHT have been producing such weapons, there was excellent reason to depose him. It was action long, long overdue.

He had invaded his neighbor and signed--not a peace, but a truce, a cessation of hostilities with conditions. He broke every single one of the conditions repeatedly over the years.

He had many, many chances to do what he agreed to do. He simply wouldn't.

His time was up.

Don't worry: I don't expect you to agree with me! :p But perhaps you haven't heard all this before. And if someone says in the future: "How can those lunatics still support the bloodthirsty Bush!?!" you'll at least be able to say, "Well, this is their thinking, if you can call it that..." ;)

I can find excuses for Ronald Reagan, Jeff...After all, he was the man who said:
I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security.
I mean...At least he didn't go:
I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.
Or
For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America...And we're going to do something about it.

Do I understand your logic Jeff? Completely.
You always like to end it there, I hate to have a big fight with someone as kind as you are! BUT, I completely disagree and not for emotional reasons or an illogical way of thinking or any sort of bias. If I was American, I'd still think the same of the USA's current president...And I still think you very much overestimate and put unworthy trust in the abilities and actions of George W. Bush.

I can find excuses for Ronald Reagan, Jeff...After all, he was the man who said:

I mean...At least he didn't go:
I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.
Or
For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America...And we're going to do something about it.

Do I understand your logic Jeff? Completely.
You always like to end it there, I hate to have a big fight with someone as kind as you are! BUT, I completely disagree and not for emotional reasons or an illogical way of thinking or any sort of bias. If I was American, I'd still think the same of the USA's current president...And I still think you very much overestimate and put unworthy trust in the abilities and actions of George W. Bush.


No, you didn't have any fight with me at all and I hope you know it! At least it's not a fight for me; I hope it's not for you.

I understand how you think and a lot of people agree with you. Perhaps even a majority of my countrymen today. And you could be right.

I don't mean to accuse you of being illogical or emotional. I only accuse you of being general, at least in what you've told me so far. Which is okay: Sometimes a general vision is a truer guide than a sackful of particulars.

I don't think it's comtemptible or ridiculous to be against the Iraq War or an opponent of George Bush. I just happen to think it's mistaken. And since he's deeply unpopular and many people haven't even heard the case made FOR him made clearly and well, I think it's helpful for everyone to see me make that case unapologetically. I hope I'm right in that! :p

All I'm saying is that I'm at the point where I'm looking at particulars, mostly the ones I've outlined. I don't demand that you be impressed with them. But to persuade me that I'm wrong, I need to see them addressed in detail that's all.

Shake?

Hmmm Jeff…
You compare Bush to Regan? and Iraq to USSR?

In Regan’s era, the world was already into two masses, Warso and Nato, so Regan being called reckless (I wouldn’t say stupid) was expected…
But what is going on in Iraq? and in the world?
He first announced the war is over and again he announced victory and in a third time asking the congress for more funds to Iraq and today the Pentagon released the suicide rate among soldiers which is the highest since 2003.

Do you think that compares to Regan at any level?




During the 2004 elections, I read in some Arab forums people looking forward to Bush having another term… they thought the is the way to end America, they said!
I just think they were the most unflattering supporters! :)


Well, thank you for keeping your cool with me.

Sometimes I think that politics produces even more sparks than religion, though it shouldn't be as important to us.

It's a huge and difficult subject to discuss, American foreign policy, and when we try to discuss particulars, we tend to get bogged down in our preconceptions. That goes for both sides.

I can respond to your particulars about Bush. But I think in the end, it won't satisfy you! You will bring new objections, I will answer them, and you will be unsatisfied with them.

Because the root of our disagreement is probably not really, Is Bush stupid? or Was it reasonable to think Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? or anything like that.

I think the root of the disagreement between Americans who think like I do and Arabs/Muslims who think like you do goes to ideas and opinions about the uses of American power, especially because of our Israel policy.

I mean, I suspect that you and most of the people on this thread are not just against American activity in Iraq, but in Afghanistan too. That is strongly supported by most Americans still, even by Obama.

And remember the thread about What do you think would happen if Chicago were attacked with a nuclear bomb by bin Ladenists? Most Middle Easterners on the thread seemed to think that it would be largely our fault and we should reply by changing our Israel policy.

Good luck getting even 1% of Americans to agree with that! :p

Am I wasting your time blabbing about all this? Maybe. But I'm going for the deep answer because I respect people like you and Threadlike even though I disagree with you.

***

So I'll keep the answers to the particular questions short. I think that these are things that are commonly held to be true, so I don't blame you for taking them as facts. But I don't think they are true.

My understanding and memory is that after Saddam Hussein's army was defeated and we had captured all the major objectives in Iraq, Bush declared that "major combat operations" were over. That was correct. They were.

He spoke on an airline carrier which was about to steam into port after many months at sea. The sailors had put up a banner saying "Mission Completed!" to signify that their mission was finished and they were coming home. But some reporters took it to be a statement from Bush about the whole war. And it took on a life of its own.

The suicide rate among soldiers was indeed higher than in 2003.

But on the other hand:

1. The suicide rates were tiny by any standard.
2. The suicide rates were lower than in Vietnam or World War Two or any other war in which we measured suicide rates.
3. The suicide rates were lower than suicide rates in the civilian population at large.

These facts were left out of the initial stories: Poor reporting.

And just to throw something related in: you know all our armed forces are purely voluntary. The latest stories about enlistment are that even after raising their goals quite a bit, the Marines have been EXCEEDING their goals greatly. And the Army and other services have been meeting them and even exceeding them slightly.

Re-upping is at satisfactory levels. And a large number of people who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ask to be reassigned there.

So the very least to be said about this is that there is another side of the story.

Now don't get mad at me! That's my take on what "everybody knows" on these matters. :p

You and I would probably agree that what "everybody knows" about lots of things--Global warming, evolution, homosexuality--is open to question. And I'm a great questioner! :p

What's your definition of stability Jeff ? Explain the stability in Iraq which you consider as successful.



And who decides who is radical terrorist regime ? Some Arabs and muslims consider the US government as a radical terrorist regime for other countries. And I am one of them.

What I mean is:

Normalcy in Anbar province. This was the most insurgent filled province in Iraq up til early 2006. It contains Ramadi and Fallujah and Hit. Now there is so little violence there that soldiers don't even get combat pins for serving there.

Almost all the Sunni militia who were fighting us have put down their arms. They have joined forces with us to fight al-Qaeda in groups like Anbar Awakening, which have spread all throughout Iraq. They are participating actively in the Iraqi parliament.

Seriously reduced violence in most of Baghdad. Stories of markets reopening, people going out at night again, people returning from abroad(I posted one of these recently). Complaints on Baghdad blogs I read no longer about militias gone mad killing everybody no one can go outside or out of their area, now complaints about police not being professional (no police around before! :p ).

Al-Qaeda operations reduced to almost nothing except Mosul and a few tiny pockets near Baghdad and one in Diyala province.

Large numbers of major towns and cities in Iraq like Tal Afar--formerly controlled by al-Qaeda--and Tikrit--Saddam's home town--where nothing is going on anymore.

The Iraqi government recapturing the second major city, Basra, from the Sadrists and news stories from every provinance testifying to the success of the operation (led by the Prime Minister).

Sadr City retaken by the Iraqi Army from the Sadrists, their last major stronghold in Iraq (with the possible exception of Amara Province, but that's too complicated to get into now.)

Scads of al-Qaeda members captured recently in major operations led by the Iraqi Army in and near Mosul. (Here's the kind of average story you're getting about Mosul in the Iraqi media...do you read Iraqi papers? You won't need me to translate it for you, it's in Arabic...:
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look/article.tpl?IdLanguage=17&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=80783&NrIssue=1&NrSection=1
)

Iraqi Government and Army taking the LEAD in these operations, not assisting Americans.

Here's one average story about recent developments in Basra and Sadr City in case you haven't been reading them:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=4938966&page=1

Why do I not think such things are propaganda?

1. Far too many of them and little of the opposite kind of reporting;
2. Newspapers and journals that reported total chaos in Iraq a little more than a year ago now reporting the opposite;
3. Newspapers that opposed the war now reporting things are getting much better;
4. Some of the most respected journalists who have spent the most time in Iraq and out in the towns and cities not in the green zone, some of the reporters most respected and relied upon by both sides of the political debate and with the best reputation for neutrality--like John F. Burns and Dexter Filkins, for instance--reporting that things are amazingly improved over a few months ago;
4. Seeing lots of Iraqis agreeing with them in various places including blogs I read.
5. LOOK AT SABLA! I was here before the surge started. Thread after thread opened to crow over the "victories" over the Americans...everything was ruined, soon we would be beaten, etc. The surge would fail of course, ha! ha! ha!. And then, growing silence. Threads on Iraq are rare now. And there's a reason for that....

All I can say is: Wait and see if you don't agree!

Time will tell, right? Soon we won't be needed in Iraq anymore and we will start massively drawing down troops beginning in late 2007 early to mid 2008. And the argument will fade more and more as Iraq slowly returns to normalcy and America's role fades.

So I don't say: agree with Jeff. I just say, Wait and see! :)

Well, thank you for keeping your cool with me.

Geez!!!
People start thanking me for being cool with them….!!! Why? What happened?!
Don’t worry I am always cool with you because your arguments make sense, founded and never reproachful!!
Ya I know my temper goes bad sometimes…that is natural and I cool down just as quick… and if my parents are around they will go like usual “son...go get married…and have some kids…may they soften your heart.”
Do Kids soften hearts!!!???

Anyways, I like disagreeing with you…although it doesn’t happen that often
and back to the topic…


Sometimes I think that politics produces even more sparks than religion, though it shouldn't be as important to us.

It's a huge and difficult subject to discuss, American foreign policy, and when we try to discuss particulars, we tend to get bogged down in our preconceptions. That goes for both sides.

I agree with you all the way…politics is complicated...it is so skeptical that talking of it is all about arguing!!

I can respond to your particulars about Bush. But I think in the end, it won't satisfy you! You will bring new objections, I will answer them, and you will be unsatisfied with them.


Because the root of our disagreement is probably not really, Is Bush stupid? or Was it reasonable to think Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? or anything like that.

I think the root of the disagreement between Americans who think like I do and Arabs/Muslims who think like you do goes to ideas and opinions about the uses of American power, especially because of our Israel policy.



I mean, I suspect that you and most of the people on this thread are not just against American activity in Iraq, but in Afghanistan too. That is strongly supported by most Americans still, even by Obama.

I am skeptic about that… but I have never discussed and I will never discuss Afghanistan with an American not here or any where! It makes me look stupid, irrational and even inconsiderate! I did a few times discussed 9/11 which I only did with very close friend, really close and in some non-direct circumstances, and I still feel it was a blunder from my side!!

But what’s up with the “even Obama”…hmmm there is something behind that! I will keep it to myself! :) has anybody said Obama will free Palastine?:p


And remember the thread about What do you think would happen if Chicago were attacked with a nuclear bomb by bin Ladenists? Most Middle Easterners on the thread seemed to think that it would be largely our fault and we should reply by changing our Israel policy.

Good luck getting even 1% of Americans to agree with that!

Believe me…Arab has no problem with America but Israel!!! Or else they would have problems with Russia as well! I understand the reaction of the people, although I don’t agree with them. When I think of a country, I try to think of its hard working farmers, children going to school, parents care about how to bring food and education to their kids… so I don’t even like to contemplate these thoughts about destructions not even what if…! But like I said, the Middle Eastern are full of resentment about that...we disagree on everything but that is one thing we all agree on…there is a powerful Zionist lobby supporting the American policy in the Middle East…I never said all our problems are because of America, but the Israel issue has a lot to do with America and I will not argue about this! Arafat offered Israel more than anyone would be willing to consider…I don’t want to get into Israel! The endless issue!


Am I wasting your time blabbing about all this? Maybe. But I'm going for the deep answer because I respect people like you and Threadlike even though I disagree with you.
Thanks a lot Jeff...I respect you too and I find pleasure communicating with you! with you my time is never a waste!

***

So I'll keep the answers to the particular questions short. I think that these are things that are commonly held to be true, so I don't blame you for taking them as facts. But I don't think they are true.

My understanding and memory is that after Saddam Hussein's army was defeated and we had captured all the major objectives in Iraq, Bush declared that "major combat operations" were over. That was correct. They were.

He spoke on an airline carrier which was about to steam into port after many months at sea. The sailors had put up a banner saying "Mission Completed!" to signify that their mission was finished and they were coming home. But some reporters took it to be a statement from Bush about the whole war. And it took on a life of its own.

The suicide rate among soldiers was indeed higher than in 2003.

But on the other hand:

1. The suicide rates were tiny by any standard.
2. The suicide rates were lower than in Vietnam or World War Two or any other war in which we measured suicide rates.
3. The suicide rates were lower than suicide rates in the civilian population at large.

These facts were left out of the initial stories: Poor reporting.

And just to throw something related in: you know all our armed forces are purely voluntary. The latest stories about enlistment are that even after raising their goals quite a bit, the Marines have been EXCEEDING their goals greatly. And the Army and other services have been meeting them and even exceeding them slightly.

Re-upping is at satisfactory levels. And a large number of people who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ask to be reassigned there.

So the very least to be said about this is that there is another side of the story
Now don't get mad at me! That's my take on what "everybody knows" on these matters. .

I am smiling...I think I need my real face picture smiling instead of :)!



I will not argue with that what you said…
But at least you agree that Bush’s administration always try to exaggerate about their performance in Iraq… and I am giving you a break by calling it a necessary war strategy! :)

Jeff, did you forgot that the UN inspectors were still in Iraq when the US decided to invade Iraq, so they had to run away from Iraq.

The war was not about the WMD but the US used that execuse to invade Iraq for another reasons and one of them for the sake of Israel.

Jeff, did you forgot that the UN inspectors were still in Iraq when the US decided to invade Iraq, so they had to run away from Iraq.

The war was not about the WMD but the US used that execuse to invade Iraq for another reasons and one of them for the sake of Israel.

Sigh...

I remember. I also remember that they were forced out by Saddam for several years before that...why? And I remember that they were allowed back in only at the last possible minute...why? And I remember that they were not allowed to interview scientists who had worked in weapons programs without government minders being present...why? And I also remember that Saddam had ample opportunity to explain what he had done with weapons we already knew he had and he couldn't offer a coherent explanation according to the weapons inspectors themselves...why?

I remember everything very well, Ice Tea! :)

But as I say, our views are so far apart that these details likely don't matter.

But I always appreciate your civilized approach.

~God bless.

Geez!!!
People start thanking me for being cool with them….!!! Why? What happened?!
Don’t worry I am always cool with you because your arguments make sense, founded and never reproachful!!
Ya I know my temper goes bad sometimes…that is natural and I cool down just as quick… and if my parents are around they will go like usual “son...go get married…and have some kids…may they soften your heart.”
Do Kids soften hearts!!!???

Anyways, I like disagreeing with you…although it doesn’t happen that often
and back to the topic…




I agree with you all the way…politics is complicated...it is so skeptical that talking of it is all about arguing!!



I am skeptic about that… but I have never discussed and I will never discuss Afghanistan with an American not here or any where! It makes me look stupid, irrational and even inconsiderate! I did a few times discussed 9/11 which I only did with very close friend, really close and in some non-direct circumstances, and I still feel it was a blunder from my side!!

But what’s up with the “even Obama”…hmmm there is something behind that! I will keep it to myself! :) has anybody said Obama will free Palastine?:p




Believe me…Arab has no problem with America but Israel!!! Or else they would have problems with Russia as well! I understand the reaction of the people, although I don’t agree with them. When I think of a country, I try to think of its hard working farmers, children going to school, parents care about how to bring food and education to their kids… so I don’t even like to contemplate these thoughts about destructions not even what if…! But like I said, the Middle Eastern are full of resentment about that...we disagree on everything but that is one thing we all agree on…there is a powerful Zionist lobby supporting the American policy in the Middle East…I never said all our problems are because of America, but the Israel issue has a lot to do with America and I will not argue about this! Arafat offered Israel more than anyone would be willing to consider…I don’t want to get into Israel! The endless issue!



Thanks a lot Jeff...I respect you too and I find pleasure communicating with you! with you my time is never a waste!



I am smiling...I think I need my real face picture smiling instead of :)!



I will not argue with that what you said…
But at least you agree that Bush’s administration always try to exaggerate about their performance in Iraq… and I am giving you a break by calling it a necessary war strategy! :)

No, I know you're a great guy. Almost all of you are: you, Threadlike, El Rey, even Ice Tea (you said "even Jeff" in another thread, bro, so I'm payin' you back! :p ).

I'm just doing a little peace making in my approach here...I tend to be a little more "aggressive" in politics threads...not because it matters more than religion but because it matters less... When we talk Bush or Ahmadinejad, it matters, but it's just human ideas for one place in time, but when we talk about God...we are on Holy Ground. But anyway, it's always good to take stock and look at the people involved and get away from conflicts sometimes...even in politics! ;)

It's good for me to back up and to take a sort of refresher and just say, "I know I'm only one guy; I lknow I don't know everything; I will try to listen and not just talk; I respect your minds and hearts even if we find ourselves on opposite sides sometimes..."

Jeff, all what you say is a media propaganda, the situation on ground is very bad.

The lie, is the WMD, I think you forgot already.

Americans can't lose their balls like in Vietnam......the Iraqis must be led on the path of our Bill of rights......period.

The bad Islamic influences must be destroyed......in fact to save Islam.

America must save Islam from itself.....

I have spoken.....

Sayid fatak

What I mean is:

Normalcy in Anbar province. This was the most insurgent filled province in Iraq up til early 2006. It contains Ramadi and Fallujah and Hit. Now there is so little violence there that soldiers don't even get combat pins for serving there.

Almost all the Sunni militia who were fighting us have put down their arms. They have joined forces with us to fight al-Qaeda in groups like Anbar Awakening, which have spread all throughout Iraq. They are participating actively in the Iraqi parliament.

Seriously reduced violence in most of Baghdad. Stories of markets reopening, people going out at night again, people returning from abroad(I posted one of these recently). Complaints on Baghdad blogs I read no longer about militias gone mad killing everybody no one can go outside or out of their area, now complaints about police not being professional (no police around before! :p ).

Al-Qaeda operations reduced to almost nothing except Mosul and a few tiny pockets near Baghdad and one in Diyala province.

Large numbers of major towns and cities in Iraq like Tal Afar--formerly controlled by al-Qaeda--and Tikrit--Saddam's home town--where nothing is going on anymore.

The Iraqi government recapturing the second major city, Basra, from the Sadrists and news stories from every provinance testifying to the success of the operation (led by the Prime Minister).

Sadr City retaken by the Iraqi Army from the Sadrists, their last major stronghold in Iraq (with the possible exception of Amara Province, but that's too complicated to get into now.)

Scads of al-Qaeda members captured recently in major operations led by the Iraqi Army in and near Mosul. (Here's the kind of average story you're getting about Mosul in the Iraqi media...do you read Iraqi papers? You won't need me to translate it for you, it's in Arabic...:
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look/article.tpl?IdLanguage=17&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=80783&NrIssue=1&NrSection=1
)

Iraqi Government and Army taking the LEAD in these operations, not assisting Americans.

Here's one average story about recent developments in Basra and Sadr City in case you haven't been reading them:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=4938966&page=1

Why do I not think such things are propaganda?

1. Far too many of them and little of the opposite kind of reporting;
2. Newspapers and journals that reported total chaos in Iraq a little more than a year ago now reporting the opposite;
3. Newspapers that opposed the war now reporting things are getting much better;
4. Some of the most respected journalists who have spent the most time in Iraq and out in the towns and cities not in the green zone, some of the reporters most respected and relied upon by both sides of the political debate and with the best reputation for neutrality--like John F. Burns and Dexter Filkins, for instance--reporting that things are amazingly improved over a few months ago;
4. Seeing lots of Iraqis agreeing with them in various places including blogs I read.
5. LOOK AT SABLA! I was here before the surge started. Thread after thread opened to crow over the "victories" over the Americans...everything was ruined, soon we would be beaten, etc. The surge would fail of course, ha! ha! ha!. And then, growing silence. Threads on Iraq are rare now. And there's a reason for that....
All I can say is: Wait and see if you don't agree!

Time will tell, right? Soon we won't be needed in Iraq anymore and we will start massively drawing down troops beginning in late 2007 early to mid 2008. And the argument will fade more and more as Iraq slowly returns to normalcy and America's role fades.

So I don't say: agree with Jeff. I just say, Wait and see! :)


*Sigh.

I thought you meant by stability in Iraq for Iraqis not the Americans.

1.213.716 Iraqis and 4.084 Ameicans have died since the invasion of Iraq till now and the number is increasing day by day.

If you really want stability in Iraq jeff, I think you should start calling to stop this war. Send your troops home cos they are dying and leave Iraqis alone cos they siffered enough.

You can start from here if you like:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

It seems we have some members who know more about what happens in the white house than this Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20001.htm) .. Interesting!! :yes:

*Sigh.

I thought you meant by stability in Iraq for Iraqis not the Americans.

1.213.716 Iraqis and 4.084 Ameicans have died since the invasion of Iraq till now and the number is increasing day by day.

If you really want stability in Iraq jeff, I think you should start calling to stop this war. Send your troops home cos they are dying and leave Iraqis alone cos they siffered enough.

You can start from here if you like:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html


I did mean stability for Iraqis. I think things are rolling along just fine in that direction: read the article I linked to! :)

As to leaving because we are tired or because "smart people" want to push us out, I remember the Vietnam War.

When it ended, it was supposed to bring peace because we left

Instead we had hundreds of thousands of boat people fleeing the communists.

Hundreds of thousands more in prison camps, many of whom died.

And in Cambodia, probably the worst dictatorship in the history of the world that killed a quarter of the people of its own country.

So, I'm not for running away because it makes some people mad. I'm ready to go when the Iraqi army and police are ready to handle the country. Which fortunately is what is happening on the ground now, if you'll just pay attention to Basra, Sadr City, Mosul, etc....

You'll see it beginning to happen within the next year or so. Slow drawdown and the pace picking up gradually. And no civil war, but the Iraqi government in power and holding elections on time, etc.

Jeff did you read how many Iraqis have already died ?

ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN.

How many thousands do you want to die to make stability in Iraq ? Iraq has never been stable like in the regime of Saddam. And don't forget that the US which broke this stability.

It's very ironic when you say: We will prvail stability in Iraq instead of saying we will try to correct our mistake in making chaos in Iraq. In killing more than million Iraqis.

Everyday there is an explosion, tens of Iraqis die mostly children and women. I don't see any stability. But if you mean there were hundreds die every day in the begining of the war and now only tens every week, then I see your point.

You'll see it beginning to happen within the next year or so. Slow drawdown and the pace picking up gradually. And no civil war, but the Iraqi government in power and holding elections on time, etc.

We have being listening to this so many times from US responsibles of this war that we kept it by heart but nothing happened.

Okay, well, we shall see!

Time will tell.

I'm afraid I don't believe those numbers. But too many people have died, that I agree with. And it's the best argument against the war that I know.

Still, I remember asking a Filipino guy whose parents and older relatives had all gone through World War Two in Manila a question. Manila was bombed flat by the US Air Force, and hundreds of thousands of Filipinos died.

"What did they think?" I asked him. "Did they hate us because we killed so many of them? Or was it worth it to them to gain their freedom?"

"Oh, they all figured it was worth it," he said. "They all figure this is what happens in war, it's the price you have to pay for freedom."

I get your point, El Rey. It's a good and powerful point.

But I think we have to wait for the final answer from Iraqis themselves. Let's you and me try to figure out what they think ten years from now: Was it worth it or not?

They have to be the ones to decide in the end when they see what came of it finally. I can't decide for them and neither can you.

Published: May 30, 2008, 20:02


Baghdad: Thousands of people heeded a call from anti-American cleric Moqtada Al Sadr to protest talks between Washington and Baghdad on keeping US troops in Iraq beyond 2008, but turnout on Friday was lower than past marches.

Explaining the relatively low numbers, spokesmen for Sadr's movement said the protests were widely spread through the country but security forces prevented marches in some areas.

In one of the largest demonstrations, several thousand people took to the streets in the Baghdad district of Sadr City, a bastion of Sadr's Mehdi Army militia.

They held up pictures of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki dressed as Saddam Hussein.

In the Kadhimiya district in northwest Baghdad, hundreds of demonstrators with raised fists marched behind a banner asking the United Nations to "stand with the Iraqi people against this security deal between the government and the occupation".

The United States, which invaded in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, now has 155,000 troops in Iraq.

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10217260.html.

===========

Iraqi people are against the US troops stay but Bush still want to stay in Iraq, I wonder for what there are 155K troops in Iraq?