This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Glad to see you are having a good time. I hope that for a moment or two, you weren't missing your relatives back in Iraq. Although since I have personally never been a situation similar to yours, I sympathize with the isolation you must occasionally feel.

Yes, people of different races and religions can avoid violence and even become good friends. I remember years ago when I went to a professional basketball game with 3 of my co-workers. One guy was African-American, another was Japanese-American, another was Mexican-American and I am Irish-Italian-American.

I wish Ehud Olmert, Hassan Nasrallah, Ismael Haniyeh, Jihasists, and many others, who are messing with our lives so much that they don’t see the truth anymore, I wish they were watching us last night. They should have. They would know that peace in the Middle East is not being achieved because of them, not us!

Absolutely! The key is to get reasonable Muslims, reasonable Jews, reasonable Christians, reasonable Atheists into positions of power to replace the unreasonable people. That's one reason why I don't think we should give up on democracy in the Middle East, despite the less than excellent choices (an understatement) Middle Eastern voters have recently made.

At least under a regime of periodic and freely held elections, people can make their choices, evaluate how well the politicians have performed and then, years later, decide what adjustments need to be made in the political leadership. Under a dictatorship these adjustments can not be made.

I won't give up on the idea of democracy in the Arab world (and everywhere else in the world) until I'm dead. Sure, you might be able to look at history and find your occasional "enlightened dictator." But usually they don't stay enlightened for very long.

24,

I believe we should review some American history: the history of the American South after the American Civil War. The years 1865-1900 are instructive.

African American slaves were freed in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. But the habits of White Supremacy in the South didn't die. The national government, dominated by the American North, had to determine procedures by which Southern States would be allowed back into the Union (meaning that they would get representation in the US Senate and US House).

The American North tried "occupation" of the South and tried to protect Southern African-Americans and their White allies from being killed and intimidated through violence from voting in elections. The results were mixed.

By 1877, the federal government (dominated by the American North) had, for the most part, withdrawn from the American South. Gradually, White Southerners began to rig elections through intimidation and ballot fraud (which had been done prior to 1877, but less successfully under federal occupation). By 1900 not a single African-American was elected to the US Congress, despite that fact that millions of African American voters lived in the South.

So, did the American Civil War accomplish anything? Yes. Despite the backsliding in the American South, slavery was never reestablished. By 1965 (a full century after the end of the American Civil War) the US Congress passed the Voting Rights act, which provided procedures by which African-Americans living in the South could vote without risking death.

Just as Iraq's culture didn't change overnight when Saddam's regime was overthrown or when millions of Iraqis voted, the culture of the United States was not changed overnight when Southern Generals surrendered to the American Union Generals. But change did occur. I believe positive change will occur in Iraq, just not as rapidly as we would like.

wow! That was fantastic! It reminded me with the New Year's Eve when I lighted the candles for one of the biggest Jewish Fiests for my friend's girlfriend. I am sorry I don't remember the name of the fiest :P

I wish all Iraqis understand what you've said. But that's difficult with generations raised on hating the Jews for decades.

Glad you finally had fun!

BT, It's Hanukah. It's coming soon by the way. well, not so soon.

24, that is so so cool. i am very happy for you. there are tons and tons of really cool jews. hopefully this will open a whole new set of friends for you. college was one of the best experiences of my life. the friends i made have remained so and i value them so much. as long as your heart and mind are open you can overcome any and all preconcieved notions. jusy keep gravitating towards good people, whoever they are , where ever you find them.

24,

If only the Sunni and Shia Arabs of Iraq could learn from your example. But then again, I imagine that even in Baghdad, a majority of Sunni and Shia Arabs have no interest in murdering their neighbor, but a violent minority messes things up for everyone else.

I'll keep praying for Iraq's democracy to work, even though I'm an agnostic.

Just remember,be proud of who you are.

"The key is to get reasonable Muslims, reasonable Jews, reasonable Christians, reasonable Atheists into positions of power to replace the unreasonable people. "____But do reasonable people want power? It is generally the most unreasonable people who are most desperate to order others around. The key is to stop talking about "power" and think of "positions of responsibility". The head of a government is employed by the taxpayers to manage the country for a few years. He is not put there to be the Great I Am, with everyone bowing down to him.

24,

That was a lovely story. And I'm glad to hear you're having some fun.

Your story reminds me of the show they did for 20/20 on, coincidentally, Friday night.

It was about stereotypes and racism. One fellow who they interviewed is gay and had been badly beaten up when he was 14, by a group of white supremacists. He is now working for the Jewish Tolerance Museum. The other fellow is a co-worker and friend of his. He is a reformed white supremacist and racist. I think you can possibly guess where I'm going with this. They were talking one day and realized that the second fellow was the one who had beaten up the first fellow. They are still friends. Tolerance for peoples differances and forgiveness of past wrongs are possible if both parties are willing.

Annie,

I responded to your comment to me below.

Fascinating!!!

Yom Kippur and then Succoth are just around the corner. If you managed hanging around them a bit more, you will experience something entirely new and absorbing, far far more fascinating than a dinner.

I really wish all of those warlords could see how people elsewhere are living together peacefuly. And I only wish more people back at home had interest and understanding enough to get to know the "alleged-enemy" a bit more, they would discover that everything they have been taught was wrong.

I, with MNSHO, am quite proud of you.

I really wish all of those warlords could see how people elsewhere are living together peacefuly.

the same could be said about many others on all sides. it is not just the warlords that are responsible.
hardly

Don Cox,

"____But do reasonable people want power? It is generally the most unreasonable people who are most desperate to order others around. The key is to stop talking about "power" and think of "positions of responsibility". The head of a government is employed by the taxpayers to manage the country for a few years. He is not put there to be the Great I Am, with everyone bowing down to him.

I agree and this is why I believe democracy is important, even if voters in nearly all nations occasionally vote for bad policies and bad political candidates. The main reason why democracy "works," in a limited sense, is because of the fact that those in "power" are held accountable through periodic and free elections.

So, the people in "positions of power" end up just serving the people for a few years, as you mentioned.

Nearly all wars in the last 100 years have involved at least one non-democratic nation. The lack of accountability and perceived legitimacy inherent in non-democratically elected governments has been a source of conflict with democratic governments during this past century and continues to this day.

If every majority Muslim nation were a democracy like Turkey and every, I believe there would be world peace (especially is democracy could take root in China, North Korea and Russia).

I look forward to the day when all of the people of the world enjoy some variation of government by consent of the governed through periodic and free elections.

If you had formed a top 10 list of the world's worst regimes, I would bet that Saddam Hussain's regime would have made almost everyone's list. So, I would imagine that if one was opposed to toppling Saddam Hussain's regime, one is probably opposed to toppling just about any regime, no matter how bloodthirsty and homicidal such a regime is.

Didn't Saddam Hussain demonstrate from the time he started the Iran-Iraq war to the time he gassed the Iraqi-Kurds to the time he invaded and butchered Kuwait to the time he slaughtered the Iraqi Shia Arabs that his regime had to be terminated?

And is the attitude that dictators can do anything they want with the people over which they rule, including loading them into mass graves, really the right attitude for liberal democracies to have?

I have to admit, the way some people on both the political Left and the political Right got so upset when the American led invasion of Iraq toppled one of history's most inhumane regimes is truly amazing. It's as though Bush and Blair toppled a government headed by Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King Jr.

Personally, I'm not really anti-war. When liberal democracies become too opposed to war is usually when the world's dictatorships gain power. A good example was the period between World War One and World War Two. Great Britain and France were so intoxicated by anti-war attitudes that they allowed Nazi Germany to increase its military power.

If Great Britain and France had pre-emptively attacked Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany occupied the de-militarized zone between France and Germany, it would have been a much less costly war than it turned out to be.

Personally, I'm not really anti-war.

you are shocking me here mark. really? you? the same guy pasting and copying straight from the mouthpiece of neocon benador associates

So, I would imagine that if one was opposed to toppling Saddam Hussain's regime, one is probably opposed to toppling just about any regime, no matter how bloodthirsty and homicidal such a regime is.

excuse me? it really isn't up to anyone besides congress to decide if we want to 'topple a regime". if all we were doing was toppling a regime we wouldn't have built permanent bases in iraq.

earth to mark...


1. The Big Lie - Always choose the big lie over the small; the masses will believe it more readily.

2. Focus Use only one or at most two selling points.

3. Repeat Use them over and over until even your enemies know them by heart.

4. Blame - Never waver, acknowledge no doubt, always blame - never credit - the other side.

5. Provoke - First attract attention, then appeal to emotions.

6. Crisis - Shades of gray don't work: The issues must be black and white: love/hate, good/evil, life/death.

7. Emotional Symbols - Good slogans have no literal meaning, only a strong emotional appeal.

8. Pander - Ignore intellectuals and reasonable arguments; target the unthinking masses with powerful emotional pitches.

9. No Limits Ignore all moral limits when you believe stakes are high.

a simple review of your posts has you creeping up on all of these catagories.

The main reason why democracy "works," in a limited sense, is because of the fact that those in "power" are held accountable through periodic and free elections.

apparently you missed the fox news program yesterday w/the princeton professor demonstrating how easy it is to program diebold computers. don't you ever wonder why most of the country votes w/out a paper trail. also note the ceo of diebold lives in ohio where they are headquartered, the state that delivered the election to bush. the same ceo that claimed publicly at a gop fundraiser he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

all that's required in todays democracies is for people to have the illusion of free elections.

annie,

all that's required in todays democracies is for people to have the illusion of free elections.

To think I stayed up on election night in 2004 when the election outcome had been preplanned in advance. I hate it when that happens.

OT
U.S. government so far have suggested anything as drastic as another change in the leadership, although some, frustrated by the lack of progress, have voiced a private view in recent weeks that Iraq might be better off under a traditional Middle Eastern strongman.

In addition to action to stem sectarian violence, U.S. officials want the Maliki government to move on a new investment law to bolster the economy as well as legislation to restructure the state oil company and set new rules for investing in Iraq's petroleum industry

In an appearance at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center in Washington this week, Deputy Iraqi Prime Minister Barham Salih said the government had imposed a "very tough timetable" on itself for action on the legislative agenda.

He said parliament should pass the investment law this month, and next month should vote on a law to allow former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to return to government and society. In December, the government will introduce its proposal for managing its petroleum reserves and adopt a law on the disarmament and re-integration of former anti-government militants, Salih said.

Analysts say the issues all are divisive and that action will be difficult. "There's no secret about what needs to be done, in broad terms, to put Iraq back together, in a national consensus," said Nathan Brown, a specialist in Arab politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The question is, can it be done? The American frustration is only natural."

Only natural? Of course there is an expectation on their investment.

wow, you ate a meal with the evil jews and they didn't poison your food, or brainwash you, or perform some other sadistic practice to undermine the great muslim faith, or the arab people of the middle east? but I thought the jews were the bloodthirsty enemy, and that they must be "wiped off the map..." Hopefully, Iraqis, Iranians and all the other jew hating cultures of the world will learn from your experience, and not characterize israel in the beastly manner it is often described by other anti-war bloggers.

characterize israel in the beastly manner it is often described by other anti-war bloggers.

Can you provide links, or are you spreading racist disinformaton?

Should a second government fail, it would not only raise questions about Maliki's effectiveness but might indicate that anyone would have difficulty leading Iraq. Few in the U.S. government so far have suggested anything as drastic as another change in the leadership, although some, frustrated by the lack of progress, have voiced a private view in recent weeks that Iraq might be better off under a traditional Middle Eastern strongman.

I wonder who these "experts" would suggest annointing as a "traditional Middle Eastern strongman." And would the nearly 300,000 Iraqis who are now part of the Iraqi security forces be willing to support whomever the United States chose to replace who the Iraqi people chose in the Decmeber 15, 2005 elections?

I think that question answers itself.

"characterize israel in the beastly manner it is often described by other anti-war bloggers."

And since when governments represent all its people?

Iraqis hate US administration but that does not mean hating all American people. Same goes on Jews. Politics!!!!

I would welcome making friendship with Jews but that dose not mean I approve of Isreal’s terrorisms.

[mark] “If you had formed a top 10 list of the world's worst regimes, I would bet that Saddam Hussain's regime would have made almost everyone's list. So, I would imagine that if one was opposed to toppling Saddam Hussain's regime, one is probably opposed to toppling just about any regime, no matter how bloodthirsty and homicidal such a regime is.”

And of course if you had to make a list of the countries with the most destructive, genocidal foreign policy, then I’d bet that the US would be in the top three.

In other words, the opposition to Hussein’s toppling was not because he was so good, but because you are so bad. The truth is, I and others predicted this disaster, and events have borne our pessimism out and then some. The truth is that statistically Iraqis are worse off in every measurable way under your “liberation” than under Hussein, even when under sanctions. Fact is, if you are willing to accept what Iraq has become, you are willing to accept almost any scale of massacres and bloodshed in pursuit of foreign policy.


[mark] “Didn't Saddam Hussain demonstrate from the time he started the Iran-Iraq war to the time he gassed the Iraqi-Kurds to the time he invaded and butchered Kuwait to the time he slaughtered the Iraqi Shia Arabs that his regime had to be terminated?”

Truth is, you supported him during the Iran Iraq war. Truth is, you were happy to see Iran and Iraq bleed each other to death. Fact is, he TOLD you he was going to hit Kuwait, and your country told him you had “no opinion” on inter-Arab conflicts. Truth is you called for the Shia to rise up and then you lifted the No Fly restrictions for Hussein to mow them down with gunships. Fact is that when the Kurds were gassed at Halabja, for example, America blamed Iran for the attack. You covered for Hussein.

In the final analysis, it’s kinda hard to come here and squeal about how evil Hussein was and how necessary it was to get rid of him when you helped support him in one way or another all these years.


[mark] “If Great Britain and France had pre-emptively attacked Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany occupied the de-militarized zone between France and Germany, it would have been a much less costly war than it turned out to be.”

Here you take refuge in a simplistic rendering of the situation. Perhaps if the gallant Allies of the First World War had not tried to screw Germany for every possible concession at Versailles, the conditions and latent anger that facilitated Hitler’s rise to power and the subsequent aggressions would not have been there. The situation is not as simple as it appears. The situation re. Iraqi wars against Iran and Kuwait is not as simple as it appears, either, yet you insist on a strict black and white portrayal of the facts. Is it because you lack a deeper knowledge of the facts, or is it because you actively want to restrict the debate to shallow caricatures of reality?



Kryptonite -- A “Jew” does not automatically equal an “Israeli”.

"Kryptonite -- A “Jew” does not automatically equal an “Israeli”."

Oh jeez...more justiciation for killing by Bruno. He thinks Jews are okay, but ISREAELIS should burn in hell. THAT makes everything okay, I guess. And if "Israelis" were muslim arabs, would there be an issue? My hunch is no.

"Iraqis hate US administration but that does not mean hating all American people." Sure it does. The US government represents the people of the USA, and if you hate the US government, you hate the US. They are not separate.

The US government represents the people of the USA, and if you hate the US government, you hate the US. They are not separate.

according to krypt. how convenient for you to speak for everyone. which you so very logically construe any american that is not in support of the war becomes anti american and every jew who does not support israel becomes a jew hater. if only you could see your ignorance the way everyone else does.

when i first read your jew hating anti semetic vitrol last night i practicaly burst out of my seams. i was so angry i was afraid to post my reaction. now that i have slept on it i am not.

evil jews
poison your food
brainwash you
sadistic practice
bloodthirsty enemy
jew hating culture
beastly manner
anti-war bloggers

wow krypt, care to poison the thread w/any more images? i have frequented anti war sites for years and i have never heard anyone describe jews in this manner. why are you propagating hate like this? is this your way of gaining sympathy for your politics? are we to believe every jew is the same in mind, in support of identical politics? can't you rejoice in a moment of pleasure over 24's experience without infecting this site w/your disgusting rhetoric? try googling evil jew (i tried it)and see how many anti war sites come up. they don't. do you know why? we don't talk or write or think like that.

you are an ugly human. how dare you. if you want to hear racist bloggers you will have to frequent the rabid right sites, for left bloggers do not engage in this kind of hideous speech or thought. would you care to challenge me? because i can link you to very very popular sites w/horrid racist lingo. put out or shut up.

you stand w/the racists that try to paint all arabs w/one brushstroke. this islamofascist drivel spewing from the mouth of the gop. the terror terror fear fear vote for me lingo.

I wonder who these "experts" would suggest annointing as a "traditional Middle Eastern strongman." And would the nearly 300,000 Iraqis who are now part of the Iraqi security forces be willing to support whomever the United States chose to replace who the Iraqi people chose in the Decmeber 15, 2005 elections?

good question

let's see who the realists come up with for iraq's 'national salvation'

btw, a nyt 8/17 front page story also contained this quote

"'Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,' said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity."

rumble rumble. face it , it doesn't have to be a democracy, just US/oil privatization friendly. the goal of course was regime change. as bruno reminds us, the US had no problem w/sadam until he wasn't playing by their rules.

".. for left bloggers do not engage in this kind of hideous speech or thought..."

You can't be serious. What about Ward Churchill? What about all the 9/11 conspiracists who propagate that the jews were behind 9/11? What about the Iranian president, for gods sakes, calling for israel to be "wiped off the map"? You cannot honestly believe anti-semitism does not exist in the arab world.

and no, i don't go looking at racist anti-semitic websites on the web. I have no interest in such websites, as you apparently do.

You cannot honestly believe anti-semitism does not exist in the arab world.

are you spinning your own words again? this wasn't about 9/11 sites or the president of iran, you said anti war bloggers.

and not characterize israel in the beastly manner it is often described by other anti-war bloggers.

nice try spinmeister

here, why don't you call Former Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon
an anti semite, from his interview w/haaretz yesterday.

""The processes of cover-up and corruption are continuing. The prime minister's examination commissions are an escape. Instead of proving that he is showing responsibility, the prime minister is fleeing from responsibility. In the IDF, too, it's clear there will not be truthful investigations. Everyone is busy with his own personal survival. So without changing horses and without a state commission of inquiry that will expose the truth to everyone, there is no chance of starting the process of rehabilitating the IDF. This is because the IDF is not destroyed. It does not need organizational rehabilitation. What it needs is a rehabilitation of values. Without the replacement of the political leadership and the senior command, that kind of rehabilitation of values is impossible. It won't happen."

"I see a war of cultures here. In recent years the public sector in Israel has undergone a process of corruption. It began in politics but, regrettably, also penetrated the army. A cycle of discussion has been created here in which the core is not the essence but marketing. In the war we paid a price for that. We paid a price for disengaging from the truth. We paid a price for the loss of integrity and the moral fog. We paid a price for accepting a process in which officers are promoted because they have political connections."

ward churchill is not an anti war blogger? there are scads of very popular frequently trafficed anti war blogs and they never use terms like that. find me one, not some obscur thing know one has ever heard of, but anything mainstream, anything.

your charges are absurd.totally. oh, you aren't going to google to find out, we are all just supposed to take your word for it. i could understand if you were aiming your disgusting vitrol on white supremacy sites (hardly anti war) or nazi sympathizers, but not anti war bloggers, get over yourself you sound more and more like an idiot all the time.

the jews were behind 9/11?

THE jews. you mean allll THE jews.

as if THEY are all one and the same you mean. who's charactarizing THE jews?

YOU

5. Provoke - First attract attention, then appeal to emotions.

6. Crisis - Shades of gray don't work: The issues must be black and white: love/hate, good/evil, life/death.

somebodies been brushing up on his nazi fascist propaganda 101

whether the individuals propagating these myths about the jews and israel are 'bloggers' or not is irrelevant. your implications suggest that anti-semitism does not exist on the left, when, in fact, it is vehemently incorporated into your arguments.

[Bruno] And of course if you had to make a list of the countries with the most destructive, genocidal foreign policy, then I’d bet that the US would be in the top three.

The US has made many foreign policy decisions that I have not agreed with. But most of them have been sins of ommission rather than sins of commission, from my perspective. I am not angry at the current President Bush for taking Saddam Hussain's regime out of power and attempting to plant democracy in the heart of the Arab world. I am, however, disappointed that the original President Bush (the one who served from 1989 to 1993) left the Shia arabs to be slaughtered by Saddam Hussain.

The United States has been among the most powerful nations for many decades and since must of the burden of fighting Nazi Germany and the Soviet Empire fell on US shoulders, the US had indeed used its military power more so than, say, Denmark or Norway. Personally, I don't think the US should apologize for its military power, nor do I think it should apologize for using it to advance its national interests.

[Bruno] The truth is that statistically Iraqis are worse off in every measurable way under your “liberation” than under Hussein, even when under sanctions.

Let's take a look at this argument....

What if some member of the elected Iraqi parliament were to propose a referendum that would ask the Iraqis if they would like to (a) release Saddam Hussain from jail and (b) place Saddam Hussain and his "assistants" back in power.

The Shia Arabs, having been brutalized by Saddam Hussain, would probably overwhelmingly vote "No" on such a referendum.

The Shia Kurds, having been a victim of Saddam Hussain's WMD program, would also probably overwhelmingly vote "No."

Guessing how the Sunni Arabs would vote would be more difficult. But a plurality of Sunni Arabs might vote "Yes."

So, given that only a minority of Iraqis would support a return of Saddam Hussain to power in place of the current elected Iraqi parliament, the idea that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussain needs a bit more scrutiny.

ha! at least i cut and paste and provide links, something you either can't or won't do.

your implications suggest that anti-semitism does not exist on the left

implication? i haven't been implying anything. i have stated flat out that people who blog against the war are not synonymous w/anti semite.
then of course by your standards...

The US government represents the people of the USA, and if you hate the US government, you hate the US. They are not separate.

then i would presume you also posit that israel represents jews and if you don't like the foriegn policies of israel ta da, you don't like israel, or the israelis? or jews?? is that your flawed logic?
you and aipac will get along just fine. anyone who doesn't support your theory is a racist!

thank god your viewpoint is not shared by the rest of humanity.it is not me who is coralling people into huge generalized catagories. say, can you find any ANY supporting evidence for this hairbrained THEORY of yours??? no, i didn't think so.

you are a joke. i am not discussing this w/you further. it would be one thing if you had some supporting evidence of some 'group' on the left. why don't you zero in on the white supremists or something, oh, too.... republican?

strawman, old hat, krypto if flogging a dead animal and it stinks.

"...i am not discussing this w/you further..." Do you promise? I love it when jew haters like you bitch and complain about being labeled as anti-semitic, and then go forth and condemn US and Israeli policies designed to protect Israel from the arab onslaught. You are a walking contradiction, and completely ignorant to think that the policies you support are innocuous. Thankfully, those in power in the US, Western Europe, and Japan are not aligned with your sadistic sympathies.

yawn

LOL...nice response! Too bad you couldn't just ignore the post, but instead to pronounce to everyone you were ignoring the post. Its not quite the same thing, lamo.

i didn't ignore it. it's just boring. go read the boy who cried wolf.

you are impotent. 'sadistic sympathies' .

yawn

7. Emotional Symbols - Good slogans have no literal meaning, only a strong emotional appeal.

yawn

"bruno -- A “Jew” does not automatically equal an “Israeli”."
[kryptonite] “Oh jeez...more justiciation for killing by Bruno.”

O Jeez, more idiotic lying extrapolation by Kryp the drip. Bruno says “the sky is blue” Kryp says “Ah, so you support bin Laden!”

I’m not going to waste my time with this drivel, thanks.




[mark] “But most of them have been sins of ommission rather than sins of commission, from my perspective.”

That’s debatable. I regard inaction as morally neutral. On the other hand, calling for the Shia to rise up and then abandoning them is actively evil. Drawing up lists of “to kill” people on the basis of ideology is evil. I don’t hold the US responsible for inaction. That train of logic leads one to ludicrous conclusions.

[mark] “Personally, I don't think the US should apologize for its military power, nor do I think it should apologize for using it to advance its national interests.”

Military power per se is fine. But using military power to advance national interests is clearly NOT FINE. That’s like a Nazi saying he approves of Hitler using German military power to advance Germanic national interests. Sorry, but invading and subjugating countries on the basis of national interest is still evil.


[Bruno] The truth is that statistically Iraqis are worse off in every measurable way under your ‘liberation’ than under Hussein, even when under sanctions.
[mark] ”Let's take a look at this argument.... […] So, given that only a minority of Iraqis would support a return of Saddam Hussain to power […]”

That argument is more than a little specious. Straight off the bat you are making some heroic assumptions without any sort of statistical backup. Secondly you make factual errors – the Kurds are a Sunni majority, for example.

But let’s forget this. The truth is that I believe – read believe - most Iraqis didn’t want Hussein in power. That does NOT automatically lead to the conclusion that they want YOUR machinations in Iraq either.

The reality is they want neither you nor Hussein in power.

And between these two realities the worse one is your “liberation” by a long yard. The death rate is higher, the electricity is worse, the water services are worse, the medical infrastructure is worse, the provision of food is worse, security is worse … need I go on? This ignores the lasting seeds of sectarian conflict that have been laid by your intervention, which will reap a grim toll for years to come. The country has been opened to being a battleground between every cross-eyed radical with an axe to grind.

Iraq as a country is shattered.

This is far worse than the situation under Hussein, and the fact that Iraqis are streaming over to Jordan –Iraqis that stayed in Iraq under Hussein – only reinforces my point.

Military power per se is fine. But using military power to advance national interests is clearly NOT FINE. That’s like a Nazi saying he approves of Hitler using German military power to advance Germanic national interests. Sorry, but invading and subjugating countries on the basis of national interest is still evil.

Not necessarily. First, the US government is the only government in the world that is responsible for advancing American's national interests. So it is naive to believe that the US will be neutral between the interests of the US and the interests of, say, Etheopia.

Second, toppling one of the world's worst dictatorships and replacing it with a democracy is a positive thing, in my opinion, because it allows Iraqis to choose their own government on a periodic basis.

And if it were so obvious that Iraqis were better off under Saddam compared to now, we would expect to see Iraqis wanting Saddam returned to power.

But they don't, except for the some Sunni Arabs.

But let’s forget this. The truth is that I believe – read believe - most Iraqis didn’t want Hussein in power. That does NOT automatically lead to the conclusion that they want YOUR machinations in Iraq either.

Since Iraqis now get to vote to elect their parliament, the Iraqis don't have to want my machinations in Iraq. They only have to decide what they would like for themselves and try to find people who can deliver.

Are the Iraqis disappointed in their current parliament and Prime Minister? If so, in the next election they can elect other people.

Bruno,

As for Iraqis streaming over the border to live in Jordan. Let's remember that many Iraqis fled to Great Britain, the US, Canada, Iran and elsewhere during Saddam's reign of terror.

So, it's not as though everyone was just happy as clams during Saddam Hussain's regime and didn't want to leave.

Again, if Saddam's rule was preferable to the current situation, why aren't Iraqis asking for Saddam to pull a Grover Cleveland (the US President who served two non-consecutive terms as President in the late 1800s)?

Let's face it. If you were correct in your belief, the Iraqis would say, "You know. I thought things were bad under Saddam. But looking at things to day, I think we need to spring him from jail and put him back in power."

Anyone remotely familiar with the brutality of Saddam's rule knows that the possibility of most Iraqi-Kurds and Shia Arab Iraqis buying this line of argument is next to zero.

My solution? Let's have a referendum on this topic and let Iraqis decide. 'Cause when Saddam was in power, he didn't allow elections the way American "occupiers" have.

Ha ha ha...Bruno is now squirming around, forced to, once again, deal with the incompatability of claiming, on the one hand, that Iraq was better with Saddam (the unpopular view) AND, just so he doesn't seem like a total fruit, that Iraqis DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THE OLD DAYS. He's been trying to reconcile this for years, and has yet to come up with a legimitate response. Just watch...he'll try to change the subject now by bringing up "el salvador" or some other non-issue.

Aren't you guys tired yet?

yikes

yikes again

apparently members of the most popular left blog on the internet (20 million page views per week) are more than a little concerned about someone denying their jewish roots.

Aren't you guys tired yet?

Silly girl. They never get tired.

The Iraq situation can go either way ... the worst case scenario
is Conservative Shia rule by force
(except for Kurdish region)
After US forces leave ...

If this happens then in say 5
years
1) The Kurds will be OK with
Saddam being gone
2) The Shia region will be OK
with Saddam being gone
3) Only 5 million or so Sunni
and say 2 millon secular Shia
will say be "screwed"

So in effect ousting Saddam benefited some 20 million out of 27 million ...

Best case scenario involves a political agreement between
Shia and Sunni Iraqi factions
involving

1)shared revenue
2)unified military
3)no Iranianin political influence
(trade agreements only)
4)mutual respect for the three
main cultures and religious practices (OR LACK THEREOF)

The world wants UN involvement
in the oh so special sovereign
government in the Sudan ...
yes you see that is a legitimate government ... like Saddams government ... very very special these "legitimate" governments ...
and of course any intervention without the approval of this special wonderfully legal government would be illegal !!!

So why did 30,000 new yorkers
demand UN intervention in Darfur ???

I mean they must be war mongers ...
supporting foreign soldiers on
the soil of such a legitimate
government ...!!!

Memo to Muslims ...
car bombing in Somalia !!!
Not a Jew or American in sight
whats the deal there ... will the world cup be shown in Somalia
in 4 years??? it does not look good.

Oh by the way how many Christian
churches bombed in Gaza because of a quotation by Pope taken out of context !!!

And how many Mosques in US firebombed after 9/11 attacks ???

Hey Stupid people out there ...
permanent bases mean the BASES are permanent ... like made of concrete
and steel with electricity/water/sewage modern kitchens ... air-conditioning ..heat get it
THE BASES ARE PERMANENT ...

The US military plans to turn these
basis over to Iraqi counterparts
at the time of the Iraqi
governments choosing ...

Where do you want the brand new
Iraqi airforce to be trained and housed ??? in some crappy little
ramshackel base ... where are the new Iraqi F-16 Jets going to be sheltered maintained ... the parts inventory kept ??? In the middle of the desert ...

same for the fleet of new Iraq helicopters ...
The new Iraqi tanks etc ...

Iraq needs nice new modern large
PERMANENT Bases and the US taxpayer
is building them so end this idiotic thread about US building Permanent bases ... it does NOT
mean the prescence of US Forces
is permanent ... these 4 bases
are the part of the plan of building a new modern Iraqi military.

Jews are OK ... just leave your
wallet and checkbook at home though or someone will try and sell you insurance ...
(OK I am only kidding)

Perhaps as you meet more US Muslims
your group can invite your jewish friends
to your upcomming EID celebration ...

keep your swords out of eyesight
however ... they can be intimidating !!!
Ha Ha

Oh by the way how many Christian
churches bombed in Gaza because of a quotation by Pope taken out of context !!!

FO

iraq for sale

sorry

"They would know that peace in the Middle East is not being achieved because of them, not us!"

My cousin is married to an Israeli Jewish guy. The problem with Israel is the illegal occupation of Palestine and the fanatic rasist Zionist groups who are as dangerous as al qaida are even more in my view.

[bruno] Sorry, but invading and subjugating countries on the basis of national interest is still evil.
[mark] “Not necessarily. First, the US government is the only government in the world that is responsible for advancing American's national interests.”

You’re kidding, right? Look, if it’s America coming to the rescue of say, Britain, because you have intertwined commercial interests and a common cultural heritage, that’s one thing. But to advocate out-and-out aggressive military action in order to advance the national agenda is wrong, and I don’t care if it’s the Nazis or the Americans doing it.

I particularly like the way the next two comments play off of each other:
[mark] “So it is naive to believe that the US will be neutral between the interests of the US and the interests of, say, Etheopia.”
[mark] “Second, toppling one of the world's worst dictatorships and replacing it with a democracy is a positive thing, in my opinion, because it allows Iraqis to choose their own government on a periodic basis.”

Fact is, you have admitted the US is using its military to advance its national interests via force, and in the next breath you want me to believe that the use of US military power is for the sole benefit of Iraqis, who have gained “democracy” and “freedom” as a result.

Come on, who’s being naïve now?

The truth is that the action in Iraq has to do with the American national interest and not with the Iraqi national interest. And the way the “democracy” has panned out reflects this.

When the UIA won a democratic (you would have us believe) election, and then through a further democratic ‘in-house’ election decided on Hakim as the new PM, the US vetoed their choice.

When the US choice, Maliki, put forward his 28 point plan that included provision for the withdrawal of US forces and amnesty of people that have killed US soldiers, the US vetoed this as well, and the offending phrases were stricken from the final, neutered plan.

The idea of freedom of choice in Iraq is positively hilarious when one considers that the Iraqi PM does not know of important military operations against his electoral base, and is only allowed to protest in retrospect.


[mark] “Let's face it. If you were correct in your belief, the Iraqis would say, "You know. I thought things were bad under Saddam. But looking at things to day, I think we need to spring him from jail and put him back in power."”

This argument is fallacious. You’re foisting a false dilemma on me here. How about Iraqis have NEITHER you NOR Saddam? Matter of fact, there are a lot of Iraqis that would prefer him back in power, judging by all the “it was better before” posts and articles I keep running into … but I hardly regard this as a scientific study.

I agree on the idea of a referendum. Except on my referendum there would be three choices: ‘Saddam’, ‘the US’ and ‘neither’.

I vote for option (c).




[kryptonite] “Ha ha ha...Bruno is now squirming around”

HA HA HA, Kryptonite, after spending several hours with a dictionary, working out what Mark and I are talking about, finally comes out with a non-argument that depends on somebody else debating for him. Go back to the wings, clown, it’s not time for the comic relief yet.

"I agree on the idea of a referendum. Except on my referendum there would be three choices: ‘Saddam’, ‘the US’ and ‘neither’. I vote for option (c)."

Yes, bruno, and who was going to implement choice 'c'? For some reason, you like to ignore the fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY was willing to step up to the plate and remove Saddam. Its fine to suggest an alternative - its just that none existed.

More Bruno lies...

The problem with Israel is the illegal occupation of Palestine... Nadia

And what exactly constitutes Palestine?

Yes, bruno, and who was going to implement choice 'c'?

why, iraqis of course.

The problem with Israel is the illegal occupation of Palestine...

wapo

"For the Arab moderates and for the Europeans, some sense of progress and momentum on the Arab-Israeli dispute is just a sine qua non for their ability to cooperate actively with the United States on a lot of other things that we care about," Zelikow said. "We can rail against that belief; we can find it completely justifiable, but it's fact. That means an active policy on the Arab-Israeli dispute is an essential ingredient to forging a coalition that deals with the most dangerous problems."

Zelikow's comments alarmed Israelis, who fear becoming a pawn in American diplomatic calculations, and U.S. officials said they were misinterpreted. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack even posted a statement on Power Line, a right-wing blog, saying there is no change in policy."


"On the Middle East, Bush pushed his notion that greater democracy will bring stability to the region. But many foreign officials instead argue that stability can be achieved only if there is peace between Israelis and Palestinians."

i am shocked a mainstream newspaper is saying the obvious.funny israel responds w/this'pawn in the game '.
response. another interesting quote opening the article

"Before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, U.S. officials confidently predicted that the toppling of Saddam Hussein would lead to renewed momentum on the Israeli-Palestinian peace track. "The road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad" was a common refrain."

what BS. i grew up in a family w/5 kids. when the last one was born, the baby, she dominated the entire household. she got all the attention and everything revolved around her. this went on for years. finally she grew up and realized she had to make compromises like everyone else. i am waiting for israel to grow up.

"Yes, bruno, and who was going to implement choice 'c'?
why, iraqis of course."

And when, exactly, were the Iraqis going to do this? Saddam had been in power since the 60s. If Iraqis had the impetus to revolt and establish democracy, they would have done it already. Waiting for Iraqis to take charge and overthrow Saddam would have put the US, and other countries in the region, in increasing danger of further attack by Iraq, whether through WMD or terrorism. Choice "c" was not an option, at least from the US perspective.

mcagnhwsIraqi oil was privatized already
for 35 years under Saddam !!!

I mean really ... do you think
the current and future oil ministers of Iraq are stupid people??

The current oil minister
Sharistani is a conservative Shia ...

Does anyone really believe he is going to cut a deal with international oil companies which
leaves Iraq poor ???

The facts are the oil industry
has a qspeculative future

1) China
2) India
3) USA
4) Developing nations

are using incredible amounts of oil ...

But billions of dollars is being spent to move away from oil
Especially Mid-East and now for US
Venezuelan oil.

as much as possible ... hydrogen fuel cells ... ethanol ... coal etc

very smart Indians/Chinese/Americans
(possibly Jews in America)

Are all working on replacing oil ...

So all you Iraqi who know how to
administer your oil reserves ...
I ask you what will be the price of oil in 2010 ??? ... in 2015 ???

If Exxon Mobile offers Iraq 4 Billion dollars right now for the rights to develop a new oil field
to come on line in 2010 ... in addition to the 4 Billion Exxon Mobile will pay Iraq $30 per barrel
and assume all expenses and hire
90% Iraqi ...

I ask all you oil industry socialist
experts ... do you accept the offer ???

The point being the risk is entirely Exxon-Mobiles ...

Iraq will do very well regardless
of the price of oil ...

If oil goes to 100 a barrel does
that mean Exxon-Mobile "stole your oil" ??? ... If it drops to $20
and by contract Exxon Mobile is paying you $30 then what does that mean ...

Obviously I made the scenario up
the exact nature of foreign investment in Iraqs oil is unknown to me ... I am after all a syupid American ... but all you Iraqi who are concerned about this ...
Well quite simply make an effort politically to
HAVE ALL foreign investment offers
in the oil industry of Iraq
TO BE MADE PUBLIC and demand the final aprroval be come from the cabinet ministry AND prime Minister
AND the parliament by vote

Should Iraq divert billions of
dollars needed for electricity/water/residential housing/Hospitals/Universities/Roads etc NOW in order to develop new fields on its own ???

There seems to be curruption in parts of your oil industry now ...
How deep how widespread no one knows ... Sharistani must work on ending that ... then he needs to meet with some really smart oil men
from Saddams regime and negotiate
with western companies and cut a good balanced deal for Iraq ...

I can not believe Sharistani or the person who may come after him
will mis-managed Iraqs oil worse then Saddam

I personally can not wait for
major technologfical breakthroughs
even though it they will screw our new Iraq friends.
But the though of Chavez begging
for American aid as Venezuelans
kill each other for food when oil
drops to $10 a barrel is much to appealing to me.

In addition since Iran is now
the protector of justice/equality
and the champion of the worlds opressed I am relieved ...
because now Irans military can
be deployed to Darfur to prevent
the pending genocide !!!!

[anon] “Obviously I made the scenario up the exact nature of foreign investment in Iraqs oil is unknown to me ... I am after all a syupid [sic] American”

The American part you can’t do much about, but the “stupid” part you can. Google a bit on the future of the Iraqi oil industry, and find out what PSA’s are. Find out who Adel Abdul Mahdi is, and what role he plays. Find out whether he is an honest broker for the Iraqi people or not. Then come back with your theories.

Excuse me, just testing something.

Does this work?

Looking forward to the day an American Jew can have dinner safely with Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East.

At some point, a pound of flesh will be demanded. Your silence will be demanded on the murders in Gaza, the rightful occupation of Golan and Samaria, the blessings Jews have brought to Palestinians, or some such.

Unless your hosts were Kahilla, Nutria Karta, or Tikkun, you should wait for the other shoe to drop. Enjoy it while you can.

Here is a good conversational topic for your next meeting.

Jewish rabbi calls for extermination of all Palestinian males

18 September 2006

A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth.

Extremist rabbi Yousef Falay, who dwells at the Yitzhar settlement on illegally seized Palestinian land in the northern part of the West Bank, wrote an article in a Zionist magazine under the title "Ways of War", in which he called for the killing of all Palestinian males refusing to flee their country, describing his idea as the practical way to ensure the non-existence of the Palestinian race.

"We have to make sure that no Palestinian individual remains under our occupation. If they (Palestinians) escape then it is good; but if anyone of them remains, then he should be exterminated" , the fanatic rabbi added in his article.

Falay is not the first to have called for such extreme measures. Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Kach movement, called for "the transfer of Israel 's Arab population to Arab (or other) lands." (As it states on the group's website). Followers of Kahane have been connected to a number of murders of Palestinians, particularly in the Hebron area in the southern West Bank. In the most well-known of such attacks, 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron were gunned down by Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Kahane, in 1994, with Israeli soldiers looking on and allowing the gunman to reload his automatic machine gun and continue killing innocent civilians. In response to that massacre, the Israeli authorities punished the Palestinian victims by taking over the Ibrahimi mosque and turning half of it into a synagogue, where Israeli settlers go to pray each week. And each year, on the anniversary of the massacre, Israeli settlers in Hebron dress up like Baruch Goldstein and parade through the streets of Hebron , firing guns in the air.

The Kach movement recognizes the 'transfer' of 750,000 Palestinians that took place in 1948 in order for the state of Israel to be created on their land, but argues on their website that this 'transfer' was incomplete, and that all Palestinians must be sent away, or killed, in order for Israel to remain a 'Jewish state'. Their platform reads, "In a genuinely 'JEWISH State', how can an Arab be an equal when that State has an Independence Day celebrating his defeat. Its flag isn't that of its people. He isn't trusted to serve in the army. His cousin born in Haifa [sic] and fled during the 1948 War of Independence cannot return... yet any Jew who never lived there before is welcomed with open arms. In short, Israel is his enemy's country, not his. So how can an Arab truly be a loyal citizen in a Jewish State? Simply, they cannot, and they must go!"

The idea of extermination of Palestinians, or their 'transfer' into other countries, is not only a view held by extremists on the fringes of society. Prominent Israeli politicians have also made calls for a 'transfer', or ethnic cleansing, based on race. Just last week, on September 11, 2006, an Israeli member of Parliament called explicitly for the transfer of Palestinians (whom he referred to as 'Arabs') from the West Bank (which he referred to as 'Judea and Samaria ', the biblical name for the region where the majority of Palestinians now live).

"We have to expel most Arabs from Judea and Samaria ," Eitam said at a memorial service for Lt. Amihai Merhavia, a soldier who was killed in South Lebanon in July. "We can't deal with all these Arabs, and we can't give up the territory, because we've already seen what they do there. Some of them might have to stay under certain conditions, but most of them will have to go." Despite a law that would strip Israeli parliament members of their immunity to prosecution if they are found make explicitly racist statements, no investigation of Eitam has occurred on this matter, and there was no condemnation of his statement by the Israeli government.

Lets hope no one chokes on the Israeli falafel!

Good to see that happening, more of the same I say:-)

"A Jewish rabbi living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth."

Wow...you mean after decades of irrational racist hatred by the Arabs, some jews hate them back? That's some brilliant research you did there...

You got me there krypto. the rabbi really belonged in the west bank. he wasnt there like a thorn in the eye.

talking about thorns in the eye! hey 24 steps, you should ignore my lousy advice earlier. here is the subject of interest, what sort of god extols the virtures of genocide?

Joshua 23
5 And Jehovah your God, he will expel them from before you, and dispossess them from out of your sight; and ye shall take possession of their land, as Jehovah your God hath said unto you.
12 For if ye in any wise go back, and cleave unto the residue of these nations, these that remain among you, and make marriages with them, and come in unto them and they unto you:
13 know for a certainty that Jehovah your God will no more dispossess these nations from before you, and they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which Jehovah your God hath given you.

Numbers 33
50 And Jehovah spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan of Jericho, saying,
51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye pass over Jordan into the land of Canaan,
52 then ye shall dispossess all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and ye shall destroy all their figured images, and all their molten images shall ye destroy, and all their high places shall ye lay waste;
53 and ye shall take possession of the land, and dwell therein, for to you have I given the land to possess it.
55 But if ye will not dispossess the inhabitants of the land from before you, those that ye let remain of them shall be thorns in your eyes, and pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell.
56 And it shall come to pass that I will do unto you as I thought to do unto them.

Ramadan kareem everyone!

Good to see that happening, more of the same I say:-)

sad your site has these racists 24

Wow...you mean after decades of irrational racist hatred by the Arabs, some jews hate them back?

krypto thinks he knows what came first, the chicken or the egg.

Choice "c" was not an option, at least from the US perspective.

nice spin . this is not a past tense hypothetical. it is current, and of course c is always an option. idiot

hey, how U doing?

nice post

"krypto thinks he knows what came first, the chicken or the egg."

annie, please tell us which came first, since you seem to believe suicide bombing attacks against jews are justified.

"nice spin . this is not a past tense hypothetical." LOL. Yes, it was. we were discussing what the US should have done about Saddam. are you even reading the blog? You were arguing that the US should not have removed Saddam. I was arguing that the US should have removed him since no one else would. What is your problem with this?

"idiot" - ouch, that really hurts, annie. Calling me names over the internet. You are quite brave. At least I know I made you mad - that's all the satisfaction I need.

"nice spin . this is not a past tense hypothetical." LOL. Yes, it was. we were discussing what the US should have done about Saddam. are you even reading the blog?

i have been gone for 5 days but apparently i can keep track of the conversdation better than you

What if some member of the elected Iraqi parliament were to propose a referendum that would ask the Iraqis if they would like to (a) release Saddam Hussain from jail and (b) place Saddam Hussain and his "assistants" back in power.

i assume this is present tense. you have introduced 2 options. bruno suggested a third.just because life now is not better than it was during sadams reign does not mean the only options for improvemnt are bringing him back or continuing to 'stay the course'. of course i can see why you would want to frame it that way. if gives the listener the option of either agreeing w/you or supporting sadam. only an idiot would fall into that all too obvious trap.

since you seem to believe suicide bombing attacks against jews are justified.

you either believe alls fair in love and war, or you don't. obviously the israeli's do, they need to learn to take their own medicine w/out whining.or quit dishing it out.

cluster bombs now littering southern Lebanon, will be a "lasting legacy,"

Israeli military fired 90 percent of the bombs during the last 72 hours of the conflict,

As many as 1 million of the bomblets are unexploded, they say, wounding or killing three people a day.

The Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on their sale to Israel after a congressional investigation determined that Israel had misused the weapons during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The State Department said it is investigating whether Israel violated agreements with the United States on their use during the conflict this summer.

Early on, officials estimated that cluster munitions littered 400 sites, anywhere from a house to an entire village. The number now stands at 590, and U.N. officials said they are dumbfounded by the intensity of the firing in the war's last days, when it was clear a cease-fire was approaching.

"It's impossible for me to work out what the logic was," said David Shearer, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon. "To me, it just seems outrageous that it would happen as it did."

it is not impossible for me to to work out the logic. israel has not agreed to a ceasefire, they have left millions of bombs, just no bodies to accompany them. i suppose in your twisted mind they are only 'wrong' if they are attached to bodies and therefore 'suicide bombs'. the logic is clear. it just doesn't shed a decent civilized light on corrupt evil zionist action

"What if some member of the elected Iraqi parliament were to propose a referendum that would ask the Iraqis if they would like to (a) release Saddam Hussain from jail and (b) place Saddam Hussain and his "assistants" back in power.

i assume this is present tense. you have introduced 2 options."

God...so stupid...can't take it...much longer. first of all, I did not propose the "two option" scenario. I responded to Bruno, who implied that somehow, magically, it was possible for Saddam to be "removed" without the US being involved. You are, again, completely avoiding the issue of whether or not it was proper for the United States to forcibly remove Saddam from power. For obvious reasons, you are afraid to answer the question, as your answer suggests that you want saddam back in power. further, you cannot just try to address what's going on today without looking back at what got us to the situation we are in now. your whole point is that the US should not be in Iraq - okay, but if the US never went into iraq, then Saddam would still be in power. Its that simple. Feel free to squirm some more.

"you either believe alls fair in love and war, or you don't. obviously the israeli's do, they need to learn to take their own medicine w/out whining.or quit dishing it out."

you can't be serious. this is the most amoral, sadistic thing I've ever heard anyone say. Well, here's to another 100 years of bloody conflict over a piece of land smaller than new jersey. So, according to you, the murder of civilians who have nothing to do with the political situation in the ME is a legitimate war tactic. I'll keep that in mind the next time you complain about the mistreatment of Iraqis by the US.

So, according to you, the murder of civilians who have nothing to do with the political situation in the ME is a legitimate war tactic.

you crack me up. i just posted a washington post story about murdering civilians, and you construe this means i think its legitimate? you can fantasize all you want about me sqirming around, but nobody reading this w/out your creative imagination could possibly come to this conclusion. what because i say ""you either believe alls fair in love and war, or you don't."

I responded to Bruno, who implied that somehow, magically, it was possible for Saddam to be "removed" without the US being involved.

really? i don't suppose you could do a little copy and pasting to prove that?squirming? you wish that were the topic. since the present is such a hideous mess. here's a little copy and pasting for you


[mark] “Let's face it. If you were correct in your belief, the Iraqis would say, "You know. I thought things were bad under Saddam. But looking at things to day, I think we need to spring him from jail and put him back in power."”

(bruno)This argument is fallacious. You’re foisting a false dilemma on me here. How about Iraqis have NEITHER you NOR Saddam? Matter of fact, there are a lot of Iraqis that would prefer him back in power, judging by all the “it was better before” posts and articles I keep running into … but I hardly regard this as a scientific study.

this is all a moot point. i heard today the shiites and kurds were drawing up plans for there own separate states. leaving the sunnis out. the oil region is the only one the us cares about. this was the original plan all along, according to the zionist blueprint for the ME.

You are, again, completely avoiding the issue of whether or not it was proper for the United States to forcibly remove Saddam from power. For obvious reasons, you are afraid to answer the question, as your answer suggests that you want saddam back in power.

btw, i am not avoiding this issue. you just do not like my opinion.

i do not think, nor did i ever think. nor will i ever think, it was or is 'proper' for the US to forcibly remove sadam from power. my guess is that would be fairly obvious i stand w/the majority here in the US, and the neocons in power knew that, which is why they lied and fabricated evidence to illegally invade iraq.

as your answer suggests that you want saddam back in power.

my answer suggests i would rather have the 150,000+ iraqis who have died during this war alive again.also all the foriegn troops in iraq who died, including ours. if i could turn back the clock to feb 03, i would choose the US not invaded. if that meant sadam were still in power, so be it.
what i think is irrelevant. it is not my country, nor my decision. iraq was not a threat to our country, not the way the bush regime is.not by a long shot.

"if i could turn back the clock to feb 03, i would choose the US not invaded. if that meant sadam were still in power, so be it."

Thank you for the admission. At least you are willing to acknowledge that you support Saddam, unlike some of your hypocritical brethren.

"what i think is irrelevant."

The most intelligent thing I've heard you say yet. while what you think is irrelevant, what you say is not. It encourages and perpetuates terrorism, racism, hatred and war. You are an enemy to humankind. But hey, as long as you exercise your right to hate Bush at the expense of Iraqis and American soldiers, that makes everything okay, doesn't it?

Just for fun, I will re-post Bruno's post, and my response, just to address your strange obsession with an irrelevant point

Here's Bruno: "I agree on the idea of a referendum. Except on my referendum there would be three choices: ‘Saddam’, ‘the US’ and ‘neither’. I vote for option (c)."

Here's my response: "Yes, bruno, and who was going to implement choice 'c'? For some reason, you like to ignore the fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY was willing to step up to the plate and remove Saddam. Its fine to suggest an alternative - its just that none existed."

I highly doubt that Bruno was trying to say that the US SHOULD have gone to war to remove Saddam, but that the US should now leave. Bruno thinks the US should NEVER have gone to war to remove Saddam, just like you. The problem is, if your wish came true, Saddam would still be in power.

Ah, you say, but then the 150,000 Iraqis would not have died. But, of course they would have - maybe not in three years, but over time, if saddam was still in power, 100x that amount would have been killed, and it would have applied to Americans as well, had Saddam developed his bomb. So, if you compare, let's say, 50 more years of Saddam and his sons in power in Iraq, to the current mayhem, the current mayhem is, in the end, "better." Of course, myopic people do not see this, but the statistical argument favors occupation, at least in terms of humanitarian concerns.

squirm away, snake.

The problem is, if your wish came true, Saddam would still be in power.

really, you are too much. my wish? is plan c. the choice you say is NOT an option.

i noticed how'just for fun', you avoided backing up your claim

I responded to Bruno, who implied that somehow, magically, it was possible for Saddam to be "removed" without the US being involved.

you are so impotent.we all know this is all you want to focus on. your little straw man.


Ah, you say, but then the 150,000 Iraqis would not have died. But, of course they would have - maybe not in three years, but over time, if saddam was still in power,

yes idiot, over time, everyone eventually dies.this proves nothing. you cannot read the future so all you bloviating about myopic people is total bs.

if you took lessons you could never make me sqirm. you cannot back up your lies about what you claim bruno said. no matter whether you sugarcoat it in 'fun' it is still bs.

Its fine to suggest an alternative - its just that none existed."

lies again. obviously the option of not removing him existed.what is going on now in iraq does not justifies lying to the world. has nothing to do w/representing the US.

next you are going to be justifying invading iran, w/lies.

LOL. Everyone dies? That is your argument? What a joke you are.

Okay, so what was the alternative to a) the US not going to war and Saddam staying in power, and b) the US going to war and removing Saddam from power. Again, for some reason, you seem unable to acknowledge that these were the options. Saddam wasn't going anywhere. The Iraqi people did not have the means to "revolt" and overthrow him. No other country was willing to remove Saddam. As soon as Saddam died, his sons would have taken over and continued his murderous regime. So WHAT IS THE OTHER OPTION? Please, I'm curious as to how else you believe Iraq was supposed to get out of Saddam's grip of power.

The argument really is, does the cost of going to war to remove Saddam outweigh the benefit you associate with keeping Saddam in power. I believe it does. You do not. You admitted this for a second there. Not sure why you've gone back on your word. Maybe you feel bad about theoretically putting Saddam back in power and re-establishing tyranny and dictatorship and so you've rethought your position?

[k] "The argument really is, does the cost of going to war to remove Saddam outweigh the benefit you associate with keeping Saddam in power. I believe it does. You do not."

Quite simply, the statistics bear our POV out. More Iraqis have died per year under your rule than Hussein; the infrastructure has collapsed; there is less food, electricity, oil revenue - you name it. Husseins corrupt cronies have been replaced by an entirely new set of corrupt footstools. Millions of Iraqis have fled the country that did not flee under Hussein, and indeed, it doesn't look like Iraq has a future as an entity any more.

Kryptonite: "That's good!"

Annie, really, what is there to say to this donkey? He lives in a world where good is bad and worse is better...

Uh oh...here's bruno to save annie's hopeless ass. too bad he failed miserably too. obviously, the last three years have left too many iraqis dead - maybe more on average per year than in any one year under saddam hussein (although I would argue that the Iran/Iraq war was bloodier). nevertheless, your argument does not take into consideration that this is a temporary conflict, not a long, drawnout, perpertual tyranny as would be the case if saddam was still in power. In other words, even if this conflict lasted 10 years, a Saddam and sons reign of Iraq for, let's say, 50 years, would produce COUNTLESS more death, and not just to Iraq, but to America, Israel, Iran, and the rest of the ME. And, I am being conservative in both estimates. Without any american involvement, SAddam and sons, and their sons, would be in power in iraq for at least another 100 years. I further doubt the current conflict will last more than 6. So if we assume twice as many deaths per year under occupation than per year under saddam - over a 50 year period, Saddam's reign would kill SUBSTANTIALLY more. 2x * 10 = 20x VS. x * 50 = 50x. Over his entire reign of 50 years, Saddam would be responsible for over twice as many deaths.

I'd rather be a donkey than a snake.

krypt, you are a bore. you keep repeating yourself. go ahead, keep asking about the past. sadam sadam sadam. your claim to fame.

now i'm a bore. at least i'm honest.

but i like your approach, when all else fails, ignore the facts...

ignore the facts...

who's ignoring facts. instead of the truth we are hiring fake news specialists.washington post

"As violence continues in Iraq, the military is looking for ways to achieve stability through opinion polls and public relations.

The Multi-National Command in Baghdad wants to hire a private firm to conduct polling and focus groups in Iraq "to assess the effectiveness of operations as they relate to gaining and maintaining popular support," according to a notice the Department of the Army posted yesterday.

Word of the proposed new contract comes a day after release of a State Department poll that found that majorities in all regions of Iraq, except the Kurdish areas, want U.S. and allied troops to withdraw immediately and that their departure would make people feel safer. It also follows the release of an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that found that U.S. military action has become a "cause celebre" in the Arab world and has fueled anti-American feelings in Iraq and the Middle East.

The Baghdad command also confirmed yesterday that it has awarded a two-year, $12.4 million contact to handle strategic communications management to the Lincoln Group, the Washington-based public relations company found late last year to have been paying money to place favorable articles in the Iraqi news media.

Lincoln was the lowest of seven bidders on what was estimated as a $20 million contract to help military commanders in Baghdad get what they considered the positive side of their operations in the news, according to one of the bidders who was briefed on the contract. The contract calls for providing media strategy such as setting up news conferences and public speeches, media training for Iraqi government officials in addition to military commanders, and monitoring of Middle East and some U.S. news outlets, including The Washington Post, New York Times and major television networks. The monitoring would include creating a database of articles graded as favorable or unfavorable."