↓
 
Home » Our Iraq allies and spin: past and present, British and otherwise

Our Iraq allies and spin: past and present, British and otherwise

The New Neo Posted on by

As Blair announces and Britain prepares a phased pull out from Iraq, I noticed this list of our allies who are still there.

It’s a somewhat varied and lengthy group, considering that basically this has been a US effort. And of course the numbers from most of the countries are small.

But I’m surprised that so many are still there at all, although I’m not surprised that that fact has been kept fairly quiet–perhaps, even, at the behest of those countries, who no doubt have a valid fear of retaliation by terrorist groups.

Critics will say the forces involved are mainly symbolic rather than meaningful. But any support has meaning and carries risk, and some of the countries involved are very small themselves. Note the strong participation of “new” Europe–the eastern, previously Russian satellite, part:

”¢ South Korea ”“ 2,300 troops in northern city of Irbil; plans to bring home 1,100 troops this spring and parliament has called for a complete withdrawal by the end of the year

”¢ Australia ”“ 1,400 troops; Prime Minister John Howard Wednesday called Britain’s move “good sense” but reject calls to follow suit

”¢ Poland ”“ 900 non-combat troops, mission extended to end of this year

”¢ Romania ”“ 865 troops, with most serving in the south under British command 460-member contingent from southern Iraq by August and transfer security responsibilities to Iraqi forces.

”¢ Denmark ”“ The country’s 460-member contingent will be pulled by August, with security responsibilities transferred to Iraqi forces. During the conflict, six Danish soldiers have been killed in Iraq

”¢ El Salvador ”“ 380 troops doing peacekeeping work in Hillah; no plans for withdrawal

”¢ Georgia ”“ 850 troops serving under U.S. command in Baqouba; no withdrawal plans

”¢ Azerbaijan ”“ 150 troops, mostly sentries on patrol near Hadid

”¢ Bulgaria ”“ 150 troops, including a large number of non-troops guarding a refugee camp north of Baghdad ”¢ Latvia ”“ about 136 troops serving under Polish command

”¢ Albania ”“ 126 troops, mostly doing non-combat duty near airport Mosul ”¢ Czech Republic ”“ 100 troops

”¢ Mongolia ”“ 100 troops, no withdrawal plans

”¢ Lithuania ”“ 50 troops as part of Danish battalion near Basra; a spokeswoman for the Baltic nation said Wednesday the country is “seriously considering” not replacing the troops with the mission ends this summer, marking the first time the staunch U.S. ally has indicated it would reduce its Iraq commitment

”¢ Armenia ”“ 46 troops, mission extended to the end of 2007

”¢ Bosnia and Herzegovina ”“ 37 troops

”¢ Estonia ”“ 34 troops serving under U.S. command near Baghdad

”¢ Macedonia ”“ 33 troops in Taji, north of Baghdad

”¢ Kazakhstan ”“ 29 troops, mostly military engineers

”¢ Moldova ”“ 11 bomb-defusing experts returned home in December; parliament has yet to decide on a new mission

”¢ Fiji ”“ The South Pacific nation contributed 150 troops, but the contingent was deployed as part of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq

Of course, the US is the main act in Iraq. But Britain has been an ally right along–although the majority of the people there were always against British participation (as best I can recall); and, if not, they certainly are now.

So the British withdrawal is no mystery; it’s been an unpopular war there, and Blair is mindful of his party’s future. But the removal of these forces has been telegraphed for ages; no mystery there, as well. If you Google some phrase like “Blair forces leave Iraq” you’ll find articles going back to 2006 and even 2005 discussing Blair’s plans in that direction (this, for example).

The usual suspects claim the usual intrigue around the move, as described in this CNN article. Blair’s statement that the withdrawal represents success in Basra (the area in which the British were always concentrated), and Bush’s seconding of that motion, are questioned, especially since the surge is on. And everyone is using the move’s announcement to score predictable political points.

In one way the timing does seem odd; why leave now, when more troops are supposed to be needed? On the other hand it’s not so odd at all: the area is relatively calm at the moment, and Blair’s hand has been virtually forced, in the political sense–he’s been stalling on this move for years, and it’s hard to imagine how he can stall much longer and still preserve any vitality for his party in the next elections.

Australian Prime Minister Howard is singing a different song. He’s adamant about the fact the the Aussies are staying for now. Note, by the way, the subtly snarky tone of the linked article from the Sydney Morning Herald, a type of reporting that almost seamlessly merges editorializing with straight news in a way that’s become so familiar as to be the rule rather than the exception (thanks, Walter Cronkite!).

In the article, Howard’s announcement that Britain’s pullout represents success in Basra is immediately characterized as “play[ing] down the importance” of Blair’s announcement, and putting “a positive spin” on Blair’s move. And this sort of editorializing occurs in the first two sentences of the story, rather than later on in the article, or even (gasp!!) being saved for an opinion piece.

The Sydney Herald piece does indeed contain some straight reporting and useful information, including quotes from Howard and other Australian officials on their opinions of what’s involved. But this comes much later, in the second half of the piece (when most people have probably stopped reading, a fact of which the editors are no doubt fully aware). And it also comes after these opinions have been effectively discredited by the earlier parts of the article; whatever Howard and company may say, the Sydney’s editors know it’s mere spin–and they’re not the least bit shy or retiring about telling us so, right up front.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with whether those editors are correct or not. Whether they are or aren’t, I want my news straight, and any interpretation and opinion on another page–or at least in another article clearly labeled opinion, thank you very much. But you can’t always get what you want, can you?

Howard is quoted in the article as saying, “A reduction has been in the wind (a while), and the reason I understand Mr Blair will give is that conditions have stabilised in Basra.” That is certainly undisputed, as I pointed out.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson adds that there’s no discrepancy between the British pullout and the surge plans by the US:

“People ought to remember that 60 per cent of the violence comes from Baghdad and al-Anbar province, where al-Qaeda is particularly active,” he told ABC Radio. “The rest of Iraq is quite different”.

Undoubtedly true. But, with the surge so clearly telegraphed, and many of the terrorists and insurgents fleeing, aren’t more troops needed in Basra, not less? So isn’t the timing of the pullout a problem?

To know whether it’s likely to be, it would help to know where those fleeing insurgents might have been going. Well, we know that al Sadr is likely to be whooping it up right now with his fun buddies in Iran.

But where are the others? To try to answer the question, I did a bit of research, and all I’ve come up with so far is this and a few other articles like it, which indicate that the fleeing insurgents seem to have gone to an area north of Baghdad and not all that far away from it. Certainly not to Basra.

Ah, here’s a bit of news on the subject, embedded as a few words in an AP article found in the Guardian:

Analysts say there is little point in boosting forces in largely Shiite southern Iraq, where most non-U.S. coalition troops are concentrated.

Okay; I assume that the nameless “analysts” aren’t of the Freudian type; they’re experts on the situation in Iraq, supposedly. I’d love to hear a bit more about that, and about who they might be, but we don’t. What we do hear is AP writer David Stringer immediately following it up with this speculation of his own (at least, apparently his own; there’s no attribution for the statement):

Yet as more countries draw down or pull out, it could create a security vacuum if radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stirs up trouble.

Interestingly enough, in the very first article I linked in this post (here, from NPR), which features that same AP article, there was another paragraph directly following the above quote about a security vacuum (this extra paragraph was omitted in the Guardian version):

A British withdrawal is not likely to have much effect on the stepped-up U.S. operation in Baghdad or the war against the Sunni-led insurgency focusing on Anbar province west of the Iraqi capital.

So, which is it? Will the British pullout matter, or not? Is it naivete to actually take what Blair says at face value: that the mission is pretty much accomplished in Basra, and that this doesn’t represent a huge and terrible break with Washington and with Bush? Well, it’s hard to know; but experts seem to believe the British withdrawal and the surge are not contradictory at all.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all speculation by journalists would remain where it belongs, in a column or op-ed piece? Or, of course, they’re welcome to start their own blogs and spout off like me–but then they’d be letting their biases out into the clear light of day, which could only be a good thing. Ah well, you can say I’m a dreamer.

[NOTE: Apologies for all the song lyric links in this post; my only excuse is I’ve still got golden oldies on the brain.]

Comments

Our Iraq allies and spin: past and present, British and otherwise — 116 Comments

  1. “So, which is it?“:

    It is the British say what we all know. Its over. We lost. If they thought otherwise the troops no longer needed in the south would be deployed north where they are needed.

  2. “I want my news straight, and any interpretation and opinion on another page–or at least in another article clearly labeled opinion, thank you very much.”

    Back in the day, j-school profs would pretty much fail a student who used too many adjectives in a story, claiming that qualifying all those nouns was adding subjectivity to the piece.

    Today, it’s rare to find a story that doesn’t end with some sort of unattributed conclusion that comes from nowhere other than the “reporter’s” opinions, i.e. the “Yet as more countries draw down or pull out, it could create a security vacuum if radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stirs up trouble” quote Neo cites.

    Couple this with the spin TV anchors invariably put on their “reporting”, and it’s a wonder any of us can hope to be well-informed. Thank goodness for the blogosphere, where at least comment sections allow for fact-checking and corrections.

  4. WR: Its over. We lost.

    He wishes. And hopes and prays. But what he fears is — that it’s not over yet. And we — but not WR — may win. And then how will he ever get his war crimes kangaroo courts going?

  7. “troops no longer needed in the south would be deployed north where they are needed.” Gee, I guess that means THEY’RE NOT NEEDED. As in the south, where Blair relinquishes control to the Iraqi security forces, in the north, our 5 brigades are there to augment the 18 Iraqi brigades assigned to controlling Bagdhad. In other words: “It’s almost over for the insurgency”. I think that’s what Wild Reich was trying to say. “So little work for all our hands.”

  8. “we” is wild rice and folks i guess.

    Btw Neo, this is a great example of the influence that the US has. There is no need to coerce, simply because nations naturally see an advantage with a relationship with the US. The US should use that, forget about the UN and talking with Europe/Iran. Use the respect people have for the US, and negotiate with them face to face. Don’t go into interlocutions and middle men. Bad idea.

    The world’s 7 largest navies in tonnage all together would not equal the weight of the US military. Just the weight, don’t even calculate the tech and training. They cannot contribute in any conventional military way, but they can do so politically and with special forces, which are always small in number.

  9. Just to add to Ymar’s navy tonnage,
    I remember reading that we had around a 17 Navy standard, meaning that it took the next 17 navies to match the US, as well as having something like 75% of the aviation platforms (various carriers). Submarine ratio was pretty high too, but I don’t remember the approximate number. The British Navy never had anything close to this ratio.

    No wonder we make other nations nervous. The downside of this is that other Western Nations get to bad-mouth us in public while depending on help in private.

  14. Rice:

    We only lose if we say we lose. We’re still basically fighting this war on a peacetime footing. We can keep this up _forever_. So why are you so eager to declare defeat?

    I suggest it’s because you _want_ us to lose, because you hate your own country. You don’t actually kill your fellow Americans because you’re physically afraid, but you’re perfectly willing to gloat when terrorists do it. You are a despicable person.

  15. Ariel is right, it is the 17 next largest. I remembered reading it as 7, because presumably 17 was kind of big. How far down the barrel would you have to go after the 17th…

    link

    Today, the USN enjoys a “17 Navy standard”; that is, the total tonnage of Uncle Sam’s fleet is equal to the combined total tonnage of the next 17 smaller navies. Even combining the two biggest potential naval competitors (the Chinese and the Russians), the USN still outclasses them by over 3:1 in tonnage, and it has substantially more combat power. Of the world’s 34 aviation power projection platforms (i.e., vessels capable of operating combat aircraft), the US owns 24 (71-percent), eight times more than the second leading navy, the decidedly friendly Royal Navy, which has with three V/STOL carriers. In addition, the US surface fleet carries four times as many VLS (vertical missile launchers) cells as the rest of the world navies combined. The US submarine fleet enjoys better force ratios against the next two most numerous underwater fleets than it did against the Soviets during the Cold War.

    And it probably was the strategypage that had the info I was reading. A lot of people interested in military strategy reads strategypage, I noticed.

  16. If the US decided to do a naval blockade on the Straits of Hormuz and any nation that isn’t land locked. That nation is going down, even without a declaration of war by the US.

    You can’t survive in this world without supplies coming in through the sea lanes, and if the US closes that off, say for Iran, then their ability to do logistics is severely derailed.

    The US can stop the supply of food, medicine, and oil to Europe, Australia, Japan, and China from sea cargo carriers (still the largest majority carrier of bulk cargo) and thereby accrue immense political influence at the negotiations table. But the US doesn’t do that… and you have to wonder why if all the US critics are right. Isn’t the US supposed to be greedy about oil? So why does the US spend shatloads on a navy that they won’t use to get more oil? The US submarine fleet alone can sink any cargo ship that tries to run the blockade to Iran or any oil tanker. And nobody, absolutely nobody, would be able to break that blockade militarily, although perhaps they could do so politically, although that is going to be hard when their people start starving and no oil is available.

  17. harry:

    The “we” that popped rice refers to is the mouse that he habitually carries in his pocket for such occasions.

  19. Ymar,

    We recently ran a test of our multi-meta-phased plasma cannon. We were fortunate to have had some 40 brown people, renditioned by the CIA as test subjects.

    We may not need another 20,000 troops.

    The results of the test were shocking, just shocking.

    We plan to conduct more experiments as soon as we can get a hold of a wet vac.

    Or a really big sponge.

  20. “This, by the way, has nothing to do with whether those editors are correct or not. Whether they are or aren’t, I want my news straight, and any interpretation and opinion on another page–or at least in another article clearly labeled opinion, thank you very much. But you can’t always get what you want, can you?”

    The “straight news” is that Britain is pulling some troops of out Iraq. And saying that the pull-out is reperesentative of success isn’t “straight-news” either. But I don’t read you complaining about that.

    Which is fine. That’s the benefit of a free press – you can go a read whatever spin you’d like to read on whatever issue you like.

    You might also consider that the Iraq war is mostly considered an absolute failure – and so the British pull-out can logically be framed under this generally accepted framework.

    Not so if your a neo-con, for course, but not many are nowadays.

    I suppose the real question is, Neo – do you like your news “straight” when the news doesn’t fit into your ideological niche, or do you think all news should be presented this way?

    I only ask because I never read you complain about this from right-wing sources whose spin far exceeds anything the Sydney Herald can come up with- Fox News for example….

  21. “This, by the way, has nothing to do with whether those editors are correct or not. Whether they are or aren’t, I want my news straight, and any interpretation and opinion on another page–or at least in another article clearly labeled opinion, thank you very much. But you can’t always get what you want, can you?”

    The “straight news” is that Britain is pulling some troops of out Iraq. And saying that the pull-out is reperesentative of success isn’t “straight-news” either. But I don’t read you complaining about that.

    Which is fine. That’s the benefit of a free press – you can go a read whatever spin you’d like to read on whatever issue you like.

    You might also consider that the Iraq war is mostly considered an absolute failure – and so the British pull-out can logically be framed under this generally accepted framework.

    Not so if your a neo-con, for course, but not many are nowadays.

    I suppose the real question is, Neo – do you like your news “straight” when the news doesn’t fit into your ideological niche, or do you think all news should be presented this way?

    I only ask because I never read you complain about this from right-wing sources whose spin far exceeds anything the Sydney Herald can come up with- Fox News for example….

  23. Straight news is straight news, and I prefer it from any media source, whether left-leaning or right-leaning. Opinion is opinion. The difference is clear to most thinking people, although language can be used in subtle ways to hide this fact.

    For example, it’s straight news to say that the pullout is happening. And it’s straight news to quote what different people might be saying about it. What Tony Blair says, what the Iraqi President might say, what Howard in Australia says, what some foreign policy wonk says, what some antiwar person says, it’s all news. Just let me know what happened, let me know who says what about it and who they are. Then I can attempt to sort out the biases myself. Please don’t inject your own biases into what should be news.

  25. Both TC and WR oblige me again! Their focus is not on the events in Iraq, but what people think about them. Being able to say that “everybody knows” something is the point for the war opponents. The events in Iraq are not the issue to them. Their battle is at home, for the Soul of America. When they are up in the polls, they’re winning their real battle.

    Yes, that’s a terrible accusation for me to make. So stop providing me with evidence of it and I’ll stop saying it. Liberal sentiments are social skills, illustrating that you’re a person who “gets it.” You guys really don’t reread your posts for tone very much, do ya? It jumps off the page to the rest of us.

  26. We plan to conduct more experiments as soon as we can get a hold of a wet vac.
    That reminds me of something.

    Link

    We need to expedite the development of full plated powered armour, ala John Ringo. The power of a tank, but the size of a robocop. Powered exo-skeleton attached ligaments and pseudo-muscles, combined with monomolecular blades for eviscerating terrorists hand to hand, and the main armament being a plasma cannon. Hrm. Great for both sides. We get to live via peace through superior firepower. The terrorists get to die and go to heaven. Everybody is happy.

  31. TC: You might also consider that the Iraq war is mostly considered an absolute failure

    Sure, by people who know nada about COIN warfare. Those who know quite a bit about it, say, those who have done Ph.D. dissertations on it and then gone on to participate in it, don’t generally consider it a failure at all. Sure, there have been failures, but overall the successes have far outweighed them. What is more, in 80% of Iraq, the war’s been a clear success. It is only certain parts of Baghdad and Al Anbar province that are proving troublesome.

  33. “Sure, by people who know nada about COIN warfare. Those who know quite a bit about it, say, those who have done Ph.D. dissertations on it and then gone on to participate in it, don’t generally consider it a failure at all. Sure, there have been failures, but overall the successes have far outweighed them. What is more, in 80% of Iraq, the war’s been a clear success. It is only certain parts of Baghdad and Al Anbar province that are proving troublesome.”

    So I can assume your upset about this post too, assistant village idiot?

    You complain that I say things without evidence, assuming everybody knows what I’m talking about. Like the fact that the majority of the world; the majority of the U.S; the majority in your state – believe the Iraq was either wrong to begin with, or is a total failure(in terms of what it was supposed to accomplish in regards to Bush’s “war on terror”).

    And yes I would assume you should know that. You might not agree – but you have to know that most people see it that way.

    And then you have the above post – that assumes that since most people don’t have a phd in “COIN warfare” than they aren’t in a position to have an educated opinion on the conduct and /or ethical issues of the Iraq war.

    guy in pj’s doesn’t offer any names or sources, either.

    Incidently – the point is pretty much rubbish. One doesn’t need an understanding of how wars or fought to make a determination about the success/failure of the war. The goals were spelled out by the Bush administration before and during the war. And when you back up those assertions against what people with phd’s in sociology, history, political studies, middle eastern studies etc etc – you find that most view the war as a failure.

    That some(not even most)(military people are convinced the war is going well – or even ‘winnable’ – isn’t surprising at all. That some people who study warfare think the war is going well isn’t either. But, what he isn’t saying is that there are those who do who don’t think the war is going well.

    Anyway – only “in parts of Bagdhad”. So I guess that’s as good a marker as any of guaging the war. When you through in 80% of of the country is feeling the success of war – what does that tell us?

    Nothing. Not only is it mostly false – it doesn’t tell us anything at all….

  34. Anyway – only “in parts of Bagdhad”. So I guess that’s as good a marker as any of guaging the war. When you through in 80% of of the country is feeling the success of war – what does that tell us?

    That’s not just a rhetorical question. TC is really asking for help here — kind of like asking “Where am I?” The real question is whether clinging to an over-ripe marxism in itself could reduce someone to this sort of babble.

    A more interesting and general point is the one AVI made above: “Their focus is not on the events in Iraq, but what people think about them”. This is the herd mentality of the left in action, folks, and they’ll follow that herd even if it’s right over a cliff.

  37. The fact that a majority of people believe anything at any time is no indication of the thing they believe in being correct or intelligent; most people before Columbus believed the world was flat. Most “scientists” in the Middle Ages thought the universe revolved around the Earth.

    So, TC, simply because a majority of people—far away from the fighting and informed only by slanted or blatantly wrong information—believe that our efforts in Iraq are a “failure” proves only that a majority believes this, not that the “failure” is actualy happening.

    President Thomas Dewey would agree with me….

  40. I wouldn’t say your incoherent, Sally – you needn’t be quite so hard on yourself – but if you need help understanding what is being said just ask.

    But judging by your response, I’d say you know very well what I’m saying – even with the spelling and grammatical errors.

    Those are swell links.

    What are we to infer from the content of them? That things are improving thanks to the ‘surge’? – and that things improved so much in Basra that British troops have been able to leave “mission accomplished”?

    Do tell….

  41. “So, TC, simply because a majority of people—far away from the fighting and informed only by slanted or blatantly wrong information—believe that our efforts in Iraq are a “failure” proves only that a majority believes this, not that the “failure” is actualy happening.”

    Thats a fair point, stumbley.

    If only it were applicable to the Iraq war, then you’d really be on to something…

  42. The majority of people are making the judgement that the war is a failure because of 1)the facts on the ground and 2)the fact that the goals and promises of the war as stated by the Bush administration have been either demonstrably false, or called into serious question eg. to defeat terrorism etc.

    If your going to make the claim that most people simply believe something because everybody else is saying it – well then you need to provide specific examples of how the war has been successful to 1)Iraqis (assuming this was a humanitarian war as some of you suggest, 2)Americans (i.e the greater “war on terror”.

    And, if I may be so bold, nobody hear seems very capable of making a convincing case as such.

    Which isn’t surprising. Most Americans are a pretty optimistic bunch – particularly in light of their government, war, and after 9/11.

    If they aren’t buying the neoconservative propaganda than it must be pretty bad….

  43. “Mr Cordesman’s gloomy conclusions about British defeat are confirmed by a study called “The Calm before the Storm: The British Experience in Southern Iraq” by Michael Knights and Ed Williams, published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Comparing the original British ambitions with present reality the paper concludes that “instead of a stable, united, law-abiding region with a representative government and police primacy, the deep south is unstable, factionalised, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy and subject to militia primacy”.

    Local militias are often not only out of control of the Iraqi government, but of their supposed leaders in Baghdad. The big money earner for local factions is the diversion of oil and oil products, with the profits a continual source of rivalry and a cause of armed clashes. Mr Knights and Mr Williams say that control in the south is with a “well-armed political-criminal Mafiosi [who] have locked both the central government and the people out of power”.”

  44. All that to tell us you disagree. At least you can “understand” why the military disagrees with you. After all, I’m pretty sure that after 4 years of successes and failures, to see with your own eyes that victory is not only possible, but within reach, to be told that “everybody” can see that you’ve failed, and that all your effort is in vain. And THEN be told that you have this opinion because you’re either too stupid, too brainwashed, too ENTHUSIASTIC about killing, or just too invested in victory to let it go. But, after all, to TC, that’s “understandable” and gives him even more reason to “reach out” and help the troops he “supports”. He only wants to help them.

  46. successful to(1. Iraqis: how many elections do they have to hold before you will see this as “evidence”? How many newspapers(pro and anti “occupattion”), weblogs, tv news stations, etc, do you have to read to see they now have “freedom of speech”? Even if you count atrocities, rapes are dramatically down. No political assasinations, mass graves, torture. Entreprenurialship is up. No benefits there, I guess. (2. Americans: The Global Assymetric War on Terror is currently being fought over there, as opposed to over here. I’d say that’s a benefit.

  47. TC: And then you have the above post – that assumes that since most people don’t have a phd in “COIN warfare” than they aren’t in a position to have an educated opinion on the conduct and /or ethical issues of the Iraq war.

    Eh, I didn’t imply you had to have a Ph.D. in it; I did imply you have to know something about it to have an educated opinion. But that’s obvious — You can’t have an educated opinion about anything you haven’t been educated in.

    guy in pj’s doesn’t offer any names or sources, either.

    Not on this thread. I’ve offered plenty of names and sources on other threads in other conversations with you, and you ignore them. So why bother?

    Incidently – the point is pretty much rubbish. One doesn’t need an understanding of how wars or fought to make a determination about the success/failure of the war.

    Not after the fighting’s over and the result is clear, no. But the fighting isn’t over, and if you want to understand how it’s going, you need to understand COIN.

    And when you back up those assertions against what people with phd’s in sociology, history, political studies, middle eastern studies etc etc – you find that most view the war as a failure.

    They viewed it a priori a failure: It was a failure because it was a war.

    The majority of people are making the judgement that the war is a failure because of 1)the facts on the ground

    The average person doesn’t have a clue about the facts on the ground. Most don’t seem to have a clue about the war beyond the headlines.

  48. TC, AVI’s post had nothing to do with your claim of what it said: You complain that I say things without evidence, assuming everybody knows what I’m talking about.

    That’s not AVI’s claim. His claim is, you care more about what “everybody thinks about events” than about what’s really happening. Here, read it again:

    AVI: Both TC and WR oblige me again! Their focus is not on the events in Iraq, but what people think about them. … The events in Iraq are not the issue to them. Their battle is at home, for the Soul of America. When they are up in the polls, they’re winning their real battle.

    And here you do it again:

    TC: Like the fact that the majority of the world; the majority of the U.S; the majority in your state – believe the Iraq was either wrong to begin with, or is a total failure

    Who gives a flying monkey’s dodgy uncle what the majority believes? What does that have to do with being right? As a Marxist, you should understand this, because the vast majority of the world believes Marxism is both wrong and a total failure.

  50. TC: What are we to infer from the content of [the linked news items]? That things are improving thanks to the ‘surge’? – and that things improved so much in Basra that British troops have been able to leave “mission accomplished”?

    Yes, that’s what we are to infer. I’m glad you liked the links, and there’s a lot more where they came from.

  53. US military engagement with Muslim state sponsored terrorism is as old as US Navy itself. See Wiki “Barbary wars”. Very educating reading!

  55. Legacy of Barbary Wars is US Navy, Mariners and the famous toast of the hero of both Barbary wars, Commodore Stephen Decartur:

    “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong!”

    Usually only the last phrase of this toast is cited, out of context – verbal and historical.

  56. “Not after the fighting’s over and the result is clear, no. But the fighting isn’t over, and if you want to understand how it’s going, you need to understand COIN.”

    The ‘fighting’ is against the occupation and amongst Iraqis. The fight against the occupation will never end as long as there are foreign troops in Iraq. Don’t forget the war was about deposing a tyrannt – which is “mission accomplished”. So the the reasons the war was fought has come and gone. And now the country is worse than before. C0IN? That’s got nothing to do with it.

    “They viewed it a priori a failure: It was a failure because it was a war.”

    Lol. Err, no.

    They view it as a failure because, like in the material I posted above, they weighted what we said we would accomplished with what is happening now. And that is why we say it is a failure. This isn’t rocket science..

    “The average person doesn’t have a clue about the facts on the ground. Most don’t seem to have a clue about the war beyond the headlines.”

    And just, exactly, are you? Clearly one of those average people – if you think that facts on the ground indicate a success. And yes – most people don’t investigate that – but those that do will tell you the same thing – failure.

  57. “Who gives a flying monkey’s dodgy uncle what the majority believes? What does that have to do with being right? As a Marxist, you should understand this, because the vast majority of the world believes Marxism is both wrong and a total failure.”

    Nonsense. Bad analogy. 1)The majority are ‘right’ the war is a failure, 2)who gives a dodgy uncle what you believe – particularly when your only evidence is to criticize what the majority correctly believe?

    I offered the majority because this is the major issue in the country- which is also supposed to be a democracy.

    Yes sometimes the majority are wrong – like when information is unknowable or they are being lied too.

    And, for a time, the majority were being lied too – and did believe it.

    But nowadays it’s much easier to find out the truth that our leaders hide from us – and hence the majority now believe the war is a flop, waste of money and lives etc etc.

    That’s how it is.

    Your welcome….

  58. Sally – the links you posted don’t show that at all. What is success suppossed to look like Sally?

    What are leaders say?

    Maybe you should point out some examples of how this surge has been succesful so far in the big picture – the everyday situation for Iraqis – economic, social, health care, not being blow to pieces everyday, etc etc…

    And for U.S soldiers – dying at the same or an increased rate everyday in Iraq.

    Or the fact that 9(or more) U.S helicopters were shot down(notice how the pentagon was covering that little bit of news up) in the last two weeks as the insurgency continues to improve their ability to inflict casualties on U.S forces.

    Lol – your cute, Sally.

    In a child-like, sweetly naive way….

  59. Sally – the links you posted don’t show that at all. What is success suppossed to look like Sally?

    What are leaders say?

    Yes, the links I posted do in fact show “that”. (No idea what the last “question”, if it is that, is supposed to mean.)

    By the way, what are you and your fellow sheep going to do if and when the polls turn around, TC? Flip-flop along with them?

  60. Gee, TC, I don’t know what planet you’ve been on the past few weeks, but each and every helicopter downing has been duly reported by the media(Fox News, in fact). The pundits were even speculating on the possibilities that the terrorists have changed their tactics or perhaps acquired better anti-aircraft weapons. You can insinuate the gov’t. has been covering it up, but, as usual, you would be wrong.

  61. In fact, allow me to “speculate”. My assesment is that the insurgency knows it’s time on this earth is not long, thus more and more desperate attempts to show the media they are still big and bad. Goes under the theory of “use it or lose it”. Quite similar to the desperation shown by the Kamikazi(Japan) and Elbe Squadron(German).

  62. And we are NOT supposed to be a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. You DO know the difference, don’t you, TC?

  65. “By the way, what are you and your fellow sheep going to do if and when the polls turn around, TC? Flip-flop along with them?”

    “In fact, allow me to “speculate”. My assesment is that the insurgency knows it’s time on this earth is not long, thus more and more desperate attempts to show the media they are still big and bad. Goes under the theory of “use it or lose it”. Quite similar to the desperation shown by the Kamikazi(Japan) and Elbe Squadron(German).”

    Such small minds with such big mouths.

    Yeah – lets see where we are in a few weeks. Probably in another war and Iraq exactly in the same shape it is now.

    But no doubt you’ll find some more BS to drone on about how we’re ‘winning’ in a country that hates us more and more everyday we’re there.

    And Lee will be calling me a “Nazi” still.

    Yep – some things are pretty(yaaawwwnn) predictable….

  66. TC: The ‘fighting’ is against the occupation and amongst Iraqis.

    So only Iraqis fight? 140,000 US troops in Iraq, not one is fighting? Are you drinking while you post?

    Me: “They viewed it a priori a failure: It was a failure because it was a war.”

    TC: Lol. Err, no.

    Chuckle. Er, yes.

    TC: They view it as a failure because, like in the material I posted above, they weighted what we said we would accomplished with what is happening now.

    LOL. Right, TC. Sure they did.

    Me: “The average person doesn’t have a clue about the facts on the ground. Most don’t seem to have a clue about the war beyond the headlines.”

    TC: And just, exactly, are you?

    I’m just a guy in pajamas,TC, who happens to have paid attention for the last couple of decades. Certainly, I’m no expert, but unlike your ‘average person,’ I’ve gone quite a bit further than the headlines. As have you and most of the people commenting here.

    Me: “Who gives a flying monkey’s dodgy uncle what the majority believes? What does that have to do with being right? As a Marxist, you should understand this, because the vast majority of the world believes Marxism is both wrong and a total failure.”

    TC: Nonsense. Bad analogy.

    It’s an excellent analogy, TC. Except, in the case of Marxism, the majority are right, it is an utter failure, and in the case of the war, they’re wrong. However, in both cases, the fact that the majority of people believe it has nothing to do with it actually being right or wrong.

    TC: I offered the majority because this is the major issue in the country- which is also supposed to be a democracy.

    What does being a democracy have to do with it? We choose our leaders in a democracy, not our truth.

  67. Sally – point out any part that ‘shows’ this.

    It’s not the part that shows it, TC, it’s the whole.

    And you didn’t say what you would do when the polls show the “war is lost” crowd is in a minority. Flip to “the war is won”? Mutter “rubbish!” and “lol!” over and over again? Stop referring to what other people believe? Change the subject? Stop typing?

  68. Me: “So only Iraqis fight? 140,000 US troops in Iraq, not one is fighting? Are you drinking while you post?”

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.

  69. Hmm, TC quoted this interesting tidbit: “Mr Cordesman’s gloomy conclusions about British defeat …

    Who is this ‘Mr. Cordesman’? Well, the one referred to in TC’s comment recently wrote this:

    President Bush has presented a new strategy for the war in Iraq that may be able to defeat the insurgency and reverse Iraq’s drift towards large-scale civil war. His speech has, however, raised many questions as to both the risks it will create over the coming months and the real-world ability to actually implement his plans.

    Much of the criticism of the new Bush approach has been unfair. The new strategy is considerably more sophisticated and comprehensive than the details the President could fit into his 20-minute address – which had been cut back from a longer 40-minute version. It combines political, military, and economic action in ways that do offer a significant hope of success.

  70. Blair pulls out a quarter of the British troops in Iraq and Cheney characterizes it as a mark of success. Right on the money as usual, Dick.

    Blair’s political career and historical legacy have been destroyed by his role as Bush’s poodle; the farthest he can go in the month or so he has remaining before being forced out of office is to start a British end strategy for Iraq. Watch and see how fast his successor, be it Gordon Brown or anyone else, puts the pedal to the floor on withdrawal.

    Too bad our fearless leader, Neo, hitched her wagon to a seemingly rising star, only to find out she has been duped by the people she admired and has ended up supporting a political philosophy that is well on its way to being thoroughly discredited and will be seen historically as a tragic perversion of the American people’s honest desire for justice and security in the world.

    If only the evil men and women in and behind this incompetent administration had pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan to the ends of the earth instead of abandoning the focus on the perpetrators of 9/11, leaving Afghanistan to its own devices, and attacking a paper-tiger Iraq which presented no threat but animosity.

    Too bad for the U.S. and the world that Boy George has another two years to do more damage.

    Having been a fairly frequent participant of this blog in the past, when the neocons seemed to be in control, I seldom bother to check it out nowadays — the predictable ravings of its neocon participants have become pretty much irrelevant.

    See you all again in a few months, maybe.

    tequilamockingbird

  71. teq: If only the evil men and women in and behind this incompetent administration had pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan to the ends of the earth instead of abandoning the focus on the perpetrators of 9/11, leaving Afghanistan to its own devices, and attacking a paper-tiger Iraq which presented no threat but animosity.

    The rest of the comment is only the typical attempt to project leftist fantasy on history. So is this, for that matter, but it’s a bit interesting just for what it says about lefty disabilities — because they have a problem trying to walk and chew gum at the same time, lefties imagine that a similar problem must plague the entire nation. It doesn’t. Not only is the US quite capable of pursuing Al Qaeda “to the ends of the earth”, and is actively doing so — which may be one reason we haven’t heard so much from them lately — but it can do this while pursuing a larger strategy against the roots of islamist terrorism at the same time. Such multiple and complex objectives can only bring gasps of disbelief from lefties, so focused on “focus” that they really can’t see the forest — or in this case the swamp — at all.

  72. Sally: Typical of the nonsense I expect from people here. In December 2001 Al Qaida were reduced to about 200 people stumbling around in the snows of Tora Bora. If the Administration had any interest in catching bin Laden or exterminating Al Qaida or establishing any kind of democracy in Afghanistan, they could easily have done so by directing their war effort in that direction. Since their objective was to depose Hussein and they really had no interest in
    Afghanistan (interestingly enough, Afghanistan has no oil), the Afghanistan campaign was abandoned.

    You haven’t heard much from Al Qaida lately? Listen more carefully for the bombs and the gunfire. The Administration — I hate to see this band of criminal incompetents characterized as “the US”, as you do; thank God they’re not the U.S. but just a band of rogue idealogues — can pursue Al Qaida and “a larger strategy against the roots of islamist terrorism at the same time”? Al Qaida was truly in its last throes in January 2002, and now Al Qaida and Islamist fundamentalism are flourishing worldwide, thanks to W and his merry band of warmongering fools.

    Get used to your philosophy’s position in the rubbish bin of history, Sally.

  73. Oh, and by the way — oh, God, here I go again, posting rapid-fire messages and risking incurring Neo’s wrath — a great deal of ink and pixels have been used in excoriating opponents of the Iraq

  74. Yet again! I was typing my message and I have no idea what key I hit that published the above. It was completely inadvertent. To continue:

    … a great deal of ink and pixels have been used in excoriating opponents of the Iraq war for their cowardice, lack of patriotism and refusal to stick with the struggle: I believe completely that the U.S. people would fight to the limit of their ability for as long as it took — in the cause of a just war. Iraq is a war of choice dishonestly foisted on a fearful population by a dishonest, fearmongering band of political idealogues.

    Iraq is not a just war! That’s why it doesn’t have popular support!

  75. teq: Iraq is not a just war! That’s why it doesn’t have popular support!

    No! Iraq IS a just war!! Whether or not it has popular support!!!

    Seeing that argument by exclamation mark apparently impresses teq, I thought I’d try a few myself. Hard to dispute, aren’t they?

    Commandante teq is also apparently dead certain that if only he, or someone like him, had been in charge in Afghanistan he would have nabbed the few guys “stumbling around in the snows of Tora Bora”, and thus have put an end to the threat of islamist terrorism. This is the kind of thing I’m referring to when I talk about a lefty fantasy world. Back in the real world, real people have to accept that you can’t always get what you want just when you want it, and also that some problems and threats go deeper than a few yokels in the snow. Interesting, though, that teq would refer to “the bombs and the gunfire” as evidence of Al Qaeda — would that be in Iraq, do you think?

  76. In fact, teq, If you look at the polls, you’ll find that most poeple who “oppose” the war aren’t doing so because they think it is “unjust”, they don’t approve of the PC rules of engagement that hobble our troops. In other words: “If we’re not going to go all out, why bother?”. Most understand that Saddam had WMD capabilities and that he was a state sponsor of terror. By the way, in order to pursue those 200 some odd stragglers we would have had to invade Pakistan. Would that have been okay with you? You would be willing to risk a nuclear escalation in order to “finish them off”?

  77. Of course, I’m sure teq thinks that Clinton came closer to getting Bin Laden than anybody(as Bill is so quick to point out to anyone who’s listening).

  79. Well more and more people are understanding what this war is about, Sally. Have a read…

    A David and Goliath Story
    Iraqi Labor vs. Big Oil

    By KATHLYN STONE

    According to British media, the US and UK governments are on track to achieve a March victory in Iraq. This victory will not be publicized nor will it mean an end to the occupation.

    Written by Bush and Blair’s big oil business partners who serve as the leaders’ advisors on foreign policy, the new Iraq hydrocarbon law opens the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for 30 years. This economic model is called a Production Sharing Agreement.” But is a 75/25 split, with bloated oil companies taking 75 percent of the country’s wealth and leaving just 25 percent for the devastated Iraqis, a sharing agreement or an a! rmed ro bbery?

    The law is cur rently under consideration in the Iraq Parliament, with deputy prime minister Salih, chair of the oil committee, carrying the legislation.

    Iraq’s unions, if not its occupied government, are standing firm against the oil law. With the oil sector representing 95 percent of the country’s revenues, and with only 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields under production, much is at stake.

    The General Union of Oil Employees in Basra has taken a strong stand against the proposed law. GUOE’s courageous members booted KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary, out of refinery workplaces shortly after the invasion despite Cheney’s award of a ‘no bid’ contract. Members also went on a two-day strike last August, winning their demands for higher pay. From what one can glean from foreign press and unfiltered words from Iraq, so does every other union in Iraq. In his February 6 speech at a conference held a t Basra University to debate the oil law, GUOE president Hassan Jumaa Awad al Assadi minced no words. “Among the objectives America wishes to achieve from the military occupation of Iraq, all the causes of which we do not want to return to, but simply to emphasize one central objective of the American political leaders who crossed oceans and wasted billions of dollars, that is Iraqi oil. Indeed we in the Federation of Oil Unions consider this the most important reason for this foul war.”

    Assadi, who was jailed three times for opposing the former Baath regime, called on Iraq’s Parliament to “bear the Iraqis in mind, to protect the national wealth, and to look at the neighboring countries. Have they introduced such laws even when their relations with foreign companies are closer than in Iraq? If those calling for production-sharing agreements insist on acting against the will of Iraqis, we say to them that histor! y will not forgive those who play recklessly with the wealth and destiny of a people and that the curse of heaven and the fury of Iraqis will not leave them.”

    The oil workers must be braced for a response. After GUOE’s first anti-privatization conference last summe

  80. he oil workers must be braced for a response. After GUOE’s first anti-privatization conference last summer, the U.S. and Iraqi governments responded by freezing the union’s bank accounts.

    Union members have been arrested and fired from their jobs. At least two union leaders, Hadi Saleh, of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unionists (IFTU) and Ali Hassan Abd of the GUOW, were assassinated since the invasion.

    Saddam Hussein’s 1987 Law 150, banning unions and union organizing remains in effect. In 2004 U.S. administrator Paul Bremer declared them illegal.

    The Iraq Freedom Congress, a non-violent anti-occupation movement of u! nion wo rkers, intellectuals, community leaders, womens’ and childrens’ rights activists, political parties, and individual citizens, has been working for two years to unify Iraqi unions and all citizens and create a democratic, secular, progressive government. It opposes the armed resistance and believes the coalition forces have orchestrated the sectarian violence. Some IFC leaders are also union heads who were jailed for union organizing during the Saddam Hussein regime. In September 2006, its Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops.

    Iraq unions and Iraq Freedom Congress are finding support for their resistance from other unionists, humanists, the international solidarity movement and every day citizens who know the occupation of Iraq is all about controlling the w! orld’s oil. In Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Portugal, It aly, the UK, the United States and other countries, citizens are joining in solidarity with Iraqi workers. They are sending money to strengthen Iraqi unions, support conferences, support travel for union and IFC leaders, aid in rebuilding the civil society, and new communication channels like SANA TV that will bring unfiltered messages of unity to the Iraqi people.

    The UK group War On Want is in a battle against poverty and works for international workers’ rights. It supports ! the Gen eral Union of Oil Employees based in Basra in its campaign against the privatization of Iraqi oil.

    “Oil is the most important natural resource in Iraq, bringing in huge amounts of revenue,” ac cording to War On Want. “Yet while the Iraqi people struggle to rebuild their nation amidst constant violence, Iraqi oil is being sold off behind closed doors to foreign multinationals.

    “The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are opposed to the privatisation of their oil, yet the government has denied that privatisation is actually taking place. What’s more, the contracts being signed exempt companies from new laws which could affect their profits, so they can continue to subject their workers to inhumane working conditions which place their health and safety at risk…. War on Want supports the oil workers union in their fight against privatisation and their campaign for international solidarity for the plight of the oil workers.”

    The venerable War Resistors League expressed its solidarity with Iraq

  81. The venerable War Resistors League expressed its solidarity with Iraq’s unions in 2004 with this statement: “Union organizing efforts have begun in the Southern Oil Company and amon g employees in various Iraqi electrical facilities. Workers have won wage increases and better working conditions. We respectfully urge the expansion of nonviolence in the crucial context of labor organizing.”

    US Labor Against the War, a network of more than 140 unions, labor councils, state federations, and other labor organizations with millions of members, hosted six leaders of the Iraqi trade union movement on a 20-city U.S. solidarity tour in summer 2005. USLAW has established an Iraqi Labor Solidarity Fund to help the workers “defend themselves against the invasion of U.S. and other multinational corporations like Bechtel, Halliburton, and Stevedoring Services! of Ame rica the same anti-union companies we face at home.” USLAW states: “The U.S. and the government it created can not claim to be for democracy while attempting to strangle Iraq’s labor movement.” USLAW has asked labor and social justice activists across the United States to protest the interference with unions that are fighting to defend the interests of Iraq’s society.

    Remember the tale of David and Goliath? People from many nations are telling their leaders they will not stand by and let an entire country be sacrificed to corruption and aggression. We can hope and work for an outcome in Iraq that favors union workers who struggle valiantly, like David, and hope that they are successful in felling the Giant oil industry, huge in stature like Goliath, but blinded by greed. We know how the story ends.

    Kathlyn Stone is a Twin Cities, Minnesota-based writer covering science, health policy, the economy and international relations. She has been writing about Iraq labor unions since 2005.

  82. Certainly paints and entirely different picture of what is going to in Iraq than what neoconservatives drone an about.

    So yes, leaving Iraq would be a big mistake for Bush and his oil croonies.

    The probable truth is he doesn’t give a donkey’s butt whether Al-qaeda runs Iraq – his actions have certainly led to it’s unprecendented growth. And it looks like that’s what he(probably more so Cheney) had in mind.

    Lovely stuff. Enough to make one almost cynical.

    And the neo-cons? Willing dupes to create wars to act as front for the big oil show…..

  83. That was a classic scroll-past, TC, and would simply be deleted if it were my blog (which it isn’t). Cutting and pasting whole stories into a blog’s comments section is a good way to clog the thing so nobody bothers to read it at all anymore, which is no doubt your intention. It also takes no time and no thought on the part of the paster — which is ideal for you at least.

  89. Somebody who uses somebody else’s blog’s comments just as a place to store his news clippings would also be a prime candidate for deletion as pointless litter — e.g., Riceroni above.

    I will say, however, that if you ignore the middle headline above (which is just the usual lefty wishful thinking), the other two are encouraging — it’s about time the US took the fight directly to Iran, rather than passively letting them sponsor Iraqi murderers, or develop nukes in order to slaughter Jews.

  90. Isn’t it ironic that opponents of the war in Iraq kept insisting the “real” enemy was Iran? They wondered why we weren’t attacking them. Now that we’re telling Iran to back off or else, suddenly the lefties are saying we have no beef with Iran, and we’re “manufacturing” evidence against them. Isn’t this what YOU wanted Wild Reich?

  92. “History will see Blair as Churchillian” Gee, WR, why didn’t you show us a link to THAT telegraph article?

  93. Why don’t you start your own blog, Sally?

    Might be an idea.

    Anyway – you should read that cut-and-paste job – it’s actually quite an interesting look into what’s going on in Iraq other than car bombings and the like.

    And you might actually further your knowledge on the subject – which certainly wouldn’t hurt.

    And I’d be interested to hear what you think about it, other than the usual braindead ramblings…

  94. Btw – what is the point of having a comments section if not to futher the discussion?

    That’s why I posted that. It’s relevant, interesting and worth discussing…

  95. If Iran is developing nukes, it isn’t to slaughter jews.

    The jews have the nukes – or did you forget, Sally?

    And it is Israel that has been threatening to slaughter Persians – not the other way around. Despite the garbage Israel lobby propaganda we are subjected to daily.

    If you want to talk about slimey, low-ball foreign policy you need not look any farther than the claim that Israel must stop Iran from getting the bomb before they can start another ‘holocaust’.

    The only reason Israel ‘needs’ to stop Iran from getting a bomb is to stop any deterent from Israeli aggression in the ME.

    Hell they might even have to stop starving millions of Palestinians to death in their outdoor concentration camps in Gaza and the W. Bank…..

  96. “Hell they might even have to stop starving millions of Palestinians to death in their outdoor concentration camps in Gaza and the W. Bank…..”

    TC, your claims to “further the discussion” are undermined completely when you post drivel like that above. The only people “starving millions of Palestinians” are the “Palestinians” themselves. If Israel actually practiced the naked “aggression” you complain about in nearly every post, most of the ME and the “Palestinians” would cease to exist. It’s really getting rather tiresome, especially when it’s totally off-topic in comments about Iraq.

  97. Iran was the topic. And I didn’t introduce it into the discussion.

    And yes the Palestinians are very relevant to the chaos in the ME.

    And no Israel couldn’t simply just cause “most of the ME” to cease existing.

    That is irrelevant drivel.

    But none of that compares to this bit of utter tasteless garabage:

    “The only people “starving millions of Palestinians” are the “Palestinians” themselves.”

    That’s a bit like saying jews were responsible for the holocaust. More than a bit.

    And if you don’t know why, stumbley than maybe you should keep updated on what’s going on in the occuppied territories. And maybe you should educate yourself on Israel’s current policies concerning the democratically elected government of Palestine – with the support of the U.S.

    They have virtually cut off aid entirely. It’s immoral and disgusting. As are your comments.

    http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=10578

  98. “They have virtually cut off aid entirely.”

    And why in the world should they “aid” people who, for Israel’s entire existence, have been aiming to destroy them? What has “Palestine” done with the “aid”, except build more bombs? The U.S., Europe and, yes, Israel have poured billions into “Palestine”, and all we have to show for it is a “unity” government that can’t even stop killing each other!

    I’m quite well-informed on the history and situation in “Palestine”, thank you very much, and expect that you are the one lacking perspective. Again, how old are you, anyway? (I’m 57—that should make it easier for you to answer a question I’ve asked a number of times.)

    And if you’ll look at the title of the post you were commenting on, TC it reads: “Our Iraq allies and spin: past and present, British and otherwise” Don’t think Iran was mentioned there, do you?

  99. “Iran was the topic. And I didn’t introduce it into the discussion.”

    No, Iraq was the topic, and yes, you did “introduce it into the discussion.”

    “TC | 02.26.07 – 12:35 pm”

    Re-read your comment referenced above, TC. It’s the first mention of Israel and “Palestine” in the whole thread.

    It’s your MO…when you can’t succeed on the facts, blame Israel. Reprehensible.

  100. “No, Iraq was the topic, and yes, you did “introduce it into the discussion.”

    Your 57 stumbley – not 97. So tell me how you missed the fact that WR left a link about Iran; Sally commented on it; and finally so did I.

    So no – I didn’t introduce Iran into the discussion(thread).

    “And why in the world should they “aid” people who, for Israel’s entire existence, have been aiming to destroy them?”

    Why in the world should Palestinians stop trying to kill Israeli’s who refuse to return to 1967 borders as they are required to? Palestinians had nothing to do with the 1967 war – they are the victims of Israels birth. They were ethnically cleansed from their land(with all the murderous, terrorism that goes with it).

    And no stumbley -it’s glaringly obvious that you are not very well informed on the Israel/Palestinian issue if you are seriously making the claim about ‘aiming to destroy Israel since throughout it’s existance’.

    Apart from the facts that I mention, the other fact is Palestinians, through various groups(even ‘terror’ groups) have sought peace and reconciliation with Israel based on mutual recognition and justice. This is well documented; I’ve provided sources before and will provide them whenever you ask or wish. Facts.

    Israel hasn’t poured billions into Palestine. That’s bs.

    Did you read the link, from an Israeli writer, that I posted? Read it, stumbley.

    The unity government is the result of Israel/U.S criminal treatment of the Palestinian-elected government. When they decided they didn’t want to neogiate with Hamas they went to Fatah, started a fight by calling THEM the true representative of Palestine – and now we’re here, basically(VERY truncated).

    So stumbley – you don’t really know what your talking about. And yes it’s Israel’s fault.

    Not because it’s a jewish state. Not because I’m pro-Palestinian(though I am).

    Because that what the documented record of Israel’s relations as occupiers and oppressors of the indigenous Palestinians, undeniably show.

    And I’ve been studying it for a long time, now. From both sides.

    So try me….

  101. And yes, I see Israel as the most dangerous state in the world.

    More than Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea put together.

    But that is my opinion…..

  103. Okay, where to start?

    You introduced the Israel/Palestine rant into a discussion of Iraq; that’s what I was talking about. Iran was just WR’s typical thread hijack maneuver.

    I asked your age, because it’s difficult to believe that someone who’s 35 would think and write like someone 20 years younger. It ultimately makes no difference, but I’m amazed that someone of your age is as gullible as you appear to be.

    I’m informed about the Israel/”Palestine” (and yes, the quotes are intentional) issue because I read more than one source, read more than one point of view, and actually pay attention to current events and history. Your “hacohen” link is instructive only in demonstrating that there are self-loathing Israelis, same as there are self-loathing Americans. Apparently, it’s an affliction that knows no borders.

    If you think that Israel is the “most dangerous state in the world” (after implying its weakness with your statement “And no Israel couldn’t simply just cause “most of the ME” to cease existing”), then you’re just a shill for the “Palestinians”—but then you’ve admitted as much, haven’t you?

    If Israel were as “dangerous” and as bent on “ethnically cleansing” Arabs, it could do so with just a few well-placed nukes. The fact that it hasn’t belies your fantastic claims.

    The fact that Iran (there, I’ll introduce it now) hasn’t nuked Israel is just a testament to the fact that it hasn’t got its nukes yet.

    In any event, this has gone on long enough; it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, which was the British redeployment from Iraq to Afghanistan; and is further proof that trolls like you succeed in derailing honest discussions posed by the topics Neo’s interested in.

  104. Goebbels called it “projection” stumbley. Project your(TC’s, nazi’s) faults onto your enemies(Jews).

  105. TC, you seem well versed in the propaganda techniques of the nazis. I commend you for that. Your knowledge of Arab/Israeli interaction leaves much to be desired, though. By the way, if you are so worried about the “starving Palestineans”, why don’t YOU feed them, hypocrite? Bitching and crying and lying isn’t putting food in their stomachs. Why is it everybody else’s duty but YOURS? If aid has been cut off, START A CHARITY! Put you money where your BIG, FAT, PROPAGANDA mouth is, hypocrite.

  107. Actually, TC, the “indigenous” people of “Palestine” are the Bedouin. Until the diaspora, they lived side by side with the Israeli Jews and until the muslim conquest circa 640AD, lived with Levantine Christians. The only thing that interested the muslims was the “religious site” of Jerusalem. The rest was left to the Bedouin tribes for nearly 1200 years. Then, around 1880 or so, Yemeni Jews started migrating back to the “holy land”, the beginnings of the Zionist movement. Soon, however, European muslims(Balkans) petitioned the Ottoman Empire for land that was still muslim controlled, since Austria/Hungary had reclaimed the Balkans and was now “Christian” again. So, the “Arab Palestineans” are in actuality “white Europeans” who can no more claim to be the “rightful” heirs to Israel than anyone.

  109. And Israel and the U.S. poured BILLIONS(no b.s.) into the West Bank and Gaza. Part of the Camp David and Dayton accords. Read HISTORY, not nazi propaganda.

  111. TC is, at best, a pseudo-marxist who hasn’t developed intellectually since adolesence (I doubt he’s read so much as the Communist Manifesto, but he labels himself a marxist in all probability because it sounds radical and super-“progressive”). As with so many of that ilk, the decomposing corpse of his ideology can only be animated with a huge charge of hate — at Bush, at America, at the West, at any manifestation of the free and rational individual. And of course, when it comes to hatred, there’s nothing that works quite so well as hatred directed at that age-old target, the Jew, especially when you can dress it up, for the terminally naive, as fancy-dancy “anti-zionism”. The difference for the Jew-haters now is that their target isn’t quite the helpless punching bag that they used to be able to count on — now the Jews fight back, and they’ve got a number of friends who will fight with them. I think — I certainly hope — that the Iranians, among others, are about to find that out.

  116. Tequilamockingbird was banned from this site long ago. The ban is still on, tequila.

    Edited By Siteowner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑