This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
A Stalemate is on Hand
Published on May 31, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The news from Iraq is getting messier by the day. The American public was told that once the elections are held peace and quiet will descend on Iraq. Those opf us who have been follwing that story knew better. Now after 150,000 Iraqi lives destroyed, billions of dollars worth of infrastructure destroyed, nearly 2000 US soldiers killed in action and the golbal image of the USA is tatters it is time to reflect on the whole issue. The neo conmen who led the country to war underestimated the power of the Iraqi Resistance. They were not aware that in1922-24 when the British administered Mesopotamia as part of its maNDATED TERRITORY there was hell in store for them at a time when the Iraqi civil society was far less developed than it is today. There is no way this war can be won. Luttwak is perfectly right when he says that USA must disengage itself from Iraq. Disengagement is not retreat and must not be perceived that way. In the last week alone Bagdad has seen the death of nearly 550 civillians in car bombs and other acts of violence targetted against Iraqi s.

A disturbing trend is that the troops are not being rotated. This means that after a tour of duty a soldier who could look forward to spending time with his wife and children can no longer do so. The morale of troops will be affected and more importantly even the top brass of the US army is admitting that the war is bearing down heavily on troop morale. Gen Raggis was chashiered from the US army for telling the truth.

At this rate the dreaded draft will be introduced and that is the only way the present level of American engagement can be maintained. As for as the Iraqis taking over the security operations just forget it. The Iraqis are nowhere close to reaching the target. AT THE FIRST SIGN OF GUNNFIRE THE iRAQI FLEES AND THE FEW who stand and fight find that they are usually overlooked for rewards which is cornered by the staff officers close to the Americans. Moreover the level of Intellegence of the Iraqi resistance is improving. This spells danger.

Comments (Page 5)
8 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Jun 17, 2005

#61 by COL Gene
Friday, June 17, 2005





WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!


We get sick and tired of arguing with "your" ignorance. You want to start in yet again as to why we're in Iraq? How many times must you be shown that every itel agency in the "WORLD" believed the WMDs! And do NOT start on the downing street memos. That has not been either proven or verified yet.
on Jun 17, 2005
WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!


I rest my case as I pass Colon Gene his whoobie so he'll stop bawling.
on Jun 17, 2005
WE should never have been in the situation of quitting. We SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN Iraq. This is not WWII or the American Revolution. This is a war that Bush wanted and has nothing to do with 9/11 or making America Safer. Bush sold America, Congress and the world a load of S*it!


--It is like the colonies if you look at it with the persecuted iraqi's like the colonists,oppressed, without say, and finally when they got a boost,an opportunity, they built a new nation...and what exactly did this have to do with WW2? Also, I doubt it was a war that bush wanted, those who say it was cause oil are a bunch 'o' nuts, the oil production has yet to reach half of its possible productuion, not just because of the attacks, but because,get this, oil isn't considered the most important,OMG! NO WAY! (yes, this is sarcasm, for those who are uninformed).....

We get sick and tired of arguing with "your" ignorance. You want to start in yet again as to why we're in Iraq? How many times must you be shown that every itel agency in the "WORLD" believed the WMDs! And do NOT start on the downing street memos. That has not been either proven or verified yet


--yep

61 by COL Gene


--I give up, i think i'll retire from this "battle" against COL G with a perfect record (imo he has yet to prove his point) Have a martini COL G. [I'm all out of cookies... ]
on Jun 18, 2005
The majority of Americans agree with me. Only 41% support the Bush policy in Iraq and the White House acknowledged yeaterday that much of the Bush agenda is not being well received by Americans. This was acknowledged by the President's Press Secretary who also said Bush does NOT intent to change his policies. Now if you admit your policies are not what the majority want, why would you "Stay the Course"?
on Jun 18, 2005
Better read the comments of former Treas Sec Paul O'neil who stated that the Iraq War was a topic at the First Bush Cabinet meeting in 2001. Also the British memo that was released last week clearly show Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. There were others who wanted to attack Iraq and Bush was in the lead! My comment about WWII was to indicate that the Iraq War did not have popular support as did WWII after we were attecked. Saddam never attacked the US and did not have the ability to attack America. Saddam was no real threat to the US even if he had WMD. North Korea has WMD and we did not attack them!
on Jun 18, 2005
Only third graders decide right and wrong by popularity contests, idiot.

Guess what, we're there. Get over it.

We have two choices now, complete the mission, or wimp out and leave the Iraqi people to terrorists.

I see you are on the side of the terrorists gene.

Why don't you just complete it and fight with them. What's the difference between shooting at our troops or aiding and abetting the enemy with your rhetoric?

You already side with the terrorists. Why don't you be a man and join up with the side you are rooting for?
on Jun 19, 2005
The Terrorists would not be operating in Iraq if we had not invaded that country. What is the mission? When will Iraq be able to operate without 130,000 American military? Every day the news is the same. If we can not stop the terrorism wirh the massive military we have in place, is it possible to establish order from without? Only the Iraq people can STOP the killing.
on Jun 19, 2005
The majority of Americans agree with me.

No they don't. I conducted a poll and 98% responded that you don't know what you're talking about.
on Jun 19, 2005
Sorry. The national polls show 58% do NOT agree with the Bush policy in Iraq. That was on the Sunday Talk shows including CNN. Republicas and Democrats in Congress are talking about a time table to begin removing our troops from Iraq. Wolf Blitzer questioned the the Sec of State about an hour ago on CNN as to the remove of US military from Iraq. Your 98% must all be from the 42% that support the Bush policy in Iraq not the 100% of Americans.
on Jun 19, 2005
The majority of Americans agree with me. Only 41% support the Bush policy in Iraq and the White House acknowledged yeaterday that much of the Bush agenda is not being well received by Americans. This was acknowledged by the President's Press Secretary who also said Bush does NOT intent to change his policies. Now if you admit your policies are not what the majority want, why would you "Stay the Course"?


--Wow, COL, you got every american to answer to your poll?! Thats amazing,oops, you forgot me, and moderateman,etc... sure YOUR poll says the majority, what majority, anti-bush democrats? Polls are BS, they only sample a small percentage of the entire pop. there are those that do not care for polls,and don't want to answer,there will NEVER be a complete poll...

Better read the comments of former Treas Sec Paul O'neil who stated that the Iraq War was a topic at the First Bush Cabinet meeting in 2001. Also the British memo that was released last week clearly show Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. There were others who wanted to attack Iraq and Bush was in the lead! My comment about WWII was to indicate that the Iraq War did not have popular support as did WWII after we were attecked. Saddam never attacked the US and did not have the ability to attack America. Saddam was no real threat to the US even if he had WMD. North Korea has WMD and we did not attack them!


---Give us some links...

The Terrorists would not be operating in Iraq if we had not invaded that country. What is the mission? When will Iraq be able to operate without 130,000 American military? Every day the news is the same. If we can not stop the terrorism wirh the massive military we have in place, is it possible to establish order from without? Only the Iraq people can STOP the killing.


--The terrorists were already there...there have been news reports by abc,nbc,and others of those details...

Sorry. The national polls show 58% do NOT agree with the Bush policy in Iraq. That was on the Sunday Talk shows including CNN. Republicas and Democrats in Congress are talking about a time table to begin removing our troops from Iraq. Wolf Blitzer questioned the the Sec of State about an hour ago on CNN as to the remove of US military from Iraq. Your 98% must all be from the 42% that support the Bush policy in Iraq not the 100% of Americans.


*shakes head*
on Jun 20, 2005
The terrorists in Iraq today face a power far greater then Saddam - The United States Military. Look at the problems they create EVERY Day. America faced the worlds greatest power - England in 1776. If the Iraq people wanted to be free of Saddam, it was they, not the United Stades that should have made the sacrifice necessary to free themselves from Saddam Hussein. It was not the


The American Revolution and the situation in Iraq are far differen t. I agree with Col Gene when he says that the US military is far more powerful than the regime of SaddamHussain. Whether the Americans like it or not the fact remains that Saddam brought education to women in a big way. put them in the job market reduced the influence of the Isalmic clergy and empowered sections of the Iraqi society like the Christian minority. However, all these gains got unstuck during the UN imposed sanctions. He should have been removed after the Ist Gulf War when this experiment would have succeded . Now it is ttoo late/
on Jun 20, 2005
The comments of Sec PAUL O'Neil are in "The price of Loyalty" and the memo is the one released in England about 10 days ago. They BOTH clearly show Bush intended to invade Iraq PRIOR to 9/11!

No matter what is said, Saddam did not pose any "real" danger to the US whan Bush attacked him! Saddam was a Bad peerson like scores of other dictators in he world. That is not a reason to put our military in danger and spend 300 Billion dollars.
on Jun 20, 2005
The comments of Sec PAUL O'Neil are in "The price of Loyalty" and the memo is the one released in England about 10 days ago. They BOTH clearly show Bush intended to invade Iraq PRIOR to 9/11!


There is no "memo". There is only an alleged memo that this "reporter" copied and is telling people it's "reliable". Remember it was the Clinton policy on regime change in Iraq. Iraq had been defying the U.N. (or working with them), and the U.S. for years.

And until you go to every person in America and ask them what they think, stop quoting polls and telling us this is what "America" wants.
on Jun 20, 2005
Paul O'Neil documented that the Iraq invasion was talked about at the FIRST CABINET MEETING of the Bush Admin in early 2001 LONG before 9/11. Bush intended to remove Saddam and only used 9/11, WMD, the UN resolutions and the War on Terrorism to justify what he planned to do from the outset of his administration!
on Jun 20, 2005
IslandDog

Yes the Downing Street Memo does exist. It was just on "HardBall" on MSNBC. It clearly documents that Bush had decided to attack Saddam even though the Intel did not support the idea Iraq was a danger to the US!
8 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last