Not-so-gloomy Iraq?

[Colpy]

Interesting piece by John Ibbitson in today's Globe and Mail.....

Seems a couple of investigators from the Liberal think tank The Brookings Institute, have returned from Iraq impressed with what they saw: "We are finally getting somewhere, at least in military terms," they wrote, "As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprized by the gains we saw........"

Points
- US occupying forces are finally getting things right, morale is high, and the forces are matched to the job required.
- the surge is working.
-the population is turning away from the insurgents (too much mayhem?)
-Iraqi forces are improving and taking up the front lines in the battle

The Democrats simply want out, and don't give a damn about the consequences for Iraq or the west. If the probability of eventual success becomes the Conventional Wisdom, the Democratic platform (run!.......the sky is falling) collapses, and America is saved not only from a humiliating defeat, but from having Hillary Clinton as President (gag!)

"We are winning. We must win, and we will not set a date for surrender, as the Democrats want us to do" said John McCain (may his candidacy be revived)

Pray, ladies and gents, for the success of American policy in Iraq.......for the sake of the Iraqis, and ourselves.

 

[Avro]

I pray that Americans have finally learned their lesson in failed imperial wars based on nothing. I'm sure 3500 dead soldiers and a half million dead Iraqis hope so.

 

[Colpy]

I pray that Americans have finally learned their lesson in failed imperial wars based on nothing. I'm sure 3500 dead soldiers and a half million dead Iraqis hope so.

I would agree that the invasion was a mistake......that G.W. Bush allowed a personal vendetta to overwhelm better judgement (Saddam tried to kill his father, after all), despite my joy at the demise of Saddam. On the grounds of "Death to Tyrants", I admit to supporting the initial invasion.

I was wrong.

That is not the point here, though.

It is now best for all concerned that the Americans emerge victorious.........there can really be no argument there that I can see.

 

[Avro]

I would agree that the invasion was a mistake......that G.W. Bush allowed a personal vendetta to overwhelm better judgement (Saddam tried to kill his father, after all), despite my joy at the demise of Saddam. On the grounds of "Death to Tyrants", I admit to supporting the initial invasion.

I was wrong.

That is not the point here, though.

It is now best for all concerned that the Americans emerge victorious.........there can really be no argument there that I can see.

I never have argued that, but the ineptitude of Bush leads me to believe it will not happen under his admin.....he dosen't even know the difference between a Suni or a Shia for crying out loud. If he did indeed go in for a personal vendetta than he should be impeached and jailed for costing thousands upon thousands of people their lives and the country billions of dollars.

I, for the life of me can't figure out why anyone, liberal or con, like this guy.

Btw, I respect your admission of being wrong.....it's a rare thing coming from cons when it comes to Iraq.;-)

 

[tracy]

It is now best for all concerned that the Americans emerge victorious.........there can really be no argument there that I can see.

No one can argue against that, all they can argue is that sometimes the best thing is impossible. My marine friend is coming home in 2 months and has already been told he'll be going back to Iraq next summer. They have no plans on ending this. Will it be worth the cost in lives and dollars if it takes another 20 years? Can the US even sustain their involvement for that long?

 

[#juan]

Iraq as a country is all but destroyed. What the Americans should do as soon as possible and as quietly as they can, move all their people out without doing any more damage to that country.
"Emerge victorious".......what a crock. How in the hell can they emerge victorious from that royal cock-up? They've lost 3500 of their own people and killed over a half million Iraqis in what was, by any standards, an illegal invasion and occupation They should just slink away home and stay there.

 

[BitWhys]

...Pray, ladies and gents, for the success of American policy in Iraq.......for the sake of the Iraqis, and ourselves.

Do I have to? I'd rather pray for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Iraq and let the good lord take it from there. I very seriously doubt he needs consultations on foreign affairs issues.

 

[Unforgiven]

Really? Hmmm Why is that? Vietnam looks OK since the American pull out. Of course Cambodia was a bit of a mess sort of like Iraq now in a way. I'm not at all sure I understand why there has to be success in Iraq. How about Iran? Wouldn't that have to change as well in order for there to be a successful outcome in Iraq? Even Syria perhaps?

 

[gopher]

For those who are under the illusion that Brookings is so ''liberal'' see this from wikipedia:


''
Of the 200 most prominent think tanks in the U.S., the Brookings Institution's studies are the most widely cited by the media, [3] and the third most-cited of all public policy institutes by Members of Congress, behind only the Heritage Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.[4] In a 1997 survey of congressional staff and journalists, Brookings ranked first in credibility among 27 think tanks [5]
Brookings is commonly regarded as politically centrist, although some critics believe it is too liberal and others call it too conservative.[6] Its scholars, both liberal and conservative, are cited with equal frequency by Democratic and Republican members of Congress.[7] Its board of Trustees comes from across the country and the political spectrum, including prominent Republicans such as Kenneth Duberstein, a former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan, and prominent Democrats, such as former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. Its scholars include former government officials hailing from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as many who have not served in government and do not advertise a party affiliation.
Along with the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, Brookings is generally considered one of the three most influential policy institutes in the U.S. By comparison, the American Enterprise Institute is considered conservative/free market and Heritage Foundation considered more right-wing. All three organizations are nominally non-partisan, as required by their non-profit organizational status.[8''




Yes, contrary to the lies that you are reading above, Brookings is considered conservative by many.

 

[gopher]

Contary to the endless right wing lies that you get so often on this forum, the USA is not responsible for any good taking place in Iraq. The TRUTH is that over 3 million have been murdered by the Bush forces of imperialism and terrorism:


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3059/

Published on Wednesday, August 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org American Genocide In The Middle East: Three Million and Counting

by David Goodner

Deaths directly and indirectly attributable to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have neared one million people, a body count higher than the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan combined, according to a new report released by Just Foreign Policy.
That brings the U.S. caused death count in the Middle East to over three million people, and that’s not even counting fatalities in Afghanistan or Palestine.
The Just Foreign Policy report is an update to two controversial studies published by the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet. In 2003, the Lancet reported over 100,000 excess deaths in Iraq were attributal to the U.S. invasion. That study may be read here.
In 2006, the Lancet updated their study and found over 600,000 excess deaths in Iraq since the U.S. invasion. That study may be read here. ''






... more ...






It will be recalled that Lancet's study was published by the CONSERVATIVE Johns Hopkins University.



Celebrating Bush is tantamount to celebrating Hitler.

 

[tracy]

It's interesting that they refer to it only as the US invasion.

 

[#juan]

It's interesting that they refer to it only as the US invasion.

Well, the U.S. made up probably ninety percent of that invasion and likely ninety nine percent of the push to get the invasion underway.

 

[tracy]

Well, the U.S. made up probably ninety percent of that invasion and likely ninety nine percent of the push to get the invasion underway.

Funny, I didn't think peer pressure was a valid excuse for any other behavior. The UK's (and other countries who sent troops and supported the invasion) role is meaningless simply because they had less guns involved? How convenient for them.

 

[#juan]

Funny, I didn't think peer pressure was a valid excuse for any other behavior. The UK's (and other countries who sent troops and supported the invasion) role is meaningless simply because they had less guns involved? How convenient for them.

Tracy....I blame the U.S. for initiating that invasion. The U.S. and the coalition of the bullied. That invasion and war has been a royal screw up since day one. I know you've had someone over there and my heart goes out to you. I would hate to lose anyone in such a useless cockup.

 

[gopher]

The coalition of the dwindling is just about completely dead and Bush has lost his criminal war of imperialistic terrorism. As I wrote before on this forum, the equities of the universe simply do not permit losing a just or moral war. Bush has lost his war because it does not fit within that type of scope.

 

[tracy]

Tracy....I blame the U.S. for initiating that invasion. The U.S. and the coalition of the bullied. That invasion and war has been a royal screw up since day one. I know you've had someone over there and my heart goes out to you. I would hate to lose anyone in such a useless cockup.

It isn't so much him that makes me question those who solely blame the US, though I freely admit it puts a more personal perspective on things for me. I'd hate to lose him under any circumstances. I just got an email from him today and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in October.

It's more my English friend's attitude that influences my feelings on the blame the US alone crowd. She makes is seem like the UK is this paradise and beacon of wisdom and justice. She completely ignores her own country's involvement in the whole process. Forget that they had tens of thousands of troops there, as long as the US had more, the Brits are completely innocent and blameless for how things turned out. Forget the fact that Blair strenuously pushed for this war and continues to defend his decision to this day, it's Bush's fault alone. I would hardly call the UK contribution to this war small, but they will happily duck behind the US when the blame gets dished out.

I see this with my fellow Canadians a lot too. We bitch and moan that the US doesn't listen to us because we think our opinion is so important. Just cause we're a small country doesn't mean we should be ignored! But when smaller countries like Australia or the UK freely go along with US policy, they were powerless and bullied into it so they should be completely absolved of any wrongs. That's bull. Either we mean something on the international stage or we don't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Iraqis are intelligent enough to know that they are being given a chance and that the forces that are disrupting this chance are like chess players useing Iraq like a pawn.....

Eventually the Arab world will start to see the real enemy within....then you will see real change in the mid east.
I can think of no other cliche for this whole mess other than "the end justifies the means"

 

[Unforgiven]

It isn't so much him that makes me question those who solely blame the US, though I freely admit it puts a more personal perspective on things for me. I'd hate to lose him under any circumstances. I just got an email from him today and I'm really looking forward to seeing him in October.

It's more my English friend's attitude that influences my feelings on the blame the US alone crowd. She makes is seem like the UK is this paradise and beacon of wisdom and justice. She completely ignores her own country's involvement in the whole process. Forget that they had tens of thousands of troops there, as long as the US had more, the Brits are completely innocent and blameless for how things turned out. Forget the fact that Blair strenuously pushed for this war and continues to defend his decision to this day, it's Bush's fault alone. I would hardly call the UK contribution to this war small, but they will happily duck behind the US when the blame gets dished out.

I see this with my fellow Canadians a lot too. We bitch and moan that the US doesn't listen to us because we think our opinion is so important. Just cause we're a small country doesn't mean we should be ignored! But when smaller countries like Australia or the UK freely go along with US policy, they were powerless and bullied into it so they should be completely absolved of any wrongs. That's bull. Either we mean something on the international stage or we don't. You can't have it both ways.

There wasn't enough heat on Blair for that on the International stage I think.
But I suggest that without the Bush Push this war would not have even started. Probably all members of that coalition should share blame in proportion.

 

[gopher]

``the ends justifies the means``


3 million dead Iraqis, and 3 million more refugees who have fled across the borders. Nothing justifies this. Nothing.

 

[gopher]

A clarification on the inane notion that Brookings is oh-so-liberal:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/073007.html

quote:


[[re the pro war NY Times]]

Another key element of the coming propaganda campaign was previewed on the op-ed page of the New York Times on July 30 as Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution portrayed themselves as tough critics of the Bush administration who, after a visit to Iraq, now must face the facts: Bush’s “surge” is working.
“As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with,” O’Hanlon and Pollack wrote in an article entitled “A War We Just Might Win.”
Yet the authors – and the New York Times – failed to tell readers the full story about these supposed skeptics: far from grizzled peaceniks, O’Hanlon and Pollack have been longtime cheerleaders for a larger U.S. military occupying force in Iraq.
Indeed, Pollack, a former CIA analyst, was a leading advocate for invading Iraq in the first place.

He published The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq in September 2002, just as the Bush administration was gearing up its marketing push for going to war.
British journalist Robert Fisk called Pollack’s book the “most meretricious contribution to this utterly fraudulent [war] ‘debate’ in the United States.” (Meretricious, by the way, refers to something that is based on pretense, deception or insincerity.)


... more ...


No institution has been more pro war than has the reich wing neoKKKon Hitlerians in the NY Times.