Uh never before in the US history has the opposition led a move to betray the men serving out in the area of operations. Why is a veto of that Dictator like? Dictators would have killed all the members that suggested such a thing!
Not all dictators are violent. The dictionary definition is:
a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession
or
(in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met
Both or either describe Bush with respect to the actions stated above.
Quoted Text
As for him wanting to declare the war being won by hiding behind some walls!
I dont think anyone in his right mind would agree that that was "his" plan except maybe you boomslanger....
oh and as for your facts! they are incorrect! there are actually less civilians being killed everyday since the so called surge began. But hey I dont expect you to believe that either. And to me it is quite irrelevant. You seem to advocate a defeat for the USA and australia to boot. Maybe sitting behind a computer on a ship miles away from any actual shooting, along with 3 hot meals a day dulled your sense of involvement, but that many diggers would also feel let down and betrayed is not lost on me.
Your opinion only. Boomslanger is accurate with his facts and often gives links to back them up.
I don't advocate a defeat for anyone. And I know people that are not behind their computers and some that are in the thick of things over there who do not feel betrayed at all.
Didn't stop you doing it though and as usual you come out with unsubstantiated crap and innuendo based more on ideological bull than reality.
Quoted Text
Uh never before in the US history has the opposition led a move to betray the men serving out in the area of operations.
Never before have such lies and deceit been used to justify an illegal war for corporate greed. As I heard one US soldier describe in an interview on one current affair show the other day, "We are corporate mercenaries."
Quoted Text
As for him wanting to declare the war being won by hiding behind some walls!
I dont think anyone in his right mind would agree that that was "his" plan except maybe you boomslanger....
Then why are they building gated communities? Look it up it's their current tactic to win the surge, it openly stated in their plans that select areas of Baghdad will be isolated and walled (as I stated one wall is already 5km long) to create elite secure zones.
http://www.arabmonitor.info/news/dettaglio.php?idnews=18713&lang=en They are even using the same Israeli firm that built the Israel wall to construct the Baghdad ones, and Al-Maliki demanded the US stop building them, but the US ambassador to Iraq stated that whilst he respects the wishes of the Iraqi government they will continue. Shows who is really running what is supposedly a democratic country, not the elected government that's for sure.
Quoted Text
oh and as for your facts! they are incorrect! there are actually less civilians being killed everyday since the so called surge began. But hey I dont expect you to believe that either. And to me it is quite irrelevant. You seem to advocate a defeat for the USA and australia to boot. Maybe sitting behind a computer on a ship miles away from any actual shooting, along with 3 hot meals a day dulled your sense of involvement, but that many diggers would also feel let down and betrayed is not lost on me.
My facts are spot on, you are just making it up as you go and as to the rest of your assertions they don't deserve a word be wasted in response. What blowhard utter nonsense.
Quoted Text
The Bloodiest 12 Months of the War A Surge in Iraqi Civilian Deaths
By TOM CLIFFORD
Dubai.
There is an Iraq surge, but it is a surge in deaths. The year up to March 2007 has been the worst 12 months for civilian fatalities since the invasion was launched. Almost 50 per cent of all violent civilian deaths since the March 2003 invasion occurred in the period between March 2006 to March 2007 according to figures compiled by Iraq Body Count.
Quoted Text
''Insurgent attacks continue, despite the dispatch of more than 20,000 additional US troops. Insurgents are confronting the surge strategy head-on, killing civilians daily; over 2,500 civilians were killed in the month, since the launch of the surge on 14 February, by insurgents, US troops, death squads, al-Qaeda and various unknown attackers,'' Lily Hamourtziadou, a researcher for IBC said.
These figures do not include the carnage in Baghdad on Wednesday, April 18th that killed more than 170 people
Answer me this amsterdam, why is the Iraq war the only one in which America has participated in that the US doesn't release the civilian death count. They had no problems doing it in Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, WWII and every other war including their civil war, but Iraq stands alone as a no go zone for official civilian deaths. That more than anything tells you how many are being killed and injured everyday.
Quoted Text
''No accurate figures are compiled by military forces in Iraq, as required by international law, which apart from recording deaths means that matters like compensation can not be dealt with,'' Dardagan said.
Quoted Text
Remember that jihadis consider iraq and afganistan BOTH to be their AO and we are in them. So to pull out of one or the other would grant them a victory we cannot afford to hand them. Even if there are many both in civilian life and the media who want to give it to them
Remember there were no terrorists, insurgents or jihadis in Iraq before America invaded, in fact a secular Saddam was their enemy. They also said that the whole of Asia would fall to communism, starting with S.E. Asia if the Americans pulled out of Vietnam and that Vietnam would collapse into mayhem. The only thing that is now wrong with Vietnam is the chemical, poisonous and destructive mess the US left behind which is still deforming and killing Vietnamese to this day. The same will happen in Iraq with the massive amounts of depleted uranium that is already starting to terribly effect the Iraqi population, as though the US hasn't already done enough to them to get their oil.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Very interesting points and go against everything Howard has stated as the reason for remaining in Iraq.
Quoted Text
Most of the attacks in Iraq are directed at CoW military forces and attacks on civilians are relatively low in number.
Stars and Stripes, the US military newspaper, stated on average there are [or were last Jan.] 180 attacks per day against the military invading forces. Plus 30 per day against Iraqi forces and 50 per day against civilians.
So the bulk of the attacks are against the foreign military.
Obviously the casualties do not follow the same ratio and our TV reports seem not to concentrate on the anti-invader attacks thus giving a distorted perception.
Remove the CoW forces and the total number of attacks might [I know I’m forcing the logic here] decrease dramatically.
Quoted Text
The most common argument now used to support the continuing occupation of Iraq is that if the CoW withdraws, all hell will break loose. The general impression that the occupation supporters try to give is that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq can’t wait to slaughter each other the way they’ve been doing for hundreds of years. Once the CoW withdraws, so the argument goes, the bloodbath will be on in earnest.
The problem with this prediction of course is that nobody can demonstrate conclusively that it’s wrong. Consequently anybody who wants to argue in favour of withdrawal runs the risk that the rivers of blood scenario will prove to be accurate and they’ll be held responsible.
In these circumstances it’s relevant to ask if the gates of hell theorists actually believe their own predictions. If they do, they deserve to be taken seriously or at least their evidence should be given objective scrutiny. So the observations by notorious Iraq war lover Frederick Kagan this week were noteworthy (my emphasis):
The fact that sectarian killings responded to the orders of Shiite leaders speaks volumes about the nature of those killings. Despite the oft-repeated myth that Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other for centuries, the drop in sectarian murders since January shows that last year’s killing was motivated by politics rather than primordial hatred. It was organized and rational rather than emotional, and it is therefore susceptible to persuasion through force, politics, and reason. The idea that Iraq is trapped in a civil war that we can only allow to be fought out to its conclusion is so far unproven and is not a justification for withdrawal.
Kagan is so keen to argue one point that he seems to have overlooked the way he has undermined so much of the case for continuing the occupation. He claims the risk of civil war is unproven and therefore ‘not a justification for withdrawal’ but this is a reversal of the onus of proof. It’s the continuing occupation that requires justification, not withdrawal. By admitting that centuries of sectarian violence are ‘a myth’ he suggests that the ‘rivers of blood’ scenario is being deliberately misused as a propaganda tool by the supporters of the occupation. Far from not justifying withdrawal, it removes one of the last remaining reasons justifying staying.
The only justification left is the one that Kagan makes, namely that the CoW should use military force to prop up the Maliki Government until somehow, eventually, peace breaks out. The overwhelming opinion from people who don’t have a vested interest in barracking for the occupation - that is, people who (unlike Kagan) haven’t been proven hopelessly wrong about everything to do with Iraq since the decision to invade - these people’s opinion is that the Maliki Government will never be able to govern Iraq effectively, which means the sole remaining rational reason for continuing the occupation is baseless.
The Americans of course aren’t withdrawing any time in the foreseeable future and their prestige around the world will continue to deteriorate. Since that’s really really bad for Australia we should be a good friend and ally and start telling them the truth … and withdraw our own troops immediately, to set them an example.
You gotta love how the right-wingers have now put the entire fate of Iraq and the success of the war in the hands of the so-called left. This is so brilliantly stupid that I am lost for words. And if you can't see this, I would urge you to switch your computer off, take yourself down to the nearest psychiatrist and have your mental health assessed. How will the world ever improve when your constantly fighting an ideology this stupid?
George Bush's true colours are on display for all to see. This is all about saving face (and oil), and has nothing to do with the welfare of the soldiers or the Iraqi people.
For 5 years America has been fighting a losing battle in Iraq, the rivers of blood are already flowing. Surge after surge has failed. The CoW have failed. And now because the Democrats want to pull-out they're being blamed for losing the war and betraying the soldiers? The best thing we can do for our soldiers is to get them the heck out of there so no more of them die.
US-led reconstruction in Iraq falls short Tuesday May 1, ninemsn
A US-led effort to rebuild Iraq continues to come up short in delivering essential services even though most of the US$21 billion ($25.3b) provided by the United States has now been spent, an audit made public has found.
The audit also found that seven of eight completed projects visited by inspectors had not been properly kept up, "posing a threat to the condition and durability of the buildings and equipment turned over to the Iraqis."
The quarterly report to Congress by the special inspector for Iraq, Stuart Bowen, also warned of growing opportunities for corruption, and said Iraq's prime minister's office has used a 1971 law to block 48 corruption probes involving 110 people.
As in previous reports, Bowen pointed to the poor security conditions in Iraq as a major stumbling block for reconstruction efforts.
"The volatile security environment, coupled with the limitations of the law enforcement and judicial systems, has continued to hinder the progress of reconstruction projects across all sectors," his report said.
"Persistent attacks on US-funded infrastructure projects and sustainment challenges could jeopardize the completion of projects by their planned end-dates of mid- to late-2008."
Of $25.3 billion provided by the United States in 2003 for Iraq's reconstruction, 98 percent has been obligated and 84 percent has now been spent with most of the remaining projects expected to be completed by the end of the year, the report said.
But in key areas, the reconstruction effort has fallen well short of even current targets, many of which have been revised downward over the years.
Average daily power generation during the quarter was only 3,832 megawatts (MW) — below pre-war levels of 4,500 MW and well below the US goal of 6,000 MWs. Demand, on the other hand, averaged 8,533 MW a day.
Baghdad averaged only 6.5 hours of power a day during the last week of March, a decrease from the same period last year, the report said.
"This quarter, insufficient supplies of fuel and water to generation facilities led to a loss of nearly 1,500 MW in production per day," the report said. "As new generation projects come online, the issue of fuel and water supply grows more critical."
Oil exports were up during the quarter to 1.44 million barrels a day from 1.3 million barrels the same period a year ago, but production was down, according to the report.
"Iraq has missed its quarterly production target every quarter since 2004," the report said.
Crude oil production averaged 1.95 million barrels a day. That was down from 2.17 million barrels a day the previous quarter but up slightly from the same period the previous year.
US water projects have provided capacity to supply drinking water to 5.6 million people, a slight increase from last quarter but well short of a target of 8.4 million.
The report noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross said "both the quantity and the quality of drinking water in Iraq remain insufficient despite limited improvement."
The report said US funded projects also are adding potential capacity to the sewage system but "measuring how much additional sewage is actually treated remains difficult."
"Although the United States has made progress on reconstruction activities in the education sector, continuing security issues prevent many Iraqis from using the facilities," the report said.
"According to statistics from Iraq's Ministry of Education, only 30 percent of Iraq's 3.5 million students are actually attending classes," the report said.
On the healthcare front, 20 hospitals have been built or refurbished with US funds, according to the report. But little progress has been made in building a planned network of 142 primary health care centers (PHCs).
"Of the 15 PHCs completed to date, eight are currently open to the public," the report said. Four health care centers were blown up during the quarter.
Bush vetoes Iraq troop-withdrawal bill Wednesday May 2 08:07 AEST
President George W Bush has vetoed legislation to pull US troops out of Iraq in a showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.
In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation that would have required the first US combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by October 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
He vetoed the bill immediately on his return to the White House from a visit to MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, headquarters of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
Democrats made a last-minute plea for Bush to sign the bill, knowing their request would be ignored.
"The president has put our troops in the middle of a civil war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"Reality on the ground proves what we all know: a change of course is needed."
Lacking the votes to override the president, Democratic leaders quietly considered what might be included or kept out of their next version of the $US124 billion ($A150 billion) spending bill.
It was a day of high political drama, falling on the fourth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on an aircraft carrier and his declaration that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
Democrats held an unusual signing ceremony before sending the bill to the White House.
...and the loyal little lapdog Johnny couldn't yap his approval quick enough barking the same utter crap that George Bush did. As this article, http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/eblah/m-1168383472/s-75/#num77, I posted above proves, it's bullshit Howard and you know it. The biggest cause of problems in Iraq at the current time is the CoW, but even worse are US companies rorting Iraq for billions. That is the real reason for the veto and staying on in Iraq, it has nothing to do with tourerists or freedom.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Harry Reid is the emptiest suit in the democratic party. Good on Bush for vetoing this rubbish. Never in war have we given the exact time time and date of of our withdrawal to the enemy. You guys and girls want freedom and you don't want to fight terrorism. This is why I dont really comment anymore here because you as a collective on the left don't understand that. If you want to pull troops out and have this constant sword of Damacles having over your head then I think somewhere you have missed the point. I guess it will take another terrorist sponsored attack that happens to us for you to re-learn why you only fight wars to win. Also everybody was quite critical of anyone saying Krudd or other name calling. But it is okay to say little lapdog johnny. Do you find this funny. Contradiction, anyone?
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
But you on the right don't understand this has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom or fighting terrorism. If it was about fighting terrorism then why did the US invade Iraq instead of Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
If it's about freedom then why are American companies ripping ordinary Iraqis off for billions of their own oil money whilst the freedom fighting American military actually supports them in doing this.
Fighting terrorism my arse.
Fighting for freedom my arse.
You live in your little ideological dream world that is in no way connected to reality and believe the neocon s**t all you want, spewing the same rhetoric and crap they continually do, but don't try to foist it upon us, especially since the last 4 years have more than proved the lie it is.
You tell us when this war in Iraq will be won, when just about every expert out there is saying that as long as America remains there and its companies continue to rip off the country then it will never be over? The current surge is failing, that is number 3 now and the US is building gated communities behind large Israeli designed and built walls to hide behind. Wow that sure looks like a decisive victory and freedom to me.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
You live in your little ideological dream world that is in no way connected to reality and believe the neocon s**t all you want, spewing the same rhetoric and crap they continually do,
but don't try to foist it upon us,
Are you saying I am not allowed to have an opinion
Neocon that is an interesting word. Neo marxism is another interesting one that rises to the top of the sewer and would be the best way to describe the new left.
I will foist up all the opinions I want because that is what this chat site is all about. If you don't like it may I suggest you ask a moderator if I am allowed to post.
You spit absolute fury at anyone on the right, which undoes the insightful and interesting posts you send everyday. I don't know if neocon encapsulates who I am but id say i'm two parts conservative one part librertarian with a streak of secular progressive.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
Right-wingers take note, the real reason for the Iraq war has been declared straight from the weasel's mouth.
I know this won't change any of your minds as you no doubt believe we had to secure oil for ourselves for the long term prosperity of this country.
Oh how quickly you throw out what's right and morals for the almighty $. I can really see those Judeo-Christian values on display.
In this article John Howard has admitted to the following:
Quoted Text
In an address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra on Thursday, Mr Howard highlighted the fight against terrorism and the need to secure a major oil supply as reasons to stay the course in Iraq.
- Read: The Iraq war was 100% about oil, let's face it, the terrorism argument is a joke because Iraq was terrorist free pre-invasion
Quoted Text
Our major ally and our most important economic partners have crucial interests there," ... While India and China were emerging as global powers, the US would not lose its predominant global position, he said.
Read: We joined the war to help the U.S. secure it position as the global superpower and will only leave once the U.S. has achieved it's objectives.
It appears we no longer stand for democracy and freedom and what's right. Could this be any bigger a disgrace? It is wrong that Bush, Blair and Howard are not facing criminal charges for his.
And we wonder why the enemy hates us?
The cost: 3,872 dead coalition soldiers and 67,000 dead civilians
Quoted Text
Mid East oil crucial to our future: PM ninemsn, Thursday Jul 5
The Middle East is crucial to Australia's strategic and economic future, Prime Minister John Howard said in a major speech outlining his government's foreign policy direction.
In an address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra on Thursday, Mr Howard highlighted the fight against terrorism and the need to secure a major oil supply as reasons to stay the course in Iraq.
He warned there would be "no holiday" from the struggle against terrorism which had its genesis in Islamic extremism.
"Islamist terrorism will remain a threat to Australia, to Australian interests and to our allies, globally and in South East Asia," he said.
Mr Howard said many strategic challenges including terrorism, demand for energy resources and competition between rival powers converged in the Middle East.
His speech came as the government released an update of Australia's defence priorities.
"Our major ally and our most important economic partners have crucial interests there," Mr Howard said.
"In these circumstances it is all the more critical that the coalition succeed in establishing a stable democratic Iraq that is capable of defending itself against al Qaeda and the internal enemies that wish to tear it apart.
"Despite the dreadful continuing violence and our frustration at the rate of political progress, the government remains committed to staying in Iraq with our coalition partners until the Iraqi security forces no longer require our support.
"The consequences of western failure and defeat in Iraq are too serious to allow our policy to be dictated by weariness, frustration or political convenience."
While India and China were emerging as global powers, the US would not lose its predominant global position, he said.
"We are unlikely to see the emergence of a serious rival to liberal market-based democracy as an organising principle," he said.
However, there was a danger globalisation would facilitate terrorism and transnational crime and spark a resurgence of protectionist policies that could lead to disputes over commodities like oil.
"It will remain the case that, because of our size and location, Australia cannot afford to wait until security threats reach our shores before we do anything about them," he said.
"Whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, it would not only run counter to our national interests, but also to our national character to let (terrorists) prevail."
Intelligence assessments indicated Australia was likely to be called on to take the lead in a range of possible missions in the region over the coming years, he said.
Mr Howard said Labor had a long record of neglecting defence.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said Mr Howard's admission that the invasion of Iraq was linked to securing the oil supply is damning.
"Prime Minister John Howard's belated admission that the invasion of Iraq is linked to the major stake of energy dependency underlines his dishonesty in 2003," Senator Brown said in a statement.
"Saddam Hussein's oil, not weapons of mass destruction, was in the Bush-Blair-Howard mindset in this monumental mistake which has cost a reported 67,000 civilian lives.
"It has boosted global terrorism and undermined Australia's homeland security.
"Mr Howard has put oil corporations' interests ahead of Australians' domestic security."
Logged
