@arsenault... I said 'life-loving'... or so they always seem to say that they are.

And if they were sending happy, colorful 'Jesus Loves Me' stickers and bibles to a country that wasn't currently being torn apart by a religious based Civil War and thereby helping to add to the chaos and misery of the situation, then I probably would not have said anything, because yeah, like it or not, they have been doing this for centuries (although really, that, I think is no cogent argument for the justification of modern missionary activities- after all there are lots of things humanity has done for centuries, like, oh, prevented women from owning property or having any sort of a say whatsoever, or, oh I don't know, slavery.... both of which could also potentially be justified by the "we've been doing this for thousands of years" argument, but aren't, because people by and large have realized that we need to progress and move forward as a species. So, applying that same reasoning to justify the continuation of missionary work, just isn't gonna fly).

But, anyway, they are purposefully going into an area that is already torn apart by religious and sectarian violence... if they were so dead set on saving Muslim souls, then why not go somewhere else? Iraq is not going anywhere, someday, eventually after a lot of bloodshed it will settle down. The fact they have chosen to go into Iraq NOW strikes me as purposefully divisive and meant to stir up trouble, like they are looking to make some modern-day martyrs or something... so in this case, in light of the civil war and the inherent violence of the region at the moment, it strikes me that they should GTFO for now and stop making things worse... there is a time and a place, and their being there NOW is not helping, and any way they rationalize it is, at this point in time, ridiculous.

^ Thanks for responding deedub. glad to know you were just kidding with some of your comments (hopefully to my profile also).

in your first paragraph you mention that Romney wants to keep "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on our money. These phrases were only added several decades ago and violate that same separation of church and state that Romney says he wants to protect.

please read up on the history of those two subjects (references to god in the pledge and on our money)

We are not one nation under god.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/christian_nation_brochure.pdf

Saying that "god should remain in our pledge" does not follow separation fo church and state
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/One_Nation_Under_God.pdf
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/In_God_We_Trust_In_Public_Schools.pdf
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/public_schools_brochure.pdf

Saying that "god should remain on our money" does not follow separation of church and state.
http://www.atheists.org/public.square/coins.html

The founding fathers had enough sense to keep any mention of "god" out of the constitution, off the money and out of our pledge.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/Founding_Fathers_and_the_Separation_of_Church_and_State.doc

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/TenMyths.pdf

These articles were taken from AMERICANS UNITED http://www.au.org

2007 marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Americans United as one of the foremost defenders of the separation of church and state, the cornerstone of religious liberty in America. We are proud to celebrate 60 years of freedom and look forward to continuing our work for many years to come.

As a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization, AU's membership includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, people with no religious affiliation and others. Democrats, Republicans and independents have joined our ranks.

Americans United is an independent organization with no ties to any larger group or political movement. We are a true grassroots organization. Thanks to your support, Americans United is able to defend separation of church and state in the courts, educate legislators, work with the media to inform Americans about religious freedom issues and organize local chapters all over the country.

About the oil, the profiteering off this resource likely has not begun, as you have to realize that a protracted war for occupation was never the initial plan of the administration. Records, memoirs of retired military personnel and white house staffers indicate that the initial plans for the invasion of Iraq actually did anticipate a rosy arrival where we would be hailed as liberators and paraded through the street... there were never any contingencies for an insurgency or massive sectarian violence, let alone any sort of semblance of a Phase IV plan for keeping order post war (the administration's biggest failing).

The plan had been to turn things over almost immediately to Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress... unfortunately they did not realize until it was way to late that Chalabi is a sneaky crook (duh, how they did not know this is beyond me, guy embezzled millions from two of the banks he founded) and was talking to the Iranians behind our backs... the deal though, was that once installed as the new leader of Iraq, Chalabi would guarantee oil sales to both the US and Israel, along with officially recognizing the state of Israel (the cliff notes version of the neocon agenda could, literally, read= 'we heart oil & israel'; always keep those two points in mind when viewing American policy in the Middle East).

So, to answer your question straight on, its not that the administration needs to bring in their own tankers, etc, and pump the oil themselves, all they need is a friendly government that is willing to show preference to America over Russia, China, or any of the other world powers. Lots of money can be made in sales, distribution, providing equipment and expertise... much as Big American Oil currently does with Saudi Arabia.

But Mink is right, the evidence is the sheer fact that we are even there in the first place. Because Iraq had no WMDs, no links to al-Qaeda (am really sorry for you that you bought into that, btw, it was a crap argument, and in the end our distraction in Iraq has only given them breathing room and a whole new front to fight in), and there are dozens of other countries around the world with evil dictators that could use a liberal dose of democracy but will we ever bother to invade them? Hell no.

Also, if you look at the battle plans for the opening invasion in 2003, its quite plain that seizing and consolidating the Rumeila oil fields in Southern Iraq were of top priority... also, in the looting that ensued after the conquest the only Baath Ministry facilities that were guarded by the US were, surprise, the Ministry of Oil. I think all these things make it pretty clear that the reason we are there is for oil and oil alone.

So what is your view then of how to handle the current situation? Immediate withdrawal? Would all the lives lost in un-checked sectarian violence and the creation of a new theocracy be excusable because now the horrible Americans are gone? Arguements labeling converatives aside, since I've found that not all liberals or conservatives really agree on this, what really is your view on how this can be remedied? I personally see it like this. We have already entered the country and destabilized the place. Sectarian violence that was kept mostly bottled up by a brutal regime is now spilling out. Not only are we now fighting local terrorist cells, but people from neighboring regions as well. Iraq is now the place to be if you want to take a shot at America. Leaving immediately will stop the US military from being directly involved any further in causing casualties, but what will happen to their newly forming government? I think, given the current circumstances, another like Saddam or Pol Pot taking the reins is highly likely. I don't really care if they decide on keeping a democracy modeled after ours or not, just as long as they don't get another guy that's going to harbor and fund the people that like to convince others to detonate themselves for Allah. I've seen the current state of their army first hand and they sure as hell will get rolled over by a determined extremist force bent on taking over. I think that there are merits to leaving, but there are also consequences. Just as there are merits to staying as well as consequences. There will be death either way. There is no magical pill that cures all the ills set in motion. There are no pleasant solutions in war. I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions on this. One thing I want to clear up though. I'm not defending the initial decision to go to war or even the way it's currently being handled, so don't bother with complaining about Bush and all that tired nonsense. I couldn't care less about the spineless twit. I do, however, support staying in some capacity until they are capable of defending their own borders and stopping internal conflict.

Well, no, I'm not saying by extension that we should be in every country with bloodshed. What I am saying is this. We already basically waltzed into their country and ignited sectarian violence. Sketchy reasoning aside, it was done. We are now involved in something which we started and can't be solved by just essentially saying, "Oops, see you guys later." To just wash our hands of it now and leave may sound wonderful, just like saying "War is bad" always sounds great, but there would be consequences. There's consequences if we stay, consequences if we leave. My basic point being that whether or not an immediate and complete withdrawl is the best option, I don't buy that line that it will stop the bloodshed. I think it will only multiply until Iraq becomes a theocracy, slaughters millions, and becomes a large propaganda victory to rally all the muslims that want us dead and will continue this fight somewhere else like Afghanistan.

I saw this movie the other night and after example after example, all i could think was... how fucking incompetent can this administration be ?
not only did they botch the reasons to go to war... but it seems they knowingly and willfully fucked up that country beyond all repair on purpose.

No End in Sight is a documentary film that concentrates on alleged mistakes made by the Bush administration in the two-to-three-month period following the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The film portrays these errors as the cause of ensuing problems in Iraq, such as the rise of the insurgency, a lack of security and basic utilities for many Iraqis, sectarian violence and the risk of complete civil war.

To a large extent the film consists of interviews with the people who were involved in the initial Iraqi occupation authority and the ORHA (the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, later replaced by the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority). 35 people are interviewed, many of them former Bush loyalists who have since become disillusioned by what they experienced at the time. In particular, many of those interviewed claim that the inexperience of the core members of the Bush administration—and their refusal to seek, acknowledge or accept input from more experienced outsiders—was at the root of the disastrous occupation effort.

Among those interviewed are

General Jay Garner, who briefly ran the reconstruction before being replaced by L. Paul Bremer
Ambassador Barbara Bodine, who was placed in charge of the Baghdad embassy
Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of the State Department
Robert Hutchings, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff
Col. Paul Hughes, who worked in the ORHA and then the CPA
According to No End in Sight, there were three especially grave mistakes made by L. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA:

A move toward "De-Ba'thification" in the early stages of the occupation. Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'th Party counted as its members a huge majority of Iraq's governmental employees, including educational officials and some teachers. By order of the CPA, these skilled and ultimately apolitical individuals were to be banned from holding any positions in Iraq's new government.
Not providing enough troops to maintain order. The looting of Iraqi museums sent chilling signals to the average Iraqi, telling them that the American forces did not intend to maintain law and order. And arms depots were available for pillaging by anyone who wanted weapons and explosives.
The disbanding of the Iraqi Army, which made 500,000 young men with weapons and training unemployed and bitter. Many of them decided that their best chance for a future was to join or, together with the rest of their unit, become a militia force.
The film cites these three mistakes, as well as many others, as the cause of the rapid deterioration of occupied Iraq into chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_end_in_sight

From the clip:

"What is the reason for creating this sectarianism?"

Because it's all the easier for America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the corporate interests therein to control your country that way.

Divide and conquer.

It's become part of Bush's surge propaganda to equate sectarian insurgent groups in Iraq with Al-Qaeda, especially given OBL's comments in his new video.

"A numerically small but politically significant component of the insurgency is non-Iraqi, mostly in a faction called Al Qaeda-Iraq (AQ-I). Increasingly in 2007, U.S. commanders have seemed to equate AQ-I with the insurgency, even though most of the daily attacks are carried out by Iraqi Sunni insurgents. AQ-I was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a June 7, 2006, U.S. airstrike.

AQ-I has been a U.S. focus from very early on in the war because, according to U.S. commanders in April 2007, it is responsible for about 90% of the suicide bombings against both combatant and civilian targets. AQ-I is discussed in detail in CRS Report RL32217, Iraq and Al Qaeda, by Kenneth Katzman.

In large parts of Anbar Province and now increasingly in parts of other Sunni
provinces, Sunni tribes are trying to limit Al Qaeda’s influence, which they believe is detrimental to their own interests, by cooperating with U.S. counter-insurgency efforts. In other cases, there have been clashes between AQ-I and Iraqi insurgent groups, such as in June 2007 in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad, apparently representing differences over targets and AQ-I’s reported abuses of Iraqis who do not fully cooperate with AQ-I.

U.S. commanders say they are trying to enlarge this wedge between Sunni insurgents and AQ-I by selectively cooperating with Sunni insurgents - a strategy that is controversial because of the potential of the Sunni Iraqis to later resume fighting U.S. forces and Iraqi Shiites. The strategy is reported to have led to increased tensions between Maliki and the lead U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus."

- CRS Report for Congress : Iraq Post-Saddam Security and Governance.

This of course is perfect for both Bush and OBL.

After years of talking about sectarian violence, Bush can now fear monger that leaving Iraq would create a terrorist state formed of the AlQ's Caliphate, giving him more blank checks to continue the surge and the war. Think January 2009.

While OBL can garner more support from radicals since America's president is giving him such constant praises about military operations in Iraq. Sending political bombshells via videotape in safety somewhere in the area between Pakistan and Afghanistan slowly rebuilding his organization, preparing for more attacks avoiding the attention of the US military and special forces because they are all in Iraq. He even had time to color his beard.

So both are playing into each others objectives at the expense of American and Iraqi lives.

Robert Parry covers this eloquently in Bush-Bin Laden Symbiosis Reborn.

Over the last few years there were reports that showed the US military dropping recruitment requirements and offering waivers in exchange for military service.

Reports of the Army unable to supply sufficiently armored vehicles and other equipment against IED threats, pre and post surge. Soldiers are now familiarizing combat driving techniques using simulators because there is a shortage of M-1114s.

America does possess formidable military forces, but we are talking about soldiers on the ground currently not total combined forces; which would take into account navy and air.

Extended tours (from 12 to 15 months), with multiple returns are common, fatigue is taking it's toll. A secondary surge has already taken place to bolster troop numbers, by sending more combat brigades and extending tours for troops already in Iraq.

Troop levels would thus increase to around 200,000 by the end of this year, a record since the start of OIF. These numbers of course do not include the large number of private military contractors in Iraq, also surging in numbers, paid for by US taxpayers under contract from the DOD. Meanwhile the Army is shedding officers at an alarming rate, 44% left, the highest loss rate in 3 decades.

With regards to the Al Anbar success stories, one must remember that is only occurring because previous Sunni insurgents have turned against Al Qaeda, making US forces the most convenient allies in driving out foreign radical Islamic terrorists. The relationship is tenacious, it also means the US forces now have to bolster previous Sunni insurgents and make them components of the Iraqi government, which is filled with Shia militias who do not want minority Sunni influence.

"To bolster that case, Bush made his own surprise visit to a U.S. military base in Anbar province on Sept. 3 to tout growing cooperation between Sunni tribal leaders and American forces.

But the sheiks didn't seek out U.S. help because an additional 30,000 U.S. troops had been shipped to Iraq. Rather, the sheiks had found themselves caught between al-Qaeda extremists on one side and Shiite-dominated government forces on the other.

The Americans became the enemy and erstwhile friend, respectively, of my enemies – and thus an ally of convenience for the Sunni sheiks.

Indeed, the Anbar situation could be viewed as evidence that the political and ethnic divisions of Iraq continue to deepen – with Sunni traditionalists growing only more desperate. But these shifting sands of allegiances have become the foundation upon which Bush is building his case for open-ended U.S. military involvement in Iraq."

- How VIPs get 'Brainwashed' on Iraq by Robert Parry.

The important thing to consider is; will such success be replicated in other provinces? Will the forces join into the Shia dominated government which opposes Sunni influence? Thus how long will this commitment last. All questions to which officers within the armed forces cannot answer, because the situation is that fragile.

After posing gamely with the troops at the Al-Asad base, Bush celebrated the return of Sunni areas to the control of U.S.-armed militias-composed largely of former insurgents who have at least temporarily decided that their Shiite rivals, currently in control of the central government, are a more pressing enemy than the American occupiers. Speaking of one such group of Sunnis trained by the Americans and dubbed the “Volunteers” by their instructors, a U.S. soldier told The Washington Post, “I think there is some risk of them being Volunteers by day and terrorists by night.”

The National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iraqi goverment is precarious, violence remains high, a decrease in Baghdad violence due to sectarian cleansing. The Government Accountability Report, a congressionally mandated report, showed that the Iraqi goverment met 3, partially 4, and did not meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. The NIE was tweaked favorably by Gen. David Petraeus, the GAO was attacked by the White House as being 'inadmissible', 'harsh' and 'locked into failure'.

With regards to your comments about losing Iraq on principle, it was never a war for us to win in any sense, it was a systematic fear mongering campaign driven by PowerPoint presentations with aerial photographs about WMDs that got us into Iraq.

After 4 years of being constantly lied to about hostilities ending, turning the corner, mission accomplished, and witnessing the daily ineptness of the way the current administration has and is handling the war we are again on the brink of giving this administration another pass on the war up to 2009 since the current surge will remain up to and until April 2008. To have President Bush then compare the Iraq war to Vietnam; As Andrew Sullivan put it:

His speech yesterday actually managed to shock. You might think that, in wartime, a president would acknowledge what no one denies is a terribly grim decision in front of us - whether to pursue a clearly unwinnable war in order to govern a clearly ungovernable country - or withdraw and redeploy in ways that will doubtless lead to even more bloodshed. But no. There is no gray here; no awful decision for the least worst option; not acknowledgment of his own moral culpability for such a disaster. There is instead an accusation that those who reach a different judgment about the course of the war are, in fact, enemies of the troops:

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.

To place all the troops into the position of favoring one strategy ahead of us rather than another, and to accuse political opponents of trying to "pull the rug out from under them," is a, yes, fascistic tactic designed to corral political debate into only one possible patriotic course. It's beneath a president to adopt this role, beneath him to coopt the armed services for partisan purposes. It should be possible for a president to make an impassioned case for continuing his own policy in Iraq, without accusing his critics of wanting to attack and betray the troops. But that would require class and confidence. The president has neither.

For more I would refer you to an excellent post - Thirteen Ways not to think about the Iraq war.

MarineG,

I think the trouble is with the concept of fighting 'terrists'. There isn't "al-Q" coming from all over to Iraq to fight there. Does that even make sense? So Iraq is like a pest trap where Japanese Beetle fall in the water?

Look, the vast, vast majority of people there with guns are insurgents, aka pissed off people who have lived there their whole lives. I guarantee if some country occupied your hometown you would also become an insurgent. Now we have sectarian war and ethnic cleansing going on.

The US has no business staying there. It would be one thing if anyone in the puppet regime even wants us there, but they don't. It would be another thing if the US was doing a good job with even basics like water, electricity, infrastructure, but they haven't. We have left people stuck with almost NO electricity. Wasted billions on rebuilding projects, lost billions of money that just vanished. Guns are being given and sold to who know what, all over the place. If we wanted peace there, we would be ARMING BOTH SIDES.

The goal is to keep it as unstable as possible to keep access to the oil. It is the biggest screw up and illegal war in modern history. Staying there makes less sense especially when people admit what a bad idea it was in the first place.

So you came home drunk from the bar and wake up next to a 350lb, one legged, inbred 45yr old cougar. So you keep dating her because you were duped, and you already invaded her. You already setup shop, and it's going to upset her if you leave...

Conservatives love to forget all kinds of history.

Let's forget the Bush Administration cutting troop pay and benefits, not giving them proper gear or properly armored vehicles. (We can't afford it they say while they give the top 1% rich massive tax cuts).

Let's forget Cheney explaining, on several occasions, why invading Iraq would create a quagmire. (Let's just tell ourselves that 9/11 changed everything and made all centuries old middle-eastern sectarian hatred disappear magically.)

Let's forget Bush bankrupting every company he was ever put in charge of.

Let's forget what Bush Administration members and other conservatives say week to week on TV. They change their excuse every week. The most hated "liberals" out there are the people who record a neo-con on TV twice and play both clips back-to-back.

sirex,

There are two maybe three possibilities for Iraq. The obvious one is permanent, endless occupation of Iraq, which leads to constant "state of war" and myraids of daily IEDs and plenty of people willing to cross the Atlantic to "return the favor". Endless nightmarish guerilla war and contant false flag operations to control the public which will have grown sick of the nonsense about when 2009 rolls around.

Choice number 2 is mini-Iran forms and you have one part of Iraq being Sunni, another being Shia, and Kurds probably all slaughtered. Most of the formerly Christian and Jewish Arabs are now left the country or laying in mass graves. Basically Iraq becomes a proxy was for dominance between Saudis, Iranians, and Turkey. Most likely Iraq becomes a major religious controlled theocracy and uses the "fake" democracy we taught them about to pretend to be a democracy. Look, you can't go in an put your own puppets into leadership and run a sham election to "show" a fledging democracy how it is supposed to work.


Anyways, Iraq right now IS a bloodbath. You can theorize that it will be worse, but it couldn't get much worse. There just aren't enough people left to kill. They are dying everyday, at the hands of insurgents, bombs, the army, the iraq army, the private contractors, the sectarian bloodbath..

We created this problem. It was nonsense to invade (just drop a bomb on Saddam if you wanted to overthrow him). It was nonsense to occupy. It is nonsense to continue to stay in the middle of a civil war. The US can NEVER solve this, especially the way they act in the region (Palestine, ignoring Saudi actions, paying the Pakistanis, paying the Taliban, overthrowing people they previously paid and supported)...

There is no "handful of killings" in Iraq. Go to the BBC or something and read a daily account of the scores of murders daily.

poor guys.....they seem confused-sectarian bullshit may keep this region screwed for decades to come...when the U.S "pulls out", too late, should have used reliable birth control...ounce of prevention???? Is it bad the U.S. is there? Duh!....Have they fought a war without any sense as far as
rules of engagement go..YES!
Is this production with it's ominous music(cheese rip-off vivaldi-techno) fraught with a schlocky, slanted, un-professional journalistic style and timber?? YES!


Do you seriously expect folks to believe, that these seemingly reasonable gentlemen, are in a quandry as to why an occupying force given the clusterfuck of the circumstances, would think a camera crew of locals was suspicious??? Obviously, someone hopes to convince using such tactics, it is here for all to see........some folks have to quarrel, and there are those who, making use of another's quarrel, their personal empire from it build-

-Read The Sneetches, Dr. Suess has a perfect picture, of the reason for this bullshit-See no use for a production like this in the grand scheme of things.....find the folks who orchestrated the whole bill of goods, instead of talking about how bad it is......and look for another version of the same game......Cheery, isn't it???

I Guess this begs the question.. who is in charge over there?

Iraqi PM criticises Baghdad wall - BBC April 22nd 07

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has asked for construction to end on a concrete wall around a Sunni enclave in the capital, Baghdad.

Mr Maliki said there were other ways to protect the Adhamiya neighbourhood, which is surrounded by Shia districts.

The US military, which is behind the project, has said the purpose of the wall is to prevent violence between Sunni and Shia militants.

But Iraqi politicians have warned it will increase sectarian tensions....Read More

It's possible to be a patriot and believe the war is illegal. Look at Pat Tillman. IMHO the main reason dissident voices on the left may sound Anti-American tone is that bigoted nationalists wrap themselves in the flag and use false patriotism as a ruse to dupe the public. How is it supporting the troops to rush them in with less training? How are we prosecuting the real struggle with Islamic terrorism when we sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein?

Far better if we had succesfully completed the war in Afghanistan, found bin Laden, and bargained with Iran from a position of strength. We would still have the goodwill of the world on our side which acts as a force multiplier. We would be pressuing Pakistan to quell its own radical elements and we would have the military capacity to offer a credible deterrent to Iran, or to more forcefully fight the serious elements of Islamic Terrorism in Northern Africa. YES, I know Al Qaeda is in Iraq but we are also fighting sectarian groups and in addition to the sheer wrongness of it, it's also a diversion of necessary resources.

It's possible to think this administration is completely incompetent without being Pollyanna. Conservatives pride themselves on their hard-headed pragmatism, but they refuse to admit that this situation is a fiasco of our own making.