Today marks the beginning of the 5th year of the US occupation of Iraq. This morning's Washington Post has an article with a rundown of pertinent statistics of the war so far. ------------ Iraq War's Statistics Prove Fleeting By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801587_pf.html
Of course this is how our leader will be marking the anniversary... “The White House, repeatedly asked if President Bush is planning anything to mark the fourth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on Monday, has suggested that the president is going about business as usual. On Monday, that business includes playing host to the 2006 NCAA football champions, the University of Florida ‘Gators.’“
This is a great anniversary of doing right. God bless the soldiers who willingly rise above those that can't, won't, or pretend everything is honkey donkey if they cower from the dangers...
4 years ago I somehow allowed myself to believe that, given a chance to overthrow tyranny, people would embrace freedom and peace and move forward to build better, fairer and more egalitarian societes to advance the quality of life for their children. How could I have forgotten the 40,000 years of human existence on this planet where war, domination, genocide, slavery, discrimination, political intrigue, deception, idolatry, bigotry and ignorance have been the rule. Boy, I won't make that mistake again,
Good point. The 2 part process in the war dealt with the overthrow and the aftermath...Part 1 was easy...mission accomplished...part 2 was harder than perceived, and not planned very smartly. But this does not discount the merit...We have better strategies, and leadership there now, but the Iraqis will ultimately decide whether "part 2" is a success or not, no matter the U.S. military efforts... That is what concerns me the most...
Well it looks like Jr. did make a statement about Iraq It lasted about 5 minutes and took no questions! Yep! He sure is proud of his little war.
I see another conservative talking point in the making. It's the Iraqi's fault for not giving us a chance to help them. Why do they have to be so difficult. supporting the troops is one thing, supporting the ****ing morons and idiots who run the war is a totally different story.
My brother is a Marine. He went to Afghanistan until late 2002. Guess what? That is the War On Terror. Not this crap in Iraq where the ****ing people don't even want peace! And if someone else says Mission Accomplished in relationship to Iraq I am going to...going to... I don't know what I am going to do. Maybe be pissed? Let me tell you guys who support this war something...basically, from a point of view of a relative of a Marine. The War in Iraq makes my country look WEAK. Why? Because that type of war is not a type of war the military is trained to take on. Those freakin people take kids and use them as human shields!!! I mean, how the hell you suppose to take on something like that militarily??????? You see the b*stard shooting at you and then when you about to open a can of whoopass they grab a kid! This military can dig Iraq a grave if they wanted to. But instead, we are there...playing pitty pat with these jerks who don't even know that we are here to help their dumbasses. And that is why the war makes NO SENSE. Every country that gets anywhere in this world needs 3 things to happen: 1) They wake the hell up and say we don't want to be occupied. They defeat the occupiers. Establish their own identity. 2) They have a civil war. Every modern country has had one. Its part of the growing pains of becoming any kind of decent nation. 3) The country unites afterwards. The hell with color or religion or sexuality. God first. Country second. Family third. Can anyone who supports this idiotic war tell me or make a case as to how at any time the freakin people have actually demonstrated they gave a ****? Don't tell me purple fingers mean anything!! The continue to kill each other as we stand their pretending to be cops! All this while the REAL war in Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Taliban is on the comeback. The war makes us look weak. Period. I am all for peace. But if you are going to fight, fight. Don't go into a country without knowing your **** and then get bogged down because the environment is not how you thought it was going to be. I mean, please. One more thing... My step-dad is Egyptian. I sometimes watch that Al-Jezzera crap with him and when he translates to me that so and so says we have no will or that our military isn't all that...blah freaking blah, blah...I tell him straight out. I am all for nuking you mofos! Lets see how weak you think we are if we show you real military might the way it was meant to be used. See how that image changes real quick! Side note: The step-dad is for nuking Iraq also.
Roxran, One paradigm that has changed in the world is the omnipresence of weapons. At most points throughout man's history the predominace of weapons was held by state entities so that warfare was state on state or that insurrections were defeated by state entities that because of superior weapons (not that they werent tyrannies!) In Iraq and many other regional conflicts the mere distribution of weapons has lead to anarchy, where small groups who hide within the indigenous populations can inflict inordinate amount of damage on superior troops, especially since those superior troops are prevented from using their superior weapons by civility. The Kalashnikov is the great equalizer to the point of anarchy. It has returned warfare back from clashes of great nations to a battle of clans for local control. The only new strategy I see in Iraq is that the US has decided to ally with the Shia and their hierachy of command and control on the the local level. It's not anywhere near the vision of a secular democratic Iraq, but it probably is the only way to get American troops out of the middle of a civil war that otherwise could last a generation. As long as the Shia maintain a truce with The Kurds, I think we will just back off and let them take control of Iraq. And if we help them do it, maybe they will keep the Iranians at arms lenght, not wanting to be someone elses' puppet.
the same party that engineered military coups,death squads,and genocide in latin america never were charged with crimes,now they fight the war on terror,It's good to see that the replubicans,in the new century, now care for the world and the people Happy Anniversary and maybe this year,Jorge can finally find Bin.
The White House not so happy about Iraq Anniversary? --------------------- Tony Snow ‘Defensive’ On Iraq Anniversary, Tells CNN’s Ed Henry To ‘Zip It’ During this morning’s press gaggle, Tony Snow told reporters that Bush will use the speech to attack the House plan for Iraq as a “recipe for defeat” that would “provide a victory for the enemy.” CNN’s Ed Henry told Snow that since he was attacking the House plan, he should explain the Bush administration’s “recipe for success.” According to Henry, Snow “tried to turn it around on me,” asking Henry what his recipe for success was. When Henry objected to Snow’s question, Snow told him to “zip it.” Transcript: CNN: But right now let’s go live to White House correspondent Ed Henry. Ed, for much of the morning, there didn’t seem to be anything planned for the President to speak about this anniversary and then something changed. HENRY: That’s right, Tony. The President’s schedule basically blank heading into this morning, in terms of — basically not marking this fourth anniversary of the invasion of Baghdad. That changed mid-morning when we found out the President was having a National Security Council meeting privately in the White House to get an update on the situation on the ground. And then this hour right now as we speak the President behind closed doors, a secure video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki, again, trying to assess the situation on the ground. Then the President will go public, 11:30 Eastern time, that’ll be live from the Roosevelt Room here at the White House. What is he expected to say? White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters off camera a short time ago the President will be talking about the sacrifice of U.S. servicemen and women, more than 3,200 of whom who have died, but also that the President will talk about what the White House is terming a recipe for defeat, the Democratic effort on Capitol Hill to attach restrictions to some of that funding for the war in Iraq, basically calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, at least the beginning of that withdrawal. Tony Snow calling it — he said it would “provide victory for the enemy.” When I pressed Tony Snow, and since he’s calling flatly the Democratic plan a recipe for defeat, I asked him, four years later, what is the recipe for success? Tony Snow tried to turn it around on me in this off-camera briefing. He said, well what’s your recipe for success? How do you define it? And when I pointed out to him that that was inappropriate for me to answer that — it’s not up for me about what the recipe for success is, what is the President’s recipe for success? — Tony felt I was interrupting him and said, “Zip it.” He later apologized. He said he felt that was inappropriate for him to say that to me. But I point it out because I think it shows the White House a little bit on the defensive this morning about this anniversary. When he finally got around to his answer, Tony Snow was saying, well, we hope obviously four years later to start turning this situation over to Iraqi forces on the ground, but he admitted, “You don’t know how things will play out.” Well, we’ve heard that for four years now. Every time that there’s been progress, there have also been setbacks and there has also been talk about turning this over to the Iraqi army and it still has not quite happened. So, obviously, a lot of the predictions at the beginning of this war — about the length of the war, about the cost of the war, both in human sacrifice but also financial sacrifice for the American taxpayer — underestimated by this White House at the beginning of the war, Tony. CNN: Ed, if it weren’t such a solemn day we could do about five minutes on that whole zip it exchange, but because of the the anniversary, we will let it go at that. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/snow-henry-zip-it/
I don't want to label anyone as the good guys or bad guys along religious ties there, (There have been "death squads" that have attacked each other) but if the Shia is willing to maintain the truce among another group that differs, then I have more respect for that and that shows a willingness to work together. It seems the Sunni is too close with the Iranians in a bad way...(accepting any thought process towards tolerance of others, and at least a semblance of secularism)...It seems for progression to happen the Sunni will have to receive the short end of the stick in large part because of an ideology that is more uncompromising...(I fault Iran's influence for this)
I am apparently mistaken on that. It seemed to me that the Sunni gave more problems on cooperation, but if that is the case, the Iraqi Shia will likely be willing to disengage the idea of being the "puppets" of Iran as was suggested they would and as I said I have more respect for the Shia being willing to work among another group for the benefit of Iraq...
I think you have an overly rosy view of the Iraqi Shiites. The Shiites themselves aren't even that cohesive and while there are some groups that want to work for a multi-plural Iraq free of Iran there are many who want a Shiite dominated Iraq and many who are nothing more than agents of Iran. Many of the most prominent and well armed Shiite groups owe their existence to Iran as Iran sheltered them and armed them against Saddam those groups aren't just going to forget Iran and embrace the vision the US is offering them.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane! September 8, 2002 –Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller co-author the article “U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts” on the front page of the New York Times. October 9, 2002 –Kenneth Pollack, the influential and heavily cited war advocate at the Brookings Institution, appears on the Oprah show to discuss the impending war. “Does he have the ability to attack us here in the United States?” Oprah Winfrey asks. “He certainly does,” Pollack explains. December 12, 2002 –The Washington Post runs a front-page article by Barton Gellman headlined, “U.S. Suspects Al-Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From Iraqis; Analysts: Chemical May Be VX, and Was Smuggled Via Turkey.” February 25, 2003 –MSNBC cancels Donahue, its top-rated show and a rare oasis of war skepticism in the mainstream media. March 18, 2003 –Bill O’Reilly makes a promise on ABC’s Good Morning America: “If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it’s clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?” http://thinkprogress.org/
It's a long read. But well documented... ------------------ Iraq and the Media: A Critical Timeline 3/19/07 It's hardly controversial to suggest that the mainstream media's performance in the lead-up to the Iraq War was a disaster. In retrospect, many journalists and pundits wish they had been more skeptical of the White House's claims about Iraq, particularly its allegations about weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, though, media apologists suggest that the press could not have done much better, since "everyone" was in agreement on the intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons threat. This was never the case. Critical journalists and analysts raised serious questions at the time about what the White House was saying. Often, however, their warnings were ignored by the bulk of the corporate press. This timeline is an attempt to recall some of the worst moments in journalism, from the fall of 2002 and into the early weeks of the Iraq War. It is not an exhaustive catalog, but a useful reference point for understanding the media's performance. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3062
