Al-Sadr Calls on Militia to End Uprising

I suspect the truce between Sadr and the US occupiers is temporary. Inevitably the desire for freedom form occupation will arise within the Iraqi people. The US occupiers have no intention of leaving.

The plan is to have a puppet government approve the permanent bases we are constructing and the oil deals to follow. Perhaps the puppet government can even give approval to the expansion of Israel that the previous boy Chalabi, playing to neocon fantasies, promised them.

The US soldiers will try to restrict themselves to desert bases away from the hostile Iraqi populace who will be prone to attack them if they attemt to mingle among ordinary Iraqis. The inevitable rebellions against the puppet government will be met with airstrikes and helicopter gunships and occasional forrays off their bases by American ground troops. All done in the name of freedom and democracy by the US, of course.

 

Pull up any of the threads on sanctions. There is plenty of literature that quanitifies the deaths from sanctions. If you want to come out and flatly state you don't believe the sanctions did, then I'll waste the time to look it up for you. Ask your boy Glynch how bad sanctions were.

That's irrelevant and flawed logic to assume that they must have 'recognized' it in some fashion for the benefit to exist.

I guess it depends on how you define productive. Again, removing a genocidal dictator is 'productive.' Removing sanctions is 'productive.' Removing a state sponsor of terrorism is 'productive.'

That doesn't prove I'm wrong. It says credibility is low. It doesn't say credibility wasn't low before Iraq. It doesn't say credibility wasn't decreasing because of the intervention in Afghanistan. It doesn't say credibility wasn't already low because of Kyoto, the ABM Treaty, steel tariffs, the Axis of Evil declaration, or a myriad of other things. Please explain how you think this article proves me wrong on those issues. It simply doesn't. And again please elaborate on what actual harm has come from this 'decrease in credibility.'

It does say things like:

"In the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up."

"Nevertheless, support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism has increased dramatically among Russians, despite their generally critical opinion of U.S. policies. More than seven-in-ten Russians (73%) currently back the war on terrorism, up from 51% last May. Since the end of the Iraq war, there also have been gains in support for the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign in Turkey (from 22% to 37%) and Morocco (9% to 28%)."

Those conclusions are hardly an empirical proof for you, and seem to be going the other way, lol. And you don't even come close to QUALIFYING what a decrease in US credibility means. Does it mean governments no longer cooperate in the War on Terror? No. Does it mean they don't want economic ties with the US? No. Does it mean that legitimate governments are in danger of falling because of our decrease in credibility? No. So WHAT is the actual effect that you weigh against the good that's come out of the war? Yes, your conclusions are speculative AT BEST. While I have incontrovertibly shown benefit, and contend that there is benefit to come (also speculative). So really this is a slam dunk for me. You've got nothing but half an argument.

Lol! Do you want me to find an article saying we've removed Saddam? Or that he was a bad actor? Or that we removed sanctions? Or that they were bad? Or that we've removed a state sponsor of terror? I certainly can find those things but I think I'm safe in asserting them without an article to back me up. If you don't then I think our readers will wonder if you skip all news before you comment, or just most of it.

 

Sam, I'm glad you called Hayes on his speculations such as the one that Iraq would have inevitable eventually have become a mortal threat to the US. His speculations are highly resistant to actual facts, even once discovered. He then switches to his proclaimed love for the Iraqis, by decrying sanctions which I'm sure he supported for years. At other times he starts threads bashing Muslims. FYO, Hayes, most Iraqis are Muslims. At times, like Laura Bush, the purported supporter of Afghani feminism, he argues that he supported the invasion on behalf of feminist principles.

As far as I can see he never takes the tack of proclaiming a love of democracy, like Dubya as another reason for occupying Iraq against the will of the majority. He doesn't do this in arguing for his position in Venezuela wrt to Chavez, either, so to that extent he consistent in not letting democracy get in the way of a US foreign policy that he supports.

 

Hayes, you actually believe Saddam's propaganda about sanctions killing millions of children annually? Indeed. Well, I guess we can say that Saddam's crediblity has been rehabilitated somewhat given the fact that he wasn't lying about not having any WMD's.

What I want are hard figures, please dig up the threads for me.

A little bird, albeit a little bird with serious credibility problems of its own, told me that most of the stuff about sanctions killing millions was greatly exaggerated.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/

I'm kind of not sure who to believe. Do you believe that they did kill millions or they didn't? I don't think I personally ever concluded that they did. I want to know what you thought about them, pre-, and post-. Not glynch, you, HayesStreet.

By the way, here's some more surveys where you can trace the decline of foreign support for US with a marked decrease around the time of the Iraq war. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175

Here's a chart from one of them (although to be fair this has rebounded a bit as the war memories fade):


I guess you can pretend that this has no real-world consequences, I tend to think otherwise.

 

I said DANCE, boy! So now you are quoting the whitehouse in defense of yourself. This keeps getting better and better and better. Where's a glynch when you need him. OK, Sam. I guess I'll look them up, lol. It'll be fun to see you attacking Glynch's posts though.

My position was merely that they were UN sanctions, not US sanctions. And that removing Saddam would remove the sanctions. Sure misread that one, didn't I .

"although to be fair this has rebounded..."

Sorry chief. That's doesn't help you. You have to show there is an effect of that temporary decrease in credibility that outweighs removing saddam, removing sanctions, and removing a state sponsor of terror. Good luck.

Any the real world consequences are......? If they are so apparent then why so much trouble naming one, lol?

"Peoples don't like us no more...." or more appropriately "Peoples liked us less for a little while than they did before.' Well, whupp dee damn doo. What does that actually mean in 'real world consequences?'

 

Hayes, before you go off looking, I would like a position from you:

Did sanctions kill millions or not?

I don't think they did. I don't believe I ever thought that.

I took a stand. That's my answer, regardless of what glynch may think.

I am asking you, for the second time, do you believe that UN sanctions were responsible for the death of millions of Iraqi children?

This appears to be a pillar of your justification for the war from your previous posts, I just want to confirm it.

Give me a straight answer. I gave you one. Now its your turn.

 

Glynchy Doo, where are you? Your boy sam's deserted you and allied himself with the MAN on this sanctions issue. Normally we can't get you to shut up ...

Fair enough. I don't think I really took a position one way or the other (previously), except as I indicated earlier saying that they were UN sanctions - and that Saddam (rather than the US) was the real culprit since he could open up and there would be no need for sanctions. Don't think I tried to debunk the numbers though. The only counterclaims I ever saw were that the total numbers were exaggerrated, which doesn't make a compelling case for me that sanctions/Saddam weren't killing lots of Iraqis. Whether the actual number was millions or tens/hundreds of thousands makes little difference to me as per the final conclusion because even a reduced number dwarfs the loss of life from the intervention. Since this is an oft quoted number (millions) and there has been but little dispute about it I would have to say yes, sanctions killed quite a lot of Iraqis. The UN estimated 5,000 children died a month from sanctions. Children only composed one part of the 'millions' statistic though, 'to be fair.'

I don't know if the search is off but it isn't working right now so we can google results if you want.

 

Oh, hey glynch. I missed your post. Sorry about that. Where in this thread have we talked at all about Iraqis inevitable WMD proferation? Please point it out because I missed it.

Like? Please give examples so we know you're not just generalizing.

Now Glynch, nobody likes a liar. I have ALWAYS said intervention was good for everyone concerned except Saddam, and that includes Iraqis. In the absence of the option to remove Saddam, of course I supported sanctions. The OPTIMAL option, however, was to remove Saddam and the sanctions. Which is where we are now.

I certainly have questions about the legitimacy of Islam and practiced in particular places. Guilty as charged. And....

Oh damn. Really? Well, DaDakota here I come. Let's waste the beetches.

What? When did I say that you crazy loon?

If one were to favor democracy, Glynch, then I'd imagine you'd be a supporter of the intervention. Unless you believe Saddam was democratic, lol. And if you'll pull the first Venezuela coup thread up you started when the search comes back on, you'll see I doubted that the US was involved, and then appropriately (albeit begrudgingly) concluded that Bush should not be doing that.

Why aren't you calling Sam out when he scoffs at how bad the sanctions were? Surely you'll not backtrack NOW and say they weren't harmful? Will you sell yourself out like a cheap w**** so Sam doesn't look silly?

 

Did sanctions kill millions? I think it is clear they killed hundeds of thousands. When talking about sanctions you must take into account the deliberate and uncecessary US bombing of the water and sewerage infrastructure that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. I think that is enough to be a problem. The deliberate use of depleted uranium even after the documented effects in the first Gulf War is also going to create lots of additional innocenmt Iraqi deaths. Effects like this never enter the moral calculus of the war supporters. I think it is clear that in terms of sheer number of Iraqis killed the US and Sadam are about equal. Arguments that assume US clean hands are not credible.

As an aside virtually all members of the UN wanted to remove the sanctions before 9/11 and Bush II and the US fought against it. Later, for awhile when it was useful we claimed to be doing everything under UN manadate.

Hayes, if you believe so much in democracy why wont the US leave Iraq when the overwhelming majority want us to leave? BTW Sadam is no longer in power so don't get into your Sadam makes us do it routine. Don't you realize that most impeirialists claim to be doing it for noble reasons?

BTW Hayes, do you deny that you were for sanctions, the presence of which you now cynically employ to justify the war, since your inevitable threat speculation has gotten so much more speculative since no wmd were found.

 

Glynch,

I am sure we are going to leave Iraq, and fairly soon too, but we can not leave now or else the country will fall into an endless civil war.

There are a lot of good things happening over there, schools are being rebuilt, and the quality of life is on the rise....but if the US security forces left now, all that would go away.

We got rid of an evil man and his dictatorship, eventually the people of Iraq will be thankful for it.

The US is not imperialistic, and for you to infer as much is simply ignorant.

DD

 

You truly believe we will be leaving fairly soon? I don't agree. If we aren't there for years, the country will fall into anarchy, chaos, and religious/ethnic war. From my point of view, a good reason not to have done it in the first place, and a good reason to vote Bush out on his ear. But, since he put us there, we have no real choice but to tough it out, with our blood and treasure, as long as it takes.

Or, until they make us leave. I don't see any other viable choice.

 

Deckard,

I think we leave in under 2 years or at least we are no longer the peace keeping force.

We may have a military base their for years, but the Iraqis will be handling their own police and security.

DD

 

Don't believe it Dada! We will be there a LONG time! We are building no less than FOUR long term permanent military bases. And it's not just for helping the Iraqis.

"Since the 'New York Times' reported in April that the administration was planning to establish and maintain as many as four military bases in Iraq for an extended period of time, much has been written about radical redeployments of U.S. forces in Europe and Asia.

The changes, it has been said, would enhance the forces' ability to strike quickly, lethally and, if necessary, pre-emptively along an ''arc of instability'' that not coincidentally covers both key oil-producing areas from the Gulf of Guinea across the Persian Gulf and into Central Asia and critical points that could be used to contain Russia and China from the Caucasus across to East Asia and the western Pacific."


http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21331

 

I think we will be there for many years. The Pentagon often talks of 10 years or more..

I still think I have the plan down. We will be staying, but it will be couched in terms of the Iraqis (read puppet government) ask us to stay. Desert forts, plus fort embassy in Baghdad to support our puppet government.

If the Iraqis really are as stupid and eager to kill each other as is prevailing wisdom has it, it will take genrations of occupation to stop this. I think it is naive to think " a couple of years of good hearted ol American can-do will teach them ignorant Iraqis how to do good"..

We will leave in the next couple of years only if one of two things happen 1) the most probable-- the resistance gets too strong to put down with the "volunteer" army. This type of war can't be fought with draftees. or 2) Kerry wins and really is not as big of a supporter of the war as he claims. A president who had the wisdom and the balls to get us out could easily make the case for declaring victory, for those who need to believe that, and just getting out with as much honor as possible.

 

MC Mark,

Good !

So we have bases in Iraq that give us a military presense in the most unstable region in the world.

(Only if the Iraqi goverment wants us there, by the way)

I guess we learned our lessons of the last century, that you can not sit idly by and let the rest of the world fight and drag us into it.

Better to be prepared to slap down the small wars before they escalate.

Good for us.

DD

 

OK, thank you. That is all.

Honestly Glynch, the reason I don't think we should pick up and leave right now is because I don't believe Iraq would be stable for one single day when the last boot left the ground. I think the country would decend into utter chaos.

I will tell you this, though. When an Iraqi government is elected and the country stabilized and/or the Iraqi government itself can police the country itself -if the US stays in Iraq I will join your condemnation of such an action. Fair enough?

Do you read people's posts? If you'll go back up the thread you'll see I already said of course I was for sanctions. That doesn't make me cynical, just realistic in my worldview. They were necessary, but not without effects. Once Saddam is removed from the equation, they are not necessary. Just as sanctions would not be necessary against North Korea if their leadership was no longer there, or against Serbia once Milosevic was not there, etc etc.