Iraq is nearly over. BTW we won.
 

The American press can't admit it. The Brit press just did.

Iraqis lead final purge of al-Qaeda

A companion story details one battle: "Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand" and provides one little note that will confuse radar again:

C'mon UT - its supposed to be a secret till after the election.

Yay! Where's the VI Party? I want to get drunk and kiss a sailor.

I have a feeling this is like the exterminator claiming victory over the cockroaches... they're always lurking in the dark.

Secret haul of 550 tons of "yellowcake" from Iraq to Canada

No, this is the stuff the UN knew about. Uranium yellowcake is processed into power stations and nuke bombs. It was kept under UN seal - the inspectors put their own lock on it.

This was the stuff Bush said they were looking to buy more of in Africa?

So they've secretly moved roughly 1,200,000 pounds of the stuff, worth about $20/lb when he bought it, worth about $100/lb today. Nice return on investment.

How come it's always the sailors that get all the kissing?????????

We all look good in our crackerjacks!

G.I. beans and G.I. gravey...G.I. wish I'd have joined the Navey....

What, is it weekend already?

Yeah, we're totally done in Iraq.:rolleyes:

Put your camos on and pucker up, baby.

UT, never assume that you know anything that would confuse me. We most certainly haven't "won" in Iraq. You can't win a war that has no stated goals, and which we already lost the moment we started it. The world is a more dangerous place. The war on terror has resulted in more terrorists and more terrorism. If that's victory in your book, we have a very different view of the word.

:)

Yes, let's all hold our breath until the troops come home and Bush admits the war was 100% unconstitutional.:jig:

never gonna happen. even if the war in Iraq is won. If it is won we will certainly set up bases there as we did in Europe after WWII.

So, "we" "won", great. Why are we still there?

And this confuses me:
What are the alternatives? Stay indefinitely? Sneak out and hope the insurgents don't notice? How in the hell can you square this circle?

The insurgents will be giving up en mass if Obama wins the White House. They'll all be wanting their free tickets to Club Gitmo before Obama surrenders.

Well if anyone thinks we will not be there indefinately is fooling themselves. Maybe not in Iraq, but we will be close by. I would guess we will keep support personel and some form of aviation as well as a quick reaction force, maybe a few battalions, in Iraq for many years to come. The majority will be out in a few years. As long as our relations sour and continue to decline with Iran we will have a few carriers on station to protect the oil routes through the straight. Don't kid yourselves, we aren't completely leaving.

I put it in bold, put your name on it and you still glossed over it. You should always read for comprehension, not for attack.

"We let him keep the gun because every Iraqi family is allowed to have a personal weapon,"

Yes, it's true: we can leave now. It is becoming time for us to leave. Install a nice protectable embassy and a few bases, and otherwise leave.

Iraq says timetable. US says no.

Iraq says complete withdrawal. US says "a few battalions" "a few bases" (I paraphrase, but that is a very common sentiment).

Who decides? If there is no timetable, will we have "won" that battle? If there are no bases and no battalions will we have "lost" that battle? Will Iraq have "won"?

I think this paradigm "win / lose" is nearly useless by virtue of its rigidity. It is counterproductive, at best, even for those in favor of this whole process, to continue to oversimplify the possible outcomes this way.

U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say

By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help."

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces' conduct in Iraq.

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said. "We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods."

Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have "no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true."

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as "frank and honest since the beginning."

"This is an ongoing process," Zebari said. "There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don't have a final text yet for them to be judgmental."

Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. "Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating," Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

"Look, there is going to be no occupation," said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. "Now it's perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that's why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat.

"It's kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn't work. They either want you or they don't want you. You can't use coercion to get them to like you," he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.

The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, "there have to be terms that are in place. That's the reality that we're trying to accommodate."

Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.

But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is insteadn withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.

U.S. demands "conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them," said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. "I don't expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things."

"If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension," Saghir said. "It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready."

Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.

Perhaps now they are allowed to have guns, but this was not the case when America invaded in 1991, or 2003.

America didn't invade in 1991.

Yes, American soldiers illegally invaded Iraq in 1991 when Iraq and Kuwait were having a dispute that had nothing to do with America.

Uh, I thought one of the major complaints was that this current Iraq war was due in large part because our troops stayed in Kuwait rather than driving all the way to Baghdad?

I suppose few adjusted for inflation is 58. I'm all for declaring victory and getting out, but that would involve actually getting out. We've, reportedly, defeated an enemy that wasn't there when we invaded, but if that's what it takes to declare victory and actually get out count me in.

Of course, some would assume that this clears the decks for the next war of choice in Iran. Anyone interested in a world war should really get rolling on that before a new administration takes over. I'll leave the bin Laden commentary to tw and the other nutters who think that the Stans have oil er... terrorists.

So now your narrative is that the entire country was systematically disarmed so that a massacre could take place, but has re-armed in the last, what, six months?

US troops killed in Iraq in the first 9 days of July: 2

You're only as sovereign as the country occupying your land...

I've seen video of soldiers breaking down doors, shoving people to the floor, and taking all of the guns in the house so don't even pretend it didn't happen. As far as the massacre, America is responsible for the deaths of at least 1 million Iraqi people and probably closer to 2 million. This is through 2 illegal invasions on the part of America, and bombing Iraq daily for 12 years, setting up illegal "no fly" zones, searching homes illegally...including those of the leader of their country, keeping Iraq from life saving medicines and food, destroying Iraq's ability to defend itself and thus allowing a flood of terrorists into their country, imprisoning people who have committed no crime, torturing them (sometimes to death), etc.

I don't know when they decided to start allowing people to have guns again. Perhaps it was when they had their fake election?

Every household in Iraq has always been able to posses one AK. Always.

What was the context of the video's you've seen? Do you know? Did the soldiers receive fire from the building, or structure being video tapped? All weapons would indeed be confiscated in that case, and handed back out when the situation is sorted out. No, I won't pretend it didn't happen, I also won't pretend that U.S. Soldiers enter an Iraqi household with the purpose of abusing the people living there and taking their fire arms. This simply does not happen.

How many of the civilian deaths in Iraq are non uniformed belligerents?

Belligerents? That's an interesting word to describe people who don't cooperate with an armed invasion force from a terrorist rogue nation that invaded them without justifiable cause....namely the USA.

Ohhh, then I guess it MUST be true - puhlease.

You keep spouting those exaggerated numbers ... Oh hell, throw in a few other reasons like global warming and some other BS - I'm sure you could claim more like 3 or 4 million. Why don't you just add "distraction or stress" and make America responsible for every death over there.

Yeah Iraq sure was defending itself when IT INVADED Kuwait - lol. :headshake

Torturing all those people who committed no crime - yeh - thats what we are there to do - just for the friggin fun of it too! :eyebrow: We've got nothing better to do, do we?

You should have just stopped there.

I don't care where I am in the world, when someone picks up a rifle and slings lead my way, they are called a belligerent.

Lets not pretend that all, or even a majority of the deaths in Iraq have been innocent bystanders. You pick up a rifle, you pick up the responsibility. Me, and everyone else who does.

As far as collateral non-combatants killed, those freedom fighters you are eluding to, have killed 10's of thousands more then the U.S. ever will.

It sounds to me like you might have to pick up a rifle and get on over to Iraq, or get on over to Iraq and pick up a rifle. They need lots of help over there. Hope to see you there.

Radar speaks volumes for the flaw in libertarianism. Sadam Husein, and every other murdering dictator, has a right to kill, to torture, or whatever, because he is an individual, and his country is an individual country. If there is nothing illegal, there is no crime.

Hey joe--

I like you. Your posts, including this one, display a clear thinking and an articulate voice. Respectfully, I want to ask you for some clarification on a couple things.

"someone who picks up a rifle and slings lead your way is called a belligerent"
"you pick up a rifle, you pick up the responsibility. Me and everyone else..."

Those are reasonable statements. And I agree with them. Here are my questions.

From your perspective that person who picks up a rifle (and the responsibility) and slings lead your way is an insurgent. What are you called from his perspective? Are you a belligerent?

What do you call yourself, who picks up a rifle (and the responsibility)?

From the perspective of that other person, what does he call himself?

I understand I'm asking (respectfully) for a considerable amount of speculation. I would appreciate it if you would indulge and enlighten me.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, generally speaking, when you see something happening, it's true. Perhaps in your warped little mind this isn't the case. Do you often hallucinate?



No, I keep detailing real numbers. The 2003 invasion alone has resulted in a million Iraqi deaths.

Each and every single death in Iraq that has resulted from America's invasion of Iraq in 1991, the bombing and starvation of Iraq for 12 years, and the other illegal invasion of Iraq (including those by insurgents we allowed in) are America's fault.

Actually Yes, Iraq was defending itself when it invaded Kuwait. Kuwait had been practicing slant drilling for years and was warned many times about stealing Iraqi oil, but they refused to stop. Iraq told them if they didn't stop, they'd be invaded. They still didn't stop. Iraq told America that they intended to invade Kuwait and America said it was none of our concern and we wouldn't get involved.


Ever heard of Abu Ghraib prison? The overwhelming majority of the people in that prison weren't guilty of anything...not even jay walking.


You never should have started.

America never belonged in Iraq. Not for one second. Not ever.

We are the invaders there. We are the offensive force of aggression and the Iraqi people who took up arms against us are defenders. Why would I go to Iraq? The only Americans there are traitors.

You're an idiot. I never said what Saddam Hussein did was ok. He was a murdering scumbag and he most certainly committed crimes. That doesn't give America the authority to intervene. It doesn't mean Americans should die over there. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with defending America, and nothing to do with "liberating oppressed Iraqi people". It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction either. America isn't the police of the world or the enforcer of UN sanctions.

I wish freedom for the people of Iraq and the people of everywhere else. They must win their own freedom, and I must win mine.

It is posts like this that ring true that keeps me from dismissing you, Radar.

I don't like the tenor of your attacks in other recent posts, but I can't argue with this one.

You are completely correct here. Well spoken.

If you knew the history between those I was dealing the intellectual smackdown to, you'd understand why I took a particular tone. We have a long and rich history of mutual hatred. I hate dishonesty and those who support the insane policies of the Bush administration, especially the Iraq.

When I take a hostile tone, the hostility is only intended to be for the source of my ire.

I've seen video of soldiers breaking down doors, shoving people to the floor, and taking all of the guns in the house so don't even pretend it didn't happen.

So your narrative is that the entire country was systematically disarmed so that a massacre could take place, but has re-armed in the last, what, six months --

-- is based on the videos you've seen?

You saw videos and this was proof to you that the country was being disarmed?

I just want to make sure I have this straight. On these videos, did the reporter say "they are strategically and completely disarming the citizenry of Iraq"? Or was that something you divined? Or did you watch it without a reporter describing it?

I'll try and keep this short and to the point. Yes, I am a belligerent. In the exact sense of the word, in keeping with the international rules of war. To be exact, I am a soldier. A uniformed member of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The guy or gal who picks up a rifle and fires rounds at me may or may not be an insurgent or a belligerent. They are certainly a combatant.

I really don't want to speculate as to what anyone else may think of me or themselves.

If you have a gun and you are in their country, you are an invader. If they take up arms against you, it is in their DEFENSE. If you take arms against them, it's because you are a hostile invader.

Get this right. CNN reported the FACT that in 1991 and subsequently, American soldiers kicked down the doors of Iraqi homes, shoved the inhabitants to the floor, searched the homes, and took all of their weapons including AK-47S. NOBODY was allowed to have them . America also shut down the free press in Iraq when they were reporting unfavorably about the American military.

Cite?

That all depends on your definition of who "they" are.

If you are attacking them I agree, If you are there defending and protecting them I wholeheartedly disagree.

So you watched CNN reporting and understood that "NOBODY" meant the entire country?

what about this?

or this?

If you are attacking them? You mean the way America attacked Iraq, destroyed their military and their infrastructure, killed civilians, etc.?

The U.S. Military has NEVER belonged in Iraq. Not for a single day. No actions of America in Iraq are defending Iraqi people from any dangers that we didn't create in the first place. Nothing America is doing in Iraq is legal, or morally or ethically correct. No American in Iraq is defending America from danger. No American soldier in Iraq is upholding their oath. No person who supports the war in Iraq also supports the Constitution. No person who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. Those are the facts. Here is my opinion. Those who support the war in Iraq aren't worthy to call themselves American.

America's actions in Iraq are those of a rogue terrorist nation that violates international law, and doesn't even adhere to its own laws. Anyone who attacks an American soldier in Iraq is attacking an invader who has no business being there. There is no defense for the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq at any point in history.

blah blah blah - Maybe your attitude is why you didn't get elected when you ran for office. See the thread about perspective.

1. I ran against a 20 year incumbant.

2. I ran against a black woman in a mainly black district where white people are 10% of the population.

3. I ran in a district where more than 80% of the voters are registered in the Democratic party.

4. I ran as a Libertarian which is like having an anchor tied around your waist and being tossed into the ocean.


I never thought I would win the election. I ran an information campaign. I gave the voters of my district someone better to vote for and got libertarian ideas out there. My attitude had nothing to do with my election results, and if it did, it worked in a positive way for me because I pulled down 8% of the vote (most Libertarians get about 1%) and I spent a total of about $1,600.

My attitude is the same as that of our founders...who were all libertarians.

Thank you for your reply.

Radar doesn't share .joe's reluctance to speculate, and does so con brio. I think there is a fair argument in favor of these labels though.

Each side feels justified in their actions. *Regardless* of the actions. Sometimes that justification is an appeal to rules, sometimes to fairness, sometimes to desperation or passion or history or hysteria.

NO ONE thinks their actions are unjustified, evar. There's always a "But..."

Always.

Where two parties agree on the authority, the jurisdiction of the source of the justification, whether it is the the law, the chain of command, the moral imperative, or the voices in their heads, there is harmony and solidarity. Where there is a difference in the respect granted to those sources of authority, there is conflict.

Radar, did they disarm Iraq?

Or, as in the case with Iraq (and many other situations in the past ) if America wants something, it gets it because it has the muscle to do so. Saddam went rogue on the US and so the US went all out to first correct him and then finally just get rid of him. Of course, they had to use a lot of subterfuge to do it.

Are they still getting shot at?

Are you avoiding the question in your own mind as fiercely as you're avoiding it here?

I've already answered it. American soldiers were kicking down the doors of homes in Iraq during and after the invasion of 1991. They were TRYING to disarm all Iraqi households. America also shut down the free press in Iraq due to unfavorable articles.

America failed in this, and after the insurgents started flooding into Iraq, America reversed its position.

That's a slightly different answer than what you've given before, so "I've already answered it" is not a good foreword. Also, your answers are unclear, so I ask for clarification.

Is it your position that Americans were disarming Iraqis of firearms between 1991 and 2003? Or is it that they stopped in 1991 and resumed in 2003?

The addition of "TRYING" and "failed" is a change in your position from what I gather. Can you point to some sort of source that indicates disarming Iraq of firearms was the military's position?

Which is why you are a failure.

Ever wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that while the ideas and rhetoric sound and feel really great, they just won't survive long when they come in contact with reality? Outside the little club called libertarianism the rest of us have to say, "that sounds great. now let's try something that will actually work. you know, beyond the world of theory?"

Your other three reasons for losing may be relevant but they're just gravy. You lost because you can't convince enough people that you have the ability to apply your ideals to real life.