One veteran British correspondent, Patrick Cockburn...

[bopst]

who’s worked in the area for decades, written many books and many articles about it, writes recently that “the occupation is one of the most extraordinary failures in history.” And it is indeed an extremely surprising failure. The fact of the matter is that the Nazis had far less difficulty in occupying Europe, and they were in the middle of a major war... (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20041013.htm)

[yeat182]

who’s worked in the area for decades, written many books and many articles about it, writes recently that “the occupation is one of the most extraordinary failures in history.” And it is indeed an extremely surprising failure. The fact of the matter is that the Nazis had far less difficulty in occupying Europe, and they were in the middle of a major war... (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20041013.htm)

the nazi's also killed 6 million jews and had no problem killing anyone that didn't obey them.

[bopst]

yeah, but that's not what the article is about....

[yeat182]

"The fact of the matter is that the Nazis had far less difficulty in occupying Europe, and they were in the middle of a major war..."

[Cal Smith]

Most people seem to be forgetting that we'e winning the war in Iraq. I think that's sad that this basic understanding is lost over politics.

[bopst]

Winning? Really? What you been smoking (reading)?

[YouMadeTheScene]

Most people seem to be forgetting that we'e winning the war in Iraq. I think that's sad that this basic understanding is lost over politics.

Can you explain Cal how we are winning? What has been done? It's a war on terror and terrorism is up. We got Saddam out? Ok well obviously that hasn't stopped insurgents. We set up a government? It's basically a puppet government that still holds no power over the people. It's like me walking into my town hall and saying i'm the King.

[gillianhsieh]

what is the goal of our war? what is it to "win" or "lose" the war in iraq? i don't even know why americans are in iraq, or how the war is supposed to be "won" or "lost" because i don't even know what the war is about anymore. i just know it's going on.

[bopst]

Goin' on without and end is what Iraq is all about.

Another question: Why isn't anybody talkin' about Afghanistan? I mean, they are the one's that actually attacked us. It amazes me that this part of the war on terror is receiving precious little coverage...

[YouMadeTheScene]

Goin' on without and end is what Iraq is all about.

Another question: Why isn't anybody talkin' about Afghanistan? I mean, they are the one's that actually attacked us. It amazes me that this part of the war on terror is receiving precious little coverage...

Here's a better question, why is no body talking about Saudi Arabia and how those are where most of the terrorists come from? Our war on terror is pretty picky eh? I really don't have a good answer for the Afghanistan part only maybe the government thought due to the difficult terrain this would prove to be another Vietnam where it was the difficult to strike hur them the most.

[believethehyph]

No one "wins" a war.

[Justin_stacy]

No one "wins" a war.

no one "won" World War Two?

[Cal Smith]

Can you explain Cal how we are winning? What has been done? It's a war on terror and terrorism is up. We got Saddam out? Ok well obviously that hasn't stopped insurgents. We set up a government? It's basically a puppet government that still holds no power over the people. It's like me walking into my town hall and saying i'm the King.

First, don't call it a puppet government unless you know what you're talking about. Those Iraqis risked more in voting that day than hopefully you or I will ever have too. With the turnouts they had, they obviously did not believe they were voting on a puppet government. I also highly doubt you've even looked into the government enough to declare it a puppet government.

On the other hand, maybe you did look into it. You've just said that the government holds no power over the people, so please explain how you've come to this?

[YouMadeTheScene]

First, don't call it a puppet government unless you know what you're talking about. Those Iraqis risked more in voting that day than hopefully you or I will ever have too. With the turnouts they had, they obviously did not believe they were voting on a puppet government. I also highly doubt you've even looked into the government enough to declare it a puppet government.

On the other hand, maybe you did look into it. You've just said that the government holds no power over the people, so please explain how you've come to this?

I really can easily call it a puppet government. It is very similar to what the US did in Japan, when the US basically pronounced they were going to help govern Japan in the very beginning of their reconstruction. Japan went well because we dropped some nukes and they were scared shitless. In this case no one is scared of us. It is a puppet government because they are being occupied by another country, the election was set up by another country, and the other country happened to have close ties to the elected leader.

And how do they hold no power? For the love of christ the war is still going on. There are still insurgents obviously. Could you imagine a huge insurgency in the middle of America or England? No because the government has control. There is no control over there right now.

[YoungNastyMan]

Most Iraqis are told who to vote for by the up-and-coming dictators of Iraq and the few who don't usually vote for whoever is the same race/religon as they are.

[Cal Smith]

I really can easily call it a puppet government. It is very similar to what the US did in Japan, when the US basically pronounced they were going to help govern Japan in the very beginning of their reconstruction. Japan went well because we dropped some nukes and they were scared shitless. In this case no one is scared of us. It is a puppet government because they are being occupied by another country, the election was set up by another country, and the other country happened to have close ties to the elected leader.

Sorry, but first get a history lesson and second read the current news before you post.

First your history lesson. The establishment of the government of Japan and that of Iraq's is a laughable comparison. MacArthur pretty much wrote the Japanese constitution, the Iraqi's wrote their own. MacArthur made it clear to the Japanese emperor that he would give up his 'divine right' theory. The US made it clear that they would leave after they help establish the Japanese government.

Now in Iraq, the Iraqis wrote their own constitution, they elected a leader the US wasnt backing, and the US government has said they would leave Iraq if asked.

Also as far as keeping up with the news goes...........the man the US backed in the elections (Allawi) didnt win. Someone else did.

And how do they hold no power? For the love of christ the war is still going on. There are still insurgents obviously. Could you imagine a huge insurgency in the middle of America or England? No because the government has control. There is no control over there right now.

That's because we are rebuilding their army dumbass..................
Doesnt mean the government doesnt have any control
Who the hell do you think putting Saddam on trial?

[yeat182]

I really can easily call it a puppet government. It is very similar to what the US did in Japan, when the US basically pronounced they were going to help govern Japan in the very beginning of their reconstruction. Japan went well because we dropped some nukes and they were scared shitless. In this case no one is scared of us. It is a puppet government because they are being occupied by another country, the election was set up by another country, and the other country happened to have close ties to the elected leader.

that isn't true. Japan went well because the Emperor order all the citizens to surrender and to obey the new laws, he was seen as a god on earth to them and their obiedience was absolute, which was the same reason why they wouldn't have surrendered if we didn't drop the bomb on them. Also, it wasn't compelety smooth, there were many deaths during the occupation of Japan and its islands, it only seems smooth because 60 years later Japan is a peaceful and prosperous nation.

[yeat182]

Most Iraqis are told who to vote for by the up-and-coming dictators of Iraq and the few who don't usually vote for whoever is the same race/religon as they are.

All Iraqis were told to vote for Saddam, he one with 100% of the votes. at least now they have a choice.

[YouMadeTheScene]

Sorry, but first get a history lesson and second read the current news before you post.

First your history lesson. The establishment of the government of Japan and that of Iraq's is a laughable comparison. MacArthur pretty much wrote the Japanese constitution, the Iraqi's wrote their own. MacArthur made it clear to the Japanese emperor that he would give up his 'divine right' theory. The US made it clear that they would leave after they help establish the Japanese government.

Now in Iraq, the Iraqis wrote their own constitution, they elected a leader the US wasnt backing, and the US government has said they would leave Iraq if asked.

Also as far as keeping up with the news goes...........the man the US backed in the elections (Allawi) didnt win. Someone else did.



That's because we are rebuilding their army dumbass..................
Doesnt mean the government doesnt have any control
Who the hell do you think putting Saddam on trial?

I'll admit I was incorrect about Allawi, but I refuse to believe that the US doesn't have its hand in the government much like they did in Japan, and it is really naive to think any otherwise.

You say the US government said it would leave if asked...when did you hear this? If anything it has been otherwise it is that they are going to stay until there is peace just like in Japan.

Do you realize how long it takes to rebuild an army? It takes a decade if not more. A army isn't built in 3 or 4 years. How does the government having control have anything to do with the trial of Saddam? The US brought him down and all they did was put him on trial how much control does that take?

The bottom line is the war isn't being won. There is no control right now. IMO I find that the Iraqi government is very much a puppet government to the US. There is little evidence for either sides to be supported, because we don't know. Outside of what our government says and how rosy things are.

And Cal when have you ever come to insulting remarks.

[yeat182]

I'll admit I was incorrect about Allawi, but I refuse to believe that the US doesn't have its hand in the government much like they did in Japan, and it is really naive to think any otherwise.

You say the US government said it would leave if asked...when did you hear this? If anything it has been otherwise it is that they are going to stay until there is peace just like in Japan.

Do you realize how long it takes to rebuild an army? It takes a decade if not more. A army isn't built in 3 or 4 years. How does the government having control have anything to do with the trial of Saddam? The US brought him down and all they did was put him on trial how much control does that take?

The bottom line is the war isn't being won. There is no control right now. IMO I find that the Iraqi government is very much a puppet government to the US. There is little evidence for either sides to be supported, because we don't know. Outside of what our government says and how rosy things are.

And Cal when have you ever come to insulting remarks.


how can you say the war isn't being won? based on what criteria?

[Cal Smith]

I'll admit I was incorrect about Allawi, but I refuse to believe that the US doesn't have its hand in the government much like they did in Japan, and it is really naive to think any otherwise.

No it's naive to refuse not to believe this, ecspecially when you've got NO EVIDENCE. Hell they even asked for a continuation on the constitution deadline so they could get something passed, and when this happend the Bush administration caught a lot of flack from the anti-war group. Don't you think if the US government were elbow deep in this they would get a constitution on paper?

Honestly use your head. You call me naive for following the evidence, you've even admited you were wrong about Allawi yet you can't admit that you have NO EVIDENCE that the US has there hands in the government and even worse are unable to admit that it couldnt be otherwise.

If ignorance makes you happy you should live a happy life.

You say the US government said it would leave if asked...when did you hear this? If anything it has been otherwise it is that they are going to stay until there is peace just like in Japan.

this was news a long, long time ago. I believe it was first stated when they handed over power at the end of June in 2004 I guess it was.

link 1 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120015,00.html)
link 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27950-2004May14.html)
More links?

Do you realize how long it takes to rebuild an army? It takes a decade if not more. A army isn't built in 3 or 4 years. How does the government having control have anything to do with the trial of Saddam? The US brought him down and all they did was put him on trial how much control does that take?

The bottom line is the war isn't being won. There is no control right now. IMO I find that the Iraqi government is very much a puppet government to the US. There is little evidence for either sides to be supported, because we don't know. Outside of what our government says and how rosy things are.

And Cal when have you ever come to insulting remarks.

When you are being ignorant and continueously passing false and out right wrong information based on either ignorance or opinions with NO EVIDENCE.

You keep calling it a puppet regime, you keep saying the US is controlling the government, and you said the guy the US wanted to win the election won.

Please.......please........please.. .......at least shows some evidence for you opinion. I might not agree with the opinion but i'd accept it. I can't accept pointless, mindless opinions based on assumptions.

[YouMadeTheScene]

how can you say the war isn't being won? based on what criteria?

Well
1) As someone said you can't win a war
2) Numbers of deaths continue to rise
3) There has yet to be a large amount of stability put into Iraq
4) It's a war on terror....See terrorism going down anytime lately?

[yeat182]

Well
1) As someone said you can't win a war
2) Numbers of deaths continue to rise
3) There has yet to be a large amount of stability put into Iraq
4) It's a war on terror....See terrorism going down anytime lately?

1. yes you can
2. we have had 2000 killed in 2 and half years. that is a remarkable LOW number of deaths in war. And we've killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of insurgents. They are taking heavy loses, not US.
3. stability takes time, it isn't going to happen in a weekend. society has become so used to having things happen immediately that they can't understand that you can't fight a war and win it in a weekend. WWII took 6 years to win, plus another 10 or so to stabilize and occupy the Axis nations.
4. That doesn't mean you can't create a peaceful, prosperous, stable country in Iraq, which would be a victory.

[YouMadeTheScene]

No it's naive to refuse not to believe this, ecspecially when you've got NO EVIDENCE. Hell they even asked for a continuation on the constitution deadline so they could get something passed, and when this happend the Bush administration caught a lot of flack from the anti-war group. Don't you think if the US government were elbow deep in this they would get a constitution on paper?

Honestly use your head. You call me naive for following the evidence, you've even admited you were wrong about Allawi yet you can't admit that you have NO EVIDENCE that the US has there hands in the government and even worse are unable to admit that it couldnt be otherwise.

If ignorance makes you happy you should live a happy life.



this was news a long, long time ago. I believe it was first stated when they handed over power at the end of June in 2004 I guess it was.

link 1 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120015,00.html)
link 2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27950-2004May14.html)
More links?



When you are being ignorant and continueously passing false and out right wrong information based on either ignorance or opinions with NO EVIDENCE.

You keep calling it a puppet regime, you keep saying the US is controlling the government, and you said the guy the US wanted to win the election won.

Please.......please........please.. .......at least shows some evidence for you opinion. I might not agree with the opinion but i'd accept it. I can't accept pointless, mindless opinions based on assumptions.

A Constitution doesn't make an entire government Cal. There most likely isn't large amount of evidence out there to support this you are correct, but it isn't exactly the easiest thing to force out. For me it is simply just a educated guess. It isn't ignorance at all. See unlike you Cal I don't accept things as I see them. I question and I think it is impossible to not question an American hand in the Iraqi government.

You said it yourself it was a long long time ago. It was also Mission Accomplished a long long time ago.

I will straight out say that most of what I am saying is based on educated guessing. But it's much more difficult for me to find evidence then for you to find things our government has said.

[Cal Smith]

A Constitution doesn't make an entire government Cal. There most likely isn't large amount of evidence out there to support this you are correct, but it isn't exactly the easiest thing to force out. For me it is simply just a educated guess. It isn't ignorance at all. See unlike you Cal I don't accept things as I see them. I question and I think it is impossible to not question an American hand in the Iraqi government.

Educated guess my ass.........the last word I would associate with anything you said in this thread would be the word "educated". You've shown NO EVIDENCE. An educated guess would involve taking evidence and coming to the most likely conclusion.

I've stated a number of things (evidence) that supports the US not pulling the strings on the current Iraqi government. You've shown me nothing but personal opinions based on nothing. You've also discredited yourself by getting facts wrong.

[YouMadeTheScene]

Educated guess my ass.........the last word I would associate with anything you said in this thread would be the word "educated". You've shown NO EVIDENCE. An educated guess would involve taking evidence and coming to the most likely conclusion.

I've stated a number of things (evidence) that supports the US not pulling the strings on the current Iraqi government. You've shown me nothing but personal opinions based on nothing. You've also discredited yourself by getting facts wrong.

Cal what direct evidence have you shown me that they aren't puppeting the government? Is it possibly to find actual evidence unless you have CIA files to show me or something. What the government said all was fine and dandy and there was an election means they dont have a hand in the government? You've got to be kidding me man. You can't believe everything you hear.

[yeat182]

Cal what direct evidence have you shown me that they aren't puppeting the government? Is it possibly to find actual evidence unless you have CIA files to show me or something. What the government said all was fine and dandy and there was an election means they dont have a hand in the government? You've got to be kidding me man. You can't believe everything you hear.

you can't prove a negative.

[YouMadeTheScene]

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iraq_war&Number=293916569#Post293916569

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/iraq-m27.shtml

http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1104/Puppet-Iraqi-ministry_251104.htm

[YouMadeTheScene]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11180.htm


this one is interesting. Iraqi Soldier Death Squads killing people by the order of the Oval Office.

[YouMadeTheScene]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7723.shtml

this is just how the Pentagon has told Bush the war can't be won...i think this is what the thread was about

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3ca72216-6179-11da-8470-0000779e2340.html

o they are trying to control the media too...isn't that special?

[YouMadeTheScene]

this is to all the people who say they want us there....well lets find out what they think

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1128-32.htm

[splitsecond]

You can't believe everything you hear.


Hello, my name is hypocrisy. Have we met?

[YouMadeTheScene]

Hello, my name is hypocrisy. Have we met?

How am I a hypocrite? I openly say I don't believe everything I hear.

[yeat182]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11180.htm


this one is interesting. Iraqi Soldier Death Squads killing people by the order of the Oval Office.

bahahaha

[Cal Smith]

Cal what direct evidence have you shown me that they aren't puppeting the government? Is it possibly to find actual evidence unless you have CIA files to show me or something. What the government said all was fine and dandy and there was an election means they dont have a hand in the government? You've got to be kidding me man. You can't believe everything you hear.

---The US did not want to see an islamic government nor theocracy in Iraq. Once the elections occured and the constitution was passed we saw islam being the official religion and hints of a theocracy
--- The US support Allawi and his party during the election, if I'm not mistaken they were near the bottom in votes on election day
---The Iraqi government had to extend the time to pass a constitution because the three main groups could not find middle ground. The Bush admin. faced a lot of criticism for this, so do you not believe had they been pulling the string a constitution would have been passed on time.

3 solid examples of evidence off the top of my head.........you've yet to show any?

[Cal Smith]

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iraq_war&Number=293916569#Post293916569

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/iraq-m27.shtml

http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1104/Puppet-Iraqi-ministry_251104.htm

Timeout..........did you really just site (http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/61200) this as a source?

Not only are you lacking a history lesson but also a citation lesson

[Cal Smith]

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=iraq_war&Number=293916569#Post293916569

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/iraq-m27.shtml

http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/1104/Puppet-Iraqi-ministry_251104.htm

I'm sorry but this is a classic example of what not to do when citeing sources.
Did you just do a search for "puppet government iraq" and every headline that had the word "puppet" in it you posted?

Everyone go to this website he cited and look at the pop up!!!........link (http://www.albasrah.net/index1.html)

[YouMadeTheScene]

---The US did not want to see an islamic government nor theocracy in Iraq. Once the elections occured and the constitution was passed we saw islam being the official religion and hints of a theocracy
--- The US support Allawi and his party during the election, if I'm not mistaken they were near the bottom in votes on election day
---The Iraqi government had to extend the time to pass a constitution because the three main groups could not find middle ground. The Bush admin. faced a lot of criticism for this, so do you not believe had they been pulling the string a constitution would have been passed on time.

3 solid examples of evidence off the top of my head.........you've yet to show any?

I think that in the end they still have their hands in the Iraqi government. And in a way this even furthers the evidence that the Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi people voted a regime that in the end went against what we wanted and believed and reverted back to many of the same policies.

And as for the TWO articles you brought up out of the seven I posted, just because they are posted by a anti-war Iraqi site means they are uncredible as oppossed to a website that may be pro america? I'm sure that through all the time you have spent in this forum that you have used a conservative or pro-war website. I found those articles I never went to the front page to be honest, but I don't see the difference between those sites and a pro-war american site. If that site was in English and didn't have the pop up it had would you have a problem with them? ANd believe it or not there is a large part of Iraq that is pushing for Sadam back now. I don't agree with it at all but it's the truth.

And no I didn't just search something I went to a website I frequent and found those articles while going through the archive. I at least was able to come up with some articles like you asked for.

[Cal Smith]

I think that in the end they still have their hands in the Iraqi government. And in a way this even furthers the evidence that the Iraqi people don't want us there. The Iraqi people voted a regime that in the end went against what we wanted and believed and reverted back to many of the same policies.

So let me gather everything together. I present you with actual evidence that supports the US not pulling the strings on the Iraqi government. I ask for your evidence, you admit you have none. Then you continue to believe that they still are pulling the strings in the Iraqi government.

hhhhhhmmmmmmmm...............and you call this an educated guess? I would say your blinded by what you assume is the case, and are unwilling to actually look at facts. Also you're probably a little to proud to admit you are wrong.

And as for the TWO articles you brought up out of the seven I posted, just because they are posted by a anti-war Iraqi site means they are uncredible as oppossed to a website that may be pro america? I'm sure that through all the time you have spent in this forum that you have used a conservative or pro-war website. I found those articles I never went to the front page to be honest, but I don't see the difference between those sites and a pro-war american site. If that site was in English and didn't have the pop up it had would you have a problem with them? ANd believe it or not there is a large part of Iraq that is pushing for Sadam back now. I don't agree with it at all but it's the truth.

And no I didn't just search something I went to a website I frequent and found those articles while going through the archive. I at least was able to come up with some articles like you asked for.

Are you that foolish? At has nothing to do with their stance on the war or if it's pro american or pro israel or pro Saddam. It has to do with their crediblity. If you can't see the difference between NYT and a website that no one has heard of that has a pop up that says, "Saddam the real President of Iraq" than you are more lost than I would have imagined.

It can be argued that the NYT is not very Pro-Bush but it's a legit source, as are poltiical journals, and other respected institutes.

As for my sources you can look through them. I always try to source good ones and the only times I'll use a very biased website is if they are sourcing someone themselves.

[YouMadeTheScene]

So let me gather everything together. I present you with actual evidence that supports the US not pulling the strings on the Iraqi government. I ask for your evidence, you admit you have none. Then you continue to believe that they still are pulling the strings in the Iraqi government.

hhhhhhmmmmmmmm...............and you call this an educated guess? I would say your blinded by what you assume is the case, and are unwilling to actually look at facts. Also you're probably a little to proud to admit you are wrong.



Are you that foolish? At has nothing to do with their stance on the war or if it's pro american or pro israel or pro Saddam. It has to do with their crediblity. If you can't see the difference between NYT and a website that no one has heard of that has a pop up that says, "Saddam the real President of Iraq" than you are more lost than I would have imagined.

It can be argued that the NYT is not very Pro-Bush but it's a legit source, as are poltiical journals, and other respected institutes.

As for my sources you can look through them. I always try to source good ones and the only times I'll use a very biased website is if they are sourcing someone themselves.

Cal are you telling me that I have no problem saying I'm wrong? You are the king of doing that. From all the time i've spent here i've never seen you say that you were wrong. I truly have no problem saying I am wrong and have said it here before. I am not taking away from what you said as those are facts all I am saying is that right now they still may have their hands in the Iraqi government.

And I am not saying NYT. There are many sites that are pro war. And I am sure there is a good chance you may have used it inadvertently. I inadvertently used that site and used it basically for its article. I really don't think that everytime you have used a source it has been 100% unbiased. Again I'm not saying the main pages for those sources aren't credible and I apolgize. Do I think there still could be truth to what the articles said? Absolutely.

Cal this is really going nowhere. We both believe different things and refused to push or pull at all. I say its over and done with.

[Cal Smith]

Cal are you telling me that I have no problem saying I'm wrong? You are the king of doing that. From all the time i've spent here i've never seen you say that you were wrong.

Probably because you don't see me claiming things as absolute, unless i know they're absolute and can prove they're absolute. Being wrong on an opinion is fine. I'm not saying you are wrong because you believe the US is pulling the strings on the Iraqi government. I'm saying you are wrong because you are not using what the evidence shows.

The evidence shows they're not pulling the strings, you have no evidence. Yet you assume the opposite of what the evidence shows. Makes no sense and that is why you're wrong.

For all I know the US government might be pulling strings, but until the evidence shows this I'll go with what the evidence shows.


I truly have no problem saying I am wrong and have said it here before. I am not taking away from what you said as those are facts all I am saying is that right now they still may have their hands in the Iraqi government.

You've just changed your argument. Now you're saying they "may"..........earlier it was they "were". If you got no evidence you should really reevalute what you think.

And I am not saying NYT. There are many sites that are pro war. And I am sure there is a good chance you may have used it inadvertently. I inadvertently used that site and used it basically for its article. I really don't think that everytime you have used a source it has been 100% unbiased. Again I'm not saying the main pages for those sources aren't credible and I apolgize. Do I think there still could be truth to what the articles said? Absolutely.

Cal this is really going nowhere. We both believe different things and refused to push or pull at all. I say its over and done with.

It's not a question of being biased. It's a question of being credible. NYT, by many, is considered a liberal news source. Who cares? They have the credibility.

Do you see the difference?