Recently the Iraq Ministry of Interior estimated that insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqi civilians since the war began.

Heaven forbid we mention the 100,000 number that the Lancet found (of which most deaths were the result of US military attacks), or other investigations which have found that the US is killing far more civilians than the insurgents.

Also, with the recent arrest of 2 British soldiers conducting an obvious false flag operation in Basra, why can’t that be mentioned either?

What is this?

Recently, I acted as a translator for a day to labor leaders from Iraq who were touring the United States. These courageous Iraqis spanned my native country’s entire political spectrum. But they all were against the insurgents and at the same time wanted to end the occupation as soon a possible and peacefully.

well I would guess that any Iraqi who was invited to tour the US at the moment, would have to be openly anti-insurgent, I mean that’s a complete no-brainer

Adil E. Shamoo, born and raised in Baghdad, is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

yep and he also appears to be an expert at putting his head up his ass and ignoring the REAL Elephant in the Room , guess a Phd and a Professorship is no guarantee that you have any fucking clue what you’re talking about

A: could we have lots more article like this please – GNNers really need to Not know what’s going on and Mr Shampoo is just the man to NOt inform them

The 100,000 that died by the US hands were Baathist loyalists, who were usually on their way to attack America the very next day.
The 12,00 killed by insurgents were innocent bystanders. Largely grandmothers. Crippled Grandmothers. Often in the process of baking cookies.

I thought the article made a couple of good points. No one discussing why the Iraqis would be fighting the liberators.
And how the US is happy to push the Iraqi government to meet a very fixed timetable, but refuses to set any sort of timetable itself.

But yeah. Lets all share a moment of silence for the dead grandmothers and the many many cookies that will never be baked.

I hate to say it, but that 100,000 number really was bullshit – see this

The fact is most Iraqis are not down with the hardcore Sunni insurgents who are blowing up innocent civilians – not hard to see why.

A: I agree that the 100,000 figure is probably an exageration, however the article quoted by you states

They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah.

imagine what the reported figures would have been if the Fallujah data had been included? poswsibly some thing like this

We estimate there were 198,000 extra deaths (95% CI 28000-254 000) during the post-war period.

BTW: Slate is NOT somewhere I look for real reportage – too often it has followed the party-line, for me to consider it a reliable source of info. but that’s beside the point.

The author of your article makes 2 statements, the second of which appears to support the first

1. Nearly all Iraqis universally condemn these killings.
2. Recently, I acted as a translator for a day to labor leaders from Iraq who were touring the United States. These courageous Iraqis spanned my native country’s entire political spectrum. But they all were against the insurgents and at the same time wanted to end the occupation as soon a possible and peacefully.

The first statement is merely a statement of opinion tarted up as ‘fact’

The second statement tries to claim that ‘labour leaders’ (what are they?) spanned [Iraqs] entire political spectrum. Something I find hard to swallow. ‘Labour Leaders in the West tend to be ‘grassroots’ types or those Left of the political centre – Is Iraq likely to be so different? Possibly, but the author offers nothing to back this up.

My original point was that it should come as no surprize to anyone that ‘Labour Leaders’ (whatever the hell they are) invited to tour the US would be outwardly Anti-‘insurgent’ , otherwise it’s very very unlikely that said ‘leaders’ would have been invited in the first place

your assertion that it’s ‘hardcore Sunni insurgents who are blowing up innocent civilians’ appears uninformed (at best) considering the recent activities of the UK SAS/Pseudo-gangs in Basra. No reasonable explaination that does not include nefarious activities on the part of the Brits, has been forthcoming from any quarter, imho.

(pls don’t anyone link me London Times articles relating to the nasty Iraninas infiltrating Basra (or I’ll piss myself laughing at you)- it might be true but it’s unlikely to had much to do with the activities of the SAS in Basra on that particular day)

I’m not saying that most Iraqi’s support the ‘insurgency’ – what I am saying is that it’s almost impossible to gauge the real level of support among the population, as any attempt at conducting a survey would be more-or-less impossible under the present circumstances.

Support from most of the population is totally unessescary for the ‘insurgency’ to prevail, they only need 10 to 20% at most.

The IRA was the minority Catholic/Nationalist party in NI during it’s armed campaign. Surveys carried out at the time concluded that IRA had support from a minority of the Catholic/Nationalist population. As soon as they declared their intention to lay down arms, their support shot up to the point where they are now the majority Catholic/Nationalist party. This indicates that while many people may not have agreed with their methods they had no problem with their intent.

I believe the same could be said for Iraq. The population may not support the methods, but they do support the intent – therefore they are quite likely to provide some form of support, or at least turn a blind eye to the activities of the ‘insurgents’ – disagreeing over methods, and actual opposition to the ‘insurgency’ are two very different things

So a year ago, prior to Fallujah and other massacres, the death toll was somewhere between 8000 and 194,000. Add the actual dead from that time period to the total dead as of now and you probably have the 100,000 give or take an innocent grandmother or two. Yes, the insurgents are responsible for some of those but the U.S. has their own responsibility here also.

I counted ten references to “insurgents” and/or “insurgency”.

Another masterful post, Anphony.

The other day I thought to myself: the only thing GNN is missing is gay porn on their front page, especially the “bullet-draped-YMCA” variety.

I must confess, however, that I was hoping for Sly Stallone in his Rambo gear betwixt the other hunks.

You fucking putz. the article is even worse. And you call yourself a journalist

LOL

And you call yourself a crazy Russian soothsayer to the Czar?

Rasputin: you wouldn’t call the militants fighting the war raging in Iraq insurgents? I’m sorry, what is the preferred, politically correct term used by all loyal party apparatchicks? gunmen? freedom fighters? jihadists? comrades? Based on your comments I’d bet you actually thought this article was written by someone who argued that the US is the good guy here, and that insurgents are evil. He said the opposite: he said that a broad spectrum of Iraqis want the US out now, and they believe this will help quell the insurgency and stabilize the government. It’s a bit of a no-brainer, actually. It is not a brilliant point, and it may not even be right, but it’s not pro-Bush propaganda either.

Butt: due respect, since I admire your fire, but, seriously. The point of this article — which does not pretend to be anything other than an opinion piece — is that the continued presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil is what is fueling the insurgency. Americans naively think that we are there fighting the insurgents now. No. We created them with our invasion and occupation, and it is our continued presence that sustains them. We made a mistake going in at all; now, if you look at the Neo-Con agenda, our intention is probably to stay permanently. What that would mean is a permanent insurgency. And, again, due respect, but your interpretation of what it means that Brits were arrested in Basra is also just “a statement of opinion tarted up as fact.”

I have to admit I’m a bit baffled at the negative reactions here. Must any opinion expressed in an article on GNN prop up our every ideological commitment and conspiracy theory and be expressed with rage directed at all the right parties?

???

dis – took the words right out of my mouth
anything that strays from the party line comrade must be banished
now i see why ras picked a russian name

I words used today give me flashbacks to the words used during the anti-Vietnam daze. Talk about the old Catch-22. If want to destroy the “insurgents” (freedom fighters?) you have to be in Iraq but if you are in Iraq you create the freedom fighters (insurgents?). And is it just me or did the Resident Theif in the Whitemanhouse really say, “We will stay in Iraq! We will succeed!”, during his press conference today? And wasn’t he working his jaw like a speed freak again? I think they have his dosage wrong. SIGN ME: LEADERLESS IN AMERIKKKA!

The words used*

Butt – Mr Shampoo

two solidly amusing posts in a short period of time, am I supposed to think you aren’t an asshole now?

rasputin – I must confess, however, that I was hoping for Sly Stallone in his Rambo gear betwixt the other hunks

nice, I gotcha covered (sorta):

anthony – And you call yourself a crazy Russian soothsayer to the Czar?

It’s good to see a sense of humor out of you here and there – must be hard with the time spent with that douchebag you are doing the radio show with.

Remember to support my troops in Iraq!

disruntled (and anthony by proxy)- Americans naively think that we are there fighting the insurgents now. No. We created them with our invasion and occupation, and it is our continued presence that sustains them

Sure but . . . uh, not really. “Americans” is a nice way to generalize but “we” didn’t invade shit or occupy it – “they” did. Fuck ‘em.

I have to admit I’m a bit baffled at the negative reactions here.

“dissent is patriotic” (stupid democrat-type bumper sticker)

Must any opinion expressed in an article on GNN prop up our every ideological commitment and conspiracy theory and be expressed with rage directed at all the right parties?

not sure what the “right parties” are, but most media would be in my sights as a justified target.

Former Department of Defense General Jack Keane estimated two months ago that more than 50,000 insurgents have been killed so far, but their active ranks remain between 16,000 and 20,000.

So if 50,000 “insurgents” have been killed so far, with 2,000 US troops killed that’s 25 “insurgents” killed for every 1 US soldier killed. At that rate to kill 20,000 more “insurgents” 800 more US soldiers will have to die.

That is ignoring the fact that the “insurgents” have supposedly always numbered around 20,000. If the US has killed 50,000 “insurgents” and there have never been more than 20,000 “insurgents” at any one time (which is what the US claims) then there are “insurgents” being created or going to Iraq knowing they are probably going to die. And they keep going anyway. People should think about that.

We are going to be “staying the course” till at least 800 more US soldiers, and 16,000-20,000 “insurgents” are killed, not to mention the civilians that will be killed by bombings and as “collateral damage” during the time it takes for those 16,800-20,800 people to die.

disgruntled, I have to disagree with you. If I log on to GNN, click on the front page article, and read something genuinely dishonest, I am going to post and point that out, so that anyone surfing in will get another take on the article. Ras is no different. For example, the first paragraph:

the Iraq insurgency continues to be deadly—nearly 3 U.S. soldiers died per day in August

Why doesn’t this article use words like “deadly” to describe the occupation? Can you taste the bias yet? How about this:

What’s most troubling about the attacks is their nature: they largely target innocent civilians. Recently the Iraq Ministry of Interior estimated that insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqi civilians since the war began.

That’s interesting. Let’s look again at the Lancet study, which – Slate’s ill-advised intrusion into statistical science aside – is the most comprehensive of its kind undertaken in Iraq thus far, using the same census techniques the United States government itself has used to gauge death counts in other conflict areas. It found that, of the 73 violent deaths covered by the study, 84% died as a result of coalition actions. This is a pretty startling statistic. On what ground is the Vichy government in Baghdad claiming that “insurgent” (I’ll tackle that in a second) violence has killed 12,000 civilians? As Butt has pointed out, British spec ops got caught dressed as arabs cruising around Basra with explosives. On what grounds can all the car bombings honestly be said to be the work of Iraqis and not the CIA or Mi6 or other pro-occupation parties, especially when half of the bombings seem to be getting claimed by someone who’s been dead for two years? It’s just a highly dubious claim by an “Iraqi” government that’s still very much controlled by its occupiers. And it (quite conveniently) ignores the more scientifically grounded statistics that other have found.

Now, to address the widespread use of the word ‘insurgent’ by the corporate media to describe Iraqi resistance fighters, especially in line with the same corporate media’s tendency to a conflict narrative:

in·sur·gent Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj. 1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.

The presumption with the word ‘insurgent’ as opposed to ‘resistance fighter’ or even a more neutral ‘rebel’ is the fact that insurgent is a literal way of saying someone who fights against an established power base. This assumes that the foreign occupation of Iraq is an established, or otherwise legitimate power base and that the ‘insurgents’ are on the offensive against it, as opposed to reactionary in response to its lack of legitimacy. This casting of the Iraqi resistance as villains appears in not-so-subtle ways throughout this piece:

The United States has been unable to quell the insurgency—in fact, the military can’t even secure a six-mile highway from the Baghdad airport to the city.

The ‘insurgency’ is presented here as something in need of ‘quelling’ and ‘securing’; that is, the insurgency is chaos and lawlessness, whereas the occupiers are security and stability.

All of these elements create the breeding grounds for a continued insurgency.

The ‘insurgency’ is presented as a systemic problem or sickness with distinct causes that need to be addressed to prevent its virulent spread. These terms are never applied to the occupiers, for obvious purposes.

This article is tripe. I hope I’ve helped explain my point of view.

From the GNN faq

What are “Articles”?

Articles are wholly original content written by GNN users. The first rule of the Yard is: plagiarists will be banned. All information needs to be properly sourced, the document must be spellchecked and the grammar conformed to GNN house style. Articles are NOT republished articles from other sources or link pool blogs. Articles that include content or photos inappropriate for a news site will not be considered. GNN does not pay for articles. Contributors retain all copyright to their work.

Way to follow your own rules, Anthony

Noam Chomsky on the Lancet study:

_It’s correct that the Lancet study, by far the most authoritative available, deliberately excluded Fallujah, because that would have raised the estimates much higher—recall that as in all scientific inquiries in related areas (technically, anywhere), this one is based on extrapolation from samples, and they wanted to err on the side of conservatism. For the same reason, they included Kurdish regions where there was very little conflict, thereby reducing the estimates.

You are also correct that the study ended before the devastating attack on Fallujah, a major war crime. For this and many other reasons, their 100,000 “most probable” estimate would be considerably higher if a similar study were done today.

Judging by news reports (not in the US, as far as I saw), a later study of a Swiss research institute basically confirmed the Lancet study, in their case investigating only direct killings. _

Read more.

Burying The Lancet

Rasputin: you wouldn©t call the militants fighting the war raging in Iraq insurgents?

I’d call em “The Legitimate and LEGAL Resistance Movement of Iraq PLUS the Pseudo-gangs of the Brits and Yanks, created to discredit the Legitimate and LEGAL Resistance Movement of Iraq” – will that do?

Butt: due respect, since I admire your fire, but, seriously.

DIS: Seriously, do you really think you have a better handle on this than I do?? You really need to do some research on classic counter-insurgency techniques. I’ve been studying this for YEARS, ‘k? how long had you been looking at this?

Americans naively think that we are there fighting the insurgents now. No. We created them with our invasion and occupation, and it is our continued presence that sustains them.

You created them alright – just not nessecarily in the way YOU think.

Anthony: dis © took the words right out of my mouth

well Dis, I’d say ‘give ‘em back’, ‘cos you don’t know what to do with them. I may not be able to PROVE my ‘theories’ but don’t you think it coincidental that I knew exactly who these Brit guys were working for, the minute I saw the original news report? It had to be ex-14th intell, and it had to be Brigadier Gordon Kerr, and it took me about 10 minutes to come up with the proof the Kerr had been in Iraq recently. WTF do you think he was doing there – playing football??

It’s not about ‘the party line’ – what gets me is the people spouting verbal-wank seem to think they know more about this than those who have been looking at this for years – over 20 in my case. I fuckin’ guarantee you never heard of Gordon Kerr or 14th Intell before this

I have no problem with you disagreeing, but please back it up with something – got anything?

I’ve blogged about suspicious kidnappings and Death squads LOOOONG before you ever got here (assuming you are not some alter-ego of someone already posting here) – I saw it coming – It had to go that way – this is how they do it – I realise you are unaware of most of this so I’m going easy on you. This Time. . . . .

BTW: Dis: thanks for not linking those Times disinfo pieces – I do appreciate it, as I’m sitting in an internet cafe and a pool of urine around my chair would be, well, embarrassing

Sisyphus: the answer is no – I’ll probably always be an asshole in the eyes of some of the circle-jerkers here (and that’s just fine and dandy by me) but I’ll occasionally be a funny asshole – don’t let it throw you, ‘K? ;-)

As for the ‘party line’ jibe – is there anything in that article that doesn’t toe the lefty-establishment party line?

there’s nothing there I couldn’t read on Buzzflash, DemUnderground, MoveOn etc. What’s cutting-edge about that. Against whom is it ‘dissenting’?

It’s not what I come here for – if I wanted to read that there’s a thousand other Lefty sites I could read it at

guerillaman — yes, amen. Bush is as insistent as a speed freak. We will stay. And we will continue to lose.

sisyphus — No, but; and Yes, and. No, you’re right, “we” didn’t invade Iraq, “they” did; the thieves who run things are responsible, But the fools who have allowed the theft, and who have manned their Army, and who have paid their bills with taxes, that right, we fools, we are ultimately responsible. We’re still a democracy, if in name only. Yes, I agree dissent is patriotic, and maybe the media needs the most dissent and I might add, the government we are responsible to supervise.

EGisJUICE — my sentiments exactly on the numbers of “insurgents” alive and dead.

MarchHare — good points. Yes, you can “tase bias” there… but remember that the piece was written for the American public originally, not for Guerillas, so at a minimum we have to assume it will employ the biased language for rhetorical effect. It’s point is not affected by the bias: U.S. out now. Furthermore, it is not incompatible to suggest that 84% of civilian deaths are the result of the result of our invasion and occupation and to suggest that 12,000 civilians have died at the hands of militants in the native resistance, especially if you like the 100,000 figure of the Lancet. YES, the term “insurgent” implies legitimate authority. When the U.S. pulls out, what institution, in your mind, willl be the legitimate authority in Iraq? The Sunni-led resistance army? The Shia-led “democratic” and “constitutional” government? Will there be a legitimate authority?

Butt — several of your points are VERY well taken. I’m suitably ashamed. Your expertise in counter-insurgency doctrine and personnell is impressive (a fact I have acknowledged in other fora). Your last point is worth contesting, though, obviously you DO come here for the fun and DO read even what you consider to be tripe. To answer your fears, no this identity is not an alter-ego for some other GNNer, I’m just me, disgruntled. I’m just a bourgeois elitist scholar, and not an expert on counter-insurgency. But please don’t think I’m some teenage newbie; no I wasn’t able to see, as you were, who those guys were right away. But I haven’t just now heard about “counter-insurgency” techniques in the last two weeks either. Frankly, I am unimpressed, so far, by the “evidence” that the US and the Brits are behind even a part of the terroristic attacks in Iraq. I’ve tried to read far and wide on the subject, often carefully tracking down and cross-referencing information YOU have provided in your posts, and as of TODAY, I just don’t buy the evidence, which is often nothing more than a “so and so was somewhere and probably knew so and so” chain of name dropping. What does the presence of Kerr in Iraq really PROVE? I’m not saying that western intelligence agencies are above terrorism — it’s been proven in the past that they use it (Lebanon, the 1980s?) — or that they wouldn’t use psy-ops and dirty tricks to sow confusion; but too many of the sources I have read are fundamentalists on the following issues:

(1) they the whole “insurgency” is really the US/British intel folks; I don’t buy it. If Iraq invaded the US I’d be out killing collaborators and invaders. An insurgency is the natural result of invasion. VIETNAM!!!

(2) that the US government is primarily interested in using terror to advance its global agenda — what, capitalism and naked military aggression isn’t working???

(3) that the US government and Israel conspired to do 9/11 in order to discredit the Islamic world — which I think is bunk.

(4) that insurgents in Iraq wouldn’t do things like attack Mosques because they are supposedly “all muslims.” Now here’s something I know a little bit about… the centuries old hatred between Sunni and Shiite believers. You think they are all the same religion, all some Islamic brotherhood? That’s fucking bullshit. It’s sloppy thinking like that which got us into this mess.

Just my two cents. I appreciate the dialogue.

MCB

I don’t doubt the possibility that the US and UK are involved in black ops/false flag “terrorist” actions. But to say that all the suicide bombings are carried out by UK and US operatives is flatly wrong. As Dis discussed, what’s important to understand is there is no ONE insurgency, there is a carzy, homicidal mostly Sunni insurgency (organized and funded by former Baathists and people like Zaraqwi), which is targeting Shiite civilians and US forces. Then there is what you might call local insurgent groups, who are just regular guys who have picked up guns and are attacking Americans out of pride. Then there is the Shiite militias, which, for the most part, are not attacking the US and UK forces on a regular basis. The Shia make up most of the police, and have formed quasi-official death sqauds that are assassinating Sunni civilians and officials. That’s just the broad strokes – each of these groups have many factions. In other words – it’s a mess. The complicated question that Dis raises is, if the US left who should run the country? The Baathist murderers who ran it before? The hardcore Shia Islamicists? Whomever kills more of the other? I don’t have an answer to that one.

See At least 25 killed in bombing near mosque

What does the presence of Kerr in Iraq really PROVE?

ok, give me one reason he may have been there that doesn’t invole dirty ops, Flower-arranging?, A pechant for pre-pubescent Iraqi youths? , Dirt-biking?, A love of Hum-V’s? Working on his Tan?

BTW: I’m may be ‘well versed’ – but i’d have to be even more arrogant than I am to claim to be a real ‘expert’

they the whole “insurgency” is really the US/British intel folks; I don’t buy it. If Iraq invaded the US I’d be out killing collaborators and invaders. An insurgency is the natural result of invasion. VIETNAM!!!

It’s highly unlikely that the WHOLE insurgency is a psyop, however only a few ops need to be UK/US ops to have a negative impact on the image of the Legitimate and Legal resistance

that the US government is primarily interested in using terror to advance its global agenda—what, capitalism and naked military aggression isn’t working???

it’s about perception, those who are against us must be supporters of the terrorists, and as we ‘know’ terrorists kill babies and Grannies

that the US government and Israel conspired to do 9/11 in order to discredit the Islamic world—which I think is bunk.

I haven’t claimed that – please stick to what I have claimed – don’t link me to any other ‘theories’ to which I haven’t signed up to (though I do think there is enough evidence to at least seriously consider the idea – if you dismiss it out of hand completely then your definetly not keeping an open mind)

that insurgents in Iraq wouldn’t do things like attack Mosques because they are supposedly “all muslims.” Now here’s something I know a little bit about… the centuries old hatred between Sunni and Shiite believers. You think they are all the same religion, all some Islamic brotherhood? That’s fucking bullshit. It’s sloppy thinking like that which got us into this mess.

again not something I’ve ever claimed – please stick to what I have claimed – don’t link me to any other ‘theories’ to which I haven’t signed up to

Anthony: But to say that all the suicide bombings are carried out by UK and US operatives is flatly wrong.

see above

what’s important to understand is there is no ONE insurgency, there is a crazy, homicidal mostly Sunni insurgency (organized and funded by former Baathists and people like Zaraqwi), which is targeting Shiite civilians and US forces.

It’s equally possible that the ‘Baathists and people like Zaraqwi (who he? oh you mean ‘Mr Emmanuael Goldstien for the 21st Century’) which you cite are infiltrated – it only takes one highly placed ‘planner’ to set up ops which are designed to discredit, and it only takes a small number of ops to do so.

The complicated question that Dis raises is, if the US left who should run the country? The Baathist murderers who ran it before? The hardcore Shia Islamicists? Whomever kills more of the other? I don’t have an answer to that one.

Neither do I, but I’d say that’s not the business of the US. That point of view falls into the ‘We must stay the course’ party line of both the Dems and Repugs, nice bed-mates you got.

I appreciate the dialogue.

me too – thanks

here’s an example of what I was talking about earlier

Iran ‘behind attacks on British’

Tank on fire on Monday

There have been violent anti-British protests in Basra

Britain has accused Iran of responsibility for explosions which have caused the deaths of all eight UK soldiers killed in Iraq this year.

A senior British official, briefing correspondents in London, blamed Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

He said they provided the technology to a Shia group in southern Iraq. The Iranians had denied this, he added.

While UK officials have hinted at an Iranian link before, this is the first specific allegation to be made.

They may feel there is little to lose right now by making such accusations, given that diplomatic relations are already low following the breakdown of talks over Iran’s nuclear programme, says the BBC News Website’s world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the technology had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran and produced an “explosively shaped projectile”.

He said that dissidents from the Mehdi army, a militia controlled by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, were suspected of carrying out the attacks.

One of their leaders, Ahmed al-Fartusi, was arrested by British forces recently and was “currently enjoying British hospitality”, as the official put it.

It was that arrest which sparked off an anti-British protest in Basra recently.

Saddam trial postponed?

The official said that protests had been made to Iran and that the Iranian government had denied responsibility.

Asked about an Iranian motive, the official said that it could be that Iran felt that it had to show that it could not be “pushed around”.

The official also said that the trial of Saddam Hussein, due to start on 19 October, might be postponed until after the elections in December.

Logistical arrangements for the trial, including a witness protection programme and even whether bullet proof glass was to be used around the dock, had still not been decided, he said.

Does anyone here believe this crap?

The complicated question that Dis raises is, if the US left who should run the country? The Baathist murderers who ran it before? The hardcore Shia Islamicists? Whomever kills more of the other? I don’t have an answer to that one.

Neither do I, but I’d say that’s not the business of the US. That point of view falls into the ‘We must stay the course’ party line of both the Dems and Repugs, nice bed-mates you got.

I don’t believe we should stay the course, I argue we need to get the fuck out – but I also admit I don’t have the answer to the above. What does that mean to say it’s none of our business. If we left, say tomorrow, after disbanding the army back in 03 and then not really rearming the new one – the Sunni insurgents would most likely roll right into Baghdad massacring the weak and ineffectual Shia forces, take over the government and massacre Shia like Saddam did back in 91. Is that “none of our business?”

There needs to be a plan to help mitigate the evitiable bloodshed that will come when these two groups fight for the future of the country.

Butt — mea culpa, sorry to imply you were one of those who held all of those extreme views. It’s just that in my readings on “false flag” stuff I run into those views constantly. An argument that the Brits are behind suicide bombings will begin, “the muslims would never bomb a mosque, so…” or an explanation that special/psy ops forces are responsible for an attack will end “just like the way they did on 9/11.” Another article will state something like, “after the attack, Iraqis on the street were saying that the U.S. was responsible…” These kinds of statements are pretty blatantly conjectures, conspiracy theories, and rumor mongering. The only link you have to such views is that one can find similar ideas represented here and here, the first being an article which can be linked to off of the thread on your blog – B09151 – on the Brits in Basra, although you’re of course not responsible for the content of links others post on a thread to one of your blogs, and the second being a link from within that article.

Anthony — I’m interested enough in the question of what would happen in Iraq if we left suddently that I’m going to blog it.

On Edit: ok, I have blogged it. See B09582

There needs to be a plan to help mitigate the evitiable bloodshed that will come when these two groups fight for the future of the country.

now A, you and I both know that any plan the US comes up with will be so evil as to perpetuate injustice and civil war for decades to come – which is of course the exact scenario laid out by PNAC years ago. Iraq is going exactly according to the PNAC Plan – why are you pretending otherwise?

PNAC stated openly the a divided Iraq was in the intersets of the Neo-Cons who are only doing Israel’s bidding. What part of that do you not understand?

To sit here wondering ‘How to fix this, how to make it ‘good’‘? is just plain naive.

Israel and the Neo-cons are getting exactly what they wanted and exactly what they said they were going to do, so the fact that you don’t mention any of this is , well, dishonest or at least ‘Blinkered-vision’

Iraq can never be ‘made-good’ because the people in power have made absolutley sure that it never will.

Any discussion on Iraq that doesn’t include the activities of the evil Israeli leaders and PNAC is pointless, and merely an excersize in mental masturbation.

now A, you and I both know that any plan the US comes up with will be so evil as to perpetuate injustice and civil war for decades to come – which is of course the exact scenario laid out by PNAC years ago. Iraq is going exactly according to the PNAC Plan – why are you pretending otherwise?

I’m not. That’s why I think any plan needs to incorporate the international community. Nothing’s going to make the situation ‘good’ – but if we just pull out without any thought to what’s going to happen when we leave it will be really, really, really bad.

How would you pull out?

OK,

but how do ‘we’ (‘we’ being the ‘international community’ – not you or me) combat PNAC?

Bear in mind: they seem to have achieved half their objectives, and they’re not likely to take too kindly to the likes of you or me interferring in their plans

but if we just pull out without any thought to what’s going to happen when we leave it will be really, really, really bad.

but if it’s all a set-up from the start, then you’re ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ – better take the path of least resistance. America is going to get blamed for the deaths anyway, – If you pull out now, after a ceertain amount of time people will eventually say ‘Well, we can’t keep blaming the yanks for this, at some time they have to stop themselves.’

the sooner you pull out the sooner that day will come – fuck morality – all moral boundaries were broken once ‘you’ invaded, cut and run, people will blame you for the craziness anyway, but they’ll stop blaming ‘you’ sooner, if you leave sooner.

You were suckered into it anyway. why send more kids to die for somnething you were suckered into in the first place? A wise man/woman would say ‘Let’s get the fuck out of Dodge’- and a wise man/woman would remember who got you into this shit in the first place …............... and act accordingly

How would you pull out?

that’s sooo open to bad comedy