[EdGreene]

As long as we stay in a town, gunships and Bradley's omnipresent, we and our Iraqi allies "rule" by day. But when we go back to the green zone, or our cantonment areas?
They rule by night, just like in 'Nam. We go home, they line the roads with bombs and reset their Mortars. We go home, they "adjust" the neighborhood to the realities of Iraq.

And Dubya the Dumb wants to hold elections in a place like that? Where in our absence our "power" evaporates like morning dew?

Yeah, tell me how much we're "winning" the hearts and minds of the Iraqi, Dubya. How we've "Iraqified" the area.
Go ahead, tell me.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by EdGreene

As long as we stay in a town, gunships and Bradley's omnipresent, we and our Iraqi allies "rule" by day. But when we go back to the green zone, or our cantonment areas?
They rule by night, just like in 'Nam. We go home, they line the roads with bombs and reset their Mortars. We go home, they "adjust" the neighborhood to the realities of Iraq.

And Dubya the Dumb wants to hold elections in a place like that? Where in our absence our "power" evaporates like morning dew?

Yeah, tell me how much we're "winning" the hearts and minds of the Iraqi, Dubya. How we've "Iraqified" the area.
Go ahead, tell me.

As guess as the General in charge of the troop command you have personal knowledge of this. Or more likely it just EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland blowing snot out his arse because he has nothing constructive to add. Hyperbole statements made with the intent to inflame seems to be your modus operandi lately. Not much of an improvement over your incessant whining.

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

As guess {sic} as the General in charge of the troop command you have personal knowledge of this.

Only the blind (Republicans) refuse to or can't see we're bleeding like in 'Nam.

Or more likely it just EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland blowing snot out his arse because he has nothing constructive to add.

"Out his arse"? What part of the universe are you really from, Gdumb? "Out his arse"
Or is it Gdumb who is avoiding an opportunity to directly address the question?

Hyperbole statements {sic} made with the intent to inflame seems to be your modus operandi lately.

And you seem to be unable (unwilling) to address my points, Gdumb.

Not much of an improvement over your incessant whining.

Why didn't you, Gdumb, address the points I made instead of your mindless-Pit Bull personal attack; Gdumb? Or are they too oblique for your knuckle-dragging sensibilities?

And are you agreeing (by failing to directly address my points), that we are not "Winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis?

[GoneForNow]

I'll give you one thing EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland besides the mindless drivel you consistently post you have always maintained the status of a troll.

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

I'll give you one thing EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland besides the mindless drivel you consistently post you have always maintained the status of a troll.

Are you by-G-d going to address the thread or not: Gdummy?

[GoneForNow]

There is nothing to address, your premise is faulty to the point of being stupid.

You're a drama queen. You create these hyperbole dramatic BS posts and then challenge anyone to dispute you. Your BS attempt to equate the infamous VC "they control the day but we the night" of Vietnam is absolute comically made up crap by you. EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland I'm really beginning to believe that you miss Vietnam when your life had some meaning. Lord knows you constantly remind us of your alleged heroic deeds. Look at your signature, its proof enough.

[iltos]

i know that some folks here have "issues" with ed (i've posted mine elsewhere)....but, with all due respect, there has been quite a bit of opinion and fact posted here and written elsewhere suggesting that the iraqi conflict does indeed present many similiarities to vietnam

personally, i don't believe that all is as rosey as bush would have us believe...nor do i see any reason to compare it to vietnam....it is a debacle in its own right, and the situation is unique enough to stand on its own as a disgrace....i am tired of the death and chaos there, and believe it will continue to be a part of iraqi history whether or not america is actively involved in attempting to stabilize the situation...further, i believe that our efforts are not contributing anything beneficial to the iraqi people vis a vis stabilization, and thus see little reason to continue offering up our citizens as sacrifices in a situation we can neither fully control and seem unwilling to truely understand.

[linskyjack]

I have to agree with Ed on this one. This is Vietnam II. Anyone familiar with the political/military nexus of that war can't help but to be bowled over by the similarities.

1. Politicians making decisions based on misguided geo/political theories
2. Politicians tying the hands of the military. We are at war but the military is not allowed to win the war.
3. Gross miscalculations of the enemy.
4. Increasing mortality rates among service men over time.


I could go on and on. We must begin to think about withdrawing and gathering to fight another day. We owe that to the men and women who put themselves at risk everyday.

[EdGreene]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

I'll give you one thing EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland besides the mindless drivel you consistently post you have always maintained the status of a troll.

As I've noted: you're totally out of words once you get past "Troll".

[Wino]

Originally Posted by EdGreene

As I've noted: you're totally out of words once you get past "Troll".

It is difficult to defend the defenseless when the statement is true - we have another Vietnam. If we lose this one, the results will be tragic for Iraq and the USA primarily and the world in general. This unnecessary war is the result of a misguided and 'intellectually dishonest' American president who is/was totally unqualified to hold the most powerful position in the world - and he shamelessly stays a failed course.

[EdGreene]

I am going to have agreat weekend. But first this:

Originally Posted by gbrumb

There is nothing to address, your premise is faulty to the point of being stupid.
You're a drama queen. You create these hyperbole dramatic BS posts and then challenge anyone to dispute you.

Actually, there is no "challenge" but opinion. If you cannot overcome my opinion with one of your own, you ought to switch to the Disney Channel: it's more your speed.

Your BS attempt to equate the infamous VC "they control the day but we the night" of Vietnam is absolute comically made up crap by you.

OF course that mens you have no idea of what you want to say regarding the premise of the thread.

EdGreene/Mafud/kirkland I'm really beginning to believe that you miss Vietnam when your life had some meaning.

I've come through a Vietnam and don't want our troops to needlessly do the same.

Lord knows you constantly remind us of your alleged heroic deeds.

There is nothing heroic in anything I've said about my Vietnam service.

Look at your signature, its proof enough.

I was a 17 year old boy who became a man when I did that. It still takes a man to go out the door.
Are you sure you don't have "Airborne" envy? That your own Lemon-yellow spine turns to shimmering, quivering fruity jelly when you imagine yourself making that first step: from one thousand feet: in total darkness?
That's it I think: You're gutless and spineless and you're just as sure my 17 year-old "Boy" is more man than you'll ever be.

Now are you going to address the thread topic or not?

[linskyjack]

I would say that Ed Greene's title for this thread is inaccurte. I would have said:

Iraqam, Dont We Ever Learn?

[bassetman]

Now this is progress!

United States' Illegal Occupation of Iraq


The Post (Lusaka)

September 17, 2004
Posted to the web September 17, 2004

Lusaka

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement that the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was illegal because it didn't have the Security Council's approval should have been made before the invasion.

However, Annan's admission of the illegality of that invasion only goes to confirm the illegality of the United States' occupation of Iraq and why it is being resisted by many Iraqis.

The United Nations Charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval as an explicit enforcement action.

But last year, in the buildup to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became apparent it would not pass.

Clearly, the United States deliberately went outside the Security Council and took unilateral action that was not in conformity with the Charter. And this is why Annan says from their point of view and the UN Charter point of view, the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

It is sad that the United States, a country that is prepared to punish others for not abiding by the United Nations' decisions, deliberately acted in a lawless manner and invaded another sovereign country with impunity.

We say this because United States President George W. Bush, weeks or months before his country's invasion of Iraq, made it very clear that if the United Nations failed to abide by his wishes to attack Iraq, Washington would act on its own. And yet this is the same man who had been insisting that Iraq's refusal to abide by the previous resolutions threatened the authority of the United Nations.

But there is no country in the world that surpasses the United States in not abiding by the wishes of the world's majority, in illegality and in toppling governments it doesn't like in other countries.

The United States has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol when the rest of the world, including its closest allies like Britain, supported it. And the United States has refused to ratify the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court. However, this court has come into force without the United States' signature.

We have also not forgotten that this same country in 2002 frustrated the Durban Conference on Racism.

Clearly, the United States' claimed respect for, and commitment to, United Nations resolutions is hypocritical. It seems its ally, Israel, can disregard world opinion with impunity. It can ignore UN resolutions without the risk of sanctions or air strikes.

There's need to make the United States relinquish its attempts to turn the UN into a tool that only serves its interests.

We say this because the bells tolling on Iraq today, will tomorrow toll for the whole poor world, and for the whole world.

And how can a country that is the only one in the world that has irresponsibly used weapons of mass destruction twice - atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - accuse others of being a threat to world security?

There is long-term legal and political inconsistency between the treatment of Israel and other countries in the region, and the greatest weakness in the United States' case on Iraq will always be that it has shown no signs of acknowledging its history of favouritism.

In the past 31 years, the United States has vetoed 34 resolutions that criticise Israel and seek to restrain its behaviour. But the United States is not prepared to have its decisions stopped or vetoed by any country.

This is United States' type of world leadership! What moral leadership of the world can the US claim to represent with this type of double standards and hypocrisy?

Clearly, there's need to intelligently and honestly examine the United States' pretext for interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

We were told that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and as such posed a global threat; we were told that the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime would lead to democracy and increased observance of human rights in the region; and that the removal of Saddam was not only a humanitarian duty but a moral one.

But looking back, recalling what happened in the world in the past few decades, who violated human rights, who fathered most of the coup d'ètats? Who trained the torturers in the most sophisticated techniques? Who trained the sinister culprits? Who armed them? Who supported them?

With all the violations the world has so far witnessed, how can they today justify what they are doing in the name of human rights and democracy in Iraq?

A few years ago, they killed four million Vietnamese by dropping millions of tons of explosives in a country that was more than 15,000 kilometres away from them.

In Angola, for example, who armed UNITA, which for more than twenty years massacred entire villages and killed hundreds of thousands of Angolans? Which repressive regime in the world was not supported by them? Who supported Mobutu? Who supported the acts of aggression against Arab countries?

But it is now clear that possession of weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with the United States' war against Iraq. They can have all the weapons of mass destruction they want, thousands of nuclear weapons and a whole arsenal of laboratories devoted to producing biological weapons and any other kind of weapons. They have reached agreements among themselves to eliminate biological and chemical weapons. But at the same time they develop other, even more deadly weapons.

Up to now, the great promoter, the great patron, the great fatherly educator and supporter of those who committed massive violations of human rights in the world has been the United States.

We are not talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a terrorist experiment into the effects of nuclear weapons on cities where hundreds of thousands of people lived. We are not talking about the things that have happened since World War II. Who were their allies? Why did the Franco government in Spain remain in power for almost 30 years after the end of a world war against fascism that lasted six vicious years and cost not less than 50 million lives? It is because he had the support of the United States, which wanted to have military bases there. Who supported utterly repressive regimes in countries like Korea? They did. Who really supported the massive carnage of ethnic groups like the Chinese, for example, or of communists or left-wing people in Indonesia? They did. Who supported the apartheid regime in South Africa? They did. Who opposed the release of Mandela from prison? They did.

There has been no bloody or repressive government, no massive violator of human rights that has not been their ally and has been supported by them.

What we are seeing today is nothing but the development of a whole philosophy aimed at sweeping away the United Nations Charter and the principle of national sovereignty.

Is this the type of democracy and values the world should adopt, the world should learn from the United States? Bush has proved to be more dangerous than Saddam, he has the capacity - and a destructive mind - to destroy the world several times over.


http://allafrica.com/stories/200409170774.html

[bassetman]

More good news for Bush!

Latest Iraqi studies find no evidence of illicit weapons: Paper

www.chinaview.cn 2004-09-17 23:40:31


WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- The latest report on Iraq's illicit weapons found no evidence that the country was in possession of any nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by the time of the US-led invasion last year, said the New York Times on Friday.

The report only concluded that Saddam Hussein's government had a clear intent to produce these weapons, if the United Nations lift the sanctions against it, said the paper.

The 1,500-page draft, now in circulation within the government, is the final version of a report by Charles A. Duelfer, the top US weapons inspector in Iraq, it said.

The report, which actually reaffirmed the findings of a research 11 months ago, is expected to be made public within weeks.

US President George W. Bush has cited the weapons of mass destruction as a major excuse to go to war with Iraq.

Though no such weapons have been found, the president appeared unrepentant, claiming the Saddam Hussein regime posed a threat to the world whether or not it possessed illicit weapons. Enditem

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_1993736.htm

[iltos]

it is so good to hear the un taking such a strong and long overdue stance against american arrogance.....clearly it shows that the world has had enough.....