Latest Iraq Report

Gosh that breaking news section in portal is great. Apparantly the good general wants to suspend troop withdrawal from Iraq, citing the fragility of recent progress.

BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336731.stm.

This could be looked at in two ways, from the American perspective. Anti-war types will cite the recent conflicts and "exceedingly complex and challenging" nature of the the country as evidence that they were right all along and that Iraq is a write-off. The pro-war fellows will cite this as evidence that a quick retreat would have destroyed the significant progress they have made in the area.

McCain would say that 100 years isn't long enough, and I would say the only way they would go voluntarily would be when the last drop of oil has been squeezed out.

I wouldn't say it's simply about the oil in Iraq. More about hegemonic control of the Middle East, which is what Iraq was challenging. The US only cares about getting Iraq to a point where it's stable enough that their long-term bases there are not impossible to maintain. The bases are there to stay.

I expect serious headlines when the discussion and questions turn to Iran

ibis wrote:

I wouldn't say it's simply about the oil in Iraq. More about hegemonic control of the Middle East, which is what Iraq was challenging. The US only cares about getting Iraq to a point where it's stable enough that their long-term bases there are not impossible to maintain. The bases are there to stay.

And the hegemony is in the main in my view to do with resources, i.e. oil. The bases will stay as long as a) the US can afford to keep them there and b) until they are made to go away.

McCain's 100 years remark was taken out of context. But his 'Bomb Iran' song (ba ba ba, ba bomb Iran!) is a little more difficult to explain away.

The problem for the republicans is that most people realise that McCain is just like their senile grandfather. When he goes for a drive they just hope he dosn't get lost and end up in Canada.. Have a look at our next president https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmXaEeuHmig

905 wrote:

McCain's 100 years remark was taken out of context. But his 'Bomb Iran' song (ba ba ba, ba bomb Iran!) is a little more difficult to explain away.

Maybe not - his context was that US bases would and should remain there for at least 100 years. Because Al Qaeda is recruiting there. here he is

And in Japan, and in Turkey and Cuba and Korea and all the other countries the US has bases in.

As usual Lieberman the democrat is there to make sure he does not wander off.

youngdan wrote:

I expect serious headlines when the discussion and questions turn to Iran

watch this Did Petraeus part ways with the neocons?
http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1314&thisview=item

they been a real change in tune over the last few days re iran, there he admits the iranism brokered the halt in fighting in basra.
they seem to be negotiating some sort of deal to get rid of the people they both don't like in basra.

That is a very interesting clip. Maybe when his commanding officer Admiral Fallon called him a spineless chickenshit he grew a backbone or maybe it is the result of this article which refers to The Telegraph leak. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19684.htm - 22k It was also reported last week that Sadr pulled back at the instructions of an Iranian general. Liberman and Graham are always now at McCain's side. The first to catch him if he strays from the script and the latter to catch him if he falls. He is a dimwitted disgrace who says he ran out of time to ask the general questions but when he is reading his lines he frequently speaks of a nuclear attack. He does not even have 1 brain cell to rub against the inside of his cranium not to mind 2 for company. The professor being interviewed seems to be going on the assumption that Maliki is strong enough to be able to ask the US to leave when December 2008 rolls arround. What planet is he on, Maliki just got his arse kicked by the Shia. The Sunni would kill him the second the last gunship flies away. Every Vietnam Veteran I meet tells me that they were not allowed to win in Vietnam and they are right. The objective is not to win but to destroy the National Guards while building a mercenary army of scum from every pisshole on Earth which now numbers 200000.

All the headlines here now paint a picture of Iran fighting a proxy war in Iraq. After McCain confusing Al Qaida and the Shia all talk of al qaida is fading and Sadr and the Iranians are the enemy. We have senators Liberman, Levin and Coleman looking grimfaced as the question Patraeus. They were afraid to bring Admiral Fallon before the Senate because he would have told the truth. Too bad Fallon didn't courtmarshall Patraeus for gross incompetence. He was tasked to train the the Iraqi Army but they will be too old to fight before that happens. I said that there would be no war back in September but I expect an attack now shortly. So let us look at Patraeus and Crocker when they were asked about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQAgPEZFCU4

youngdan wrote:

All the headlines here now paint a picture of Iran fighting a proxy war in Iraq. After McCain confusing Al Qaida and the Shia all talk of al qaida is fading and Sadr and the Iranians are the enemy. We have senators Liberman, Levin and Coleman looking grimfaced as the question Patraeus. They were afraid to bring Admiral Fallon before the Senate because he would have told the truth. Too bad Fallon didn't courtmarshall Patraeus for gross incompetence. He was tasked to train the the Iraqi Army but they will be too old to fight before that happens. I said that there would be no war back in September but I expect an attack now shortly. So let us look at Patraeus and Crocker when they were asked about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQAgPEZFCU4

I sincerely hope your wrong but the preparations for an attack on Iran have been going on so long it is hard to believe they would even be able to roll them back at this stage. Do you think it is Bush's aim to slip this in before end of his term?

Anyone seen this yet?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/newsspecial.html

It was the debate hosted at the DIT last Wednesday night. It's an incredible event whereby members of the mainstream media discussed how the media (in particular the Irish media) has reported on the war, with those who would describe this reporting as biased and hyped. Some incredible admissions were made. The mainstream panel was made up of, Fergal Keane of RTE, Patrick Smyth of the Irish Times and Joe Zefran of RTE.ie. Their opposition was made up from, Ciaron O'Reilly of the Ploughshares - famed for taking out a plane in Shannon, Harry Browne of Village magazine and Dahr Jamail journalist and author of the award winning "Beyond the Green Zone." The event was chaired by Pepe Escobar, journalist and famed debunker of media spin.

The debate talked about this 100 year war stuff and discussed and debunked the idea that Iran is sponsoring a proxy war.

This video is close to two hours long, so get some popcorn and settle in. This is a debate that would not happen in many 'democratic' nations. Incredible stuff.

Hermes wrote:

Anyone seen this yet?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/newsspecial.html

It was the debate hosted at the DIT last Wednesday night. It's an incredible event whereby members of the mainstream media discussed how the media (in particular the Irish media) has reported on the war, with those who would describe this reporting as biased and hyped. Some incredible admissions were made. The mainstream panel was made up of, Fergal Keane of RTE, Patrick Smyth of the Irish Times and Joe Zefran of RTE.ie. Their opposition was made up from, Ciaron O'Reilly of the Ploughshares - famed for taking out a plane in Shannon, Harry Browne of Village magazine and Dahr Jamail journalist and author of the award winning "Beyond the Green Zone." The event was chaired by Pepe Escobar, journalist and famed debunker of media spin.

The debate talked about this 100 year war stuff and discussed and debunked the idea that Iran is sponsoring a proxy war.

This video is close to two hours long, so get some popcorn and settle in. This is a debate that would not happen in many 'democratic' nations. Incredible stuff.

Thanks Hermes will do that. I always think if you want to know what people intend to do, listen to what they say, and not to what the press says. There is plenty published by neocons to show that they intend to change the "regime" of every state with resources they want to get their hands on. China is on the list, but not so easy to swallow and has been tooling up for some time. But how will this sit with a US public who are being asked to pay for the war with benefit and services cuts?

Cactus Flower wrote:

Thanks Hermes will do that. I always think if you want to know what
people intend to do, listen to what they say, and not to what the press
says. There is plenty published by neocons to show that they intend to
change the "regime" of every state with resources they want to get
their hands on. China is on the list, but not so easy to swallow and
has been tooling up for some time. But how will this sit with a US
public who are being asked to pay for the war with benefit and services
cuts?

It might not be as difficult as it seems. The US still has plenty of surplus bombs already paid for (via credit from China ). And of course, Israel would happily nuke Iran out of existence, such noises are already being made to test national and international opinion. The key lies in portraying Iran in sufficient quantity as some genocidal and international bogey man.

Course the question that needs to be asked is: who has Iran invaded in the past?

We'll neither hear that question nor its answer, not when scaremongering and rhetoric provide a much more solid platform.

I look forward to watching. The idea is being planted that Iran has attacked and the prowar people will accept this. The average person knows nothing about Iran but does know that they are flat broke. My feeling is that most people do not believe a word anymore and are blaming Iraq for expensive gas and a bankrupt country. They have got to get this war started before the economy collapses to have a scapecoat. When Fallon was fired it removed any doubt from my mind. Why Fallon does not come out an give a pressconference is a disappointment

the strait of hormuz is an inescapable problem they can't allow it to threatened with blockage, do you see how narrow the channels are there on the maps, they can milk the fear about iran for another good ten years before they need to do anything.

The average man knows not the difference of Hormuz from hormones. The line is that they are killing our boys and that is all that is needed

youngdan wrote:

All the headlines here now paint a picture of Iran fighting a proxy war in Iraq. After McCain confusing Al Qaida and the Shia all talk of al qaida is fading and Sadr and the Iranians are the enemy. We have senators Liberman, Levin and Coleman looking grimfaced as the question Patraeus. They were afraid to bring Admiral Fallon before the Senate because he would have told the truth. Too bad Fallon didn't courtmarshall Patraeus for gross incompetence. He was tasked to train the the Iraqi Army but they will be too old to fight before that happens. I said that there would be no war back in September but I expect an attack now shortly. So let us look at Patraeus and Crocker when they were asked about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQAgPEZFCU4

The General gave the right answer. It's not within his brief to consider what or what is not the remit of the US Government re striking Iran.

That being said if Bush is going to attack Iran it's gotta come soon. IMO if he hasn't given the go ahead by 1st June then it's not going to happen on his watch.

youngdan wrote:

I look forward to watching. The idea is being planted that Iran has attacked and the prowar people will accept this. The average person knows nothing about Iran but does know that they are flat broke. My feeling is that most people do not believe a word anymore and are blaming Iraq for expensive gas and a bankrupt country. They have got to get this war started before the economy collapses to have a scapecoat. When Fallon was fired it removed any doubt from my mind. Why Fallon does not come out an give a pressconference is a disappointment

When Fallon was fired it removed any doubt from my mind

That certainly made me sit up allright. But like I said above if its going to happen this year its got to come soon.

What Paul should have said to the pair was, Well ye are the experts what advice are ye giving to Bush. If Fallon was there he would have answered without weaseling out on a technicality as he was the commanding officer over the whole area. Bush needs Hillary or McCain elected to save himself being put under oath

there's real divergance in policy with iran,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-and-iran-holding-secret-talks-on-nuclear-programme-808647.html
well non-governement us

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says Muqtada is not considered an enemy of the US if he sticks to politics.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11338337

What? His politics consists of pushing the US out of Iraq!

which you will have heard his reply was the the us would always be his enemy.

thank god somebody on fox pointed out that the US is backing iran backed militias to battle interferring iranian backed militas

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/30/graham-badr/

but badr apparently aren't the problem

Quote :

As for the Bush charges that Iran backed rogue militiamen against the
al-Maliki government, it is contradicted by the US intelligence
community. The USG Open Source Center did a report on the Iranian
stance toward the recent fighting between al-Maliki's forces and those
of Mahdi Army and other militias. It found that the Iranian press
(hint: it is not independent of the Iranian government) backed
al-Maliki! In other words, Bush and Iran are on the same side:

as always more from jc, echoing fox news so im not jsut looking for source that aggree with me http://www.juancole.com/2008/04/iran-supported-al-maliki-against.html


now those reports may seem contradictory that iran is support of al-maliki but also worried about fighting and helping to get a ceasefire but

Quote :

Tehran has publicly been supportive of Nuri al-Maliki and the ISF's
recent performance against militant groups in Basra, and is careful to
differentiate such groups from "legitimate" political parties like the
Sadr Trend.

map showing sadr city etc
and the ghettos, i mean gated communities
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Ffastblogit.com%2Fmedia%2FBaghdad%2520Gated%2520Communities.kmz&jsv=107&ie=UTF8&t=p&z=10
http://fastblogit.com/permalink/?item=6920

Hermes wrote:

Cactus Flower wrote:

Thanks Hermes will do that. I always think if you want to know what
people intend to do, listen to what they say, and not to what the press
says. There is plenty published by neocons to show that they intend to
change the "regime" of every state with resources they want to get
their hands on. China is on the list, but not so easy to swallow and
has been tooling up for some time. But how will this sit with a US
public who are being asked to pay for the war with benefit and services
cuts?

It might not be as difficult as it seems. The US still has plenty of surplus bombs already paid for (via credit from China ). And of course, Israel would happily nuke Iran out of existence, such noises are already being made to test national and international opinion. The key lies in portraying Iran in sufficient quantity as some genocidal and international bogey man.

Course the question that needs to be asked is: who has Iran invaded in the past?

We'll neither hear that question nor its answer, not when scaremongering and rhetoric provide a much more solid platform.

Notwithstanding use of uranium tipped missiles in the past, and may it never happen, in my view a nuclear strike on Iran would be result in destabilisation of the US position as a world power.

Cactus Flower wrote:

Notwithstanding use of uranium tipped missiles in the past, and may it
never happen, in my view a nuclear strike on Iran would be result in
destabilisation of the US position as a world power.

That's a possibility, that's for sure. The problem being that there are lots of possibilities. Maybe this loss of position could be viewed in another light. It might be an event of a transitory nature rather than an issue of shrinkage. The US as a nation is not a lot more than 200 years old and it's fought a war nearly every decade or so (and god only knows how many proxy wars). It would be my position to suggest that this is more akin to Toto pulling the blanket away from the little old man pulling the strings of the wizard than an actual loss of potency. Look at what the world has accepted thus far; preemptive wars. With DU, some of these wars can be described as 'low level nuclear wars.' And the world has accepted it and still sees the US as the world's primary example of democracy. Add to this that the US is close to being insolvent and you get powerful motivation to be in a position of power as Global warming and Peak Oil begin to assert themselves. I think we're at a very dangerous time, Bush is on the way out, we may get a sting from a dying wasp. It'll then be up to the next president to sort it out coupled with a powerful incentive to continue the 'War On Terror.' In other words: there was no decade of softening up Iran with genocidal sanctions. The consequences of 'pushing democracy' in Iran would be much more severe than those experienced in Iraq and a new president of the US would not have the luxury of ignoring them.

The days of the nuclear deterrent are over.

Cue the scary music