Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/07/06 3:54 pm:
ETW,

"But CIVIL WAR isn't one of them"

They had civil unrest in their country before our first soldier arrived. After we arrived it escalated. Now that we've attempted to install new government it continues. Liberals probably want the troops back home, I know I do, but I personally could careless about republican platform or the democratic platform for that matter. Nope it's you and Ralph that have missed the point. See Ralph "doubts it" and you enjoy Ralph's doubt. Well I doubt Ralph or one single Republican congressmen has a child or grandchild fighting in GW's Iraqi war campaign. The unrest and death will not stop and Iraq is not going to become the fifty-first state. I'm not going to banter back and forth with you and play good cop/ bad cop politics when our children are at risk of their lives day in and day out. That would be exactly what small minded politicians prefer. I'm not lowering myself to their level. The bottom line for me is that I want our troops back home where they belong, healthy, safe, and the loving arms of their family NOW. That loving family does not reside in Iraq or at 1600 Pennsylvania street.





I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/07/06 3:56 pm:
It's amazing how wrong your "facts" are, George.

The one thing that didn't exist was factional violence. The Sunnis were in charge, and any time the Shia tried to act up, they were completely massacred by Saddam and his goon squad. Factional violence just simply didn't exist --- Saddam didn't tolerate it.

After we arrived, factional violence did escalate, but not Sunni/Shia violence. In fact, Sunnis killed more Sunnis than Shia. The factional violence was POLITICAL factions, not religious ones. The violence was pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy/anti-US factionalism. The bombing of the Golden Mosque should have proven that... it wasn't done by Sunnis looking to regain their prior political power from the Saddam regime, it was done by al Sadr, a Shia who would benefit most from a democratic government. But he is anti-democracy and anti-USA, and therefore his blowing up of the mosque was POLITICAL violence, not religious.

>>>Now that we've attempted to install new government it continues.<<<

Ummm... actually, no it doesn't. And that's the point. Both Sunni and Shia leaders have called for a halt to any violence stemming from the mosque bombing, and by-and-large they have been heeded. Both sides are talking now, and the violence is being done by a very VERY small minority, with only minimal effect. It certainly doesn't constitute a civil war of any kind. Civil unrest, yes. Civil war, no.

Furthermore, the violence caused by the Mosque bombing is no different from the terrorist attacks that we have seen until now. It isn't an escalation of ANYTHING... its just more of the same that the MEDIA has given a new spin to.

But the bottom line is that efforts by the vast majority of the population, regardless of which faction they belong to, are trying to make their new government work. The Iraqi army is staffed by Shia, Sunni, Kurds and Christians all working side-by-side without any factional violence between them. People are talking, not shooting at each other, for the most part. So the talk of a "civil war" is pure defeatist baloney, without any reality to back it up.

>>>Well I doubt Ralph or one single Republican congressmen has a child or grandchild fighting in GW's Iraqi war campaign. <<<

And what if I told you that you were wrong about that? Aside from Peters' son being a military guy, there is Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) who's son was in Iraq in 2003/2004 and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) who's son was there at the same time. Additionally, Wilson has two other sons who are also active service and MIGHT be sent to Iraq at any time. Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minnesota) has a nephew serving in Afghanistan, and AG John Ashcrofts son served in the Navy in the Persian Gulf. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Missouri) had a son in the Marines in Iraq in 2005. There's Sen. Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota) who has a son, Brooks, who was in the Army's 101st Airborne Division. Rep. John Kline (R-Minnesota), a former Marine Colonel himself, has a son who was in Iraq. Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri), Rep. Marilyn Mussgrave (R-Colorado) and Rep. Ed Schrock (R-Virginia) all have sons that served or are serving in Iraq. Plus, there are other Congressmen who have kids in the military but who have not served in Iraq.

So I think you need to take that statement back, George. You are just plain wrong about that one.

>>>The unrest and death will not stop and Iraq is not going to become the fifty-first state. <<<

Of course not. The unrest and death haven't stopped HERE, much less over there. But that is not the measure of success. The measure of success is whether the Iraqis can take care of themselves or not. Given the formation of a new government and the intent of all parties involved to make it work, and given the increasing self-reliance of the Iraqi military, they are on their way to becoming self-reliant and independant. That is how you measure success.

>>>our children are at risk of their lives day in and day out.<<<

Our children? You have a son there? Or was that a generic "our"? Just wondering. Because I have noticed that those who actually have children or family in Iraq tend to have a very different attitude toward the war and the soldiers than the one you display. They tend to believe in the war their kids are fighting, and they tend to see their kids as grownups capable of making decisions for themselves rather than children who need to be protected. But you might be the exception to the rule. So... do you have any kids over there?

>>>The bottom line for me is that I want our troops back home where they belong, healthy, safe, and the loving arms of their family NOW.<<<

So do I. And they will be just as soon as their job is done. But leaving before it is done doesn't make either them or us safer. Doing so creates a power vacuum that WILL cause a civil war.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/07/06 7:58 pm:
Well ETW as a matter of fact I do have family that's been involved in the Iraqi war campaign on three separate occasions. In fact thanks for bringing that up. Apparently your callousness has surfaced. Just wondering since it is not physically your relatives does that not somehow get you off the hook? I not only see my relatives lives at risk, but my neighbor's as well. So you found a few congressmen that have blood relatives serving in Iraq as well. Whoop-tee-do! Now if they prefer them alive perhaps they will initiate efforts for removal.

Today headlines were fairly straight forward "Rumsfeld see's potential for Iraq civil war"

In fact one of the latest polls has eighty percent thinking the same. That includes many republicans.

The article concludes...

"Experts have said tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The United States has 132,000 troops in Iraq. There have been more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in the war, with about 17,000 troops wounded in action.

Shi'ite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, are ascending to political power after being oppressed under Saddam. Minority Sunni Muslims find themselves losing power after dominating the nation for decades, and Sunnis are driving the insurgency. Minority Kurds are also accruing power."




I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/07/06 8:34 pm:
>>>Apparently your callousness has surfaced.<<<

Not at all. It was you who first brought up the question of who's children have served in Iraq. I was simply seeing if you were applying the same standard to yourself.

>>>Now if they prefer them alive perhaps they will initiate efforts for removal.<<<

Actually, if they want to maintain the safety of their children and the rest of their families, they will support the Iraq war to their fullest. Anything less is an invitation to be attacked on our own soil again.

>>>Rumsfeld see's potential for Iraq civil war"<<<

Yeah, so? So does Peters. He wrote "The country may still see a civil war one day. But not just yet, thanks." Bush sees the potentiality of a civil war as well, and has said so. So do I for that matter. The potential is indeed there. But "potential" is not the same as "actual". But if we pull out, the "potential" civil war will become "actual". Headlines from the NY Times that scream about a civil war that they claim is occuring are simply untrue.

>>>Experts have said tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.<<<

Absolutely true. What does that have to do with whether there is a civil war taking place or not? And you said "American casualties" in your post.

>>>The United States has 132,000 troops in Iraq. There have been more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in the war, with about 17,000 troops wounded in action.<<<

Yep, that's how many US casualties have taken place. The number of deaths are still lower than 9-11. 3,030 dead and 2,337 REPORTED injuries. And that doesn't include the more minor stuff that civilians didn't report, but that in the military would have been reported. It also doesn't include the estimated 422,000 New Yorkers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (according to NY Magazine). So if you really want to compare numbers, I'll be happy to.

>>>Shi'ite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, are ascending to political power after being oppressed under Saddam. Minority Sunni Muslims find themselves losing power after dominating the nation for decades, and Sunnis are driving the insurgency. Minority Kurds are also accruing power." <<<

Absolutely true. Shiites, who were oppressed under Saddam now have political power. Kurds who were oppressed under Saddam now have political power. Sunni, who were the elite under Saddam, now see their unlimited political power diminished. Their political power is now limited to the number of votes they can get.

Again, how does this equate civil war in your mind? How does it even equate to factional violence? From where do you get the idea that there is an actual civil war taking place in Iraq?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/07/06 8:40 pm:
Yea tell Ralph everything looks just hunky-dorry:

"Talabani convenes parliament; bomb kills children
(Reuters)

6 March 2006



BAGHDAD - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Monday he would convene parliament in six days, but political wrangling means a government of national unity is unlikely to be formed any time soon.


As Talabani met a constitutional requirement to summon parliament after elections in December, a car bomb north of Baghdad killed six people, including two children. Five other car bombs exploded in the capital.

Nearly three months after the election, Iraq’s political leaders are still fighting over the post of prime minister. The row is unlikely to end soon, meaning parliament may only get as far as naming a speaker in its first session.

“I will call today for parliament to hold the first session on the 12th of the current month since it is the last day that the constitution allows,” Talabani said.

According to the Transitional Administrative Law, the US-sponsored interim constitution still in force, lawmakers must first elect a speaker of parliament and then a president and two deputies, who in turn will name a prime minister to form a new government within two weeks.

But there is no timeframe for these posts to be filled. The new constitution, approved in a referendum last October, does give a timetable, but it will take effect only after the country’s first four-year government is formed.

Sistani influence
Sunnis, Kurds and others are opposed to the nomination of Shi’ite Prime Minister Ibrahim Al Jaafari and are calling for the Shi’ite Alliance, the biggest bloc in parliament, to replace him.

Talabani sent a delegation on Sunday to meet influential Shi’ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani to help break the impasse over the premiership.

The dispute has delayed the formation of a grand coalition government that Washington has promoted in the hope of fostering stability and allowing US troops to begin withdrawing.

The reclusive Sistani, based in the city of Najaf, is not directly involved in politics but has huge influence over the bulk of the country’s 60 percent Shi’ite majority.

Talabani said on Monday the delegation to Sistani had returned to Baghdad satisfied.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shi’ite whose election list failed to win a single seat in parliament, said an ”urgent and radical solution” would be found to break the impasse.

But the sectarian violence that has claimed well over 500 lives since Samarra’s Golden Mosque was destroyed by a bomb on Feb. 22 continued.

Monday’s car bomb in Baquba killed six people, two of whom were girls aged three and four, and wounded 23, police said.

It exploded near a market, packed with women and children, after police arrived to check a separate incident in which one person had been killed. Five policemen were wounded in the bombing, police said.

Blood and foodstuffs littered the ground after the blast, which destroyed stalls and shops.

“What did these people do to be killed by this bomb,” said a distraught man at the scene. “They targeted innocent civilians.”

The religiously mixed city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, has been the scene of several sectarian attacks since the Samarra bombing.

Insurgency

Sunni insurgents battling the Shi’ite-led government frequently launch attacks against US-trained Iraqi security forces. Several people were wounded in the car bombings around Bagdad, police said, including at least four police officers.

Human rights in Iraq were also at the forefront on Monday when Amnesty International condemned the detention of 14,000 prisoners without charge or trial, saying the lessons of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal had not been learned.

“As long as US and UK forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished,” said Amnesty’s British director Kate Allen.

In a 48-page report, “Beyond Abu Ghraib”, the London-based human rights group called for an end to the internment, which it said contravened international law.

US officials were not immediately available for comment."




I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/07/06 9:32 pm:
I've read the article you posted above. I ask again, how does this equate to civil war?

"Sunnis, Kurds and others are opposed to the nomination of Shi’ite Prime Minister Ibrahim Al Jaafari and are calling for the Shi’ite Alliance, the biggest bloc in parliament, to replace him.

Talabani sent a delegation on Sunday to meet influential Shi’ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani to help break the impasse over the premiership."

"Talabani said on Monday the delegation to Sistani had returned to Baghdad satisfied.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shi’ite whose election list failed to win a single seat in parliament, said an ”urgent and radical solution” would be found to break the impasse."

Looks to me like the parties involved are TALKING to each other, not waging a civil war.


"But the sectarian violence that has claimed well over 500 lives since Samarra’s Golden Mosque was destroyed by a bomb on Feb. 22 continued.

Monday’s car bomb in Baquba killed six people, two of whom were girls aged three and four, and wounded 23, police said.

It exploded near a market, packed with women and children, after police arrived to check a separate incident in which one person had been killed. Five policemen were wounded in the bombing, police said.

Blood and foodstuffs littered the ground after the blast, which destroyed stalls and shops.

“What did these people do to be killed by this bomb,” said a distraught man at the scene. “They targeted innocent civilians.”

The religiously mixed city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, has been the scene of several sectarian attacks since the Samarra bombing."

Why is Reuters categorizing the bombing on Monday as "sectarian" violence? On what basis do they make that claim. Were the victims Shia or Sunni? Were the bombers Shia or Sunni? Neither the victims nor the perpetrators are identified as to religious affiliation. Even they call the city of Baquba a "religiously mixed city". So how do they justify calling it "sectarian" violence rather than terrorism (or as they prefer, "insurgency")?

Again, I don't see any proof here of a civil war based on religious factions. All I see is the same terrorism we have seen for the past 3 years, not a new civil war.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/07/06 10:04 pm:
"I ask again, how does this equate to civil war?"

The whole country has been at each others throats. Isn't there something fishy to you about that? Or is war by any term, whether it be civil or otherwise, not enough to satisfy that thirst?


"Not at all. It was you who first brought up the question of who's children have served in Iraq. I was simply seeing if you were applying the same standard to yourself."

Again I ask you...Since it is not physically your relatives does that somehow get you off the hook?



"Yep, that's how many US casualties have taken place. The number of deaths are still lower than 9-11. 3,030 dead and 2,337 REPORTED injuries. And that doesn't include the more minor stuff that civilians didn't report, but that in the military would have been reported. It also doesn't include the estimated 422,000 New Yorkers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (according to NY Magazine). So if you really want to compare numbers, I'll be happy to."


ETW you're not even on the subject of the correct country that harbored the one that admitted to being responsible for 9/11. That was Afghanistan, not Iraq.




I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/07/06 10:09 pm:
>>>The whole country has been at each others throats. Isn't there something fishy to you about that?<<<

What's fishy about it is that it isn't true. Where do you get the idea that the "entire country" has been involved in sectarian violence? There have been no reports that have said that, and no proof that it has occured. And there's lots of eye-witness proof to the exact opposite.

>>>Since it is not physically your relatives does that somehow get you off the hook?<<<

Off the hook from what? From supporting or not supporting the war? I don't understand your point. I have relatives and friends there as I have told you. I don't consider myself "off the hook" from anything. I support the war because I believe that it is right, that the goals of the war are just, and because I believe the reports of progress. And I have those beliefs regardless of whether I know or are related to those who are serving.

>>>ETW you're not even on the subject of the correct country that harbored the one that admitted to being responsible for 9/11. That was Afghanistan, not Iraq.<<<

I was responding to your citation from the article you posted: "Experts have said tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The United States has 132,000 troops in Iraq. There have been more than 2,300 U.S. military deaths in the war, with about 17,000 troops wounded in action." My response was that the casualties over there don't approach the casualties that took place over here on 9-11. And my point is that fighting the terrorists over there is keeping us from having to fight them here, and is better in terms of casualty count as well.

And you are completely ignoring the links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. These include:

- Messages passed between OBL and Saddam,
- Meetings between high level officials within Saddam's government (including his own sons) and high-ranking members of al Qaeda,
- Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq funded by Saddam
- Saddam's funding of Islamic Jihad, a member group of al Qaeda,

And there's losts more as well. Saddam supported al Qaeda. Now he doesn't. Goal accomplished. The Taliban supported al Qaeda. Now they don't. Again, goal accomplished. The countries may be different, but the military goals of the USA are the same in both: eliminate the government that supports the terrorists and give the people a chance to choose their own governments. So far, those goals have been reached.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by BeelzeBUSH on 03/07/06 10:58 pm:
"What's fishy about it is that it isn't true"

Yea uh-huh, they've been having peace conventions for the last decade. I'm not wasting my time c&p past articles regarding their country's violent history. From time to time I will note future activity, just as a reminder though.


"Off the hook from what? From supporting or not supporting the war? I don't understand your point. I have relatives and friends there as I have told you. I don't consider myself "off the hook" from anything. I support the war because I believe that it is right, that the goals of the war are just, and because I believe the reports of progress. And I have those beliefs regardless of whether I know or are related to those who are serving."

Good then you better think twice before questioning my concerns.



"And you are completely ignoring the links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

I've been addressing the fact that we are not in a position to scatter our children's blood around the globe every time somebody is linked to hating us. Personally I have no problem bombing the hillsides, or feeding and arming those who wish for changes themselves. But I will not stand by and cheer a government that puts our men and women at risk. Besides fears have not that much has changed the Iraqi war campaign, even with Homeland Security in tact. We are still vulnerable to any idiot desiring to do massive harm to our citizens.




I love myself,
George

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/07/06 11:29 pm:


The point is not that there IS civil war, but that the situation could develop into a civil war.

Whether it will or no depends on several factors, one of them being how long the Shiites are willing to let the Sunni slaughter them willy nilly.

Bush has egg all over his face on this one because he is like the mouse that put the bell on the cat, but didn't figure out how he could then get away without being eaten.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/08/06 2:25 pm:
Ron,

>>>The point is not that there IS civil war, but that the situation could develop into a civil war.<<<

Nobody is denying that. But the NY Times declared that there IS a civil war. That is what Peters' article was targeting. And rightly so.

Besides, do you believe that the US troops leaving now will increase the chances of a civil war, or decrease them? I think that we can all agree that if the US troops pull out right now as George suggests, there will be a power vacuum that will result in a civil war. Pulling out would only cause the civil war that so many claim to be afraid of.

>>>Whether it will or no depends on several factors, one of them being how long the Shiites are willing to let the Sunni slaughter them willy nilly.<<<

They're not. In fact, the Golden Mosque bombing was likely done by Mukhtada Al Sadr, a SHIITE cleric. The killing that we are seeing is hardly one-sided. But it is also quite limited and does not constitute a civil war.

>>>Bush has egg all over his face on this one because he is like the mouse that put the bell on the cat, but didn't figure out how he could then get away without being eaten.<<<

I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, but you sure confused me.

What I see is that Bush has kept there from being another terrorist attack on US soil for 1,639 days so far. What I see is that he has freed two countries from tyranical rule, resulting in the freedom of approximately 50 million people to choose their own governments. What I see is that both of those countries are trying as hard as possible to form democratic governments, and giving the people a say in their governments. What I see is two countries that are increasing --- slowly to be sure, but still increasing --- in military self-reliance and economic prosperity. What I see is terrorists who are becoming weaker as time goes by, and losing what little popular support they once had. What I see is terrorist leaders being captured or killed with astonishing regularity.

In other words, what I see is progress on all fronts. Not without missteps, and not without setbacks. But still progress.

If that is what you call Bush having egg on his face, remind me to never let you make me an omlette... you clearly don't know what egg looks like.

Might everything still fall apart? Of course. But does the US troops pulling out increase or decrease the chances of it all falling apart? And do the IRAQI PEOPLE want them to pull out or not? Those is the question that must be weighed. I think that the answer to the first one is obvious. The answer to the second one, if you listen to the troops is that the Iraqi people want them to remain, by-and-large. On the other hand, if you listen to the MSM reporters who never leave their cozy hotels, then you might get the impression that they do want us to leave. However, I choose to believe our troops and the few reporters, like Peters, who actually do go out to see the REAL face of Iraq, all of whom consistantly report that Iraqis are very welcoming of the troops and want them to stay.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/08/06 4:15 pm:

I suppose that when one part of the civilian population is fighting another part of the civilian population that could fairly be described as civil war.

It is a semantic nicety.

Either way, people are getting killed by their fellow nationals, and the situation could become a lot worse. I pray that it does not, but for the warring parties there is a lot at stake.

Time and time again, when a cohesive government led by a strong leader has been either thrown down or removed by other means, including their natural demise, the result has been factional armed disputes.

That this will follow when more than one ethnic or political group occupy the same land is predictable.

This is what happened after the death of Alexander the Great, in the former Jugoslavia, and in Kosova (I know!), Chechnya, Azerbaijan, several African republics, and so forth.

As has been said, "Those who will not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." That this is so is self-evident.

If the US pulls its troops, it will get worse, and even worse if the rest of the Coalition Forces (remember them?) pull out too.

What the Iraqi people - by which I presume you nmean the ones that are not marshalled in serried ranks with their guns and bombs - want, is not clear. They have voted for their own government, but that is having more than a little difficulty getting itself started and into the good books of the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi population of Iraq is no more monoliothic in its aspirations and tolerances than the American people is. It is, like the USA, a mish mash of people enjoying, Allah be praised!, the portential for freedom denied them for decades.

If someone could convince the Sunni Muslims that the majority Shiite will serve them well, then perhaps the country could settle down and enjoy the peace it so badly needs.

Of course you will acknowledge that stories coming out of Iraq are just that: stories. Anecdotal evidence, while it might be all we have to inform us, is never a satisfactory way of discovering the truth.

When I was a scholar I was told that if I made a statement that represented itself as fact, then I should be prepared to back it up.

Opinions, however, inhabit a different relity than do facts, but sometimes it is the best that we can manage. In such cases it is not to be wondered at that men do not always agree, because their internal agendas and filters supply and sift what they choose to discard and retain.

I wish I were as sanguine as you about the 'progress,' but when the power supply is much worse now than it was before the statues came tumbling down, then I have some difficulty keeping the smile on my face.

GWB, of whom for domestic and foreign political reasons I am not a fan, spoke with a directness more nearly approaching honesty than I have heard him speak at any other time on Jan 6 ག, the text of his address is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/

His subtext reveals problems - naturally - and he sets a diffent tone than his normal sabre rattling attempts to talk up reconstruction efforts in Iraq - sonmething he was prone to do as if his were the only pair of eyes that saw what was happening 'on the ground.'

One thing that he and his administration have failed to recognise is that establishing a perfect peace in Iraq is as likely as establishing a permanent peace on the streets of New Yor, Los Angeles, or Phoenix, etc., because regardless of the will of the people, criminal elements will always be present to deal death on a daily basis.

For an example of this you can visit the difficulties in Norther Ireland (Ulster), and the reluctance of the Provisional IRA (Irish Republican Army), a terrorist organisation, first to agree to rid itself or arms and explosives, and second, when it agreed to do this through pressure from its political wing, Sinn Feann, its intransigence was further demonstrated by its unwillingness to let neutral weapons inspectiors witness the destruction of its armament and ordnance materials.

The question you have to answer is whether the American People are willing to commit themselves to funding their continuing presense in Iraq with their dollars and their sons and daughters' blood for an interminable length of time if need be.

That will has been sapped before, and what seemed at first like a good idea can change from a good idea (at the time) to the question of why are we doing this?

For no other reason than your enjoyment, I c/p a piece from the Korean news Agency on our subject.

Bush's Rhetoric under Fire

Pyongyang, January 4 (KCNA) -- U.S. President Bush in a recent TV appearance admitted his Iraqi policy was wrong. But at a press conference held next day, he again justified the Iraqi war, asserting the ouster of Hussein was a just decision. In this regard Minju Joson today says in a signed commentary:

Bush tried hard to justify the Iraqi war though he admitted it was totally wrong. It is extremely preposterous for him to make such outcries which admit of no argument.

What Bush uttered is nothing but brazen-faced sheer sophism because it is based on the brigandish logic that everything sought by the U.S. is "just." Bush's assertion about the Iraqi war reflects the invariable nature of the U.S. as a robber.

The sovereignty of every country can be guaranteed and defended only by dint of indigenous powerful physical deterrent capable of resolutely smashing any act of aggression. This is a serious lesson drawn by many countries of the world from the developments of the Iraqi war. The reality eloquently proves how just is the great Songun policy of the Workers' Party of Korea which has built the powerful self-reliant defence power capable of reliably defending the sovereignty of the country without the slightest hesitation despite the persistent moves of the U.S.-led imperialist allied forces to isolate, blockade and stifle the DPRK.

The army and people of the DPRK will surely build a great prosperous powerful socialist nation and achieve the cause of national reunification under the banner of great Songun in any storm and stress and no matter how the earth may change.

Please note, I post it only to show how a hostile nation views Bush and the US foreign policies. We would expect no other from them, but is it true, do they stretch the truth, or is none of it true?

Last Saturday on PBS radio it was revealed that friendly foreign nations viewed the US as a 'friendly bully.' Interesting, huh?

Well, Elliott, I have rambled on too long already, so will bid you good day.

Ronnie

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/08/06 8:09 pm:
>>>I suppose that when one part of the civilian population is fighting another part of the civilian population that could fairly be described as civil war.

It is a semantic nicety.<<<

By that definition, Ron, if two gangs are in a gangwar against each other, that would be defined as a civil war. Do you agree with that definition? Because that is what is essentially going on in Iraq... small groups are fighting each other, rather than a civil war. In my book that's more than a semantic nicety.

>>>and the situation could become a lot worse.<<<

Not from the accounts that I have heard. The number of attacks has gone down in recent months. The number of captured or killed insurgents has gone up. The number of remaining insurgents is dwindling. That looks to me like a situation that is becoming better. Could it get worse? Sure. Nobody that I know of denies the possibility that it COULD get worse. But so far its NOT. The USA pulling out would make it more likely to get worse, though.

>>>Time and time again, when a cohesive government led by a strong leader has been either thrown down or removed by other means, including their natural demise, the result has been factional armed disputes.<<<

And you define Saddam's regime as a "cohesive government"? I'll admitt that he was a strong leader... he pretty much killed anyone who disagreed with him and gassed his enemies to death. He was also strong enough to invade his neighboring nations. But I don't think that that constitutes a "cohesive government".

But you are right, in the absence of a clear controling government, factional violence occurs. And Iraq is no exception to the rule. That's why the USA needs to remain where it is... to be that controling force until such time as the new Iraqi government has the ability to take control for itself. If the USA leaves, the factional violence that is currently limited will indeed break out into civil war. History has shown that to be the case over and over again as well. We seem to be in agreement on that point.

>>>What the Iraqi people - by which I presume you nmean the ones that are not marshalled in serried ranks with their guns and bombs<<<

Correct presumption.

>>> - want, is not clear. They have voted for their own government, but that is having more than a little difficulty getting itself started and into the good books of the Iraqi people.<<<

One thing is for sure. 80% or more of them want the US troops to stay put until the job is done.

Yes, the new government is having its troubles getting started. But I find it interesting that none of the people involved in the formation of that government are calling for violence, despite the strong and vast disagreements among them. They are trying to talk things out rather than fight them out. The factional violence has not been over the direction of the new government. To me, that is the greatest proof that the government will succeed... the people want to make it work despite their differences.

>>>The Iraqi population of Iraq is no more monoliothic in its aspirations and tolerances than the American people is. It is, like the USA, a mish mash of people enjoying, Allah be praised!, the portential for freedom denied them for decades.<<<

True, but most of them aren't killing each other over those differences.

>>>If someone could convince the Sunni Muslims that the majority Shiite will serve them well, then perhaps the country could settle down and enjoy the peace it so badly needs.<<<

The vast majority of Sunnis already know that. They may want more representation than they are getting, but most of them know that even a Shia-led government will give them a voice. That's why over 70% of them voted in the parlimentary election a few months back.

>>>I wish I were as sanguine as you about the 'progress,' but when the power supply is much worse now than it was before the statues came tumbling down, then I have some difficulty keeping the smile on my face.<<<

I understand that. Keeping power running has been a huge problem, because the elecricity infrastructure is both ancient and hard to guard against attack. The majority of attacks by the insurgents are not against military convoys or even civillians. The vast majority are against the energy infrastructure, both electrical and oil. It's hard to protec all those miles of pipes and power lines. The best way to eliminate the energy problems in Iraq is to take out the terrorists. in the meanwhile, I'd like to see the USA give more backup power generators to the civillian population in Iraq to supplement the power they currently get from their infrastructure.

But the power issues are only one small part of a big picture. Incomes are up. Education is taking place. Insurgency activity is down. A democratic government is forming. The local military is becoming self sufficient. And there is no civil war. THAT is progress.

>>>One thing that he and his administration have failed to recognise is that establishing a perfect peace in Iraq is as likely as establishing a permanent peace on the streets of New Yor, Los Angeles, or Phoenix, etc., because regardless of the will of the people, criminal elements will always be present to deal death on a daily basis.<<<

I think we can all agree on that. That is why I don't measure success by the yardstick of whether there is crime or violence taking place in Iraq, but rather by how well the government is situated to deal with those problems on their own. And that aspect is coming along just fine.

>>>That will has been sapped before, and what seemed at first like a good idea can change from a good idea (at the time) to the question of why are we doing this?<<<

Absolutely. And it is the job of the President and his Administration to communicate the answer to that question as clearly as possible. I freely admitt that that has been Bush's greatest weakness... not his policies, but his ability to communicate with the people. He lacks what made Ronald Reagan the great communicator. His policies are sound, its his communication skills that are lacking.

>>>Last Saturday on PBS radio it was revealed that friendly foreign nations viewed the US as a 'friendly bully.' Interesting, huh?<<<

Yes it is interesting, but I understand the classification. And in truth I have no problem with that. From a strategic perspective, I believe that it is better for us to be seen as a friendly bully than a pushover wimp. Pushover wimps get attacked, especially by Arabs. Bullies (at least the ones who can back it up with real military force as we can) are not.

And in my opnion, PBS (Politbureau Broadcasting Station) is another example of a hostile news agency. Bt that's a discussion for another time.

We seem to be in general agreement on this subject. Our difference seems to be one of pessimist vs. optimist regarding expectations in Iraq. Which is strange for me, because I'm usually a pessimist, both by nature and by training. Credit analysts are usually pessimists, because it is our job to assume worst case scenarios and plan for them. So for me to be an optimist is an unusual state of being. But my analysis shows that our military has even the worst-case possibilities under control. The only scenario in which they would not be able to handle the situation in Iraq is if they are forced to pull out early. Which is why I am so forceful in arguing against such a pullout.

Have a great day, Ronnie.

Elliot