Who cares? It was written my Andrew Sullivan.

"Does anyone really doubt this?"

Yes.

.

Leave? But what about Teh Oil?

Ah, Jeff II

They're sick of me over here. How 'bout you take over for me and I'll head on over to Yglesias.

Al

Say, Kevin, you'd better update your "Worst of the Worst" post from last week. Mitt Romney is quoted on The Politico:
"Why is it that the Democrats wouldn't even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O'Neill? We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won't even go on Fox."

Why indeed?

Satisfactory if it doesn't bring in Sunni-dominated countries (followed by Iran). A nightmare (with the US right back in it) if it does. Anyone want to bet their house on it?

Why not let the Iraqis vote on whether we stay in Iraq? It seems as it if should be their decision anyway.

Putting aside questions about whether al-Qaeda in Iraq is really al-Qaeda — or merely a new name for the most extreme fringe of a nationalist insurgency — surely the best way to crush them is to leave.

As I understand it, the group that became "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" was a internationalist Islamist insurgency, ideologically similar to al-Qaeda but not associated with it, prior to the Iraq war, and whatever association it has with Iraqi nationalism is a product of the US invasion as much as the name change is.

Generally, though, yeah, al-Qaeda in Iraq (and, for that matter, radical Islamist terrorism more generally) will only be defeated when it is defeated by the populations among which it exists. That's not to say outside nations might not play a constructive role at times, even with military force. But that is extremely delicate and risks becoming, as the US presence in Iraq has become, counterproductive if it is seen as an occupation oriented around imposing the outsider's will, rather than genuine, respectful support of local popular governments (or popular movements against tyrannical governments).

"..Let the Shia and tribal leaders and the Kurds confront al Qaeda. It's about time they did..."

I think you're being naive in believing the Iranian allied Shiites and Al-Qaeda wouldn't work together Kevin. In fact, recent intelligence reports say Iran and Al-Qaeda are planning a Hiroshima level attack on the West.

Links

"Al-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first "large-scale" terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report."
"The report... provide[s] evidence that al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq......."
Posted by .Al.

Sullivan and Drum make mistake of assuming a post withdrawal war between factions can be contained. Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will all have vulnerable proxies and significant interests in the war Sullivan and Drum seem anxious to bring on - seems a bit naive, and in an ass backwards sort of way not far removed from the wishful thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.

our choices are (and have always been):
Kill them ALL.
Or learn to live with them.

Anything in-between defers the problem.
It's clear that we don't have the means, or the stomach (at least most of us), for the "kill them all" choice. I'm sure there are a few hardcore Bushies who are thinking "all we gotta do is use our huge nuclear arsenal". That's been the case since the 1960's. Folks like Bush/Cheney/Rove will try to appeal to this bloc by making noises and rattling sabers - but this is only to get votes. It must be obvious by now, to even the most dim-witted, that Bush went into this war with absolutely zero intention of winning.

Because he just wanted to jack-up oil prices. And his buddies at Exxon sure appreciate that.

So, if we're not going to "kill them all" - when are we going to start learning to live with them?

What cannot be repeated enough (and Pelosi & Co don't) is that Iraq is a hideous mistake; an enourmous bungle that is wasting our military and our treasure. The term "War in Iraq" should always be accompanied by adjectives pointing this out.

Excuse my ignorance on the point, but do we really know that there are not elements in Iraq sympathetic to the original al Qaeda?

Obviously, in Afghanistan, the Taliban were, and presumably are, pretty loyal supporters of al Qaeda. Why wouldn't there be similar factions and sympathies in Iraq?

Considering that the US and Britain are supporting al Qaeda in Afganistan's terrorism against Iran, it only makes sense that Iran would work with AQ in Iraq for some payback....

We are in Iraq at the request of its democratically elected government.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily buy the contention that a majority of Iraqis want the US to withdraw immediately. The polls I've seen show a majority for eventual US withdrawal. I've not seen majorities calling for withdrawal now.

Now that you mention it: Newsweek has something that's, well, way beyond interesting:

"One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn’t want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said: “Possibly, not probably. It’s more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they’re doing already.�

"The senior official said the genocidal bloodbath that Sen. John McCain outlined recently was also unlikely, pointing to the militias’ ability to secure their own neighborhoods after the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in early 2006. (The official’s main concern: the Iraqi government’s failure to unify the nation and address the root cause of sectarian conflict. “Both the Sunni and Shia are too afraid of each other,� the official said.)

"Bush’s argument that Al Qaeda will use Iraq as a safe haven to plot new 9/11-style attacks if the United States pulls out is problematic, too. Osama bin Laden already has a safe haven to plot new attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Gen. Michael Hayden, the CIA director, told senators last year that the border area of Pakistan was a “physical safe haven� that Al Qaeda used as a base to attack Afghanistan. That area is also the likely home of bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, General Hayden added."

"ex-liberal" wrote: We are in Iraq at the request of its democratically elected government.

Just like Vietnam... [eyeroll]

Let the Shia and tribal leaders and the Kurds confront al Qaeda.

But then they'd be killing each other and we'd have to admit we made a mistake.

The reason is obvious - either Al-Quiada wins or Iran wins. Either way we lose. Of course we lost on the day we invaded as Saddam was the only barrier to those two forces. So the real question is do we leave now with "only" 3000-some dead or do we wait a few more years and try to top Vietnam for stupid reasons to die? Either way millions of Iraqis are going to die because the nation was going to be in bloody upheaval with or without us. We can not stop that without a million more troops and the sort of brutal mentality that allowed Saddam to kill a few thousand for an example.

Does anyone really doubt this? yes.

"They are unloved by practically everybody," - OK
"they draw their strength mainly from our continuing presence," - Sure, Whatever
"and Iraqi security forces would likely decimate them if they were left to their own devices." HUH?????

Does anyone really believe THAT? With no real central government to speak of? Who gives orders? Who keeps different units of the Iraqi forces from fighting against each other?

This is just a rationalization for withdrawal, to save our own asses, come what may for the Iraqis, let them fend for themselves...

. . . who didn’t want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, . . .

First of all, and I don't have time to waste on the Newsweek web site (I save that for my first love, PA), what's he talking about, regional war (as in Greater Gulf region) or regional war within Iraq? As the country hasn't been divided into and doesn't exist in distinct regions, save for the de facto Kurdish north, a regional war, by definition, would be Kurdistan vs. the rest of Iraq. Otherwise, though the Shia are in the minority throughout the country, there are no such things as distinctly Shia and Sunni regions. Then there is the hodge-podge that is Baghdad.

"The senior official said the genocidal bloodbath that Sen. John McCain outlined recently was also unlikely, pointing to the militias’ ability to secure their own neighborhoods after the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in early 2006. Posted by: penalcolony

No. The reason there hasn't been this kind of a "bloodbath" is the presence of the American military. While it really doesn't control any place, apparently including the Green Zone, it possesses a lot more fire power and logistics. These don't provide that much of an advantage against guerrilla activity, but it still means that our mere prickly presence keeps things from boiling over.

The comic thing (and by comic I mean "despairing") is that nobody knows what the war is being fought about. At first, I truly believe it was entirely for Republican domestic advantage. That turned out well. Once that rationale went sour, the only thing that makes sense is that George Bush has started to believe his own PR and that the war is being continued simply to fan his vanity. Winston Churchill in cowboy boots! The rationale for the war gone from obscenely cynical to lunatic.

If this were truly Ancient Rome, as the Federalist Society wishes, a cohort of men in tunics would have long since visited the crazed and impotent emperor and set that goonybird's clock back a couple or three hours.

If this were movie-land Transylvania -- as it appears from the outside -- a ragtag batch of peasants with braids of garlics, flaming torches, and upraised pitchforks would have surrounded the White House where a comet-bearded priest would perform an exoricism.

Do we get any of the interesting scenarios? No, damn it. (Although O'Reilly going starkers is grim fun once in awhile.)

As I understand it, the group that became "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" was a internationalist Islamist insurgency, ideologically similar to al-Qaeda but not associated with it, prior to the Iraq war, and whatever association it has with Iraqi nationalism is a product of the US invasion as much as the name change is.

Essentially. AQiI is Salafist, much like AQ proper, and it existed--under different names--prior to the U.S. invasion. Its operational and financial associations with AQ proper are tenuous at best, however, as it is jihadist propaganda websites that have alleged such links. But AQiI is definately *not* an Arab nationalism group, as Salifism proffers itself specifically as an alternative to Arab nationalism.

AQiI is now a major component of the insurgency, but it is no more a creature of AQ proper than a skinhead group in Skokie, Illinois is a creature of an ultra-right political party in Germany. Corellation of beliefs across national borders does not an international phenomenon make.

occupying a sovereign Muslim country indefinitely, against the wishes of a clear majority of Iraqis,

and that this facilitates and plays into the hands of Al Qaeda and their growth.

This simple fact, that is virtually ignored by the right, simply amazes me. I do think that there is a segment of the hawks that know this but condone it as it makes it possible for endless war...gotta love that flow of American Taxpayer money.

Gregory, you bring up the example of Vietnam. Of course no parallel is perfect, but I will remind you that after we withdrew from Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were killed and millions of Cambodians were killed. Aren't you worried about a similar bloodbath in Iraq?

First of all, the Iraqis aren't able to defeat al Qaeda without some help. That's exactly what the Anbar Salvation Council is trying to do - defeat al Qaeda - and they repeatedly insist that they need more support in order to do so. Probably partly becuase al Qaeda gets all that foreign funding, so without comparable support the ones fighting al Qaeda will eventually be worn down and destroyed.

Secondly, the report claming that there wouldn't be serious fighting between the sects seems to have conveniently overlooked the fact that we were finding something like fifty bodes A Day from Shiite death squads. Which the Sunni retaliated for by conducting large scale bombings. That's what caused Iraq to degenerate so badly the past year...so what the hell was this guy talking about, by claiming that the militias weren't going to slaughter each other?

No wonder the soldiers I work with stopped paying attention to the news - they keep putting out such utter crap.

The Shia miltias would make short work of AQ in Iraq, along with the Sunni insurgency. These aren't your father's Shia militias.

For a somewhat contrary argument, see yesterday's LA Times. The article discusses divides within the Baathist element of the insurgency.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-baath25apr25,0,7078197.story

Aren't you worried about a similar bloodbath in Iraq?

"ex-liberal," you keep harping on this talking point. But aside from the fact that no one is impressed with your crocodile tears about the Iraqi people, and aside from that fact that this bloodshed will be squarely the fault of Bush and you neocon jackasses who demanded this war, the fact remains that thousands of Iraqis are already being killed in this civil war, Bush's incompetent occupation has shown over four years of bloodshed that it's powerless to stop it, and moreover, American lives are bing lost in this futile effort.

Yes, there will be Iraqi deaths if the US withdraws, just as there are now. The difference is there won't be American soldier losing their lives. Why are you so eager to see Americans shed their blood in Iraq as well?

Oh, wait, I know -- it isn't the blood of you or yours being shed.

Tool.

Furthermore, your point about "millions of Cambodians" being killed is disingenuous -- surprise, surprise! -- since the Cambodian regime was destabilized due to Nixon's illegal war there. It's a transparent attempt to bolster your potential body count to make the consequences of withdrawal seem worse than staying, and it stinks on ice. But surely you aren't agreeing that Bush's war on Iraq was illegal?

You're right that no parallel is perfect, ex-liberal," but I'll tell you this -- Iraq is going to be an albatross around the necks of Bush and you bloodthirsty neocons for a generation.

The American people have decided that they have no interest in continuing to waste American lives and treasure in a futile effort to moderate an ongoing civil war. Your talking point about Iraqi casualties is bogus and utterly without merit. But then, you know that. You don't comment here in good faith. One wonders why you do comment here?

We need to leave. All we have the power to do is to reshuffle the deck for another 20 months. However, events on the ground may get out of control no matter what we do before those 20 months are up.

The whole piece is the best analysis of the political situation concerning Iraq and Al Qaeda that I've seen in a long time!

Does anyone really doubt this? Putting aside questions about whether al-Qaeda in Iraq is really al-Qaeda — or merely a new name for the most extreme fringe of a nationalist insurgency — surely the best way to crush them is to leave. They are unloved by practically everybody, they draw their strength mainly from our continuing presence, and Iraqi security forces would likely decimate them if they were left to their own devices.

I wish I considered this as obvious as you. It would make the hard decisions about what is the best for Iraq and the US so simple. The fact that you think this is obvious makes me lose respect for you and your opinions. The idea that any American, espeically one who lives in the surreal world of Newport Beach CA, can come to such easy conclusions about the difficult situations in the Middle East is the outcome of a juvenile view of the real world, religious extremism and the reality of third world living.

The whole piece is the best analysis of the political situation concerning Iraq and Al Qaeda that I've seen in a long time! Posted by: Jörgen in Germany

I guess none of us had any idea that the press was that bad in Germany. I'm sure lots of us would gladly help pay for Andy's plane ticket, one-way, if you think he'd find a gullible, er, I mean willing audience there.

Of course no parallel is perfect, but I will remind you that after we withdrew from Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were killed and millions of Cambodians were killed. Aren't you worried about a similar bloodbath in Iraq?

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since and because of our invasion.

People worried about that kind of bloodbath wouldn't have started the war. We're going to leave Iraq eventually, and since, administration propaganda aside, our presence is making conditions worse, not better, even if there is likely to be a spike in violence when we leave (which may be a reasonable belief), all we're doing by delaying our departure is making that eventual spike worse.

The bad consequences are all the inevitable results of the wrong that has been done thus far in Iraq.

cmdicely: People worried about that kind of bloodbath wouldn't have started the war.

First of all conditions in Iraq under Saddam were atrocious. Saddam's misrule and the wars he started killed millions. Who knows how many more would have died had he remained in power?

Secondly, the people who started this war probably didn't anticipate the level of bloodshed. Perhaps they should have done.

Third, the argument that we're going to have to leave Iraq some day doesn't address how long we'll be there. WW2 ended 60 years ago, but we still have troops in Europe.

Fourth - if our presence is making conditions worse, then I agree that we should leave. But, I see us making conditons better:

-- our troops are caturing and killing terrorists,

-- our troops are discovering terrorist plots before they can be hatched,

-- our trooops are helping to prevent a civil war between Sunnis and Shias.

-- we are training Iraqi military and police to better fight agaisnt terrorists

-- rebuilding projects, such as schools, hospitals, oil facilities, power facilities, etc. make Iraqis more self-sustaining.

-- our government is encouraging the government of Iraq to be more active in support of the entire populace (e.g., sharing the oil revenue with all).

These seem to me to be helpful steps that are making conditions better.

JeffII and John Hansen, how do you like pie?

cmdicely: Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed...because of our invasion.

Let's be clear on why these people were killed. Iraq had been ruled by a merciless dictator who killed and tortured hundreds of thousands in order to maintain his misrule. Now that he's been overthrown, other groups are seeking to gain power by emulating Saddam's carnage.

Do we want a world where the most barbaric groups rule, simply because they're willing to commit the most mayhem and kill the most people? I don't. If that's to be avoided, then we must fight against these killers, even though the costs are high.

In the days when I was a liberal, it bothered us liberals when the State Department favored continuing a facistic dictatorship for the sake of stability or because he was "our" dictator. Liberals today ought to be on the side of getting a successful democratic government into Iraq. JFK and Woodrow Wilson would have been on that side. Bush-hatred has blinded liberals to their proper role.

First of all conditions in Iraq under Saddam were atrocious.

Yeah, so? Our invasion has not worked a net improvement in conditions, so clearly cannot be justified on humanitarian grounds, further, it was not in response to an actual or imminent attack, so it cannot be justified on defensive grounds.

Secondly, the people who started this war probably didn't anticipate the level of bloodshed.

Incompetence is not a defense.

Third, the argument that we're going to have to leave Iraq some day doesn't address how long we'll be there.

Yes, actually, the argument I made did address how long we should be there.

WW2 ended 60 years ago, but we still have troops in Europe.

True, but irrelevant. We had troops in Europe first for combat against the Axis Powers, and secondly for post-war stabilization and finally defense of the nations our troops were in against other powers. During the post-war stabilization those troops were contributing positively to conditions, so keeping them there made sense.

In Iraq, after the war against Iraq, our troops are there nominally for stablization and defense of Iraq against outside forces. However, our troops are manifestly not contributing to improving overall conditions or political stability, and therefore are not serving the purposes that they are present for.

The situations are not parallel.

Fourth - if our presence is making conditions worse, then I agree that we should leave. But, I see us making conditons better:

-- our troops are caturing and killing terrorists,

Our troops are motivating and creating terrorists. That they are capturing and killing a few of them isn't causing a decrease in the number, success, or cost of the terrorist attacks, and therefore is not improving conditions.

-- our troops are discovering terrorist plots before they can be hatched,

And motivating others which they do not catch before they are hatched with deadly results. Again, our troops are not contributing to a net decrease in such attacks or the harms inflicted by them.

-- our trooops are helping to prevent a civil war between Sunnis and Shias.

A credible contention only if one ignores the civil war taking place.

-- we are training Iraqi military and police to better fight agaisnt terrorists

Without actually producing better results, again, not a contribution to better conditions. Of course, given that a number of the terrorists have been US-trained members of the Iraqi military, police, and security services, perhaps that shouldn't be too surprising.

-- rebuilding projects, such as schools, hospitals, oil facilities, power facilities, etc. make Iraqis more self-sustaining.

That's a nice fuzzy hope, but doesn't seem to actually be working.

-- our government is encouraging the government of Iraq to be more active in support of the entire populace (e.g., sharing the oil revenue with all).

Again, a nice fuzzy hope, not actual improvements on the ground.

These seem to me to be helpful steps that are making conditions better.

They seem to me to be fantasies that ignore what is actually happening in Iraq.

Al Qaeda cannot win in Iraq, would be crushed, and wouldn't even bother. Why would they waste so many suicide attacks when the US and the Western media are gone? They wouldn't. Iraqis have more than enough men and arms to put a big hurt on Al Qaeda, who wouldn't be winning any more points by blowing up innocents in Iraq anymore if we weren't there.

The only real question would be whether they could retain a presence there, for training camps and what not, and with the Shiites leading Iraq and the Kurds not wanting any part of that I don't see Al Qaeda operating in Iraq at all except very underground and with limited activity.

That said, we need to leave on our own terms, and frame our own exit strategy, in concert with the leadership of Iraq with clearly public protocols and deadlines. We should have done this a long time ago but it's not too late to do it now. Al Qaeda cannot realistically declare victory if Iraq's legislature beasically just tells us to leave, and then we abide by their requests. Then the government of Iraq is the hero amongst its people for removing our unpopular presence. That is what needs to happen.

Oh, and Iraq doesn't have to tell us belligerently or confrontationally to leave, per se, just do so in a firm way in light of the domestic US developments and popular opinion at home in Iraq. Pass some legislation ASAP saying Iraq is taking over the struggle against criminals and internal resistance, and is doing it in these timeframes and guidelines, and ask the US to be ready to leave when that comes to be.

Basically, we need a combined strategic approach on our exit from Iraq between us and the Iraqis, in light of the larger struggle against Al Qaeda, and the fall guys are going to be Bush and Cheney. For the good of the country and world, they should go along.

If they don't, then we'll have to apply even more political pressure than we'd like to here at home in the US to make it happen. even though strategically the best approach at this point is to work together with the Iraqis on an immediate exit plan that they firmly impose on us. If Bush and Cheney can pull that off without having to be defamed even further than more power to them, but if it was my choice I would start renewing our image internationally be making those two fall guys (and truly deserving scapegoats).

Finally, when I say "fall guys" I'm not talking about being put on trial or anything, just taking the blame globally in terms of PR for the chaos and clusterfuck in Iraq and our foreign policy so that the US can begin to repair our image around the world, put this behind us, and Iraq and other Muslim countries will have an easier time appealing to their publics to accept us as benevolent as well.

This really being the last point, here at home in the US it will and should look like wiser minds and legislators listened to the American people and changed our course, not that the Iraqis firmly asked us to leave, while in Iraq the public will see that their government firmly stood up to the Americans, and we respectfully abided by their wishes in their domestic affairs, even while continuing to help them in whatever way possible.

Delicious bit of fisking, cmdicely.

"ex-liberal" wrote: If that's to be avoided, then we must fight against these killers, even though the costs are high.

But you already admitted you aren't paying these costs, so your highfalutin' rhetoric isn't worth a bucket of piss.

No one is impressed with the eagerness you have to sacrifice American lives to further the neocon agenda, no matter how much phony bullshit you use to justify it.

it bothered us liberals when the State Department favored continuing a facistic dictatorship for the sake of stability or because he was "our" dictator

Oh, it still does -- in fact, that the Bush Administration you carry water for contuinues to do so renders all your hughfalutin' high-horse yap rather hypocritical.

But there's a difference between, say, actively supporting juntas in Central American and tolerating the existence of a dictator, despitue your typically dishonest attempts to conflate the two.

Liberals today ought to be on the side of getting a successful democratic government into Iraq.

You've made arguments of this stripe before too, "ex-liberal," and they're still bullshit. It doesn't matter if we want freedom, democracy, and a pony. It isn't happening, and the American people -- not just the commentors here, as you seem to imply, but a clear majority of Americans -- aren't willing to expend American lives in a futile effort to quell an ongoing civil war.

And you know what? Neocons and warfloggers like you agree with us. You agree with us. You aren't going or sending your children to be sacrificed to save the Republican Party's branding effort as strong on defense, and you support a President who to this very day insists on paying for the war with a tax cut ofr the rich. So, again, your crocodile tears are composed of nothing but 100% bullshit.

One other thing -- The US has declared that the government of Sudan is engaging in genocide. Do you support a military intervention to overthrow the government there? Or is Sudan not enough of a rival to the State of Israel's regional hegemony to stir you?

As usual, "ex-liberal," your dishonesty in support of the neocon / Republican agenda belies your claims, and renders your feeble prentense at one-time liberalism as phony as eveyrthing else you post here.

Of course, you're well aware of the facts cmdicely cited. You're well aware how little credibility your claims of "progress" have. You're well aware that no matter how many times you repeat lies, they don't become the truth. And your increasingly desperately shrill tone reveals that you realize that Bush's Iraqi adventure, and the neocon / Republican political fortunes they gambled on it, are doomed -- hence your sneering at some straw man about what you imagine we do or don't want.

You're well aware how unpersuasive you are. One wonders, therefore, just what, ah, motivates you to post here.

Tool.

Yes, AQI's demise would come only at the end of a lengthy and brutal war, but how much worse is that than coming at the end of an even lengthier war run by the United States? Or perhaps not coming at all because this isn't the kind of war the United States military can fight effectively?

The first question is worth some discussion. How about 200,000 additional Iraqi lives lost?

Your second question presumes that the U.S. military is fighting alone, and will continue to fight alone. The Senate war-funding bill provides for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq indefinitely, some fighting al Qaeda, some training the Iraqi army, and some protecting the infrastructure. This envisions a continuing partnership between the Iraqi army and the U.S. forces.

Another possibility is that the Iraqis are more likely to fight al Qaeda effectively if they know that the American forces are staying to help them; and are more likely to wilt into passivity if the American forces leave.

Oh, one other thing, "ex-liberal" -- you must not have gotten your RNC blast-fax today, because your talking points about "democracy" -- phony as they were -- are no longer operative.

Jackass.

The first question is worth some discussion.

Maybe, but you've long since shown you aren't worth discussing with.

I apologize for calling Kevin's viewpoint juvenile. It does not serve any purpose to name call.

So here is something that might do more than name call. Read these words with an open mind and some of you may learn something.

The first question is worth some discussion. How about 200,000 additional Iraqi lives lost?

Interesting question given that that not only were you not concerned about the first 600,000+ killed when you supported this invasion, you're actually on record on this blog denying those deaths.

The hard truth is that Iraqis are going to continue to die as a result of this ill-considered invasion no matter what. The number of dead and wounded continue to rise the longer we stay, unaffected by the number of boots on the ground -- almost half a million men when you add in the much vaunted Iraqi security forces. The morbid mathematics of it all is undeniable.

I suppose if your opinion had any credibility, Hansen, someone might care.

And you cite Wizbang in the same sentence as the word "open mind"? That's really funny!

It really rankles you Bush fluffers that we're right and you're wrong, doesn't it?

But what I imagine rankles you more is that the American people realize it.

"The first question is worth some discussion. How about 200,000 additional Iraqi lives lost?"

As I don't recall your tremendous concern about the loss of Iraqi lives during our invasion, I'm not sure why you would pretend to care now.

"Your second question presumes that the U.S. military is fighting alone, and will continue to fight alone. The Senate war-funding bill provides for U.S. forces to remain in Iraq indefinitely, some fighting al Qaeda, some training the Iraqi army, and some protecting the infrastructure. This envisions a continuing partnership between the Iraqi army and the U.S. forces."

Seeing as the previous "partnership between Iraqi army & US forces" (by which I assume you mean training of Iraqi forces by the US military) hasn't gotten the Iraqis anywhere near the point where they can defend themselves, you might explain why continuing this "partnership" will yield different results.

" Another possibility is that the Iraqis are more likely to fight al Qaeda effectively if they know that the American forces are staying to help them; and are more likely to wilt into passivity if the American forces leave."

If this were the case, they would ALREADY be fighting effectively, since we HAVE been there helping them. But since that's not the case, it's far more reasonable to conclude that they'll take up the fight themselves if there's nobody there to do it for them.

Interesting question given that that not only were you not concerned about the first 600,000+ killed when you supported this invasion, you're actually on record on this blog denying those deaths.

And, of course, the figure Marler omits is how many more American deaths will result from Bush's open-ended commitment.

It's really sad. The warfloggers have lost the argument -- the American people have decided that they don't want to expend their blood and treasure on Bush's disastrous, incompetent occupation of Iraq. (As I pointed out, the chickenhawk warfloggers agree -- they insist other people do the dying, not them.) After four years, 3,000 American lives and Ford knows how many billions, spurious claims of "progress" or please for one more Friedman unit cut no more ice.

Yet here they come, as if posting recycled, disingenuous RNC bullshit constitutes "support" for a failed war effort or a bankrupt, corrupt, incompetent political party.

Is it not al Qaeda's stated goal to drive the infidels from Iraq. Was it not Zarqawi’s goal to foment sectarian violence and civil war by blowing up the golden Mosque?

Did not Osama Bin Laden call Americans “paper tigers� because we took up the cause of Somalia, but would cut & run once the going got tough?

The Iraqi government doesn't approve of the Senate vote to withdraw troops. Their spokesman is concerned that it discourages the use of the political process in Iraq. If I understand the spokesman, he's saying that the Senate vote encourages more violence in Iraq.

BAGHDAD (AP) - An Iraqi government spokesman criticized the U.S. Senate vote to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by Oct. 1.
"We see some negative signs in the decision because it sends wrong signals to some sides that might think of alternatives to the political process," Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.

He spoke after the Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1. The House passed the same bill a day earlier, and President Bush has promised a veto.

The legislation is the first binding challenge on the war that Democrats have managed to send to Bush since they reclaimed control of both houses of Congress in January.

"Coalition forces gave lots of sacrifices and they should continue their mission, which is building Iraqi security forces to take over," al-Dabbagh said. "We see (it) as a loss of four years of sacrifices." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOF7N01&show_article=1

Did not Osama Bin Laden call Americans “paper tigers� because we took up the cause of Somalia, but would cut & run once the going got tough?

What do you mean "we"?

bin Laden may have predicted the US would stop fighting, but he couldn't have dreamed that so many of the war's most vocal supporters would refuse to fight in the first place.

Jackass.

"ex-liberal" wrote: The Iraqi government doesn't approve of the Senate vote to withdraw troops. Their spokesman is concerned that it discourages the use of the political process in Iraq. If I understand the spokesman, he's saying that the Senate vote encourages more violence in Iraq.

Which is ironic, because to all appearance, the Iraqi government is doing fuck-all to prevent violence in Iraq.

Beyond that, it's amazing that "ex-liberal" quoted approvingly a criticism of the United States Senate by the Iraqi Parliament.

Why do you hate America, "ex-liberal"?

Of course, it goes without saying that "ex-liberal" ignores the rebuttals to his/her/its earlier posts and blithely goes ahead with his/her/its blame-America-first posting. But then, we know "ex-liberal" has no shame and doesn't post her in good faith. One wonders what does motivate "ex-liberal" to post here? Why is it so important to someone that neocon propaganda be represented here?

"bin Laden may have predicted the US would stop fighting, but he couldn't have dreamed that so many of the war's most vocal supporters would refuse to fight in the first place."

I see were your going with this!!

Well FYI..

I am currently engaged in a gunfight in Ramadi as we speak. I am blogging from my blackberry & happen to be an Army Special Forces lieutenant.
Now that I have firmly captured the moral high ground, you’ll have to excuse me while I try to take the actual high ground.

[Not according to an IP check]

"Which is ironic, because to all appearance, the Iraqi government is doing fuck-all to prevent violence in Iraq."

No - thats not irony, thats tragedy.

The Maliki goverment has been in place for ten months.

The Maliki goverment has been in place for ten months.

And they couldn't possibly have their own interests in ensuring a heavily armed foreign occupation force to ensure they stay in power. [eyeroll]

Anyway, y'all will just have to excuse the United States Senate for putting the interest of the United States ahead of foreign governments...sorry about that, neocons.

I see were your [sic] going with this

Yeah, because the all-hat-no-cattle nature of war supporters from Bush to the Cheeto-stained warbloggers is only too freakin' obvious.

I am currently engaged in a gunfight in Ramadi as we speak. I am blogging from my blackberry & happen to be an Army Special Forces lieutenant.

You don't say.

Now that I have firmly captured the moral high ground

Sorry, but you're arguing for Bush's disastrous folly. I think the word you need is "forfeited." (see: "ex-liberal")

marler: How about 200,000 additional Iraqi lives lost?

"How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many." - Dick Cheney August-1992

moderator: [Not according to an IP check]

I think it's a safe bet no one believed him, but still:

pwnzed!

boat people

[Not according to an IP check]

Hilarious or pathetic? I'm afraid it's the latter.

I am currently engaged in a gunfight in Ramadi as we speak. I am blogging from my blackberry...

[Not according to an IP check]

Now that's just sad. Pretending to be one of our heroic military while actually typing furiously from the basement. Fitz, I didn't believe I could think any less of you but...mission accomplished.

given sullivans attitude in his column here
link

His column today is breathtaking,even for sullivan.

4 years ago he was arguing that it was a briliant strategy to lure AQ into iraq.

Now not so much......

Is it not al Qaeda's stated goal to drive the infidels from Iraq.

Sure, that's one of al-Qaeda's stated tactical goals. It was also al-Qaeda's stated goal to overthrow the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and to get US forces out of Saudi Arabia.

The American Right seems to have a rather bizarre and self-serving selective aversion to serving al-Qaeda's stated goals, i.e., they only complain about "al-Qaeda's stated goals" when those don't happen to exactly correspond to the policy preferences of the Bush Administration.

Was it not Zarqawi’s goal to foment sectarian violence and civil war by blowing up the golden Mosque?

Probably. So?

Did not Osama Bin Laden call Americans “paper tigers� because we took up the cause of Somalia, but would cut & run once the going got tough?

Yeah, so? Is your argument this: "He called us chicken, so we have to keep up the counterproductive policy we are engaged in"? God, you righties are easy to manipulate.

Al-Qaeda's strategic goal, their only hope of gaining broader power, is to have a persistent situation on the ground which validates their propaganda of a existential struggle in which the West, led principally by the US and Israel, in concert with corrupt allies in the Muslim world, are working to harm the harm and oppress Muslims generally throughout the world. And the Iraq war is, as this poll shows, a great success at validating this propaganda and building support for al-Qaeda's view of the world.

That's serving al-Qaeda, and you righties aren't in the least bit concerned about it, apparently.

"Do we want a world where the most barbaric groups rule, simply because they're willing to commit the most mayhem and kill the most people? I don't. If that's to be avoided, then we must fight against these killers, even though the costs are high."
- Ex-liberal

So why did you vote for Bush?

...and Iraqi security forces would likely decimate them if they were left to their own devices

ROTFLAO. Again and again and again. Thanks for the afternoon laugh Kevin. You sure know how to jest.

Come to think of it, did you mean to say "Iraqi security forces would likely BE DECIMATED if they were left to their own devices?"

PROGNOSTICATION

Hmmmm....
It's all becoming clearer now. Yes... What I can see is that all this talk about withdrawing troops is PREMATURE, do you hear me? Premature indeed.
And how can I say that with such confidence? It's elementary. On the subject of Iraq, just about the ONLY thing I can predict, with certainty, is this: I don't know exactly when our troops will leave Iraq. What I DO know, as a lead-pipe cinch, is that whenever our troops leave, it will be ONE MONTH TOO SOON.
Did you get that? Regardless of when our troops leave Iraq, it will be JUST BEFORE we turn yet another corner there. It will be JUST AS WE CLOSE IN ON VICTORY (very much like happened in Vietnam, you see). And, unfortunately, our premature withdrawal of troops, just a month too soon, will be decried through the annals and archives forevermore, as SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY, all because we jumped the gun by one month. What a pity.
See? It's not so complicated. Now, call me back in a little while and I'll give you tomorrow's stock picks and lottery numbers (just as soon as I can sort them out from all the other voices echoing in my head)...

Yes, AQI's demise would come only at the end of a lengthy and brutal war, but how much worse is that than coming at the end of an even lengthier war run by the United States?

This statement is the only problem I have with this post. I do not accept at all that AQI is a significant force in Iraq. All indications are, and always have been, that they are not. If the U.S. leaves, there may be a lengthy and brutal war, but it won’t have much to do with al Qaeda.

" a sovereign Muslim country"

Nope. It's a place that happens to have Muslims as well as other religions.

All countries are multicultural and secular by definition. If the place ain't that, it ain't a country.

Hilarious or pathetic? I'm afraid it's the latter.

It is pathetic. "Fitz" even admitted he knew I was pointing out the chickenhawk quality of modern so-called "conservatives". There are a number of argument chickenhawks use to justify the fact that, deep down, they agree that Bush's mess in Iraq is worth American lives -- at least their own. But instead, Fitz essentially agreed with the argument's validity by pretending to be in the military in order to stake a bogus claim to the "moral high ground."

Pathetic indeed.

By the by, I heard today that 200,000 civilians have been killed in Darfur. I wonder if "ex-liberal" advocates overthrowing the Sudanese military and occupying that heavily Muslim nation?

All countries are multicultural and secular by definition. If the place ain't that, it ain't a country. Posted by: Bob M

That's interesting. I suggest you test that by taking your soap box, heading to Riyad, and spouting that nonsense on a street corner. The only thing multi-cultural about SA are the indentured servants brought in to do all the dangerous and dirty jobs they apparently don't have enough spare princes for.

All countries are multicultural and secular by definition. If the place ain't that, it ain't a country.

Certainly not by any definition of "country" I've ever encountered; mostly that's just used as an equivalent of "state" in the international relations sense, to refer to a sovereign polity, without reference to whether it is multicultural and secular or monocultural and religious. Indeed, most "countries" are also "nation-states" with a certain degree of congruence between cultural ("nation") and political ("state") units.

If you are going to make nitpicking, semantic arguments like this, you ought to at least make some effort to be accurate with your pedantry.

I found this story about a Lt Col in Baghdad charged with "aiding the enemy" of interest:

Steele was charged with aiding the enemy by "providing an unmonitored cellular phone to detainees," the statement said, but also with fraternizing with the daughter of a detainee, having an "inappropriate relationship with an interpreter, wrongfully and knowingly storing classified information in his living space, failing to obey orders and having pornography," the statement said.

Charged with having porn? Oh no, the liberal emasculation of our country has infected the military! How will we ever defeat the terrorists now?!

(What little experience I have with the military, it was *all* about porn, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons I didn't consider the military as a career when I came to those crossroads back in HS.)

marler: How about 200,000 additional Iraqi lives lost?

"How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many." - Dick Cheney August-1992

mr irony, the world is certainly full of terrible ironies. Getting rid of Saddam did not cost "very many" American lives. The American lives are being invested in the reconstruction of Iraq. GWB campaigned in opposition to "nation building", and now is stuck in a large nation building project. You'll notice that Gregory brought up Darfur. Some people who oppose the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq propose a U.N./U.S. presence in Sudan, without telling us how it can be done effectively without drawing in al Qaeda and without American deaths.

Cheney's 1992 quote was before the 17 UNSC resolutions that Saddam complied with only partially, and before the 1999 attempt by the Iraqi government to purchase uranium in N. Africa. It was before the terrible cost of the U.N. sanctions was known, and before the campaign by France and other nations to end the sanctions.

Ironies never tell us whether a particular ironic course of action is correct. Ironically, we now can tell that Cheney in 1992 was wrong. That would have been the best time for the U.S. to overthrow Saddam's regime. At that time the Shi'ites had plenty of martial competence, and only were defeated because the Iraqi army had aircraft, chemical weapons, tanks and artillery. The fractionally reconstituted Iraqi army has practically none of these.

Did not Osama Bin Laden call Americans “paper tigers� because we took up the cause of Somalia, but would cut & run once the going got tough?

It was Clinton and the Democrats who wanted to stay and finish the job in Somalia, and the Republicans who forced us to cut and run. Here, for example, is what the defeatist John McCain said on the Senate floor in October 1993 when he urged us to run away from the Somali thugs:

There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

....What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.

I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.

And here's what Republican Senator Phil Gramm haid to say when he urged defeat:

The President's decision to extend our presence for 6 more months is totally unacceptable to me and totally unacceptable, I believe, to the Congress. If the people of Texas--who are calling my phones every moment, who are sending me letters and telegrams by the hour--are representative of the will of the American people, the American people do not believe that we should allow Americans to be targets in Somalia for 6 more months. I cannot see anything that we would achieve in 6 more months in Somalia.

Getting rid of Saddam did not cost "very many" American lives.

By that criteria the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center did not cost "very many" American lives either. Less, in fact, than have been lost in Iraq. A mere pittance, really. I wonder why we even care....

Ironically, we now can tell that Cheney in 1992 was wrong.

You mean when Cheney said "it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq"? Uh, yeah, he sure was wrong about that, wasn't he....

Here's the full quote:

If you are going to go to war, let’s send the whole group; let’s make certain that we’ve got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Kevin is almost always lame on everything.

(so you won't be coming back?)

[caps abuse deleted].

Getting rid of Saddam did not cost "very many" American lives. The American lives are being invested in the reconstruction of Iraq.

"Invested"....I love it, Marler. Go tell the mother of a dead soldier that her son or daughter was "invested in the reconstruction of Iraq," you mendacious asshole.

But how dishonest of you! The occupation followed the deposition of Saddam, since the notion of turning the joint over to the Iranian agent Chalabi was a stupid fantasy. The lives being lost -- American and Iraqi -- are a direct result of Bush's decision -- no, determination -- to evade. It says much about you that you dissemble on this point -- none of it good.

And I don't want to give "ex-liberal" any help, so
I'll keep this brief, but I'll note Clinton stopped the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo without the loss of a single US life. If we don't provide details, I'd presume it's because we assume simply not putting Bush in charge of it vastly increases the chances of success -- at least into positive territory.

Creep.

Brian wrote: Kevin is almost always lame on anything that relates to miliary [sic] issues.

How jealous you must be, given how lame your every defense of Bush is.

WHAT IS THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THAT?

Reality.

Of course, things may look different from Cloud Cuckoo Land where brian lives.

more attacks on al Qaeda?

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2517

"Invested"....I love it, Marler. Go tell the mother of a dead soldier that her son or daughter was "invested in the reconstruction of Iraq," you mendacious asshole.

I know, you prefer "lost". That's because you think nothing good has happened, or could happen. How about "gave the last full measure of their devotion", do you like that phraseology any better? They are giving the last full measure of their devotion to the pacification and reconstruction of Iraq. As Joseph Biden wrote in 2002, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not the costly part; staying to rebuild Iraq was the costly part.

They are giving the last full measure of their devotion to the pacification and reconstruction of Iraq.

Bullshit. Complete and utter callous and sickening bullshit. Those poor soldiers were told they were invading Iraq to protect the United States from Saddam -- only there was no threat and hence nothing to protect us from. They didn't give their lives to "pacify" or "reconstruct" Iraq, since that was never a stated goal of the war. They were lied to and they were killed because of one one weak feckless alcoholic mama's boy's disgustings delusions.

Go fuck yourself, you soulless scumbag.

Brian,
Obviously, you are not keeping abreast to the news. A young sheik last month approach American forces, brought them into his section of the township, and pointed out all the foreign fighters.
But's what is even more interesting is that the Sunni insurgents are turning on the AQ types as well, often in running gun battles. And here's the kicker, Brian, the Shi'ites aren't interested in them either. Oh Boo'yah!
But that's an inconvient truth you would rather ignore.
So, take your pathetic little ignorant butt back to Rove, and get new marching instructions cause you obviously DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F*CK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
Oh, and do try to read once in awhile. I know the Republican slime machine doesn't like it's minions thinking for themselves, but you know, at least you wont' be publicly confirming what we all suspect.

I know, you prefer "lost". That's because you think nothing good has happened, or could happen.

No, I prefer "wasted", you lying shithead, because I don't think this clusterfuck is worth their lives.

And you agree, since you're posting from Stateside and haven't mentioned any kids in harm's way.

How about "gave the last full measure of their devotion", do you like that phraseology any better?

Sure, if they gave their lives in defense of this nation. Not sacrificed on the altar of Bush's political ambition and neocon wet dreams. Iraq isn't enhancing the US national security posture -- I think even you've given up on that notion.

As Joseph Biden wrote in 2002, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not the costly part; staying to rebuild Iraq was the costly part.

But you can't have the former without the latter, dipshit.

And before you embarrass yourself further, yes, we knew it. Bush I and Colin Powell didn't depose Saddam the first time so we wouldn't have to occupy Iraq. And we never got anything from you warmonkeys but "greeted as liberators" bullshit -- which was, incidentally, when I knew this whole project was doomed.

Come on, Marler, even you can do better than this, can't you? You haven't written a single word that refutes anything I said, except to use a straw man argument as a feeble retort to my calling you out on your bullshit semantics.

And I still dare you to tell the parent of a slain soldier their child was "invested" in Iraq. Oh, but that's cool with you, because as a conservative, you believe in reaping the benefits while others assume the risks.

Tool.

K: "First of all, the Iraqis aren't able to defeat al Qaeda without some help."

Two observations about your faulty first sentence:

(1) The "Iraqis" are hardly a monolithic political entity, and at this particular point in time there is very little if any reason to believe that they'll ever become one in the foreseeable future.

(2) "Al Qa'eda" in Iraq is independent of Osama bin Laden's organization, and most reliable intelligence estimates place its numbers at less than 1,000 fighters at any given time. Its military threat to this country is negligible.

But rather than be seen for what it is and thus marginalized accordingly, AQI has instead been morphed by the Bush administration into an all-too-convenient bogeyman, for purposes of providing this president with his primary rationale for maintaining a continued military presence in Mesopatamia.

Thus, this administration obfuscates both to itself and the American people the most pressing and prescient threat to overall regional security, which is the active presence of well-armed and in many instances avowedly anti-American Shi'ite militias, whose members are highly motivated to avenge themselves upon their Sunni Iraqi brethren for past slights both real and imagined.

Go fuck yourself, you soulless scumbag.

That had to leave a mark.

Lemme pile on - Brian, you are a tool.

That is all.

I'll say it. And don't think a huge number of Americans don't think it. I couldn't care less if these people who are hobbled by their bullshit religion and their ignorant superstitions and their 2000 year old revenge culture kill each other. No, not one damn bit. I think it would have been better for U.S. security to leave Saddam there. I feel bad for them, but it frankly isn't our job to try to impose democracy on them when they have never demonstrated a single desire for it themselves. Not one American life nor one American dollar is worth it. Offended? Tough titty.

It would have been better for the Iraqis if we had left Saddam Hussein in power for the simple reason that hundreds of thousands of them would still be alive. Saddam Hussein wasted fewer Iraqi lives than has George W. Bush. The oppressiveness of living under Saddam Hussein was less than the oppressiveness of living under the current anarchy. Those who have suddenly discovered the suffering of the Iraqis after the rest of their reasons for the war on the Iraqi people have been revealed as so much empty puffery are simply trying to cover their fat asses with any handy fig leaves.

As to Marler's laughable recitation of bullshit talking points about why it was imperative that we go to war with the people of Iraq, the whole thing is a tissue of lies, but the most egregious lie is that Saddam Hussein was seeking Uranium in North Africa. There are three small flaws with that argument.

First, the only thing Hussein could have been seeking would be yellowcake - which is not uranium. Second, he already had unprocessed yellowcake and no refining capabilities. Third, he already had unprocessed yellowcake and no refining capabilities.

The brighter of you (sorry Marler), may have noticed that the second and third flaws are identical. But the point is so important that it was worth mentioning twice. The technology for making a nuclear bomb from fissile uranium is trivial - place two sub-critical masses far enough apart and create a mechanism for pushing them together to create a single super-critical mass. Everything involved in that part is simple engineering. But if you can't create the fissile material (and that part is very difficult as it involves separating chemically identical materials) you are fucked.

Short version: Put up or shut up Marler.

No, I prefer "wasted", you lying shithead, because I don't think this clusterfuck is worth their lives.

And you agree, since you're posting from Stateside and haven't mentioned any kids in harm's way.

It's true. I have not mentioned any kids in harm's way. That's because I do not post anonymously. They, he, or she, were not or was not in harm's way to support my arguments, but to do a job. I may have mentioned an NROTC scholarship and an interval of service, but if harm's way ever entered the story, I have not mentioned it.

AS to the hundreds of thousands dead, the John Hopkins/MIT group have made their data publicly available to researches whom they deem competent and sufficiently unbiased. maybe a university professor near you is analysing them now, to see how a few hundred recorded deaths were extrapolated up to 650,000. You can also read about it in the most recent Amstat News.

So Marler, you going to defend your lies about Hussein's attempts to create nuclear weapons, or just pretend that hundreds of thousands of people haven't been killed by your warmongering?

The fact is, even if the number were only the published 30,000 or 3,000 or even merely three - there was no legitimate reason to invade.

Americans would never have invaded because a few companies (including American ones) were profiting off the sanctions.

Americans would never have invaded because Saddam Hussein had missiles capable of reaching 10 miles beyond the legal limit.

Americans would never have invaded because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.

All of those reasons together still would not have made a plurality of Americans support the loss of thousands of soldiers lives.

No rational person would have supported the invasion over those trivial reasons because the horrors of war are far greater than those paltry justifications warrant.

The Iraqi dead do not thank you Mat