Bush's Iraq War is Already Lost

Originally posted by 27jd
That would be a matter of opinion I guess, to me his reasons have been baseless and fluid, when one of his reasons is proven incorrect, he moves to another. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, why do seemingly intelligent people not comprehend that?

Consider the fluidity of the following:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From Bush's 2002 State of the Union Speech:

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening
America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.

Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.

The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack.

And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war, we will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy.

September 11 brought out the best in America and the best in this Congress, and I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home.

I am a proud member of my party. Yet as we act to win the war, protect our people and create jobs in America, we must act first and foremost not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.

www.cnn.com...

From the 2003 State of the Union Speech:

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world and developing those weapons all along.

And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions.

America and the world will not be blackmailed.

America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation and continued hardship.

The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions.

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials.

He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview.

Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late.

Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American armed forces. Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead.

In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America and America believes in you.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not.

For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow.

This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military, and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom.

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years,

America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril, from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes.

And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves.

America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

www.cnn.com...

I think the President's case is well made, especially when you consider the statements of even his enemies.

www.glennbeck.com...

You might be a citizen of these United States, but you bear none of the marks traditionally associated with America.

It is people like you who dissemble and undermine the urgent cause of American security, claiming the moral high ground when you are the disingenuous one. You are the enemy of freedom; You are the enemy because everytime you repeat the lie that those who fight in Iraq are fighting for nothing you, not only dishonor their sacrifice, but you influence those on this group who are young and impressionable enough to buy into your hogwash.

You have the luxury of hindsight which no one in the administration had and if their lack of action had led to more attacks, you and those of your ilk, would be screaming bloody murder, just like you have over GW waiting patiently in the classroom for additional information prior to acting.

I cannot express adequate contempt for you and your fellow travellers.

While you are expressing your freedoms by bad mouthing your country during a time of war, treacherously close to treason, you might also consider these words of the President.

The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life.

This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men.

In Afghanistan, we helped to liberate an oppressed people, and we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society and educate all their children, boys and girls.

In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine.

Across the Earth, America is feeding the hungry. More than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States.

As our nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling, as a blessed country, is to make the world better.

Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus, including 3 million children under the age of 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need.

Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment.

Almost all who do are turned away.

A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines, many hospitals tell people, 'You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die'."

In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words.
AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year, which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp.

Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.

We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa.

This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS and for children orphaned by AIDS.

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.

This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature.

www.cnn.com...

This is the nation you so cavalierly deride.

Do you know what's really scary? Grady is a "Mental Health Professional".

Ask him yourself.

Originally posted by cargo
Do you know what's really scary? Grady is a "Mental Health Professional".

Ask him yourself.

And I am licensed. And I have been to war. And I have been the object of the same lies perpetrated on this website. And I have lived fifty-five years. And I have fallen for some of this BS before, myself. And, on and on and on.

Contrary to the delusions of the young, experience does not make one more stupid.

Grady is a "Mental Health Professional"

I just lost faith in all of mankind.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think the President's case is well made, especially when you consider the statements of even his enemies.

I don't, I think that was an excessively lengthy scroll of BS, quoted from the BS'er in Chief. I don't care what kind of mental health professional you claim to be, your own mental health is poor, and you are a mindless follower, your time in the military has broken you, this corrupt government rides you like a show pony.

You might be a citizen of these United States, but you bear none of the marks traditionally associated with America.

If being a thoughtless puppet with the governments hand up my @ss, and not having a will of my own are marks traditionally associated with America, then F**K tradition.

It is people like you who dissemble and undermine the urgent cause of American security, claiming the moral high ground when you are the disingenuous one.

I don't "claim" the moral high ground, it is mine, period. This war in Iraq was not an urgent cause.

You are the enemy of freedom; You are the enemy because everytime you repeat the lie that those who fight in Iraq are fighting for nothing you, not only dishonor their sacrifice, but you influence those on this group who are young and impressionable enough to buy into your hogwash.

I'M the enemy of freedom? Because I disagree with needless death and destruction? I dishonor those who have died because I wish that they never had to die in the first place?! It is YOU who dishonor them and their families, by defending the evil administration that lied and sent them into this unjust war in the first place. And I hope I am able to influence young minds to think for themselves, to support peace, and not to listen to BRAINWASHED, unconditional servants of the government like yourself.

You have the luxury of hindsight which no one in the administration had and if their lack of action had led to more attacks, you and those of your ilk, would be screaming bloody murder, just like you have over GW waiting patiently in the classroom for additional information prior to acting.

Hindsight? I was against this war from the get go, I knew it was BS and so did the rest of the world that isn't in the USA's pocket. And I really don't care what Bush did in that classroom, he waited patiently to run and hide in his jet and wait until all was clear to land, then it was time for the war-dodging coward to start an illegitimate war in Iraq, and send young men and women to die for a cause COMPLETELY unrelated to 9/11.

I cannot express adequate contempt for you and your fellow travellers.

Again, the feeling is more than mutual.

While you are expressing your freedoms by bad mouthing your country during a time of war, treacherously close to treason, you might also consider these words of the President.

Now it's treason to voice your opinion? If that's what it's coming to I WILL be an enemy of this government, and I'm sure I will not be alone. And those words of the President are just more meaningless nothings. The President could give a rats @ss about the Iraqi people, if you TRULY believe otherwise, you should evaluate yourself with your "professional" skills.

This is the nation you so cavalierly deride.

Your nation and mine are completely different.









[edit on 17-9-2004 by 27jd]

Do you guys want to know what I really respect about the US? The will of its soldiers.

Everytime I see them on TV or in documentaries I am amazed at how willing they are to fight when they are called upon without question, they will suppress their fears and die for their country and its people.

And it saddens me to see them being used like this for all the wrong reasons.

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
Do you guys want to know what I really respect about the US? The will of its soldiers.

Everytime I see them on TV or in documentaries I am amazed at how willing they are to fight when they are called upon without question, they will suppress their fears and die for their country and its people.

And it saddens me to see them being used like this for all the wrong reasons.

I think exactly the same...in my country the Army has its first agenda of protecting the people from natural disasters the plan is called DN 3 (translation: National defense 3), in case of floods, hurricanes, erathquakes and such, most of the equipment bought by the army is into that direction, also they do have a war with druglord and illegal plantations, its calculated that beetween 100 and 180 die each year in that activity alone, My respect to them since they are putting their lives on the line for something that at least for me is worthwhile, Id really be ashamed if our president had sent troops to Iraq ( our government was against the unilateral invasion of Iraq and was a member of the security council that ominous year).
The polls here in Mexico ( a country less informed than the USA one, and with more poverty and lack of education ) all said that more than 85% were against intervention of Iraq.
Our nation refused going with the coalition and do you know what happened? GWB refused to speak with our president for 9 months, until he had to, forced to, or what ever you call it because the Oil price was going over 30USD$, and the meetings in Cancun and Baja (with other countries), he had to back down from his "I am still pissed attitude" because he risked appearing like a fool in from of other countries in the meeting since we are neighbours....

Se MY RESPECT FOR ALL THOSE BRAVE MEN WHO WILLINGLY OR NOT ARE THERE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES, because sure those Neocons, draft dodgers do not give a rat @$$...

The Iraq War is already over, the enemy was defeated, the cities and countryside are occupied, and the proivisional governement and security forces are slowly being built up. The French resisted the Nazis after the fall of paris, but they weren't able to get the Nazis out of France. So unless your expecting england and, uhm, the US to step in on the side of the resistance....



Worse than Vietnam? The average daily death count for soliders is what, single digits right? May very low doubles? In Vietnam, at one point, 60 soldiers were dying a day. Plus the Iraqi resistance is split between Shia, Sunni, terrorists, actual resistors, foreign fighters and mercenaries, whereas teh North Vietnamese were very well organized, backed by a superpower and other countires, could operate outside of Vietnam with impunity, and were able to melt into the civilian population. The Iraqi resistance doesn't have the logistical side at all, aren't backed by any major powers at all, and, well, if they keep blowing up their own civilians, they aren't going to be able to hid amoung them much longer.

Plus sadr has backed out of the resistance game, and the high holy man of the shia is also, to say the least, not encouraging resistance.

Wow, Nygdan. That's a very good, concise and comprehensive comparison. The simiarlity is that there are good men there dying for the cause of liberty of those whom they have never met, while some at home can only ridicule, criticize, and pontificate.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Worse than Vietnam? The average daily death count for soliders is what, single digits right? May very low doubles? In Vietnam, at one point, 60 soldiers were dying a day.

You should also mention that the Vietnam war went for 10 years.

Originally posted by cargo

You should also mention that the Vietnam war went for 10 years.

Actually, it was eight years and it would have ended sooner had it not been for the anti-American movement at home--you know, Hanoi Jane Fonda and her comical side-kick Hanoi John Kerry.

Originally posted by 27jd Hindsight? I was against this war from the get go, I knew it was BS and so did the rest of the world that isn't in the USA's pocket. And I really don't care what Bush did in that classroom, he waited patiently to run and hide in his jet and wait until all was clear to land, then it was time for the war-dodging coward to start an illegitimate war in Iraq, and send young men and women to die for a cause COMPLETELY unrelated to 9/11.

You might have been against the war from the get go, but you were not responsible for the well-being of a nation. The peanut gallery is much easier to occupy than the postion of command.

Before you denigrate Bush's service, you should remember that only about 1.3 million of us actually set foot in Vietnam. Many more millions served in far less dangerous situations. Are you really in a position to judge Bush's service? What is the nature and character of your own service?



[edit on 04/9/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by cargo
You should also mention that the Vietnam war went for 10 years.

Hey hey hey, lets not put too much reality into the conversation!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by cargo

You should also mention that the Vietnam war went for 10 years.

Actually, it was eight years and it would have ended sooner had it not been for the anti-American movement at home--you know, Hanoi Jane Fonda and her comical side-kick Hanoi John Kerry.

I was under the general impression that the Vietnam war was between 1965 and 1975. Those are approximate years I would go by. This time line actually lists dates well before '65 and right up until '75 when the last American soldier was killed and the last American soldiers were evacuated

22 Dec 61 - SP4 James Davis of Livingston, Tennessee killed by Viet Cong (VC) later called by President Johnson "The first American to fall in defense of our freedom in Vietnam"

15 May 62 - President Kennedy orders an immediate build-up of US troops in Thailand to a total of 5,000 due to Communist attacks in Laos and movement toward the Thailand border

July 64 - Announcement states that US military contingent in Vietnam would increase 5,000 more to 21,000

2 Aug 64 - US Navy destroyers "Maddox" and "C. Turner Joy" are reported attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin (attacks 2 Aug + 4 Aug)

|
|
|
|

29 Apr 75 - Last American soldier killed in Vietnam (the first was 8 Jul 59) The official American presence in Saigon ends when the last Americans are evacuated by helicopter from the US Embassy roof. Within hours the Saigon government surrenders to the VC

EDIT: The 29 Apr 75 entry into the time line states that the first American killed was on 8 Jul 59, but I didn't deem it necessary to go back that far. Interesting that Johnson declares the death of SP4 James Davis on the 22 DEC '61 as the first American killed. Considering that War was never declared on Nth Vietnam, I guess by Johnson not counting the '59 death as the first, the war could have been therefore underway by the 22 DEC 61 death?

[edit on 17-9-2004 by cargo]

Originally posted by cargo

I was under the general impression that the Vietnam war was between 1965 and 1975.

American combat operations began in roughly April 1965, when the Marines landed at Danang. American combat operation ended in roughly April 1973 when the last US combat troops were withdrawn. American advisors were in Vietnam much longer, but these were Vietnames combat operations.

When Vietnam fell in roughly April 1975, the last US combat troops had been gone for two years. The rout of the S. Vietnames army and the mass evacuation of civilians was one of the most pathetice events in history and a very painful event for me and I would assume for any veteran of that war.

Had the anti-American movement not caused the "Vietnamization" of the war, this fiasco would never have happened. What gets to me most is that all those Americans who opposed the war and lead to the withdrawal of US combat troops and contributed to the ensuing genocide are conveniently oblivious to their complicity in these massive atrocities. What arrogant self-righteous scoundrels they are who bear the blood of million on their hands and who have not even the enough insight to recognize their crimes.


[edit on 04/9/18 by GradyPhilpott]

security analysis
by eurohippie Guest on 17.09.2004 [12:16 ]

I just heard a very interesting interview on CNN with one of their regular "security analysts", Dan Flesch. On the security of the Green Zone, he went even further than this article: he said it's only a matter of time before "heavy weapons" are used and "full assaults" are launched against it. On the war itself, he was very clear: it's lost. The only thing to do is set a date for the troops to leave, and leave by that date, elections or no elections. Anything other than declaring the intention to leave will only make matters worse, he said. Also he said that the implications of defeat are "far graver than Vietnam". I should add that, as asked, Flasch was not expressing his personal opinion, he was givng voice to the feelings of the military and intelligence involved.
He also said that, from the point of view of the Iraqis, their situation is equivalent to someone who has been saved from a robber (meaning Saddam) to find itself being robbed by their "saviour". Of course most of us here think this is evident, but I had never heard such frank speaking on CNN � the CNN anchorlady was perceptibly shocked when Flasch said this, tried to make him soften the remark, but he was adamant that that's just what most Iraqis think.

---
Above is posted on another board. For your info.


[edit on 18-9-2004 by zcheng]

Originally posted by zcheng
On the security of the Green Zone, he went even further than this article: he said it's only a matter of time before "heavy weapons" are used and "full assaults" are launched against it.

Is this the same source that you used to report that an americna general had been captured by the resistors?


[edit on 18-9-2004 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by zcheng
On the security of the Green Zone, he went even further than this article: he said it's only a matter of time before "heavy weapons" are used and "full assaults" are launched against it.

Is this the same source that you used to report that an americna general had been captured by the resistors?

No. It is from CNN as eurohippie said.

Check out these 'traitors' and their 'traitorous' comments Grady.....

Retired Gen. William Odom, former
head of the National Security Agency,
told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD.
Al-Qaida, it's worse -- he's lost on
that front. That he's going to achieve a
democracy there? That goal is lost,
too. It's lost." He added: "Right now,
the course we're on, we're achieving
[Osama] bin Laden's ends."


Retired Gen. Joseph Hoare, the former Marine commandant and
head of the U.S. Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is
going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no
good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were
being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground.
It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world.
The priorities are just all wrong."

"I see no ray of light on the horizon at all," said Jeffrey Record,
professor of strategy at the Air War College. "The worst case has
become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation
in Iraq and the advantages we had after World War II in Germany
and Japan."

"I don't think that you can kill the insurgency," said W. Andrew
Terrill, professor at the Army War College's Strategic Studies
Institute, the top expert on Iraq there. According to Terrill, the
anti-U.S. insurgency, centered in the Sunni triangle, and holding
several key cities and towns, including Fallujah, is expanding and
becoming more capable as a direct consequence of U.S. policy.
"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more
coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there
are X number of insurgents and when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency
has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those
who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the U.S. presence. The longer we stay, the
more they are confirmed in that view."

After the killing of four U.S. contractors in Fallujah, the U.S. Marines besieged the city for three
weeks in April -- the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the
attack on Fallujah," said Gen. Hoare. "I asked a three-star Marine general who gave the order
to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly
from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals
gained control, using the city as a base, al-Qaida ("base" in Arabic) indeed.

"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power, it
becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis
consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in
Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of angels and the prophet Mohammed coming
down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating
wonderful scents."

"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamization. The
idea we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the
imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we
had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."

"This is far graver than Vietnam," said Gen. Odom. "There wasn't as much at stake strategically,
though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with a war that was not constructive for U.S.
aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile and we're in much worse shape with our
allies."

Terrill believes that any sustained U.S. military offensive against the no-go areas of the Sunni
triangle "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel
compelled to resign." Thus an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining
political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."

Gen. Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to
attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it -- after the
election. The signs are all there." He compares any such planned attack with late Syrian dictator
Hafez al-Assad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "U.S.
military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with
respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the
middle. I hate that phrase 'collateral damage.' And they talked about dancing in the street, a
beacon for democracy."

Gen. Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and senior military
officers over Iraq is worse than any he has ever seen with any previous U.S. government,
including during Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two
parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden
could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in
Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."

Sidney Blumenthal

Sept. 16, 2004

Originally posted by zcheng

security analysis
by eurohippie Guest on 17.09.2004 [12:16 ]

On the war itself, he was very clear: it's lost. The only thing to do is set a date for the troops to leave, and leave by that date, elections or no elections. Anything other than declaring the intention to leave will only make matters worse, he said. Also he said that the implications of defeat are "far graver than Vietnam".

This is total nonsense. You are an avowed communist and an enemy of the US, albeit a friend of Hanoi John Kerry. Mao, the mass murderer, is your hero.

Consider the following concerning Mao Tse Tong (Zedong):

People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000 [deaths]
Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
Labor Camps: 20M
Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M
Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine (1996)
Estimates of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward, 1959-61:
Judith Banister, China's Changing Population (1984): 30M excess deaths (acc2 Becker: "the most reliable estimate we have")
Wang Weizhi, Contemporary Chinese Population (1988): 19.5M deaths
Jin Hui (1993): 40M population loss due to "abnormal deaths and reduced births"
Chen Yizi of the System Reform Inst.: 43-46M deaths
Brzezinski:
Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
Cultural Revolution: 1-2 million
TOTAL: 29 million deaths under Mao
Daniel Chirot:
Land reform, 1949-56
According to Zhou Enlai: 830,000
According to Mao Zedong: 2-3M
Great Leap Forward: 20-40 million deaths.
Cultural Revolution: 1-20 million
Dictionary of 20C World History: around a half million died in Cultural Rev.
Eckhardt:
Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000
Cultural Revolution (1967-68): 50,000
Gilbert:
1958-61 Famine: 30 million deaths.
Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979):
They estimate the body count under Mao to be 38,000,000 to 67,000,000.
Cited by G & P:
Walker Report (see below): 44.3M to 63.8M deaths.
The Government Information Office of Taiwan (18 Sept. 1970): 37M deaths in the PRC.
A Radio Moscow report (7 Apr. 1969): 26.4M people had been exterminated in China.
(NOTE: Obviously the Soviets and Taiwanese would, as enemies, be strongly motivated to exaggerate.)
Guinness Book of World Records:
Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao to be the Top Dog in the Mass Killings category, earlier editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
The Walker Report (see below): between 32,2500,000 and 61,700,000.
Harff and Gurr:
KMT cadre, rich peasants, landlords (1950-51): 800,000-3,000,000
Cultural Revolution (1966-75): 400,000-850,000
John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen: 27M death toll, incl. 2M in Cultural Revolution
Paul Johnson doesn't give an overall total, but he gives estimates for the principle individual mass dyings of the Mao years:
Land reform, first years of PRC: at least 2 million people perished.
Great Leap Forward: "how many millions died ... is a matter of conjecture."
Cultural Revolution: 400,000, calling the 3 Feb. 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse, "The most widely respected figure".
Meisner, Maurice, Mao's China and After (1986), doesn't give an overall total either, but he does give estimates for the three principle mass dyings of the Mao years:
Terror against the counterrevolutionaries: 2 million people executed during the first three years of the PRC.
Great Leap Forward: 10-20 million famine-related deaths.
Cultural Revolution: 400,000, citing a 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse.
R. J. Rummel:
Estimate:
Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75)
The principle episodes being...
All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000
incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000
Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000
Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000
Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides
War: 3,399,000
Famine: 34,500,000
Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
TOTAL: 72,260,000
Cited in Rummel:
Li, Cheng-Chung (Republic of China, 1979): 78.86M direct/indirect deaths.
World Anti-Communist League, True Facts of Maoist Tyranny (1971): 64.5M
Glaser & Possony: 38 to 67M (see above)
Walker Report, 1971 (see below): 31.75M to 58.5M casualties of Communism (excluding Korean War).
Current Death Toll of International Communism (1979): 39.9M
Stephen R. Shalom (1984), Center for Asian Studies, Deaths in China Due To Communism: 3M to 4M death toll, excluding famine.
Walker, Robert L., The Human Cost of Communism in China (1971, report to the US Senate Committee of the Judiciary) "Casualties to Communism" (deaths):
1st Civil War (1927-36): .25-.5M
Fighting during Sino-Japanese War (1937-45): 50,000
2nd Civil War (1945-49): 1.25M
Land Reform prior to Liberation: 0.5-1.0M
Political liquidation campaigns: 15-30M
Korean War: 0.5-1.234M
Great Leap Forward: 1-2M
Struggle with minorities: 0.5-1.0M
Cultural Revolution: .25-.5M
Deaths in labor camps: 15-25M
TOTAL: 34.3M to 63.784M
TOTAL FOR PRC: 32M to 59.5M
Weekly Standard, 29 Sept. 1997, "The Laogai Archipelago" by D. Aikman:
Between 1949 and 1997, 50M prisoners passed through the labor camps, and 15,000,000 died (citing Harry Wu)
WHPSI: 1,633,319 political executions and 25,961 deaths from political violence, 1948-77. TOTAL: 1,659,280
Analysis: If we line up the 12 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 39.9 to 45.75 million range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final number from this neighborhood. Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by two different authorities, you can slide the median up and down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny, so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless to get attached to any one of them, because the real number could easily be half or twice any number here.
Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the individual components. The medians here are:
Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates)
Great Leap Forward: 30M (11 estimates)
Cultural Revolution: 500T (10 estimates)
Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T (8 estimates, see below)
Labor Camps: 15-20M (4 estimates)
This produces a total of some 48,250,000 to 53,400,000 deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 4 estimates.
Notice that many early body counts (such as Walker) completely miss the famine during the Great Leap Forward, which was largely unknown in the west until around 1980. There are two contradictory ways to assess those early estimates which ignore the famine:
"If these are the numbers that they came up with without the famine, imagine how high the true number will be once you add the famine deaths."
"Can we trust any of these numbers? After all, if they missed such a huge famine, they can't have known very much about what was going on inside China."
... so this line of reasoning will get us nowhere.
Tibet (1950 et seq.): 1 200 000
Chinese occupation. (For the most part, it's already been included in the numbers above.)
Free Tibet Campaign [www.freetibet.org...]
Tibetans killed by the Chinese since 1950: 1,200,000
Died in prisons and labour camps between 1950 and 1984: up to 260,000
1959 Uprising: 430,000 died
K. in Reprisals: 87,000
Our Times: 1,200,000
Courtois: 600,000 - 1,200,000
Walker, Robert: 500,000-1,000,000 (all ethnic minorities)
Rummel: 375,000 democides inflicted on etnic minorities
... incl 150,000 Tibetans
Porter: 100,000 to 150,000.
Eckhardt:
1950-51 War: 2,000 civ.
1956-59 Revolt: 60,000 civ. + 40,000 mil. = 100,000
Harff and Gurr: 65,000 Tibetan nationalists, landowners, Buddhists killed, 1959
Small & Singer say that China lost 40,000 soldiers in Tibet between 1956 and '59

users.erols.com...

www.scaruffi.com...

www.newsmax.com...

econ161.berkeley.edu...

www.religioustolerance.org...

www.mega.nu:8080...

www.fff.org...

www-sul.stanford.edu...