I'm pretty sure we were told that Saddam's death would bring an end to the insurgency's will to fight. Oops.

/Mission Accomplished...someday?

You forgot rainbows, subby.

Don't forget rainbows.

In all the rush to execute that truly horrible man did no one in our intel community think it worth interrogating him? What was up with that?

Most expensive lynch mob EVAR!

Go Bush GO! Taxpayers can suck it.

that was a year ago? Wow, doesn't seem that long.

SilentStrider: that was a year ago? Wow, doesn't seem that long.

Funny, feels like 2 or 3 years to me. Seriously, when I read "1st anniversary" I was actually surprised.

I'm not, however, surprised that not much has changed in Iraq.

/Surge schmurge

flaEsq: What was up with that?

Bush & co did not want the world to know what he knew. I am sure that was one of the reasons to make sure he was executed.

Eat more Possum: Bush & co did not want the world to know what he knew.

Truther Alert!

And just what, pray tell did he know that Bushco didn't want us to know about what he knew we'd want' to know that we don't already know?

/Ow, my head

Highroller48: I'm pretty sure we were told that Saddam's death would bring an end to the insurgency's will to fight. Oops.

Nobody ever said it would.



Actually, things have gotten better in Iraq since he was executed. The domestic Sunni-Baathist militants have started political brokering with the Shia and Kurds, while joining forces with the US to blow away foreign Al Qaeda insurgents--instead of the other way around. Al Qaeda is neutralized in the region, civilian and US troop deaths are down, and troop reductions are scheduled to happen for next year. Not to mention a despiable, genocidal dictator has been lawfully punished for his crimes.

Or am I suppose to be outraged because the Iraqi parliament didn't pass the Omnibus Peace Love and Brotherhood Forever and Ever act of 2007? Or because we'll have to keep a strategic troop presence in the area, like Rammstein or Okinawa?

Or because the traitor-left would rather see the US lose a war than admit that a Republican president actually made the world a better place?

TheAbstractor: Or because the traitor-left would rather see the US lose a war than admit that a Republican president actually made the world a better place?

Personally, I'd rather the president of the U.S. focus on making his own country a better place.

TheAbstractor: Or am I suppose to be outraged because the Iraqi parliament didn't pass the Omnibus Peace Love and Brotherhood Forever and Ever act of 2007? Or because we'll have to keep a strategic troop presence in the area, like Rammstein or Okinawa?

I'm fairly certain US troops aren't in Germany or Japan because we're afraid the two countries will destabilize if we leave. You're an idiot.

How splendid that the terrorism problem has disappeared!

.

/That's Racist!

TheAbstractor: Highroller48: I'm pretty sure we were told that Saddam's death would bring an end to the insurgency's will to fight. Oops.

Nobody ever said it would.



Actually, things have gotten better in Iraq since he was executed. The domestic Sunni-Baathist militants have started political brokering with the Shia and Kurds, while joining forces with the US to blow away foreign Al Qaeda insurgents--instead of the other way around. Al Qaeda is neutralized in the region, civilian and US troop deaths are down, and troop reductions are scheduled to happen for next year. Not to mention a despiable, genocidal dictator has been lawfully punished for his crimes.

Or am I suppose to be outraged because the Iraqi parliament didn't pass the Omnibus Peace Love and Brotherhood Forever and Ever act of 2007? Or because we'll have to keep a strategic troop presence in the area, like Rammstein or Okinawa?

Or because the traitor-left would rather see the US lose a war than admit that a Republican president actually made the world a better place?

Deadliest year ever: 2007.
I would love you hear your expert opinion on why 2008 is going to be better.

Highroller48: Eat more Possum: Bush & co did not want the world to know what he knew.

Truther Alert!

And just what, pray tell did he know that Bushco didn't want us to know about what he knew we'd want' to know that we don't already know?

/Ow, my head

Probably stuff along the lines of just what strings we attached to the chemical weapons we sold him in the '80s, just how much under-the-table support he got from us in his war with Iran, etc. Is it stuff we don't already know? Good question, but thats the thing about stuff you don't know: you don't know about it.

That being said, although I believe its plausible, I don't believe its likely. It seems to me Saddam was pretty much the Iraqi's thing. Calling Possum a Truther over the suggestion is a little over the line though, IMO.

TheAbstractor: Actually, things have gotten better in Iraq since he was executed. The domestic Sunni-Baathist militants have started political brokering with the Shia and Kurds, while joining forces with the US to blow away foreign Al Qaeda insurgents--instead of the other way around. Al Qaeda is neutralized in the region, civilian and US troop deaths are down, and troop reductions are scheduled to happen for next year. Not to mention a despiable, genocidal dictator has been lawfully punished for his crimes.

Wow, get out the hip waders!

TheAbstractor: Actually, things have gotten better in Iraq since he was executed.



Powerful, the glasses are.

Seems like more than a year since he was hanged, and the dozens of other groups waiting to try him for their crimes were pissed they didn't get to.

flaEsq: In all the rush to execute that truly horrible man did no one in our intel community think it worth interrogating him? What was up with that?

They had to hang him quick so he couldn't give the details on how we put him in power, paid for his "rape rooms" and trained his police in how to use them, gave him chem/bio weapons and targeting info so he could more effectively gas the Kurds, and basically approved of everything he did that got him hanged.

Deadliest year ever: 2007.
I would love you hear your expert opinion on why 2008 is going to be better.

I realize I'm at risk of being pigeonholed as a chickenhawk stooge of the administration, but the facts clearly show that things have turned around in Iraq. The casualties are easy to explain. First, the surge put more troops at risk. But second, and more important, we went on the offensive. Thanks to the Sunni Awakening, the populace rose up against AQ. The tribal leaders, among others, told us who the enemy was, and where they were, and aided us in decimating them. But combat is dangerous, and our soldiers paid the price. But its obvious that their sacrifice wasn't in vain, because for the first time in years, we're winning.

Casualty numbers have been consistently way down over the last few months. AQ overplayed their hand, alienated the populace, and as a result have no safe havens left. The same Sunnis who were part of the insurgency are now part of the coalition. I can't believe you guys are denying that, militarily, we're winning. Even the Democrats acknowledge that.

You're an idiot.

What is this, the Daily Kos? The sign of a healthy intelectual community is the ability to tolerate minority opinions without resorting to name calling and smears. I'll admit, that's harder to do when the minority has the facts on its side. I mean, when you don't have an argument, insults are pretty much all you have.

If you don't believe the numbers, answer me this. Why isn't the war an issue in the Pres race? I mean, the Caucus is in 4 days, and the war warrants barely a mention. It also doesn't get much press coverage, because success doesn't sell as well. But to the extent it gets play, its positive. How do you explain that?

Traborn

If you don't believe the numbers, answer me this. Why isn't the war an issue in the Pres race? I mean, the Caucus is in 4 days, and the war warrants barely a mention. It also doesn't get much press coverage, because success doesn't sell as well. But to the extent it gets play, its positive. How do you explain that?

Isn't it obvious? Foxnews is making all the candidates and other media avoid the topic of Iraq because Bushhitler told them to. That coupled with the fact that Bushhitler's fascist state arrests people who gather together to protest the war means that no one is talking about it.

/obvious if wearing a liberal foil hat

I suspect 2008 is going to be the real turning point for Iraq, one way or another.

General Petraus has done an outstanding job in Iraq given the overall bleak circumstances and lack of adequate manpower.

Violence is down in Iraq, and many different groups are working together to some limited extent.

That said, the overall situation in Iraq is still horrifically bad. And the U.S. is going to be forced to end the troop escalation surge next spring simply because all our available troops have been in country too long and are physically and mentally exhausted.

What happens then?

Will Sadar call off his cease fire? Will Iran step up its aid to insurgents? Will the dozens of tribal militias the U.S. Army has bribed and armed decide to stop playing nicely?

And if things somehow keep getting better, what will the eventual "Stable" Iraq look like? How many U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq 10-20 years from now, and at what cost?

How "free" will the Iraqi people be? They were much safer and freer under Saddam than they are at the moment.

When will Iraq hold its next election?

Will the people of Iraq be happy about a New oil pipeline to Israeli refineries?

And, finally, will the end result be worth the trillion or two it's going to cost us?

And don't forget the thousands of dead U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Is the new Iraq gonna be worth it?

targeting info so he could more effectively gas the Kurds

Huh? Wha? I'm pretty sure Saddam knew where the Kurds were better than we did. I mean, I doubt Halabja is even on our maps. We gave Saddam a lot of military aid against the Iranians, and whether that was a good move is a complicated discussion. They were losing the war, and the whole Middle East was terrified of Iran at that point, for good reason. But regardless, if anyone has any credible evidence that we gave Saddam chem weapons, I'll eat my hat. I don't even have a hat, but I'll buy one, eat it, and post the video.

Traborn: Why isn't the war an issue in the Pres race?

Media bias, perhaps? I certainly care about it.

Traborn: I realize I'm at risk of being pigeonholed as a chickenhawk stooge of the administration, but the facts clearly show that things have turned around in Iraq.

Would you say that we've turned a corner?

Traborn I won't label you a stooge of the administration. However, the following things need to be acknowledged before the assertion that "things have turned around in Iraq." First, al Sadr's seize fire has a lot to do with decreased violence. How long will that last? Second, we have seen "success" against the insurgents before, that resulted in simply a change in the battlefield i.e. Fallujah. And third, that only numerical standard you can assert that things are getting better is by saying "Hey, look things are less violent in the last two months than it has been since some arbitraty time in 2005". Meaning, I wouldn't say this was statistically relavent. And of course, lastly, the violence isn't going to stop because there has been absolutely no political progress, nor will there be.

ScubaDude1960: flaEsq: In all the rush to execute that truly horrible man did no one in our intel community think it worth interrogating him? What was up with that?

They had to hang him quick so he couldn't give the details on how we put him in power, paid for his "rape rooms" and trained his police in how to use them, gave him chem/bio weapons and targeting info so he could more effectively gas the Kurds, and basically approved of everything he did that got him hanged.

You might want to do a little research there, before you start the America-bashing.

America was one of the less complicit countries in supplying Iraq with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons manufacturing technology and equipment.

Most of Iraq's WMD manufacturing technology and equipment were from France, Germany, and the USSR.

German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons programs are German in origin.

France built Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. 21% of Iraq's chemical weapons were from France.

Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq's nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium.

Swiss companies aided in Iraq's nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade.

Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.

The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program and biological samples to Iraq. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.

The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.

An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure.

Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.

The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.

Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.

India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.

Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.

Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq's chemical warfare program.

China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.

Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.

Lets hang all the leaders.

What happens then?

Will Sadar call off his cease fire? Will Iran step up its aid to insurgents? Will the dozens of tribal militias the U.S. Army has bribed and armed decide to stop playing nicely?

These are the real questions. Good questions, without easy answers. The simple fact is, no one knows, and I'm not going to drone on and on about my reasons for optimism. But I will at least say that the people joined our fight because they were sick of war. They were sick of losing men, women, and children to senseless violence. I don't delude myself into thinking many of them have some deep loyalty to us. But I also don't think they're in a rush to plunge their nation back into accelerated violence. We have a real window now to match out military and bottom-up political successes with the top-down compromises vital to finish the mission. I never said we'd won, I said we're winning.

And if things somehow keep getting better, what will the eventual "Stable" Iraq look like? How many U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq 10-20 years from now, and at what cost?

How "free" will the Iraqi people be? They were much safer and freer under Saddam than they are at the moment.

Here is where I strongly disagree with you. Freer by what measure? Free to have their uprisings brutally crushed, with mass murder of uninvolved innocents as reprisal? Free to be tortured and raped for speaking out? Free to starve by the hundreds of thousands as aid money was diverted by Saddam, with the active complicity and passive neglect of the international community? This wasn't true until the last couple of months, but civilians are dying at a slower rate now than they were under the last 12 years of Saddam. If we can continue improving things, this war could end up saving countless Iraqi lives. But I'll admit, we're not there yet.

When will Iraq hold its next election?

Will the people of Iraq be happy about a New oil pipeline to Israeli refineries?

And, finally, will the end result be worth the trillion or two it's going to cost us?

And don't forget the thousands of dead U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Is the new Iraq gonna be worth it?

No one knows the answers to these questions. I'm not even sure I think the war was worth it. I'm withholding judgment. I didn't say I supported the war, I just said we were winning it. But if Iraq lives up to its potential, I believe the world will be a much better place as a result.

Yeah, because Iraq would be so much better if he were still alive to run things.
Sorry kids, but, execution was the best thing that could have happened to him.
/libs are obviously going to try to play the guilt card.
//too bad hitler died, we could have put him in a nice happy prison with cable tv and i'm sure everyone in germany would have just forgotten about him too.
///tired of feel-good pantywaist libtards whining about the exection of a man who had hundreds of thousands executed.

So we're finally being welcomed as liberators? Sweet!

/HMWJK: How Many Would Jesus Kill?

Saddam should be on trial in the Hague. Its another symptom of the failed Bush doctrine that has been a huge step backward for progress and American integrity.

I don't want to ramble, but I also don't want to ignore questions posed to me, so here goes.

First, al Sadr's seize fire has a lot to do with decreased violence. How long will that last?

I addressed this in my last post, but I'll further clarify that I agree that our fragile alliances and agreements are hardly done deals. It's a real risk. But it's not impossible to imagine them holding up for the long haul. We have to wait and see, while trying to facilitate deeper, civil ties.

Second, we have seen "success" against the insurgents before, that resulted in simply a change in the battlefield i.e. Fallujah.

We haven't seen success like this. We've pushed them out of specific areas before, but the Sunni Awakening has left them without places to run to. They're losing ground at a startling pace.

And third, that only numerical standard you can assert that things are getting better is by saying "Hey, look things are less violent in the last two months than it has been since some arbitraty time in 2005". Meaning, I wouldn't say this was statistically relavent.

I think my last answer addresses this fairly compellingly. AQ needs support of the local population to function. They thrive in Waziristan because the tribe has control, and lend them its resources.

And of course, lastly, the violence isn't going to stop because there has been absolutely no political progress, nor will there be.

The central government hasn't held up its end of the bargain, but they aren't the be-all-end-all of political force. As I mentioned, we're forging important alliances with local leaders throughout the country. We're trained to believe that the rest of the world is like us, ruled by the federal government. The local leaders are as important, if ot more so. But I agree that we have to see real progress at the federal level to consolidate our gains.

JQpub

Joe Wilson wrote a NYT op-Ed citing Nigerian yellow cake as false.

hillary4real: Yeah, because Iraq would be so much better if he were still alive to run things.

True. Pathetic, but true.

Yes, I know you were sarcastic. I'm not.

Saddam should be on trial in the Hague. Its another symptom of the failed Bush doctrine that has been a huge step backward for progress and American integrity.

Did Saddam massacre American civilians? No. We had no right to claim Saddam from the Iraqis, then ship him off to the very int community that abandoned them and ignored him. He perverted and twisted Iraqi justice, it's only fitting (and legal common sense) that he should answer to it.

Would you rather he hanged a year ago or continued to remain in power?

idk, liek, the hauge was kinda boring.
iphone execution is the new hot, it gets me to the booth.

randomjsa: Would you rather he hanged a year ago or continued to remain in power?
Would you rather I force your mother to lick my asshole or rather I make your daughter lick mine?:

Traborn


Your spin is proportionate to the number of elected offices lost by republican talking points in 2006.

lolegacy accomplished

Your spin is proportionate to the number of elected offices lost by republican talking points in 2006.

lolegacy accomplished

Hey, I never said the war was a good idea, or that it had been well managed, and I'm not a Republican, so your jab doesn't exactly land. Further, everything I'm talking about is post 06, so its a rare double-whiff. I'm addressing the facts on the ground today, and I calls em like I sees em. Some are actually addressing those facts, and making reasoned counterarguments. You should try it, it's fun! I imagine it would be your first time. Don't worry, I'll be gentle.

Traborn

nd making reasoned counterarguments ...blah blah blah

Maybe after you've finished jacking yourself off.

cameroncrazy1984: TheAbstractor: Or am I suppose to be outraged because the Iraqi parliament didn't pass the Omnibus Peace Love and Brotherhood Forever and Ever act of 2007? Or because we'll have to keep a strategic troop presence in the area, like Rammstein or Okinawa?

I'm fairly certain US troops aren't in Germany or Japan because we're afraid the two countries will destabilize if we leave. You're an idiot.



Do you really think that's the reason we're still in Iraq?

Funny how all of these huge permanent military bases we've constructed in Iraq (like the sprawling Camp Anaconda that is so big it has it's own Pizza Hut and car dealerships) are all along the oil routes. Odd.





Go ahead and ask the troops who have been guarding these oil wells since day 1 what we're there for.

US troops will be in Iraq easily for the next 20-40 years, regardless of which branch of the one party American political system is in the White House. So don't worry. Any toddlers or kids you have (or are planning to have) will get the chance to spend a few tours of duty defusing IED's & getting shot at out in the Mesopotamian desert. Most likely this will require a military draft, but if you really believe that 'bringing democracy to the Iraqi people' is a worthy cause, you won't mind if your kid gets killed over there. You'll get over it.

bacccc: So we're finally being welcomed as liberators? Sweet!

/HMWJK: How Many Would Jesus Kill?

2,038,344
Damn heathens

I hate it when farkers claim the surge is working, the surge was INTENDED to destabilize the violence within the country so the central government can produce productive diplomacy and policies, but none of the war supporters can answer these questions after 5 years.

1.Electricity, water, and other utilities is virtually non-existent, what has the Iraqi government done to stabilize them?
2.With the surge ending next year, what has the Iraqi government done to stabilize the police, military, and civil programs?
3.What has the Iraqi government done to distribute oil revenues to all three factions?

4.What has the Iraqi government done to squelch the Kurdish Nationalist?

5.What has the Iraqi government done to stop the growing influence from Iran?

6.What has the Iraqi government done to keep the peace with Turkey?

7.What has the Iraqi government done to reduce the political and military power of Muqtada Al Sadr and the Mahdi army once American forces leave?

8.What has the Iraqi government done to disarm the Sunni insurgents?
9.What has the Iraqi government done to eradicate Al - Qaeda?
10.What has the Iraqi government done to bring back the refugees that have dispersed through out the region?
11.Thomas Ricks, the author of Fiasco stated on NPR that the Sunni refugees who left would come home to find the Shia Militias has taken over their personal property. What has the Iraqi government done to rectify this matter?
12.With all the problems in Iraq, why has the Iraqi government decide to take another month long vacation?

Maybe after you've finished jacking yourself off.

Damn, I guess we ARE losing the war, after all. I've just been pwned. Can you has smart now? No. Not yours.

Do you really think that's the reason we're still in Iraq?

I held off on the "strategic presence" thing, because it feeds into the war without end meme, but we've got troops in Okinawa to intimidate China and North Korea. We'll keep troops in Iraq to intimidate Iran (as well as stabilize, and yes, that includes their economy, which = oil). So really, his analogy is fairly apt.

TrabornI addressed this in my last post, but I'll further clarify that I agree that our fragile alliances and agreements are hardly done deals.

Eh, Al Sadr hates the US forces plain and simple. He's never made an alliance/truce/deal with us, and he isn't planning on it unless we agree to an unconditional surrender and pullout.

What he HAS done is ingratiate himself with the Iraqis, through public works and ideology, and simply realizes that he needs to discipline his forces better so they kill fewer iraqis and more US soldiers in the future. He also has the majority political influence in their legislative body.

He's basically the most popular and powerful in Iraq, since he fights both Al Qaeda and the US, which means whatever democracy Bush tries to instill will serve to only democratically prove that the Iraqis want us out or dead. Bush naturally will rather keep sending men in rather than let that happen, and all the while claim that Al Qaeda is what will be killing our guys in the future.