WHO STARTED THE SECTARIAN FIGHT IN IRAQMay 31st, 2007 - 23:56:25

The two main sects Shias and Sunnies have lived together for 1400 years in Iraq in peace who started it in year 2003? The US administration's obsession of anti-Iran moves has played against USA at every step.

Then why to take another wrong step?

BUT DOES THE IMBECILITY EVER LEARN? I should not be expecting rational decisions from our mentally sick policy makers!

Report this comment

Stop your liesJun 1st, 2007 - 01:14:18

'The two main sects Shias and Sunnies have lived together for 1400 years in Iraq in peace..'

One of your many lies here.... They have been at each others throats for ages. The Sunnis see the Shiites as 'pretenders' and 'polytheists' and the Shiites just suck up and kiss Sunni ass like dogs begging for acceptance.

Report this comment

pbJun 1st, 2007 - 11:48:13

The first post, in addition to being completely incorrect, has nothing to do with the story in this thread. The primary problem in Iraq today is a schism between the various Shia militias and leaders. The Sunni are actually battling al Qaeda, but there are over 100 shieks involved. This is a tribal society gathered under a few distinct religious 'divides', and there's no point of cohesion. Afghanistan has a somewhat similar problem, being made up of many tribes led by warlords, some of whom deal with the Taliban (we paid the other ones off).

Perhaps the foolish first poster thought that Saddam's years of persecuting the Shia through force reflected some kind of idyllic existence.

Bush, master of gestures, has made yet another - we're going to 'help' the Iraqis to achieve goals that should have been met years ago, via a new Presidential appointment. Oh, that's our problem - one too few Bush appointments. Petraeus was obviously inadequate, so now we need another Bremer.

Today's story of greater interest, (perhaps the one Bush meant to detract from), is that Gen. Odierno now claims that the expected September timeframe will not be adequate to 'measure progress'.

---

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. ground commander in Iraq warned Thursday that September may be too soon to tell whether the American troop buildup in Baghdad has worked, casting doubt on a crucial milestone set by Congress to reassess Iraq war strategy.

With the last units of the U.S. combat troop buildup reaching Baghdad this month, the U.S. strategy will have been in full effect for about 60 days by September, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq. The buildup, ordered by President Bush in January, eventually will consist of 28,500 combat and support troops.

Congress has mandated that military commanders measure results of the U.S. strategy by September. Odierno said he would deliver his evaluation to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American general in Iraq, late this summer. But Odierno said repeatedly in a briefing that he was likely to report that he needed more time.

---

Now, we're supposed to believe that those few thousand troops on the way are the 'tipping point', so we should sail past the September 'benchmark' of measuring progress while letting the whole mess degrade further.

Gimme a 'C'
Gimme an 'R'
Gimme an 'A'
Gimme a 'P'

(Most of all, give me a President who understands his job description)

Report this comment

truconserveJun 1st, 2007 - 15:46:21

The president continues to be clueless, incompetent, and delusional in his selection of strategies to win the war on terror. A special envoy is not necessary; like fluffy icing on a cake, unless she is going to line up all the Iraqis and give them a spanking, whipping, or as the pres would put it, a real good thumping. The apparent operational mindset, behind the shock and awe, will continue to be the idea that if we just kill enough people we will win something politically. Meanwhile,the real winnners are the ones, terrorists and corrupt corporations, alike, who will walk away whenever, with the most loot taken from dispossessed Iraq citizens and the American taxpayers.

Report this comment

pbJun 1st, 2007 - 17:47:32

One more move in the Photo-Op Presidency. With an 'envoy', no matter how impotent, Bush can claim to be 'listening'. Frankly, ge barely does that. He seems to be running out of camp followers who will tell him the facts, so he promotes the 'true believers' into positions of influence, so Tony Snow can refer to someone other than Bush when spreading the fertilizer to the press.

I've never seen a President with this many 'negative accomplishments', and things will continue to slide downhill with Cheney making policy. We will be fortunate to get through 2008 without Cheney's dream of military action against Iran. The 'Axis' speech was the clue - this is not about 'protecting America', but a personal agenda.

------------------

From an actual Cheney speech in 1992:

'And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?' Cheney said then in response to a question.

'And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'

(About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.)

Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.

'All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques,' Cheney said.

'Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.'

Report this comment