The alternative to Biden - take a look at Richardson.

He will bring all of our troops home promptly and has a global agenda to save the planet and improve the welfare of the human race.  See
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/19/184344/54

#105822 by DanielB
#105819 by DanielB
#105811 by DanielB

Well, DanielB:

I’d say your ‘agenda’ has been pretty transparent from the beginning, with the first ‘attack’ directed at me. Now it’s Louise’s turn.

So, I let it roll for a while, (some might say it was a matter of giving you enough rope to hang yourself). Eventually, (and in your case, it didn’t take long) to ‘get’ what your agenda is. I’m willing to entertain that you may actually be so inexperienced at this, as to believe that you might really fool folks. Shoot, for all I know, you may even believe all of this trash yourself.

But, I’ve been around a while Danny, so…what can I say. Sorry you wasted your time. At least you were smart enough to save your work, (so you could just copy and paste the same insults that you directed to me, to whomever else came up next on your hit list. In this case, Louise – you accused her (VERBATIM) of the same thing you slug at me in your Private Message of several days ago.  Be careful of that. You really tell on yourself that way.

But, I said that to say that it’s all transparent, and we’ve figured it out. So, my best advice, (since you’ve done all of this work) would be to see if you can get it to fly on some other websites that allow commentary.

Won’t work here though. At least not with me, and I kind of doubt it will have much of an effect on the crowd that usually hangs out here. Most of them are at least as old as me. And, none of us like to be lied to. Actually, most folks don’t like to be lied to. It’s always a mistake to insult someone’s intelligence….even if they don’t have much.

I don’t know of anybody who regularly posts to this site, not even those who are most fanatically pro-Zionist Israel, who would actually come out and suggest (at least in print) that our troops should continue dying and destroying, all for the benefit of Israel. Some may actually believe and want that, but I’ve yet to hear anybody actually say/write it.

So, now that your agenda is like all hanging out, easily read between the lines, there’s really not much more for you to say. We (at least my own family, with our 14 generations born right here in the good old US of A, aren’t willing to send our blood and treasure to further the OIL heist and the goals of the PNAC, and all of it’s blood and oil vampires.

An easy read between the lines, tells the tale Daniel. So, save your breath and energy – at least on me.

Are you planning to ship off to Iraq or Iran anytime soon yourself? Maybe after Israel supplies those special vehicles? That’s kind of hard to believe as well. In all my life, Israel rarely fights it’s own wars. Even with last summer’s attack on Lebanon, they had to get the carpet bombs from us. I think Condi Rice flew them over there personally.

Stay safe.

Give my best to your mentors. Tell ‘em you need a little more practice. I’m sure you’ll be up to full speed in no time. Still not well enough to fool us, but it could work with a new audience.

#105899 by Tony Wicher

Me too Tony. Still a dem, always been a dem, and always issue, never candidate oriented. That’s why I’m now decided on Kucinich. (Gravel or Thompson would do as well)

(I started out with very high hopes for Barack, and I still have them). But for now, I can only support a candidate who will stop the rape of the Middle East, and bring us back to the rule of law, and at least address the reality of where we’re at now, which is a dictatorship, and the Constitution has been totally trashed.

ANY candidate who cannot, or will not address those issues, and promise to end this horrific crimes that have been perpetrated against us, and against the rest of the world, I simply cannot consider.

There’s still time for them to address these things, (and I even sent a letter to Obama, suggesting that he should). But, here again, the political gaming required in the way our system is set up, doesn’t allow him, (or any of them I guess) to be honest.

I guess that’s why I’d never make it as a politician.
Bullshit has to be their stock in trade. And, in better times, that was OK.

But now...there’s no time for that. There’s work to be done, and somebody has to get out there and say that they will do it. Not a single repug will, and so far, Kucinich, Gravel, and Thompson are the only ones who have indicated that they will address this most important issue.

We know that Hillary is perfectly OK with the plan (as it was in the beginning) to permanently occupy Iraq, and she’s apparently in agreement with Cheney for a full-speed ahead attack on Iran.

This is why I cannot consider any of them. If you find out that any of those three have changed their tunes, let me know. (Biden is a no-go as well, since he’s already in full motion plans for the same set-up for Iraq, that Israel has hooked-up during the past 60 years for the illegally occupied terrorites of Palestine).

For now, Kucinich, Gravel, and Thompson are still dems, right?

I’m voting for one of them, (probably Kucinich) even if it allegedly dilutes my vote. After the primaries, we’ll see.

Meantime, I’m still getting the rest of the gang prepared for what might be a necessary emmigration.

PS:
Cyrena: I never composed that mean-spirited comment you attributed to me in your last entry: “Were you around...”. I thought I was simply quoting you, but it seems now that it was Louise (another blogger on this thread). I would never degrade myself by insulting another human being’s intellectual capacity. Please look at my earlier post and see how I use quotes when I put that in there- my response to that quote was below that. I would be a hypocrite for championing democratic civility if I then insulted another involved citizen just as passionate as I am.

Louise: next time, please refrain from using the word SOB to refer to anyone else. It not only reflects poorly on you that you would resort to hurling insults within an otherwise calm democratic discourse, but it includes the mothers of whomever you’re hurling that insult at- beyond the intended target of your insult. I usually am laid-back and don’t let anything as infantile as that get to me and I’m usually fine with constructive criticism, but that ‘SOB’ comment went to far.

Next time, please know what your arguing- especially of you intend to resort to unsubstantiated condescension and personalized disparaging attacks. Please read up on Democratic civility and personal courtesy. And for future reference, please don’t be like Bush in thinking your subjective opinion is objectively infallible/supreme. That’s what monarchies are for; and last time I checked, we’re still a democracy.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, who is Iraq’s Shia National Security Advisor, and was nominated by the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA; UIA received the most votes in 2005) and later democratically elected, has praised Biden’s plan.

I also suggest critics who worry about federalism’s effects on the Sunni minority look at the advocacy efforts of Tareq al Hashemi, the head of the Islamic Party of Iraq (IPI), which is a widely-popular Sunni political party. He also is a major participant within the Iraqi consensus that Iraq should have federalism.

Part 4 to PM response:

Now, as you’d say, onto those MRAPS:

“Are you aware… that there are only TWO steel mills in the US, capable of producing the material required for these vehicles, and that they WILL not – CANNOT be ready before the year 2010-2013?”

If you have read the recent news articles about the MRAPs, you’d be aware that one of the biggest reasons for their delayed deployment to Iraq was not so much as lack of resources, but foot-dragging by the Pentagon and Don Rumsfeld (I guess he had stock in a competing defense contractor). If you had read about this foot-dragging and had read on, you’d learn that Joe Biden was one of the very first Senators who pushed the MRAPs back in 2003-2004 (if you’d like, I can send you links to official letters/material proving this).

Now, as to that timetable of 2010-2013 you provided. From this statement, I’d assume you didn’t hear that the Defense Department, after its foot-dragging, is now expediting its MRAP procurement and fielding program, with the MRAP contractors significantly ramping up their production capabilities. The contractors are expanding their MRAP production facilities, and there are already eight MRAP production facilities up and running. “An estimated 3,500 MRAPs” will arrive in Iraq by December 31ist.  At the end of August, Force Protection, one of the MRAP contractors, announced they are ahead of production schedule and sent 50 Cougar MRAPs to Iraq. They produced 209 the same month. Force Protection is the smallest of the MRAP contractors by a few thousand employees, so needless to say, the bigger MRAP contractors have exponentially larger resources. Meanwhile, Israel is also producing their own version of the MRAPs and shipping them to Iraq.

Which brings to my conclusion: if any immediate de-funding/withdrawal bill is voted down or vetoed, why keep with the strategy that doesn’t work? Does it really make sense to you that the Democrats, who know they will never get a majority on that kind of bill, keep giving the President a bill he consistently vetoes it? What does that do for our troops? Well, it doesn’t bring them home. And it makes them wait until the White House finishes playing political football and the Democrats stop flexing NONEXISTENT legislative-majoritarian muscle. How much time do our dying soldiers have until we give up our turf wars we know we’ll lose anyway and compromise. Compromise is what democracy- and politics- is about anyway. Biden got that and rammed the first SUCCESSFUL Democratic proposal down Bush’s throat and made him swallow. Why are some Democrats angry that Biden accomplished what the Democrats couldn’t even dream of accomplishing? Iraq is statistically the main reason why a Democrat would be elected in 2008, and Biden won the Iraq debate when every one of his colleagues failed.

2nd part of my response (out of 3):
It was under Qasim the Kurds started their revolt and started their calls for their own recognized region right after Qasim kicked out the British for the final time. “Liv(ing) together… in peace”, implies a politically satisfactory climate where the thought of starting a secessionist movement (in this case, for Kurdistan) would be nonexistent- but this was evidentially not the case. Not long after Qasim became Prime Minister, he came under heavy criticism for rejecting membership in the Nasser’s Egypt-Syria United Arab Alliance, when he had to fire fellow coup leader and his Deputy Prime Minister Colonel Abdul Salaam, who was one of the strongest pro-Nasserites. Following an assassination attempt in 1959, Qasim cracked down on all political activity of the domestic opposition, a move that could hardly be seen as promoting the ostensible Shia-Kurd-Sunni nirvana you seem to think was the result of the British expulsion. Within 4 years of Qasim’s 1958 coup, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis left Iraq. I venture to guess that they didn’t leave because of any overwhelming sense of brotherly love or camaraderie.

When Qasim took power, he himself established a three-man Council of Sovereignty, made up of a Shiite, a Kurd and a Sunni to act as heads of state, a move implying Qasim himself was aware of schisms between Shia, Kurd and Sunni and the need for a drastic campaign of reconciliation, while also acknowledging that his Sovereignty Council members would be able to wield more sway over each of the ethnic groups than he could ever dream (of course, he ended up maintaining the executive and legislative control himself). By paying lip service to his own Council of Sovereignty, he acknowledged that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds had a legitimate claim to their own sovereignty, which is decidedly one of the biggest ideas enshrined in federalism.

“With even a thriving population of Jews and Christians thrown in for good measure. Did you know that was still the case until the US
invaded…”
This statement, whereas the other ones were a bit more agreeable, is simply inaccurate. I already mentioned and broached briefly upon the Assyrians, so I’ll jump right to your statement about the Jews in Iraq. The Jews, even in the supposed ‘golden-age’ of Muslim-Jewish cooperation, were regarded as second-class citizens and were barred from political participation and hence had no established political outlet or public forum to express dissatisfaction. This is why the overwhelming majority of the 130,000 Jews left Iraq. Did I mention that Qasim’s constitution mentioned nothing of the political rights of Jews, Assyrians or Turkmens?

Part I Response to#105235 by DanielB
Hi Daniel,
Hopefully you’ll have received my response to your PM by now, in which I was unable to address each one of your points individually, because of the same restrictions that you’ve mentioned. So, I addressed that in a broader context. I’ll try to fit a bit more in here, just so you know where I’m speaking from.

• “Were you around or able to read 4 or more years ago, to know that Sunni, Shia and Kurds have been living together in relative peace for the past several decades since their emancipation from the British?”

Yes to this question. I was “around” 4 years ago, and the 50 before that as well. And, I was even able to read. Matter of fact, I’ve spent the past 4 of those years pretty highly focused on the History of the Middle East, since it is an important part of my doctoral thesis.

• I highly doubt that you were referring To Iraq Under Saddam Hussein, because to say that the Kurds, Shia and Sunni were all getting along merrily in peace is simply not accurate.

On this, you might recognize that you DIDN’T know what I was referring to…(since you state that you highly doubt it). Humm. Could that be a bit presumptuous on your part? (no offense, I’m just trying to point to what might be your own political agenda, which you have so criticized me on.

Let’s carry that a bit further. Can you point to anywhere in my own piece, where I said that the Kurds, Shia and Sunni were all “getting along merrily in peace”. No Daniel, I don’t think you can, but I would invite you to read it again, with objectivity, instead of an emotional response. The thing you want to always be careful of, is not putting words in the mouths of others, (especially when the ‘other’ has actually written down those words, and they can be referenced). So, just double-check that. Make sure that if you’re going to quote somebody in an argument, that you quote what they said, and not how you’ve chosen to interpret it. OK. Like I said…no offense, but you lose credibility when the reader or the listener has already read/hear the initial argument, and can see for him or herself, that you are changing it around.

Now that we KNOW. (as does anyone else who read what I wrote) that I have already acknowledge that Saddam was well deserving of his title as “Butcher of Baghdad” and that anyone who has checked the history of the region…at all, knows that Saddam ruled by oppression and tyranny, and that he did use torture and massacres to stifle any challenge to his dictatorship, we’re going to move on to the general theme of my own piece. This is just a reminder that you failed to acknowledge, what I’ve already stated as fact. Saddam was a bad guy. We can definitely agree on that.

But, that’s doesn’t seem to be your complaint. Your complaint seems to be a reaction to my suggestion about the nature of the civil conflict now in progress in Iraq. MY argument, is that the US presence in Iraq, is what brought it about. I was not arguing that the society of Iraq was a peaceful band of all living together. What I DID argue, was that Iraq’s civil society was NOT in the midst of sectarian violence, using religion as an excuse. My argument was that in Baghdad at least, the neighborhoods were shared between Sunni and Shia. I argued that there were Shia in the Ba’ath party, who were also in Parliament. They shared institutions, their legal system, their educational system, their cultural resources, and yes…specifically, their Religion as Muslims. So, my point here, is that the differences between the Shia and the Sunni, (and I’m leaving out the Kurds for the moment, though most of them are Muslim as well) is like the differences among “Christians” here at home. Catholics and Protestants (along with a few dozen other denominations) all consider themselves to be Christians. We don’t slaughter each other based on those minor differences, and the greater population of Iraq wasn’t either.

TBC

Part II #105235 by DanielB

• I can go on about the human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein, but I don’t think you were referring to that, so I won’t waste your time systematically knocking Hussein’s human rights record.

Here again, you’re right, I wasn’t referring to Saddam’s Human Rights record at all, since I’m probably a bit older than you, and so I’m well aware of it. I was referring –specifically- to the sectarian blood letting now in progress, that you referred to in your original post as being “a CIVIL war” as if was ‘only about’ Sunni and Shia, as a result of some 1000 year old disagreements. And, I hoped to correct that inaccurate perception on your part, even if means only requiring that you go back even 5 years before the invasion, as opposed to NOW, nearly 5 years into the occupation that has literally destroyed it. It was never about Saddam’s human rights record, so while you claimed that you wouldn’t waste our time knocking it, it would appear that you did exactly that. But, anyone who was around or could read 4 years ago, would already be aware of that, right?

So, here’s what my own bottom line was, and my apologies if I failed to make this obvious initially. Here it is, the “sectarian violence” that we see now was actually PREDICTED by those who know the history and the culture and the people –I’m talking about the majority here Daniel, since that really was the point to begin with- WARNED that such violence and chaos would ensue. That is based on the same fundamental logic that can be applied to ANY society that comes under attack, and is thrown into chaos and a basic human struggle for survival. It’s happening here ( in the US) though I understand that you might not be aware of it. You can study the Rwanda genocide as one example…were the participants not ALL black Africans? Did they not slaughter each other? Was it because of a difference in ideology? It wasn’t, but I’m going to let you check that out for yourself, to see if you can determine WHY it occurred.

So….pre-occupation Iraq was not a “democracy” but rather a tyrannical dictatorship. It was also a sovereign nation state, and the US invasion, occupation, and subsequent destruction of it has been 1000% ILLEGAL. Here again, not my opinion, and not my “arrogance” but clearly a matter of law. And, the Law. (you’ll have to study this, and it could take a while to get through it, but I have sources if you like) the International Laws that govern the relationships between nations, as well as the laws of our own Constitution, have been overwhelmingly violated.

The US invasion of Iraq was for the purpose of controlling ALL of the natural OIL resources of that SOVERIGN nation. These are the absolute worst of crimes.

As a result, that country, as a nation, has ceased to exist. A million plus of Iraq’s civilians have been slaughtered, (that’s a low estimate by the way, but you can at least find documentation for this) and another 4 million have been either internally or externally displaced. They didn’t do this to themselves. The invasion of their nation did it to them. IOW WE –the US military presence in that nation- is what has destroyed it. This is not a matter of ‘opinion’ on my part. It actually is a matter of the facts, ugly as they may be.

I don’t have a political agenda in this, aside from the obvious, which is to put the blame for it, where it is…on the Cabal that planned and executed the takeover, KNOWING what the outcome would be, and not caring. The goal of the invasion and occupation by those who perpetrated it was to take over that nation, because of its strategic place in the oil heartlands of the world. I can’t change those facts. They are what they are.

TBC

Part III #105235 by DanielB

That’s why Biden, (who I’ve always been perfectly OK with in most of his views) becomes part of the problem in his scheme to break up that nation into sections. I hope you understand my ideology here, when I say that Iraq is not now, and never was OURS to decide for. It is NOT for Joe Biden, or ANY OTHER US politician, to decide what is best for the remaining Iraqis. Do you get my point here? Do you understand how we have now FAR FAR FAR exceeded the Human Rights atrocities of Saddam, because of the arrogance and hubris (don’t give a damn who’s in the way of the oil, as long as we get it for ourselves) that the US represents?

Do you understand that I’m not speaking as a democrat, or a republican, or an independent, (though I’ve been a dem most of my voting life) but simply as a global citizen who believes in Human Rights for ALL citizens, as well as the rule of law?

That’s where what you perceive as my “arrogance” comes from. (though I don’t see it as such, but I’ll accept that it could come across that way). I’m speaking from a larger view, based on the laws of the land.

Our politicians, (Biden included) are still of the belief that we actually have some sort of imperial right, to decide what is best for another population. That attitude, which is shared by a large majority of our population, (just because it’s sort of an “arrogance” that seems to have been handed down in our own culture) has created what we see in Iraq now. It’s not the first time, and I would direct you to another excellent piece on the site… which describes what our own history has conveniently ignored.

The piece is by Eunice Wong, entitled The Forgetting. It’s worth reading. I hope you will.

Meantime, please let me know if you have a continued interest in Human Rights. I’m actually very proud of the program that I’m fortunate enough to be attached to. It is from that commitment (to Human Rights, and not a political ideology) that my passion is derived.

The End.

I have to post my response in a few parts, since Truthdig says it’s too long for one.

Hi Cyrena,

First off, let me tell you that I am a liberal Democrat (actually, I am a social democrat, but that’s irrelevant), contrary to what you seem to think I am.

You’re response was very impressive in that you are for the most part very knowledgeable and very passionate about these issues. I am also appreciative of the time and effort you took to respond. However, I am very disheartened that you seemingly felt the need to resort to personally disparaging insults, especially because you then proceed to state historical inaccuracies as fact. I am perplexed at this intellectual arrogance and sweeping implication that your knowledge/perspective is infallible. I don’t make the claim that my views are infallible, and I think every intellectually honest individual should venture away from making platitudinous claims attesting to theirs. One of the reasons why the United States- and the world- is in a mess right now is that George Bush makes the same type of faulty claim that his views/judgments are infallible and lets his mistaken sense of ideological infallibility/supremacy guide the abhorrent policies of his administration.

“Were you around or able to read 4 or more years ago, to know that Sunni, Shia and Kurds have been living together in relative peace for the past several decades since their emancipation from the British?” First of all, are you referring to the July 1958 Iraqi nationalist revolution led by Abd al-Karim Qasim, which kicked out the British for the final time? I’ll just assume you’re referring to that revolt, and not to the April 1941 nationalist Golden Square coup led by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani or the yearlong successful coup in October of 1936. I highly doubt that you were referring To Iraq Under Saddam Hussein, because to say that the Kurds, Shia and Sunni were all getting along merrily in peace is simply not accurate. One of the most glaring examples of this is the infamous al-Anfal campaign. According to Human Rights Watch, 50,000 to 100,000 Kurdish citizens were massacred, 4,000 Iraqi Kurdistan villages were destroyed and 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques and 27 churches were destroyed. I would hardly think that you would propose that the government’s use of firing squads and concentration camps against innocent Iraqi Kurds, Turkmen and Assyrians (2 of the largest ethnic groups in Iraq) would constitute “living together… in peace.” The Iraqi Shia were politically neutered and left out of much the political process and, whenever possible, targeted and marginalized. Shia and Kurd generally stuck to themselves in their respective regions in the South and North while calling for their own autonomous regions, which Saddam didn’t like because Iraq’s oil was in those two regions. As another glaring sign of Shia-Sunni tension in Iraq, Saddam executed at least 41 Shiite clerics from the 70s through 85 and Shia mosques have been blown up. I can go on about the human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein, but I don’t think you were referring to that, so I won’t waste your time systematically knocking Hussein’s human rights record.

#103628 by DanielB

I think someone needs to point out a crucial fact: our soldiers are ALREADY there- Biden’s NOT putting more soldiers in Iraq. Not funding their protection means more of those soldiers will die- and I highly doubt that Mr. Scheer wants more of our soldiers to die.

Daniel, are you aware (from previous posts on this very thread) that there are only TWO steel mills in the US, capable of producing the material required for these vehicles, and that they WILL not – CANNOT be ready before the year 2010-2013? Look down the thread for Louise’s post. Do ya think the troops can hang in there for a while, or do you think we should bring them home NOW, while they’er still alive, and only gravely wounded? Or, maybe not, since we can’t take care of the ones that are wounded. No money for their care, and nobody really qualified any more to take care of them. How do you feel about that? Do you think maybe we could use all of this money for THAT? Bringing them home NOW, and taking care of the thousands upon thousands of them that are so totally wounded that they WISH they were dead?

#103067 by Louise

Maybe he should have made his wish more explicit- to bring home our men and women ALIVE.

Well, that would mean bringing them home now. Not sending special vehicles to them 3 or 4 years from now.

• This is another excerpt that I find glaringly false. The fighting in Iraq IS “ethnic cleansing” AND “civil war”. The chaos now going on in Iraq is mainly Shia killing Sunni, Kurds killing Shia, etc. They will NEVER get along- at least in the near future. ALSO, Iraq is ALREADY divided up into regional zones, and trespassers from the different regions are slaughtered; this is the civil war we’ve been hearing about. Iraq is already “partitioned” and consumed by “ethnic cleansing” and “civil war”.
How do you know this Daniel? And, have you considered that NONE of this was occurring prior to the US occupation? Are you aware that these “partitions” of Iraq have happened as a result of OUR contractors building concrete razor-wire topped barricades around entire communities, locking the remaining Iraqis who have not been able to flee, into a prison…not unlike what Israel has done to the Palestinian territories that it occupies.

Were you around or able to read 4 or more years ago, to know that Sunni, Shia and Kurds have been living together in relative peace for the past several decades since their emancipation from the British? With even a thriving population of Jews and Christians thrown in for good measure. Do you know ANY of this, or are you just parroting the standard Mob propaganda? Did you know that was still the case until the US invaded and then proceeded to set up a permanent occupation of that nation, in order to steal its natural resources. Did you know any of that? Do you know that the Iraqis themselves, have known for the past 5 years, that we are only there to steal their oil? If you knew that, you’d know that the primary source of the violence is by Iraqis, directed at the robbers (that would be OUR TROOPS) who are there to steal the oil? You should read up. We know better, and so do the Iraqis. WE started whatever civil strife is in that country, and the Thugs PLANNED it that way. All the better to steal the nations resources.

Please check these things before you make the standard ignorant comment that has come down from the thugs, as in, “these people are never going to get along.” BECAUSE…they were managing OK before we got there and destroyed them.

Meantime, the only “higher calling” for Sentor Biden, is to be aware of all of these same things himself, since we cannot rely on the populace, (like YOU) to know any better. HE should, and I believe that he DOES. It’s not about protecting our troops. It’s about continuing that occupation and oil theft operation.

Thank you for your attention.

DanielB:
America is not going to wake up to the fact that we need to let the Iraqi people govern themselves.Hell there are those here who run our lives,tell us what we can and cannot due because it goes against their personal or religious beliefs. Just look at the gay/ abortion issues-something that should be a decession only that involves the people it concerns,not total nosy busybodies who don’t know you and don’t care about you, only to control you to make them feel better about themselves, yet we still let others force their desires onto total strangers. And no - democratic ideal no longer belongs to the individual person in this country.When the Europeans came to this country they forced their ways onto the indigenous people here,now these C.C.R.W.’s are doing the same thing in Iraq.Bring our soldiers home and let Iraqis decide what is right for them. If these control freaks in this country took care of their own personal life rather than disrupt lives of total strangers they would be more than busy.

One excerpt I think is misguided:
“Actually, Senator, you do have a higher obligation: to think through the need for this mission before you vote to put troops in harm’s way...”

I think someone needs to point out a crucial fact: our soldiers are ALREADY there- Biden’s NOT putting more soldiers in Iraq. Not funding their protection means more of those soldiers will die- and I highly doubt that Mr. Scheer wants more of our soldiers to die. Simply stripping our soldiers of their protection would mean that we’ll bring home dead American soldiers while we could have brought home those same soldiers ALIVE. Biden has stated on numerous occasions that we need to bring our soldiers home as earliest as possible. Maybe he should have made his wish more explicit- to bring home our men and women ALIVE.

“Fortunately, the vast majority of Iraqis, whom Biden did not bother to consult, rejected that prescription for ethnic cleansing and endless civil war. Fully 98 percent of Iraqis told BBC/ABC pollsters that dividing their country along sectarian lines would be bad for Iraq...”

This is another excerpt that I find glaringly false. The fighting in Iraq IS “ethnic cleansing” AND “civil war”. The chaos now going on in Iraq is mainly Shia killing Sunni, Kurds killing Shia, etc. They will NEVER get along- at least in the near future. ALSO, Iraq is ALREADY divided up into regional zones, and trespassers from the different regions are slaughtered; this is the civil war we’ve been hearing about. Iraq is already “partitioned” and consumed by “ethnic cleansing” and “civil war”.

By the way, I suggest that you the plan’s detractors look up the definitive distinction between FEDERALISM and PARTITION if you want to criticize Biden’s plan more effectively. I especially recommend that anyone with an interest in what the Iraqis ACTUALLY WANT look into the work of Bakar Humam Hammoudi, the Iraqi Constitution committee chairman, Fouad Massoum, the chair of the Kurdish delegation and Adnan al-Janabi, chair of the Sunni delegation. Also pay examine the efforts of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of Iraq’s largest political party Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and look at the United Iraqi Alliance, which got 4.08 million out of 8 million (48.1%) votes in 2005. I urge everyone to examine their negotiations between Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurd AND look at their own consensus: they WANT FEDERALISM. Joe Biden is making the U.S. listen to that IRAQI consensus. He wants IRAQ to be for IRAQIS.

Biden simply wants to give the Iraqis what they themselves want: their own regions officially recognized AND legalized (they already have de facto regions) and thereby their territorial integrity/autonomy respected. If this is done, the ethnic-based civil war WILL END, because the regions will largely be autonomous and no one would even WANT to cross into the different regions because they WANT their own INDEPENDENT regions. One of the main reasons for the “civil war” is that everyone is in each other’s face, they have a visceral hatred towards the other ethnic group and they want their own local affairs to be left untouched by the other side. That is even written in their own constitution. Biden is giving them what they want. Their desires might not be explicit all the time, but it is definitely strongly implicit in the ethnic slaughter going on right now in Iraq.

When will Americans wake up and realize the fact that they have to let Iraq govern themselves according to THEIR own wishes? When will they realize that they can no longer tell Iraq or Iraqis how to live their lives? Doesn’t self-determination mean anything to us anymore- or does that democratic ideal apply only to us?

#103067 by Louise

Great post Louise, since you always have new sources of new information, that I wouldn’t otherwise find. (or, it would take me forever).

So, TWO steel mills that are actually able to “produce” what is needed for these specially equipped vehicles? And they’ll be ready - maybe, by 2012? He didn’t mention that, did he?

These SOB’s just piss me off.

From Kevin’s post #103032

• He predicted that the war would be won “without destruction” and said planning was under way for “post-Saddam Iraq”.

This would indicate that he KNEW there was no danger of “mushroom clouds” or any other threat from Saddam or Iraq, since his handlers KNEW that Iraq was already grossly weakened by a decade of sanctions and 3 wars. So, GW had already been advised by his own masters, that it was only a matter of going in and destroying what was left of Saddam’s army, as well as the entire Baath-based bureaucracy.

As for the part about the “planning under way for ‘post-Saddam’ Iraq”….he wasn’t lying about that. Those plans for a “post-Saddam” Iraq have been under way for a decade or better. (PNAC) So he wasn’t talking about the same “post-Saddam Iraq” that WE interpreted. He meant the post-Saddam Iraq that we see now; the privatization of Iraq’s Oil by his buddies, and the breaking up of the Iraqi society into multiple little pieces.

THAT was the post-Saddam Iraq that he was planning and that’s what we see. So, THEIR “plan” is right on schedule. The only thing that threw them off was those Iraqis, (AKA insurgents, terrorists, rebels, etc) because they weren’t supposed to be in a position to fight back.

• “I think there is a good basis for a better future,” he said. “Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively robust civil society.”

Just as an FYI, (because it’s so easy to forget) GW SAYS all of this stuff, but ONLY after somebody else has written it up for him, and put him through a rehearsal or two. How would GW know anything at all about the bureaucracy or the civil society in Iraq? (Or ANYWHERE) HE had to ask the South Korean President if he was “from the ‘good’ Korea or the ‘bad’ Korea!!!

So, we should keep this in mind, when we hear or read ANYTHING that comes from the Boy. HE didn’t think of it!! The only idea he came up with, was the one he presented to Tony Blair, when he was talking him into helping with the assault. He suggested that they paint an aircraft in the colors of the UN, fly it over the no-fly zone of Iraq, so that Saddam would hopefully strike at the airplane, and thereby give a “justification” for US (not the UN) to BOMB them. Quite honestly, I don’t think even THIS was an original idea for GW, because he wouldn’t have had a “clue” about a no-fly zone. (and also because both Cheney and Rove have used similar tactics over the years).

I guess I just can’t help continuing to reiterate how incredibly stupid GW is. And, I only do it so that our attention isn’t consistently distracted from those who really ARE planning everything and just using him as the medium by which to deliver “the message” to the rest of us.

At least that’s part of it. The MAIN point of my premise is that there is now, and always has been, the Shadow Agenda, and everything that comes out of this Cabal has to be considered in context to THAT agenda, rather than the one that affects US, (like the alleged “protection of our troops or our ‘national security’) If we look at THEIR agenda, all is going well. It is as they planned, (except for those pesky Iraqis getting in the way of the heist.)

Now we COULD call them on THAT poor planning, based on their real agenda. They never planned for a resistance to the heist, like any other self-respecting and more pragmatic burglar/thief/criminal would have planned. But, that’s a typical mistake for those who are so arrogant as to not even consider those “obstacles”. Surely a bully never tries to rob somebody that might resist, and maybe even injure themselves in the process. So, how could THEY know that the Iraqis weren’t gonna just hand over the oil when they told them to?

Also, the Biden plan to break up Iraq is not a new one. He’s been pushing it for a couple of years now, with support from both sides of the aisle.

Pardon me for my horrid grammar, but pain killers have just come into effect.

Well, Joe Biden is a regular editorial contributor to the Council on Foreign Relations. Michael H. Haltzel, a senior foreign policy advisor to Biden is a member of of the CFR is supported by David Rockefeller. Anything that come out of Biden is contrived and strategic to killing my country as a constitutional republic. He has asked a Supreme Court nominee how he felt about the forced implantation of of microchips into American citizens. He is evil as are many of the other politicians with connections to internationalist elite organizations with a commitment to forced world government by NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. Bill Richardson and Hillary are also connected to internationalist organizations who want to kill this nation. I could go on withe Republicans as well with their anti-American connections to elite globalist organizations. Go ahead and publish his bilge, but I am not going to be mollified by his antics.

Joe Biden says:

“We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines.”

Cyrena says:

Hey Joe, how about we just DON’T SEND THEM to the “front lines”? How about, we let them come home and stay home, and then we wouldn’t need these specially equipped humvees. And, we’d have a trillion or so to pitch in for housing, (for all), food (for all) medical care, (for all) education, (for all) and DEFENSE of the only “front lines” we need to care about, all of which are contained right here in these Continental United States.

Somebody should just kick his ass. (yeah, I said that too).

Maybe “Capitalist” is a word that belongs next to “Communist” and “Fascist” because they all seem to stand for the same thing.

All the wealth and power for a small ruling elite.
Devaluing the masses to the level of servitude.
Control by brute force.

Biden, like Hillary and Romney and Giuliani and most of the presidential wannabes and congress, are Capitalists. The first thing we need to get through our heads is they are of a class that truly sees us as meaningless ... except for whatever we can provide to keep the empire going. Doesn’t matter what party they align with.

The Iraqis were doomed to destruction the day the M&M;twins realized Saddam was converting his petro-dollars to the euro. And that happened long before they darkened the door of the White House. That the people in Iraq are now being slaughtered and dislocated is completely unimportant. Biden speaks passionately about solving the problem in Iraq, because that’s what people want to hear.

He speaks with equal passion about the [so-called] threat from Iran, because that’s what his masters want to hear.

Now about those vehicles ...

MRAP [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected] Vehicles emerged by 2007 as the solution to the problem of the IED [Improvised Explosive Device]

http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_mrap.php

Emerged by 2007?
Weren’t they paying attention for four years?

In May, Defense Secretary Gates said acquiring MRAPs was the DoDs highest priority, so for fiscal year 2007 $1.1 billion was earmarked for MRAP. The Pentagon has ordered the production of about 6,400 and plans to order more. Contracts have been placed to several companies, to accelerate the rate of production and speed up delivery to the forces.

However, there are only TWO steel mills in the United States, qualified to produce armor steel for the Defense Department. Just one of many unintended consequences of our new “service society.” So, production and delivery is no-where near meeting need. And now, they have suspended some contracts and called for a new design!

In July, the Marine Corps launched “MRAP II pre-solicitation” to develop an MRAP that offers a higher level of protection ... particularly from
threats such as explosively formed penetrators ... and to provide the Joint Program Management Office with more flexibility to increase production ... and provide MRAPs with better performance ... and to meet future near-term requirements.

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2007/08-August/02-Aug- 2007/FBO-01357917.htm

Future near-term requirements?
Where were those plans when they decided to start their unnecessary war?

Destroying Iraq has very nearly destroyed our economy pushing the petro dollar ever closer to collapse. Attacking Iran will likely accomplish the task, setting off a nuclear war in the process.

Another unintended consequence?

Now Biden and others want to spend more money they don’t have solving a problem they don’t understand, when the problem is so obvious .... the Congress, the Administration and the Pentagon ... all completely incapable of mastering the art of planning ahead!

Besides which they are amoral!

“We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines.” Biden opines.
What he fails to mention is even if the new design was ready and even if the money was there and even if a firm order was placed TODAY, we wouldn’t see the order for the army role into Iraq until 2010 ... 2013!

Besides, the highest obligation is to never send them into harms way needlessly!

I think there is only one clear way to solve our problem with our leaders. They should be paid in direct accordance with the value they produce. And if they produce nothing of value, they are non-producers. And as such should not be paid.

Now I don’t know how to go about doing that, but I do know how to fire them!

Americans are adopting the cloak of being the Creator’s chosen people to decide whether one born in what is now Iraq eventually becomes a Kurd, or a Shia or Sunni national.

Is this great or what? Its like being head of Wonderland/Fantasyland and Marvel Comics in one fell swoop. At the end of the 20th Century America was instrumental in creating two Germanys for a few years. Two Koreas out of one. Two Chinas out of one. Several entities out of one Yugoslavia. Three distinct and separated enclaves out of what used to be a British protectorate named Palestine.

At the onset of the 21st. Century a Senator from one of the smallest 50 is in the process of creating three different nation-states out of one along the same lines as proposed by an Israeli geographer/politician as means to minimize any threats to Israel from any one in the Middle East.

One is left to conclude that the proposal to cut up Iraq into THREE DISTINCT nation states in time could mean that Israel will be faced with an expanded number of Arab/Muslim states in addition to the US taxpayer having to lay out several more billions to build and staff embassies in those three nations that will demand representation in the UN.

There is a growing rumor that a few officials of an unnamed nation are gathering in a port/city in Asia to develop proposals for cutting up Australia into four distinct nation states as well as attaching the Falkland islands to Britain thereby making the UK whole by including the Falkands with Wales, Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Scotland.

If successful a breakaway group has indicated that they have a plan to attach the State of Delaware to the District of Columbia thereby minimizing meaningless verbiage in the Chambers of the US Senate in addition to stopping the practice of One-Upmanship.

Scheer’s article points out some of the dilemmas we face in trying to get a handle on the current occupation of Iraq.

And, of course, a potential attack on Iran is a concern.

It does seem evident that the tide has turned regarding American public opinion about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We saw the same turning point phase during the Vietnam War.

More on this in the article ...

“Americans felt turning points on Vietnam, Iraq wars in ‘70, ‘07” (American Chronicle, July 11, 2007)

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=31984

If the choice is between a pro-war Republican and a pro-war Democrat, it may be necessary for Ralph Nader to run.  Even though he can’t win, that may be the only way to vote against imperialist war.

I stand corrected Mr. Cassidy #102959, you’re right, Richardson does want to end the war and bring the troops home immediately. Actually, my point was more aimed at the news media who seem to think it’s their job to tell us who we should vote for.  I’m not really that impressed with Richardson, and since I’m easily impressed, I worry he won’t be taken seriously out on the world stage.  He just seems to have a need to be liked by all, probably not a good trait for a world leader today.  I could be wrong.....

Mary says “Kucinich is the only one saying end the war now and bring the troops home immediately, shut down GITMO and commit to Peace and diplomacy . . .”

That’s not correct.  Richardson has repeatedly called for a complete and prompt (less than a year) withdrawal of ALL U.S. troops from Iraq.  He has also stated that one of his first acts as President will be to close GITMO and end torture.  He pledges to set a fundamental new course for U.S. foreign policy by embracing the world and acknowledging our mutual interests and responsibilities, including by following international law, the Geneva Conventions and joining the International Criminal Court.

While Kucinich has many admirable qualities, he has no chance of winning.  Kucinich is nowhere in the polls and doesn’t have the extensive campaign organizations in the early states necessary to be competitive.  Richardson on the other hand is one of four Democrats to have double digit support in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, and has strong organizations in each state. 

Keep in mind that Iowa and New Hampshire voters wait until the end of the race to firmly support one candidate.  Richardson, while obviously with less resources than HRC and Obama, has a realistic chance of winning.  Kucinich doesn’t.

I appreciate that there are some aspects of Richardson’s record that won’t appeal to all persons on the left.  However, on the critical issues of Iraq, U.S. foreign policy, energy policy and climate change and immigration reform Richardson has set forth some of the strongest proposals of all Democrats.

“Who made them frontrunners anyway?”...#102865 William Ries....THE NEWS MEDIA, of course!  And since Kucinich is the only one saying end the war now and bring the troops home immediately, shut down GITMO and commit to Peace and diplomacy, he gets no positive press, usually an afterthought.  Even if he can’t win the nomination, he should still be taken seriously.  I am also angry Marlene Lunsman!!