Bush & Blair: The Iraq Fantasy

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece

Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy

Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. But while their state of
denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
Middle East, it continues to cost lives

By Patrick Cockburn

Published: 05 November 2006

"When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
fortress city of Verdun.

The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
dying every month. The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
one of them.

The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.

Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
consequence for the soldiers on the ground. The same poll shows that 92
per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
insurgency: it is widely popular.

For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
Iraqis dancing for joy.

Supposedly, the centrepiece of American and British policy is to stay
"until the job is done" and hand over to Iraqi army and police who will
cope with powerful militias like the Mehdi Army. But in police stations
in many parts of southern Iraq, photographs pinned to the wall include
one of British armoured vehicles erupting in flames, beside a portrait
of Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army.

In the first year of the occupation it could be argued that Bush and
Blair were simply incompetent: they did not understand Iraq, were
misinformed by Iraqi exiles, or were simply ignorant and arrogant. But
they must know that for two-and-a-half years they have controlled only
islands of territory in Iraq. "The Americans haven't even been able to
take over Haifa Street [a Sunni insurgent stronghold] though it's only
400 yards from the Green Zone," a senior Iraqi security official
exclaimed to me last week.

But the refusal to admit, as the British army commander Sir Richard
Dannatt pointed out, that the occupation generates resistance in Iraq,
means that no new and more successful policy can be devised. It is this
that is criminal. And it is all the worse because the rational
explanation for Mr Bush's persistence in bankrupt policies in Iraq is
that he has always given priority to domestic politics. Holding power
in Washington was more important than real success in Baghdad.

It is easy enough to say that Mr Bush lives in a world of fantasy in
Iraq. His aides are notoriously averse to giving him bad news.
Officials who do so lose their jobs. But this probably underestimates
the man. After 9/11 he successfully presented himself as the security
president. For the first time since the 1920s, the Republicans held the
presidency and both houses of Congress. The war in Afghanistan was
successful at little cost. He thought the same would be true in Iraq.

There was a spurious series of highly publicised turning points in the
war, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the return of
sovereignty to Iraq and the recapture of Fallujah in 2004, the
elections and referendum on the constitution of 2005.

In each case reality was always different. Nobody in Iraq thought
Saddam was the leader of the resistance, and his capture had no effect
on the insurgency. The return of sovereignty had little meaning: last
week the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, admitted that he could
not move a company of Iraqi troops without US permission.

Fallujah was very publicly stormed by the US Marines in November 2004,
but a few days later the insurgents, in an operation hardly mentioned
by the administration, captured the much larger city of Mosul in
northern Iraq, seizing arms worth $40m (£21m). The elections and
referendum in 2005 deeply divided Iraq's communities along sectarian
and ethnic lines, and led directly to civil war in central Iraq.

The US media was under extreme pressure to report the non-existent good
news that the White House accused them of ignoring.

I used to think how absurd it was for me to risk my life by visiting
the Green Zone, the entrances to which were among the most bombed
targets in Iraq, to see diplomats who claimed that the butchery in Iraq
was much exaggerated. But when I asked them if they would like to come
and have lunch in my hotel outside the zone, they always threw up their
hands in horror and said their security men would never allow it.

The fantasy picture of Iraq purveyed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair is now
being exposed. The Potemkin village they constructed to divert
attention from what was really happening in Iraq is finally going up in
flames.

But it is too late for the Iraqis, Americans and British who died
because they were unwitting actors in this fiction, carefully concocted
by the White House and Downing Street to show progress where there is
frustration, and victory where there is only defeat.

The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq by Patrick Cockburn has just
been published by Verso

Breeder wrote:
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>
> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>
> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. ....


Bad morning for you, isn't it?
Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.

Well, if it were for you he still would be in office.
Damn .....


:-)))

Max

"Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1162724729.359471.57820@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Breeder wrote:
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>
>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>
>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. ....
>
>
> Bad morning for you, isn't it?
> Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.
>
> Well, if it were for you he still would be in office.
> Damn .....
>
>
> :-)))
>
> Max

Don't tell me, you're one of the ignorant conserv's who believes bush and
blair went into Iraq because Saddam was a bad man.

Calimero wrote:
> Breeder wrote:
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>
>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>
>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. ....
>
>
> Bad morning for you, isn't it?
> Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.
>
> Well, if it were for you he still would be in office.
> Damn .....
>
>

And tell the nice people who kept Saddam in office.
Bush Senior.

> :-)))
>
> Max
>

Off-topic troll


Path: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!p ostnews.google.com!h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!no t-for-mail
From: "Breeder" <withbacon aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis,misc.fitness.weights,alt.showbiz. gossip,alt.gossip.celebrities,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Bush & Blair: The Iraq Fantasy
Date: 4 Nov 2006 23:36:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <1162712218.092239.271890 h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.131
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1162712222 3182 127.0.0.1 (5 Nov 2006 07:37:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 07:37:02 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/1.1 spider-ntc-tc07.proxy.aol.com[CFC87123] (Prism/1.1.7), HTTP/1.1 cache-ntc-ac02.proxy.aol.com[CFC87483] (Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=207.200.116.131; posting-account=vCIe_wwAAACDtw4zntUp2n0F14f9hiQ7
Xref: prodigy.net rec.sport.tennis:708986 misc.fitness.weights:1182837 alt.showbiz.gossip:939481 alt.gossip.celebrities:1738764 alt.conspiracy.jfk:426179

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece

Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy

Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. But while their state of
denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
Middle East, it continues to cost lives

By Patrick Cockburn

Published: 05 November 2006

"When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
fortress city of Verdun.

The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
dying every month. The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
one of them.

The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.

Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
consequence for the soldiers on the ground. The same poll shows that 92
per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
insurgency: it is widely popular.

For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
Iraqis dancing for joy.

Supposedly, the centrepiece of American and British policy is to stay
"until the job is done" and hand over to Iraqi army and police who will
cope with powerful militias like the Mehdi Army. But in police stations
in many parts of southern Iraq, photographs pinned to the wall include
one of British armoured vehicles erupting in flames, beside a portrait
of Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army.

In the first year of the occupation it could be argued that Bush and
Blair were simply incompetent: they did not understand Iraq, were
misinformed by Iraqi exiles, or were simply ignorant and arrogant. But
they must know that for two-and-a-half years they have controlled only
islands of territory in Iraq. "The Americans haven't even been able to
take over Haifa Street [a Sunni insurgent stronghold] though it's only
400 yards from the Green Zone," a senior Iraqi security official
exclaimed to me last week.

But the refusal to admit, as the British army commander Sir Richard
Dannatt pointed out, that the occupation generates resistance in Iraq,
means that no new and more successful policy can be devised. It is this
that is criminal. And it is all the worse because the rational
explanation for Mr Bush's persistence in bankrupt policies in Iraq is
that he has always given priority to domestic politics. Holding power
in Washington was more important than real success in Baghdad.

It is easy enough to say that Mr Bush lives in a world of fantasy in
Iraq. His aides are notoriously averse to giving him bad news.
Officials who do so lose their jobs. But this probably underestimates
the man. After 9/11 he successfully presented himself as the security
president. For the first time since the 1920s, the Republicans held the
presidency and both houses of Congress. The war in Afghanistan was
successful at little cost. He thought the same would be true in Iraq.

There was a spurious series of highly publicised turning points in the
war, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the return of
sovereignty to Iraq and the recapture of Fallujah in 2004, the
elections and referendum on the constitution of 2005.

In each case reality was always different. Nobody in Iraq thought
Saddam was the leader of the resistance, and his capture had no effect
on the insurgency. The return of sovereignty had little meaning: last
week the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, admitted that he could
not move a company of Iraqi troops without US permission.

Fallujah was very publicly stormed by the US Marines in November 2004,
but a few days later the insurgents, in an operation hardly mentioned
by the administration, captured the much larger city of Mosul in
northern Iraq, seizing arms worth $40m (£21m). The elections and
referendum in 2005 deeply divided Iraq's communities along sectarian
and ethnic lines, and led directly to civil war in central Iraq.

The US media was under extreme pressure to report the non-existent good
news that the White House accused them of ignoring.

I used to think how absurd it was for me to risk my life by visiting
the Green Zone, the entrances to which were among the most bombed
targets in Iraq, to see diplomats who claimed that the butchery in Iraq
was much exaggerated. But when I asked them if they would like to come
and have lunch in my hotel outside the zone, they always threw up their
hands in horror and said their security men would never allow it.

The fantasy picture of Iraq purveyed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair is now
being exposed. The Potemkin village they constructed to divert
attention from what was really happening in Iraq is finally going up in
flames.

But it is too late for the Iraqis, Americans and British who died
because they were unwitting actors in this fiction, carefully concocted
by the White House and Downing Street to show progress where there is
frustration, and victory where there is only defeat.

The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq by Patrick Cockburn has just
been published by Verso

In article <1162724729.359471.57820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups. com>,
"Calimero" <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:

> Breeder wrote:
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
> >
> > Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
> >
> > Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. ....
>
>
> Bad morning for you, isn't it?
> Saddam sentenced to death by hanging.
>
> Well, if it were for you he still would be in office.
> Damn .....
>
>
> :-)))
>
> Max
>

And if it was for us he WOULD BE IN OFFICE. Oh yeah, we put him there.
Btw, what is the school of the America's?? Or are you too ignorant to
know?

John Doe wrote:
> Off-topic troll

Stop wasting bandwidth you sad prick, you sound like my old
headteacher. You posting "off-topic troll" every time someone posts
something like this is not going to stop such behavior. If you're that
bored, go and take up golf instead of acting like Mr. Guardian of
usenet ettiquette.

FlyGuy <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>Btw, what is the school of the America's?? Or are you too ignorant to
>know?

Maybe we'll worry about the School of the Americas when its enrollment
begins to rival that of the Islamist madrassas.

Wayne wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
> > Off-topic troll
>
> Stop wasting bandwidth you sad prick, you sound like my old
> headteacher. You posting "off-topic troll" every time someone posts
> something like this is not going to stop such behavior. If you're that
> bored, go and take up golf instead of acting like Mr. Guardian of
> usenet ettiquette.<<

Every time he responds to my posts, he bumps them to the top of the
page.

Breeder wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > John Doe wrote:
> > > Off-topic troll
> >
> > Stop wasting bandwidth you sad prick, you sound like my old
> > headteacher. You posting "off-topic troll" every time someone posts
> > something like this is not going to stop such behavior. If you're that
> > bored, go and take up golf instead of acting like Mr. Guardian of
> > usenet ettiquette.<<
>
> Every time he responds to my posts, he bumps them to the top of the
> page.

I know, he's clearly an imbecile. He evidently thinks he's providing
some sort of public service by letting everyone know that someone has
posted something "off-topic" or a "troll", everytime HE, in his high
and mighty wisdom, has deemed this to be the case. What he's too thick
to realise is that, by posting such things, he's just allowing the
threads to live even longer. I think that in reality he loves off-topic
trolls as it gives him a reason to exist - without it he's probably
just some 55 year old loser with no friends, no wife and a receeding
hairline. This guy ranks pretty high with some of the most
self-important assholes on usenet.

Wayne wrote:
> Breeder wrote:
> > Wayne wrote:
> > > John Doe wrote:
> > > > Off-topic troll
> > >
> > > Stop wasting bandwidth you sad prick, you sound like my old
> > > headteacher. You posting "off-topic troll" every time someone posts
> > > something like this is not going to stop such behavior. If you're that
> > > bored, go and take up golf instead of acting like Mr. Guardian of
> > > usenet ettiquette.<<
> >
> > Every time he responds to my posts, he bumps them to the top of the
> > page.
>
> I know, he's clearly an imbecile. He evidently thinks he's providing
> some sort of public service by letting everyone know that someone has
> posted something "off-topic" or a "troll", everytime HE, in his high
> and mighty wisdom, has deemed this to be the case. What he's too thick
> to realise is that, by posting such things, he's just allowing the
> threads to live even longer. I think that in reality he loves off-topic
> trolls as it gives him a reason to exist - without it he's probably
> just some 55 year old loser with no friends, no wife and a receeding
> hairline. This guy ranks pretty high with some of the most
> self-important assholes on usenet.

The John - Wayne saga continues.

Breeder wrote:
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>
> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>
> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.

Because it isn't.

> But while their state of
> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.

That's the nature of war
>
> By Patrick Cockburn
>
> Published: 05 November 2006
>
> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
> fortress city of Verdun.
>
> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
> dying every month.

We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.

>The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
> one of them.
>
> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>
> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.

Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.

> The same poll shows that 92
> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>
> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
> Iraqis dancing for joy.

They're motherfuckers. So what's new?

"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162838527.896790.305100@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Breeder wrote:
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>
>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>
>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
>
> Because it isn't.

If you can say that and keep a straight face you really do have a problem.
>
>> But while their state of
>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
>
> That's the nature of war

And bush, cheney and rumsfeld don't mind the least as they sit in their soft
chairs in Washington reading the death totals.
>>
>> By Patrick Cockburn
>>
>> Published: 05 November 2006
>>
>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
>> fortress city of Verdun.
>>
>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
>> dying every month.
>
> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.

Really? When did Iraq attack the USof A?
>
>>The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
>> one of them.
>>
>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>>
>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
>
> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.

Is that Japs, cracker?
>
>> The same poll shows that 92
>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>>
>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
>
> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?

You invade their country then blame them for not understanding. Pathetic.
>

"AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote in message
news9M3h.5158$7F3.3462@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162838527.896790.305100@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> Breeder wrote:
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>>
>>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>>
>>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
>>
>> Because it isn't.
>
> If you can say that and keep a straight face you really do have a problem.
>>
>>> But while their state of
>>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
>>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
>>
>> That's the nature of war
>
> And bush, cheney and rumsfeld don't mind the least as they sit in their
> soft chairs in Washington reading the death totals.
>>>
>>> By Patrick Cockburn
>>>
>>> Published: 05 November 2006
>>>
>>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
>>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
>>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
>>> fortress city of Verdun.
>>>
>>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
>>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
>>> dying every month.
>>
>> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.
>
> Really? When did Iraq attack the USof A?

If you're going down that rat hole then...when did Germany attack the USofA?

And yes, we lost more in one day (several times) in WWII than we've lost in
Iraq in more than 3 years total.


>>>The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
>>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
>>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
>>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
>>> one of them.
>>>
>>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
>>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
>>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
>>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
>>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
>>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
>>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
>>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>>>
>>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
>>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
>>
>> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.
>
> Is that Japs, cracker?
>>
>>> The same poll shows that 92
>>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
>>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
>>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>>>
>>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
>>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
>>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
>>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
>>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
>>
>> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?
>
> You invade their country then blame them for not understanding. Pathetic.
>>
>
>

charliekilo wrote:
> "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote in message
> news9M3h.5158$7F3.3462@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m...
>> "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162838527.896790.305100@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>>> Breeder wrote:
>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>>>
>>>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>>>
>>>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
>>> Because it isn't.
>> If you can say that and keep a straight face you really do have a problem.
>>>> But while their state of
>>>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
>>>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
>>> That's the nature of war
>> And bush, cheney and rumsfeld don't mind the least as they sit in their
>> soft chairs in Washington reading the death totals.
>>>> By Patrick Cockburn
>>>>
>>>> Published: 05 November 2006
>>>>
>>>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
>>>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
>>>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
>>>> fortress city of Verdun.
>>>>
>>>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
>>>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
>>>> dying every month.
>>> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.
>> Really? When did Iraq attack the USof A?
>
> If you're going down that rat hole then...when did Germany attack the USofA?
>

Not quite the right question, but yes Nazi Germany attacked the USofA
several times. Sinking our ships, blowing up munitions plants, etc.



> And yes, we lost more in one day (several times) in WWII than we've lost in
> Iraq in more than 3 years total.
>

Apples and oranges. How come we never see you doing a side by side
comparison with the Vietnam War?

>
>>>> The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
>>>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
>>>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
>>>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
>>>> one of them.
>>>>
>>>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
>>>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
>>>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
>>>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
>>>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
>>>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
>>>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
>>>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>>>>
>>>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
>>>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
>>> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.
>> Is that Japs, cracker?
>>>> The same poll shows that 92
>>>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
>>>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
>>>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>>>>
>>>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
>>>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
>>>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
>>>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
>>>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
>>> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?
>> You invade their country then blame them for not understanding. Pathetic.
>>
>
>

UC wrote:

Look at the crossposting list. We can see where your mind is.

> Breeder wrote:
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>
>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>
>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
>
> Because it isn't.
>

What's the problem? Maybe because of all the deserts you can't realize
that Iraq is a quagmire just like Vietnam.

>> But while their state of
>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in the
>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
>
> That's the nature of war

Which is why war is a bad idea. Which is why President Kennedy said that
the US does not want war. Which is why the neocons want war.

>> By Patrick Cockburn
>>
>> Published: 05 November 2006
>>
>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an appalled
>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army commander
>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the French
>> fortress city of Verdun.
>>
>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are
>> dying every month.
>
> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.
>

False comparison. Apples and oranges. Why don't you compare it to Vietnam?

>> The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website are
>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
>> one of them.
>>
>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and British
>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces within
>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>>
>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
>
> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.
>
>> The same poll shows that 92
>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>>
>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
>
> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?
>

Not exactly the welcome that Chalibi and his Pentagon handlers promised.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthony_marsh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9_CdnXLpY8BYU9LYnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> charliekilo wrote:
>> "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote in message
>> news9M3h.5158$7F3.3462@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m...
>>> "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1162838527.896790.305100@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>>>> Breeder wrote:
>>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
>>>> Because it isn't.
>>> If you can say that and keep a straight face you really do have a
>>> problem.
>>>>> But while their state of
>>>>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in
>>>>> the
>>>>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
>>>> That's the nature of war
>>> And bush, cheney and rumsfeld don't mind the least as they sit in their
>>> soft chairs in Washington reading the death totals.
>>>>> By Patrick Cockburn
>>>>>
>>>>> Published: 05 November 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an
>>>>> appalled
>>>>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army
>>>>> commander
>>>>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the
>>>>> French
>>>>> fortress city of Verdun.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
>>>>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers
>>>>> are
>>>>> dying every month.
>>>> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.
>>> Really? When did Iraq attack the USof A?
>>
>> If you're going down that rat hole then...when did Germany attack the
>> USofA?
>>
>
> Not quite the right question, but yes Nazi Germany attacked the USofA
> several times. Sinking our ships, blowing up munitions plants, etc.


I believe that was all after the U.S. entered action in the European
theather. Again, back to the rat hole...Saddam was firing on our planes in
the no-fly zone he agreed to at time of surrender at the end of the first
Gulf war.

>
>> And yes, we lost more in one day (several times) in WWII than we've lost
>> in Iraq in more than 3 years total.
>>
>
> Apples and oranges. How come we never see you doing a side by side
> comparison with the Vietnam War?

No it's not, I was just giving a historical perspective...holds true for the
Vietnam war as well.

>>
>>>>> The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
>>>>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
>>>>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website
>>>>> are
>>>>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
>>>>> one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
>>>>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and
>>>>> British
>>>>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
>>>>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
>>>>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces
>>>>> within
>>>>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
>>>>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
>>>>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
>>>>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
>>>> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.
>>> Is that Japs, cracker?
>>>>> The same poll shows that 92
>>>>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
>>>>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
>>>>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
>>>>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
>>>>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
>>>>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
>>>>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
>>>> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?
>>> You invade their country then blame them for not understanding.
>>> Pathetic.
>>>
>>

Calimero wrote:
> Breeder wrote:

>>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece

>>Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy

>>Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster. ....

> Bad morning for you, isn't it?

Certainly not as bad as it is for the lastest victim
of Bush's lies, war crimes, torture, and terrorism.
Is there anyone stupid enough to support that treasonous,
moronic, incompetent, lying sack of shit, war criminal, and
child butchering terrorist at this point?


--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incompetence.

"The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

UC wrote:
> Breeder wrote:

>>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece

>>Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy

>>Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.

> Because it isn't.

You must be a member of the Iraqi Resistance.....



--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incompetence.

"The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

charliekilo wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_marsh@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:9_CdnXLpY8BYU9LYnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> charliekilo wrote:
>>> "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote in message
>>> news9M3h.5158$7F3.3462@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m...
>>>> "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1162838527.896790.305100@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
>>>>> Breeder wrote:
>>>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
>>>>> Because it isn't.
>>>> If you can say that and keep a straight face you really do have a
>>>> problem.
>>>>>> But while their state of
>>>>>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
>>>>> That's the nature of war
>>>> And bush, cheney and rumsfeld don't mind the least as they sit in their
>>>> soft chairs in Washington reading the death totals.
>>>>>> By Patrick Cockburn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Published: 05 November 2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an
>>>>>> appalled
>>>>>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army
>>>>>> commander
>>>>>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the
>>>>>> French
>>>>>> fortress city of Verdun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
>>>>>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> dying every month.
>>>>> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.
>>>> Really? When did Iraq attack the USof A?
>>> If you're going down that rat hole then...when did Germany attack the
>>> USofA?
>>>
>> Not quite the right question, but yes Nazi Germany attacked the USofA
>> several times. Sinking our ships, blowing up munitions plants, etc.
>
>
> I believe that was all after the U.S. entered action in the European
> theather. Again, back to the rat hole...Saddam was firing on our planes in
> the no-fly zone he agreed to at time of surrender at the end of the first
> Gulf war.
>

Germany was attacking and sinking our ships before Pearl Harbor. Look it
up. People urged Roosevelt to declare war, but he did not think the US
was prepared by then.
Remember the Stark? Remember the Liberty? Remember the Maine?

>>> And yes, we lost more in one day (several times) in WWII than we've lost
>>> in Iraq in more than 3 years total.
>>>
>> Apples and oranges. How come we never see you doing a side by side
>> comparison with the Vietnam War?
>
> No it's not, I was just giving a historical perspective...holds true for the
> Vietnam war as well.
>

No, much different scale. Show us the comparisons to Vietnam if you dare.

>>>>>> The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
>>>>>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
>>>>>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
>>>>>> one of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
>>>>>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and
>>>>>> British
>>>>>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
>>>>>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
>>>>>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
>>>>>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
>>>>>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
>>>>>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
>>>>> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.
>>>> Is that Japs, cracker?
>>>>>> The same poll shows that 92
>>>>>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
>>>>>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
>>>>>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
>>>>>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
>>>>>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
>>>>>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
>>>>>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
>>>>> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?
>>>> You invade their country then blame them for not understanding.
>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>
>

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> charliekilo wrote:
> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_marsh@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:9_CdnXLpY8BYU9LYnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >> charliekilo wrote:
> >>> "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote in message
> >>> news9M3h.5158$7F3.3462@newssvr14.news.prodigy.co m...
> >>>> "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:1162838527.896790.305100@m7g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
> >>>>> Breeder wrote:
> >>>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1956548.ece
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bush & Blair: The Iraq fantasy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Neither will admit that Iraq is a disaster.
> >>>>> Because it isn't.
> >>>> If you can say that and keep a straight face you really do have a
> >>>> problem.
> >>>>>> But while their state of
> >>>>>> denial may cost votes in Washington and London, on the frontline in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> Middle East, it continues to cost lives.
> >>>>> That's the nature of war
> >>>> And bush, cheney and rumsfeld don't mind the least as they sit in their
> >>>> soft chairs in Washington reading the death totals.
> >>>>>> By Patrick Cockburn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Published: 05 November 2006
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "When does the incompetence end and the crime begin?" asked an
> >>>>>> appalled
> >>>>>> German Chancellor in the First World War when the German army
> >>>>>> commander
> >>>>>> said he intended to resume his bloody and doomed assaults on the
> >>>>>> French
> >>>>>> fortress city of Verdun.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The same could be said of the disastrous policies of George Bush and
> >>>>>> Tony Blair in Iraq. At least 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> dying every month.
> >>>>> We lost more than that in single days in WWII and won.
> >>>> Really? When did Iraq attack the USof A?
> >>> If you're going down that rat hole then...when did Germany attack the
> >>> USofA?
> >>>
> >> Not quite the right question, but yes Nazi Germany attacked the USofA
> >> several times. Sinking our ships, blowing up munitions plants, etc.
> >
> >
> > I believe that was all after the U.S. entered action in the European
> > theather. Again, back to the rat hole...Saddam was firing on our planes in
> > the no-fly zone he agreed to at time of surrender at the end of the first
> > Gulf war.
> >
>
> Germany was attacking and sinking our ships before Pearl Harbor. Look it
> up. People urged Roosevelt to declare war, but he did not think the US
> was prepared by then.
> Remember the Stark? Remember the Liberty? Remember the Maine?
>
> >>> And yes, we lost more in one day (several times) in WWII than we've lost
> >>> in Iraq in more than 3 years total.
> >>>
> >> Apples and oranges. How come we never see you doing a side by side
> >> comparison with the Vietnam War?
> >
> > No it's not, I was just giving a historical perspective...holds true for the
> > Vietnam war as well.
> >
>
> No, much different scale. Show us the comparisons to Vietnam if you dare.
>
> >>>>>> The failure of the US and Britain at every level in
> >>>>>> Iraq is obvious to all. But the White House and Downing Street have
> >>>>>> lived in a state of permanent denial. On the Downing Street website
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister, but Iraq is not
> >>>>>> one of them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The picture of what is happening in Iraq put out by Messrs Bush and
> >>>>>> Blair no longer touches reality at any point. They claim US and
> >>>>>> British
> >>>>>> troops are present because Iraqis want them there. But a detailed poll
> >>>>>> of Iraqi attitudes by WorldPublicOpinion.org, published six weeks ago,
> >>>>>> shows that 71 per of Iraqis want the withdrawal of US-led forces
> >>>>>> within
> >>>>>> a year. No less than 74 per cent of Shia and 91 per cent of Sunni say
> >>>>>> they want American and British troops out. Only in Kurdistan, where
> >>>>>> there are few foreign troops, does a majority support the occupation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hostility to the American and British troops has a direct and lethal
> >>>>>> consequence for the soldiers on the ground.
> >>>>> Yup, war is that way. The Japs did that too.
> >>>> Is that Japs, cracker?
> >>>>>> The same poll shows that 92
> >>>>>> per cent of Sunni and 62 per cent of Shia approve of attacks on US-led
> >>>>>> forces. This is the real explanation for the strength of the
> >>>>>> insurgency: it is widely popular.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For the past three-and-a-half years in Iraq, one needed to close both
> >>>>>> eyes very hard or live in Baghdad's Green Zone not to see that the
> >>>>>> occupation was detested by most Iraqis. At places where US Humvees had
> >>>>>> been blown up or US soldiers killed or wounded there were usually
> >>>>>> Iraqis dancing for joy.
> >>>>> They're motherfuckers. So what's new?
> >>>> You invade their country then blame them for not understanding.
> >>>> Pathetic.
> >>>>
> >

DUBYA = SATAN

GEORGE W SATAN wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> charliekilo wrote: