The Stakes In Iraq Just Went Up

While we're all focused on the capture of a top al Qaeda figure in Iraq, this news is breaking, too. It may not be a war for Oil ... but that doesn't mean it isn't a war about Oil in some respects. If true, Iraq surpasses Iran as having the world's second largest Oil reserves.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi oil production could double in five years, according to a new study.
The report found that Iraq's oil reserves may be almost twice as much as previously estimated. The study by the U.S. consultancy IHS said another 100 billion barrels of oil reserves could be found in Iraq.

IHS said the estimate would rank Iraq as having the second largest reserves in the world, following Saudi Arabia. Currently, Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

Another good reason to stay in Iraq until it can defend itself and arrange an equitable way to distribute oil profits.

[seekeronos]

And take some oil profits for ourselves to help offset the cost of pacifying the region.

[Phoenix]

Yipes. You both took the words out of my mouth. I'd add that his may give the people a little jolt of status and pride that they could use right about now. Now they have reason to fight for their country to *work* for the good of all.

[Tom]

Having oil in the ground is much different than bringing the oil out of the ground. We were told the oil would pay for the war. We were told the war was not for oil. We were told the Iraqi people would get the proceeds from the oil. We were told lots of things which were lies. Folks, please. The current administration is the 'gang who couldn't shoot straight' - except for Shooter Cheney. Why on earth would the fact that there is oil in the ground get you all in a twist? The oil HAS ALWAYS been there - and that is why WE are there. no blood for oil - yeah, right.

[Rich Casebolt]

"We were told lots of things which were lies."

Be sure to include such favorites as:

"War is Never the Answer"
"Diplomacy will resolve the situation"
"As long as we refuse to directly intervene with American military force, we will have peace".

in your list, Tom.

As for "war for oil":

You said that this war is a war for oil
It's greed at the point of a gun
But if we really wanted to take that oil
We'd have stayed there in 1991
And I guess that you'll just have to deal with the fact
It's returned to the people of Iraq
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind

Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind

http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2005/09/sorry-for-long-absence.html

[Purple Avenger]

"And take some oil profits for ourselves"

Who is it getting the Iraqi oil contracts again? Refresh my memory.

[southdakotaboy]

One of the main causes of the insugency has been the fact that the Sunnies have felt they were being left out of the oil wealth. It now turns out that a large part of this new oil field(s) is in Sunnie areas. Yes this oil is undeveloped, but it would go along way towards easing tension.
Things are starting to unravel for the Dems, they have to hurry to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Purple Avenger]

"they have to hurry to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

I have complete faith in their ability to nurture failure.

[ajacksonian]

This is not exactly news, and has been around for a bit and I looked at these questions then ( http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/04/breaking-logjam-of-iraq.html ). It is very true that there is cost of prospecting, mapping and figuring out the actual reservoir capacity of rock strata and such. I go over that in this piece on Iran ( http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/12/irans-oil-problem.html ) coming from a geology background and do, indeed, point out that not only is there sunk fixed cost but also marginal expansion costs that need to be accounted for in these things, and the very best of projects have a minimum of 5 year build-in period before serious exploitation can be done. Iraq also has the problem of Soviet era equipment that is, by and large, junk and I am amazed that they are getting it to run near its operational capacity.

Absolutely amazing!

And the biggest potential buyers of Iraq's oil are already there trying to negotiate contracts: Japan and India. Yes, it is getting brass tacks time and they are looking to invest in Iraq as Iran is unreliable due to the regime's insane conception of economics, training and equipment upkeep and maintenance. Yes, I go over that *too* ( http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/01/oil-outlook-cross-post-at-classical.html ). One of the true bright spots in all of this is the quiet shifts made by Japan over the last 5 years to discourage *any* help of Iran in increasing its marginal production capacity, explore for new fields or even help in maintenance of old equipment. Japan has also fielded non-combat support, engineering and medical troops in Iraq and have had a quiet presence there since the beginning. Japan has also launched its own satellite, fielded its own Aegis destroyer and is now seriously considering allowing combat forces to operate outside of the Japanese Islands.

Very strange to have a 'lost war' in which the economy goes up 4% per year, unemployment decreases, manufacturing levels rise, income increases and the government runs a surplus. Iraq had a $10 billion surplus last year, but did not have enough trained accountants and bureaucrats to spend it wisely, so they are having to slowly spend it on their own defense, which is just as well as it takes time to do these things. Anbar was turning around even *before* the oil report and now there is incentive from all sides to start getting a National oil deal worked out... those resources in Anbar and such equal what is currently out there for the Kurds and Shia - play nice now and share those profits later. Yes it does take time to get a war finished and a government stood up that actually does what it should.

Seven years to finish the American Revolution and then five years of failure thereafter. 'Insurgents' burning down courthouses and jails. Tax revenues going down. The States impoverished by war debt. Just one Shays away from it coming unglued and something far worse happening. If we forget our own failures, then how can we ever learn to forgive it in others?

[mulder]

And take some oil profits for ourselves to help offset the cost of pacifying the region.

Posted by: seekeronos | Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 03:07 PM

The fact that you think Iraq "owes" you and your country anything disgusts me.

Unless that was sarcasm and then I think you're brilliant.

[Rich Casebolt]

Mulder, apparently you don't know the price of freedom ...

... and the expense a responsible nation must incur to participate in global civlization: the maintenance cost of keeping their nation from being hijacked by those who would threaten that global civilization.

America has incurred a large part of that latter expense on behalf of Iraq ... the expense of removing their irresponsible totalitarian regime. In doing so, we also purchased freedom for the Iraqi people.

Now, whether it is in civilization's best interest for America to demand reimbursement for the above from today's Iraq is another question entirely ... and up for debate.

But it is hardly "disgusting".

[seekeronos]

In the old days, exacting a monetary/economic compensation to offset the costs of waging war was known as "reparations". Often, it was brutally harsh, crippling the defeated nation's economy further beyond what the extent of the war had already cost it.

This was indeed, the cost of losing a war. That sort of thing has been well out of vogue (for the USA at least), as it is in our interests to see an economy rebuilt so that we can trade with it. If we can be said to have imperialistic ambitions, then our empire is one that has (in the past century or so) been based upon mercantile motives, not so much of prestige, or raw military power.

What I am thinking of is more along the lines of managing Iraq's (future) oil profits for a defined period of time, and taking a management fee of 10% - 15% of the revenue, and using that to offset health care costs for veterans and other pressing needs. In this case, it is not necessarily punitive as it is in the interest of compensating the USA for its blood and treasure spent trying to pacify that territory.

[nowingker]

So, we engage in a pre-emptive war, occupy a country for 4 years and counting and now we want to take their money to pay for it? Alrighty then.

Sorry, this war is on our dime, if you want to look for some private money to offset the cost to the taxpayer talk to Cheney. The Iraqi people did NOTHING to deserve our invasion and they don't 'owe' us anything.

[mags]

rich,
'A responsible nation must incur.....'
Who are you referring to? The U.S?
A responsible nation is one that works with other countries.
A responsible nation condemn's torture,rendition and detention without trial.
A responsible nation does not alienate the world with comments like,'you are either with us or against us'.
A responsible nation would make sure it's citizens can find iraq on a map,understand the religious divide and does not assume a whole area of the world is evil.

'We also purchased freedom for the iraqi people'
I'm in the u.k ,what on earth are you watching over there to think that?I don't think the people in abu-graib and haditha may see their freedom differently.
America's foreign policy has always been in your self interest. Nothing moral or noble about it. That would be o.k if you all admit it. You are not the good guy's.
You have'nt liberated the iraqi's,you have tried to liberate their oil.

[Rich Casebolt]

"The Iraqi people did NOTHING to deserve our invasion and they don't 'owe' us anything."

They didn't -- but their leader certainly did more than enough, in the eyes of people with reason ... that is, reason not distorted and clouded with 20th-century conventional wisdom ... to make invasion mandatory.

We rescued them ... again, whether it is in civilization's best interest for America to demand reimbursement for the above from today's Iraq is another question entirely.

If nothing else, they "owe" the rest of civilization this: the rebuilding of Iraq into a nation that has the structural checks-and-balances to prevent another totalitarian hijacking of their nation.

In that regard, that is no different than what any other nation in our civilization, owes the rest.

***************************

"A responsible nation is one that works with other countries."

That kind of cooperation is a two-way street ... and when other nations are not sufficiently prudent to accurately perceive a threat to global civilization -- then ACT to end that threat ... you will have a hard time cooperating with them to end that threat.

Consensus in the absence of sound principle is the way of the lemming ... and leads to the same end.

"A responsible nation condemn's torture,rendition and detention without trial."

A responsible nation also accurately defines what torture is ... as opposed to being so obsessed with preventing American/Western error that they IGNORE the intent of totalitarian thugs, that "torture" is defined as broadly as the Great Plains.

A responsible nation also knows that habeas corpus/Miranda rights/the Exclusionary Rule are meant to protect people from government ... not protect a nation from those who would act in the capacity of a foreign power to attack a free nation. In the old days, "enemy combatants" were described by a shorter word -- "spies" -- and the only rights they received involved short ropes/long drops or a high-speed brain-bullet interface.

"A responsible nation does not alienate the world with comments like,'you are either with us or against us'."

See my take on "consensus" above ... excuse me if we hurt your feelings, but that is the reality, if we are going to preserve this civilization. Either accurately perceive the threat and join us, or at least get out of the way.

"A responsible nation would make sure it's citizens can find iraq on a map,understand the religious divide and does not assume a whole area of the world is evil."

We do not assume it's all evil ... which has actually made this war longer and more costly. If we assumed that the whole area was evil, this war would have been over in about three hours or so.

What we are doing is unprecedented in both its nobility and its difficulty -- the transformation of a nation from totalitarian rule to rights-respecting governance, WITHOUT GRINDING ITS PEOPLE TO POWDER FIRST ... a la Dresden/Berlin/Hiroshima.

As for the religious divide, there is something even more fundamental that you are missing ... of course, being from the Mother Country of ours, that may be understandable, as it is the same reasoning that led us to fight for our independence from y'all:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

(emphasis added)

The yearning to live free and pursue happiness, WHEN PROTECTED BY THE STRUCTURE OF A SOCIETY, will transcend religion ... and lead people away from becoming terrorists. We have seen it time and time again, since WWII.

We are facilitating the process of building that protection in Iraq ... and it needs to be facilitated elsewhere. Are you interested enough in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to support that facilitation?

"I'm in the u.k ,what on earth are you watching over there to think that? I don't think the people in abu-graib and haditha may see their freedom differently."

This reveals you to be a typical, Leftist gnat-strainer ...

... for you focus on an incident involving a few bored miscreants, BUT NO BEHEADINGS ... and a second incident whose prosecution's case is falling apart for many of the defendants, and may totally collapse ...

... while you ignore the viewpoint of the Kurds ...

... the brothers who write at www.iraqthemodel.com ...

... the former adversaries whose turnaround gave us the Google-able term "Anbar Rising ...

... more former adversaries who now refer to our soldiers as the "al-Ameriki tribe" (Google that, too!) AND VIEW THEM AS THE ONE SET OF HONEST BROKERS IN THE REGION ...

... and finally, all those millions of purple-fingered Iraqis who risked life and limb to vote in three elections, turning out in numbers that put American elections to shame.

"America's foreign policy has always been in your self interest. Nothing moral or noble about it."

Preserving the peace and freedom of global civilization is in our self-interest ... and moral ... and noble.

If we were as immoral as you say we are, we would have taken that oil from Iraq AND Kuwait, back in 1991 ... or our current President would have emulated other world leaders, jumped in with both feet into Oil-For-Food, and maybe even snagged a Nobel for "avoiding" war ... while merely kicking-the-VX-can down the road to his successors, by allowing Saddam to continue stealing the funds and bribing the program officials.

"That would be o.k if you all admit it. You are not the good guy's."

The fact that you are reading this in your Mother Tongue, and not German, says otherwise ... as does over sixty years of having nukes, but not using them since 1945.

You are mired in the conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, where Big equals Bad ... there is a corporate conspiracy around every corner ... and if we would only suppress the profit motive and limit our "defense" to the jaw-jaw of diplomacy, peace would guide the planets and love would steer the stars.

Reality is quite different.

"You have'nt liberated the iraqi's,you have tried to liberate their oil."

By the standards your fellow-travelers apply to our current President ...
that would be a lie, sir.

[nowingker]

Oh please. The invasion of Iraq was mandatory? Why? There was no threat to the U.S. or even to U.S. interests, why was it mandatory? To save the Iraqi people? Did we invade Rwanda? Darfur? Chili? Cambodia? Iraq when he gased the Kurds? NOPE.

Why not? Because we do not go to war to free non Americans from the tyany of their own leaders. Period. End of Discussion.

Other countries to do not 'owe' the world anything other than to refrain from predatory and aggressive and illegal behavior. They certainly don't 'owe' it to anyone to live in a Western style democracy, especially since very few countries have the culture or the money to maintain and nurture a Western style democracy, which is why, for the most part, Western style democracies, are, hey get this, only in the WEST.

We have literally and figuratively destroyed Iraq. We built a government but nobody came. There is nothing we can do to stop the bloodshed in Iraq, so, why are we there? Are we really spending $12 billion a month to prevent genocide? Why don't we prevent genocide everywhere? Oh, wait, becuase it isn't in our national interest to be the world's PC enforcer and use our military to make everyone on the planet live like an American, whether they want to our not.

There is a LONG piece in the UK today with several quotes from U.S. soldiers about the way Iraqis have been treated.

It's not pretty, its not friendly and it certainly didnt' win us any medals.

[mags]

Rich,
So iraq was a threat to global civilization? Where are these wmd's.
It is sad to see an american trying to define torture. We should be better then the terrorists,not go down to their level.Binladen must be pissing himself laughing as moral authority disappears.
Gitmo has weakened america dramatically,laughed at and mocked. Naked hypocrisy.'Brand america' what a joke.
Is it hard for your country to understand that we are totally aware of the problem of islamisfascism.
They blew up london.You must of seen what problems we have having with the muslim community.There is real anger here.
It is how we go about it that we differ with the u.s. America was fully supported after 9/11 and in afghanistan,but not iraq and these countries were right.
Who's happiness and liberty are you pursuing? We are not laughing.I don't think the 750,000 were either,but if it makes you happy and feel'safe'
This was just raw aggression. Yes 'shock an awe' showed them the way to pursue happiness.
I was wondering if you would bring up ww2.America did not enter the war until pearl harbour-again until it affected you. You didn't even declare war,japan and germany declared it on you.
While you were sitting it out nobely the u.k stood alone during the battle of britian.
The u.s made a huge difference when you did come-fresh legs and equipment.
We had to pay for this-the war debt after 60 yrs has recently been completed.
That isn't 'saving' Our veterans get quite upset when americans say this,they know the real hero's are the ones left behind.It was the world that defeated the nazi's,america did play a huge part in it,but so did others,it's only america who requires lifelong praise.
I don't think the americans that supported and funded I.R.A terrorist were noble (with us/against us).
Not much shoulder to shoulder with your closest allie,again it was in some americans best interest's to get the irish vote.
You still won't extradite wanted terrorists.In Boston there were drinks called car bomb and kill a brit.Classy.
You gave them the biggest platform-the white house.Peter King even threw a birthday party for gerry adams(an i.r.a commander)Year on year numerous prime ministers asked your government to refuse visa's so they could fund raise. It was only after 9/11 that they were put on the terrorist list. A bit of karma, guess who invented the roadside bomb that is killing troops in iraq? You reap what you sow.
We don't owe you anything.

[Fred Beloit]

mags, dear child, can't you find anything bad to write about the US? After so many compliments we over here are all blushing with modesty. Why don't you send us your address so we can send you a thank you note? By the way, mags, you don't have to send us any more compliments, we have several Americans who compliment our country here on a regular basis. A small suggestion, have you ever had breaded and fried pork chops? Nothing like a nice pork chop after a manhattan cocktail. MMMMMMMMM Gooooood. Care for a glass of pinot noire with that?

[Phoenix]

Fred,

Do you find it ironic that Mags closed out with the very original "Reap what you sow"? Considering the Twits are kissing Muslim ass, I don't know.... the thinking there might be a tad off.

I'm relieved they don't owe us anything. Who'd want their mindset of "I LIKE being on my knees".

P

your American patriot friend

[Rich Casebolt]

"So iraq was a threat to global civilization? Where are these wmd's."

I ask again -- if a few dozen Al Quada with about $1M could pull off 911, then why does it make ANY sense to trust someone who has DEMONSTRATED they are of like mind regarding resepct for others' life and liberty ... someone with ABSOLUTE control of a resource-rich, relatively-advanced nation ... to not ACT in ways to threaten our civilization and advance his own, greedy, meglomanicial ends.

The big reason the focus was on WMD, and honestly so, is that people like you have, over the last 40 years have so desensitized our civilization in the area of threat perception, it took the threat of that to get everyone's attention.

It was a real threat ... and the ONLY reason we know Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD is because President Bush FACILITATED, THROUGH THE INVASION OF IRAQ THE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE, HONEST WEAPONS INSPECTION IRAQ HAS EVER HAD!

BTW, he had everything but the stockpiles ... waiting for the day that people like you forced our military from the region.

"It is sad to see an american trying to define torture. We should be better then the terrorists,not go down to their level.Binladen must be pissing himself laughing as moral authority disappears. Gitmo has weakened america dramatically,laughed at and mocked. Naked hypocrisy.'Brand america' what a joke."

We are only laughed at, by the ignorant who shred the Geneva Conventions by extending its protections to those whose conduct has disqualified them from receiving those protections.

bin Laden and his fellow-travelers, including those in Iran and Palestine, are laughing at YOU and those like you though ... because your opposition to the ACTION needed to defeat them is the ONLY hope they have.

"Is it hard for your country to understand that we are totally aware of the problem of islamisfascism. They blew up london.You must of seen what problems we have having with the muslim community.There is real anger here."

Based on your statements, which reek of indecision and misperception, it is hard to understand.

"It is how we go about it that we differ with the u.s. America was fully supported after 9/11 and in afghanistan,but not iraq and these countries were right."

No, they are not right ... they would have us continue down the path we took in the 20th century, instead of decisively defeating thugs and fanatics who can threaten our civilization more than ever.

Your approach waits until there are thousands dead before acting ... then limits the response to only those directly involved with EACH act of killing ... instead of dealing, once and for all, with the organizations that foment such terror.

Your approach leaves the world vulnerable ... in perpetuity.

"Who's happiness and liberty are you pursuing? We are not laughing.I don't think the 750,000 were either,but if it makes you happy and feel'safe'"

Your statistic reveals your ignorance ... is that from the discredited Lancet study?

AND, BTW ... how many of those killed DIED AT THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY? When you subtract those from any casualty figure, you will see that the real threat to the Iraqi people is not the American ... or British ... military.

If you need a clue about whose liberty we are acting to protect ...

Ask the Kurds.
Ask the brothers at www.iraqthemodel.com
Ask the Anbar Salvation Council
Ask those Iraqis who now call our military the "al-Ameriki tribe", and -- according to Michael Yon -- trust us as the only honest brokers in the region.

Your fear of the Big, blinds you to the Bad.

"This was just raw aggression. Yes 'shock an awe' showed them the way to pursue happiness."

Your analysis lacks depth.

Did you know that, during shock-and-awe, contrary to previous military doctrine regarding the destruction of enemy infrastructure, we precisely targeted our weapons so that the residential areas of Baghdad were spared, to the point that even, by design, THE LIGHTS STAYED ON THERE? It was intentional ... for we knew that the Iraqi people were not the problem, and they would need to be protected if Iraq had a chance at rebuilding.

Work calls ... more later.

[Fred Beloit]

P my fellow American, she calls herself mags. mugs I sez.

[nowingker]

for we knew that the Iraqi people were not the problem

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

Is that so? Who is the insurgency? Iraqi Sunnis. Who is in the Shia militias? Iraqi Shias. Who is in Sadrs army? Iraqi Shias.

Who has been killing American troops for 4+ years? Iraqis. Who wants Americans out of Iraq? Iraqis.

Don't even try to blame it on Al Quaeda Iraq becuase our own military says they make up only a FRACTION of attacks.

Guess that was another in the string of unbroken mistakes and miscalcuations made by Bush and his neocon handles.

[mags]

Terrorism did not start on 9/11. The U.S had no idea why anyone would do this .Everybody else knew the motivation,america had no clue.Nobody deserved it but it was shocking to see the lack of insight into america's foreign policy.Even your president couldn't name leaders of countries with nuclear weapons!He had never even left the U.S.
A pre-emptive war against a soverign nation requires planning.Coalition forces should have the right to disagree.America was so unprepared for this war that it is embarrassing.Even Tony Blair has talked of his shock of finding out there was little or no planning for the post war period.The U.S felt that they would overthrow saddam and leave,then other countries and relief organisations could do the rest. This arrogant cake walk was only to show military might.Ignorance of other nations opinions and concerns were irrelevent.When Bush goaded 'bring it on' there was a hugh sigh around the world,we knew what you were up against, you all presumed more guns and bombs makes a better military.As you have found out that doesn't follow and you are being humiliated by a bunch of shepherds.If your military is so great how come bin laden got away on a donkey?
Have you not learned anything from vietnam? Your other success when you go uni-lateraly .You must be so proud.
Part of an occupation is to maintain sercurity,the civil war shows you can't even do that.Failure in every area.It shouldn't be funny,but only in America would a arabic translator one of only a few in the army would be sacked for being gay.
Democracy in iraq-interesting,so if sadr-al sader puts himelf up in a free iraq with americans watching teary eyed as he is voted prime minister,that would be ok,but that is democracy.Do you think that would be allowed,no way they have to vote for u.s approved puppets.
So you want to argue over numbers killed i would prefer the lancets report,but hey give me a number. It is hard to isn't it,because they don't get countered,everybodies equal and deserves liberty my arse.The U.S decided not to count them.We know when u.s troops die,see their names,their family.I'm waiting for any u.s news to report the british dead and injured.
Well you have handled iraq so well that you want to move on to iran.Go aheard your totally isolated from enemies and traditional allies,and i believe most of your country.Changing your mind about something is not a weakness it is a sign of knowledge and maturity.Step back and think if any other country was doing what the u.s has, what would you think?
I don't think you should pull your troops out also this left/right war is damaging you.I am not an american democrat.There is nothing united about the states of america.Bickering and calling for dates to withdraw to get political points is distasteful.National sercurity shouldn't be played out like it is,a divided country.
I am talking for the whole of the u.k,honestly you would struggle to find anyone that wants to stand by america at this time,if you are hearing that for the first time then that is sad.

[Rich Casebolt]

Nowingker ... despite all the assertions of "civil war", the VAST MAJORITY of the Iraqis want the same things as all human beings do ... to live free and pursue happiness.

Even some of those you are talking about ... who were once our enemies, but have since come to their senses after dealing with Al Quada and the other fanatics in their midst.

Here is just one example.

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/7-rules-1-oath.htm

The latest from Michael Yon ... and his last paragraph shows why you are wrong about the Iraqis:

**************************

Seeing “God is Great” written on the Iraqi flag might provoke some to protest “Why did we come here just to stand up a country who would write such things on their flag?” But I sat there in that meeting, which was completely civil and professional, and I thought about another flag, the one flying over South Carolina. Some people call that flag “heritage,” while others call it “hateful,” “painful” and “demeaning.” And today in that meeting, I thought about the descendants of slaves who are now top military commanders in the American Army, and in that moment I knew that Iraq could make it.

**************************

If we can overcome, so can the Iraqis ...

... so please read the whole article from Yon, before you spew more of your idiocy around here.

I find it appallingly significant that you, mags, and the other gnat-strainers around here focus exclusively on the perceived threat of American action ... even as you ignore the real threat to our civilization: attempts by totalitarian regimes to expand, by supporting and/or initiating terrorist attacks against our open civilization.

You strain at every gnat of bad press to discredit this Administration ... while you are more than willing to keep swallowing the camels of death and destruction whole, in one butter-covered gulp.

[Rich Casebolt]

"Terrorism did not start on 9/11. The U.S had no idea why anyone would do this .Everybody else knew the motivation,america had no clue.Nobody deserved it but it was shocking to see the lack of insight into america's foreign policy. Even your president couldn't name leaders of countries with nuclear weapons!He had never even left the U.S."

So, terrorism didn't start on 9/11 ... but by your last sentence, you apparently think that it started in November 2000, when our current president was elected.

As for "lack of insight" ... that would apply to people like you.

For four decades, we have seen again and again the destructive power of terrorism when applied to modern civilization ... we have seen where it is supported ... and we have seen just how little respect its perpetrators and the heads-of-state who support them have for the rights of men.

Yet, critics like you insisted that War is Never the Answer ... even when it can be seen that thugs like Saddam thumbed their noses at the alternatives to war, playing off one nation against another in the halls of diplomacy to paralyze any attempts to act against him ... only reluctanly complying with "diplomacy" when it was backed up by the CREDIBLE threat of force ...

... problem is, maintaining that credible threat ran contrary to the doctrine of War is Never the Answer, so it was discouraged, and our leaders complied.

Now, when the threat was made evident on 11 September 2001 ... and we see an absolute dictator ...

... of like mind regarding life and liberty ...
... located in a vulnerable area of the world ...
... with a long history of pursuing totalitarian expansion and supporting terrorism ...
... with the technical resources to develop the means to make any sequel to 911 one or more orders-of-magnitude more destructive ...
... hiding for years behind a cloak of "soverignty", just as Al Quada did in the bosom of their Taliban hosts ...

... and we were supposed to keep on the same course that left civilization vulnerable for 911?

"A pre-emptive war against a soverign nation requires planning.Coalition forces should have the right to disagree."

If you are so wise, you should have demanded that planning years ago, with the intent to execute it in a timely manner. The fact that you and other critics did not ... yet demand that we continue down that same slothful path ... is an indictment of your judgment that calls into question any advice you may give today.

"The U.S felt that they would overthrow saddam and leave,then other countries and relief organisations could do the rest. This arrogant cake walk was only to show military might."

No ... we pursued that course because, were we to start from the get-go with handling the whole job ourselves, you would have been yelling "IMPERIALIST" at the top of your lungs!

And, we discounted the effect of three decades of totalitarian rule ... and multiple instances where we in the West abandoned them to the tender mercies of Saddam, in large part because we listened to people like you ... upon the Iraqi people.

We are correcting these errors now.

I will come back later and deal with your tripe more, but let me finish for now with this:

"If your military is so great how come bin laden got away on a donkey?"

Because getting bin Laden is not the ultimate objective of this war ... and there are other terrorists besides bin Laden, with the capability to dwarf his capability for destruction, out there.

Saddam & Sons WERE one of them.

The fact that you critics can't see that reality ... is another indictment of your credibility.

Ignorance of other nations opinions and concerns were irrelevent.When Bush goaded 'bring it on' there was a hugh sigh around the world,we knew what you were up against, you all presumed more guns and bombs makes a better military.As you have found out that doesn't follow and you are being humiliated by a bunch of shepherds.If your military is so great how come bin laden got away on a donkey?
Have you not learned anything from vietnam? Your other success when you go uni-lateraly .You must be so proud.
Part of an occupation is to maintain sercurity,the civil war shows you can't even do that.Failure in every area.It shouldn't be funny,but only in America would a arabic translator one of only a few in the army would be sacked for being gay.
Democracy in iraq-interesting,so if sadr-al sader puts himelf up in a free iraq with americans watching teary eyed as he is voted prime minister,that would be ok,but that is democracy.Do you think that would be allowed,no way they have to vote for u.s approved puppets.
So you want to argue over numbers killed i would prefer the lancets report,but hey give me a number. It is hard to isn't it,because they don't get countered,everybodies equal and deserves liberty my arse.The U.S decided not to count them.We know when u.s troops die,see their names,their family.I'm waiting for any u.s news to report the british dead and injured.
Well you have handled iraq so well that you want to move on to iran.Go aheard your totally isolated from enemies and traditional allies,and i believe most of your country.Changing your mind about something is not a weakness it is a sign of knowledge and maturity.Step back and think if any other country was doing what the u.s has, what would you think?
I don't think you should pull your troops out also this left/right war is damaging you.I am not an american democrat.There is nothing united about the states of america.Bickering and calling for dates to withdraw to get political points is distasteful.National sercurity shouldn't be played out like it is,a divided country.
I am talking for the whole of the u.k,honestly you would struggle to find anyone that wants to stand by america at this time,if you are hearing that for the first time then that is sad.

[nowingker]

attempts by totalitarian regimes to expand, by supporting and/or initiating terrorist attacks against our open civilization.
--------------------------------------------------

What totalitarian regimes? What 'attacks' against our open civilization?

No one but Al Quaeda has ever attacked American civilians on American soil.

Blathering on about totalitarian regimes and a threat to our way of life is NONSENSE, pablum, talking points that bear no relation to reality.

If you want to live in fear for the rest of your life and let this country's freedoms and traditions go the way of the horse and carriage becuase you are deathly afraid of a bunch of semi literate goat herders living in poverty thousands of miles away in the ME because they shout 'death to America', have at it. Build yourself a bomb shelter. Refuse to associate with muslims. Stay home.

But, please, leave me out of your baseless paranoia. I want my country back, I want separation of church and state back, I want three equal branches of government back, not a unitary president and a VP who thinks he's above the law and his own branch of government, I want my privacy back, I want DOJ back the way it was, free of political vendetta's disguised as law enforcment, I want officials to do their job, not spend all their time helping their Party, I want to know that no American in or out of uniform is ever going to 'legally' drag me out of my house and to a secret location to be 'harshly interrogated' because some nameless, faceless informant says I'm some kind of a criminal.

[Fred Beloit]

Winkaling, writes as if paranoically deranged. Read this tripe: "...I want my privacy back, I want DOJ back the way it was, free of political vendetta's disguised as law enforcment(sic), I want officials to do their job, not spend all their time helping their Party, I want to know that no American in or out of uniform is ever going to 'legally' drag me out of my house and to a secret location to be 'harshly interrogated' because some nameless, faceless informant says I'm some kind of a criminal." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This shows her as scared to death of her own Government at the same time as she is berating us as paranoid for being concerned about Muslim cultists who want to kill us and who have shown over and over they have the means and will to do so. One of the reasons this sounds so off the wall is the contradiction between the above statement and this one in the same comment: "If you want to live in fear for the rest of your life and let this country's freedoms and traditions go the way of the horse and carriage becuase(sic) you are deathly afraid of a bunch of semi literate goat herders living in poverty thousands of miles away in the ME because they shout 'death to America', have at it. Build yourself a bomb shelter. Refuse to associate with muslims. Stay home." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, winkless, be not afraid. You still have your privacy, no one is coming to get you to strap you to a waterboard, providing of course that you are not an enemy agent, no one is demolishing our freedoms and traditions, except you, who are intensely interested in demolishing our right as a country to defend ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And by the way, please don't continue to use knuckle-headed expressions like "goat herders". Our enemy leadership is more likely to be Phds, MDs and millionaires, as anyone who reads the news knows by now.

[mags]

Fred,
Who are your enemies and who are your allies?.

love from a bewildered Brit.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, mugs, my enemies are a cult or cults of Muslims who are intent on replacing western-style democracies/republics with a caliphate under Sharia law and those who support them by commission or omission. My allies are those who would or are opposing these cults. Claro?