Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

It's Official: Total Defeat for U.S. in Iraq

By Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch. Posted December 15, 2008.


Iraq's parliament came to a major agreement recently: all 150,000 troops are to withdraw from cities by June.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Patrick Cockburn

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

 

On November 27 the Iraqi parliament voted by a large majority in favor of a security agreement with the US under which the 150,000 American troops in Iraq will withdraw from cities, towns and villages by June 30, 2009 and from all of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The Iraqi government will take over military responsibility for the Green Zone in Baghdad, the heart of American power in Iraq, in a few weeks time. Private security companies will lose their legal immunity. US military operations and the arrest of Iraqis will only be carried out with Iraqi consent. There will be no US military bases left behind when the last US troops leave in three years time and the US military is banned in the interim from carrying out attacks on other countries from Iraq.

 

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed after eight months of rancorous negotiations, is categorical and unconditional. America's bid to act as the world's only super-power and to establish quasi-colonial control of Iraq, an attempt which began with the invasion of 2003, has ended in failure. There will be a national referendum on the new agreement next July, but the accord is to be implemented immediately so the poll will be largely irrelevant. Even Iran, which had furiously denounced the first drafts of the SOFA saying that they would establish a permanent US presence in Iraq, now says blithely that it will officially back the new security pact after the referendum. This is a sure sign that Iran, as America's main rival in the Middle East, sees the pact as marking the final end of the US occupation and as a launching pad for military assaults on neighbours such as Iran.

 

Astonishingly, this momentous agreement has been greeted with little surprise or interest outside Iraq. On the same day that it was finally passed by the Iraqi parliament international attention was wholly focused on the murderous terrorist attack in Mumbai. For some months polls in the US showed that the economic crisis had replaced the Iraqi war as the main issue facing America in the eyes of voters. So many spurious milestones in Iraq have been declared by President Bush over the years that when a real turning point occurs people are naturally sceptical about its significance. The White House was so keen to limit understanding of what it had agreed in Iraq that it did not even to publish a copy of the SOFA in English. Some senior officials in the Pentagon are privately criticizing President Bush for conceding so much to the Iraqis, but the American media are fixated on the incoming Obama administration and no longer pays much attention to the doings of the expiring Bush administration.

 

The last minute delays to the accord were not really about the terms agreed with the Americans. It was rather that the leaders of the Sunni Arab minority, seeing the Shia-Kurdish government of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki about to fill the vacuum created by the US departure, wanted to barter their support for the accord in return for as many last minute concessions as they could extract. Some three quarters of the 17,000 prisoners held by the Americans are Sunni and they wanted them released or at least not mistreated by the Iraqi security forces. They asked for an end to de-Baathication which is directed primarily at the Sunni community. Only the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr held out against the accord to the end, declaring it a betrayal of independent Iraq. The ultra-patriotic opposition of the Sadrists to the accord has been important because it has made it difficult for the other Shia parties to agree to anything less than a complete American withdrawal. If they did so they risked being portrayed as US puppets in the upcoming provincial elections at the end of January 2009 or the parliamentary elections later in the year.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, iraq

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His new book 'Muqtada! Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq' is published by Scribner.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Who says US is leaving Iraq?
Posted by: lastmarx1 on Dec 15, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hasn't Cockburn heard the US is staying on in the cities and in Iraq. I didn't read all 8 pages but I thought the first one was satire until I kept reading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who says US is leaving Iraq? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
The defeat, was in the american way >; = /
Posted by: godsbreath64 on Dec 15, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rejoice, soon the White House won't Cheneydick their constitutional charge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A supermarket tabloid style headline
Posted by: Todd Kimmell on Dec 15, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does it seem that the Iraqis have come together? That our presence has inspired them to work together to get us out? Good. Good for them. Good for us. Good for the world. Let's have our troops home.

The 'Total Defeat' headline was just weird, and feeds reaction from Fox news types. It doesn't do anything for your story and just seems cheap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TOTAL DOUBT Posted by: americansheep
How to spin the positive into the negative..
Posted by: 2thepoint on Dec 15, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand what the for left wants for Christmas is to say America has been defeated.. (talk about a patriotic bunch).

I couldn't read all 8 pages but the few I read were actually pretty funny in it's ability to twist the positive into the negative.. American troops are able to withdraw because of the successes they have had in training the Iraqi's and reducing the violence.

Sorry, the flag burning crowd will just have to wait for another event to see if America fails.. Maybe it'll be the financial crises that will bring us to our knees!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Called it as you saw it? Posted by: Curio
» Iraq was a total fustercluck Posted by: pangolin
» You can't fall off the floor Posted by: weathered
» Sore loser chickenhawk Posted by: swamiji
» RE: Sore loser chickenhawk Posted by: 2thepoint
» Try thinking out of the box Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Try thinking out of the box Posted by: weathered
» RE: Try thinking. . . Posted by: peacefullaim
» The Obama Years Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» One more point Beck Posted by: 2thepoint
Total Defeat?
Posted by: jshubbub on Dec 15, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? This was a negotiated end (sort of) to the U.S. presence in Iraq. I would hardly regard that as a defeat. Look, there's plenty of blame to go around, and we should all be relieved that this thing is finally beginning to wind down. That said, it's unseemly, to say the least, to rejoice in a defeat (even an imagined one) of your own country. The whole endeavor in Iraq has been tragic from the outset. Schadenfreude is detestable at a moment such as this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Total Defeat? Posted by: swamiji
» Hyperbole all around Posted by: Curio
» RE: Total Defeat? Posted by: americansheep
» Plenty of Blame Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Total Defeat? Posted by: zak822
the article repeats itself...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Dec 15, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
get to page 5 and the it's the same as page 1. looks like the article should be 4 pages long, not 8.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

john wetherhold
Posted by: zixu on Dec 15, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something far more dangerous has happened in the last day. Now the commanding general in Iraq has said he will not honor the sofa and will maintain troops in the cities beyond any of the deadlines. In other words, just two or three days after signing the sofa, the usg stated clearly that they had no idea of following it. So much for Iraq sovereignity!! This has to be clarified and reversed. There will always be referenda, meeting of parliament, interim elections etc etc etc which can be used as an excuse to extend the occupation. I wish i had been the one throwing the shoes - this is an appropriate gesture to a brutal maniac. Will Obama honor the sofa or will he "be flexible" also. I am afraid of the direction this is taking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: john wetherhold Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: john wetherhold Posted by: americansheep
» RE: john wetherhold Posted by: Javan
What About Mission Accomplished?
Posted by: swamiji on Dec 15, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...are you kidding me? did those chickensh*t chickenhawks in Bush Admin. finally surrender? I bet it was Cheney...he's always seemed the most cowardly of all...I'm sure G.W. woulda kept surgin' (but only 'cause he's too stupid to consider anything different) Buncha damn yella-striped, cheese eatin', wine sippin' surrender monkeys in the Bush/Cheney, Inc. crime family...I knew they didn't have the stomach for a real fight...freakin' pussies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What About Mission Accomplished? Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
Cockburn's article is nonsense
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 15, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dozens of progressive and alternative websites have re-published Patrick Cockburn's appalling article originally appeared in CounterPunch a few days ago. As Jonathan Steele's article in the Guardian a few weeks ago, this Cockburn's article is so extreme one wonders if those alternative websites have become alternative to reality.

After selling Obama as the Anti-Bush and the Man of Change, the lib-left intelligentsia is now at work to depict the new planned phase of the imperial project in the Middle East and beyond as a debacle. We are asked to believe that Corporate America is retreating from Iraq or - to use Cockburn's words - that the U.S.'s "moment in Iraq is coming to an end".

For geostrategic reasons that should be obvious to anyone at this point, Washington needs to remain and consolidate its presence in that region called so vaguely Middle East. Corporate America's hegemony and its survival depend on the direct control of this part of the world, having in mind the rising of other major powers in the international scene, particularly China, Russia and the European Union.

Obviously the US planners never wanted to occupy Iraq with all their troops forever; all they needed to do was to install a puppet government, destroy the Iraqi nation, disintegrate the Iraqi state, crush any authentic national resistance and prepare the US permanent presence in the country.

The puppet government has been installed through that charade called "political process". We even got used to that ridiculous expression, Green Zone, the Quisling government's hideout.

The Iraqi nation has been destroyed through imported sectarianism and civil war that put Iraqis against Iraqis. Since the invasion, Iraqis have been called Shia or Sunni, Arabs or Curds, Muslim or Christian. More than 1.2 million Iraqis have been slaughtered and more than 5 millions have left their homes and become refugees.


Meanwhile, the US planners have been working to establish their permanent presence in Iraq; they have been building several permanent military bases together with the biggest embassy in the world. As I wrote in my previous blog, the same day Counterpunch published P. Cockburn's article, Reuters reported, "Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years":

"We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.

But besides what this or that puppet might say, one needs just to stop the flow of propaganda and think; if the US didn't respect the UN Charter and international law when they invaded Iraq, they will certainly not respect any meaningless agreement signed by its own Quisling government. To focus on the SOFA is just another diversion; the US plan, far from being a "total defeat", as Cockburn writes, has been completely successful. Mission accomplished.


LINK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Troops Will Remain in Cities
Posted by: chlamor on Dec 15, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Growing Evidence US Won’t Honor Iraq Pact
Gen. Odierno Says US Troops Will Remain in Cities Despite SOFA Timeline
Jason Ditz

December 14,2008

Yesterday, top US military commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno said that, though the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) explicitly requires all US forces to be out of Iraqi cities by June 30, he expects troops will remain in the cities past that date. The Sadr bloc’s Liwaa Sumeissim said this underscored their belief that the US doesn’t feel bound by the pact, and that he expects the US to use any pretext to keep forces in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline as well.

And once again, the Iraqi government seems to have little objection with the US going back on one of the key tenets of the SOFA it sold to parliament. The Iraqi Defense Ministry says that US troops will be allowed to remain in cities past the deadline with permission from the Iraqi government. The permission to flout the terms of the SOFA seems remarkably easy for the US to obtain, leaving open the question of which clauses of the pact will carry any weight going forward.

The parliamentary bloc of Shi’ite Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr stood as the primary opponents of the SOFA, which narrowly passed late last month. The bloc said the SOFA would legitimize the US occupation, and expressed skepticism that the US would honor the terms at any rate. The last few days have only strengthened that case.

And on Friday Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, at a Pentagon press briefing, was already speaking of keeping American forces in Iraq past the 2011 "firm" deadline the SOFA dictates.


LINK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: US Troops Will Remain in Cities Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
On the face of it, great news
Posted by: nvannes on Dec 15, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And hopefully a lesson learned by our foreign policy for a long time to come. Now, let's get on with the full investigation of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. No pardons until we know exactly the extent of the crimes that were committed on and by Americans.

REAL CHANGE AND REAL FREEDOM = REAL INVESTIGATIONS OF 9/11 AND IRAQ. NO PARDONS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

somebody woke up in 2005 this morring
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Dec 15, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really Lefties I'm almost to the point you can give Obama the Iraq victory as long as you let the Troops WIN! Really, its like the 8th inning and you guys are still whining when the questions should be: what are we going to do to bring this to a close. Yes its the Democrat Show now so will it take the MSN to tell you people to "chill out" or will you still be howling at the moon during the Obama years?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:We Lost it in the '80's Posted by: Purple Girl
So much for roses.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Dec 15, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations and applause, it's about time! Now, hopefully Iraqi citizens can come together to rule their country! And maybe the US can learn something about pretenses to Imperialism! What the right in this country needs to understand is this: the whole debacle was never about the citizens of Iraq - IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT THE OIL, NO MATTER HOW THEY SPIN IT!!!!!

These people that perpetrated this war have lied since they came into power, this was never, ever about how they could best "govern" this nation! For anyone that thought so - I hope that you will wake up and smell the coffee!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Easy, Huh?
Posted by: lefty010 on Dec 15, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article's claims and most of the ensuing comments just leave me here shaking my head in disbelief. That this author and the posters of subsequent comments would so easily read the SOFA as some kind of victory or end of the occupation of Iraq is mind boggling.

Please people...use the critical thinking skills I know you surely posses. Certainly any type of search outside of the MSM will yield a truer picture of what the SOFA means to any real degree of substantive change in Iraq or to the level of US military presence in the region.

Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies, details out very coherently how the US will remain as a force in Iraq.

First--instead of leaving all US bases in Iraq it is very likely that the US and Iraq will work out a deal where the US will rent, lease, or "borrow" the land and buildings from the "sovereign" Iraq. They have three years to hammer out that deal.

Second--As far as Iran backing this agreement because the SOFA states that the US cannot attack neighboring countries from Iraqi soil is nearing absurdity. So instead of openly attacking Iraq's neighbors, the US will once again begin covert operations that serve the same purpose as the visible attacks but will not embarrass Iraq. Secret ops anyone?

This has already been covered in many of the comments but I must ask again...when has the US given two flying f*cks about a nation's sovereignty? If there had EVER been any real consideration of a nation's sovereignty, the US would not be in Iraq now. Any serious consideration of a nation's sovereignty would have effectively barred the initial invasion. The idea that the US would hold true to this agreement out of respect for a nation's sovereignty would be laugh-out-loud funny if it wasn't so excruciatingly damaging and deadly to a whole population of people.

As always it is worth the effort to dig beyond the surface and make sure that what we are being told is the real deal...my experience is that usually it isn't.

Portions of this comment are based on content from the interview with Phyllis Burris, conducted by Iris Ludeker on Nov. 24, 2008 and posted on Phyllis Burris's ZSpace on Dec. 4, 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A surplus of words to express a simple truth
Posted by: willymack on Dec 15, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And that is that they've got some smart, shrewed people in Iraq. I'll bet that when they're allowed to, they actually TEACH their kids some useful things there, unlike here. We'll NEVER be able to outsmart the Iraqis politically; they've got a 5000 year head start on us in that catagory. What we should be negotiating there is a deal whereby we promise to withdraw in an expedicious manner in return for their promise not to attack us while we're doing so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a dumb author ! Yes, we already lost before we started but we're still there to
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 15, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
suck all the oil of Iraq's tits until the oil dries up and she's raped to the point of no return. Now, shut up and help us nail the pols on the issue of allowing us to grow our own fuels legally from Cannabis so that Iraq can be guarenteed to be left alone, god damn it !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanx Patrick Cockburn for this informative article...
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 15, 2008 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because on the TV all I saw were flying shoes.

Man, the media really is just completely without content. And they wonder why no one watches TV anymore.

And I'd like to congratulate America on bombing yet another nation, in fact the most modern Arab nation ever, into the stone age. Guess building schools wasn't a priority after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looks like victory to me!
Posted by: barefeet on Dec 15, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were ordered into two wars against Iraq by International Judaism to reduce that militarily strong country - and nearby to Israel - to weakness so as to facilitate a slow conquest for their carpetbaggers.

Thusfar we have killed 2.4 million Iraqis most of which have been breeding women and children (by destroying sanitary facilities and embargoing medicines and notably infant formula - a death sentence for many infants).

That is a victory for International Judaism and not a defeat. Now American Christian "neighbor lovers" will gain access to that big free Walmart in the sky for sure. Judaism may even grant us a rare "atta boy."

I feel so upbeat about America now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about our soldiers!!
Posted by: soldier wife on Dec 15, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband has just left for another deployment to Iraq and I am so tired of hearing all the negative things!! These men and women are still having to leave their homes, families and friends!! Even though we don't agree with the war, we must still support our troops and their families. They are also putting their lives on the line as well so we can keep our freedom!!! They did not ask for this, they had no choice but to go!! I am ashamed at some of our fellow Americans for not supporting the troops that you depend on each and every day. At least we can still go to work and they are fighting over there....I guess America has forgotten them just like that have in the past wars!! God Bless our Veterans!! Obama has never seen war or even been in the military, so how does he know what we go through!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about our soldiers!! Posted by: badkitty
» RE: The audacity! Posted by: 876
» Irrelevant to this article. Posted by: SpiderWoman
876
Posted by: 876 on Dec 15, 2008 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot be “an ethic Persian tribe” that is utterly nonsensical. The term is Iranic tribe of which Persians are just one group. Do not continue spreading absurd disinformation. In modern language the term “Persian” is synonymous with the modern state of Iran. Refrain from calling Ossetians, Afghans, Kurds, Baluchis etc “Persian”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To the regurgitated "Support Our Troops" theme...
Posted by: pinkfloydd on Dec 15, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last I checked, this was still an all volunteer army. Every single person over there DID have a freaking choice, they choose to go fight and murder, so live with that please. We don't have to support that crap.

Now, when we return to conscription only then will I heed your pleas for supporting our troops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, (sigh), don't tell me it's over
Posted by: nvannes on Dec 15, 2008 5:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't we stay for another hundred years? We can borrow more money from the Chinese. We can sell more weapons to our future enemies. We could create a draft where everyone except the politician's kids (and those of the wealthy)would have to fight.I'm sure there are some terrorists left in Iraq. Besides, are we happy with the number of people around the world who have come to hate us? I'm sure with more bombing we could get to more to hate us. Isn't it at least worth a shot? It seems so sad to have to bring our troops home so soon. OK OK it's over.But let us not go until we torture just one more person, the journalist who threw his shoes at our great President. How disrespectful can you get, for all he did to free that man and his fellow Iraqis?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To: What About Our Soldiers
Posted by: AlteredStates on Dec 17, 2008 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do feel for you, but with a big, "However", attached to my feelings. Your husband is a soldier. He is also trained to kill...everything that gets in his sights! In boot camp, the main objective of the drill Sargent is to drive each and every recruit, out of their mind. Why? So they can kill on command. Sorry honey, but your husband is fighting for George W. Bush, and not for America, or for our freedoms. And, you want us to support that?

The last time our country was in real danger of loosing the freedoms the Constitution gives us was in WWII. And again, this time, when George W. Bush was elected.

The Korean War did not have to be fought. The U.N. divided that country in half, the same way they divided Viet Nam in half. They both wanted to unite their country as one. North and South Korea wanted to unite their country, but under different types of governments. That led to civil war, again, not a threat to our freedoms. How would you like to have the USA divided in-half by the U.N.? I didn't think you would.

The Viet Nam War did not have to be fought at all. Why? Because, the reason we entered the civil war in Viet Nam, was because of a phony report called: "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident"...which never happened the way the report said it did. The report was altered by the NSA to make it look like the North Vietnamese Navy fired on the U.S.S. Maddox, a surveillance ship. Subsequent reports by the NSA, CIA, and the Pentagon, admitted that the original report was altered as stated above. But, again, our freedoms were never in danger because of a civil war being fought in Viet Nam.

And, now we come to the Iraq War. The brainchild of G. W. Bush and the Pentagon. The Pentagon and the CIA now admit that all the intelligence reports about Iraq were wrong. Isn't that odd. They were all completely wrong. Could it be, that the same agencies made the same mistake twice? A yeah, but it wasn't a mistake...it was planed.

So, cut to present day and the dilemma of Iraq. If you were a student of history, true history, not what you here on TV or public school, (public schools are an arm of the Pentagon and is therefore controlled) you would never believe your government again. However, it seems you and your husband are "True Believers", believers in "Big Brother", and until you and your husband take a stand, and decide to not listen to what some professional liar tells you is the truth, and start thinking for yourselves by looking at history, and study the nature of politics, you will continue to be just another victim of "The Big Lie" that all governments tell their citizens. I understand your concerns for your husband, but I don't feel sorry for you, because you chose to believe a lie! A clever lie, but still, a lie. As well intentioned as politicians might sound when making their speeches for war, history tells us that they can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Anyway you look at it, life is a motherfucker, so get use to it. The trick is, to avoid as much bullshit as possible and still function in society. That my dear, is like walking on the edge of a razor blade. In the mean time, e-mail your husband and ask him not to kick-in too many doors on sleeping villagers in Iraq, at 3 O'Clock in the morning, (it's bad for the kids and old people).

There isn't a W.M.D. under every bed in Iraq, just people who are forced to live in a country that has OIL! It's too bad that you and your husband can't get "a piece of the action" like the Bush family enjoys and for anyone else who knows how to make money in war!

By-the-way, have you ever seen Bush feel sorry for ANYTHING that he has ever done? No! And, you NEVER will, because he and his cronies are out of their minds with joy, over all the blood-soaked money they are making as their reward for serving evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To: What About Our Soldiers Posted by: soldier wife
» RE: To: What About Our Soldiers Posted by: AlteredStates
» RE: To: What About Our Soldiers Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: To: Soldiers' Wife Posted by: AlteredStates
Lost it as soon as First prisoner was Tortured
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 21, 2008 2:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first time a prisoner was tortured under our watch, we Lost the War.
Let's see
No WMD's
No biologicals
No AQ until after we arrived
Not even a conncetion between Saddam & AQ

Greeted as Liberators...Well not exactly
Acted like Liberators...Absolutely not
Cicilian causalities
Blackwater Death squads
Incited a Civil War
Kidnapped ('extroardinary Rendition') people
Developed 'Black' prisons
Refused to have any Legal procedings
and Then Tortured
Construction, utilities and safety on the streets all below Saddams standards
Quite A Recipe for 'Making Friends and influencing people'
Now that there are reports the al Malhiki gov't has beaten the shoe tossing journalist, we might as well admit we have the last tyrannt with a New tryannt....Lest we forget how much assistance some in OUR gov't and Industry provided aid & comfort to Saddam for all those years..Including biologicals which were meant to be used on the Iranians, yet Saddam used on the Kurds. Reason this Admin (and McCain) could immediately blame Saddam for the Anthrax attacks- they knew the strain he had, because it was Ours!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes it is a defeat if you consider the real goals
Posted by: tginmn on Dec 21, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am glad the Iraqi people want us out and they are acting like civil members of a demcracy. However, we did lose this one too based on the real reason for being there. Oil and a base of operations for the new century. Time will tell if Iraq remains a democracy. The record is not good and without a secular dictator the religious terrorist are likely to take over. Hopefully the other countries in the region with their own secular leaders will keep the religion terrorist out of Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr
Posted by: mhhensel on Dec 22, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such thing as defeat or victory in Iraq at this point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE HOLY EARTHLY GENOCIDE TRINITY OF THE BLOODTHIRSTY ORGIES AT LAS AZORES.
Posted by: Vicario on Jan 2, 2009 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WAR ON IRAK or WAR ON ERRORISM is not considered a complete DEFEAT FOR THE UNITED STATES, but it is a DEFEAT for CRUSADERS on the PLANET, who have shown the WORLDWIDE NATIONS that the CROSS is a LEGEND of a THOUSAND and a NIGHT and it is a PIECE of WOOD that does not take you anywhere, unless the bloodshed orgies and the ASSAULTS on REASON.
WAR ON IRAK or WAR ON MORALITY comprises, the RISE of JUSTICE, the ISLAM FAITH ON REASON, EARTHY TRINITY GENOCIDES, HUMAN LEGITIMATE RIGHTS, FALL of the HOLOCAUSTIC CHURCH and the DAMNED BEAUTITUDES which have been converted into TRASH.

WAR ON IRAK or WAR ON LEGALITY has symbolized the CHRISTIAN EARTHLY DOCTRINE with the MASACRES, ATROCITIES, ETHNIC CLEANSING, COLLECTIVE ADOLESENT RAPES, KIDS SODOMIZATION and the CALL to MULTI ORAL SEX with an ADOLESCENT.

WAR ON IRAK or WAR on TORTURES has honoured and dignified the IGNORANCE of HITLER and WORLDWIDE DICATORS and above all, they came out from the CATHOLIC CHURCH and gave BIRTH to CRUSADES AND HOLOCAUSTS. They have TRANSMITTED their HOLY BLOODTHIRSTY CRUSADES and the HOLY CHURCH HOLOCAUSTS.

WAR ON IRAK or WAR on SANCTITY looks like a fairy tale, because CHRIST FOLLOWERS believed that HOLY MARY´S SON came down from HEAVEN to meet BUSHOES and give him orders to start the CALL to BLOODTHIRSTY HOLINESS. It is supposed that BUSHOES was drunk and his RANCID DEVILISH NEURONS could not distinguish between SAVIOUR CHRIST and JUDE of the JUDES, and the EVIL of the EVILS.

WAR on IRAK or WAR on CHURCH CATECHISM is the fullness of FAITH ON TREASON to STARVE the POOREST of the POOR in IRAK, GAZA, LEBANON and AFGHANESTAN. That means they have been CRUCIFYING CHRIST at all the momements and circumstances of their life to buy LANDS IN HEAVEN.

WAR ON IRAK or WAR on REASON has INCRUSTED in HUMAN HEARTS and IMPRESSED in their THOUGHTS the CRUELTY and CANNIBALISM of the GERMAN PASTOR AT THE VATICAN, WHO HAS NO PEDIGREE AND HIS FOLLOWERS. It is a WELL LEARNT LESSON that GHANDI was RIGHT when he SAID "I LIKE CHRIST, BUT I DO NOT LIKE HIS CHRISTIANS. THEY ARE UNLIKE CHRIST".

WAR ON IRAK or WAR ON THE OPUS DEI SANCTITY,who have shown their joyful of destructions and mutilations in my presence. They were pleased when IMPERIAL INVADORS entered IRAK in a SHORT TIME. It is SUPPOSED that CHRIST has taken back his DOCTRINE from them. YOUR CANNOT BE PRO WAR AND PRO LIFE. ABORTIN AT WAR is SEVENTY BILLION TIMES SEVEN than LEGAL ABORTION. BODIES CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY MEDIEVALIZED DOGMAS OR BY THE OPUS DEI CATECHISM.

WAR ON IRAK or WAR on CHRIST is a triumph for HUMAN LOVE that cannot be overcome by the IMPERIAL and DEVILISH POWERS of FORCE. JUSTICE is a DIVINE STRENGTH that takes to PEACE, WAY, TRUTH and LIKE. The OPUS DEI is not able to SEAL my MOUTH on INTERNET, so the have turned their HEADQUARTERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND EVERYWHERE into "VIRUS OPUS DEI MAKERS. THEY HAVE REALISED THAT WAR IS USELESS, so they have started "WAR ON COMPUTING", as MALWARES AND SPYWARES AGAINST TECHNOLOGY AND HUMANITY. THEY SHARED FILES,MESSENGERSS AND PROSTITUTION ON MY COMPUTER FOR OVER
THAN TWO YEARS AND EVEN I HAD TO REPAIR THE MACHINE SEVERAL TIMES IN A SHORT TIME. IT IS SUPPOSED THAT VIRUS OPUS DEI SHARED FILES ON MY COMPUTER FROM SAN ANTONIO AT THE UNITED STATES.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORKS AND DOCUMENTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN VIRUS OPUS DEI. TRUTH SETS YOU FREE. JUSTICE IS MELTED WITH MY SOUL AND I TOLD ARISTEGUI ILOGICO, IMPERIAL, INCOHERENTE AND MARCO PHOBIC AFTER HE HAD THREATENED ME TWICE BY EMAIL FROM THE PARLIAMENT "I EXPECT THE TWO SHOT WHENEVER I ENTER OR LEAVE MY HOUSE". DEATH WITH DIGNITY IS MUCH HONOURABLE THAN MAKING WARS WITH LOVE. TRUE LOVE HAS GONE WITH THE WIND.

VICARIO : EX OPUS DEI MEMBER AND EDUCATOR FOR THIRTY TWO YEARS:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement