home

Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strategic Disaster Ever

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom says the invasion of Iraq was the worst strategic disaster in U.S. history.

The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.

[Via Raw Story.]

< Admittedly Hammered Republicans Look Forward | Judith Miller and Fitzgerald's Agreement >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Gee, I've been saying exactly that for 2 1/2 years. Apparently the professional military folks have reached the point where they have requisitioned my "amateur" analysis, which they rejected for two years, and now claim it as their own idea.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    If they question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied. ---Rudyard Kipling
    Ray McGovern, co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, wrote, back in June of this year, a great article on commondreams.org in which he reminds that, apart from the fact that the reasons and justifications for the invasion were a complete fraud and lie, the war in Iraq is being run by civilians with little military background or experience, who won't listen to the people with the experience:
    Aping the president’s practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks—men who “kiss up and kick down,” in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford
    It seems that everything Bush and his "team", if you can call it that, turns to sh**. They've got the reverse midas touch. In his artice Mcgovern also quotes comments from William Odom, now a professor at Yale, translated from the German Press last fall:
    More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (US Army, ret), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of “staying the course” in Iraq, because U.S. media are not going to run his remarks. Here is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV’s Panorama program: “When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties. “When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, ‘I am still on course.’ Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course... “Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.” At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to “prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.” Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you’ve succeeded in accomplishing that yourself? “No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents.”
    we have a leadership problem, a pure and simple one. We have "leaders" who are not responsible, because they are not accountable.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Here is the link to McGovern's article: Published on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 by CommonDreams.org Stay the Crooked Course by Ray McGovern

    Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Their's not to make reply, Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. - Alfred Tennyson, 1854
    There is nothing new under the sun:
    The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them? cite
    The old Troop-Sergeant was spokesman, and "Beggin' your pardon," he said, "You wrote o' the Light Brigade, sir. Here's all that isn't dead. An' it's all come true what you wrote, sir, regardin' the mouth of hell; For we're all of us nigh to the workhouse, an, we thought we'd call an' tell. "No, thank you, we don't want food, sir; but couldn't you take an' write A sort of 'to be continued' and 'see next page' o' the fight? We think that someone has blundered, an' couldn't you tell 'em how? You wrote we were heroes once, sir. Please, write we are starving now." -Rudyard Kipling, 1891


    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    Well we may be staying the course but AQ in Iraq has taken a new turn.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#7)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    According to this week's Washington Post - The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday, adding that the security situation in Iraq is too uncertain to predict large-scale American troop withdrawals anytime soon.
    Invading Iraq was a mistake. Continuing our occupation of Iraq is a mistake. It seems that the main reason that we are there is because Bush and the Republicans don't want to admit that we made a mistake. This isn't about winning. Its about the fear among Republicans that they will lose a war. This is why someone must die. As John Kerry once asked regarding Vietnam "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    che-Interior Minister Bayan Jabor, who is the source of the Reuters article you linked is a hack, puppet and liar. Mr Jabor is a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the conservative Shia party formerly based in Iran, and is believed to be among those who favour the removal of former Ba'athists deemed to have "committed crimes". The Tal Afar was largely seen as a payback by Jabor who is a member of SCRII a shia group closely linked to Iran.
    Jabor said intelligence indicated some Arab militants had already left Iraq after losing ground during last month's assault by U.S. and Iraqi forces on the northern town of Tal Afar, where more than 1,500 insurgents were captured.
    This can hardly be true. If 1500 people were arrested that were certainly not insurgents but victims of Jabor's ethnic cleansing. The insurgents all escaped through secret tunnels as they knew the attack was coming well in advance. From Juan Cole:
    An Iraqi army lieutenant colonel suggested that up to half the rebels might have managed to flee to neighbouring villages. Among those arrested were some 30 foreign fighters, including around 20 Syrians, as well as four Afghanis and two Saudis, he told AFP requesting anonymity." That is, 200,000 inhabitants were driven from their homes, neighborhoods were flattened, and 500 people were killed so that the US could capture 20 Syrian villagers so angry about the US military occupation of Iraq that they slipped over to Tal Afar to fight it.
    Also in Cole's post he points out this:
    Let me now risk some more flak and say that given that it is two weeks before the referendum and no ordinary Iraqis have seen the text of the new constitution, and given that the Sunni Arabs reject it to a person even just from the little they know of it, this constitution is another sick joke played by the Bush administration, which keeps forcing Iraq to jump through hoops made in Washington as "milestones" and "tipping points" to which the Republican Party can point as progress. Not to mention that the draft we have all seen of the constitution is riddled with fatal contradictions that will tie up the energies of parliament and the courts for decades trying to resolve them.


    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    edger quotes:
    Ray McGovern, (wrote)the war in Iraq is being run civilians
    Somebody needs to tell Ray that is the way our system works. He may not like it, and Patton didn't like it during WWII when his Third Army was stopped so Monty could have all the fuel for Operation Market Garden. But that's life in a democracy. You also quote:
    Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.”
    You have to wonder if the General is paying attention.
    The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
    Link And this:
    "In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars."
    Link Nope, nothing happening. Nothing at all. Can you hear me laughing.....now?

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Che- Correction: Jabr is not a puppet, I got it wrong in my comment above. He is a liar and what he says is not to be trusted. From Juan Cole:
    Jabr is originally Turkmen. He headed the Syrian and Lebanese offices of SCIRI in exile and served as its Political and Arab Affairs chief. It is possibly significant that Interior went to a political operative of SCIRI rather than to the paramilitary Badr Corps, which had been angling for the ministry itself. The Badr Corps fighters were trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Bayan Jabr is clearly an old-time revolutionary deeply committed to SCIRI's paramilitary actions. I'd say there is likely to be some trepidation among Iraqi moderates about his now taking over Interior, which is a mixture of what in the US would be the FBI, Secret Service, and Homeland Security.


    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    The insurgents all escaped
    All of'em? Wow. You define your message by your gross overstatement. Some were killed, some were captured, some escapd. ALL of the operations were broken up and disrupted.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    ppj- hyperbole is often a good way to drive home a point, although minor hyperbole in this case. The point is that Jabr lied by saying 1500 insurgents were captured and the Tal Afar campaign was designed to do some ethnic cleansing. A city of 200,000 innocent civilians are now homeless refugees because of the attempt to purge Tal Afar from insurgents. The tal Afar purge was a was crime. At best 150 people were captured and most if not all the "insurgents" escaped prior to the invasion through secret tunnels due to leaks from Iraqi army personnel.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Jesurgislac: Tennyson was not only a great poet, he was, I think, prescient as well. An Explication of "The Charge of the Light Brigade"
    The sixth stanza opens with Tennyson's second question, "When can their glory fade?" Perhaps he is asking this question because he fears that these men and this incident may not be remembered or worse yet, that they will be remembered as men that failed. This dual perception is implied in lines 50 and 51 where he again uses two words that appear to be used as double entendres. In line 50 he uses "wild" to refer to their charge, which can mean it was a fantastic charge or a disorderly charge. In line 50 he repeats and uses the word "wonder" in a manner similar to his use of it in line 31. According to Dr. LuAnn McCracken Fletcher, a third possibility for the question may be that Tennyson may be saying, "When can we stop glorifying actions like this?" - even as we honor the men that engaged in this action. He concludes in lines 53-55 that all of the men should be honored for their actions that day, both those that gave their lives in the line of duty and perhaps more importantly, those that chose to retreat when they realized that "someone had blundered."


    John Horse: "Invading Iraq was a mistake." A mistake? No, invading Iraq was a racist act in full consciousness. A lynching is not a 'mistake.' $300 billion for 15 airbases in a former sovereign state -- not cheap, but not particularly expensive, especially if your class doesn't pay the bills. And they aren't done -- another flaw in this 'mistake' and 'incompetence' lingo. Since they took over the gov't specifically in order to build out Pipelinestan and Former-Iraq Airbaseland, it is the height of absurdity to convince yourself that because the numbers don't add up, they are done making trouble. Removal of the conspirators, en masse, from power is the ONLY way the Racist Iraq Adventure will end. And they are on their way to attacking Syria/Lebanon in a few months, followed by the rest of their list. Again and again, I find the famous Animal House quote the most apt: "You f*ked up! You TRUSTED us."

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    A city of 200,000 innocent civilians are now homeless refugee
    And another overstatement bites the dust. BTW - hyperbole: " extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones") Is that a polite way of saying, you're lying to make a point? Of course if you're lying, who can believe your point? We all know mile-high ice-cream cones don't exist. DA - The experience level of the civilian leadership makes absolutely no difference. They run the show, and the military leadership does what it is told, or they resign, or are fired. McGovern knows that, irrespective of his attempt to act like having civilian leaders is something unique or unusual. BTW - Please quit making nasty comments about the New York Times. It is a fine organization even if they do get caught with their facts screwed up from time to time. Of oourse the fact that indictment existed might make some people think you complain just to complain.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM EST
    ppj-since you are ever to lazy check links I will post the scoop from Juan Cole:
    We know that the guerrillas mostly escaped the city through tunnels, and few engagements were fought (though 500 or more people were killed in the city, some proportion of them innocent civilians caught up in bombing raids) The US military claimed 150 guerrillas killed and 400 captured, but it is not at all clear that the 400 apprehended were actually guerrillas as opposed to Sunni Turkmen who had some pressing reason to try to stay in the city. The stated objective had been the foreign infiltrators. What happened to them? AFP reported on Sept. 13, "An Iraqi army lieutenant colonel suggested that up to half the rebels might have managed to flee to neighbouring villages. Among those arrested were some 30 foreign fighters, including around 20 Syrians, as well as four Afghanis and two Saudis, he told AFP requesting anonymity." That is, 200,000 inhabitants were driven from their homes, neighborhoods were flattened, and 500 people were killed so that the US could capture 20 Syrian villagers so angry about the US military occupation of Iraq that they slipped over to Tal Afar to fight it. But wait. This battle was supposed to be a major one. How how did at least half of the guerrillas (I suspect many more) escape from the city? Could it be that they were tipped off by officers in the Iraqi army? How did the US find out about the infiltration? Was it when they got to Tal Afar and nobody was there? Or was it when there were a few firefights, and everybody but a few gung-ho Kurds held back?
    Juan Cole Oh, and I know that you have decided that Cole is too rich for your blood as you have questioned his qualifications. In response to false claims by your friend Hitchens, he posts some of his experience. If having command of eight languages, and daily reporting on primary language sources from the mid-east newspapers is not enough to make him authority on Iraq, this may be enough for your ever so high standards. On second thought he could never live up to your standards measured by your favorite NY Post.

    The amazing thing is that this chickenhawk (which is not the same thing as 'civilian,' Jim) soldier-destroying behavior is EXACTLY what the retrogressives like Jim were saying should never happen again, back with Vietnam. And now their boy has blown away our soldiers in a misbegotten, lied-about, war for profit. And Jim just doesn't know that his chickenhawks treat soldiers like slaves, taking away their honor by ordering them to attack THE INNOCENT, and then not arming them or armoring them, so they can just get blown to pieces -- All Hail the King. Jim doesn't even know when he has been betrayed. But I bet a lot of those soldiers know, especially the older ones, and the Guard. While Bush laughs at their suffering! "OK, who are we commemorating today?" -- Bush, bounding into room to greet Goldstar mother Sheehan, without knowing her name, the soldier's name, the details of his death, or expressing the slightest normal emotional connection with a bereft mother. That's cocaine talking, Big Time. All grins and no consequences. And Jim don't know coke sniffers from ordinary bigots like him. 1,935 dead soldiers. Congratulations, Jim. Soon it will be 2,000, and the second thousand is gifts of cotton. Why don't you send your boy a nice white linen sheet, Jim. His old hood is so tattered.

    JimakaPPJ likes to lie: this is not news. It may be worthwhile debunking his false claims the first time he makes them in any one thread: it's not worth clogging the thread with abuse.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    Jim:
    Nope, nothing happening. Nothing at all. Can you hear me laughing.....now?
    Hilarious, Jim... 26,302 Iraqi Civilian Casualties 1,935 American Dead Soldiers. $206 Billion Cost of Iraq War Congratulations, Jim. Proud?

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    Why do retired generals hate freedom?

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    DA - The topic of the thread is the comments by retired General Odom, a critic of the war. As part of those comments the retired General said:
    "Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.”
    I feel the retired General misspoke himself. I provided two examples of this, one of which is an indictment by the US JD in November 1998, about three and a half years before the war, which clearly links Iraq and al-Qaida. The other details Saddam's practice of providing financial support to terrorists. In an attempt to distract from the fact that the retired General misspoke himself, you attacked the link. Tell me. Are you saying the indictment doesn't exist? As for McGovern, his quote, and your attempt to defend it just proves my point. He tries to make a point by stating facts as if they are unusual. That is a nice ploy, but it doesn’t work. We do have civilian government. The military does work for them. And as civilians, the government will not have a vast amount of military experience. And, military decisions are often made from a political viewpoint, as I noted in my comment regarding Patton’s Third Army being stopped in its tracks during WWII to let England’s Monty have a chance to win a major victory in Market Garden. History is replete with such examples, including the (damnable) non-use of over whelming force in Vietnam, and now the very restrained use of power in Iraq. Squeak - "Scoop" from Juan Cole? I had no idea he was in Iraq covering the war. BTW - Is "Scoop" another bit of hyperbole from you? BTW - I look at Juan Cole the same way I look at the Right Wing blogs. Sometimes enjoyable to read, always suspect as to facts, motive and bias. PIL writes:
    That's cocaine talking, Big Time. All grins and no consequences. And Jim don't know coke sniffers from ordinary bigots like him.
    I love to quote your over the top comments. You truly have no idea as to how ridiculous you look to the ordinary , non-political person. The Repubs thank you for your efforts. Jesurgislac writes:
    JimakaPPJ likes to lie
    Another guy who can't refute my point, so he resorts to insults. edger - People get killed in war. Sad, but true. That's why we had the debate before the war's approval by the Senate. You are anti-war. We know that. But what solution do you offer to this statement by OBL? Note he says two very important things. Even if we leave the SA peninsula that will not bring peace. So you have been put on notice that our leaving Iraq and the ME will not stop the terrorists. Instead, he plainly says that we must not interfere with Muslim activities in the WHOLE world. That’s ALL of it, edger. We must let them do what they want. And that simply is to establish a Islamic world wide government. Note the lack of room for reasonable people to work together. Would you just surrender? Have you puchased your prayer rug?
    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ? BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
    Link to OBL interview.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    DA - The topic of the thread is the comments by retired General Odom, a critic of the war. As part of those comments the retired General said:
    "Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.” I feel the retired General misspoke himself.
    The General didn't "misspoke himself" Jim. You "misquoted him" by taking his words out of the context he spoke them, which was:
    “Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.
    I know it's hard work for you, Jim. Maybe some new glasses would help?

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    ppj-Obviously you have never read his site, and clearly have little real interest as to what is going on over in Iraq. Cole has been covering the Iraq war, which he initially supported, from its onset. There is no other source as veritable as his, unless you read arabic or farsi, to find out what is going on over there.
    "Scoop" from Juan Cole? I had no idea he was in Iraq covering the war.
    I am sure though that the NY Post is easier for you to follow, as it's reporting is about as thin as your rhetoric.

    Jim, "I love to quote your over the top comments. You truly have no idea as to how ridiculous you look" I am not a thug, like you and your pals. I couldn't care less what you think. You are abetting genocide, and that makes you a Nazi. The five uncles of mine who died in the fields of France on their way to evicerate that smirking paperhanging sob would like to join me in spitting in your eye.

    OK, I can't believe I'm doing anything remotely like defending PPJ, but... I really, really hate seeing the word "genocide" batted around so casually. It's not just a rhetorical weapon to chuck at annoying people. I hate the war in Iraq with a passion. It is killing innocent people. (Some of that killing is being done by our soldiers. But some of it is being done by terrorists. Yeah, yeah, insurgents, whatever... but they are targeting nonmilitary people too. One of the attacks was on a bus station. Don't civilians ride buses too?) Killing is killing, and killing is a terrible thing. But it isn't always genocide. Here's the official accepted definition:
    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    By the way, there IS genocide going on right now, and it's happening in Darfur. Remember Darfur? It's gotten totally pushed onto the back burner by everything else, and it's a shame. I'll say no more for now because I don't want to get any more off- topic than I already am, but it seems like this is something that everybody should agree about -- and do something about. And -- do I have to say this? -- PPJ is not a Nazi. Is he defending a bad war, bad policies and a bad president? Yep. Is he trying to wipe out a whole group of people? Well, I don't know what he does during his down time, but I'm guessing not. The right has this bad habit of escalating the mere airing of opinions as a crime. "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy", etc. I don't want to see us fall into the same habit, and don't think accusing someone of genocide just because they defend bad policies is fair.

    Re: Retired General: Iraq Invasion Biggest Strateg (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    webmacher: I wholeheartedly agree with you here:
    I hate the war in Iraq with a passion. It is killing innocent people ... Killing is killing, and killing is a terrible thing. But it isn't always genocide. ... The right has this bad habit of escalating the mere airing of opinions as a crime. "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy", etc. I don't want to see us fall into the same habit, and don't think accusing someone of genocide just because they defend bad policies is fair.
    Paul: I also understand, and I wholeheartedly agree with your very heartfelt opposition to the war. I'm sure you know where I stand on it, from my posts. Many of the posts that upset you so much are purposely designed to provoke very emotional reactions from you, me, and others... remember that, sadly, they are bait, and they are written with the hope that we'll bite... and lower ourselves to their level...

    Posted by webmacher: "I really, really hate seeing the word "genocide" batted around so casually." Casually? That's a slander. "It's not just a rhetorical weapon to chuck at annoying people." I'm not using it rhetorically. You're caught up in the NUMBERS GAME that Samantha Power ('A Problem From Hell') discusses in depth. "I hate the war in Iraq with a passion. It is killing innocent people." It is doing A LOT more than that. There are mercenaries doing political deathsquad wetwork all over FORMER-Iraq. "...they are targeting nonmilitary people too. One of the attacks was on a bus station." Mercenaries don't care how many civilians they kill. 1,500 of those mercs are white-supremacist killers from South Africa. They think Arabs are dirt. "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group," Intent to destroy a national group. "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." -- Henry Kissinger, genocidist "By the way, there IS genocide going on right now, and it's happening in Darfur. Remember Darfur?" Darfur is in Sudan. Sudan is also on the list, but it's near the bottom: "(Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia." The purpose of the Airbaseland invasion is to create the military base to continue RACIST GENOCIDE against Arabs and the entire Middle East, up to and including use of nukes on civilian populations. "PPJ is not a Nazi." Fascism plus racism is Nazism. "Is he trying to wipe out a whole group of people?" Hey, Mission Accomplished, webmacher. What do you think the pogroms on Fallujah and Al Qa'im are? What do you think the civil war Bush is brewing will be? This is genocide, but you want prison camps -- oh wait, there are those -- and torture -- oh wait, there is that -- and women and children shot down in the streets -- oh wait, there is that, too. Attacking a sovereign country in order to dismantle it into airbases and territories IS GENOCIDE under the Convention. Under the treaty the US signed under Reagan. 150,000 people are dead, and quite a few of those are dead because of their political beliefs and opposition to the destruction of their culture, their families, their authorities, their political activists. Because of those airbases, and Bush's stated desire to use nuclear weapons, the Iraq invasion is also genocide (a conspiracy to commit genocide under the Convention). I'm not kidding around.

    Posted by webmacher: "I really, really hate seeing the word "genocide" batted around so casually." Casually? That's a slander. "It's not just a rhetorical weapon to chuck at annoying people." I'm not using it rhetorically. You're caught up in the NUMBERS GAME that Samantha Power ('A Problem From Hell') discusses in depth. "I hate the war in Iraq with a passion. It is killing innocent people." It is doing A LOT more than that. There are mercenaries doing political deathsquad wetwork all over FORMER-Iraq. "...they are targeting nonmilitary people too. One of the attacks was on a bus station." Mercenaries don't care how many civilians they kill. 1,500 of those mercs are white-supremacist killers from South Africa. They think Arabs are dirt. "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group," Intent to destroy a national group. "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." -- Henry Kissinger, genocidist "By the way, there IS genocide going on right now, and it's happening in Darfur. Remember Darfur?" Darfur is in Sudan. Sudan is also on the list, but it's near the bottom: "(Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia." The purpose of the Airbaseland invasion is to create the military base to continue RACIST GENOCIDE against Arabs and the entire Middle East, up to and including use of nukes on civilian populations. "PPJ is not a Nazi." Fascism plus racism is Nazism. "Is he trying to wipe out a whole group of people?" Hey, Mission Accomplished, webmacher. What do you think the pogroms on Fallujah and Al Qa'im are? What do you think the civil war Bush is brewing will be? This is genocide, but you want prison camps -- oh wait, there are those -- and torture -- oh wait, there is that -- and women and children shot down in the streets -- oh wait, there is that, too. Attacking a sovereign country in order to dismantle it into airbases and territories IS GENOCIDE under the Convention. Under the treaty the US signed under Reagan. 150,000 people are dead, and quite a few of those are dead because of their political beliefs and opposition to the destruction of their culture, their families, their authorities, their political activists. Because of those airbases, and Bush's stated desire to use nuclear weapons, the Iraq invasion is also genocide (a conspiracy to commit genocide under the Convention). I'm not kidding around.

    Sorry for the double posting (Haloscan error).

    Um... so there are mercenaries on both sides, fighting with the U.S. military and fighting on the side of the insurgents, right? They're BOTH bad. But if they're fighting on the side of the insurgents, are they still genocidal? I'm very confused by your argument. Also, the Bush administration is very friendly with the leaders of many Arab countries... as long as the oil and money keep flowing. Seems like as long as that happens, "it don't matter if you're black or white" to misquote Michael Jackson. Look, I'm not kidding either, and I certainly am not intending to slander you or anyone. You're not the first one to drop the "g" word either. I think it was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. We're on the same side here. I repeat, I am against this war. I'd love to see Bush impeached. I'm totally appalled at what's being done in our name. It really doesn't even matter what you or I think the Bush administration's motives are -- the results are beyond awful, whatever they say they were trying to do. However, they aren't the only ones doing awful stuff in Iraq right now! You may not be inclined to believe me, but on the other hand, Human Rights Watch says the same thing today.
    The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the ensuing military occupation has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and sparked the emergence of these insurgent groups. Two chapters in the report summarize laws of war violations by U.S. and Iraqi government forces. But these violations do not justify the insurgents’ unlawful attacks, the report says. “U.S. forces have used excessive and indiscriminate force, tortured detainees and held thousands of Iraqis without due process,” Whitson said. “But that does not justify attacks by insurgent groups that have deliberately targeted and killed civilians.”
    So I still think sometimes a thing is just awful on its own, without needing comparison to Hitler, Nazis, or anything else. This war is just wrong, bad, awful. And we agree! So what's to fight about? (Power's book is excellent by the way... everyone should read it if they haven't already)

    Posted by webmacher: "Um... so there are mercenaries on both sides, fighting with the U.S. military and fighting on the side of the insurgents, right?" No, wrong, so far as has been reported. Mercenaries are PAID killers; there is no evidence that there are paid fighters on the native side. "Also, the Bush administration is very friendly with the leaders of many Arab countries" They are ON RECORD as stating that the countries they intend to invade. It can't be more brazen than that. And it isn't just Arabia. Not sure what your point is. "You're not the first one to drop the "g" word either. I think it was just the straw that broke the camel's back for me." If you don't grasp that this is a conspiracy to destroy Iraq as a standing nation, or if you don't accept the 100,000-150,000+ death toll, you might not like that word being used. Still, since I do accept both those facts, it is the right word. "It really doesn't even matter what you or I think the Bush administration's motives are" INCORRECT. It matters to a very great degree. Since I accept them at their word, they intend to attack SIX MORE COUNTRIES. And Kissinger also said they want to partition Saudi Arabia down the line. This will put each of us in incredible trouble, because the US will be (is now, at least temporarily) THE elbow in everyone's eye in the Middle East. We aren't going to be making the profit from this policy, and we DID NOT APPROVE IT. It is treason. "However, they aren't the only ones doing awful stuff in Iraq right now! You may not be inclined to believe me, but on the other hand, Human Rights Watch says the same thing today." In an occupation, the blame falls squarely on the invader. “But that does not justify attacks by insurgent groups that have deliberately targeted and killed civilians.” I believe a great many of those bombings are done by US-employed mercs, pretending to be locals. The British Marines caught in Arab robes and scarves a few weeks ago in Basra is more evidence of that. USPNAC 'gave' insurgents 280 TONS of high-explosives. That was in order to arm hostiles for a civil war that USPNAC is doing EVERYTHING IT CAN TO START. So, no, I don't accept the gloss by HRW in this instance. "So I still think sometimes a thing is just awful on its own, without needing comparison to Hitler, Nazis, or anything else." Genocide does not belong to the Holocaust. It was invented specifically to go beyond such 'exceptional' terminology. "And we agree! So what's to fight about?" It is a question of how dire you understand the true actions of the USPNAC conspirators, and their evil intentions in the future. If you buy the rationales, and trust your incredulity, you will be fooled. And a lot of people will die while people sit around being fooled again, and again, and again. Bush must resign.

    Whoah, Paul... "Genocide does not belong to the Holocaust. It was invented specifically to go beyond such 'exceptional' terminology." I agree... which is, conversely why I don't think it's a good idea to call people Nazis! But obviously I'm just not as pure as you. Sorry to be a little testy, but ya really might want to tone your tone down a little. I agree with a lot of what you say and I'm finding this conversation annoying. I wonder what people who are kind of on the fence think? They're finally coming around to our way of thinking -- that this war was a mistake -- don't pile it on too high. Do keep the facts coming though -- and links would be excellent and appreciated. But let the facts speak for themselves... and try not to alienate people on the same side of the fence. (I suppose the same goes for me so I'll stop now!)

    Posted by webmacher: "I agree... which is, conversely why I don't think it's a good idea to call people Nazis!" Except Nazis and people who are acting like them. You do know that there ARE Nazis, don't you? Is someone like Bush, who is a charter member of the KKK, a Nazi? Karl Rove is obviously a student of Goering, is he a Nazi? Are people who follow such racists Nazis? I see a lot of innocent blood of brown people getting splashed around by a guy on vacation. What a STINKING NAZI! Too many people sacrificed their lives so we could use the word Nazi when it is so clearly indicated. Why dance around it? The idea that it lowers the dialogue is HILARIOUS, given the constant trolling and distracting. "But obviously I'm just not as pure as you." Or don't care enough about your family being safe. Where are our warcrimes trials? I'll be happy to take a fair court's verdict on whether what they doing is genocide. BUT THEY AREN'T DONE!!! So this isn't a court of the term, this is an alarm bell ringing in everyone's ear who thinks this invasion was a mistake. Yes it was, but it was intentional!!! "I wonder what people who are kind of on the fence think?" There ain't no fence. There's people who never trusted Bush, like us, and people who did and have figured out they were tricked. Those people aren't on the fence, they jumped over it. Anyone who could be on the fence as you think, is a LOUSY American, or blind. What I see are a lot of people who have finally figured out that Bush Sucks. "They're finally coming around to our way of thinking -- that this war was a mistake -- don't pile it on too high." THE WAR IS NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT A MISTAKE. It is a conscious conspiracy, a conscious outright RACIST act that amounts to GENOCIDE. Bush is not incompetent. He is negligent. He is an intentional actor who has the knack of convincing people to look the other way, to forgive him, to identify with him. He is a war criminal -- a NAZI who has splattered completely innocent families against their kitchen walls.