quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It reads like poorly veiled propaganda to me.

---

quote:

---

INTERVIEW WITH ISRAELI POLITICIAN ISAAC BEN- ISRAEL
‘Israel Will Not Stand By While Iran Builds the Bomb'
Isaac Ben-Israel, a former Israeli Air Force general and now member of the ruling Kadima party, spoke with SPIEGEL about the limits of sanctions in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. He says Israel is prepared to mount a military strike against the mullah regime if diplomacy fails.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
It certainly is.
Check out how they are paving the way for the upcoming genocide against Iran:
Source

---

[ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I was against the invasion of Iraq. But if things are getting better now, I will celebrate that.

I don't think that such progress would validate the approach that the world took with respect to Iraq.

quote:

---

Why deny it, if it's true ?

---

Didn't an Iraqi politician just shoot a bunch of US soldiers killing, what was it? Three of them? But it is all milk and honey in der Spielgel.

Get a freakin' life.

By the way, der Spiegel is corporate media, which by this time, every thinking human should know, can't be trusted to tell the truth. What is the agenda of der Spiegels investors? Oil contracts in the soon to be newly opened fields, maybe?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
What I would like to see is a free and fair election (overseen by the U.N., if one prefers) under which the Iraqi people would vote, yea or nay, on whether U.S. troops should leave Iraqi.

---

quote:

---

Because it's not true. What is the daily death toll? Isn't there yet another barbaric siege taking place in Amarah as we pretend everything is fine in Baghdad? How many weeks ago was it US war planes were dive bombing civilians in Sadr City? How many weeks has it been that US forces, British, and desserting Iraqi government troops were killing civilians in Basra? But, suddenly, it is all unrefrigerated pork and partying?

Didn't an Iraqi politician just shoot a bunch of US soldiers killing, what was it? Three of them? But it is all milk and honey in der Spielgel.

Get a freakin' life.

By the way, der Spiegel is corporate media, which by this time, every thinking human should know, can't be trusted to tell the truth. What is the agenda of der Spiegels investors? Oil contracts in the soon to be newly opened fields, maybe?

When the messenger comes armed with vested interests and an agenda not apart from its masters, shooting it is probably the wisest move.

---

FM,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_war_casualties_-_6-24-08.jpg

Since late 2006/early 2007, the rate of Iraqi civilians dying violently is showing a clear decline. This site (www.iraqbodycount.org) estimates that 85,000 to 93,000 civilian have died in Iraq since the start of the war about five years ago.

ETA: Just scanning through the reports of detailed individual incidents, it looks like a significant percentage of those deaths are due to "car bombs" and to "roadside bombs".

[ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
Don't be so cynical FM, Pork is for sale in Baghdad again>Mission Accomplished.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps this source will pass muster with you, FM?

---

quote:

---

MOSUL - A parked car bomb killed one person and wounded 13 others on Monday in Mosul, police said.

MANDILI - A suicide bomber killed four people, including two policemen, on Monday in the town of Mandili, 100 km (60 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police said. Eighteen others were wounded, eight of them policemen,

BAGHDAD - Five bodies were found in different districts of Baghdad on Monday, police said.

BAGHDAD - A parked car bomb wounded five people in Jamiaa district, in western Baghdad, police said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I am more inclined to believe the Lancet study, thank you.

---

Why, because of all of the estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths, the Lancet study showed the highest number?

Here is an interesting critique of the Lancet study by the IBC.

An example of one of the several IBC critiques: The Lancet study necessarily extrapolates, from its field sample, that about 550,000 death certificates were issued by the Iraqi government for violent deaths. In fact, only about 50,000 death certificates for violent death were issued by the Iraqi government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
In any case, I would agree casualties might be down. But that doesn't equal an improvement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
The rhetoric that Iraq is a better place is incredibly sickening.

---

I think that the observation is that Iraq is improving relative to six or twelve months ago and whether than trend will continue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
It's not a question of whether Iraq is a better place than it was six years or sixty years ago.

---

quote:

---

It's whether or not there has been recent improvement and whether than improvement will continue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No it is not

---

If it were propaganda, I wouldn't expect to see paragraphs such as this:

quote:

---

'Fragile and Reversible'

Despite the palpable changes in daily life in the Iraqi capital, people are still being killed, because the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists are not willing to give in, nor have they been eliminated completely. Eleven people died in attacks last Tuesday, seven on Wednesday and 38 on Thursday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
MH you were being ironic I hope.

---

I see a lot of Groupthink going on here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
When the helicopters start airlifting Western invaders out of the "green zone".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Please don't supply my subtext.

---

quote:

---

I see a lot of Groupthink going on here.

---

quote:

---

Let me ask then - at what point will you say that the situation is improving in Iraq ?

---

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

When the western world is outta there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
I disagree. I don't think the presence of coalition forces should be the one criteria for how things are going.

---

quote:

---

Here is an interesting critique of the Lancet study by the IBC.

---

quote:

---

In any event, how does a decrease in civilian deaths "not equal an improvement"?

---

And do you know there are fewer civilian casualties? I don't think you do. You merely accept official reports which have always under reported civilian deaths and casualties.

quote:

---

It's whether or not there has been recent improvement and whether than improvement will continue.

---

In fact, the only reduction in killings is directly attributable to the truce of the Sadr militia and the arming and paying of Sunni paramilitary thugs who do what? Control civilians neighbourhoods with brutal violence.

That is an improvement? How about we do it to your neighbourhood?

quote:

---

I see a lot of Groupthink going on here.

---

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

U.S. forces killed two militants and captured 10 other suspected militants in various operations targeting al Qaeda in central and north-western areas of Baghdad on Wednesday and Thursday, a U.S. military statement said.

MOSUL - Two militants were killed in a gunfight with police, one of whom also died, in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. The policemen were guarding a local bank.

MOSUL - Gunmen killed an off-duty policeman in eastern Mosul, police said.

MOSUL - Gunmen shot dead a civilian inside a computer games arcade in northern Mosul, police said.

---

quote:

---

I disagree. I think the presence of coalition forces should be the one criteria for how things are going.

---

Canada allowed the US to test cruise missiles in our territory in the 1980s, so were we 'occupied' ? Certainly that action wasn't popular with Canadians. Then there's the example of US bases on Saudi Arabian soil, or in Europe, Germany, and everywhere...

When they tested cruise missiles in Canada they didn't aim them at cities. When did they level Saudi Arabia? Mind you I do note that as per Osama Bin Laden's request the US did remove their troops from holy ground in Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

I guess it depends on what the criteria are for a being an occupied country.

---

So you would equate the US testing of WMD delivery systems in Canada with the genocidal occupation of Iraq?

quote:

---

Such a hair to split.

So you would equate the US testing of WMD delivery systems in Canada with the genocidal occupation of Iraq?

I think I've just lost my respect for you.

---

Not at all. I'm just asking the question. The idea seems to be that the occupation alone is the worst thing possible for Iraq. The question of violence, misery, deprivation is secondary to some folks.

I can't relate to that point of view. I visited Cuba in the 1980s and found it to be a fairly happy and prosperous place, despite the fact that elections weren't as "free and fair" as ... oh ... Nicaragua ? To me, filling out the bottom tiers of Maslow's heirarchy of needs are more important than being able to yell "Down with Fidel" without being arrested, but that's me...

Anyway, I'm trying to find out what criteria people are using here for deciding that Iraq isn't improve, assuming that their opinions aren't just based on gut-level revulsion for GW Bush. And if that IS the case, then that's also cool but let's say so rather than pretend that there's some logic behind it.

And... I'm glad you appear to respect me, though...

So many apples and they don't taste like oranges.

quote:

---

The question of violence, misery, deprivation is secondary to some folks.

---

You remind me of the person I heard on CBC talking to one of our "detainees" who was wearing an ankle bracelet and had other major restrictions. The CBC reporter had the fucking audacity to ask; "so is this just your new normal now?"

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
No to many of us that is the ongoing view of what occupation means. Having your country occupied is by definition violent, miserable and depriving of all rights people should have in their own country.

---

quote:

---

You remind me of the person I heard on CBC talking to one of our "detainees" who was wearing an ankle bracelet and had other major restrictions. The CBC reporter had the fucking audacity to ask; "so is this just your new normal now?"

---

quote:

---

The last time Cuba had an occupying army was 50 years ago so what exactly is your comparison about? Did you hear of any insurgency in Cuba when you were there? Did you see car bombings in neighbourhoods, how about American goons driving around shooting the place up?

So many apples and they don't taste like oranges.

---

Fair enough. I'm just saying that politics isn't a great metric to determine how well off a country is.

quote:

---

No to many of us that is the ongoing view of what occupation means. Having your country occupied is by definition violent, miserable and depriving of all rights people should have in their own country.

You remind me of the person I heard on CBC talking to one of our "detainees" who was wearing an ankle bracelet and had other major restrictions. The CBC reporter had the fucking audacity to ask; "so is this just your new normal now?"

---

If you could further define what you mean by occupied, it might help me. If the violence stopped completely while the US was still there, what would you say then ? Then if the US withdrew, what would you say ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
No to many of us that is the ongoing view of what occupation means. Having your country occupied is by definition violent, miserable and depriving of all rights people should have in their own country.

Exactly!

---

No, not exactly. You've effectively said that violence and chaos without American occupation is better than peace under American occupation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Remind,

No, not exactly. You've effectively said that violence and chaos without American occupation is better than peace under American occupation.

That position strikes me as zealous.

---

quote:

---

Don't put words in mouth I never said any such thing. I said that American occupation is violence.

---

My post was on remind...

quote:

---

So are you really saying that the Soviet occupation of the East Block was a good thing because it brought stability to the region for decades because that seems to me to be the proper analogy.

---

Does that ring a bell or Remind you of anything? You were speaking to my words and since you had no argument left you dodged.

I am sure you could make an argument that Chile was better under Pinochet, some have. I find that kind of argument despicable. How much freedom are you willing to give up for Peace and Security? How many police state powers will you find acceptable to ensure there is stability? When is having an occupying army patrolling the streets acceptable?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
If you could further define what you mean by occupied, it might help me.

---

quote:

---

If the violence stopped completely while the US was still there, what would you say then ? Then if the US withdrew, what would you say?

---

quote:

---

Being against the invasion doesn't preclude hoping that the current situation gets better.

---

[ 03 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
My, this thread smacks of conservative whining when it comes to talking about something like Venezuela. I understand that this analogy has extreme differences, but hold up. The simple fact is that though the issues are different, the reactions are woefully similar. Righty becomes staunch nay-sayer of everything Venezuela. Lefty is apparently a millennialist nihilist. Different issues, oddly similar reactions.

Observations aside, I have to admit that the simple fact is that Iraq was destroyed. It was bombed, starved, and then bombed in a huge conflict. 5 years and multiple trillions of dollars poured into this conflict. That is an amazing share of the world GDP. Just like Vietnam constituted. Ignoring the obvious financial implications that has for the world, there is only one thing to say about the Iraq War. Iraq is, at this point, a husk of a nation - any nation. So, in summation, I don't think that anyone can honestly see otherwise. So, let's be honest. Iraq is at square -2. When there is even a bright little statistic it just moves Iraq to square -1. Iraq can always get worse. In fact, I don't think that the surge is a viable, long term solution - financially, militarily, or in terms of humanity. However, for the current moment, whatever has happened is at least moving Iraq from that -2 to a -1. Things are dismal, things are bleak, but any sort of small improvement - like less people dying. I think that is important for everyone to internalize; regardless of the statistics the scales of lives lost are basically in the range of a population, like Peterborough , to a more sizable population centre, say, Winnipeg. That is a lot of people. That is a lot of loved ones gone, because, despite the geographic dispersal of this population, people know people. I think those people have suffered enough. Even for this brief lull in the fight, that is better.

---

quote:

---

I'm just asking the question. The idea seems to be that the occupation alone is the worst thing possible for Iraq. The question of violence, misery, deprivation is secondary to some folks.

---

quote:

---

Exactly

Does that ring a bell or Remind you of anything? You were speaking to my words and since you had no argument left you dodged.

I am sure you could make an argument that Chile was better under Pinochet, some have. I find that kind of argument despicable. How much freedom are you willing to give up for Peace and Security? How many police state powers will you find acceptable to ensure there is stability? When is having an occupying army patrolling the streets acceptable?

Its a simply question really, do you prefer freedom to occupation? Many people will fight to the death rather than have their country occupied by a foreign power. Mind you even in Europe during WWII it is not like a majority of the population was active in the Resistance. The majority of the people in the occupied countries just kept their heads down and tried to get by. But for some reason you think it can occupation can be justified. It might help your thinking if you remember that not even the Iraqi government let alone the Iraqi people ever did anything to the harm the US except be born with the curse of oil.

---

Sorry, k.

quote:

---

Of course it doesn't, why are you trying to suggest we are not hoping it doesn't get better?

---

That the CURRENT situation, i.e. occupied Iraq, gets better.

You've already stated below that if violence falls to zero, with the US forces still in place, then that's not better.

Also, I'm still trying to find out what we mean here by occupation. There are elections in Iraq, for whatever that's worth but I'm not sure how free they're supposed to be - I haven't researched that.

quote:

---

That is an asinine statement. Without the war and occupation there would not have been the "violence, misery, deprivation".

That is like arguing that if I'm standing on your neck and you stop struggling for five minutes things are better for you. If that sounds ridiculous it should and it is the essence of your statement above.

---

Your analogy isn't correct. Of course there wouldn't have been misery and violence without the war, which is why I was against it.

But we don't have war any more, we have Iraq, a broken country, trying to find its way forward, occupied by the armed forces of another country. The war happened, now what is the best thing that we can hope for ?

quote:

---

But we don't have war any more

---

quote:

---

and should lead to the withdrawal the the US forces.

---

quote:

---

The Bush administration set out to have a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq as early as November 2003, according to documents released late Friday by George Washington University’s National Security Archive (NSA).

---

quote:

---

The deal sought by the Bush administration, details of which were leaked to the press, were seen as a way of extending the U.S. occupation of Iraq indefinitely. The demands included maintaining 58 permanent military bases in Iraq, immunity for American troops and contractors, a free hand to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval, and control of Iraqi airspace. According to the London Independent, the U.S. is now lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors.

---

Why do you think Dick and Bush invaded and occupied Iraq, killing up to a million people, and causing some four million to become refugees, and smashing the entire nation in the first place?

Do you believe that nonsense about WMDs? Democracy? Al Qaeda?

It was, is, and always has been about oil. Now you think they're just going to walk away from it?

The Americans give a shit about the lives of Iraqis in the same way Israelis give a shit about the lives of Palestinians. They will kill them, brutalize them, rape them, and subjugate them until they are done with the resources found beneath the blood stained sand.

That all might seem rather hyperbolic, but the record proves that from the sanctions to the war to the occupation, it is really understated.

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Really? Tell that to the Iraqis still having their homes invaded, if their lucky. Others have their homes bombed. Maybe its your comfortable existence that prevents you from recognizing an occupation, an illegal occupation by a brutal and racist colonizing army, is a war - a war against civilians.

Clearly you don't read the news:

quote: The Bush administration set out to have a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq as early as November 2003, according to documents released late Friday by George Washington University’s National Security Archive (NSA).

[URL=http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Anationworld&id=131%3Abush-administration-drafted-plan-for-permanent-us-bases-in-iraq-in-2003&option=com_content&Itemi d=8]publicrecord.org[/URL]

quote: The deal sought by the Bush administration, details of which were leaked to the press, were seen as a way of extending the U.S. occupation of Iraq indefinitely. The demands included maintaining 58 permanent military bases in Iraq, immunity for American troops and contractors, a free hand to conduct military operations without Iraqi approval, and control of Iraqi airspace. According to the London Independent, the U.S. is now lowering the number of bases it wants from 58 to "the low dozens" and says it is willing to compromise on legal immunity for foreign contractors.

AlterNet

Why do you think Dick and Bush invaded and occupied Iraq, killing up to a million people, and causing some four million to become refugees, and smashing the entire nation in the first place?

Do you believe that nonsense about WMDs? Democracy? Al Qaeda?

It was, is, and always has been about oil. Now you think they're just going to walk away from it?

The Americans give a shit about the lives of Iraqis in the same way Israelis give a shit about the lives of Palestinians. They will kill them, brutalize them, rape them, and subjugate them until they are done with the resources found beneath the blood stained sand.

That all might seem rather hyperbolic, but the record proves that from the sanctions to the war to the occupation, it is really understated.

---

It seems that we both want the US to withdraw, so I don't think that we have an argument there.

quote:

---

I think that political pressure for withdrawal

---

The only relevant political pressure is that brought to bear by an armed Iraqi resistance to a foreign, colonial, brutal, and racist occupation.

ETA: The Americans will bring security to Iraq in the same manner as home invaders can be expected to deliver security to a household. Criminals don't ever provide security except for themselves in the process of looting and carrying off the booty. Iraqis had security. That was stolen from them along with their natural resources.

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

The political pressure of spoiled Westerners who only care about Iraq as it relates to the price of gas is irrelevant.

---

FM,

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

MH what you are saying is that the American occupying forces should stay until they have crushed the resistance to their illegal and immoral invasion. Only when all the anti-American Iraqi's are killed will there be stability because otherwise the resistance will continue. Resistance is Not Futile it is Empowerment

---

k,

quote:

---

I was against the invasion of Iraq. But if things are getting better now, I will celebrate that.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't it matter that people such as me, and presumably you are in favour of withdrawal ?

---

It didn't matter that we opposed the invasion. It didn't matter that 10s of millions actively opposed the invasion. It didn't matter that majorities in Europe, including Britain and Spain, and Australia, and the rest of the world opposed the invasion.

All that matters is control of the oil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
One of the reasons it doesn't matter, as proved by Tony Blair and George W.Bush, is that people vote on selfish issues like jobs and the economy and will readily forget the carnage carried out in their name elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

And who, in Britain or America, could one vote for to extricate themselves from Iraq? Kerry? Cameron?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

The very fact there wasn't a candidate to represent on the question of the war the opinion of a majority of voters in both Britain (and by the 2004 election, I believe) in the US, underlines my point, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

No, I don't. That is because there is no way in hell that a good candidate can be fielded by a major party in either of those countries. In Britain, at least, there is a growing presence of smaller parties (some good, some awful). In the US there are two parties, with no chance of a third party ever making a damn towards the Presidency. The will of the people is muted through the nature of representative democracy where politicians, once elected, are fundamentally unaccountable and simply cannot be moved on a variety of decisions.

---

And yet my point was that: It didn't matter that we opposed the invasion and it doesn't matter that we favour withdrawal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
One of the reasons it doesn't matter, as proved by Tony Blair and George W.Bush, is that people vote on selfish issues like jobs and the economy and will readily forget the carnage carried out in their name elsewhere.

---