This could not have been prevented by more American troops. It could not have been prevented by more American aid. In the end, the Sunnis would never acquiesce in the reduced status and power which was the inevitable result of the overthrow of the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein. And the Shi'a woudl never permit a return to the situation before, nor will they ever willingly surrender or share, in a way that non-Muslim Westerners might agree to share among themselves, power or money. And whatever promises might be extracted by the Americans will be broken just as soon as the American aid or presence is no longer deemed necessary. This is something our almost comically ignorant makers of policy will not recognize. How can they? For if they did, then the entire enterprise, save for the part about scouring for major weaponry,would be seen to be based on false assumptions, on nearly criminal negligence in the lack of attention paid both to Islam and to Iraq. All that ails Ameican foreign policy, including the care and feeding of all those "experts" at think-tanks quick with pronouncements and prognostications based on very little, and certainly not on sustained and quiet study, removed from the hectic vacancy that is encouraged by those very think-tanks, and those interviews, and those rich consultancies to televisiion channels, and those seminars sponosred by a Center for Advanced International Blah here and there, when what is needed is less media exposure and more midnight oil.

The utterly unsurprising becomes, for some, a series of amazing surprises. A tragicomedy of error after error, because based on two basic errors: about the definition of the enemy (and hence of the rightly-defined goal), and about the understanding of Iraq (and hence of how the specifics of Iraq can be naturally exploited to further that rightly-defined goal)

Coming. Home. Chickens. Roost.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2006 10:08 AM

What distresses me most about this report is the utter confusion it will create in the West.

Anyone who has made an attempt to understand the Islamist mindset would see all of the shocking recent events as unfortunate but natural.

The Sunnis were stupid to persist for so long. Only their own (muslim) self loathing would allow them to believe that 35 years of Shia discontent would lead to any advantageous situation when sparked.

I find it hard to believe that Sunnis were smart enough to plan for the US forces to stand between them and therefore become the targets.

However I do believe that we may be stupid enough to do just that, re-targeting the muslim rage on the US.

An Iraq without Sunnis may sound like a peaceful place, but the Shia would soon turn on the Kurds.

The best scenario (though ironic) is for the Sunnis to ask for help from the Kurds. Without it Malaki will not have the backbone to hold back the Shia, nor decimate the Sunni terrorists.

We will have to wait until Monday.

Posted by: Agrippa at November 26, 2006 10:16 AM

The Religion of Dark Desires is raising its ugly head. I thought muslims did not kill each other, or the innocent...Oh, thats right, there are no muslims or innocents in this conflict. Shi'ites and Sunnis do not accept each other as "true' muslims...only true muslims are innocents, and there are none.
They have philosophised themselves into a civil war.
(sort of like painting yourself into a corner). The civil war is not imminent, it has already arrived.

Posted by: duh_swami at November 26, 2006 10:16 AM

Hugh great post! And spot on. This isnt Italy in WWII which welcomed the USA and hung mosulini by his neck as soon as they realized the monster mislead them and the whole country. Some Iraqis still kill Saddams ass in their prayers though. And those that dont still hate America and want shiira law for the 'new' Iraq. Amazing.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 26, 2006 10:42 AM

you cannot compare this to Italy, Italines in both WWW's switched sides when they were losiong. The military has its hands tied behind its backs. we are letting the left label us as the agressor, so there is not all out bombing such as in Dresden, etc. l think now unfortuanately late politicans are beggining to udnerstand the muslim mindset, and they dont have the stomach for an all out war. you with that said, let them kill each other, stand back, and watch iraq destroy itself, not worht losing any US and allie life. as far as having the Kurds ago along with sunnis, or whatever. they all heat each other, l dont see much of that happening. iran will gain control, and the saudi will lose out. interesting times indeed.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 26, 2006 10:59 AM

al-sadr should have been dead a long, long time ago...

we let the vermin fester and now they are overrunning everything...

the inmates are running the asylum...

and the iranians and syrians are just laughing their butts off and waiting for the vacuum so they can swoop in and increase/consolidate their power...

God help us and Western Civilization!

Posted by: religion of(blown to)pieces at November 26, 2006 11:03 AM

"Italines [sic] in both WWW's switched sides when they were losing."
-- from a posting above

This is false. Italians did not switch sides in World War II only "when they were losing." Few Italian officers and men -- almost none -- had any sympathy for the Germans, and in many places Italian officers and men simply refused to do the Germans' bidding -- in Albania, in Yugoslavia, in parts of Greece -- and were, by the tens of thousands, massacred by their "allies" and many sent to German concentration camps. Italy was a most reluctant ally of Nazi Germany, and even though there were diehard fascists aplenty, there were also a great many Italians, aside from those officers and men who refused any longer to help the Germans, who joined the partisans, the Italian Resistenza, and who were shot, fucillati, or garroted or otherwise cruelly executed, sometimes by those diehard Fascists and often, by the local Germans. These people should be known by name, as Matteotti is, and Gaetano Salvemini, and Lauro de Bosis, and the Fratelli Rosselli of Liberta e Giustizia, of the anti-Mussolini pre-war resistance. Italian schools used to have a lot about those two kinds of resistenza, and one hopes they still do today, or will re-introduce such studies, for they are relevant to the struggle today to prevent Europe from succumbing to Islam. Read, for example, the "Lettere dei condannati a morte della resistenza italiana" and ask if those who are exposed to such material when young would be quite so hedonistic and indifferent to what is happening and to come. I think of Quattrocchi, in Iraq, telling his captors that he would show them "how an Italian dies" and then doing so. There have been many such people.

The depiction of Italians as merely "switching sides" because they perceived that the Allies were winning is intolerable.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2006 11:11 AM

Anti coalition, and anti American Sheike Mutaqh Al Sadr's Mahdi Army carries the major responcibility for starting as well as promoting the civil war that rages throughtout Baghdad,Amarah, Fallugah, and other Iraqi cities. Over the past two years Sadr's militant dialogue has been allowed to fester by the coalition troops in the hopes that Iraqis' would do the killing of Sadr themselves. Unfortunately there are now shia militant splinter groups operating all over Southern Iraq that are operating without any control from Sadr's Mahdi Army. They get their supporting resources from Iran just as Sadr does himself. With Malaki himself being a shia there is little effort to curb the shia militants attacks. More and more are troops are involved in a quagmire that has no end to it when we have a Prime Minister who is beginning to successfully dictate what are generals should and should not due to neutralize the conflict.

Posted by: Mackie at November 26, 2006 11:11 AM

Iragis dont like america whether they wanted Saddam or not. They 'aint no europeans' the are enacting shiira in Iraq arent they. Its all about Islam in the end. God help the poor devils.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 26, 2006 11:19 AM

if the Americans leave though Im' sure they'll turn on each other. Shiites against Sunnis and both against Kurds. It will be a bloodbath.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 26, 2006 11:27 AM

I've heard no one other than Robert offer any remotely plausable solutions since Buch has botched this ludicrous exercise in nation building.
One needs to get one's eye back upon the ball: 'Iraq and it's constitution' to even begin to see where the players are going.
It's like a basketball game wherein the ball(constitution) with Bush as ref, has tossed it up between two teams; Sunni and Shiite, and then having both teams kick him senseless.
The constitution of Iraq names Islam it's uncontested law above all other laws that follow. The two competing factions in Islam are fighting over the Islam that will rule -- two different conceptions of it. The USA has allowed Islam to eventually prevail in either Sunni or Shiite form --that's the current game -- or call it a civil war.
The USA needs to tear up their Constitution and impose military rule once again, kill all those like Sadre right away, and raze mosques that harbor terrorists or hides guns and explosives -- death sentences for mullahs who encourage insurgency etc.
The USA has got to outrage Islam and Muslims around the world into riots once again to even begin to get a handle on Iraq. Until then the USA should either go home or carpet bomb them -- but I see no reason to put our soldiers in harms way for the current hopeless fiasco.

Posted by: Court1 at November 26, 2006 11:30 AM

Hugh what ever you may say, the actions of the Italian government and military was to switch sides when defeat was in the horizon. that is not to say they were not great allies or reluctant to go along with the Germann, and even though to say many people were sent off to German camps. it does Not change the facts, Italy was with Germany before both WWW's.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 26, 2006 11:40 AM

Wasn't it General Patton that said "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"? That's what worked in the only 20th century war that we can say definitively that we won. There was no love or enthusiasm for us or democracy in Japan and Germany right after we liberated them, the Japanese and Germans just knew that they had no more capacity for war and gave up. The rebuilding of their societies as liberal democracies came much later.

Posted by: CompassionateCrank at November 26, 2006 11:51 AM

Any comparison whatever between Iraq and the European theaters of war is absurd.
Islam is the enemy of the USA; and Islam being permitted as the law of the land in Iraq is installing a far worse enemy than SH ever was -- either in Sunni or Shiite form.
Our troops are being murdered not by nationalists but by Muslims -- Islam.

Posted by: Court1 at November 26, 2006 11:53 AM

all those who disagree with Hugh gets sent to the shotgun shack lol. off topic with this line. by fighting this war PC style, and letting al-Sadr live, it is ocming home to roost. peace can only be achieved though victory.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 26, 2006 12:00 PM

For those of us who closely follow the Great Jihad it is sometimes interesting to talk to our fellow citizens who get some daily MSM and nothing more.

My mother in her late seventies says simply - look what these Muslims do to each other, imagine what they would do to us if they could.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 26, 2006 12:07 PM

religion of(blown to)pieces stated
"al-sadr should have been dead a long, long time ago..."

I used to think that would have made a difference. But no more. Hugh and Court1 above explain clearly why 'al-sadr's breathing status would make no difference.

Islam's existence is replete with endless examples of how leadership is assumed via pious carnal bloodfests.

Witness Sudan, Afganistan, Iran, etc. Today's Iraq is just another example.

Muhammad birthed the greatest killing machine known to civilizations - including their own.

Posted by: justamomof4 at November 26, 2006 12:13 PM

poetcomic1,

Your mother is a wise woman!

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 26, 2006 12:24 PM

Zena, or LULU, you are an ignormamus, an ideological moron.. you have no answers, because you have no knowledge, and lack the grey matter to process what little knowledge you may have.. all you have is Talking Points, just like the rest of the idiots.

Talking points don't solve problems.. and there is no War in Iraq, hence there is no possibility of Victory.

The only Victory possible in Iraq is complete annhilation of the Iraqi population.

Victory LMAO.. A George W. Bush/Dick Cheney Talking Point. Victory is just a word.

The Coaltion (or what is left of it) is not fighting an army, a government.. hence there is no one that can surrender, ergo there can be no "victory" in Iraq (or Gaza, or Lebanon), because the muslimaniacs will not stop fighting.. anymore than Christians will cease and desist with their efforts for triumph.

Wars are ONLY fought by Armies between Governments or States, you can only fight a war if there is somebody to surrender. To speak of a War on Poverty, Drugs, Iraq is Orwellian Newspeak.. the word war in this sense is nonsense... The last war that we fought was Korea..it is the only war where both sides of the conflict field armies and the leaders of both sides could negotiate a truce or surrender.

Not possible in Iraq...ergo there is no victory possible in Iraq.

Also not taken into account is the Arabic concept of muruwwa, or manhood/honor, and the Arabic/Islamic concept of blood debts..

If a male member of a tribe is killed then the offending tribe or family must recompense the family who lost it's male member in money (camels, sheep) or blood.. but the debt must be paid, and payment will be exacted..hence the ongoing cycle of violence which will not and cannot end..as both sides (Sunni and Shi'a) have incurred blood debts.

There is no victory possible, especially since the war is between Shia and Sunni.

And Zena, you are an ignorant, arse.. culturally vacant, without any military experience, and no experience in anything other than Republican Party talking points..

You would save yourself public embarrassment by keeping your mouth shut.. but ideologues like you lack the rudiments of common sense.

Posted by: Nariz at November 26, 2006 12:27 PM

The depiction of Italians as merely "switching sides" because they perceived that the Allies were winning is intolerable.

Great pro-Italian tirade! But you forgot to mention Oriana Fallaci!

Posted by: Benjamin at November 26, 2006 12:30 PM

The Sunni and Shia are destined to fight each other in this disaster area. Why must the Americans sit there and be a target? Partition the place and there might be some hope-short of that only another Saddam Hussein type might be able to keep things under control and nobody really wants that.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 26, 2006 12:35 PM

justamomof4 wrote:

I used to think that would have made a difference. But no more. Hugh and Court1 above explain clearly why 'al-sadr's breathing status would make no difference.

I would agree that killing this barbarian NOW would do more harm than good (if that is possible)...

But at the beginning of his militia movement,etc. we should have nipped it in the bud, taken him out with prejudice and explain that we will not tolerate any law other than that of a sovereign iraq...instead we let him and his cronies fester and now the country is overrun with shiite roaches...enforcing their own law/whim whenever they desire

Unfortunately we are playing not to lose instead of playing to win....Playing not to lose is a strategy that will always end up on the losing side...

When and where the US and Western Civilization draws the line is beyond me...unfortunately it will probably be after something catastrophic.

Posted by: religion of(blown to)pieces at November 26, 2006 12:43 PM

So why not put Saddam Hussein back in charge? I am sure a prison "escape" could be arranged. At least he knew how to run the place. We are WAY to lenient and PC. Why was the press even allowed anywhere NEAR Iraq??!! The journos are responsible for this disaster more than anyone else. And it seems that the military is run by lawyers and not by military men any longer.

Posted by: germaninamerica at November 26, 2006 1:00 PM

" We saw a true picture of how the Islmists work with the train massacres in Spain in 2004 ,yet we continue to claim narrowly that the terrorists are the problem,when,in truth,it is Islam itself.This is how Nazism rose to power" ..Walid Shoebat..Why I left Jihad...A must read.

Posted by: storagemanager at November 26, 2006 1:16 PM

blast from the past:
(entire post if from view_from_england):

------------
sheik yer'mami says,
"The French are worse and the British much, much worse. Other EU-countries are no better. So far we have NO politicians or political parties who openly take on the Islamic invasion."

Not correct. Here in Britain we have the British National Party, fast becoming a mainstream political party due in no small measure to its opposition to the Islamification of this nation.
The party leader was recently aquitted at Leeds Crown Court of race-hate charges by a unaminous verdict of 'twelve good men and true'. The party now regularly achieves figures such as 26-28% of the vote in local elections. Forget 'Nazis', 'racists', 'extreme far-right' and other silly name-calling by the media and their allies. Ordinary decent people want change.
Posted by: view_from_england [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2006 11:42 AM
-------------------

Yeah I think I see alot of this going on now. no matter how hard the media is trying there are more and more people fed up with being scared of being bombed or killed just because they are nonmuslims. Thats the perception that is growing and Europeans , arent so stupid as muslim 'leaders' like the Saudi royal family think.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 26, 2006 1:17 PM

This could not have been prevented by more American troops. It could not have been prevented by more American aid.

The ineptness of language, the primacy of language, sustains this point of view.

The Iraq War ended three yrs ago. It's been an occupation since, and a benign occupation at that. But the linguistic incompetents --- including even that famous Incompetence Cop, the stern if fallow Nancy Pelosi --- continue to call it a war.

I'd expect such bumbling from the media, but not our Speaker of the House.

610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

Wars have fronts. Defensible territory. Supply lines. Breaches. Provisional governments.

The only similarity to Iraq and war is the provisional government, which isn't providing very much at all.

This "war" comprises highly trained ground troups lugging about in trucks in order for the Jihad terror warriors, dubbed "insurgents" by the blind and the journalists, to be able to take pot shots at the our marines and soliders.

So, if it's a war, the MSM needs to call it what it is: a Jihad terror war.

And in a "war" like this, a million marines or 2 million could have prevented none of this, for there is no front to clench. Nor should they have wanted to stop any of this happy news.

Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; can't make a democracy out of Moslems.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 26, 2006 1:26 PM

A little more about Italy supposedly "switching sides" in World Wars I and II (an accusation made by a poster above, and answered, in part, above):

I do not understand what you mean when you say that Italy was "with Germany before both WWW's." Do you remember which side Italy was on in World War I? It was not the side of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria, after all, was the occupier of much of northern Italy. It was the historic enemy. After World War I, Italy as one of the victorious allies was given the formerly Austrian-controlled, and German-populated ("German" in the sense of speakers of German, people who considered themselves culturally and in other ways part of Deutschtum) Sudtirol, which became Italy's Alto Adige. And this was done even though the local population was 97% German-speaking. And the "elmo di Scipio” mentioned in the second line of the hymn of the Italian Republic, “Fratelli d’Italia” (by Goffredo Mameli, 1847) would only be completed if the Austrian-held territories in present-day Italy, including what is now the Alto Adige (formerly the Sudtirol) were to become, as it did as part of the post-World War I settlement, part of Italy.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2006 1:42 PM

This is OT

gandalf at uppompeii, makes a case that the saving grace for Europe is that Europeans have native rights over and above that of immigrants - particularly Islamic immigrants and their descendents, who pose a threat to the culture, traditions and mores of the indigenous population of Europe.

NATIVE RIGHTS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE

A look at the UN declaration on native and indigenous peoples.

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

The author invites criticism.

The real war has never been in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon. It is here, in Europe and America. It is here where the war will be won or lost.

Posted by: DP111 at November 26, 2006 2:01 PM

Hugh it is half indeed correct about Italy going with Germany before WWW2. According to my history teacher he said there was compensation with Italy to get more land after WWW1. so l am half wrong, and l dont ever not admit when l am wrong, of course Nariz, must be dimwitted to think he can attack me and shut me up, unless the owners of this list want me blocked it is up to them.
perhaps Nariz can cool his clap trap mouth, and since we are used to his blabbering loser Democrat talking points, l understand where he is comnig from ,"nowhere land"
and if any one with Italian hereitage is upset, l cannot help you there, as history cannot change, unless you are in charge of rewriting it.
l have French heritage (among others) and have also been disgusted with their handling of the islamazation of their country.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 26, 2006 2:01 PM

@Alarmed Pig Farmer:

"... there is no front to clench."

There is one: seize the Iraqi oil fields. Give some of the wells to the Kurds, keep the rest. Use the oil sales to fund the anti-jihad (and as reparations for the war to date).

Give notice to the Iranians that if they don't stop their nuclear project immediately, they are next to lose their oil fields (make a deal with the Russians and Chinese beforehand--give them a large "cut" on the deal).

Give notice to the Saudis that if they don't stop funding the jihad (and blowing up Manhattan skyscrapers), they are next after that.

"They hate us anyhow. So let's drop the big one now." -- Randy Newman

Posted by: Stendec at November 26, 2006 2:06 PM

"Talking points don't solve problems.. and there is no War in Iraq, hence there is no possibility of Victory."

"If a male member of a tribe is killed then the offending tribe or family must recompense the family who lost it's male member in money (camels, sheep) or blood.. but the debt must be paid, and payment will be exacted..hence the ongoing cycle of violence which will not and cannot end..as both sides (Sunni and Shi'a) have incurred blood debts.

There is no victory possible, especially since the war is between Shia and Sunni."

So Nariz,

Do you have anything constructive to suggest or is name calling your forte?

Your post leads me to one conclusion: we should leave the area and never go back and never let another Muslim into the West since, if what you say is true, they have no concept of civilization and are incapable of coexisting with anyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2006 2:19 PM

"The USA needs to tear up their Constitution and impose military rule once again, kill all those like Sadre right away, and raze mosques that harbor terrorists or hides guns and explosives -- death sentences for mullahs who encourage insurgency etc.
The USA has got to outrage Islam and Muslims around the world into riots once again to even begin to get a handle on Iraq. Until then the USA should either go home or carpet bomb them -- but I see no reason to put our soldiers in harms way for the current hopeless fiasco."

Germany has indicted Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes. He faces arrest if he leaves the country. What do you think would happen to anyone and everyone in George Bush's government if we did what you suggest? Not that I disagree, but the rest of the world, Europe in particular, is too enamored of Islam and too afraid of Iran to do anything constructive. It's why we should leave and never look back and why we should turn a deaf ear to anyone who says we have to "free the oppressed" anywhere in the Muslim world. It's why we should nod knowingly anytime someone complains the US "works with dictators". We should just say: that's right. It's the international system. You (the people who say such things) complain when we remove them and now you're complaining that we work with them? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so we might as well save the lives of our own young men and women and save the $2 billion a week we are spending in Iraq. We avoid "fighting them over here" by doing the politically incorrect and barring all Muslims from entering the US unless and until THEY solve their own problems. They should learn the Emma Lazarus poem. Then again, most Muslims have probably never seen the Statue of Liberty and have no understanding of the concept. How can they? Their religion preaches submission, not free will.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2006 2:29 PM

I was told by one of our special forces in Iraq that Sadr would be very easy to eliminate, however, he feels we're keeping him around for some purpose. What purpose that is....we do not know. We really should kill him before we pull out though, just because of all the trouble he has caused us.

I also read a very interesting article on Debka that the plan is set for us to begin pulling out from the cities. When that happens, the government will collapse and we will begin final pull out and the country will be divided up into 3 sections, Shia in the south, Sunni in the center and Kurds in the north. This does sound probable if you follow the diplomatic efforts behind the scenes and hear the recent words of our politicians. The pull out is coming.....it may take a year, but the wheels are in motion. Praise Jesus!

Posted by: Bonniea at November 26, 2006 2:48 PM

Zena, count yourself lucky you didn't mention Jesus. 'Cause 'reconstructionists!' is nariz' greatest fear! And you would have automatically been tagged as one. His war against Christianity is almost as old as islam's ('splains the meds).

Posted by: Gary at November 26, 2006 3:03 PM

I have just found this site while reasearching something else about muslims, so up front apologies if this has been beaten into the ground already, but why would we stop them from killing themselves in Iraq? Does it take an American presence in Iraq to be that catalyst to keep the reaction going, where muslim kills muslim? If we left, would the shias simply kill the sunnis and them move on to kill every Christian in Lebanon with the iranians and syrians? Or, would the sunnis in saudi arabia take up the cause to kill off the shias, as they intend to bring all of the Middle East under their form of islam? shia muslims don't seem to like anyone in charge except radicals, and that is not good for all those princes and emerates on the peninsula.
I am having trouble seeing the downside of an iraqi supernova causing an islamic black hole that sucks all muslims into it, never to return.

And, since they seem to have such a herd mentality, can I refer to them as moo-slims, or will that be blocked by the narrator?

Posted by: Black Dog at November 26, 2006 3:13 PM

Yes, the Italians fought poorly for the Germans. In fact, the Italians fought poorly, period. Like Michael Jackson's line to Sir Paul in "The Girl is Mine",

I'm a Lover, not a Fighter.

Posted by: August22 at November 26, 2006 3:25 PM

Loyalists of al-Sadr seize Iraqi TV station

"seize" - isn't that one of the Pillars of Islam??

Posted by: BunrattyBill at November 26, 2006 3:36 PM

Nariz --

You have a real 'nose' for verbal abuse, so take your wounded childhood somewhere else. You do share something in common with radical Islam though -- you are both blinded by hatred.

Posted by: champ at November 26, 2006 3:39 PM

This is OT

gandalf at uppompeii, makes a case that the saving grace for Europe is that Europeans have native rights over and above that of immigrants - particularly Islamic immigrants and their descendents, who pose a threat to the culture, traditions and mores of the indigenous population of Europe.

NATIVE RIGHTS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE

A look at the UN declaration on native and indigenous peoples.

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

The author invites criticism.

The real war has never been in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon. It is here, in Europe and America. It is here where the war will be won or lost.

Posted by: DP11

How do Native people make their claims known? This would be a great model for all of us. Would be kind of hard for Americans to do though :-)

Posted by: germaninamerica at November 26, 2006 4:07 PM

Question for Robert:
How come ths website has no RSS feed ?

Posted by: TheDudeAbides at November 26, 2006 4:35 PM

PMX says:
'We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so we might as well save the lives of our own young men and women and save the $2 billion a week we are spending in Iraq.'
-------------
Actually, this presumes the current Western world domination of the Islamic world can continue in perpetutity even with the current trends; and that 9/11 did not represent any threat other than a few Muslims could gone whacko.
While Iraq may be said to have no specidfic relationship to 9/11 it did represent a experiment that failed -- or at least a illustration to the thick headed of what we can do in the Muslim world when various parties claim they can impliment a democracy on Arabian Penninsula. It shows clearly Islam is the enmy and must be directly confronted -- even if it's what OBL 'wants'.
Muslims may be correct that the political will to stop them doesn't exist -- after the Dubai port deal fiasco I wonder myself -- but, I would encourage those who know the truth about Islam to do what is right ... and F@@king fight it!

Posted by: Court1 at November 26, 2006 4:44 PM

"This is live and, God willing, everyone will hear."

Is this just me, or does this remind anyone else of a speech given by GW Bush shortly after 9/11?

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 26, 2006 4:50 PM

P.. says:
'We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so we might as well save the lives of our own young men and women and save the $2 billion a week we are spending in Iraq.'
-------------
Actually, this presumes the current Western world domination of the Islamic world can continue in perpetutity even with the current trends; and that 9/11 did not represent any threat other than a few Muslims could gone whacko.
It's a small price thus far if it could work.
While Iraq may be said to have no specific relationship to 9/11 it did represent a experiment that failed. That was to install a government among Muslims that could strengten secularism ... or, at least an illustration to the thick headed of what we are up against in the Muslim world, particularly, when various Muslim parties claim they can impliment a democracy on Arabian Penninsula with our help.
It shows clearly Islam is the enmy and must be directly confronted -- even if it's what OBL 'wants'.
Muslims may be correct that the political will to stop them doesn't exist -- after the Dubai port deal fiasco I wonder myself -- but, I would encourage those who know the truth about Islam to do what is right ... and fight it!

Posted by: Court1 at November 26, 2006 4:53 PM

EXPOSED ON CNN: THE EXTREMIST AGENDA
OT, but the again, not really OT in the overall picture.
I have also posted this on another thread. I feel we should spread it around.

"This documentary, screened on the American (but not so far
on the international) version of CNN, has now been posted on
You Tube, and it is so important that I strongly recommend
everyone to make time to watch it in full:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWIK8YTZS8
&eurl=

CNN host Glenn Beck criticizes the rest of the Western
media, including by implication his own station CNN, for
drastically failing to properly report on Islamic extremism."Tom Gross

Posted by: Gramfan at November 26, 2006 5:13 PM

americaningermany, l would hope after time that Nariz would realize that we are all in this together. our methods differ to get rid of islam, but our motives are true.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 26, 2006 5:16 PM

americaningermany, l would hope after time that Nariz would realize that we are all in this together. our methods differ to get rid of islam, but our motives are true.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 26, 2006 05:16 PM

..... and that is am important message. Umma of Dar-al-Islam has target one and all for Allah's henious goal of worls-subjugation. So, Democrats, Republicans Independents, Libeterians.. or a common man/woman, nomatter the differences, when it comes to Islam, muslims and it's apologists are "innocent"; We, "the enemy"!

Posted by: Alert at November 26, 2006 5:26 PM

Zena, or LULU, you are an ignormamus, an ideological moron

you are an ignorant, arse.. culturally vacant, without any military experience, and no experience in anything other than Republican Party talking points..

You would save yourself public embarrassment by keeping your mouth shut.. but ideologues like you lack the rudiments of common sense.

Posted by: Nariz at November 26, 2006 12:27 PM

Well, it isn't difficult to discern which political party Nariz represents.

Put yourselves in the position of GIVING, not receiving, this kind of verbal beatdown, and you begin to see how much arrogance, and loathing, and conciet one must be possessed of to fling about these phrases. Oh yes, not to forget condescension.

If the content of Nariz's posts were indeed that superior to that of others, it would come across without the vitriolics, and indeed, a few of his points make sense. But many make thoses same points better, without abusing others who have, by their coming to a site of this nature, shown themselves as having the same concerns about violent Islam.

We clearly have diverse opinions on what to do, or the quality of what has been done, but that level of venom brings this site down to the level of Daily Kos, or worse, to the level of AOL bulletin boards.

Nariz, bring your game up a notch or two, you can do better, lest you be considered no more than a troll.

(By the way, isn't the concept of needing military experience in order to opine about the use or misuse of the military antithetical to the ideals of democratic discourse?)

Posted by: OneEyedJack at November 26, 2006 5:42 PM

GermaninAmerica: Native peoples make their rights known by being anti-West. Period. Ask the Tibetans, Uighurs, Berbers, Dinka, Nuer, or Assyrians. The one case where an aboriginal people left dispersion and reclaimed its ancestral patrimony (Israel) is now an international pariah.

If an indigenous people rises up against a Communist or Islamicist tyranny (the Rade, Bahnar, and other mountain peoples in former southern Viet Nam; the Assyrians) they get excorciated as primitive stone age killers and catspaws of Western neo-colonialism.

The declaration on indigenous rights in another piece of liberal verbal flatulence drawn up by people who didn't stop to think. If we were to leave lands to their indigenous "owners", there isn't a civilized country east or west (with the posssible exception of Cambodia or a somewhat expanded Mon State in lower Burma or an independent Tamil Nadu) left standing. All Indo-European speakers would have to withdraw to somewhere between the Elbe and Western Russsia; the Chinese would have to withdraw to the North China Plain; the Tibeto-Burmans to the Yunnan-Tibet-Sichuan borderlands; the Thai to the Golden Triangle; the Arabic-speakers to the Najd and Hijaz; the Turks to Central Asia. Even the poor Navajo and Apache would have to abandon the American Southwest and go back to the Yukon and Alaska, which seems the original home of the Na-Dene peoples. The Bantu folk of central and southern Africa would also have to withdraw to north and west of Cameroon to leave all that territory to the Khoi-San peoples.

It would be better to get a mob to shout down a Falastin Arab spokesman by telling him to get himself back to the Empty Quarter.

Posted by: Kepha at November 26, 2006 6:31 PM

Court1,

I think you misunderstood me.
I am not at all suggesting that 9/11 didn't represent a threat or that there is nothing we can do about it. The problem is we can't do it alone. And we have been alone for the last decade or more. While the US and Britain were monitoring the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq and while Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN inspectors, Russia France and China were doing deals with Saddam and the UN was bought off with Oil-For-Food.
We are paying a huge price. That started in early 1993 when WTC was bombed the first time. Do you realize that if there had been enough explosives in that truck, the death toll could have been thirty to forty THOUSAND with absolutely no warning?
We were operating out of bases in Saudi Arabia and that was the excuse for al Qaeda to plan 9/11. We were on their oh so HOLY SOIL. Not even near Mecca, but the whole damn Arabian subcontinent is sacred ground (why, I don't know).
If no one will help us and we have to worry about penny-ante (and even "allied") countries arresting our leaders for "war crimes" then to heck with all of them. We pull our troops out, let the area fall to pieces, let Iran pick them up. They'll need a lot of money to rebuild. Let them get it from China and Russia and France.
If we get involved, we're arrogant. If we mind our own business, we're selfish. Fine. We might as well be selfish. We have lots of illegal immigrants to support. Let the oil potentates take care of themselves.
The only condition for doing all of this is we have to be able to deny EACH AND EVERY MUSLIM all over the world access to this country until THEY do something about the whackos in their midst. That includes their mullahs. If the people of Iran want to be free: hey Iranians, if you want something done right, you've gotta do it yourself. Free yourselves. You had no problem inviting in the mullahs and chanting death to America. I dare you to throw the mullahs out.
Same with Iraq. We've tried. The people of Iraq just AREN'T INTERESTED in free and open government if it means putting their own lives at risk. They're not willing to confront the al Sadrs. They're not willing to speak out against the violence. Police stood by while people were torched. They're not about to enforce law and order and we can't do it without being the occupier, which gives them more reason to attack. Even their own leader is afraid. Meanwhile, we are anti-Islam if we do the hard work for them. They'd rather sit back and wait for someone to come out on top and just follow that person / party / dictator. Fine. Go right ahead. We're damn lucky we've never had to count on Iraqis for anything and it was a mistake to count on them this time.
Failing this, the only choice left is to tell the world what cities are on our list of targets if this country is ever hit again. Unless we're willing to destroy a Muslim city in return for another 9/11 (or worse, God forbid) attack, our words mean nothing and we might as well leave. Let the world call us quitters. What have THEY done? Why should any American give two cents what the world thinks? World, please do us (and yourselves) a favor and find a new home for that den of corruption that sits on the East River and monopolizes valuable New York City real estate. We'll even pay the moving expenses if you would just vacate the premises and let us reduce it to dust, so that something good can take its place. We won't miss being the hosts. We won't take offense if our president is not invited to speak each October. We might even withdraw our membership since we are such a threat to world peace, as most of you believe.

p.s. Court1, What do you mean "Western current domination" of the Muslim world? I see them pulling OUR strings, not the other way around. One or two specifics, please.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2006 7:01 PM

You make some good observations and present some real problematic realities we must face with Islam.
But, you no doubt realize the USA was finally capable of not letting them pull our strings upon the Dubai port deal; and theoretically, last I heard, we and Europe are massively more powerful than the combined Moslem countries and ummah of the Islamic world, even wrere they to combine the Shiite and Sunni together ... on all fronts: economically, militarilily and politically to provide a few points to your request.
Never the less, you are correct, they indeed 'pull our strings' and are gaining more capacities in that respect everyday -- already France is essentially a basket case owing to Islamic influences, with Muslims comprising over 10 percent of their population.
Which brings up my point and your objection to it: We must do it 'alone' if we are the only ones who can do it at all.
Somebody eventually will have to step up and say the problem is with Islam -- it's not going to be France or even England; and, as you note, the longer we put off such a confrontation the more Islam'll be able to cut deals with China, Russia and other nations to our cost that essentially tie our hands from doing anything with global support.
We need to trust that like Vichy France the majority are still with us -- against this pernicious Islamic slime mold. It must be recognised we are witnessing Islam's resurgence and big play for assured future presence ... if not domination of the rest of the world.

Posted by: Court1 at November 26, 2006 7:55 PM

I find it simply astonishing that in the run up to the Invasion of Iraq and the immediate post occupation period no one was heard, at least in the popular press, to predict the current blood feud civil war now raging. Where were the voices of the learned PhDs and Middle East experts. I never detected their admonishment or warning about this.

We had just seen Yugoslavia disintegrate along similar lines, Muslims vs. Orthodox Christians.

It would seem that we have learned nothing since Europe drew their fanciful Post-Ottoman boundaries.

Is this all bad? Of course it is from a moral standpoint. I hear the voice of a not so long ago cynical American foreign policy pragmatist saying, "Too bad they can't both lose."

Posted by: Alek at November 26, 2006 8:33 PM

Can anyone tell me the pre-requisite for us to pull out of IRAQ? Don't think anyone has a clue, especially Bush.

I think its time that we had some pre-requisite that we should fullfill then leave. Hey, let them fight it out, we couild walk back in to IRAQ after the dust/sand has settled after they are done with each other.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at November 26, 2006 8:40 PM

to Gramfan: thanks foe the link to the video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWIK8YTZS8
the Beck espose , extremely interesting reporting, posting it on my page.

Posted by: Cyberray at November 26, 2006 8:47 PM

..front line reporting from iraqi wife,,,

And people say we are under occupation. Yes we are under occupation but not by the coalition forces, we are under Militia occupation. Do you hear me??? Wake up and smell the roses, oh sorry there are no roses in Iraq anymore, I should say Wake up and smell the dead carnage. Dont you dare say to me that we are occupied by these forces. State your facts clearly. WE ARE UNDER MILITIA/TERRORIST OCCUPATION...OK???

Iraqi wife is putting her life in danger to speak the truth about what's going on in her country Please lend your support go by her blog and leave an encouraging word.

http://neurotic-iraqi-wife.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Cyberray at November 26, 2006 8:57 PM

MustHuntCowboy,

Here's the President's Strategy in Iraq:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

It shows the overall plan for getting Iraq on its feet before pulling our troops out.

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 26, 2006 9:48 PM

MustHuntCowboys,

Just to cut through all the mumbo jumbo, here is the bottom line to your question:

"Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

"VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

"# In the longer term:

" * An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
" * An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
" * An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

So, that's the gist of it.

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 26, 2006 9:54 PM

Court1,

There's only one thing we can do unilaterally, and that is to defend ourselves. We were wrong to think that a system of international treaties and guarantees would allow us to ensure our own safety. Dubai Ports was opposed by many Americans, but all we heard was the party line from both sides. International treaties were signed and we can't break them unilaterally.

If we stay in Iraq, whom are we helping? Others are getting rich off the sacrifice of American soldiers, and I don't mean Halliburton. I mean Russia, France, etc. Russia is selling missiles and other armaments to Iran. The French will sell to anyone. They were the ones who were building Saddam's reactor for him in 1981. What are we going to do when we are bankrupt?

The people of the world have chosen to get into bed with Muslim fanatics. They are going to have to answer for it. France is being swallowed whole and I feel no sympathy for them. They've made their bed. Let them lie in it.
I care about the US. We have to help ourselves first and the best thing we can do is read these people the riot act (in a manner of speaking). If they want to go to heaven, we'll help them get there. The next attack on the US by a Muslim terror group should result in a Muslim city's destruction. Let them spend their time wondering which one we'll choose. Neither the terrorist leaders nor their government sponsors will know where to sleep at night because they won't know when or where the attack will happen. That is THEIR bed that THEY should have to lie in if they continue on the path that they're on. Unfortunately, we have a president who doesn't believe in standing up for America and I don't see anyone on the horizon who does, either. 2008 will be a sad year for Americans.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2006 10:07 PM

Muslims can practice self-determination and oppose the brutality of jihad and Sharia law. Connected Muslim families are excessively rewarded by a selective distribution of oil revenues, while peasant Muslim thieves are subject to amputation or excessive punishment, for petty theft. Militants practice their religious jihad in Iraq. In Islamic tradition, Allah influences what Muslims do, but Muslims are morally and ethically accountable and responsible for how they respond to the challenges thrown their way. Muslims need to regain their consciousness. They easily accept the power of previous determinants. Muslims allow false obstacles to block them from seeing themselves. They assume, new actions are the cause and effect of preceding cause and effect, and their choices are not free will. They can break this program. They can disconnect from Islamic history. Their decision-making will be powerful and meaningful, when they are no longer tied down to history. Muslims can start to stimulate discussion and argument in their societies. With a heightened sense of self-awareness and the belief in free will, Muslims can empower themselves. With knowledge, other behavior is possible; Muslims can choose to take responsibility for their individual deeds. They can start to make constructive changes in their societies.

Posted by: SFOD at November 26, 2006 10:25 PM

Why doesn't this ever make the news?

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003413.html

The situation in Thailand is getting worse.

Posted by: Borg at November 26, 2006 11:08 PM

"Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.

"VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

"# In the longer term:

" * An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
" * An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
" * An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region."
-- from a posting above, giving the Bush Administration’s stated official goals for Iraq

Erratum Sheet:

For "Iraq that has defeated the terrorists" read "an Iraq that is riven by ethnic (Arab/Kurd) and sectarian (Sunni/Shi'a) divisions that show no signs of abating, for the Arabs will never permit the Kurds an independent Kurdistan, and the Kurds will no longer accept less, and the Sunnis will never acquiesce in the new dominance by Shi'a, and the Shi'a will never share power and oil wealth with the Sunnis in any way that might conceivably assuage the Sunni desire to regain their former position.

For an "Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure" read an "Iraq that attracts, for its various mutually suspicious and hostile factions, aid from co-religionists from outside, in the case of the Sunni and Shi'a Arabs, and for the Kurds, aid of various kinds, chiefly diplomatic and military, from the Western powers, so that the Kurdish desire for independence, and the inevitable results of such independence, in unsettling both Iran and Syria, and also attracting the attention of other non-Arab Muslims, will work to achieve the main goal of the American effort in Iraq."

For "an Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror" read "an Iraq where the natural fissures within the Camp of Islam are permitted to work themselves out, without further squandering of American resources -- men, money, materiel -- to prevent such fissures from widening, or still worse, attempting by all means to heal them. This should all be seen as part of an effort to re-unite the Western world, or possibly the entire Infidel world, and at the same time to weaken, by dividing and demoralizing, the Camp of Islam."

Choose one of the two: either that of the Bush Administration, or the re-worded version, incorporating the errata sheet provided just above.

Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2006 11:36 PM

Now that's outrageous

Jonathan Chait columnist at "The New Republic" says that Sadam should be brought back to power.
*** shaking head ***

Oh, that sexy Islam
http://civoc.com/newsline/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=9&limit=1&limitstart=1

Posted by: Arnie at November 26, 2006 11:36 PM

Listening to human beings in Iraq, I
ran and Afghanistan, it seems that US foreign policy has failed on another level. If the purpose of our American destiny is to make men free (and I firmly believe this), then the regimes that that the US proposes are the fruit of Democracy seem no better than the tyrannies that existed before it.

If we were to invade another country to free human beings that were being oppressed, tyrants like the Norhtern Alliance, Saddam, Al Sadr, the nutcase in Iran and the vermin in Saudi Arabia all must forcibly be defeated and to do this the people who have been brutally stepped upon by these tyrants must eventually do the job.

If we can find their voices on blogs would it not be better to take over these countries and set up a military government and then give the government to these people. Why should we barter with tyrants like the Northern Allaince or religious barbarians like Al Sadr? Why would we expect former Saddam fascists to be proper participants in a "new Iraq"? Why should a constitution with Sharia Law as the predominant component be allowed? Will free Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians ever exist under it? No.

If Western leaders do not know what they are fighting for (or against) then it would be better to keep our soldiers home. These soldiers know what they are fighting for just like their ancestors did. They are fighting to keep men free. They went to the Middle East to free the innocents from tyranny and not to topple one set of tyrants and allow another batch to come in. Their cowardly leaders have deceived them.

The freedom loving people, if they can't take control of their own governments, should be allowed to leave. This would be good immigation. Free thinking people in free nations equal a free nation. Let the Islamists, sadists, tyrants, religious perverts stew in their own hate, blow themselves up, behead each other if they believe that to be their proper action under their Allah. Let all like minded submissionists in free countries who do not accept constitutions of Liberty be sent back the lands of Sharia to participate in the carnage.

Posted by: Briars at November 26, 2006 11:43 PM

Look, the whole initial response to 9/11 was completely wrong because the current western leaders have no idea how to fight wars...

Say a similar situation happens in 17th century to Great Britain. A certain local backwards leader with negligible military power nominally in control of a natural resource Britain needs murders three thousand British citizens through a proxy religious sect he funds. He claims he had nothing to do with it. Britain would

A. Accept his claim, continue to let him blackmail Britain by control over the natural resource, and instead fight his proxies, but even while "fighting" these proxies do this in a halfway manner to avoid offending the other proxies the guy has, all the while pouring money in attempt to develop other proxie countries that are undevelopable in the hope that they "like" Great Britain, while allowing unlimited immigration and proselyzatation of the proxy religious sect in Britain itself.

B. Recognize his claim of innocence as BS. Invade and occupy the guy's country, take the necessary natural resource as reparation, then take the war all out to the other proxies, free of fears of being blackmailed. Ban the proxy religious sect in Britain.

Gee, hard to say. Well, whatever it would ultimately choose, I’m sure it would confer with France first to make sure it doesn’t do anything France wouldn’t want it to do, right?

When you LOSE money even on a war you won, such as in Iraq, your chances of survival as a civilization might not be that good. When in the history of the world did a muslim country pay a neighboring country for something the muslim country had the military power to take for free (for example the hundreds of years of taking white slaves in Europe, a practice the muslims stopped only when they no longer had the military power to continue to do it)? If black Africans can ask for reparation from Europe and US for the black slave trade, why can't Europeans and white Americans ask for Saudi oil as reparation for the millions of white slaves the muslims dragged away from Europe on their slave raids since the 7th century?

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at November 26, 2006 11:48 PM

Question for Robert: How come ths website has no RSS feed ? Posted by: TheDudeAbides

Sure it does. When you click on the link 'Syndicate this site', it creates the RSS feed on your browser. I use FireFox to browse this site, and the trick here is to make that a bookmark on your Toolbar folder. In fact, use that toolbar for just your RSS pages. That way, whenever you click JihadWatch, all the live topics on the home page are available. Similarly, one can also syndicate Dhimmiwatch. 'Syndicate this site' invokes the link below:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/index.rdf

If you are using Internet Exploder, I see your problem. It prompts you for a rdf reader, and even after you download one, it still has trouble reading. That's my experience with IE7 - I have never tried RSS feeds on IE6. And although I have Netscape 8.x, I don't recall whether it works with RSS.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 26, 2006 11:51 PM

what we are up against --the religion of pieces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMUiFo4FbJM

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 27, 2006 12:17 AM

And thus ended the Generous War...

[Lights dim. Exit USA.]

End Act II.

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

Act III. The Coup of the Marvellous Theatre Islamique!

[A flickering naked light switches on somewhere high above but out of sight. The lurid greenish tinge can barely penetrate the gloom... Off stage horrible sounds and scufflings can be heard. Sinister shapes, barely percieved, begin to take their positions onstage -- the set is a cardboard representation of a TV station. Suddenly a beturbined spiderlike and hideous creature, pale, fat, and wearing billowing black robes storms onto the set surrounded by a hive of sinister forms. Intermittent muffled screams become louder, and there are dull splintering thuds merging into something else -- like a far off hum, or like a chainsaw or a drill boring through wet wood in a boarded room -- this hum accompanies some of the more horrifying muffled screams and gruntings offstage... The fat malignancy clutches a microphone with a very humanlike hand, and it speaks...]

Posted by: jsla at November 27, 2006 2:35 AM

... and this man is US commander-in-chief:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53023

Posted by: Alert at November 27, 2006 5:16 AM

Shortly after the 1991 Gulf War, Dick Cheney had explained to the New York Times why the Bush 41 Administration had decided just to kick Saddam out of Kuwait but not to try to topple the Saddam regime:

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

http://tinyurl.com/vnnha

Those issues were never resolved. Yet somehow, between 1992 and 2003, Cheney forgot about them.

Posted by: Steven L. at November 27, 2006 10:32 AM