ex-idaho

Yesterday CNN had a report on that claimed to be standing on the tarmak at the airport. I believe the Pentagon embedded the journalist for 2 reasons. One to counter ME reports of American atrocities and to have a mainstream line to funnel propaganda of their own.

Zar

Blunkett hopes Saddam has no WMDs

WHAT THE FUCK!?

Does this idiot realize he's uttered the unmentionable or is he the lead off guy in a campaign to soften to blow of not actually finding anything? In either case...some heads have got to roll!

Soyin Milka

Hm.

Zar had a link to this article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html

This is how the article ends:
"this war will rescue Saddam from the fate of a petty dictator and project him in history to the ranks of a true freedom fighter. That has been Bush's gift to Saddam, paid in full by the blood of the best and bravest of Iraqi, American and British citizens."

If this turns out to be true, I wonder how Bush will be remembered... The article was very interesting, but somewhat depressing. Thanks anyway for the link Zar, whoever you may be.

Soyin

Ion

The U.S. economy was in bad shape before the war.

Now, more than two and a half million jobs lost (over 300,000 lost in February and over 100,000 lost in March), the recession is deep;
for example, not much in Engineering moves now except for military projects.

Bush should have taken care of the economy, instead of starting the war.
Imagine what economic incentive would have been $80 billion invested in the U.S. economy over the first six months, instead of being invested in the war.

The fact that Bush was made to retreat from the airport is troublesome:
I was hoping that Bush's blunder for this war, would get forgiven by the luck of the situation (Saddam dies quickly, there are no damages), and that later-on U.N. would hold Bush responsible about breach;
I think that Bush takes too many risks at once (he neglects the economy, instead he proposes a record deficit for war, he achieves a record deficit, and when he is addressing the economy he addresses it wrongly with supply-and-demand for the rich, he mixes state and religion, he takes on a war even after being advised against it by the C.I.A. and he lies to U.N. about his reasons for the war, he creates world -including Middle East- animosity against U.S., and now he stumbles in the war, like at this airport, because he prepared too few troops and has bad supply lines).

Bush is bound to create a legacy of problems for U.S. in the years to come.

Ruy Lopez

I like this article by Henry C. K. Liu;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED05Ak01.html.


Simple, plain and clear as well as fairly comprehensive. I would express some of his ideas in my own words as:

--Iraqi invasion by US seems to be a strategic error.

--US objective is political through military control since Saddam could not be bribed, cajoled nor intimidated.

--Military instrument and occupation, which is financially and politically costly, is unfortunately necessary to attain other invasion objectives.

--How can 200,000-300,000 US military control more than 100 million Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and Saudi Arabians who abhor their presence?
--Even if only 50,000 of this over 100 million organize and take up arms against the US, how can the US win? THE ARABS AND ISLAMISTS ARE WILLING TO DIE while THE AMERICANS AND THEIR COUNTRYMEN ARE AVERSE TO CASUALTIES. This coming war is lopsided in favor of the natives.

--The US will run out of excuses why they have to kill another several thousands Arabs.

Admit it and cut your losses while you can still exit gracefully.