Disbanding Saddam's Army Was Correct, Bremer Writes

[leftchick]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2588-2005Jan12.html

~snip~

"They served an important strategic purpose and recognized realities on the ground after the war," Bremer wrote in an opinion piece.

Bremer said the coalition's objectives in Iraq went beyond "regime change" and President Bush made clear that the U.S. led forces were going to help Iraqis create "a New Iraq."

Bremer said that for more than 30 years, Hussein used the army and intelligence services "to inflict misery, torture and death on Iraqis and their neighbors. The Baath Party was another important instrument of Saddam's tyranny."

"After Liberation, the Coalition felt it was vital to reassure the Iraqi people that in the New Iraq these organizations would no longer be used as instruments of repression," he wrote, adding that the political importance of these decisions cannot be exaggerated.

"The fact that Iraq's new security forces are still not performing well enough to take full responsibility for Iraq's security underscores that creating a well-equipped, professional army cannot be done overnight," he wrote. "The problems those forces face today would be even worse if, instead of a fresh start, we had tried to restore Saddam's old system."

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Not exactly. By throwing them out in the street, they had no other

choice but to become insurgents. Even the ones that would have cooperated. Would have been easier to keep them and slowly weed them out, maybe even relocating them to duties outside the city. At least, as long as they received some kind of income, they would have had no reason to organize and mount an attack.

[grumpy old fart]

3. yep, the old "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"...

and besides,
"Hussein used the army and intelligence services "to inflict misery, torture and death on Iraqis and their neighbors."

That's our job, dammit..... ;-)

[Vidar]

7. Boy have you ever got that right!

[underpants]

10. It is easier to vet the bad one's out than everyone back in

That is what the Iraqi PM said about a month ago.

[rwork]

2. Sounds like that

Freedom Medal really did its job.

[UpInArms]

4. not to be picky, but let's just look a few of those statements

"They served an important strategic purpose and recognized realities on the ground after the war," Bremer wrote in an opinion piece.

How? With their heads up their asses?

Bremer said the coalition's objectives in Iraq went beyond "regime change" and President Bush made clear that the U.S. led forces were going to help Iraqis create "a New Iraq."

Don't you just love that New Iraq?

Bremer said that for more than 30 years, Hussein used the army and intelligence services "to inflict misery, torture and death on Iraqis and their neighbors. The Baath Party was another important instrument of Saddam's tyranny."

WTF? Welcome to the New Tyranny!

"After Liberation, the Coalition felt it was vital to reassure the Iraqi people that in the New Iraq these organizations would no longer be used as instruments of repression," he wrote, adding that the political importance of these decisions cannot be exaggerated.

And how they have been reassured is amazing!

"The fact that Iraq's new security forces are still not performing well enough to take full responsibility for Iraq's security underscores that creating a well-equipped, professional army cannot be done overnight," he wrote. "The problems those forces face today would be even worse if, instead of a fresh start, we had tried to restore Saddam's old system."

:wow: The holes in that one are so big that you can drive all of the tanks through it!

(edited for html)

[leftchick]

5. that third quote is quite amazing isn't it?

<Bremer said that for more than 30 years, Hussein used the army and intelligence services "to inflict misery, torture and death on Iraqis and their neighbors. The Baath Party was another important instrument of Saddam's tyranny." >

Good lord after the Iraqi's have gotten a taste of US tyranny I am sure saddam's is looking like the better choice. How sad is that?

[Megawatt]

17. Missing Hussein? You're not serious are you?

Yeah , lets see how many Shia and Kurds (2/3 of the population) are clamoring for the return of Hussein.

Look I'm against this adventure because it's not our job to promote democracy at the point of a gun. If we're there to steal the oil , it would be cheaper to buy it. But the idea that this resistance in Iraq is motivated by patriotic Iraquis who want the best for all Iraquis is naive IMO.

By and large its being fueled by Sunnis who held power, prestige and economic status far out of porportion to their actual numbers in the old Iraq. If they regain control they will most definitely install an autocrat, fascisitic government modeled on the Baathist regime which will trample on the rights of the majority. At one time progressives used to be against such trampling of the rights of a majority - say for example South Africa in the 80s. The only thing that could be said under the Sunni vision of domination is that they will make the trains run on time.... So did the apartheid government of South Africa. The Sunnis realize under a coalition government they will lose their place of priveleged power. So they are assasinating government officials, poll workers, - basically anyone instrumental in bringing about a government power structure which will more accurately reflect the different ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. In any other country progressives on this board would be calling the resistance "right wing death squads". But for some reason on here people see them as heroic founding fathers . Thats laughable.

The other part of the resistance's vision for Iraq will be putting women back in the home, back in the burqa, and homosexuals back in the stoning pit. Progressives used to be against such ideas now the people propagating such regressivity are hailed as freedom fighters on this board.

That said, I remain opposed to our Iraq invasion, but I have my head out of my ass enough to recognize exactly what the "insurgency" is all about and have no need to romantisize it. I don't see why the people on this board need to romantisize the insurgents - they are not good guys - they don't care about the Iraqi people - just regaining their power that they are sure to lose in elections.

I can be honest about it, the resistance is scum, but I'm not willing to spend American blood and treasure on some misguided attempt to help free people (Kurds and Shia) who were too chicken shit to do it for themselves.

[leftchick]

18. clue for you: I DON"T HAVE MY HEAD UP MY ASS!!!

I don't depend on RW media for my information. You made an awful lot of generalizations about my post. Here is one for you to chew on. It isn't Sunni against Shia! Sheesh, where the hell have I heard that one? Oh, yeah.. Faux News! You need to pick up a fucking history book and check out British occupation of Iraq 101!

Here is something else for you to gnaw on...

~snip~

While many of the fighters may be Turkmen, they are fighting for Allah, and they are cooperating with anyone else, be it Kurd or Arab, similarly motivated by jihad against the Americans.

CD: So after all the American talk about Islamic terrorism thriving in Iraq, this was the real thing, huh?

ST: When I saw the level of organization and apparent troop numbers, and how everyone is prepared to die – these guys aren't bullshitting. All the stuff we were told before the war about how the Ba'athists would all gladly die for Saddam, well that obviously didn't turn out to be the case. But these guys, these fundamentalists, are fighting to die. This is a very potent weapon.

Worse, the American invasion has actually created this terrorism because it substantiated over time all the ugliest scenarios that the radical clerics were warning about. People being crushed by tanks, U.S. soldiers breaking down doors, violating the sanctity of the home, abusing civilians, etc., seeing all this go down has an effect. And so the strong anti-American attitude of the clerics started to seem justified to previously disinterested local people by events on the ground, and you have religion emerge as the single cause capable of uniting members of ethnic groups who'd previously been fighting only one another.

CD: So, as you've said many times in the past, the Americans have brought this upon themselves. Did you witness anything to attest to this new cooperation among the resistance?

ST: Everywhere we went, it was obvious that the militants had the full cooperation of the U.S.-trained Iraqi police. Whenever we transited outside the city, to the corners of Mosul or the checkpoints, the cops would see us bound in the back seats – and offer cigarettes to our captors! We'd be flanked by these gauntlets of teenage boys, cheering and banging on the roofs. It was clear that there's a lot of cooperation between Arab police and Turkmen fundamentalists.

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=3606

~SNIP~

In December 2003, for instance, a man in Baghdad, speaking of the Abu Ghraib atrocities, said to me, "Why do they use these actions? Even Saddam Hussein did not do that! This is not good behavior. They are not coming to liberate Iraq!" And by then the bleak jokes of the beleaguered had already begun to circulate. In the dark humor that has become so popular in Baghdad these days, one recently released Abu Ghraib detainee I interviewed said, "The Americans brought electricity to my ass before they brought it to my house!"

Sadiq Zoman is fairly typical of what I've seen. Taken from his home in Kirkuk in July, 2003, he was held in a military detention facility near Tikrit before being dropped off comatose at the Salahadin General Hospital by U.S. forces one month later. While the medical report accompanying him, signed by Lt. Col. Michael Hodges, stated that Mr. Zoman was comatose due to a heart attack brought on by heat stroke, it failed to mention that his head had been bludgeoned, or to note the electrical burn marks that scorched his penis and the bottoms of his feet, or the bruises and whip-like marks up and down his body.

I visited his wife Hashmiya and eight daughters in a nearly empty home in Baghdad. Its belongings had largely been sold on the black market to keep them all afloat. A fan twirled slowly over the bed as Zoman stared blankly at the ceiling. A small back-up generator hummed outside, as this neighborhood, like most of Baghdad, averaged only six hours of electricity per day.

Her daughter Rheem, who is in college, voiced the sentiments of the entire family when she said, "I hate the Americans for doing this. When they took my father they took my life. I pray for revenge on the Americans for destroying my father, my country, and my life."



The situation is no where near as simplistic as you make it out to be! :eyes:

[Megawatt]

23. Your source in your post confirms part of my post

But these guys, these fundamentalists, are fighting to die. This is a very potent weapon.

Worse, the American invasion has actually created this terrorism because it substantiated over time all the ugliest scenarios that the radical clerics were warning about.

Gee fundamentalists and radical clerics part of this insurgency. Generally fundamentalists and clerics take a trashing on this board. But according to many here they are the equivalent of George Washington.

I don't get my news from Fox.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050102.wirkk0102/BNStory/International/

Shiites, who make up about 60 per cent of Iraq's 26 million people, are eager for the vote to go ahead so they can take power long denied them when the Sunni Arab minority had power under Saddam Hussein. But they hope the Sunnis, who make up about 20 per cent of the people, will participate lest the vote be considered illegitimate.

The Shiite leaders, who are backed by Iraq's most influential cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said postponing the vote would only create more chaos in Iraq. They rejected comments purportedly made by Osama bin Laden in a tape released last Monday in which the al-Qaeda leader urged Muslims not to vote, calling the election illegitimate.

“For us the elections are vital and we will not give them up,” said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of SCIRI. “Bin Laden is interfering in the Iraqi affairs by calling his criminal followers to hinder Iraqis from voting.”


Catch a clue yourself - there's 150,000 of us versus 25 million of them. If they all want us out - where are the millions in the street? There is no way that 150,000 wouldn't have their asses handed to them unless large segments of that country weren't waiting to take control after the elections. The Shia and Kurd areas will see 80% turnout - much better than this country - the only people who aren't playing are the Sunnis. They don't want elections because they know they will lose.

That said, it's not our job to give democracy to other countries or to protect oppressed people in other countries. I was against it in Kosovo, I'm against here. If we're there for the oil , I'd rather drill it out Anwar. My most fervent desire is for the day we become energy independent and let the people of the middle east go back to selling each other dates and olives.

Oh and btw - the opposition to the war here doesn't make anyone here any smarter, or more pure than other Americans at any other time in our history. People act like they have seen the Holy Grail because they oppose this war. ALL the wars in our history with the exception of WWII were widely opposed in various segments of the population. New England states almost seceeded rather than prosecute our country's very first war as a country - war of 1812. The draft riots in the Civil War etc. HEll even the revoulutionary war was only supported by 1/3 of the populace, 1/3 were Tories and 1/3 were indifferent.

[Megawatt]

24. Here is a question for you

Why would the majoritiy of Shia and Kurds take up the gun ,when they are going to have all the authority and power they have never have under the new Iraq. They've seen us set up a provisional government and get rid of Bremer when we said we would. They've seen us stick to the timetable for the Jan 30 election. I would assume that they are at least willing to take a wait and see attitude to see if after they take power and shape the new government, if we really do start withdrawal. What would be the incentive for them to fight for power when they are going to have the dominant power in several weeks.

Hell there are people on this forum who think Bush is Hitler and that he stole 2 elections - and still not a single person on this entire board is willing to take up arms against the government. What does that tell you?

As far as the Brits occupying Iraq , they weren't telling the Shia and Kurds that they were grooming them to take control of the government in order to expedite an exit strategy. That is what we are telling the Kurds and Shia today (whether that is true or not , history will tell), so that is why your ananlogy is weak at best.

[LynnTheDem]

31. Megawatt, you REALLY need to try other media than Faux Moos

The Brits GASSED THE KURDS during the British occupation of Iraq, and YOU DARE accuse others of "TALKING OUT OF THEIR ASSES"????!!

Try actually listening to what the IRAQIS are saying?

Try actually reading REAL HISTORY on Iraq?

It would make such a nice CHANGE from whatever crap you're using for your "facts".

Iraq has NEVER been "Shia vs Sunni". It's TRIBAL and Sunni & Shia are NOT TRIBES.

Many tribes are BOTH Shia AND Sunni; Shia & Sunni MARRY each other, they WORSHIP together.

al Sadr, bush's "evil insurgent", is a SHIA.

The uprisings in Basra...Karbala...Najaf... ALL SHIA.

The SHIA have said, themselves, time & time again, they are WITH THE SUNNIS; IRAQ FOR IRAQIS.

The SHIA marched for miles to bring the Fallujah Sunnis food and meds...the SUNNIS marched for hours to bring the Najaf Shia foods and meds.

97% of ALL Iraqis view the US as OCCUPIERS, NOT as liberators.

[Megawatt]

32. Interesting projection there maybe on my source

No need to shout, I can hear you from here. Nice straw man on how the Iraqis view us. I never claimed otherwise, I merely commented on who was driving the insurgency and who is "missing Hussein".

Since when is my quoted source "Globe and Mail dot com" part of the Fox News empire? Oh thats right it isn't.

Heard much from Al Sadr and people in Karbala lately? No I didnt think so. Like I said, people about to take power through an election for the most part aren't going to be part of this resistance. But you can believe whatever you want - I'll wait to see the turnout among the various factions.

Boy it's not enough to be against the war on this site, one really has to suck down the entire DU koolaid here.


Sig Heil - I believe the resistance in Iraq is made up of citizen farmers who will give the gift of a pluralistic, progressive liberal democracy in Iraq.

Man people some people in this thread are just the flip side of what the neo cons told us 2 years ago.

[LynnTheDem]

33. The insurgents ARE NOT "mainly Sunni".

Basra is uprising again yesterday and today.

YOU, sir, are WRONG on your "facts".

And THAT, sir, is a FACT.

The Iraqi resistance are LEGALLY RESISTING foreign occupiers.

Good for them; I'd do likewise were my country invaded & occupied.

[Megawatt]

35. Your post makes no sense to me

Why throw in that Iraq resistance is legally resisting foreign occupiers? Show me where I've stated otherwise.

And btw I don't believe anytime I read on here that people would resist an invasion, I know it's bullshit. Many many people on here believe that Bush is as bad as Hitler and he has stolen 2 elections. Yet not one single person who posts here has taken up any sort of armed resistance against the government of the United States. People who believe that Bush is as bad as Hitler and aren't doing armed resistance are the moral equivalents of the good little Germans in the 30s. In fact they are worse, since Germans in the 30s didn't recognize the evil of Hitler and the people on here supposedly do.

What do I believe? I think Bush is a flawed president who drew the wrong lessons from 9-11 and allowed the neo-cons to tilt our foreign policy , much the same way we got involved in the Balkans in the 90s under Clinton. It was wrong policy then, its wrong now. I think Bush has lowered the marginal tax rate 2% lower than is fiscally responsible. When he starts to inject blue dye into brown eyed children - then I'll take up arms against him. But since I don't believe that Bush is another Hitler , I'm under no obligation to resist him by force of arms --- but many many people on here do claim to believe he is as bad as Hitler, yet they lack the courage of our founding fathers to do any sort of armed resistance.

Oh and for the record I will restate my mea culpa

I am not only against the war because it was a misuse of American power, it was unnecessary, it was anti isolationist, it was aggressive against a country which represented no threat to us, it was fostered in part by an unnecessary dependence on mid east oil, it was sold in part as some Wilsonian desire to spread democracy which isn't our job, it took our eye off the ball in other more imortant matter, it was fiscally irresponsible

I NOW HAVE FULLY DRUNK THE DU KOOLAID

The insurgents are a broad based movement supported by 100% of the Iraqi people who will bring forth a liberal , progressive, democracy with full economic and human rights free from homophobia, miscogeny and every other ill which affects the rest of human kind. It will truly be a paradise on Earth because the insurgents are the closest thing to God on Earth.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. That last paragaph was a bit over the top dearest

maybe 2 people on this board actually believe anything close to that.

Some people here do think Bush is Hitler incarnate, but not even close to a significant percentage. Most believe he is a dangerously spoiled self-overestimating frat boy who has NEVER had to suffer any personal consequences for ANY of his actions- save his own drinking which is the only mistake he will ever admit to and even then it makes him feel all good and cozy inside because he can chalk that up to "youthful indiscetion" and anyways he "found Jesus".

Flawed president?
Sir, Clinton was a "flawed president".
Bush isn't even a president.

[LynnTheDem]

39. Nice rhetoric. The bottom line remains factual; the Iraqi rebels

are not "mostly Sunni".

[Megawatt]

41. The bottom line remains that I posted a

foreign new source link which indicated the insurgency was mostly Sunni driven. Unless you've investigated first hand yourself can you provide a different linked point of view from a non-biased foreign source?

[LynnTheDem]

42. Sure. How many would you like?

By the way, did you know that in Hussein's top Cabinet, there were 3 Sunni, 3 Shia, 2 Kurds and 1 Christian? Did you know that the top Iraqi army General was a Shia? Saddam Hussein didn't oppress Shia; he oppressed IRAQIS.

Did you also know that the SUNNI city of Fallujah have NEVER been "Saddam loyalists", and in fact told Hussein to piss off & leave them alone? That their clerics refused to say prayers to Hussein in their mosques? bushCartel and the US StenoMedia don't believe though in telling Americans the facts.

BAGHDAD - Fresh statistics by an international organization suggested that Iraq's Sunnis are in a clear majority, as Shiite scholars conceded that Shiites could make up as much as 40 percent of the whole population.

The statistics, released by a reliable international humanitarian relief agency in 2003, suggested that Sunnis make up 58 percent of the Iraqi population and Shiites 40 percent.

'The Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq' put the whole population at about 27 million, including 16 million Sunnis and 11 million Shiites, Quds Press International news agency reported on Wednesday, January 28.

The remainder, 2 percent, include Christians and Jews.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:tAyZZW38iiAJ:www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-01/29/article02.shtml+Fresh+statistics+by+an+international+organization+suggested+that+Iraq%27s+Sunnis+are+in+a+clear+majority,+as+Shiite+scholars+conceded+that+Shiites+could+make+up+as+much+as+40+percent+of+the+whole+population.+&hl=en

But hey, let's just stick with the CIA Factbook of a Shia majority from 1991. It's much better for bush to chant that we're overthrowing a MINORITY who oppressed a MAJORITY than to mention even the Shia say the Sunnis are in fact the MAJORITY.

And Sunnis & Shia sure are UNITED in their opinions towards us and "democracy":

-Only 3 percent of Kurds want the forces to depart immediately. In the Shiite areas, the sentiment is 61 percent and in the Sunni areas it is 65 percent. (And in Baghdad it is a stunning 75 percent).

-Once again, strong support for democracy in the Kurdish north contrasts with anemic support in the Sunni and Shiite regions (31 percent and 27 percent respectively.)

Finally, overall attitudes toward the United States and the Coalition Provisional Authority are extremely negative. Only 27 percent have a favorable opinion of the CPA, and just 23 percent have a favorable opinion of the United States.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-18-04.html



Anyhoo, back to Shia insurgents, here's a few links;

Poll: Only 2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

The Shia insurgency; Najaf, Kut, Basra, Nasiriya, Karbala, and Baghdad's Sadr City;

"Sunni, Shia, that doesn't matter anymore,"
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Iraqi_unified_resistance

'We Are One Hand' -- Sunnis, Shiites Uniting Against U.S. in Iraq
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=9384ee3ba6fe3e8d4535443108da081a

Sunnis and Shias Uniting Against U.S.
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23742

Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50E14F73F5C0C7B8CDDAD0894DC404482

"Sunni-Shiite Cooperation Grows, Worrying U.S. Officials,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08CND-SHIA.html?ex=1105765200&en=ffa47ef0cd733ea9&ei=5070&hp

Shiite Muslim uprising in Iraq
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Shiite_Muslim_uprising_in_Iraq

Shiite Muslim uprising in Iraq: Iran Proxy War?
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Shiite_Muslim_uprising_in_Iraq:_Iran_Proxy_War%3F

"Shiite Clashes in with Coalition in Najaf, Baghdad"
http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108109946449807198

Taking on the Shi'ites: How America is Creating a Powerful New Enemy
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0405-11.htm

Muslim Rivals Unite In Baghdad Uprising
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56091-2004Apr6.html?referrer=email

22 killed as troops clash with Shias
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185832,00.html

"Fierce Fighting With Sunnis and Shiites Spreads to 6 Iraqi Cities,"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B1FFA3C5C0C748CDDAD0894DC404482

Sunni and Shia guerrillas unite against US
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0404/04041203TGR.asp

US forces battle Shia militiamen, kill 64
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3662169.stm

US troops threaten to cross Shia 'red line' to enter Najaf
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=515274

Sunni and Shia unite against common enemy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189295,00.html

Shia guerrillas raise the stakes by claiming more foreign hostages
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=510183

Nine killed in US convoy as Shia militias fight on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189287,00.html

Iraq: all together against the occupation
http://mondediplo.com/2004/05/03iraqinationalism

Sunni and Shia unite in battle | Autonomy & Solidarity
http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/171

Shia uprising in Iraq; Najaf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1281744,00.html

US faces ongoing Shiite uprising in southern Iraq
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/iraq-m06.shtml

US moves to crush Shia uprising
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3557446.stm

Nationalism Drives Many Insurgents as They Fight US
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1026-06.htm

Sunni and Shi'a insurgents in Iraq
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/politics/PoliticalScene/a47n17c01.htm

From Stratfor:

[Megawatt]

43. Well it would be nice to have some that didn't date from

April. I'm fully aware that a minor Shia cleric with no stature or standing among mainstream Shia lead a revolt which never garnered popular support (ie MILLIONS of people in the street). Also it isn't necessary to waste time convincing me that the majoritiy of Iraqis don't want us there. Not many people like being occupied. I asked for an assessment that the insurgency wasn't being driven by Sunni elements. You've given me a graph which indicates the Shia impact on security has been decreasing since August. Of the 3 groups it has the least impact, in fact almost zero. Thanks , I wouldn't have even known how to paste that in.

I never said that Shia were our best buddies. I never said that individual Shia aren't firing RPGs at a convoy now and then. That doesn't make the insurgency a nationalistic crusade. What I said was that the insurgency is being Sunni-Arab driven because they have the most to lose in a representative parlimentary type government. The provinces which are considered safe to vote in are mostly Shia and Kurd are they not? If the insurgency was as broad based as you seem to think it is there wouldn't be anywhere safe to vote. 150,000 GIs can't beat down a movement with 25 million active followers.

And yes I'm fully aware that Hussein had a Christian in his cabinet, I didn't realize he had Shia also. I am also fully aware that Shia and Kurds had uprisings against him in 91 followed by massive retaliation on his part. The fact that he had Shia quislings in his cabinet only shows that he managed to find some Vichy type politicians willing to sell out their people.

[LynnTheDem]

44. It's nothing to dow ith what *I* think; it's what the IRAQIS SAY.

And tell ya what, those links are from links I've posted previously. If you want current links, altho good luck as reporters aren't able to get round Iraq very well right now, then YOU google them.

The SHIA areas of BAGHDAD is one of the 4 provinces too violent to vote; other SHIA cities currently fighting include Basra and Karbala.

The Stratfor chart shows SUNNI AND NATIONALIST fighters, and if you care to pay $975 for subscription, you can go read for yourself that the NATIONALIST fighters are Sunni and Shia.

The SHIA red line is for SHIA MILITIA; the SUNNI yellow line is SUNNI MILITIA AND NATIONALISTS; ie ordinary everyday garden variety pissed off Iraqis...including a lot of Shia.

Your article by the way includes old propaganda; the Shia are not the majority in Iraq. The Shia themselves agree; the Sunnis are the majority. And Kurds are also Sunni.

But hey, you are of course totally free to keep on with the bushCartel rhetoric that the Sunnis are the majority of the "insurgents" and they're not freedom fighters, just "terrorists" and "bad guys".

[leftchick]

47. Lynn...

You are the Best! :)

[LynnTheDem]

50. And back atcha,

leftchick! :)

[Megawatt]

48. Post removed

Removed by Megawatt - not worth arguing about - it will come up later in another thread anyway - with a totally different explanation as to what is happening.

[NickB79]

27. Um, the Shia are the ones who want to put women back in burqas

Saddam was a Sunni, and under him women enjoyed one of the most equitable relationships with men in the Middle East. Now that Saddam is gone and the Shia are about to take power after the election, you can kiss virtually all women's rights goodbye. Think Iran, as the Shia control that wonderful bastion of freedom today.

[LynnTheDem]

29. You (mega) are very much mistaken in most of what you've posted.

And that is a fact.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Megawatt]

36. I hear you too

In case you missed it - a synopsis of my views:

What do I believe? I think Bush is a flawed president who drew the wrong lessons from 9-11 and allowed the neo-cons to tilt our foreign policy , much the same way we got involved in the Balkans in the 90s under Clinton. It was wrong policy then, its wrong now. I think Bush has lowered the marginal tax rate 2% lower than is fiscally responsible. I am not only against the war because it was a misuse of American power, it was unnecessary, it was anti isolationist, it was aggressive against a country which represented no threat to us, it was fostered in part by an unnecessary dependence on mid east oil, it was sold in part as some Wilsonian desire to spread democracy which isn't our job, it took our eye off the ball in other more imortant matter, it was fiscally irresponsible

_______________________________________________________-

But please make sure the party makes people like me feel unwelcome. Karl Rove will thank you for it in '08.

Feel free to contact the DU police if you must.

[LynnTheDem]

38. I agree with the views you've posted

Why would I "contact the DU police" on you?

You are wrong about the rebels being "mostly Sunni". Sorry if that makes you feel unwelcome, it wasn't meant to.

[Megawatt]

40. This makes me feel unwelcome

"Either we have rightwingnuts on this board pretending to be progressives, thinking they can somehow fools us with their bullshit, or we have progressives on this board who've cherry-picked and swallowed half the bush koolaid."

I posted foreign news source links on which I based my view that the insurgency is Sunni driven. You've posted no links.

But as you can see from my mea culpa, I'm fully on board.

[Jacobin]

19. Well, I guess they wanted to continue some of the 'traditions'

like torture, rape, killing innocents, etc.

Can't have toooooo quick of a change, now, can we?

/sarcasm

[Redstone]

6. It's a new record!

Ladies and gentlemen, the new winner for most ignorant series of statements to come out of Washington! (This record likely to stand only until the next time Bush opens his mouth.)

"They served an important strategic purpose and recognized realities on the ground after the war,"

What do you mean, "after the war?" Last I looked, it wasn't over yet.

the coalition's objectives in Iraq went beyond "regime change" and President Bush made clear that the U.S. led forces were going to help Iraqis create "a New Iraq."

And a wonderful place it is, that "new Iraq." I'm booking a cruise on the Tigris for vacation next week.

for more than 30 years, Hussein used the army and intelligence services "to inflict misery, torture and death on Iraqis and their neighbors.

And now we're doing it for them. Hey they don't have an army any more, somebody's got to do the job!

"After Liberation, the Coalition felt it was vital to reassure the Iraqi people that in the New Iraq these organizations would no longer be used as instruments of repression,"

Yes, we reassure them that the U.S. Army will be used instead.

"The fact that Iraq's new security forces are still not performing well enough to take full responsibility for Iraq's security underscores that creating a well-equipped, professional army cannot be done overnight,"

And whose fault is that, you lying son of a sack of shit? You made this mess, and now you want to weasel out of any responsibility for cleaning it up.

God will get you for what you have done. Hope I'm there to see it.

Redstone

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Uh, Saddam's system was Saddam. Without Saddam, Saddam's

system could not exist.

Saddam took the Baath party and converted it into a personality cult. Whatever happens post-Saddam, the one guarantee is that "Saddam's system" is gone.

Moran.

[priller]

22. Yes, I noticed that false choice also

Between disbanding and "restoring Saddam's system". What a crock! The idea was to get rid of the higher ups and true Bathist ideologes, then use the already trained troops (most of which were in the army because it was a job, not because of any great love for Saddam).

[KittyWampus]

9. No, Actually. The Experts... The People Who KNEW THE SITUATION

wrote a report saying Iraqi forces SHOULD be kept intact while trying only the higher ups.

And since you assholes decided to go in without SUFFICIENT troop numbers... it was even MORE important.

[underpants]

12. I give it two weeks for this to be a Fox News talking point

Fred Barnes "...well we know that disbanding the Iraqi army was the right thing to do experts agree on that........." NPR girl and Mort nod in approval.

[underpants]

11. He must have been right-he got a medal for it

They don't just give those out to just anyone ya know.

[Cocoa]

13. I'd be defensive too

if I got the Medal of Freedom from Bush, I'd be desperate to clear my name just like Jerry is.

[warrens]

14. By that logic, allowing the looting was a good idea too

A lot less Iraq to change, once the looters got through with things. These buttheads are delusional or liars or both. My money is on "both."

[saigon68]

15. Bremer = Thug and War Criminal

With His POSSE

Dan ("let's kill Sadr") Senor

And Krazy Kimmitt ("We will flatten Fallujah")

[leftchick]

16. saigon, now would be a good time to whip out the photo of the viceroy

with his own private army!

[saigon68]

45. HERE'S THE SWEET HEART

I wonder if they are still guarding his sorry ass.

[leftchick]

46. That is my favorite of the cowardly viceroy!

what a fucking LOSER with his private (US$ Paid) mercenary army to protect his lying ass!

Thanks for posting it saigon!

[bpilgrim]

20. they can never own up to a mistake...

The former soldiers, about 100 of whom protested outside the heavily defended Green Zone yesterday in Baghdad, were more likely to agree with Mr. al-Khuzai.

...

Mr. Bremer's decision to disband the army immediately put 350,000 Iraqi men — all trained in the military arts — out of work and has been blamed for filling the ranks of an occupation insurgency throughout the country.
"Most people agree that it was the single biggest mistake of the occupation," said Feisal Istrabadi, an adviser to Governing Council member Adnan Pachachi.

source...
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040105-114522-6340r.htm

"adding that the political importance of these decisions cannot be exaggerated."

so he claims it was all bout 'POLITICS'... wonder how the freeps feel about that :evilgrin:



more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery

peace



peace

[MADem]

21. Come on, of COURSE it was CORRECT!!!!!

From the perspective of the insurgents, anyway!

What an idiot--everyone is saying disbanding the military was the biggest error of the Iraq strategy, even the BushBots. What is that man smoking?

[not fooled]

25. where's the 8 billion, Jer?

crook.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Bremer is an icon of failure

Dismissing the entire Iraqi army put 400,000 armed men on the street with nothing else to do but to fight the foreign occupiers. Even Jay Garner said as much! Bremer is a total idiot!

[leftchick]

49. and he got a medal for it!

we have a very fucked up Country. Make that two, The USA and Iraq!

[LynnTheDem]

28. Oh LOOK! Bremer is WRONG AGAIN!

1. The single biggest mistake of US occupation was disbanding the Iraqi army.

2. Hey Bremer, GUESS which nation installed the Ba'ath Party in Iraq! Go on, GUESS!

Fucking idiot.