83 Comments

• 1. Christian Wright  |  December 27th, 2007 at 6:08 am

  (Ed. Note: Comment deleted - just waaaay too full of slanders, conspiracy theories and lies.)

• 2. Magnum Serpentine  |  December 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am

  We citizens elected the Spineless Gutless and yellow Demo-publicans to get us out of the war.

  We citizens say by 81% in a Gallop poll that we want ALL the troops out by April 2008 regardless of what happens in Iraq.

  But because the Demo-publicans have no spine, it never happened. And now the Demo-publicans walk lock step with george and that includes hillary.

  Vote independent in 2008

  Magnum Serpentine

• 3. Retired Spook  |  December 27th, 2007 at 7:58 am

  OT, but, nonetheless important, it’s being reported on the news that Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated.

• 4. js  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:05 am

  Hot air, 2 whole posts!! Nothing but useless gossip and rhetoric by liberals.

  What ever happened to the truth you two? Just because you can say it, doesnt make it true. For example, why dont you document Bush’s intent to steal oil? So far, he has failed miserably at that, we would have had better luck invading Saudi Arabia than we have Iraq, if we wanted to steal oil.

• 5. Huck Fillary  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:15 am

  OT, because there’s no need commenting on the stupidity of CW and Little Snake, but hey, Spook, I hope you had a Merry Christmas. I sure did, on a Caribbean cruise, and four more days in Ft. Lauderdale. I stayed away from the internet cafe on the ship, and although they had Fox News in my cabin, I paid no attention. I stayed at the Bahia Mar Resort in Ft. Lauderdale, and they only had the Clinton News Network on the telly. So don’t even ask if I watched that tripe. I did get a NY Slimes delivered to my room each day–what a load of shit! My reaction to the Slimes is the same as my reaction to the National Enquirer: what if that crap was true? Anyway, for anyone considering a holiday to Ft. Lauderdale, I will say that you can do much better than the Bahia Mar, as they cater to the fat cats who drive $5 million yachts, offer no extras, and charge out the ying-yang for their rooms and meals. Ft. Lauderdale itself was great–I swam in the ocean on Christmas Day, and got a few tats. Of course, my daughter was very critical of the artwork, having some very professional work on her body by a very good artist. Maybe she didn’t like the red and blue elephant with “GOP” below it. And the artist, a very nice young Brazilian fellow, kinda messed up the “a” in my wife’s name, so I’ll have to get that repaired. But a good time was had in Florida, and the 80-degree weather was awesome!

  Here’s a holiday greeting to all:

  To my liberal friends:

  Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an
  environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive,
  gender-neutral celebration
  of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions
  of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice,
  with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others,
  or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also
  wish you
  a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated
  recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not
  without due
  respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to
  society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily
  greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere .
  Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age,
  physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

  To My Conservative Friends:

  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

  That says it all. I’m back, in full attack mode. I’ve learned serinity, but I’ve yet to shake my contempt of libgressive puke asshats.

  Ahh, it’s great to be back…

• 6. plainjane  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am

  The victory in Iraq is already ours - but reaping the reward of the victory will take a year or two… December 27th, 2007 at 01:36am Mark Noonan

  What, to steal the oil for the oil executives in on Cheney’s Energy Task Force, meetings in which no one in this democracy is allowed to see the minutes.

• 7. Jon Parker  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am

  Great post Mark.

  1. If violence is increasing in Iraq, it’s proof that the Bush strategy is working.

  2. If violence is decreasing in Iraq, it’s proof that the Bush strategy is working.

  Either way, you’re right!

• 8. neocon  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:20 am

  Good to habe you back Huck.

  Spook,

  I see that too. It’s a shame. I was hoping for leadership to bring some stability to Pakistan.

  Christian,

  I don’t ever expect to read anything from you other than regurgitated, agenda driven, half truths, but maybe it’s time you pulled your head out of the DailyKos rectum and actually read something. Try the following, it’s ver informative:

  http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16052&Itemid=1

• 9. neocon  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:21 am

  Jon,

  Kind of like climate change.

  1. If it’s cold, it’s proof that climate change is real

  2. If it’s hot, it’s proof that climate change is real

  Now I know where Gore got that. Thanks.

• 10. Retired Spook  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:34 am

  keefer, of all your screen names I think I like this one the best. Glad you had a good time on your cruise.

  Neocon, CW has been coming here almost as long as I have. He’s always been somewhat logically and factually challenged, but I’ve noticed lately that he pretty much does exactly as you say — regurgitates “agenda-driven half truths” and DailyKos talking points. The kool aid appears to have had a cumulative effect.

• 11. Kahn  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:34 am

  We kicked ass in the Tet offensive. We completely destroyed the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force and individually defeated every North Vietnamese unit involved.

  But the press made that into a defeat.

  We won every engagement, and were according to the press defeated.

  The grandchildren of the men and women who were there are now in Iraq - they can see for themselves what a despicable anti-American force the press has become. They heard it, but never quite believed it. Now they do.

  Not going to respond to the insane lies posted by Christian Wright and some others. I’m sure they were out there marching with the “F” the Troops banners in Oregon.

• 12. NeoClown  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:42 am

  The “surge” had nothing to do with the reduction of violence in Iraq. This is merely the calm following a storm of ethnic cleansing and there are many more storms to come. To suggest that the violence in Iraq is orchestrated to influence the outcome of the elections in the US is ignorant. Both the Sunni and the Shi’ite militias see the Americans as nothing more than useful idiots and don’t really care if we stay or go.

• 13. neocon  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:10 am

  Clown,

  I know how anxious you are for the ethnic cleansing that you predict, but I am afraid that wont happen. Sorry.

  You see, it appears that the Sunni and Shi’a are cooperating not only amongst each other, but certainly with the US Military in helping to secure their neighborhoods. Unlike American liberals, they actually care about their country and want to protect their children who will eventually take control of a unified Iraq.

  And it’s not the orchestartion of violence that is intended to sway the elections, but rather the MSM’s coverage of that violence. The current reporting from Iraq in the MSM has dropped by over 50%. Do you know why? See paragraph 2.

  I know you must be feeling a little unsettled with your DailyKos masters. They promised you a weaker America and defeat in Iraq, and yet neither has come about. But you could always strap on some bombs and help your brothers in jihad if you wanted. Or are you working the drive thru today?

• 14. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:19 am

  The victory in Iraq is already ours - but reaping the reward of the victory will take a year or two…

  So, according to my calculations using Friedman Units a year or two equals from 2 to 4 F.U.s.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_(unit)

  So, in about 4 F.U.s guys like Mark can again tell us that we are on the verge of victory and that in another six months or a year we will reap the rewards of our victory.

  This is so tiring, Mark.

  It’s tiring because I don’t understand why you want to claim mission accomplished again. Bush tried to declare mission accomplished and Rummy was like, oh hell no, take that out of the speech. We aren’t ready to declare victory yet. But someone forgot to take down the banner.

  Mark, I think in your mind you’ve forgotten to take down the banner and actually take reality into consideration.

  Why can you say that we are victorious? What is your reasoning for this? What benchmarks have been met in your mind that put you at ease with a victory in the war on terror as of December 27, 2008?

• 15. NeoClown  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:38 am

  Neocon,
  Unlike American liberals, the Iraqi’s actually don’t have a country. There is no Iraq. There are Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’ite. The country of “Iraq” is a recent British invention that never really took hold. Over the years strongmen like Saddam have tried to hold it together and now the US is trying but it ain’t going to happen.

  As far as my wanting the Iraqi war to be “lost” that’s already happened. The American people will always think of the war in Iraq as lost because of no WMD’s. The American people lost faith in President Bush and his war and it doesn’t matter what the outcome Iraq is the war will be forever lost.

  As far as my being anxious for the ethnic cleansing to begin you are very wrong. The slaughter over there makes me sick to my stomach and I will always hold George Bush accountable for it.

• 16. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:47 am

  Speaking of Iraq being a Biritish invention … It would seem as though Iraq and the teorritory it sits on has been an oil grab with war after war for resources for a long time now. The following article discusses the resource wars that have occured there over the past 100 years or so.

  Mark, according to this article’s premise we cannot declare victory until British and United States’ oil companies are allowed back into iraq to do business with them and their huge oil reserves.

  That will then be the real victory in this “war”. It’s not the victory that you were told to wait for. The victory you await will come in the form of low gas prices and plentiful resources to fuel our world domination by enabling US oil companies to have their resources while locking out Russia and China from these same oil fields …

  How do you sleep at night? Very well… I hope.

  http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

  Seven Oil Wars to Control Iraq

  Before coming to the Iraq war of 2003, we will review the modern history of conflicts over Iraq. There have been a total of seven wars in the past ninety years, all closely related to oil. What follows is a thumbnail sketch of those conflicts, to suggest the constant military struggle over this oil-rich territory.

  1. Colonial Conquest (1914-18). The first conflict took place during World War I, when the British captured the area from the Ottoman Empire during a bloody four-year campaign. Lord Curzon, a member of the War cabinet who became Foreign Minister immediately after the war, famously stated that the influence of oil over British policy in Iraq was “nil.” “Oil,” said Curzon, “had not the remotest connection with my attitude over Mosul,” the major city in Iraq’s northern oil-bearing region.27 Studies by a number of historians have shown that Curzon was lying and that oil was indeed the major factor shaping British policy towards Iraq.28 Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the War Cabinet, even insisted enthusiastically in a private cabinet letter that oil was a “first class war aim.”29 London had ordered its forces to continue fighting after the Mudros Armistice was signed, so as to gain control of Iraq’s main oil-producing region. Fifteen days later, the British army seized Mosul, capital of the oil region, blocking the aspirations of the French, to whom the area had been promised earlier in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement.30

  2. War of Pacification (1918-1930). To defend its oil interests, Britain fought a long war of pacification in Iraq, lasting from 1918 throughout the next decade. The British crushed a country-wide insurrection in 1920 and continued to strike at insurgents with poison gas, airplanes, incendiary bombs, and mobile armored cars, using an occupation force drawn largely from the Indian Army. This carnage killed or wounded thousands of Iraqis, burning villages and extracting colonial taxes by brutal means. Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, saw the defense of Iraq’s lucrative oil deposits as a test of modern weaponry and military-colonial use of force, enabling Britain to hold the oil fields at the lowest possible cost.31

  3. Re-Occupation (1941). Though Britain granted nominal independence to Iraq in 1932, it maintained a sizeable military force and a large air base in the country and continued to rule “indirectly.” In 1941, fearful that Iraq might fall into the hands of the Axis, London again decided to seize direct control of the country through military force. Broad geo-strategic wartime goals drove this campaign, but not least was British concern to protect the Iraqi oil fields and keep them in British hands, free not only from German but also from US challenge.32

  4. Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). In 1980, Iraq attacked its neighbor, Iran. A long war ensued through 1988, a savage conflict causing hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, costing tens of billions of dollars and destroying much of both countries’ oilfields and vital infrastructure. Foreign governments, interested in gaining geo-strategic advantage over both nations’ oil resources, promoted, encouraged and sustained the war, some arming both sides. The US and the UK supplied Iraq with arms, chemical and biological weapon precursors, military training, satellite targeting and naval support. Other powers participated as well, notably France, Germany and Russia.33 The big oil companies profited mightily, as war conditions kept Iraqi and Iranian oil off the market, driving worldwide prices substantially higher. By bankrupting the two governments and ruining their oil infrastructure, the war also potentially opened the way for the return of the companies through privatization in the not-too-distant future. But after the war, when Iraq and Iran turned to Japanese oil companies for new private investments, including a Japanese role in Iraq’s super-giant Majnoun field, the stage was set for yet another conflict.

  5. Gulf War (1991). Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the US decided to intervene militarily and Washington assembled a number of secondary military partners, including the UK and France. As US President George Bush summed up the oil-centered threat posed by Saddam Hussein at the time: “Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would all suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam Hussein.”34 US forces heavily bombed Iraqi cities and military installations and then launched a short and decisive ground war, ending the Iraqi occupation of its neighbor. The war badly battered Iraq, destroying much of its electricity and water purification systems and claiming 50-100,000 casualties.

  6. Low Intensity Conflict During the Sanction Period (1991-2003). After the armistice, the UN’s pre-war embargo continued, because the US-UK used their Security Council vetoes to block its lifting. The sanctions imposed a choke-hold on Iraq’s economy, restricted oil sales and kept the country’s oil industry in a shambles. By blocking foreign investment and preventing reconstruction, the sanctions further ruined the country’s economic base. At the same time, with Iraqi supplies largely off the market, international oil prices were supported and company profits benefited. The US and the UK declared their goal to oust Saddam and their intelligence services made many efforts to assassinate him or to overthrow his government by military coup. The US-UK also established “no-fly” zones in much of Iraqi airspace, using air patrols to launch periodic attacks on Iraqi military targets. Four times, the US-UK launched major attacks, using scores of strike aircraft and cruise missiles – in January 1993, January 1996, June 1996 and December 1998. Though oil companies from a number of other countries negotiated with the Iraqi government for production deals, none dared to challenge the sanctions (and the Anglo-American companies) by beginning production under such risky circumstances.

  7. Iraq War (2003). This war, launched by the US in spite of strong opposition at the UN, overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein and brought the US-UK coalition into direct rule over Iraq and in direct control of the oil fields. The war caused further deterioration of Iraq’s infrastructure, many casualties, and a chaotic and dysfunctional economy. Though the coalition rules Iraq, it has faced a tough armed resistance during many months following the main conflict. War number eight, the coalition’s war of pacification, has already begun.

• 17. neocon  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:52 am

  Clown,

  I feel so bad for you. You must really be hurting over the loss of innocent life in Iraq. Probably as much as you anguish over the loss of innocent life in Darfur and Africa. This must make your cocktail party conversations and fundraisers that much more important.

  Instead of actually doing something about the chaos around the globe, how about if you just sit back at the next fundraiser and criticize people that are trying to do something.

  There is no Iraq? Well, I guess that makes sense coming from you because everything else that dribbles out of your mouth is complete bullshit. I hope you don’t have children.

• 18. neocon  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am

  And the above post from SteaM comes from an organization with the following mission statement:

  >>>GPF focuses on the United Nations – the most inclusive international institution, offering the best hope for a humane and sustainable future.<<<<

  “offering the best hope for a humane future”, oh my, that’s priceless.

• 19. Zach  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:11 am

  “As far as my wanting the Iraqi war to be “lost” that’s already happened. The American people will always think of the war in Iraq as lost because of no WMD’s. The American people lost faith in President Bush and his war and it doesn’t matter what the outcome Iraq is the war will be forever lost.”

  There is it. Thats the blind following that sad people like SteaM subscribe to everyday. Theres not much else to dissect there as that train of thought dominates all disussions towards Iraq, Bush et al.

• 20. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am

  The UN is a complete and utter joke. It cannot enforce its own mandates and sanctions, if fraught with corruption and has a disasterous record on human rights.

  Hell, the UN could have prevented the resumption of hostilities with Iraq and the US, but failed miserably. The UN Human Rights council seats representatives whose countries are some of the biggest offenders and has cited Israel for human rights violations more than it has all other nations combined.

  As for all you nutjobs claiming this is all for oil, well that is plain stupidity. But what if it was all for oil? Is oil not worth fighting for?

• 21. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:27 am

  Neocon,

  In 1916 Britians knew they had to control the lands where Iraq sits now.

  “The petroleum situation in the british empire” was a lengthy paper written by Rear Admiral Sir Edmond J. W. Slade. He headed a commitee of experts who had surveyed Persion oil prospects in 1913. His quote is:

  “it is evident that the power that controls the oil lands of Persia and Mesopotamia will control the source of supply of the majority of the liquid fuel of the future.”

  It’s spelled out. Right there. There’s of the major reasons for the United States and British led invasion of Iraq.

  He goes on to say:

  “[Britain must therefore] at all costs retain [her] hold on the Persian and Mesopotamian oilfields.”

  Source: The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921 - Page 114
  by Reeva S. Simon, Eleanor Harvey Tejirian

  Bush, Cheney, Condi … they are all oil people. The US and Britain oil companies are some of the biggest, most influential, and richest companies in the world.

• 22. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:33 am

  As for all you nutjobs claiming this is all for oil, well that is plain stupidity. But what if it was all for oil? Is oil not worth fighting for?

  ’nuff said.

  As an American citizen I never would have signed off on my tax money going to something so ludicrous and insane. The crime is that I was never given the choice. It was not sold to me as a resource war. I was told it was a war on terror. This is why we say Bush lied. Or Cheney lied. Someone freakin lied.

• 23. neocon  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am

  SteaM,

  You do realize that we get most of our oil from Canada, right? Iraq is 6th on the list, I think.

  And the war-for-oil meme is a five year old talking point that you’re desperately trying to revive because you have LOST on every other front.

  Good luck on that.

• 24. Zach  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:41 am

  “Someone freakin lied.”

  There ya go, Somene lied. Playing the blame game because you dont like the way things are going.

  You seem like a genuinely intelligent person why do you keep messing it up with dumbness?

• 25. js  |  December 27th, 2007 at 11:50 am

  This is old.

  Folks have been gossiping about how Bush went to war for oil for years, yet, NOT ONE of the cowardly rumormongoring pukes can stand up to the plate and produce “any” factualy evidence proving the accusations.

  Its like, grow up already, or is it a mental issue that only the strong can overcome?

  Is the term liberal the new and PC term for morons now?

• 26. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

  Zach,

  well, thanks, I guess.

  I wouldn’t say I am really intelligent or dumb for that matter. Just a US citizen who is smart enough to smell something fishy going on.

  How many times have you heard this discussion:

  …well, if we went there to depose a dictator why not depose all dictators? Why Saddam? He didn’t attack us on 9/11. The attackers were mostly Saudis but none of them Iraqis. Saddam didn’t like Al Qeuda and wouldn’t have helped them. They weren’t in Iraq. His chemical weapons were ones we gave him. His WMD’s not to be found.

  Ok, so we are geting oil from canada. If BP and ConocoPhillips could “rent” Iraqs oil fields and work with them directly wouldn’t it be cheaper and mean more profits than what we are currently doing? Besides that wouldn’t it mean that we would secure our hold on the future fuel we would need to continue being world police?

  Doesn’t this make more sense than a silly “war on terror”? A war whos definition of victory changes every day?

  I’m sorry but oil men from texas are doing this. And we actually are letting them. I’d go so far as to say that some people actually invite this as it fulfills some biblical prophecy leading us to the end times.

• 27. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

  So you think oil is not worth fighting for… Ever?

• 28. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

  Sad about Benazir Bhutto!

  Of course, the Leftwing mob doesn’t care.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 29. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

  But to get back to the original point of this post.

  Mark,

  Why have you decided to declare victory? And are you saying that the reason to vote for a republican hinges on national security as to say that voting for a democrat will weaken our security?

  Hasn’t the current republican president, by taking us to war with the nation of Iraq caused an increase in terrorism around the world and decreased the world’s positive view of our country? Is it not less safe now for Americans to visit foreign countries now? How has the current republican done anything other than the opposite to strengthen national security?

  Mark, to use your phrase … stop and trying thinking for a minute.

• 30. Web Smith  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  Thanks to Halliburton, Iraqi oil output is already at or above pre-war levels. Where do you think this oil is going and who do you think is reaping the benefits? We have already won.

  As 1/3 of the Iraqi people are in need of emergency assistance, the Iraqi government has christened a new oil tanker. It was built in China and can carry 14,000 tons of worldwide democracy in its hull. (Our Chinese buddies have to get their share, too, in order to keep them from horning in on the weapons market to Al Qeida)

  Putin, who became a billionaire during his leadership or the world’s second largest oil producing country, wants to stay involved to protect his interests.

• 31. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

  So you think oil is not worth fighting for… Ever?

  I’m saying Congress would have never given the President the green light on this had he told us that we were going to try to secure Iraq’s oil fields for the top oil companies.

  Besides that, for me personally, I know that it’s disasterous for humans to continue to burn fossil fuels for moral reasons as it is causing devistating weather changes and speading up, drastically, a natural cycle. So to me it’s the most horrible thing really. We are willing to sarcifice thousands of our soldiers from the bravest of the Marine to the bravest of the National Guardsmen who should be at home with Americans ready to assist whenever they are needed. We are willing to kill anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and cause a million or more refugees to flee their homes and their country. We allowed their amazingly historically rich museum to be looted after we invaded, left unguarded, while we surrounded the Ministry of Oil to protect the information contained within. Maps and reports of oil exploration that we would be needing. Screw the people there. We want oil. And at least two of you on this comments section have said to me “what’s wrong with that?”

• 32. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

  Yeah, the old mantra of ’some one lied, soldiers died’ is getting about as old as hell too.

  Wanna guess who lied? Bill Clinton. After all most of the intelligence over the weapons programs was Clinton era intel. We went to war based on our best intelligence picture at the time and that did not only include some magicly fabricated intelligence developed in the 18 months between 9/11 and the resumption of hostilities with Iraq. It included all the previous intelligence obtained by the Clinton administration that pointed to recostituted weapons programs. You remember, the ones that Clinton struck Iraq for in 1998 and created the Iraq Liberation Act over? Yeah, Clinton lied, I guess.

  Even after we uncovered over 500 munitions with Sarin gas in them. Even after former Iraqi General Georges Sada flat out told us Hussein had shipped his weapons materials out by truck and cargo plane in the weeks preceding the war, you still cling to the notion that Iraq was a peaceful harmless oasis that we charged our way into for oil.

  I am assuming that you believe that all the other countries, even those opposing our action in Iraq, lied so that we could accomplish our evil expansionist goals. That would mean Btirain lied, France lied, Germany lied, Russia lied and many others lied just so we could go smack some innocent Arabs around and ger our oil.

  Idiots. Put down the kool-aid and pick up a book. Listen to the facts, not the rethoric.

• 33. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

  So SteaM, you would be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives and watch millions suffer and die, just to not go to war over oil?

  I am just trying to understand the logic here.

• 34. Diana Powe  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

  Sad about Benazir Bhutto!

  Of course, the Leftwing mob doesn’t care.

  ~ Jeremiah

  Sad about the fact that Jeremiah only cares about Benazir Bhutto as a tool to justify insulting political enemies.

• 35. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

  Concerned Citizen,

  Ok then, you and Mark have declared victory. However, apprarently we need a few more six months before we can leave.

  It’s been 5 years.
  Almost 4,000 American troops killed.
  The Iraqi government is screwed.
  The world hates us.
  Muslims hate us.
  Al quada hates us.
  Our dollar is tanking. Our economy on thin ice.
  We are addicted to oil.

  You guys keep telling me to hold on for another six months and everything will be fine. I feel like I am waiting for the kind of stability that will mean the US can work with Iraq’s oil fields but only when we can work with their government to do it. And only if they trade their oil in Dollars not Euros.

  What are we waiting for? If we declare victory but don’t leave… then what is the reason? Can someone tell me?

• 36. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:45 pm

  So SteaM, you would be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives and watch millions suffer and die, just to not go to war over oil?
  I am just trying to understand the logic here.

  Whatever … are you suggesting that if we don’t go to war for oil that millions of Americans will suffer and die? Do you realise how many people live in this world and don’t need oil to do it? Have you forgotten how long our species has survived without the bubbly crude that you take for granted?

  Are you afraid of change and progress? If you need ideas on how to survive without fossil fuels I’d be glad to talk about that rather than how many people we’ll have to kill to secure the final known large oil reserves (the cheapest and easiest to produce as well, estimates are that it would be as cheap as $1 per barrel to produce) in the world.

• 37. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

  SteaM,

  Interesting bit of paranoid, leftwing “history”, there. Of course, as everyone who knows real history is aware, the Mesopotamian campaign between the Brits and the Turks in WWI grew not out of a desire for oil resources, but out of the general strategic nature of the area - the Brits needed to protect their oil resources in the Persian Gulf, and the Turks wanted to take them away (this was in the days before North Sea oil was available for Britain - each drop of oil in Britain was imported in 1914, and Britain’s major naval forces all ran on oil - defending Britain’s oil sources in the Persian Gulf wasn’t a greedy war for oil, but a matter of basic national security).

  Essentially, the first thought by the Brits was just to take the Basra area and just hold that as a defensive position against any Turkish attempt to descend on the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, given the nature of Mesopotamia, it really didn’t work that way and the Brits had to continually move north to prevent the Turks from returning to southern Mesopotamia.

  After the war, there was a general carve up of the Turkish Empire - the Brits weren’t going to let the Turks back into Mesopotamia, weren’t going to allow the communist Russians to get in there, weren’t going to allow the French in there - their idea, right off, was to establish a friendly Iraqi govenrment run by native leaders. That it didn’t work out that way is neither here nor there, but the “first war for oil” in your article was not that at all - and thus the basis of the argument breaks down, and we can clearly see there has never been even one war for oil in Iraq.

• 38. Casper  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pm

  Mark,
  Do you actually read what you write?

  “the Mesopotamian campaign between the Brits and the Turks in WWI grew not out of a desire for oil resources, but out of the general strategic nature of the area - the Brits needed to protect their oil resources in the Persian Gulf, and the Turks wanted to take them away”

  Sounds to me like a war over oil.

  I think yo just proved SteaM’s point for him.

• 39. NeoClown  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

  Thanks for the geography lesson Mark. Maybe Neocon will learn something from it.
  There is no sense of Iraqi pride or nationality. There is no Iraq. There are Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’ite.
  The country of “Iraq” is British invention that never really took hold.
  Over the years strongmen like Saddam have tried to hold it together and now the US is trying but it ain’t going to happen.
  Fighting fir “victory” in “Iraq” is nonsense.

• 40. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pm

  Casper,

  No - a war for oil would be a war to obtain oil, not protect already-controlled oil resources.

  Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admirality, set up the Anglo-Persian oil company pre-WWI in order to provide Britain with the oil resources it needed for its new ships, which used oil because, as oil burned hotter, it could drive the steam-powered ships of the Royal Navy faster than burning coal.

  There was never a thought, when the oil company was set up, that the Brits would ever have to fight in defense of the oil - Turkey had a long history of alliance with and dependence upon Britain (Britain had sustained Turkey all through the 19th century to prevent the lands of the Ottoman Empire from falling to the Russians). When, in fact, Turkey declared war on Britian in November of 1914 (about three months after the start of WWI), Britain had to scramble to protect a vital resource from a suddenly hostile Turkey. Bing, bam, boom - the Mesopotamian campaign was born.

  It is a misreading of history to say that what the Brits were doing is “fighting a war for oil” - because when leftwing critics say that, they mean fighting a war to take oil because we’re a bunch of greedy capitalists who will shed blood for oil profits.

• 41. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  NeoClown,

  Tell that to the 300,000 or so Iraqis who have joined the Iraqi police and army…serious: get yourself to Baghdad and tell the first Iraqi soldier you meet that there is no Iraq and that he has no pride in his nation.

  I’ll pay for the flight - and your funeral expenses.

• 42. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

  Well, first off SteaM, no one has declared victory in Iraq. I think Mark in saying that the victory in Iraq is already ours means that it is ours for the taking so long as we have the will to do so.

  Historically, I mean in almost every war we have fought and won and even in those we tied, large amounts of American forces remained in those countries long after the war was over. Many times they remained for much longer than the war actually lasted itself. That is a silly question. Long after this conflict is over, American forces will still be in Iraq in some capacity or another.

  Yes, I am saying exactly that. If our oil supply was suspended or even halved tomorrow it would be the worst disaster this nation has ever faced. Millions would suffer and thousands would die.

  Our fuel reserves will only hold for a few months at best, then the spiral would begin. Our economy would screech to a halt as nothing could be produced or shipped, causing millions to go jobless and homeless in short order. Production of vital products such as medicines, vaccines, plastics, fuels, lubricants, electronics and about a billion other items would skyrocket in price or the items would cease to be produced. Trade with other nations would be near impossible because our currency would be worthless. We would slide into a massive depression that would make the 1920’s look like a picnic.

  I live five miles from the nearest grocery store and that is alot closer than many people in my area and I commute thirty miles one way to my job. How would I get my family food, heat my home or provide for them in any way if this happened tomorrow?

  There would be no energy or fuel to conduct business with or even to heat your homes. Crime would skyrocket because cities could not afford to fight it and it would essentially destroy our society.

  It would take ten years to rebuild our petroleum infrastructure to be able to provide the level of production that we currently need and it would come a steep cost. We would be rendered helpless to defen ourselves in any long term capacity. What you recognize as your nation today would be nothing more than a third world country within two years. It would simply destroy this nation.

  I work in the environmental industry. I am all for alternative forms of energy, but I also do not pretend that we can ever end our dependency on oil completely. There are certain products such as plastics and intermediate chemicals that will always require oil. Also, there is NO form of energy that can currently provide all the benifits of petroleum and be manufactured economically. There is not likely to be one for many years to come. Has we never discovered oil our situation would be different. However, we did and we built our entire societies based around it. Without it they will fall.

  Nations have fought for resources through out history. You cannot be naieve enough to believe that we should not fight to protect a resource as criticial as petroleum is to our very survival.

• 43. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

  Concerned Citizen,

  Thank you.

  We did build this country on oil. We will defend our “right” to the world’s oil until it destroys us.

  Read my lips: Oil is not renewable.

  So, my friends, if this is the mentality that we have as a nation. That we are built on oil and will fall without oil. Then only those who learn to live in a sustainable manner using the renewable resources that we have at our disposal will survive.

• 44. Diana Powe  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

  Once again, we see the conservative obsession with Vietnam and with seeing the world as a game of Risk defined by “victory” and “defeat”. This is odd on two fronts. One, the object of the cult of personality here, President George W. Bush, could have volunteered to serve in Vietnam (as did his opponent in the 2004 presidential campaign) but instead joined the Texas Air National Guard. Certainly, the example of his own father in WWII might have led him to volunteer for combat duty, however, he did not. So, reasonably, one might see the topic as being something of a source of embarrassment.

  Two, despite the angst felt by so many conservatives (many born after 1975), our involvement in Vietnam is much more complicated than angry conservative “stab in the back” theories allow. The fact is that we were involved in Vietnam because the “Domino Theory” posited that country as being the first in a series of Southeast and South Asian countries “going Communist” unless we intervened. After years of effort, we subsequently left the country after losing almost 60,000 service members (as opposed to the over 1 million North Vietnamese killed or missing) and with our forces under fire.

  Despite that, the Domino Theory turned out to be completely flawed. Communist, except for poor outposts in Cuba and North Korea, is discredited. We have normal trade relations with Vietnam, which spontaneously abandoned central economic planning in 1986. Their chief military sponsors during the war in Vietnam, the People’s Republic of China, probably provided the majority of Christmas gifts exchanged just days ago.

  So, to say we “lost” in Vietnam is a problematic stance. The United States still spends more money on its armed forces than all other countries in the world combined. The American government still feels free to intervene militarily almost anywhere in the world, including attacking countries that haven’t attacked us. Our current president can travel to that country and have his White House say this:
  

  President Nguyen Minh Triet of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam was pleased to welcome United States President George W. Bush to Vietnam. Looking back on the June 2005 Joint Statement by President Bush and then Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, both leaders expressed satisfaction at the progress the bilateral relationship has made, resulting in a U.S.-Vietnam relationship today that is multi-faceted and forward looking.
  Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061117-4.html

  However, for conservatives, Vietnam still provokes anxiety as evidenced by the fevered speculations at Real Clear Politics. Austin Bay can assure all with a certainty he doubtless doesn’t feel for any work product of the CIA that “al Qaeda and Saddamist plotters are betting a deadly spasm of bombs and subsequent media magnification will give Reid a reason ‘to clip his hedge.’” In fact, Austin Bay’s insights are so keen as to discount the ability of a true “Iraqi Tet” to be mounted, but still announce that “the terrorists will attempt a series of terror spectaculars, and kill several hundred civilians in the process.” Yes, the differences between Vietnam in 1968 and Iraq in late 2007 are so stark that only those who still feel the psychic sting of our “defeat” in 1975 dare try to invoke comparison.

  Of course, the comparison is lifeblood to conservatives because they have identified the cause of our “defeat” in Vietnam with the Democratic Party despite the agent for the cessation of American military operations being a Republican president. For conservatives, the humiliation they still feel for our “loss” must be turned into anger and so we have rhetoric that attributes thoughts and feelings to strangers across a span of thousands of miles. This feeling of “defeat” is so repugnant and painful that they must write things like, “…the enemy is hoping and praying for Democratic victory in 2008…”.

  Fascinating.

• 45. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

  There has been no even in Iraq comparable to the Tet offensive but I do have to agree that such an event is coming but more likely in the cooler months of 2009 rather than the heat of 2008. The GOP would rather have an erupting Iraq to point to than a sinking US economy which by October of next year is exactly what they will have.

• 46. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

  Diana,

  You keep posting that comment - I guess I’ll take it to pieces as no one else wants to burst your bubble:

  1. The “domino effect” was correct - by fighting in Vietnam, we prevented communist resources in Southeast Asia from being dedicated to Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc. By the time the American left engineered America’s defeat in Vietnam, the communsits were too exhausted and the rest of Southeast Asia too strong for the communsits to tackle.

  2. We didn’t leave Vietnam under fire - in fact, so wary were the North Vietnamese of provoking us, that they even held off moving into central Saigon until after the last of the Americans had withdrawn, even though there was, at that point, no significant South Vietnamese ability to prevent such a move.

  3. The loss of the Vietnam War was not a loss in a military sense - in terms of brute strength, the North Vietnamese never managed to so much as dent American military power and, in fact, usually lost at a 5 or 10 to 1 ratio when engaged in battle with us. The loss was political - with our breaking of our most solemn promises to South Vietnam (something you on the left don’t care about, because you don’t hold that a promise is a promise), the rest of the world became wary of making deals with us. They couldn’t be sure we’d stick with them once we said we would.

  All that leftwing harping on how the world supposedly hates is some of the most moronic opinions I’ve ever seen - it doesn’t matter if they hate us: do they, friend and foe, rely upon us to keep our word? That is the test of foreign policy - that when we say we’ll do something, the world is convinced that we will, indeed, do it. The South Korean, for all we know, might hate the very sight of an American - so be it; but a South Korean also knows that if North Korea invades, we’ll be right there with them, fighting for their cause. Who cares if that South Korean heads to the bar after work and declaims loudly what a bunch of SOB’s we are?

  For years after Vietnam, the world just didn’t rely on us - and Carter made it worse by abandoning other American allies. It took Reagan to start to rebuild American credibility around the world. Unfortunately, Clinton gave this revived credibility a strong hit with his cut and run from Somalia - but now, after 7 years of President Bush, the world knows it can rely upon us 100% to do what we’ll say we’ll do…and only a leftwing engineered defeat in Iraq could change that.

• 47. Casper  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

  “Casper,

  No - a war for oil would be a war to obtain oil, not protect already-controlled oil resources. ”

  Perhaps, if those resources were in your own country, but fighting over oil in another country, regardless of who controls it at the outset is still a war over oil.

• 48. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

  Casper,

  For the Brits, it was their own country - Kuwait and the rest of the Gulf States were enclosed within the British Empire as protectorates. That the Brits might have had no business protecting those lands is neither here nor there, THEY thought they had to.

• 49. Casper  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

  “That the Brits might have had no business protecting those lands is neither here nor there, THEY thought they had to.”

  Of course they had to. Those areas had oil that they needed (as you pointed out). Do you think the Brits would have cared if all the Gulf States had was sand?

• 50. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

  SteaM,

  Technically, oil is renewable. Oil is organic. It is just not a any rate by which we can resupply ourselves.

  I agree that we must seek alternative resources to petroleum. If you had actually read my post you would have seen that I stated this. I also understand the reality of the situation and the significant hurdles that we must overcome before we are there.

  Hydrogen is our future fuel source but we are probably ten to fifteen year away from begining to harvest it economically. Probably twenty-five years from it being a vialble commerical fuel source at best. Barring a stunning scientific breakthrough on hydrogen extraction, we are a long way from widespred usage.

  Ethanol is an innefficeint fuel source that takes more energy to produce than it returns as a consumable fuel. It also reduces the effeciency of any engines using it and can lower CAFE ratings by as much as 10% on an 85/15 mix. Also, Ethanol production is already begining to impact the food industry with what we are currently producing. Increased production of this innefficient fuel will only worsen the effect.

  Hybrid vehicles are a joke and cause more environmental damage during their manufacturing process then I do driving my F-150 truck 60 miles a day for ten years. The are made with Nickle-Cadmium batteries that retain a ‘memory’ over time and must be replaced. These batteries are extremely environmentally damaging to produce, cannot be easily disposed of or recycled with current technology. They are lighter, less safe and barely get better gas milage than my parents Ford Fusion (a pure gas vehicle).

  There are others that are just as inefficeint and problematic in their uses: CNG, electric vehicles, bio-diesel, etc. Many of them have potential, but none so much as hydrogen. Until we figure out how to overcome basic physics and extract hydrogen in a manner that does not consume more energy than it returns as fuel, then we are stuck with oil.

  Besides, there are still about a billion products that are produced from oil that we still have no way to synthisize.

• 51. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

  Casper,

  Kuwait became a British protectorate in 1899. The Brits didn’t start switching their major fleet elements to oil until after 1911. When the Brits became interested in Kuwait, it was long before oil was an issue (the issue was defense of Britian’s Indian Empire from German inroads…the Germans, of course, were building their famed “Berlin to Baghdad” railway.

  As for Iraqi oil - that didn’t become a major factor until 1927; 9 years after the war ended.

• 52. Casper  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

  Wow Mark,
  Now you are staring to argue against yourself (I refer you to posts 37 and 40).
  Let me know who wins.

• 53. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

  Concerned Citizen,

  What about solar power?

  An electric vehicle can be “plugged in” to recharge. Of course the electricity can be generated completely and without any emissions if it originates from solar power.

  I think solar is probably our best bet. We could suppliment is with other sources like wind, water, and maybe hydrogen.

  There are also bioplastics now that are made from corn and sugar. Not oil.

  So, how many millions of things can we simply NOT live without that require oil?

  I appreciate your openmindedness in this matter. However, I feel like you are a bit jaded and feel like this is too overwhelming for us as a country. We are smarter then that. However we first need the money and resources as our disposal to utilize our citizens enginuity. To give our scientists the money and tools they need for the research. Do you know that recently congress attempted to take some of the handouts away from the oil companies and put that money towards this type of research?

  “”We are repealing tax breaks for profit-rich oil companies so that we can invest in clean renewable energy”

  Well, the bill passed and Bush signed it. But only after these things were taken out. I suspect it was from pressure that was put on by these very influential and rich oil companies.

  If you guys support Bush. Then you support the stonewalling and blocking of researching renewable resources. You support blocking the progress that will move us, not only, away from foreign oil, but also closer to living a more sustainable life. That’s National Security.

• 54. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

  Casper,

  Hardly - Britain went into the Persian Gulf in the late 19th century to keep the Germans out; Britain went into Iraq in 1914 to keep the Turks out . A war for oil would have been a British decision to enter the Persian Gulf for oil, and invade Iraq to obtain oil. Neither of which is the case and so; no war for oil.

• 55. Ricorun  |  December 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

  Casper: Wow Mark, Now you are staring to argue against yourself (I refer you to posts 37 and 40). Let me know who wins.

  I was thinking the same thing. Then in #51 Mark mentions the famed “Berlin to Baghdad” railway. Gee, I wonder what that was all about, lol!

  Seriously though, at least at the time (i.e., the very early 20th century) it might be fair to replace “oil interests” with the broader term, “economic interests”. Other than that though, how could anyone explain Germany’s interest in building such a railroad? Of course, Baghdad at the time was incidental — the real issue was access to the Persian Gulf. They saw that trail line as a viable alternative to the Suez Canal.

  And no, at the time it wasn’t about “oil interests” exclusively. But it WAS about “economic interests”. So what has changed? If anything the “economic interests” have constricted: Iraq IS important because of it’s oil. Sure, you might get a deal on rugs (ask Lindsay Graham), but that’s not what it’s really about. It’s about oil. And anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

  That being said though, I also think that anyone who doesn’t think a truly democratic Iraq would be a major coup in the region is also kidding themselves. The hard part is trying to figure out how to pull that off. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that point. There are some promising signs and others that aren’t. But one thing is for sure… to the extent that oil is eliminated as a concern for our national security, the issue becomes largely moot. And if oil becomes eliminated as a concern to others’ national security it becomes mooter still.

  Is “mooter” a word?

• 56. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm

  SteaM,

  Solar is a good option for electrical energy, but it is not nearly as relable and as easy to implement and maintain as it needs to be. There are a tone of electrical alternatives: geothermal, wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear and even some experiments in tidal. The problem is that these things are not easily to implement and still meet as much, if not more resistance than coal and oil fired plants. Until these thecnologies mature and are widespread, there will still be a need for oil. Even if we could discover a pure, clean, unlimited power source tomorrow, we could not END our need for oil.

  Bio-plastics is an interesting avenue of research, but it has years and years to go before it will be practical. Currently it is extremely expensive to manufacture, consumes vast amount of constituent products and requires an awful lot of energy to produce. The Athena Institute released a study last year that showed it to be more environmentally friendly for some products, yet more environmentally damaging for other. There are still significant challenges in strength, durability and degradability in bio-plastics as well. Polyethelyne or polypropanol plastics can be recycled much easier than bio-plastics can due to the molecular structure of the hydorcarbons and the way they can bond to others. The problem is not that we cannot recycle the plactic we currently produce. The problem is that we DO NOT do it, because it is to inconvenient. Besides that, other than hemp, where do you thing the materials for bio-plastic come from? Corn and grain are already being seriously impacted by Ethanol production. If you increase the demand even more for bio-plastics, where will it come from? How much energy are you using in the planting, harvesting and transporting of this product? Are we really conserving when if we massively increase consumption in one area to avoid it in another? No, and that is what people do not take into consideration.

  I support energy independence from foriegn sources first. Then with the money that we are not throwing to terroist supporting states that want to kill us, imagine the development we could do into alternative energy.

  We should offer tax breaks for energy companies willing to invest in alternative sources of fuel. As a matter of fact, offer to shelter up to 50% of a energy companies annual profits so long as they can demonstrate that the money went into investing in clean energy. There is not a companie on this planet that would not take the government up on that. My wife works for the oil and gas industry. Do you know how much they are already investing on their own in clean energy sources. They WANT to be the ones providing energy in the future and they know that ‘green’ sources are the way to do that.

  TXU in Texas is one of the larges wind producers in the country, when it is not fighting lawsuits to stop it from build wind farms. Chessapeake Energy is leading the industry in compressed natural gas (CNG) a much cleaner producing and burning fuel source. British Petroleum is developing geothermal energy sources. Exxon is converting plants to refine ethanol. It is happening on its own in the market already, but it cannot happen overnight and it cannot happen with out oil.

  The Congress has no business, much less any constitutional right, to direct a companies production or research capacities. As the old saying goes, “You catch more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar.” Give these companies an incentive to do this and they will of their own free will. Attempt to legislate this sort of change and you will frak up the economy. I do not know how many times the federal government has to frak with the free market and have it blow up in their face to realize they should not do it. Guide the companies with tax incentives, do not try to force them with legislation. It is counter intuitive to how our market works.

  Oh, by the way, Bush has supported more programs to encourage the development of alternative energy than any President in the history of this nation. How? With tax cuts and tax credits for research. He has not done nearly enough though.

  Even though he refused to sign Kyoto, which he rightly should have done. Our emmissions have only increased 6.6% since the signing of that treaty. The average increase of all the other signatory nations is 21.6%. We need to be environmentally conscious for the sake of the envrionment, not for political maneuvering.

• 57. SteaM  |  December 27th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

  CC,

  Gotta run for the day. I like your post and we can agree on many points. Especially the last one.

  In the meantime, as a consumer, I am going to put my money where it counts. I try to purchase all products from responsible environmentally progressive companies. Thus removing my money from those who are not.

  I vote with my dollars. This is the only voice I feel I truely have sometimes.

• 58. Concerned Citizen  |  December 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

  Well, SteaM, I agree with you on that last statement as well. My entire home runs on florescent lighting. No necessarily because it will save the planet, but because it saves me about $70-80 / mo on my electric bill.

  The free market can produce clean envrionmental products if the incentive is there. It just cannot be legislated into doing so.

• 59. NeoClown  |  December 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

  Mark sez:
  “Tell that to the 300,000 or so Iraqis who have joined the Iraqi police and army…serious: get yourself to Baghdad and tell the first Iraqi soldier you meet that there is no Iraq and that he has no pride in his nation.”

  Mark, You get serious. These so called Iraqi soldiers are a joke. They are loyal to the local militias not to the country of Iraq. The following post is the norm, ask any American serviceman over there.

  BAIJI, Iraq — An hour before dawn, the sky still clouded by a dust storm, the soldiers of the Iraqi army’s Charlie Company began their mission with a ballad to ousted president Saddam Hussein. “We have lived in humiliation since you left,” one sang in Arabic, out of earshot of his U.S. counterparts. “We had hoped to spend our life with you.”

  But the Iraqi soldiers had no clue where they were going. They shrugged their shoulders when asked what they would do. The U.S. military had billed the mission as pivotal in the Iraqis’ progress as a fighting force but had kept the destination and objectives secret out of fear the Iraqis would leak the information to insurgents.

  “We can’t tell these guys about a lot of this stuff, because we’re not really sure who’s good and who isn’t,” said Rick McGovern, a tough-talking 37-year-old platoon sergeant from Hershey, Pa., who heads the military training for Charlie Company.

  The reconstruction of Iraq’s security forces is the prerequisite for an American withdrawal from Iraq. But as the Bush administration extols the continuing progress of the new Iraqi army, the project in Baiji, a desolate oil town at a strategic crossroads in northern Iraq, demonstrates the immense challenges of building an army from scratch in the middle of a bloody insurgency.

  Charlie Company disintegrated once after its commander was killed by a car bomb in December. And members of the unit were threatening to quit en masse this week over complaints that ranged from dismal living conditions to insurgent threats. Across a vast cultural divide, language is just one impediment. Young Iraqi soldiers, ill-equipped and drawn from a disenchanted Sunni Arab minority, say they are not even sure what they are fighting for. They complain bitterly that their American mentors don’t respect them.

  In fact, the Americans don’t: Frustrated U.S. soldiers question the Iraqis’ courage, discipline and dedication and wonder whether they will ever be able to fight on their own, much less reach the U.S. military’s goal of operating independently by the fall.

• 60. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

  the real issue was access to the Persian Gulf. They saw that trail line as a viable alternative to the Suez Canal.–Ricorun.

  That was outlined in the 14 point plan by Woodrow Wilson.

  Point 2 — Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 61. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

  But oil was never mentioned, it was more so an act of diplomacy with the Nations.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 62. Ricorun  |  December 27th, 2007 at 6:24 pm

  Concerned Citizen, re: your post #56, I would love to have a topic on alternative energy souces. Besides being something I’ve spent some time on and have a lot of (incomplete) ideas about, it is becoming increasingly obvious that people across the political spectrum are starting to wake up to the notion that alternative energy sources aren’t just about global warming, but have real significance for energy independence, national security, and economic opportunity. And there is no nation better at technological innovation than the US.

  To be sure there are a lot of potential policy issues that could be hotly debated, as well as technical, infrastructure, and overall cost/benefit issues associated with each particular alternative. But at least the emphasis seems to be shifting away from an inordinate concentration about whether or not GW science is total BS toward a broader consideration of the other issues involved, and the potential offered by alternative energy solutions.

  SteaM said something very telling when he said, “as a consumer, I am going to put my money where it counts.” In his case, he claims he purchases all his products from responsible environmentally progressive companies. That’s great if you can afford it. But nothing is going to work if too many can’t. I think it goes without saying that, in general, people will only accept so much sacrifice. As you indicated, people will invest in things like flourescent lighting — or double-insulate their attic, or wrap their water heater and/or pipes in insulation, etc. — if they can be convinced it’s cheaper in the long run. But even there, the size of the investment and the length of the return on investment are important considerations. That’s certainly true on a personal level, but it’s also true on an international level. And it’s the latter level that is most significant.

  A lot of people assume that nothing could possibly be cheaper than coal. Well, that may be true at this point in time. But I am convinced that it won’t always be that way. There are a few technologies that are already getting close to the price point — e.g., wind turbines and solar thermal (not photovoltaics). And there are several others that have the potential. Some are just waiting for sufficient investment to get them over the economy of scale hump. Others are one or two technological breakthroughs away. At any rate, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that doing nothing but trying to exploit traditional fossil fuel souces could have more of a negative economic impact than trying to stimulate alternatives. The hard part is figuring out how to do it most cost-effectively. After all, if we pick the right renewable resources, we only have to get over the hump once — until we run out of sun, or wind, or waves, or weeds, or if the interior of the earth goes cold, that is. Then things could get a little dicey. But we aren’t likely to have to worry about that for at least another 3 billion years or so.

• 63. Ricorun  |  December 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

  Jeremiah: That was outlined in the 14 point plan by Woodrow Wilson.

  For one thing, your chronology is a bit off. For another, Wilson’s 14 point plan was never adopted.

• 64. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  But we aren?t likely to have to worry about that for at least another 3 billion years or so.

  We aren’t likely to worry about anything in 3 billion years, because this Earth isn’t going to be here in 3 billion years, Ricorun.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 65. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

  Wilson’s 14 point plan was never adopted.

  No, many of the plans were dropped or modified, but not done away with.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 66. Ricorun  |  December 27th, 2007 at 6:45 pm

  Jeremiah: No, many of the plans were dropped or modified, but not done away with.

  Either way, you’re ignoring the most obvious part of my statement: your chronology is off — by a decade or more.

• 67. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

  Either way, you’re ignoring the most obvious part of my statement: your chronology is off - by a decade or more.–Ricorun.

  Well, the only one after that one to even come close would have been the New Deal or Neutrality Act implemented by Theodore Roosevelt. Which only dealt with travel and transport carrying Arms and items on the sea-ways.

  Still no mention of oil.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 68. Ricorun  |  December 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm

  Jeremiah: Well, the only one after that one to even come close would have been the New Deal or Neutrality Act implemented by Theodore Roosevelt. Which only dealt with travel and transport carrying Arms and items on the sea-ways.

  Oh goodness. What I meant was you were off on your chronology the other way around. Even under the best of circumstances, you can’t very well argue that anything Wilson or “Theodore” Roosevelt came up with had any impact on Germany’s interest in a Baghdad railway — because they came after the fact! Jeepers.

• 69. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm

  Even under the best of circumstances, you can’t very well argue that anything Wilson or “Theodore” Roosevelt came up with had any impact on Germany’s interest in a Baghdad railway — because they came after the fact! Jeepers.–Ricorun

  Of course!

  We had no interest in the Baghdad railway. It was a battle of the seas.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 70. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm

  NeoClown,

  You’ve got to be kidding me - I mean, do you really think I’m so stupid that I wouldn’t look up your article? It appeared in the Washington Post on June 10, 2005 - two and a half years ago!

  Here’s a more recent report:

  BALAD, Iraq – Iraqi Special Operations Forces, with U.S. Special Forces as advisors, detained a suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorist cell leader and three additional suspects in two separate raids Dec. 26.

  In Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. Forces detained the leader of an AQI terrorist cell.

  Intelligence reports indicated the cell is responsible for several improvised explosive device and sniper attacks against Iraqi and Coalition Forces, as well as the kidnapping and torture of innocent Iraqis.

  In Balad, Iraqi and U.S. Special Forces conducted a raid to degrade al-Qaeda in Iraq leadership, deter IED attacks and to prevent the killing of Iraqi citizens.

  Three suspects were detained in the raid for questioning.

  No Iraqi or U.S. Forces were injured during these operations.

  That is news from today, NeoClown.

• 71. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm

  Ricorun,

  Once again; hardly. The accusation was levelled that what we’re doing in Iraq is one in a series of “war for oil” being fought there. I’ve demonstrated conclusively that this is not so.

• 72. Concerned Citizen  |  December 28th, 2007 at 2:22 am

  Ricorun,

  This conversation made me decide to post an article on my site over alternative energy sources and they myth of some of the GW solutions within the next few days. I may do a series of them. I did not have the time tonight, but there is always tomorrow. I would welcome input after I post them.

• 73. Huck Fillary  |  December 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am

  Is the term liberal the new and PC term for morons now?

  js, the morons prefer to be called “progressives.” Call them libgressives. They’re kooks. Ten days away, and the same old idiots pollute this blog–plainjane, the dumb cow, Jon Parker and Steam, two complete morons. All riding the libgressive barge, the garbage scow. What a bunch of pansy-assed pukes…

• 74. SteaM  |  December 28th, 2007 at 10:01 am

  Ricorun,

  It’s not as bad as you suggest regarding the cost of purchasing products from environmentally reponsible companies. However, it may be that where I live there are more readily available and there are people who actually purchase them so there’s competition which keeps the price reasonable.

  So does it really cost more? Yes and no. For instance, next time you are at the grocery store walk down the cleaning supplies aile. Check out all of the different specific products. One for cleaning toilets, one for sinks, one for floors, one for stains, plug-in air fresheners, harsh chemicals like bleach, etc.

  This year I learned about the cleaning abilities of vinegar. Not only can it be used to make hot sauce and salad dressing it can replace almost all of the aforementioned cleaning products. You can buy a large bulk container of it and recycle it when finished. Instead of buying 20 different products with 20 different packagings that will be thrown away or recycled if people actually chose to do it, many do not. The energy involved in making those 20 different products that can be replaced with one bulk product of simple vinegar is has to be substantial. Easier on the environment as well. Considering harsh chemicals and their impact on the environment compared to vinegar? Vinegar is safe enough to drink straight yet it kills 99% of germs as a cleaning agent. Take some baking soda, some vinegar, and some boiling water and pour it down a clogged drain and it’s cleared. But wait… don’t they make harsh chemicals that eat away that clog? Yep, and it’s not needed. Drano is nasty stuff and once it’s poured down that drain it then enters the water system and so on and so forth. It has an effect on the environment. The vinegar and baking soda? Natural as can be.

  So that’s just cleaning products. I purchase soap that is natural with no animal testing, no nasty harsh chemicals. I buy shampoo and dish soap from ecofriendly companies and the price is only a few dollars more than a decent name brand. But the message is being sent loud and clear to those name brand companies. I’m not buying your crap anymore.

  As for food, search out health food stores or markets or major grocers who stock these products. Hyvee is excellent for this. We have a farmers market but we also have a few grocers and local markets that stock products from local farms. I can get beef, eggs, and pork for fairly reasonable, if not very competitive, prices that are produced locally. They taste awesome, have no strange additives or chemicals and I feel great after eating them. In my town at the local grocery store organic produce is sitting right next to the regular produce. In some cases the cost is almost the same, a matter of a few cents more in some cases. But this sends a message as well. If Dole, a name brand, provides me with a USDA organic produce choice then I will buy it if it costs less than the local farmer’s product. Because the USDA organic specifications ensure me that they are following strict environmentally friendly procedures like responsible farming and not using nasty wierd chemicals.

  I also do a little bit of growing produce in my own garden. It’s small, takes very little time to start the beginning of summer, and only takes a few minutes a day or every other day for watering (depending on the weather and we’ve been nearing drought status a lot with upper-90s most of summer).

  People think they NEED to use tons of crap and chemicals and gasoline and use tons of packaging. Really they just WANT to or don’t know they don’t HAVE to. There are alternatives out there.

  The benefit is better health and longer life. Less strain on the health care system. And a happier population. Education is important. Exposing misinformation by marketing and companies trying to push products on us that we don’t need that are harmful and wasteful. Me and my lady purchase our products and food for around a $220 monthly budget. That’s the most that our grocery bill usually is and we don’t eat out very much.

  For those of you who shop at WalMart only (which I quit going to that unAmerican china outlet many years ago)… how much is your monthly expenses for groceries and cleaning products? Is it unaffordable compared to my two-person household?

• 75. Almiranta  |  December 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

  I am astounded. Someone, after all these years and all these articles and the several television shows and the incredible publicity regarding the falsity of the claims that Americans “…allowed their amazingly historically rich museum to be looted after we invaded, left unguarded, while we surrounded the Ministry of Oil…” is actually regurgitating that hairy old fable.

  SteaM, you have never presented a fact, but your reliance on DISproven NONfacts has never been made more clear.

  How nice for you to be so morally and ethically superior. Your smugness ooozes through your rhetoric. We got it.

  Guess what, vaporhead—I, a strong conservative who votes Republican, ALSO subscribe to Mother Earth News, ALSO am involved in all sorts of environmentally-protective activities, ALSO support alternative energies, etc etc. This silly fantasy that you have be a deodorant-shy hairy-armpit bicycle-riding socialist freakazoid to be aware of environmental problems or concerned about solutions to same is just egotistical posturing.

  Enjoy your vinegar. Based on your postings, I predict that we will soon have a study of the effects of vinegar on brain cells.

  And tell us, vaporhead, how do you power your computer? Somehow you have failed to excise that kind of technology from your naturalistic life. But we hope………..

  Huck, I agree, the word “PROgressive” is a hoot. What are they PROgressing toward? All I see is PROgressing BACKward, to an oft-failed socialist system, to economically crippling unions, to educationally stifling unions, to economically destructive taxation, to international isolationism, and even—if you go by AlGore’s scenario—to a pre-industrial state.

  PRO-gressive? I think not. Not when they fight violently against any effort to make actual PROgress, such as revamping the tax system, moving beyond the inhibitory effect of trade unions, proving actual choice to parents so their children can receive good educations, or making the world a safer place.

• 76. SteaM  |  December 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

  Almiranta,

  http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=vinegar+brain+cells&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

  Show me a link that proves that vinegar harms brain cells.

  And then show me a link that disproves what I said regarding the Iraqi museums and the Ministry of Oil.

  You do no good for yourself by just stating I am wrong then calling me a dirty hippy that wants to take us back to pre-industrial age. Far from it. I want to MOVE ON. Not be stuck in the age of oil forever because it’s just causing wars and WILL RUN OUT.

• 77. Diana Powe  |  December 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

  …the communsits (sic) were too exhausted and the rest of Southeast Asia too strong for the communsits (sic) to tackle.

  Mark, I’m assuming that you know that the Viet Minh movement was, first and foremost, a Vietnamese nationalist movement with the hope of unifying the country under Communism in the elections set for July 1956 by the Geneva Accords signed in 1954. Of course, the treaty-mandated elections never took place because the United States (seeing Communists under every bed, witness J. Edgar Hoover’s recently-disclosed plans), which had not been a signatory to the Geneva Accords, decided to assist in derailing the election through what turned out to be blatant voter fraud. However, your “exhausted” Vietnamese Communists were not too exhausted to invade Cambodia in 1978 and overthrow the Cambodian Communists who were committing genocide under Pol Pot and they weren’t too exhausted to fight the invading Chinese Communists to a standstill in 1979.
  

  We didn’t leave Vietnam under fire…

  This was meant as a metaphor, but I acknowledge your point as literally true.
  

  The loss was political - with our breaking of our most solemn promises to South Vietnam (something you on the left don’t care about, because you don’t hold that a promise is a promise), the rest of the world became wary of making deals with us.

  I suppose this would be your version of a GUT as they say in physics. Like any GUT, however, this is a large claim, obviously drawn from the statements of then-South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu, which I would submit requires equally large evidence. This notion that “the rest of the world became wary of making deals with us” seems to contrast rather sharply with the Camp David Accords in 1978 and the START II treaty in 1993.

  Insofar as keeping “solemn promises” is concerned was President Reagan compromising that principle at all when he declared in a televised address to the nation on October 27, 1983 in reference to the death of 241 American service members:
  

  We have strong circumstantial evidence that the attack on the Marines was directed by terrorists who used the same method to destroy our Embassy in Beirut. Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice, and they will be. The obvious purpose behind the sniping and, now, this attack was to weaken American will and force the withdrawal of U.S. and French forces from Lebanon. The clear intent of the terrorists was to eliminate our support of the Lebanese Government and to destroy the ability of the Lebanese people to determine their own destiny.
  ……….

  Brave young men have been taken from us. Many others have been grievously wounded. Are we to tell them their sacrifice was wasted? They gave their lives in defense of our national security every bit as much as any man who ever died fighting in a war. We must not strip every ounce of meaning and purpose from their courageous sacrifice.

  We’re a nation with global responsibilities. We’re not somewhere else in the world protecting someone else’s interests; we’re there protecting our own.

  Source: http://www.beirut-memorial.org/history/reagan.html

  but then withdrew all American forces by February 21, 1984 less than four months later? Is there any sort of compromise of this principle when President George W. Bush said this in his press conference of March 6, 2003?
  

  Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn’t harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

  THE PRESIDENT: That’s a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I’m confident we’ll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there’s risks in any military operation; I know that. But it’s very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won’t change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in.

  Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

  and yet here we are, almost five years later working at the nation building condemned in 2000 by then-Governor George W. Bush:
  

  I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. Are we going to have some kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do and when it gets overextended moral drops.

  Source: http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/77658/detail/

  As I’ve previously noted, the right is obsessed with our “defeat” in Vietnam, but seems to gloss over the fact that the real results and the real world don’t quite fit the simplistic narratives.

• 78. Almiranta  |  December 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

  But back to the thread.

  There is no doubt that the terrorists would love to be able to mount a huge and successful event to scare Americans into tucking our tails between our yellow-stained legs and scurrying for safety. After all, it worked once before.

  Diana’s red roots are showing. I saw them a long time ago, but then I have been studying communism and socialism and the mechanics of getting them into society for a long time now, and she telegraphed her moves pretty clearly.

  We went into Viet Nam because we had signed on to a treaty by which democratic nations would come to the assistance of other democratic nations which were threatened by communist invasion.

  They were, we did.

  We won the war in Viet Nam but we lost the war at home, and that is why Viet Nam has come to represent not only defeat but failure.

  Conservatives were not the ones to start comparing Viet Nam to Iraq—as a matter of fact, we don’t, except in the context of showing the similarities in the media efforts to create a defeat by undermining public support for what is otherwise a successful endeavor.

  No, it was the radical Left which started to make the comparisons, to call Iraq a “quagmire” and to predict yet another defeat for the United States.

  Typical of the Left, when their rhetoric was turned against them, they simply rewrote history and now are claiming WE were the ones to initiate comparisons.

  But once the rabid Lefties started their campaign, counting on their media backers to have the same impact they did in the 60’s and 70’s, the Right had information with which to counter the lies. And once the truth was presented, and a more accurate representation of the similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam were presented—the similarities of the determination of the Left to create a failure out of success and the support of the Agenda Media in this effort—the Left had to fall back and accuse the Right of “starting it”.

  Nice try, Diana the Red.

  There are actually several comparisons between Iraq and Viet Nam. The most obvious, and the most damaging, is the collusion between the radical Left and the media to present a false picture of the conflict to the American public, in a clear effort to convince that public to withdraw its support for the conflict.

  Once again, the welfare of the United States is secondary to the gaining of policital power.

  It will be interesting to see, as time goes on, if the effort of the Left to try to turn Iraq into another Viet Nam will rebound on them, to their detriment. I think it may be already, or we would not have Leftist spokespersons such as Diana trying to convince us that it was the CONSERVATIVES who brought up the subject in the first place.

• 79. SteaM  |  December 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

  Almiranta,

  Not this it matters to you but in my opinion you have discredited yourself by refusing to provide me with even one link that proves I could be wrong.

  Why should we believe anything else you say?

• 80. Ricorun  |  December 28th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

  Steam: It’s not as bad as you suggest regarding the cost of purchasing products from environmentally reponsible companies. However, it may be that where I live there are more readily available and there are people who actually purchase them so there’s competition which keeps the price reasonable.

  Well, I was thinking in a somewhat larger sense than that. But you make a good point. Can you supply links to some of the household alternatives you mention?

• 81. Diana Powe  |  December 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

  Almiranta,

  “Brava!” or “Bravo!“, as appropriate. I hadn’t actually entertained the possibility that you would reach so far as to accuse me of being a Communist, but I see that you couldn’t resist the temptation. I suppose, by your lights, that I must have been the first Communist (or at least a Communist fellow-traveler) Richardson police officer. Fascinating concept. I’ll have to pass that along to Chief Zacharias. Thanks.

  However, your Red-baiting dovetails nicely with the actual reason we became involved in Vietnam which was to avoid the imagined march of Communism through Southeast and South Asia in accordance with the Domino Theory. Of course, this necessitated our acting to undermine the Geneva Accords of 1954 which laid out a reunification of the country in 1956 through the ballot box. Of course we weren’t a signatory to the treaty, but the parties most involved were. However, we helped Ngo Dinh Diem run a blatantly fraudulent election to prevent the anticipated electoral victory by the Communists. Thus, we were completely willing to set aside what the actual desire of the people living in Vietnam might have been in favor of responding to our morbid national fears of Communist expansion (see J. Edgar Hoover). Then, with the aid of the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin attacks in August 1964, President Johnson had his justification in seeking the Congressional approval he received to justify our “defense” of South Vietnam.

  However, my citing of Vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq except to highlight the conservative preoccupation with imagined “victory”, “defeat”, “success” and “failure” in dealing with the enemies they see everywhere. You and others here are equally anxious to call Vietnam a “defeat” in retrospect and Iraq a “victory” now despite the realities that make either far more complex than simplistic labels allow for. As you may know, another oft-cited need of conservative psychology is for an endless list of enemies and your silly attack on me does nothing to challenge the strength of that observation.

• 82. SteaM  |  December 28th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

  Sorry, I meant to say that the Silk (soymilk) company uses wind power. (not powered by milk, but wind rather, haha)

• 83. Diana Powe  |  December 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

  Ahh, yes, another enemy on the list - the “Agenda Media”:
  

  And once the truth was presented, and a more accurate representation of the similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam were presented—the similarities of the determination of the Left to create a failure out of success and the support of the Agenda Media in this effort—the Left had to fall back and accuse the Right of “starting it”.

  I’ll let those here consider the following highly-graphic analysis of how that seems to work sometimes.

  http://wonkette.com/338482/what-they-sort-of-showed-you

  I await Almiranta’s explanation of the Agenda.