:-)

Wow- even the antique Howdy Doody puppet has caught on. Cheney's puppet hasn't.

Another wrinkled up old bastard that has overstayed his welcome in the Congress.

Off topic (sorry). We have completed the television email list and have a letter of protest posted concerning the over abundance of coverage of three rather pathetic attempts at terrorism in the UK. Click on my name to follow the link.

That whole Shia vs Sunni crap is a farce... It is not true... or at least wasnt untill our Mercs started going around bombing the different factions, shooting at civilians...all while dressed up too look like Iraqis...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AKL20050...

Have preserved the articles, even though the mainstream media has ... Censored them

I would post more, but the environment on this site is becoming quite hostile to anything outside of accepted Group think for progressives...

Oh' yeah, let's not forget about them working out how to shovel all the profits from Iraqi oil to foreigners... that's MOST important to US imperialists! The whole thing is so tragic.

It's about time the moderate Republicans come around. Actually, way too late. They are certainly complicit in enabling the war crimes and the destruction of the Constitution that BushCo (CheneyCo) has propogated in our name. We should only give them (the moderates) a break if they LEAD the charge to clean up this mess. That means IMPEACHMENT, and/or indictment on war crimes for Cheney, Bush and their crews!

Hindsight is always 20-20; but given what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito died, couldn't anybody see the same would likely happen in Iraq?

It's a tough question, Thing Fish, the toughest. But it's a balance between self determination and the possibility of genocide. I don't claim to know the answer, but how would we have felt if the Arabs had interceded in our civil war?

This is a little off, but wouldn't it be great to march on Washington DC like some old French movie; carrying lit torches demanding our gov't straighten up. We tar and feather Bush/Cheney and send them out on a rail. And we declare freedom from all torture we have endured for many years. Pretty ridiculous, but interesting.

[Deleted. You are correct, this is off topic]

Impeach Bush/Cheney @ 19:

This is a little off, but wouldn't it be great to march on Washington DC like some old French movie; carrying lit torches demanding our gov't straighten up. We tar and feather Bush/Cheney and send them out on a rail. And we declare freedom from all torture we have endured for many years. Pretty ridiculous, but interesting.

For an idea that uses a lot less shoe leather and nobody needs matches click on my name. :)

According to ReTHUGlicans, everything for the past 6 years has been the Dems fault. Except of course Iraq, which everyone knows is all Iraqi's fault. How dare they not get their shiite together, and bow down to the Ayatollah's of Rock N' Rolla! Do our bidding you damn brown people, or we'll shock and awe ya, and call every death, the death of insurgents are terrists.

I blame the assholes that voted for Luger to keep him in office. THEY are just as bad as this old jerk.

nsr @ 24:

I don't think Lugar really believes Bush will come around in September or ever. But a lot of those guys can't admit to themselves how out of control the President really is, and what kind of threat he poses to our democracy. All they can do is keep pretending the man's operating in the same world of informed choice as most of us-- in spite of the last 6 years' proof that his mental and moral capacities are pretty limited. That's why everything boils down to loyalty with him-- it's the only way he can make decisions.

Anybody who thinks Shrub will listen to anybody other than Shotgun or the little god voice in his head isn't paying attention.

Paul in LA @ 28:

Hey, Dick, you piece-of-stiff-shit white man, who do the BOMBS hate?

Everyone.

Blow the country to bloody bits for five years, and then announce to everyone's clarification that 'the people' hate each other.

Those BOMBS, that YOU released -- you freakin' war criminal -- the BOMBS hate everybody.

They hate the entire human race.

And you, Dick, you ride the bombs down. You hate everyone -- you bloody bastard. But you work for the white race, and that's clear.

Now tell us you're for peace. We're drowning in your bloody peace.

Paul, that was beautiful. Couldn't have said it better.

More breaking news...And now they hate us, doing a heck of a job senator...

Hum, I read all these responses and it is clear that people who know jack shit about history (Americans) should stay the f*ck out of international affairs.

Iraq is a made up country by the Brits, just like other parts in the empire the whole point was to put together people who basically hate each other guts. Why? Simple: divide and conquer. They got along for a few decades simply because at least they had a country with infrastructure and somewhat decent standard of living compared with their neighbours. Up until the late 70s, Iraq had somewhat of a decent economy, and it even enjoyed a somewhat progressive social structure -Females were educated, and the state had managed to keep itself fairly free of religious interference- More importantly, Iraq had learned the lesson from Iran in the 50s/60s let Westerner have their oil and they will leave you alone. And then Saddam had to do the West's bidding and conduct a stupid war that he could not win with Iran, and when he wanted to use his country's own oil to pay for the massive debt Iraq had gotten itself into fighting a proxy war, well... we all know what happened.

Now dumb ass Americans decided to bomb a country to smitterers, first with the no-fly zone for over a decade, and then with a full out war, and then think that they will be heralded as heroes. Now that 3 ethnic groups that hate each other guts have the only thing that held them together -a somewhat prosperous country- removed, then the only thing keeping them together is the fact that they hate the American troops even more. Once the Americans leave, surely it will be a civil war. Not that America gives a rats ass, it is just that a civil war makes the extraction of Iraqi oil a bit tougher, and having to negotiate with 3 parties instead of 1 may not be as cost effective for big Oil.

Ironically, GWB was a history major at Yale. I must say that I am less than impressed with that whole "Ivy League" rubbish each passing day. The latest talking point from this administration is yet another proof of the fact that this whole cabal is subhuman at best. This would be the same as going to a china store, breaking every single dish in sight and blame the destruction on the owner's rightful anger display after you are done breaking things.

Strawberry @ 17:

It's a tough question, Thing Fish, the toughest. But it's a balance between self determination and the possibility of genocide. I don't claim to know the answer, but how would we have felt if the Arabs had interceded in our civil war?

Not a particularly fair question either. I was musing on rduke's comment about the Shia/Sunni differences being a farce. I disagree. I see it as human behavior. Take any society, put it under sufficient stress, and people will revert to tribalism.

I do agree it is a farce (in the catastrophic sense) since it was the U.S. invasion that exasperated the differences between Shia and Sunni. Which is now used as a reason we can't solve problems in Iraq.

xoites defends Constitution @ 18:

To be as kind to the Bush Administration as i can possibly be, i think it is a matter of what they WANTED to see.

Not certain if you agree xoites, but I think they still see what they want by looking to blame problems on old differences. Rather than on what revived those old passions.

Just once I'd like to hear somebody like Lugar say, "We screwed up. And we're not certain how to fix it" than using such excuses. Otherwise I'd expect the U.S. to make the same mistake being made some years down the road.

[Deleted. 9/11conspiracy stuff here, and you know it-Sitemonitor]

Strawberry @ 17:

It's a tough question, Thing Fish, the toughest. But it's a balance between self determination and the possibility of genocide. I don't claim to know the answer, but how would we have felt if the Arabs had interceded in our civil war?

You say that like WE aren't the cause of the civil war.
Anyone else besides me remember long long ago (4 years actually). There was no civil war. Only a stable country with an elected leader that we didn't like.

Uh, sorry mister mix, I think your probably pretty much on your own regarding Hussein as an elected leader. Not to say that the occupation of Iraq isn't an unprovoked act of illegal aggression and we just just get the f*ck out of there, but whitewashing history isn't going to do any good.

Snowball Says:
I'm on my own with Facts you mean?
you really think there weren't elections in Iraq prior to good ol uncle sam? why don't you do a quick google search before you get embarrassed. and before you go off on a tangent about rigged elections or whatever you want to say about them, i would point to what is there now (and here for that matter). Nonetheless, Saddam WAS elected.

actually, IF YOU want to go down that road then YOU would be the one shooting yourself in the foot. Cause you can't live in the USA and say Saddam wasn't an elected leader cause the elections weren't fair and free and then say that bush is an elected leader, nor can you say that the government that the US installed now is fair and free. Saddam is every bit of an elected leader as we know of one in our current time. Last checked Saddam got 100% of the vote in 2002. that's believable considering that in some counties bush got OVER 100% of the vote while in others his opponents got negative votes.

btw, i don't actually need your 2cents for help. i have facts instead. they are a lot more useful. it keeps me from pointing the finger at brown people from other parts of the worlds and saying how evil and backwards they are.

Elections are not always legitimate. We have only to look at our own country to know that. Having said that, suit yourself. I don't think I'll be joining your debate team however.

Saddam understood Iraqis hated each other.

Is the WH getting close to suggesting-admitting that Saddam did a better job of running the country, maintaining stability, and ensuring life was relative stable? Even during the South During Reconstruction, the District of Columbia found a solution: Respect the defeated, not -- as the US has done -- rub their nose in it.

What would have happened if the US "reconstructed" the South the way it is "safeguarding" Iraq? What a different United States it would be. No telling how much sooner the South would have risen up demanding their rights; and to what extent the North would have used deadly force to "keep them in their place."

Discuss: Compare and Contrast Lincoln and Saddam in terms of their approaches to a managing a defeating nation.

In your response, assume Lincoln would have survived. Discuss how Lincoln would have fared if he had not been assassinated; and had used the US, then the Saddam approach in Iraq; then do the opposite: Discuss how the US experience and Saddam experience in Iraq would play out if either were applied to the South instead of Lincolns.

Which Amendments do you think would have never been passed?

Would the nation have survived?

Would there have been a second civil war?

How would the South interact with it's southern neighbor in Mexico?

What of Europe and Russia: What separate alliances might they have made on the eve of WWI; and how might the results of WWI and WWII been different?

There's a great new repuke line that came out of that interview: "Fortified diplomacy"

When you start crossing strategic, military terms with diplomacy, you know were gonna be there, fighting, for a while.

Lugar's "enlightened" approach has much of the same neo-con baggage that we've come to loathe. Richie takes for granted the inherent wisdom of the "oil law", or the Production Sharing Agreement, that the Iraqi Parliament continues to place on the back shelf, and for good reason. While the Shiites and Sunnis may (or may not) hate one another, they hate being robbed by foreign nations and corporations even more. What Lugar fails to understand is that the Iraqis are UNITED when it comes to controlling what's beneath their feet. They know that the WORST that they can do is sign away the rights to their oil. Civil War comes in second.

So, to Lugar and to the Bush Cabal's neo-cons, it's an apriori understanding that the oil has to flow into US corporate hands, and that nothing else is conceivable. Without oil as an issue, there would be no reason for US troops in Iraq, now or ever.

A long time ago the dictator Sadam was put in because US capitalists were not getting the oil profits and the place was an ethnic mad house. Our government was used this way in a lot of countries for the good of the rich. Now the Republicans tried it again but this bunch were so egotistical or stupid that they ignored the last solution. If they would have had a brain they would have just got a new dictator to steer the money their way. But noooooo. They just made a big mess. Some places in this world can't seem to function without a dictator. Must be a maturity thing.

People in some places must really be stupid because the US is a hodge podge and we have the highest standard of living.
Sunni against Shiites. What the hell kind of reason is that to kill each other?

milquetoast @ 8:

Iraquis dont hate each other....

they hate Iraquis that side with the Americans and the puppet govt that we are trying so hard to install

For about the last 30 years.

They might not have been very fond of each other but that surely changed when, with the US's help Saddam supported one group which results in the other side getting massacred.
Then after the US ditched Saddam the US supported the other side, resulting in the former allies getting massacred.
Now the US is again supporting one group which, again, will lead to more dead.

Nothing promotes hate between two groups then someone pouring oil into the fire.

They might now hate each other but you can be assured they hate the US just as well.

For me there is nothing more corrupt, more despicable, more perverted then someone who stands on the sidelines and feeds hate and death but claims to be innocent.

yeah, these people go to boxing matches because they like the 'sport'... there is a reason they are called arenas.

Iraqis hate one another and are stealing their own oil? Senator, Iraqis seem to be getting the hang of our form of democracy at the barrel and a gun.

If Dick Lugar was on meet the press, Then there has to be a porn star out there named Bob Jones.

The Universe demands balance.

>> I think that people are people. And that from the get-go, the "sectarian" division was forced on them. Why didn't the Bush administration outlaw religious-backed groups in their government and learned a bit from our Founding Fathers?

Oh yeah, the privatization and bringing in outside Contractors that almost created an insurgency in Louisiana, or leaving the weapons Depots around with pad locks on them, or sending the army home with weapons and no jobs.

It's brilliant ideas like that, that makes it so obvious that Iraqis are just born to violence.

Another 8 years of BushCo politics, and America will have sectarian violence, and NeoCon shills in France nodding their heads and saying; "Americans hate each other, and the civil war was inevitable." The only thing inevitable is the incompetence of NeoCons to govern.

I don't dismiss that there were deep divisions in Iraq. That's why you would want educated people who knew how to keep the peace immediately restoring order and providing jobs. When people have jobs, they don't have spare time to plan insurgencies. When they have nothing to lose -- they become dangerous.

Thank God we had America running smoothly, before we had Dick Luger's wisdom. I don't dislike the man, nor do I want to sound too harsh on him. It's just that stating the result of Iraq as an obvious conclusion, lets criminals and crony contractors off the hook. BushCo Companies did a lot of hard work to bring this civil war about -- and they deserve the credit.

>> Iraqis haven't done anything to keep the peace in their nation -- because they don't see the government as their nation. The government that they have, can't "do the right thing" because the US won't consider them as "serious" until they hand over the Oil in the form of Production Sharing Agreements. Anyone not mentioning that, isn't talking about the Elephant in the room.

Hey Lugar,

Things aren't going quite right, are they?

Well....

you voted for it.

...assmonkey

The Shia hating Sunni wingnut meme is, like all good propaganda, partly correct, but misleading in the whole. Hussein had certainly inherited sectarian tension going all the way back to the "founding" of Iraq. And he created more tension by favoring and ensconcing one sect as the ruling class. But he had also kept an iron fist on that tension which George released and provoked by condoning the disastrous decisions of the CPA. Remove the ability of any society to police itself and provide its own security, which is the main accomplishment of the CPA, and you open a bag of hornets, which Bush felt was ok as the hornets would stay in Iraq. Reports early in this war from actual Iraqis (as opposed to Americans writing about Iraqis) were uniform in their expressions that Sunni and Shia got along remarkably well and had intermarried and achieved a working, low tension relationship. There were also many many early quotes from Iraqis fearing that Bush sought to increase those tensions to divide and conquer Iraq. The idea of some Iraqis that some of the most divisive events--such as the bombing of some important mosques-- that have led us to this point were in fact committed by US black ops were not that unusual then, or at this point, all that far fetched. And lest anyone try to bring up the firebrand clerics promoting sectarian violence meme, actual translations of their Friday sermons (which MSM never provide) repeatedly reveal that clerics consistently urged all Muslims to cooperate, not to respond to the provocations, and not to engage in violence. Bush policy disabled every Iraqi power structure it could, leaving a collection of neighborhood protection forces and small violent warring factions of which, as one able Brit leader pointed out, the US is only one. A lot of bad guys were enabled by Bush policy, and a lot of the people who are necessary to make a country function were marginalized so Bush could maintain a personal (and erroneous) sense of control. Now many of the people Iraq really needs are in tent camps (seen any photos of one lately?), or Jordan, or Egypt, or anywhere other than Iraq. Or dead, legless, blind, detained, or tortured. Hussein may have been a nasty ruler, but he kept the lid on despite a decade of UN sanctions, and Iraqis in general had food, health care, and a modern society. And just to update the numbers, Hussein supposedly killed 300,00-400,000 Iraqis in his 24 years of rule (though confirmation of this number is very hard to find) which made him a brutal fiend, while Bush is responsible (as the CEO of Iraq) for at least twice that number in five years, plus the physical destruction of major urban centers, plus the release of untold amounts of munitions, plus 2.5 million externally displaced and 1.0 million+ internally displaced Iraqis, which makes him leader of the free world. Bush leads Hussein by all the numbers, so aren't the labels mixed up?

Chad

There are even flies intended to resemble roe and rotting flesh.