The Iraq thread 3

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]Personally I think we should pull out of Iraq. I supported the war and the idea of reconstruction, but they don't want it. They are hopeless, best to let them starve and kill one another.

We can even have Dick Cheney prepare a two word pull-out speech! (you know which words)

While I think your statement is a bit harsh, I'd be lying if I didn't say the idea was in the back of my mind at times. When I see the pure ignorance of attacks on coalition troops who just want to restore peace and get the hell out, coupled with the mind bendingly uncivilized kidnappings and beheadings, I sometimes have to tell myself that they're every bit as human as I am. It goes for the coalition, too. The prison abuse, dropping bombs on civilians. The place is a pure hell-hole. Seems like everybody there sinks to the very lowest depths of humanity.

[walker 0]

Hi All

You break it you fix it. No running away from your responcibilities.

If you think the threat of terrorism is bad now imagine a totaly destabalised Middle East which is what you advocate.

Iran would Take over much of the south of Iraq.

Saudi Arbia would almost certainly fall and with that Al Qaida would gain control of Mecca.

Kurdistan would declare independance. Turkey would invade Siria would intervene.

In Such a Destabalised state it would not be out of question for a Bin Laden with control of Mecca in Saudi Arabia to unite the Arabs and attack Israel which would quickly go Nuclear. How long before Pakistan sent some of its Nukes back in retaliation?

Oil Prices would Shoot through the roof. China would almost certainly call in all the US loans it owns and sell all its dollars to pay for its oil. With the US vieing for the Oil against an incresingly wealthy China it could even start WWIII.

Your Suggestion is night marish. I hope such stupidity never leads in the US.

Worried Walker

[Veovis 0]

Sounds like a Tom Clancy book.

Anyways, I was not advocating pulling out as that would be ridiculous. As a person with fellow countrymen dying each week, the desire to pull out of Iraq is purely an emotional one. However, as a person with a brain, I know damn well that's not an option. It's hard to fix something that is still being broken, however.

As for your little scenario... even if the US did pull out, if any of that started to happen I'm sure the UN would get involved. Sitting on their hands while the Bush administration spins a fairy tale and goes on the offensive, is one thing. Sitting on their hands while the middle east self destructs is quite another.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Heh heh a destabilized middle east, like they were ever stable. Oh no they hate us now, oh wait they already did.

  I must say it cracks me up how every one cries "yankee go home" and " leave  Iraq", yet when ever any one says "ok" then its "On no please don't oh god no we need you there " . People crack me up I tell ya.

  "you broke it you fix it" like I said it was already broke. America didn't make them any more violent or dangerous than they already were. If any thing they are less dangerous now. Oh and don't give me the tired cliche of " now there are terrorist there!" there already was.

   Now I know I sound harsh, but it's the truth of it all. I wish they would of been thankfull and helped with reconstructing their nation, but hey it didn't happen that way. Face it Iraq will never be a peaceful productive nation. They don't want to reconstruct their nation to be modern and peaceful. It's part of their culture to fight kill and be backwards in general, you know the whole maschismo anti woman act tough deal.

We finished what we went there to do. The whole reconstruction was just us being nice. They are being dicks so to hell with them. I vote we leave.

    Oh well, I don't know why I bother.

[Major Fubar 0]

   We finished what we went there to do.

Really? Was that finding the apparently nonexistant WMD, or ousting a dictator that America ignored (and supplied arms to)for decades while it suited them?

[Akira 0]

Heh heh a destabilized middle east, like they were ...blah blah blah

Really? Cause when I checked last, there wasn't Al Queda beheadings, or "foreign fighters" in Iraq until we ended up there...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Really? Was that finding the apparently nonexistant WMD, or ousting a dictator that America ignored (and supplied arms to)for decades while it suited them?

I think you got the decades part confused with France. America was ranked 11th to who supplied arms Saddam in the 80s. Compared to Russia and China (and France), America was no were near them in the arms dealings.

[Major Fubar 0]

Oh well, I guess that makes it OK then.

P.S. France, Russia and China haven't invaded Iraq either - hence the lack of hypocracy.

[denoir 0]

  "you broke it you fix it" like I said it was already broke. America didn't make them any more violent or dangerous than they already were. If any thing they are less dangerous now. Oh and don't give me the tired cliche of " now there are terrorist there!" there already was.

Bullshit, there was Saddam, but there weren't terrorists and most certainly there weren't kiddies shooting mortars in Baghdad suburbs.

Quote[/b] ] I must say it cracks me up how every one cries "yankee go home" and " leave Iraq", yet when ever any one says "ok" then its "On no please don't oh god no we need you there " . People crack me up I tell ya.

Who's crying "yankee go home"? People are crying "yankee stop doing moronic things".

Quote[/b] ]We finished what we went there to do.

What, you overthrew a regime, killed a bunch of civilians and left the country in chaos? You went there to prevent Saddam from having WMD that didn't exist, threw a country in chaos..and now you want to run away? Yeah, an Iraq left in this state would be just great. Anarchy, lots of weapons, people who aren't too fond of America. It would become such a terrorist haven that Afghanistan never could dream of becoming.

Quote[/b] ]The whole reconstruction was just us being nice. They are being dicks so to hell with them. I vote we leave.

The whole "reconstruction thing" is you protecting your ass from gang raped from a bunch of displeased desert farmboys like it was in 2001.

One would thing that you've had enough of getting your ass kicked but I see some of you like to see the enemies of America win.

Hell, I think Sweden should invade America. Given his past behaviour, Bush would give a bunch of patriotic speeches and nuke Canada. All the neat little Repbulicans would as usual march with their leader and only facilitate our invasion.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hell, I think Sweden should invade America. Given his past behaviour, Bush would give a bunch of patriotic speeches and nuke Canada. All the neat little Repbulicans would as usual march with their leader and only facilitate our invasion.

I offer my services as an inside man, provided I get viceroy status and someone puts in a good word for me with Princess Madeleine  

[denoir 0]

Deal

[quicksand 0]

Following the last article posted by Tex,imo this is a prety intriguing read also

Interview with resistance fighters

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD - On the eve of the so-called transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi caretaker government on June 30, former Saddam Hussein generals turned members of the elite of the Iraqi resistance movement have abandoned their clandestine positions for a while to explain their version of events and talk about their plans. According to these Ba'ath officials, "the big battle" in Iraq is yet to take place.

"The Americans have prepared the war, we have prepared the post-war. And the transfer of power on June 30 will not change anything regarding our objectives. This new provisional government appointed by the Americans has no legitimacy in our eyes. They are nothing but puppets."

Why have these former officers waited so long to come out of their closets? "Because today we are sure we're going to win."

Secret rendezvous

Palestine Hotel, Tuesday, 3pm. One week after a formal request, the prospect of talking with the resistance is getting slimmer. We reach a series of dead ends - until a man we have never met before discreetly approaches our table. "You still want to meet members of the resistance?" He speaks to my associate, a female Arab journalist who has been to Iraq many times. Talk is brief. "We meet tomorrow morning at the Babel Hotel," the man says before disappearing. Against all expectations, this contact seems to be more reliable than the ones we have previously tried.

Hotel Babel, Wednesday, 9am. At the entrance of the cybercafe, mobbed by foreign mercenaries, the man we saw the day before lays it down: "Tomorrow, 10 o'clock, al-Saadoun Street, in front of the Palestine. Come without your driver."

We arrive at the meeting place on Thursday morning by taxi. The contact is there. After a brief "Salam Alekum" we get into his car. "Where are we going?" No reply.

We drive for more than two hours. In Baghdad, even when traffic is not totally blocked by military checkpoints, traffic jams are permanent. In one year, more than 300,000 vehicles have been smuggled into the country. Every other car has no license plate and most drivers don't even know what "driver's license" means.

"We'll be there soon. Do you know Baghdad?", asks our man. The answer is clearly no. To get oriented in the sprawling city, one must circulate freely, and on foot. With criminal behavior spreading like a virus, a wave of kidnappings, the 50 or 60 daily attacks against the occupation forces and the indiscriminate response of the American military, there's hardly any incentive to do any walking.

The car stops in an alley, near a minibus with tinted windows. One of its doors opens. On board, there are three men and a driver carefully scrutinizing all the streets and houses around us. If we don't know at all what we are confronted with, our interlocutors seem to know very well who they're talking to. "Before any discussions, we don't want any doubts on your part about our identities," they say, while extracting some papers from inside a dusty plastic bag: identity cards, military IDs and several photos showing them in uniform beside Saddam Hussein. They are two generals and a colonel of the disbanded Iraqi army, now on the run for many months, chased by the coalition's intelligence services.

"We would like to rectify some information now circulating in the Western media, that's why we took the initiative of meeting you." Our discussion lasts for more than three hours.

Back to the fall of Baghdad

"We knew that if the United States decided to attack Iraq, we would have no chance faced with their technological and military power. The war was lost in advance, so we prepared the post-war. In other words: the resistance. Contrary to what has been largely said, we did not desert after American troops entered the center of Baghdad on April 5, 2003. We fought a few days for the honor of Iraq - not Saddam Hussein - then we received orders to disperse." Baghdad fell on April 9: Saddam and his army where nowhere to be seen.

"As we have foreseen, strategic zones fell quickly under control of the Americans and their allies. For our part, it was time to execute our plan. Opposition movements to the occupation were already organized. Our strategy was not improvised after the regime fell." This plan B, which seems to have totally eluded the Americans, was carefully organized, according to these officers, for months if not years before March 20, 2003, the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The objective was "to liberate Iraq and expel the coalition. To recover our sovereignty and install a secular democracy, but not the one imposed by the Americans. Iraq has always been a progressive country, we don't want to go back to the past, we want to move forward. We have very competent people," say the three tacticians. There will be of course no names as well as no precise numbers concerning the clandestine network. "We have sufficient numbers, one thing we don't lack is volunteers."

Fallujah

The lethal offensive of the American troops in Fallujah in March has been the turning point as far as the resistance is concerned. The indiscriminate pillage by American soldiers during their search missions (according to many witnesses) and the sexual humiliation inflicted to prisoners, including Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, have only served to magnify the anger felt by most Iraqis. "There's no more trust, it will be hard to regain it." According to these resistance leaders, "We have reached the point of no return."

This is exactly the point of view of a Shi'ite woman we had met two days earlier - a former undercover opposition militant against Saddam: "The biggest mistake of the occupation forces was to despise our traditions and our culture. They are not satisfied with having bombed our infrastructure, they tried to destroy our social system and our dignity. And this we cannot allow. The wounds are deep and the healing will take long. We prefer to live under the terror of one of our own than under the humiliation of a foreign occupation."

According to Saddam's generals, "more than a year after the beginning of the war, insecurity and anarchy still dominate the country. Because of their incapacity to control the situation and to maintain their promises, the Americans have antagonized the population as a whole. The resistance is not limited to a few thousand activists. Seventy-five percent of the population supports us and helps us, directly and indirectly, volunteering information, hiding combatants or weapons. And all this despite the fact that many civilians are caught as collateral damage in operations against the coalition and collaborators."

Who do they regard as "collaborators"? "Every Iraqi or foreigner who works with the coalition is a target. Ministries, mercenaries, translators, businessmen, cooks or maids, it doesn't matter the degree of collaboration. To sign a contract with the occupier is to sign your death certificate. Iraqi or not, these are traitors. Don't forget that we are at war."

The resistance's means of dissuasion led to an ever-shrinking list of candidates to key government posts proposed by the coalition, and this in a country ravaged by 13 years of embargo and two wars where unemployment has been a crucial problem. The ambient chaos is not the only reason preventing people from resuming professional activity. If the Americans, quickly overwhelmed by the whole situation, had to take the decision to reinstate former Ba'athists (policemen, secret service agents, military, officials at the oil ministry), this does not apply to everybody. The majority of victims of administrator L Paul Bremer's decree of May 16, 2003 applying the de-Ba'athification of Iraq is still clandestine.

The network

Essentially composed by Ba'athists (Sunni and Shi'ite), the resistance currently regroups "all movements of national struggle against the occupation, without confessional, ethnic or political distinction. Contrary to what you imagine in the West, there is no fratricide war in Iraq. We have a united front against the enemy. From Fallujah to Ramadi, and including Najaf, Karbala and the Shi'ite suburbs of Baghdad, combatants speak with a single voice. As to the young Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, he is, like ourselves, in favor of the unity of the Iraqi people, multiconfessional and Arab. We support him from a tactical and logistical perspective."

Every Iraqi region has its own combatants and each faction is free to choose its targets and its modus operandi. But as time goes by, their actions are increasingly coordinated. Saddam's generals insist there is no rivalry among these different organizations, except on one point: which one will eliminate the largest number of Americans.

Weapons of choice

"The attacks are meticulously prepared. They must not last longer than 20 minutes and we operate preferably at night or very early in the morning to limit the risks of hitting Iraqi civilians." They anticipate our next question: "No, we don't have weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, we have more than 50 million conventional weapons." By the initiative of Saddam, a real arsenal was concealed all over Iraq way before the beginning of the war. No heavy artillery, no tanks, no helicopters, but Katyushas, mortars (which the Iraqis call haoun), anti-tank mines, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other Russian-made rocket launchers, missiles, AK 47s and substantial reserves of all sorts of ammunition. And the list is far from being extensive.

But the most efficient weapon remains the Kamikazes. A special unit, composed of 90% Iraqis and 10% foreign fighters, with more than 5,000 solidly-trained men and women, they need no more than a verbal order to drive a vehicle loaded with explosives.

What if the weapons' reserves dwindle? "No worries, for some time we have been making our own weapons." That's all they are willing to disclose.

Claiming responsibility

"Yes, we have executed the four American mercenaries in Fallujah last March. On the other hand, the Americans soldiers waited for four hours before removing the bodies, while they usually do it in less than 20 minutes. Two days earlier, a young married woman had been arbitrarily arrested. For the population of Fallujah, this was the last straw, so they expressed their full rage against the four cadavers. The Americans, they did much worse to living Iraqi prisoners."

The suicide attack which provoked the death of Akila al-Hashimi, a diplomat and member of the Iraqi Governing Council on September 22, 2003, was also perpetrated by the resistance, as well as the car bomb which killed the president of the Iraqi executive body Ezzedin Salim in May 17 this year at the entrance of the Green Zone (which Iraqis call the Red Zone, due to the number of resistance offensives).

They are also responsible for the kidnapping of foreigners. "We are aware that the kidnapping of foreign nationals blemishes our image, but try to understand the situation. We are forced to control the identity of people circulating in our territory. If we have proof that they are humanitarians or journalists we release them. If they are spies, mercenaries or collaborators we execute them. On this matter, let's be clear, we are not responsible for the death of Nick Berg, the American who was beheaded."

As to the attack against the UN headquarters in Baghdad on August 20, 2003: "We have never issued an order to attack the UN and we had a lot of esteem towards the Brazilian Sergio Vieira de Mello [special UN representative who died in the attack], but it's not impossible that the authors of this suicide attack come from another resistance group. As we have explained, we don't control everything. And we must not forget that the UN is responsible for the 13 years of embargo we have endured."

What about the October 27, 2003 attack against the Red Cross in Baghdad? "This had nothing to do with us, we always had a lot of respect for this organization and the people who work for them. What would be our interest to attack one of the few institutions which has been helping the Iraq population for years? We know that people from Fallujah have claimed this attack, but we can assure you they are not part of the resistance. And we also add: for political and economic reasons, there are many who have an interest in discrediting us."

After June 30

"Resolution 1546 adopted on June 8 is nothing but one more web of lies to the eyes of many Iraqis. First, because it officially ends the occupation by foreign troops while authorizing the presence of a multinational force under American command, without stipulating the date of their removal. Second, because the Iraqi right to veto important military operations, demanded by France, Russia and China, was rejected. Washington has conceded only a vague notion of partnership with the Iraqi authority and did not think of anything in case of disagreement. Iraqis are not fools, the maintenance of American troops in Iraq after June 30 and the aid money they will get from the American Congress leave no doubt over the identity of who will really rule the country."

What about a possible role for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)? "If NATO intervenes, it's not to help our people, but to help the Americans leave this quagmire. If they wanted our well-being, they would have made a move before," say the three officers while looking at their watches. It's late and we have largely exceeded our allotted time.

"What American troops cannot do today, NATO troops won't be able to do later on. Everyone must know: Western troops will be regarded by Iraqis as occupiers. This is something that George W Bush and his faithful ally Tony Blair will do well to think about. If they have won a battle, they have not won the war yet. The great battle is still to begin. The liberation of Baghdad is not far away."

[Grimmer 0]

Wtf? so those were just kids firing rpgs and playing with rusty broken AKs who drove americans from falluja

Anyway, americans went in and now they have their own chechenya. Nice job from them. How are they going to handle this?

[denoir 0]

Oh, man, this one is good:

Destination: Iraq [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

In the present climate taking a vacation in Iraq may seem a little unwise, but Basra's tourism manager is confident his country's ancient heritage and beautiful beaches will lure holidaymakers.

I was driving back to my hotel through the rubble and goat-grazed desolation that forms much of suburban Basra when a large sign caught my eye.

Big red letters spelled "Basra Tourism Office". Assuming this was some sort of faded relic from Saddam Hussein's Ministry of Propaganda, I stopped for a look. My security consultant, Mark, a former SAS soldier, eyed the street carefully before agreeing it was safe to get out.

Strapping on our flak jackets, we walked towards two blue wooden doors that, to my surprise, were slightly open. I peered through the crack and heard voices coming from across the sun-baked courtyard in front of me.

After a few more checks from SAS Mark, I pushed them open and walked gingerly towards what looked like some sort of office.

A group of five young men eyed me languidly from two threadbare sofas that lined the walls of the outer room. And with the help of my interpreter I asked one of them what the building was used for.

Apparently amazed that I had somehow failed to get the message from the sign outside he replied: "Tourism. Basra's Office of Tourism." He seemed quite serious.

The two younger-looking men on either side of him pointed to the open door at the far end of the room and motioned for me to go in. Inside, a group of men in traditional dress sat on rickety chairs which formed a semi-circle around a grey haired man with thick glasses.

The figure behind a cluttered old desk smiled and asked if I was a journalist. On receiving my reply he asked me how I had come to hear about his city's new tourism campaign, particularly given that his promotional campaign was not due to be launched for another two weeks?

In all seriousness

I found myself scanning his face waiting for that smile to break into a smirk.

Ignoring my hesitation, my host stood up, shook my hand and rather proudly showed me his business card: Mr Abdul Hussein Majeed al-Malik, Manager of Tourism, Basra.

After offering me a chair next to the members of his consultancy committee, he sat down and began sifting through a pile of papers that littered his desk. These, he explained, were soon to be transformed into brochures that would help bring tens of thousands of tourists to Basra.

Realising that Mr Malik was entirely serious about his role, I asked him what exactly he believed this war-ravaged city had to offer anyone intrepid enough to visit it? Shaking his head, a little like a patient but frustrated school teacher, he replied that this 7th Century city is steeped in history.

Had I never heard of Sinbad the Sailor? For this is where he is said to have begun his famous voyages. And did I not know that Basra gets a mention in the Arabian Nights?

Nodding, I inquired whether all this means that any tourists coming here would be able to visit historic sites and trawl through ancient objects and pieces of art?

"No, that's not possible," he replied. "Many of our main objects of archaeological interest have disappeared because most of them were kept in Basra's historic museum which was unfortunately fire-bombed and looted."

"But not far from here we have beautiful beaches as well as some of the biggest marshes in Iraq."

The answer to where visitors would be able to stay in a city that was repeatedly shelled in the Iran-Iraq war and then further destroyed by the arrival of coalition troops and gun-toting militia was less upbeat.

'Sensible precautions'

He said the city had several big hotels, like the Sheraton which was just down the road from here, but they had all been destroyed.

"But we do have some good, locally run hotels."

I was staying in one of these. The hotel feels it necessary to employ armed guards around the clock and then there are the recently erected concrete barriers to stop ram-raiding suicide bombers driving trucks through the restaurant window.

But Mr Malik was having none of it. "Such things are merely sensible precautions that need to be taken in most big cities today."

Obviously, my host had not travelled for a while. That may well be because Basra's airport had long been closed to civilians.

Though Mr Malik insisted that this fact should not discourage holidaymakers from coming here.

"There are other ways of getting to Iraq such as by road," he said.

"And we've now launched a campaign to make them safer for tourists."

Given the continuing number of brutal armed carjackings and other attacks on motorists this is probably just as well.

But how, I asked Basra's new tourism manager, was he going to counter Iraq's violent and dangerous image even if the bombs and shootings should finally stop?

He shifted in his seat, and looked me firmly in the eye.

"We will organise a big advertising campaign. But visitors can best protect themselves by disbelieving the rumours of violence and terrorism. When they come to Basra they will find that these problems are not here."

As I walked towards the door, there was a squeal of moving chairs and murmuring voices as Mr Malik and his consultancy committee got back to business.

I left wondering whether I had witnessed a case of serious delusion bordering on criminal denial or the sort of courageous optimism it takes to survive here.

[quicksand 0]

I`m intrested in travelling to Basra,can I visit the extraordinary acient sites?

Quote[/b] ]No, that's not possible,many of our main objects of archaeological interest have disappeared because most of them were kept in Basra's historic museum which was unfortunately fire-bombed and looted."

OK,can I atleast stay at a nice hotel?

Quote[/b] ]The city had several big hotels, like the Sheraton which was just down the road from here, but they had all been destroyed.

Hmm,I`m still intrested can I book a flight for Basra?

Quote[/b] ] Basra's airport had long been closed to civilians.

Even so,let`s say I come to your place how can I protect myself from the ravaging insurgency campaign?

Quote[/b] ]Disbelieving the rumours of violence and terrorism.

Mmkay  

[denoir 0]

My faviourite part was:

-What about the concrete barriers that have been put up to stop ram-raiding suicide bombers driving trucks through the restaurant windows?

-Nah, most big cities have those todays - it's just a sensible precaution.

I feel that I have been cheated by the restaurant owners here in Stockholm, and I'll demand that they take the same sensible precautions and slap up some concrete barriers and military check points outside

[Balschoiw 0]

Almost made me think that this guy had a new job and identity :

[Balschoiw 0]

The multibillion robbery the US calls reconstruction

Anyone surprised ?

Quote[/b] ]Good news out of Baghdad: the Program Management Office, which oversees the $18.4bn in US reconstruction funds, has finally set a goal it can meet. Sure, electricity is below pre-war levels, the streets are rivers of sewage and more Iraqis have been fired than hired. But now the PMO has contracted the British mercenary firm Aegis to protect its employees from "assassination, kidnapping, injury and" - get this - "embarrassment". I don't know if Aegis will succeed in protecting PMO employees from violent attack, but embarrassment? I'd say mission already accomplished. The people in charge of rebuilding Iraq can't be embarrassed, because, clearly, they have no shame.

In the run-up to the June 30 underhand (sorry, I can't bring myself to call it a "handover"), US occupation powers have been unabashed in their efforts to steal money that is supposed to aid a war-ravaged people. The state department has taken $184m earmarked for drinking water projects and moved it to the budget for the lavish new US embassy in Saddam Hussein's former palace. Short of $1bn for the embassy, Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said he might have to "rob from Peter in my fiefdom to pay Paul". In fact, he is robbing Iraq's people, who, according to a recent study by the consumer group Public Citizen, are facing "massive outbreaks of cholera, diarrhoea, nausea and kidney stones" from drinking contaminated water.

If the occupation chief Paul Bremer and his staff were capable of embarrassment, they might be a little sheepish about having spent only $3.2bn of the $18.4bn Congress allotted - the reason the reconstruction is so disastrously behind schedule. At first, Bremer said the money would be spent by the time Iraq was sovereign, but apparently someone had a better idea: parcel it out over five years so Ambassador John Negroponte can use it as leverage. With $15bn outstanding, how likely are Iraq's politicians to refuse US demands for military bases and economic "reforms"?

Unwilling to let go of their own money, the shameless ones have had no qualms about dipping into funds belonging to Iraqis. After losing the fight to keep control of Iraq's oil money after the underhand, occupation authorities grabbed $2.5bn of those revenues and are now spending the money on projects that are supposedly already covered by American tax dollars.

But then, if financial scandals made you blush, the entire reconstruction of Iraq would be pretty mortifying. From the start, its architects rejected the idea that it should be a New Deal-style public works project for Iraqis to reclaim their country. Instead, it was treated as an ideological experiment in privatisation. The dream was for multinational firms, mostly from the US, to swoop in and dazzle the Iraqis with their speed and efficiency.

Iraqis saw something else: desperately needed jobs going to Americans, Europeans and south Asians; roads crowded with trucks shipping in supplies produced in foreign plants, while Iraqi factories were not even supplied with emergency generators. As a result, the reconstruction was seen not as a recovery from war but as an extension of the occupation, a foreign invasion of a different sort. And so, as the resistance grew, the reconstruction itself became a prime target.

The contractors have responded by behaving even more like an invading army, building elaborate fortresses in the green zone - the walled-in city within a city that houses the occupation authority in Baghdad - and surrounding themselves with mercenaries. And being hated is expensive. According to the latest estimates, security costs are eating up 25% of reconstruction contracts - money not being spent on hospitals, water-treatment plants or telephone exchanges.

Meanwhile, insurance brokers selling sudden-death policies to contractors in Iraq have doubled their premiums, with insurance costs reaching 30% of payroll. That means many companies are spending half their budgets arming and insuring themselves against the people they are supposedly in Iraq to help. And, according to Charles Adwan of Transparency International, quoted on US National Public Radio's Marketplace programme, "at least 20% of US spending in Iraq is lost to corruption". How much is actually left over for reconstruction? Don't do the maths.

Rather than models of speed and efficiency, the contractors look more like overcharging, underperforming, lumbering beasts, barely able to move for fear of the hatred they have helped generate. The problem goes well beyond the latest reports of Halliburton drivers abandoning $85,000 trucks on the road because they don't carry spare tyres. Private contractors are also accused of playing leadership roles in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A landmark class-action lawsuit filed by the Centre for Constitutional Rights alleges that Titan Corporation and CACI International conspired to "humiliate, torture and abuse persons" in order to increase demand for their "interrogation services".

And then there's Aegis, the company being paid $293m to save the PMO from embarrassment. It turns out that Aegis's CEO, Tim Spicer, has a bit of an embarrassing past himself. In the 90s, he helped to put down rebels and stage a military coup in Papua New Guinea, as well as hatching a plan to break an arms embargo in Sierra Leone.

If Iraq's occupiers were capable of feeling shame, they might have responded by imposing tough new regulations. Instead, Senate Republicans have just defeated an attempt to bar private contractors from interrogating prisoners and also voted down a proposal to impose stiffer penalties on contractors who overcharge. Meanwhile, the White House is also trying to get immunity from prosecution for US contractors in Iraq and has requested the exemption from the new prime minister, Iyad Allawi.

It seems likely that Allawi will agree, since he is, after all, a kind of US contractor himself. A former CIA spy, he is already threatening to declare martial law, while his defence minister says of resistance fighters: "We will cut off their hands, and we will behead them." In a final feat of outsourcing, Iraqi governance has been subcontracted to even more brutal surrogates. Is this embarrassing, after an invasion to overthrow a dictatorship? Not at all; this is what the occupiers call "sovereignty". The Aegis guys can relax - embarrassment is not going to be an issue.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Wtf? so those were just kids firing rpgs and playing with rusty broken AKs who drove americans from falluja

Anyway, americans went in and now they have their own chechenya. Nice job from them. How are they going to handle this?

You're mixing up your insurgencies- the kids are in Al-Sadr's militia, while the Fallujan rebels consist of former regime elements and Sunni mujahedin, an altogether larger and more formidable force.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I thought this was relevant... enjoy:

Quote[/b] ]Poker With Dick Cheney

Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM.

The Editors: We'll take three cards.

Dick Cheney: Give me one.

Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.

TE: Fifty bucks.

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****

*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****

The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts. Developing ...

TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?

DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.

TE: We aren't sure ...

DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.

Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.

TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.

Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****

*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****

A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking. Developing ...

TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.

Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.

Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.

Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.

TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.

Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?

Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****

*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****

Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists? Developing ...

Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.

William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?

Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.

Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?

Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.

George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.

Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.

DC: My deal.

[denoir 0]

@ June 26 2004,18:06)]

Wtf? so those were just kids firing rpgs and playing with rusty broken AKs who drove americans from falluja

Anyway, americans went in and now they have their own chechenya. Nice job from them. How are they going to handle this?

You're mixing up your insurgencies- the kids are in Al-Sadr's militia, while the Fallujan rebels consist of former regime elements and Sunni mujahedin, an altogether larger and more formidable force.

Plus in urban combat the local defender stands in a much better position. Especially when the attacker has a ROE that doesn't exactly allow the use of unlimited force.

[ralphwiggum 6]

@ June 26 2004,10:25)]I offer my services as an inside man, provided I get viceroy status and someone puts in a good word for me with Princess Madeleine  

typical texan...screw US, i get what I want!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/26/ireland.bush/index.html

Quote[/b] ]NEWMARKET-ON-FERGUS, Ireland (CNN) -- President Bush asked NATO and the European Union to put disagreements over the war behind them and help the U.S. rebuild Iraq, saying "the bitter differences are over."

In Ireland for a EU-U.S. summit, Bush said people in Iraq are looking for freedom and reform. "We are listening to their voices," he said.

During a joint news conference with Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern and EU Commission President Romano Prodi, Bush said he looks forward to an increased international effort in Iraq.

He also said he hopes NATO responds "in a positive way" to Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's request for help in training Iraqi security forces.

Speaking four days before the scheduled handover of sovereignty to Iraqis, Bush said Iraqi leaders remain aware that their forces and police must be "well trained and well prepared to meet the threat of the few who want to derail the ambitions of the many."

lost something to say....

[shinRaiden 0]

That was absolutely hilarious Tex, and probably pretty close to reality. Now change the drinks from booze to coffee, quadruple postering-badgering-and-filibustering, you might get close to things in the ME.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I hope this has not been posted yet, but did anybody hear about this? It happend awhile back so pobably so, but I just heard yesterday. This guy had some guts, much more than those cowards who captured him ever could wish to have.

Italian Hostage

[ralphwiggum 6]

I hope this has not been posted yet, but did anybody hear about this? It happend awhile back so pobably so, but I just heard yesterday. This guy had some guts, much more than those cowards who captured him ever could wish to have.

Italian Hostage

as always this was posted before.