Muslims and thermonuclear fire *fap fap fap*

[Morilore]

See, those are the kind of posts that get you accused of destructo-masturbation, Sheppard.

[Elfdart]

Ah, the sophistry of Axis Kast! I don't defend the mullahs at all, peckerhead and you know it. I object to warmongering.

You have a raging hard-on for a war with Iran. Aside from the moral and legal considerations (which mean as much to you as Chaucer does to a baboon), where are you going to come up with the troops to do it? On what grounds would you launch such a war?

You say I'm just discriminating against Bush's foreign policy. There is one good thing to come out of Bush's Iraq heist: Because of the incompetence of Bush and Co, because of the waste of men, money, and equipment; because of the avalanche of horseshit used to sell the war, Bush has no chance in hell of convincing people to assault Iran.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, the sophistry of Axis Kast! I don't defend the mullahs at all, peckerhead and you know it. I object to warmongering.

Well, you know Comical Axi; that sort of dishonesty is fundamental to his debate approach.

[Patrick Degan]

Part One

That's the sales-pitch. Again, you say nothing of exactly how this miraculous transformation is supposed to take place in the face of the fact that American intervention has resulted in the current disaster and that somehow democracy and Western-style capitalism is going to be successfully imposed at gunpoint, or as I've said, repeating the disaster on a far larger scale. Here's a hint, Axi: the Soviets once upon a time believed that they could "liberate" other nations toward socialism at gunpoint. The results of that experiment have been all too obvious.

In large part because the Socialist system itself was unworkable at its core, moron.

So is the notion of imposing democracy at gunpoint, nitwit.

The Soviets knew they could never leave once they occupied a neighbor. The same isn’t true in Iraq, where the American presence will inevitably dwindle within five to ten years to a relative handful of advisers, security specialists, and contracts, as well as perhaps one or two larger rapid-response units of regular military forces.

Assuming that everything works in reality as it does in PNAC Fantasy World, that is. Pity that reality isn't proving so obliging.

The Soviets entered subject nations and stripped them of all they were worth while largely ignoring the distribution of aid to the general populace. That is not the modus operandi of the Coalition in Iraq.

For a start, let's stop pretending that the "Coalition" is anything but a show run entirely by the United States with a few of its client flunkies along for the ride. And as for our MO in Iraq, some perspective is in order:

Linky

Privatization in Iraq is out of control

Paul Krugman NYT
Wednesday, May 5, 2004

PRINCETON, New Jersey Last November the top economist at the Heritage Foundation was very optimistic about Iraq, saying Paul Bremer 3rd, the U.S administrator in Iraq, had just replaced "Saddam's soak-the-rich tax system" with a flat tax. "Few Americans would want to trade places with the people of Iraq," wrote the economist, Daniel Mitchell. "But come tax time next April, they may begin to wonder who's better off." Even when he wrote that, the insurgency in Iraq was visibly boiling over; by "tax time" last month, the situation was truly desperate.
.
Much has been written about the damage done by foreign policy ideologues who ignored the realities of Iraq, imagining that they could use the country to prove the truth of their military and political doctrines. Less has been said about how dreams of making Iraq a showpiece for free trade, supply-side tax policy and privatization - dreams that were equally oblivious to the country's realities - undermined the chances for a successful transition to democracy.
.
A number of people, including Jay Garner, the first U.S. administrator of Iraq, think that the Bush administration shunned early elections, which might have given legitimacy to a transitional government, so it could impose economic policies that no elected Iraqi government would have approved. Indeed, over the past year the Coalition Provisional Authority has slashed tariffs, flattened taxes and thrown Iraqi industry wide open to foreign investors - reinforcing the sense of many Iraqis that the United States came as occupiers, not liberators.
.
But it's the reliance on private contractors to carry out tasks usually performed by government workers that has really come back to haunt America.
.
Conservatives make a fetish out of privatization of government functions; after the 2002 elections, President George W. Bush announced plans to privatize up to 850,000 federal jobs. At home, wary of a public backlash, he has moved slowly on that goal. But in Iraq, where there is little public or congressional oversight, the administration has privatized everything in sight.
.
For example, the Pentagon has a well-established procurement office for gasoline. In Iraq, however, that job was subcontracted to Halliburton. The U.S. government has many experts in economic development and reform. But in Iraq, economic planning has been subcontracted - after a highly questionable bidding procedure - to BearingPoint, a consulting firm with close ties to Jeb Bush, governor of Florida and the president's brother.
.
What's truly shocking in Iraq, however, is the privatization of purely military functions.
.
For more than a decade, many noncritical jobs formerly done by soldiers have been handed to private contractors. When four Blackwater employees were killed and mutilated in Falluja, however, marking the start of a wider insurgency, it became clear that in Iraq the U.S. has extended privatization to core military functions. It's one thing to have civilians drive trucks and serve food; it's quite different to employ them as personal bodyguards to U.S. officials, as guards for U.S. government installations, and - the latest revelation - as interrogators in Iraqi prisons.
.
According to a number of newspaper reports, employees from two private contractors, CACI and Titan, act as interrogators at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to Sewell Chan of The Washington Post, these contractors are "at the center of the probe" into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. And that abuse, according to the senior defense analyst at Jane's, has "almost certainly destroyed much of what support the coalition had among the more moderate section of the Iraqi population."
.
We don't yet know for sure that private contractors were at fault. But why put civilians, who cannot be court-martialed and hence aren't fully accountable, in that role? And why privatize key military functions?
.
I don't think it's simply a practical matter. Although there are several thousand armed civilians working for the occupation, their numbers aren't large enough to make a significant dent in the troop shortage. I suspect that the purpose is to set a precedent.
.
You may ask whether the American leaders' drive to privatize reflects a sincere conservative ideology, or a desire to enrich their friends. Probably both. But before Iraq, privatization that rewarded campaign contributors was a politically smart move, even if it was a net loss for the taxpayers.
.
In Iraq, however, reality does matter. And thanks to the ideologues who dictated American policy over the past year, reality looks pretty grim.

Except Iraq wasn't sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States, nor was presenting a terrorist threat or a military threat or any other sort of threat to the United States.

We’ve been over this already. It’s a point of disagreement.

No, asshole, it's a point of fact. No WMDs. No links to Al-Qaeda. No sponsorship of terrorism beyond a pathetic token widows-and-orphans fund to families of suicide bombers who were targeting Israelis. No capacity to invade its neighbours after 1991 nor ability to rebuild its military forces and certainly no means nor intent to strike at the United States. Fact.

And I hate to have to burst your balloon, but our war hasn't been all that clean in Iraq to avoid large numbers of civilian casualties and it's still American bombs being dropped on Muslims. The Muslim world isn't going to care about numbers of people killed, only that their people are the ones being killed to advance American aims against their will. Which means more terrorism aimed at Americans. Which according to your twisted logic inevitably means more wars. The only strawmen, as always, are your own, and ones put up to screen your ongoing retreat from the implications of the bizarre reasoning you indulge.

We’d be dropping bombs on Muslims regardless of whether we went into Iraq, idiot. And then only largely in punitive raids we’d have to repeat on a regular basis in order to bring corrupt governments to limited action. Here, we’re rooting out the regimes responsible for supporting terror and anti-Americanism.

Except Iraq had zero relevance to the War on Terror, shitwit. It has, however, not only diverted resources from that fight, but has achieved a reverse result to the one we continually state as the goal for the War on Terror.

As for civilian casualties, the United States and other Coalition forces have been remarkably reserved when it comes to inflicting damage against civilian targets.

Except the issue isn't one of numbers but perceptions. And as for those casualties:

Civilian Deaths (estimated)

Reported Minimum 11600 Reported Maximum 13574

Database found at this link here.

Awww... is tiger-boy starting to get a little rattled in his cage?

Dude. You people make it sound like you want the fucking cock.

Sigh... Very amateurish attempt at an attack on my sexual identity. Almost what one would expect from a high school punk. Is that really the best comeback you can manage?

But bombings, wars, and forced regime-changes will bring about this magickal transformation you insist will eventually occur. You pretend that this would only be a short-term phenomenon and that it must melt away with determined American pressure and force. Fine argument as long as it ignores its central problem: that reform is wholly an internal process and one which cannot be forced at gunpoint at any level of intensity.

Then how, exactly, do you propose it be undertaken? By waiting until Saddam, his sons, their sons, and their generals all die? By waiting for regimes that have been largely unchanged in their mode of rule for over one hundred years to suddenly turn over a new left? Perhaps following in the footsteps of your Iranian fantasy? No. We must remove rogue regimes by force, and then use our power constructively to produce states with a chance at material progress.

How you never tire of your strawmen. It just does not occur to you that the use of brute force never wins an ideological contest, for which a more constructive use of power is required. And by what criteria do you judge that we cannot employ time as a primary asset in overcoming our enemies in the region? All evidence gathered since the downfall of Saddam Hussein indicated that his rule over Iraq was becoming incresingly shaky as the country deterioriated. And despite the rhetoric being spewed by the mullahs in Tehran, the Iranian population now of age has no fervour or enthusiasm for the Islamic Revolution; a fact counterpointed by the political strains upon the mullahs' control over Iranian politics. It is you who keeps foaming at the mouth about hitting rogue regimes NOW. Is it seriously your thesis that the United States does not have the strength, flexibility, and sustainibility to outlast our enemies? That they must inevitably grow stronger while we grow concurrently weaker? If this is in fact your position, on what basis is it predicated?

[Patrick Degan]

Part Two

You discredited yourself a long time ago, only you're too stupid and arrogant to notice it. And no matter what the stated intention of our adventure in Iraq might be, the average Muslim-on-the-street is only going to perceive it as American brute force being wielded upon Muslims, in service of a war launched under wholly false pretenses, and for which American corporations so far have been the sole beneficiaries.

In whose eyes? Yours?

Um, ahem:

War profiteering

The unsavory prospects of war profiteering in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, and its alleged "reconstruction", were proclaimed in a January 21, 2004 press release by the Institute for Southern Studies: a "New Investigation Reveals 'Reconstruction Racket' in Iraq." The latest issue of the Institute's publication "Southern Exposure" provides an "in-depth report by Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena ... one of the first on-the-ground accounts of how U.S. taxpayer money given to Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies is being spent."

An "investigative team spent three weeks in Iraq visiting project sites, analyzing contracts, and interviewing dozens of administrators, contract workers, and U.S. officials. Among the findings:

* Despite over eight months of work and billions of dollars spent, key pieces of Iraq’s infrastructure – power plants, telephone exchanges, and sewage and sanitation systems – have either not been repaired, or have been fixed so poorly that they don’t function. Hi
* San Francisco-based Bechtel has been given tens of millions to repair Iraq’s schools. Yet many haven’t been touched, and several schools that Bechtel claims to have repaired are in shambles. One 'repaired' school was overflowing with unflushed sewage; a teacher at the school also reported that 'the American contractors took away our Japanese fans and replaced them with Syrian fans that don’t work' – billing the U.S. government for the work.
* Inflated overhead costs and a byzantine maze of sub-contracts have left little money for the everyday workers carrying out projects. In one contract for police operations, Iraqi guards received only 10% of the money allotted for their salaries; Indian cooks for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root reported making just three dollars a day.

"The [Southern Exposure] report also reveals further details of Halliburton’s contracts: for example, that of Halliburton’s $2.2 billion in contracts, only about 10% has gone to meeting community needs – the rest being spent on servicing U.S. troops and rebuilding oil pipelines. Halliburton has also spent over $40 million in the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction.

"'A handful of well-connected corporations are making a killing off the devastation in Iraq' observes Chris Kromm, publisher of 'Southern Exposure'. 'The politics and process behind these deals have always been questionable. Now we have first-hand evidence that they’re not even doing their jobs.'"

See related external links under "The War / Rebuilding of Iraq" section in Halliburton Company article.
Knight Ridders' Seth Bornstein reports on May 21, 2004, that "Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.

"Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called 'sailboat fuel.'

"Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for 'theater transportation' of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane.

"KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars."
Reported in the Los Angeles Times on 14 July 2004, Advocates of War Now Profit From Iraq's Reconstruction by Walter F. Roche Jr. and Ken Silverstein

* Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey is a prominent example of the phenomenon, mixing his business interests with what he contends are the country's strategic interests.

* Neil Livingstone, a former Senate aide who has served as a Pentagon and State Department advisor and issued repeated public calls for Hussein's overthrow. He heads a Washington-based firm, GlobalOptions, that provides contacts and consulting services to companies doing business in Iraq.

* Randy Scheunemann, a former Rumsfeld advisor who helped draft the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 authorizing $98 million in U.S. aid to Iraqi exile groups. He was the founding president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Now he's helping former Soviet Bloc states win business there.

* Margaret Bartel, who managed federal money channeled to Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, including funds for its prewar intelligence program on Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. She now heads a Washington-area consulting firm helping would-be investors find Iraqi partners.

* K. Riva Levinson, a Washington lobbyist and public relations specialist who received federal funds to drum up prewar support for the Iraqi National Congress. She has close ties to Bartel and now helps companies open doors in Iraq, in part through her contacts with the Iraqi National Congress.

* Joe Allbaugh, who managed President Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House and later headed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Edward Rogers Jr., an aide to the first President Bush, recently helped set up two companies to promote business in postwar Iraq. Rogers' law firm has a $262,500 contract to represent Iraq's Kurdistan Democratic Party.

And:

Reconstruction of Iraq contractors

Expect also a flourishing business in war profiteering consultancies to grease the way for obtaining business opportunities in Iraq, for instance, (Bush's) New Bridge Strategies and (Chalabi's) Iraqi International Law Group

A team of investigative reporters in Iraq have found a pattern of waste, fraud and abuse among U.S. companies receiving multi-million-dollar reconstruction contracts in the country, including massive over-charges for projects; shoddy work or a failure to complete tasks; and ignoring local experts who contend they could do the job better and cheaper. The in-depth report by CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee and Focus on the Global South's Herbert Docena, published in the latest issue of Southern Exposure magazine, is an on-the-ground account of how U.S. taxpayer money given to Bechtel, Halliburton and other companies is being spent. [1]

Reconstruction of Iraq contractors and subcontractors include the following:

* Abt Associates, Inc.
* Air Force Augmentation Program (AFCAP)
* Al Abrag Co. (Iraq)
* Al-Ardh Al-Khadhara'a Co. (Iraq)
* Al-Bahar & Bardawil (Kuwait)
* Al-Bunnia (Iraq)
* Al Dohan (Kuwait)
* Al Duboony (Iraq)
* Al-Ebadi (Iraq)
* Al Kalij (Iraq)
* Al-Maleky Bureau (Iraq)
* Al-Marwa Co. Ltd. (Iraq)
* Al-Mulia (Kuwait)
* Al Nejoom (Iraq)
* Al Rehada (Iraq)
* Al-Sabah General Co. (Iraq)
* Al Sakhra Bureau (Iraq)
* Al-Sultan General Contracts (Iraq)
* Al Takaful General Contracts Ltd. (Iraq)
* Al Wahaf Group of Companies (Iraq)
* Algosaibi Services (Saudi Arabia)
* ALI Capital Partners
* American Islamic Congress
* American Manufacturers Export Group (AMEG)
* American University
* Applied Control Systems
* ArmorGroup Services Ltd.
* Baghdad Company Ltd. (Iraq)
* BearingPoint, Inc.
* Bechtel
* Boots & Coots International Well Control, Inc.
* Chemonics International
* Creative Associates International, Inc.
* Crown Agents
* Dalya-Sat Telecom (Iraq)
* DevTech Systems, Inc.
* DynCorp (CSC DynCorp International)
* ELS Land Solutions (UK)
* ESS Support Services (Cyprus)
* Fluor Intercontinental
* Globecomm Systems
* Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
* Gulf Telecom (Kuwait)
* Halcrow Group (UK)
* Halliburton Company
* Health Services Engineering (HSE)
* HR First International (US/Egypt)
* Huffman and Carpenter
* IATA
* International Medical Corps (IMC)
* International Resources Group
* Iraq Forum for Reconstruction and Development LLC
* The Iraq Foundation
* Iraq Projects Company (Iraq)
* Iraqi Consultants & Construction Bureau (Iraq)
* Iraqi Trade Corp.
* Kellogg Brown and Root
* Lockheed Martin
* Logenix International L.L.C.
* Motorola
* National Catering Company (Saudi Arabia)
* Northrop Grumman Corporation
* Olive Security (UK)
* QED Group
* Panalpina
* Perini Corp
* ProLinks (Bechtel) (Kuwait)
* The QED Group
* Rayba Pest Control (Kuwait)
* Research Triangle Institute
* Riyadh Geotechnique (Saudi Arabia)
* Saida (Iraq)
* Skylink Air & Logistics Support
* Snafee Co. (Iraq)
* Stevedoring Services of America
* Tamimi Global Company Ltd. TAFGA (Saudi Arabia)
* Tawf Construction (Iraq)
* Titan Maritime
* TransCentury
* Verestar Inc.
* Vinnell Corporation
* Voxiva
* Wajdi Technical (Iraq)
* Washington Group International
* Wild Well Control, Inc.

Note: There is lengthy list, other than those already listed above, of Iraqi companies that are under subcontract to Bechtel.

Also see Post-war Iraq.

Oh, and:

Posted on Fri, May. 21, 2004

Trucks made to drive without cargo in dangerous areas of Iraq

BY SETH BORENSTEIN

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.

Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."

Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for "theater transportation" of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane.

KBR's contract with the Defense Department allows the company to pass on the cost of the transportation and add 1 percent to 3 percent for profit, but neither KBR nor the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., which oversees the contract, was able to provide cost estimates for the empty trucks. Trucking experts estimate that each round trip costs taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Seven of the 12 truckers who talked to Knight Ridder asked that they not be identified by name. Six of the 12 were fired by KBR for allegedly running Iraqi drivers off the road when they attempted to break into the convoy. The drivers disputed that accusation.

In addition to interviewing the drivers, Knight Ridder reviewed KBR records of the empty trips, dozens of photographs of empty flatbeds and a videotape that showed 15 empty trucks in one convoy.

The 12 drivers, all interviewed separately over the course of more than a month, told similar stories about their trips through hostile territory.

"Thor," a driver who quit KBR and got his nickname for using a hammer to fight off a knife-wielding Iraqi who tried to climb into the cab of his truck, said his doctor recently told him he might lose the use of his right eye after a December attack. Iraqis shattered his windshield with machine gunfire and bullets whizzed by his ear. Glass got in his eye, and he broke two bones in his shoulder, he said.

His truck was empty at the time.

"I thought, `What good is this?'" he recalled.

Shane "Nitro" Ratliff of Ruby, S.C., who quit working for KBR in February, recalled a harrowing trip in December.

As he was hauling an empty truck to Baghdad International Airport, Iraqis threw spikes under his tires and a brick, a cement-like clot of sand and gasoline through his windshield, scattering shards of glass all over him and into his eyes.

"We didn't have no weapons; I had two rocks and a can of ravioli to fight with," Ratliff said.

Ratliff caught up with his fleeing convoy in his damaged truck and made it to the airport safely. He figured he'd pick up a load there, but he was told to return with another empty trailer.

Iraqi insurgents have killed two civilian drivers.

Kellogg Brown and Root, the Army and the truckers gave different reasons for why empty trucks were driven through areas that the drivers nicknamed "rockville" and "slaughterhouse" for the dangers they presented.

Some of the truckers charged that KBR is billing the Pentagon for unnecessary work. KBR described the practice as normal, given the large number of trucks it has delivering goods throughout Iraq. Army officials said longer convoys may provide better security.

The Army's contract with KBR calls for daily truck runs, but doesn't dictate how many trucks must be in a convoy or whether they must be full, said Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill. The area military commander or KBR officials might choose to run empty trucks as a security measure, she said.

KBR denied there was any problem with the truck runs. "KBR is proud of the work we do for the military in Iraq. It is difficult and dangerous work and requires a lot from our employees," said Cathy Gist, a KBR spokeswoman. KBR truckers say they can earn about $80,000 a year, which is tax-free if they remain in Iraq for a year.

The empty trailer runs in Iraq peaked in January, February and March of this year but have dwindled as violence has escalated and forced contractors to reduce the number of trucks in each convoy and how far they travel, the drivers said.

Earlier this year, as many as a third of all the flatbed trucks in a 30-truck convoy were empty, they said. Much of the time, drivers would drop off one empty trailer and pick up another empty one for the return trip.

"There was one time we ran 28 trucks, one trailer had one pallet (a trailer can hold as many as 26 four-foot square pallets) and the rest of them were empty," said David Wilson, who was the convoy commander on more than 100 runs. Four other drivers who were with Wilson confirmed his account.

James Warren of Rutherfordton, N.C., one of the fired KBR drivers, said he drove empty trucks through Iraq more than a dozen times. Besides the risks to the truckers, the six National Guard or Army escorts who provided security were also in danger, he said.

The KBR driver who shot the videotape of the 15 empty trailers on the road in January described it this way: "This is just a sample of the empty trailers we're hauling called `sustainer.' And there's more behind me. There's another one right there. ... This is fraud and abuse right here."

KBR documents viewed by Knight Ridder showed that one February run included 11 "MT" (trucker lingo for empty) trailers, 11 containers (which could be full or empty) and six with pallets on them. On another February day, three of 15 trucks were empty.

KBR officials said empty runs resulted from the lack of cargo at one depot. The company ran all the trucks so they'd be available to pick up cargo for the return trip. "This is the same as typical commercial trucking operations work in the U.S.," said Gist.

Drivers discounted that explanation.

"Sometimes we would go with empty trailers; we would go both ways," said one driver who goes by the nickname Swerve and declined to be named for fear of retribution. "We'd turn around and go back with empty trailers."

An independent expert on trucking economics put the cost of a 300-mile one-way run at a minimum of $1,050. Researcher Mark Berwick at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University used a computer model, the fuel costs that Halliburton charged the Army and the truckers' salaries to come up with that figure.

Wilson and Michael Stroud, of the Seattle area, another former KBR trucking convoy commander, said the actual costs were probably far higher.

"It was supposed to be critical supplies that the troops had to have to operate," said Wilson, who returned to his home in southwest Florida after being fired by KBR. "It was one thing to risk your life to haul things the military needed. It's another to haul empty trailers."

Peter Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Corporate Warrior," a book on privatization of the military, said the use of empty trucks illustrates how the government's contracting system is broken.

The government gives out large cost-plus contracts in which "essentially it rewards firms when they add to costs rather than rewarding them for cost savings," Singer said.

Despite a massive increase in contracts for the war and occupation of Iraq, the Army hasn't increased the number of officials who oversee those contractors. Only 180 Army officials monitor defense contracts and only a little more than a handful of them are in Iraq, Singer said.

---

(Mark Washburn of The Charlotte Observer and Mark Rogers of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram contributed.)

---

© 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Amazing what comes up when you pay attention to a little something called "news".

[Patrick Degan]

Part Three

The average Muslim on the street can’t help but resent the War on Terror. But that resentment wouldn’t be any less even if we resigned ourselves only to bombing runs or threats. At least in Iraq, there’s a chance to showcase something positive.

You'll pardon me for laughing, I trust.

No, I call it a failure because there've been no results except chaos, misery, and mounting resistance to our alleged beneficence-at-gunpoint.

Because we’re still securing the country, nitwit.

No, it's because we bungled the occupation, moron.

Except PR and a successful occupation effort go hand-in-hand, as does immediate large-scale relief which we failed to deliver. It didn't help that we did nothing to control the wholesale looting which occurred in the country in the days immediately following our takeover, nor that we pulled idiotic stunts like disbanding the army or shutting down a major opposition newspaper, which helped touch off the Fallujah mess, nor that we've structured relief and reconstruction efforts as large-scale kickback schemes to American contractors and imported people to do the work instead of employing Iraqis on a large scale —which would have done much toward fostering good will among the populace. The time for PR efforts was when we established our occupation presence.

The looting was a byproduct of having avoided a siege of Baghdad – an outcome of having won the gamble of the Thunder Run without first having pounded Iraq’s capital into submission. It was a trade-off for many hundreds (and potentially thousands) dead, all around.

Wrong. The looting was the result of our failure to carry out the first responsibility of any occupation force: to establish order and protect the citizenry and propery from lawlessness. By not doing that in the first weeks of the occupation, we went a long way toward sacrificing credibility as well as moral authority in Iraq.

Disbanding the Army was a stupid move, but that doesn’t delegitimize what we’re attempting to do. In fact, we restructured the Army and are now helping to expand and retrain it.

No, it's everything else we've done which delegitimises what we're attempting to do. And despite our attempt to build a New Model Iraqi army, disbanding the army which existed contributed immediately to our problems in establishing order as well as helping to feed the insurgency with fighters who became quickly disgruntled with our Glorious Beneficient Rule™.

As for relief and reconstruction, they are underway, whether or not under the auspices of Halliburton. More important than to whom those contracts go is how much good they do on the ground – and, as one reads in the paper daily, more and more of those functions are being handed off to Iraqis under contract.

With lots and lots of graft and kickback greasing the way (see above articles). BTW, anybody happen to find out what happened to that missing $2 billion yet?

The Iraqis at this point aren't even under their own oppressors but American troops and American puppets. We've arbitrarily rewritten their laws, sold off Iraqi assets, and largely shut Iraqis out of the decisionmaking and economic life of their own country. What do you call that from your perspective in Bizarro-world?

Actually, the hand-over already occurred. The United States has contracted people to fix the nation’s infrastructure as per martial law, but each day, the power of the Iraqi government to determine its own economic affairs is growing.

Again, you'll pardon me for laughing, I hope.

Pretending that the PNAC sales-pitch represents "a solid plan" is even more laughable than your assertion that outright conquest and occupation is not more oppressive and manipulative than merely installing our paid-for thugs on the throne. And the issue isn't what my plan might be but you ducking the challenge to explain how the progression from A to B to C is supposed to work out.

You’ve done it for me. You’ve successfully gone from, “Explain yourself!” to, “I see what you want, but I feel like nitpicking about the endgame before halftime.”

And in what particular set of delusions did you derive that formulation from?

It’s very clear that you understand exactly what I am advocating, and that you have no actual argument to make, other than to criticize.

I understand it perfectly; particularly the bits where you offer no explanation as to exactly how we get from A to B to C except to repeat the same assertions ad-infinitum. At least you could try to be a little more creative in how you duck a question.

Of course, unless you actually offer something better, it does nothing to tilt the scales. If you don’t think we should have undertaken an occupation, how exactly do you think we should have rode herd over terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East? Ignore Iran’s overt hostility? Hope they’re playing fair when all the signs are obviously negative? Let Saudi Arabia do as it will, as old wounds simmer without salve and more vitriolic hatred is drilled into the next generation by terrorists the government is unwilling to control without a boot at its rear?

My, what big False Dilemmas you have there, grandma. The war with Iraq addressed exactly none of the concerns you raise, and is predicated on the faulty premise that it was either invade Iraq or let the terrorists win. Beyond this, you move on to another set of false arguments; one of which is your again spewing about Iran's alleged "overt hostility", even though they haven't launched a military attack upon U.S. forces or assets, nor sponsored an act of terrorism remotely near the scale of the WTC strike. Attacking Iran is not an immediate priority but is a likely liability to any rational construction of policy in the Middle East. And as for Saudi Arabia, attacking them would be about the worst conceivable plan of action, and iron-fist diplomacy is likely to fan the flames of radicalism to the point of endangering the House of Saud's hold on the government.

Ideas cannot be defeated with armies or bombs. Knocking over every unfriendly government isn't a realistic proposition, and invading countries we suspect of fostering terrorism is a non-starter. The United States hasn't the manpower to kill, conquer, and subdue all of our enemies and they know it. Interationalising the present occupation and reconstruction effort in Iraq will contribute considerably toward defusing the present crisis —even though that means giving up primary control of the effort there. Iran can be handled by a combination of sanctions and, where and when appropriate, engagement. The mullahs' ironclad control over the country's politics cannot last forever, and strains have already shown between them and the population at large. Furthermore, Iran needs to rebuild its economy after twelve years of revolution and war and two decades of sanctions on top of that, and that need can be exploited. Terrorism requires specialised warfare to blunt it; meaning a combination of special ops, intel, and counterinsurgency strategy, and not the resort to wholesale military adventurism. Inseperable from any effort to blunt Islamic fanatacism is putting the Israeli/Palestinian peace process back on track, even if it means sitting on the Israelis to do so. The one demonstrable fact about fanatacism is that it cannot be sustained over the long-term unless it is fed by injudicious actions on our part which "proves" the propaganda of people like Osama binLaden.

In short, we're in for another Cold War and probably a long one. But like the last one, a combination of diplomacy, appropriate pressure, backchannel dealing when necessary, and the intelligent and judicious application of military and espionage assets offers a way to get through this crisis with the least loss of life on either side as well as the lesser cost to the treasury and our international standing. And we are going to need allies to successfully combat terrorism, which is why this cowboy crap we've been indulging is also doing more to damage our efforts than anything any enemy is responsible for.

[Patrick Degan]

See, those are the kind of posts that get you accused of destructo-masturbation, Sheppard.

Yes, but at least Shep's particular brand of madness is very highly entertaining.

[Vympel]

he looting was a byproduct of having avoided a siege of Baghdad ? an outcome of having won the gamble of the Thunder Run without first having pounded Iraq?s capital into submission. It was a trade-off for many hundreds (and potentially thousands) dead, all around.

The historical revisionism and military illogic in this paragraph is just too much to let by- there is no necessary link between conducting a long siege against a town and preventing looting- you should remember US forces were permissive of looting after the fall of Baghdad- that fuckwit Rumsfeld even dismissed it as a byproduct of their newfound "freedom". It was only after the worst damage had already been done that US forces actually began to enforce some basic laws. His response, was, literally: "stuff happens", and that the looting was not that bad and just "untidiness". Because freedom is untidy, you see.

Needless to say, his falsehoods about it not being "that bad" have since been borne out by history- the looting was so widespread as to have irreperably damaged the chances of Iraq's infrastructure being brought quickly back to pre-war levels, even now, more than a year later- as looters made off with vital components from everything from powerplants to water purification facilities.

That is not to say that the collapse and melting away of Iraqi forces didn't contribute as well to some looting taking place, but the permissive, nonchalant, naive attitude to looting as displayed by the DoD was absurd and did massive damage to the reconstruction effort and America's image.

[Elfdart]

We should have more war and nuke things because you touch yourself at night.

I envy your terseness. Good job!

[Rogue 9]

The U.S. was brought into The Great War by a stupid, ignorant, vain and paranoid little man named Woodrow Wilson, who assumed the rest of the world envied us our Jim Crow laws (which Wilson introduced to the District of Columbia) and Palmer raids. He planted 100,000 men, tipped the scaled irrevocably in favor of Britain and France and was thus indirectly responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

Yet again, you prove that you are a retard. Communist Russia rose before the U.S. entered the war.

[Elfdart]

The U.S. was brought into The Great War by a stupid, ignorant, vain and paranoid little man named Woodrow Wilson, who assumed the rest of the world envied us our Jim Crow laws (which Wilson introduced to the District of Columbia) and Palmer raids. He planted 100,000 men, tipped the scaled irrevocably in favor of Britain and France and was thus indirectly responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

Yet again, you prove that you are a retard. Communist Russia rose before the U.S. entered the war.

The US might have formally entered the war in 1917, but Wilson supported the Allies long before that. What, you think the U-boats attacked American ships headed for Britain for sport and so they could twirl their mustaches and cackle with glee, you dumb motherfucker? Or was it because of all the war materiel aboard those ships? Try using your head for something other than a hatrack, shit-for-brains.

Do you think that if (for example) the US declared war on Cuba and blockaded the island and Venezuela kept shipping them weapons aboard civilian ships and planes, the US Navy wouldn't sink or splash them -or at least halt and search them? Are you that fucking stupid or are you just yanking my chain? If the latter, good job. If the former, pucker up and kiss my ass!

[MKSheppard]

The US might have formally entered the war in 1917, but Wilson supported the Allies long before that. What, you think the U-boats attacked American ships headed for Britain for sport and so they could twirl their mustaches and cackle with glee, you dumb motherfucker?

Lets take "Fog of war" you dumb motherfucker.

Ever try identifying the nationality of a ship from a two degree field of
vision in less than optimal weather?

[Elfdart]

The US might have formally entered the war in 1917, but Wilson supported the Allies long before that. What, you think the U-boats attacked American ships headed for Britain for sport and so they could twirl their mustaches and cackle with glee, you dumb motherfucker?

Lets take "Fog of war" you dumb motherfucker.

Ever try identifying the nationality of a ship from a two degree field of
vision in less than optimal weather?

Are you trying to argue with me or what, Shepster? My point is that the U-boats weren't just blowing up American ships for kicks. They did so because Wilson and a number of businesses thought selling weapons and other materiel to the Allies was good for the bottom line.

[Axis Kast]

You have a raging hard-on for a war with Iran. Aside from the moral and legal considerations (which mean as much to you as Chaucer does to a baboon), where are you going to come up with the troops to do it? On what grounds would you launch such a war?

You say I'm just discriminating against Bush's foreign policy. There is one good thing to come out of Bush's Iraq heist: Because of the incompetence of Bush and Co, because of the waste of men, money, and equipment; because of the avalanche of horseshit used to sell the war, Bush has no chance in hell of convincing people to assault Iran.

To borrow a phrase from Daniel Day Lewis, I don’t give a flying fuck about your little moral conundrums. When nations clash, people die. The citizens invariably suffer the will – and the consequences – of their rulers. In Iran’s case, decisions made in Tehran now demand a vigorous – that is, a coordinated military – response from the United States. Better some of them inadvertently than more of us intentionally.

And by the way, you also know where you can shove that crock of shit about legality. Iran lost any shred of a claim to fair treatment when they decided to ignore the fact that an entire wing of their military operates as a rogue entity. You want to bestow upon Iran the title of “sovereign nation,” but without holding them to any of the responsibilities ostensibly associated with it. Curiouser and curiouser.


As for Deegan, you seem to be slipping, mate. Either the strategy of regime-change is solid, but the undertaking flawed (which seems to be the direct thrust of your argument at this point), or it isn’t, and you can offer something with a better chance of success (but have for some inexplicable reason declined to do so until now). So which is it? You’re obviously talking out your ass. First it’s bullshit about how I’m not explaining myself, but by the end of your post, you’ve changed your tune from, “You’re saying nothing new,” to, “Well, that’s not the way it’s going down … yet.” Make up your mind. Either we agree that the concept of regime-change is fundamentally valid if employed correctly, or we disagree, and you’ve now got to ante up a new strategy you can justify as more workable. Hop to.

The historical revisionism and military illogic in this paragraph is just too much to let by- there is no necessary link between conducting a long siege against a town and preventing looting- you should remember US forces were permissive of looting after the fall of Baghdad- that fuckwit Rumsfeld even dismissed it as a byproduct of their newfound "freedom". It was only after the worst damage had already been done that US forces actually began to enforce some basic laws. His response, was, literally: "stuff happens", and that the looting was not that bad and just "untidiness". Because freedom is untidy, you see.

You’re not listening. We first took Baghdad with only minimal forces – reconnaissance units, in fact. We had originally moved up only a bare handful of what we believed would eventually be necessary to secure the capital city completely. The initial looting was largely uncontrolled, but for reasons of manpower and equipment shortages that could not be helped rather than intentional ignorance.

The US might have formally entered the war in 1917, but Wilson supported the Allies long before that. What, you think the U-boats attacked American ships headed for Britain for sport and so they could twirl their mustaches and cackle with glee, you dumb motherfucker? Or was it because of all the war materiel aboard those ships? Try using your head for something other than a hatrack, shit-for-brains.

Do you think that if (for example) the US declared war on Cuba and blockaded the island and Venezuela kept shipping them weapons aboard civilian ships and planes, the US Navy wouldn't sink or splash them -or at least halt and search them? Are you that fucking stupid or are you just yanking my chain? If the latter, good job. If the former, pucker up and kiss my ass!

You’re back-pedaling. Rogue asked you to sustain why Wilson bears blame in your book for Communists as well. If you can’t do it, then admit as much and be done with this farce.

You've also yet to explain, by the way, how an American intervention led to Adolf Hitler's rise-to-power, which is something I'm eager to hear you expound on in your usual, self-hating manner.

[Darth Wong]

You know Kast, as long as we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, and we "must" invade nations, and we "must" use force at every turn, etc., when do you plan on signing up? Have you found your local recruiting center yet?

[Axis Kast]

You know Kast, as long as we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, and we "must" invade nations, and we "must" use force at every turn, etc., when do you plan on signing up? Have you found your local recruiting center yet?

Playing the Moore game, Wong? Attempting to argue that everyone who advocates a military response to a given problem must necessarily join the military in order to validate that opinion is akin to arguing that everyone who discusses politics must necessarily possess a degree in political science - in which case most members of this board (including yourself) would be excluded from the discussion by your own logic.

[Elfdart]

You have a raging hard-on for a war with Iran. Aside from the moral and legal considerations (which mean as much to you as Chaucer does to a baboon), where are you going to come up with the troops to do it? On what grounds would you launch such a war?

You say I'm just discriminating against Bush's foreign policy. There is one good thing to come out of Bush's Iraq heist: Because of the incompetence of Bush and Co, because of the waste of men, money, and equipment; because of the avalanche of horseshit used to sell the war, Bush has no chance in hell of convincing people to assault Iran.

To borrow a phrase from Daniel Day Lewis, I don’t give a flying fuck about your little moral conundrums. When nations clash, people die.

And Axis Kast pops a boner!

The citizens invariably suffer the will – and the consequences – of their rulers. In Iran’s case, decisions made in Tehran now demand a vigorous – that is, a coordinated military – response from the United States. Better some of them inadvertently than more of us intentionally.

And by the way, you also know where you can shove that crock of shit about legality. Iran lost any shred of a claim to fair treatment when they decided to ignore the fact that an entire wing of their military operates as a rogue entity. You want to bestow upon Iran the title of “sovereign nation,” but without holding them to any of the responsibilities ostensibly associated with it. Curiouser and curiouser.

Believe me, I wouldn't spend any more time trying to appeal to your conscience than I would the feeling in Christopher Reeves' balls. Did you fall off a galloping horse, too -or are you just an asshole?

The US might have formally entered the war in 1917, but Wilson supported the Allies long before that. What, you think the U-boats attacked American ships headed for Britain for sport and so they could twirl their mustaches and cackle with glee, you dumb motherfucker? Or was it because of all the war materiel aboard those ships? Try using your head for something other than a hatrack, shit-for-brains.

Do you think that if (for example) the US declared war on Cuba and blockaded the island and Venezuela kept shipping them weapons aboard civilian ships and planes, the US Navy wouldn't sink or splash them -or at least halt and search them? Are you that fucking stupid or are you just yanking my chain? If the latter, good job. If the former, pucker up and kiss my ass!

You’re back-pedaling. Rogue asked you to sustain why Wilson bears blame in your book for Communists as well. If you can’t do it, then admit as much and be done with this farce.

As with any good quarterback, the backpedaling is just three or five steps before the pass that hits the receiver in stride for the big gain, the winning score, victory, shaving cream and beer commercial endorsements, etc...

You might want to look up Operation Polar Bear and why a number of American WW1 monuments include the names of soldiers killed in 1919. SHHHHHHH! Nobody tell Kast or Rogue 9 the answer!

You've also yet to explain, by the way, how an American intervention led to Adolf Hitler's rise-to-power, which is something I'm eager to hear you expound on in your usual, self-hating manner.

Wilson's support for Britain and France helped prolong the war and tilted the scales very heavily in their favor. If Germany had won, or if France and Britain had only marginally beaten Germany, or if the whole thing had simply ground to halt like the Thirty Years War, Versailles would not have been so punitive. If Wilson hadn't gone along with the postwar blockade of Germany that starved hundreds of thousands of people to death. If, if, if...

Hmmmmm. No Versailles Treaty -at least not like the one that gave Hitler so much material. No mass starvation or other humiliations. No Ratsrepublik. No Freikorps (for those who don't know, they were the German version of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, complete with their own "stab-in-the-back" delusions). Hitler would have gone back to his watercolors or bricklaying, Himmler would have stayed on his chicken farm and Goering would have had to make do with porking and embezzling from Swedish starlets. All in all, things would have been better.

[MKSheppard]

You might want to look up Operation Polar Bear and why a number of American WW1 monuments include the names of soldiers killed in 1919. SHHHHHHH! Nobody tell Kast or Rogue 9 the answer!
.

Eat me, we sent troops into Archangel to cover the witdhrawal of
war materel from Russia before the commies could seize it.

[frigidmagi]

Rogue already knew, we were talking about that over MSN a few months ago.

[Patrick Degan]

As for Deegan, you seem to be slipping, mate. Either the strategy of regime-change is solid, but the undertaking flawed (which seems to be the direct thrust of your argument at this point), or it isn’t, and you can offer something with a better chance of success (but have for some inexplicable reason declined to do so until now). So which is it? You’re obviously talking out your ass. First it’s bullshit about how I’m not explaining myself, but by the end of your post, you’ve changed your tune from, “You’re saying nothing new,” to, “Well, that’s not the way it’s going down … yet.” Make up your mind. Either we agree that the concept of regime-change is fundamentally valid if employed correctly, or we disagree, and you’ve now got to ante up a new strategy you can justify as more workable. Hop to.

Is that pathetic drivel the best you can come up with as a rebuttal? Trying so desperately to cover up your inability to explain how your fantasies are going to possibly work out by attacking where I'm pointing out how they, in fact, are not working out? Trying to mine a support for a wholesale regime-change programme out of my arguments? Simply ignoring the alternative I did indeed put forth? How trite.

[Elfdart]

You might want to look up Operation Polar Bear and why a number of American WW1 monuments include the names of soldiers killed in 1919. SHHHHHHH! Nobody tell Kast or Rogue 9 the answer!
.

Eat me, we sent troops into Archangel to cover the witdhrawal of
war materel from Russia before the commies could seize it.

Goddamn it, Shep! I told you not to tell them the fucking answer!

Besides, it was also to support the White Russians and Kolchak.

[Darth Wong]

You know Kast, as long as we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, and we "must" invade nations, and we "must" use force at every turn, etc., when do you plan on signing up? Have you found your local recruiting center yet?

Playing the Moore game, Wong? Attempting to argue that everyone who advocates a military response to a given problem must necessarily join the military in order to validate that opinion is akin to arguing that everyone who discusses politics must necessarily possess a degree in political science - in which case most members of this board (including yourself) would be excluded from the discussion by your own logic.

English translation: "No".

By the way, your heavy reliance on strawman distortions shows through again: this is not about qualifications; it is about your claim that it is absolutely imperative that we do this. In fact, virtually all of your posts drone on endlessly about how we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, or the sky will fall, the world will end, life as we know it will collapse, and western society will be doomed.

However, your actions belie your words; despite your rhetoric, you do not seem to think that the threat is great enough to warrant any actions on your part besides blathering on this webboard.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

You know Kast, as long as we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, and we "must" invade nations, and we "must" use force at every turn, etc., when do you plan on signing up? Have you found your local recruiting center yet?

Playing the Moore game, Wong? Attempting to argue that everyone who advocates a military response to a given problem must necessarily join the military in order to validate that opinion is akin to arguing that everyone who discusses politics must necessarily possess a degree in political science - in which case most members of this board (including yourself) would be excluded from the discussion by your own logic.

English translation: "No".

By the way, your heavy reliance on strawman distortions shows through again: this is not about qualifications; it is about your claim that it is absolutely imperative that we do this. In fact, virtually all of your posts drone on endlessly about how we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, or the sky will fall, the world will end, life as we know it will collapse, and western society will be doomed.

However, your actions belie your words; despite your rhetoric, you do not seem to think that the threat is great enough to warrant any actions on your part besides blathering on this webboard.

Most "hawks" are like that. They're pro-war in almost every circumstance.... provided that someone else (or someone else's children) does the fighting.

[Axis Kast]

Believe me, I wouldn't spend any more time trying to appeal to your conscience than I would the feeling in Christopher Reeves' balls. Did you fall off a galloping horse, too -or are you just an asshole?

Concession accepted. Calling me a heartless bastard doesn’t refute any of Iran’s activities whatsoever.

As with any good quarterback, the backpedaling is just three or five steps before the pass that hits the receiver in stride for the big gain, the winning score, victory, shaving cream and beer commercial endorsements, etc...

You might want to look up Operation Polar Bear and why a number of American WW1 monuments include the names of soldiers killed in 1919. SHHHHHHH! Nobody tell Kast or Rogue 9 the answer

What the fuck does our response to a regime-change in the Soviet Union have to do with our responsibility for it in the first place? You’re going right from A to C.

Wilson's support for Britain and France helped prolong the war and tilted the scales very heavily in their favor. If Germany had won, or if France and Britain had only marginally beaten Germany, or if the whole thing had simply ground to halt like the Thirty Years War, Versailles would not have been so punitive. If Wilson hadn't gone along with the postwar blockade of Germany that starved hundreds of thousands of people to death. If, if, if...

Hmmmmm. No Versailles Treaty -at least not like the one that gave Hitler so much material. No mass starvation or other humiliations. No Ratsrepublik. No Freikorps (for those who don't know, they were the German version of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, complete with their own "stab-in-the-back" delusions). Hitler would have gone back to his watercolors or bricklaying, Himmler would have stayed on his chicken farm and Goering would have had to make do with porking and embezzling from Swedish starlets. All in all, things would have been better.

Wilson made the decision to intervene against an aggressor with clear designs on neighboring countries.

Not to mention that the final, end-of-the-war push probably would have been carried by Britain, France, and the other Allies alone – even without American help. Which means that punitive damage to Germany would have still been severe – and probably more so than it was, considering that, as Rogue pointed out, Wilson was, if anything, a moderating force.

Is that pathetic drivel the best you can come up with as a rebuttal? Trying so desperately to cover up your inability to explain how your fantasies are going to possibly work out by attacking where I'm pointing out how they, in fact, are not working out? Trying to mine a support for a wholesale regime-change programme out of my arguments? Simply ignoring the alternative I did indeed put forth? How trite.

You’re the one who’s giving credit to the strategy by changing focus to the nature of the tactics. You’ve already admitted we’d be facing a much smoother occupation and recovery if not for a few key mistakes in management.

And what alternative did you put forth Deegan? More furious wanking about how Iranian students are somehow going to rebel when they are still on the losing side of political determinations? About how Iraqis were sure to overthrow Saddam Hussein despite years of oppression and failed attempts under much more fortuitous circumstances in the past? The Arab world isn’t a dynamic place. Change wasn’t coming from stagnation, and you know it.

English translation: "No".

By the way, your heavy reliance on strawman distortions shows through again: this is not about qualifications; it is about your claim that it is absolutely imperative that we do this. In fact, virtually all of your posts drone on endlessly about how we "must" do this, and we "must" do that, or the sky will fall, the world will end, life as we know it will collapse, and western society will be doomed.

However, your actions belie your words; despite your rhetoric, you do not seem to think that the threat is great enough to warrant any actions on your part besides blathering on this webboard.

What bullshit. My posts talk about what should be done to achieve the most effective results. If I use the imperative, it’s to make the point that other routes are dangerous or even counter-productive, and therefore invalid or faulty by comparison.

I’m not even going to attempt to touch the rest of your bullshit attempt to discredit my argument because I don’t wear a uniform.

[Patrick Degan]

Is that pathetic drivel the best you can come up with as a rebuttal? Trying so desperately to cover up your inability to explain how your fantasies are going to possibly work out by attacking where I'm pointing out how they, in fact, are not working out? Trying to mine a support for a wholesale regime-change programme out of my arguments? Simply ignoring the alternative I did indeed put forth? How trite.

You’re the one who’s giving credit to the strategy by changing focus to the nature of the tactics. You’ve already admitted we’d be facing a much smoother occupation and recovery if not for a few key mistakes in management.

Making an obvious observation regarding the proper conduct of a strategy which should never have been implemented in the first place does not lend it credibility, assmunch.

And what alternative did you put forth Deegan? More furious wanking about how Iranian students are somehow going to rebel when they are still on the losing side of political determinations? About how Iraqis were sure to overthrow Saddam Hussein despite years of oppression and failed attempts under much more fortuitous circumstances in the past? The Arab world isn’t a dynamic place. Change wasn’t coming from stagnation, and you know it.

That being the view of things from Bizarro-world, I take it?