Hundreds of thousands protest Iraq war

[Earnie Shavers]

Sting, "Anti War = Pro Saddam" or whatever the latest version of "With Us or Against Us" is, is really a very tired and pointless argument. I understand what you are saying about the protests, but I simply don't believe it's a reason for them not to occur. What do you want in their place? Everyone to very quietly whisper to each other "Sssshhh, keep it quiet but I disagree very strongly with this war. Pass it on... but don't say it too loudly.... it would be bad for people to know.... wait... here comes a camera.... GOD BLESS THE USA!!!! KICK TERRORIST ASS!!!!"

I'm in two minds about how things should be handled from here in Iraq. I don't believe the US/Coalition should just jump out of there now and leave a significant void that will surely take less than 24 hours to descend into all out civil war, and following that another 24 hours before it's all out regional war. That, obviously, is going to fuck us all royally and I don't want to see that happen. However, I believe all pressure SHOULD be put on the governments that invaded Iraq, because this is their mess and their mess only. To be blunt, they deserve it. There was a rage around the globe before the war, a rage around the globe during and after it. It was and has always been quite clearly an event that is something somewhere between either a deliberate misleading, an all out mistake or just a very dumb move. Somehow a majority of Americans were duped into supporting it. Somehow the majority of Australians and British who didn't support it were able to be completely shafted by their elected governments who went with it anyway despite knowing full well their populations wanted no part of such an obvious farce.

I have no sympathy for these governments being protested against. None. I want the problems in Iraq to work out for the Iraqi people as much as anyone, but I've got no sympathy for Bush or Blair or Howard or any of their underlings who created this. They deserve to hear the voice of everyone who is furious, and I believe that fury deserves to be at it's strongest in the US. The ball is in your governments court and has been the whole time.

Things aren't going well in Iraq (to say the least)? The tide is turning among your own population? Tough shit. Al Zarqawi and the current situation in Iraq were not created by two people debating on an internet message board, or by protesters in Sydney, London or Washington.

 

[STING2]

Sting, "Anti War = Pro Saddam" or whatever the latest version of "With Us or Against Us" is, is really a very tired and pointless argument. I understand what you are saying about the protests, but I simply don't believe it's a reason for them not to occur. What do you want in their place? Everyone to very quietly whisper to each other "Sssshhh, keep it quiet but I disagree very strongly with this war. Pass it on... but don't say it too loudly.... it would be bad for people to know.... wait... here comes a camera.... GOD BLESS THE USA!!!! KICK TERRORIST ASS!!!!"

I'm in two minds about how things should be handled from here in Iraq. I don't believe the US/Coalition should just jump out of there now and leave a significant void that will surely take less than 24 hours to descend into all out civil war, and following that another 24 hours before it's all out regional war. That, obviously, is going to fuck us all royally and I don't want to see that happen. However, I believe all pressure SHOULD be put on the governments that invaded Iraq, because this is their mess and their mess only. To be blunt, they deserve it. There was a rage around the globe before the war, a rage around the globe during and after it. It was and has always been quite clearly an event that is something somewhere between either a deliberate misleading, an all out mistake or just a very dumb move. Somehow a majority of Americans were duped into supporting it. Somehow the majority of Australians and British who didn't support it were able to be completely shafted by their elected governments who went with it anyway despite knowing full well their populations wanted no part of such an obvious farce.

I have no sympathy for these governments being protested against. None. I want the problems in Iraq to work out for the Iraqi people as much as anyone, but I've got no sympathy for Bush or Blair or Howard or any of their underlings who created this. They deserve to hear the voice of everyone who is furious, and I believe that fury deserves to be at it's strongest in the US. The ball is in your governments court and has been the whole time.

Things aren't going well in Iraq (to say the least)? The tide is turning among your own population? Tough shit. Al Zarqawi and the current situation in Iraq were not created by two people debating on an internet message board, or by protesters in Sydney, London or Washington.

If you take some time to read what I actually said, you'll find that I never said that protestors or the internet created Al Zarqawi. Nor did I ever say that the protest should not occur.

All I said was that the insurgents are dependent on negative public opinion in the United States in achieving their goals in Iraq. The only way the insurgents can win in Iraq is through a premature US withdrawal. The chances of that happening increase as negative public opinion increases.

 

[Zoomerang96]

so are the insurgents LOSING right now?

if you're asking me, it looks like everyone's losing.

 

[theblazer]

Make Levees, Not War!

Straight up brains upon brains! We must listen to these peoplez!

 

[deep]

If you take some time to read what I actually said, you'll find that I never said that protestors or the internet created Al Zarqawi. Nor did I ever say that the protest should not occur.

All I said was that the insurgents are dependent on negative public opinion in the United States in achieving their goals in Iraq. The only way the insurgents can win in Iraq is through a premature US withdrawal. The chances of that happening increase as negative public opinion increases.

the United States in achieving their goals in Iraq.


sorry Sting

but Iraq does not belong to the United States

it is not there for the U S to "achieve goals"




many (this administration) seem to believe in some kind of a f--ked -up "manifest destiny"

 

[Dreadsox]

I am still wondering why STING has not responded to my comment.....

Maybe the coalition is a coalition?

 

[Irvine511]

I really do not want this to deteriorate into postings of signs....which I am ready to do....

There were offensive signs on both sides....

Why does it have to deteriorate into whose signs were more offensive?

Aren't we capable of more in here?

Dread, you said earlier that any reasonable person would be put off by the signs held up by the protestors.

anyway, i would like to share a story of The Most Unproductive Conversation Ever.

as i was walking, i came across those fire-and-brimstone born again crazies. they held up signs with biblical verses regarding the "lake of fire" that's supposedly in hell, and shouted about how we, and everyone in this country who isn't in their group and holding up a sign at that current moment, were also going to hell. i was told, point blank, and unsolicited (i was just looking at them and their wee beady eyes ... almost hypnotic with insanity), that i would, "cry like a little girl after 2 minutes in that lake of fire." i didn't think i was looking all that gay, but then i realized that if i wasn't holding a sign that told everyone else they were going to hell, then i was already condemned to hell.

anyway, after a few minutes of listening to this insanity, the anarchists (who, yes, do kind of smell) descended upon the born agains. shouting. swearing. ranging from the stupid "suck! a! dick!" to "who would jesus bomb?!?!?" this was met with retorts like, "you're going to hell" and "they'll turn up the temperature on that lake of fire just for you."

it was pretty awesome. and just another reason why i love protests.

 

[yolland]

I am still wondering why STING has not responded to my comment.....

Maybe the coalition is a coalition?

?

A coalition of what? I can see you're suggesting a connection here, but I'm too dense to figure it out.

 

[yolland]

The only goal all the insurgents have in common is ending Western military influence in Iraq (and perhaps the Arab world more generally). Beyond that, they do not at all speak in the same voice as to what type of polity, society, economy, etc. they would like to live in. It is just a tautology to say that they would like to see the US leave "so they can achieve their goals."

Of course Rumsfeld et al. have their own hypotheses about which subgroup of insurgents would be most likely to seize the moment in the vacuum created by a US withdrawal (on the basis of military acumen, access to weapons, PR savvy, funding, connections to local and outside interests, etc.). And these hypotheses may very well be right. However, that particular aspect of the conflict is not one that Cindy Sherman & Co. have any influence at all over.

Unless and until the US is able to reduce terrorist recruitment in Iraq to near zero, all the occupation is really achieving is putting off--not preventing--the above outcome. And if anything, it seems like an occupation that drags on interminably is a great way to promote terrorist recruitment.

 

[STING2]

the United States in achieving their goals in Iraq.


sorry Sting

but Iraq does not belong to the United States

it is not there for the U S to "achieve goals"




many (this administration) seem to believe in some kind of a f--ked -up "manifest destiny"

If you carefully read the quote again, you'll see that I was not talking about US goals in Iraq, but insurgent goals in Iraq.

"All I said was that the insurgents are dependent on negative public opinion in the United States in achieving their goals in Iraq."

In any event, no one has ever said that Iraq belongs to the United States in 2005 any more than Germany belonged to the United States in 1945. The United States has goals to achieve in Iraq in 2005 and beyond, just as it had goals to achieve in France in 1944, Germany in 1945, Korea in 1950, Kuwait in 1991, Bosnia in 1995, and Kosovo in 1999.

 

[STING2]

The only goal all the insurgents have in common is ending Western military influence in Iraq (and perhaps the Arab world more generally). Beyond that, they do not at all speak in the same voice as to what type of polity, society, economy, etc. they would like to live in. It is just a tautology to say that they would like to see the US leave "so they can achieve their goals."

Of course Rumsfeld et al. have their own hypotheses about which subgroup of insurgents would be most likely to seize the moment in the vacuum created by a US withdrawal (on the basis of military acumen, access to weapons, PR savvy, funding, connections to local and outside interests, etc.). And these hypotheses may very well be right. However, that particular aspect of the conflict is not one that Cindy Sherman & Co. have any influence at all over.

Unless and until the US is able to reduce terrorist recruitment in Iraq to near zero, all the occupation is really achieving is putting off--not preventing--the above outcome. And if anything, it seems like an occupation that drags on interminably is a great way to promote terrorist recruitment.

The majority of the insurgents are Sunni Arabs living in the the four Northwestern provinces of Iraq. The majority are remnents of Saddam's regime/military or have contact with these former regime groups. Al Quada is a minority in the Iraqi insurgency and most suicide bombers come from outside Iraq.

Still the fact remains, they are all dependent on the removal of the US troops from Iraq in order to achieve their goals. There is nothing new the insurgents are able to do today as compared to two years ago. Average monthly losses for the coalition have not changed since April of 2004. The terrorist have been unable to invade and take over towns where the coalition military is present. They have been unable to remove coalition forces from any of Iraq's provinces. Their efforts to prevent the January elections were a total failure, as 8 million Iraqi's successfully voted. The political and economic development of Iraq has continued despite all their efforts to stop the process. As was the case 2 and half years ago, the insurgency is primarily restricted to the four Sunni Provinces in North Western Iraq.

Another area that the insurgents have tried hard to stop, but have failed, is the development of the Iraqi military. In July of 2004, the new Iraqi military had 1 Battalion which was not fully ready for military operations. One year later in July of 2005, the new Iraqi military had 100 Battalions, 10 of which were being used interchangably with US Army and US Marine Battalions.

As far as insurgent/terrorist recruitment numbers, the insurgents average monthly attacks have not increased over the past 18 months. Average monthly US losses have remained the same throughout that period. No one knows for sure what insurgent numbers are, but we do know the number attacks that are launched and the resulting losses, and this has not changed since April of 2004.

What has definitely changed though is the number of Iraqi military units that are fully trained and fighting with US Army and Marine Units. If anyone has been successful in recruitment, it is the Iraqi Army who's numbers have dramatically grown since the summer of 2004. 1 half trained Battalion in July 2004 vs. 10 full trained Battalions and 90 more Battalions in training in July 2005. A 10 fold increase in fully trained Battalions and a 100 fold increase in all Battalions regardless of the level of training. Based on the average number of monthly attacks insurgents have been able to launch, their numbers have not grown since April of 2004. This is not a good sign for insurgents and as the past 18 months have shown, will only get worse for them.

The only way these trends will reverse is through a premature US withdrawal from Iraq. Because the insurgents have failed to push the United States out of any area of Iraq, their only hope is to survive and inflict as many losses as they possibly can in the hopes that they can negatively effect US public opinion back home to force a premature US withdrawal from Iraq. As the Iraqi military continues to grow in size and capability, the time that insurgents have to force a premature US withdrawal grows smaller. Sustained increases in the size and capability of Iraqi military forces will eventually yield an Iraqi military force that can handle the insurgents independent of US or Coalition forces. By that time, US and Coalition forces will be in the process of withdrawing having accomplished their mission. Continued insurgent attacks will be futile but will probably continue to some degree, but will be unable to stop Iraq from continuing down the road of poltical and economic development.