Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief »

Posted by: bobhiggins 8 months, 2 weeks ago

9.5

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 31

Propped: 94

Comments: 162

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.

Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 162

0%
BB648 months, 2 weeks ago

I read the whole article. Isn't this what the DNC promised to do in the last election? Cut and run. Never thought it would be the Brits, but new Prime Minister, new rules. They are close to the cheese eating surrender monkeys, perhaps it's rubbing off.
Reply
77 Replies
- 0%
  Charlson8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  All this says is that the British administering of Basra was as incompetent and misguided as our own. We, along with the British, put in place policies such as disbanding the army and police and creating a fertile field of insurgents, armed a reconstituted army and police that had no loyalty to Iraq but only to it's various sects and militias, and tried reconstruction with private contractors and wasted billions with very little to show for the money expended. This war was a folly from the first bomb dropped on Bagdad and was never fully planned for realistic contingencies based on factual research of the country and region. Bush waged a war that won militarily but lost politically. So don't blame the anti-war folks for the troubles your cons created in the first place and continue to mismanage.
  Reply
  53 Replies
  - 0%
    BB648 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Before you try to lay all of the blame on Bush, you need to take a serious look at the faulty intel from the CIA. Simply put, they're not doing a very good job. They've been looking for OBL for almost 6 years. They missed the African Embassy attacks, the USS Cole, the fall of the former USSR, the resurgence of the "new" USSR.
    As to winning, you're correct we did kick Saddam's butt. The problem, Saddam was a paper tiger, again I ask, where was the real CIA report? They had to have presented one to someone concerning about Saddam's fall and what Iran and Syria might do. It's clear the CIA for all of the trillions we spend did a horse pucky of job on this. Rather than worrying about Plame and Wilson's book tours, I think we need a hearing on exactly what the CIA's been doing. I mean besides playing special forces.
    Before you attack me, if Bush's people hid that report, then charge them.
    Reply
    50 Replies
    - 0%
      quackpot8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      If you look at the record, this information was known to Bush Sr. Wolfowitz, and the other prime movers of the Iraq invasion were present in the administration at that time and very much aware of this information. The problem is that the information was warped by the political interests of the neo-conservatices that came into power with G.W.Bush.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Maybe if you wish really really hard enough.. It still wouldn't be true. Quackpot indeed.
        Reply
    - 0%
      pcknowledge8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      "They've been looking for OBL for almost 6 years."
      Neither the CIA nor Bush where ever interested in finding Bin Ladin. If they found BL, Bush's war against "terror" would be much less effective & justifiable, esspecially the war in Iraq.
      The Director of CIA takes order from the President. They work together. The CIA briefs the President about issues. No point in solely blaming the CIA. We didn't win anything by kicking Saddam, he was a stabilizing force in the ME & of no danger to us.
      Reply
      15 Replies
      - 0%
        Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Know body wants to hear the truth, your words are falling on deaf ears I think. Much of the west has been told for years we are right and might make it so, don't question it just blindly follow.
        Reply
        13 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        You're right! Hussein moved all of his armaments, chemical weapons, etc to Syria before we invaded.
        Waterboarding is wrong. Jaydee40 likes it better when people are beheaded on television and appreciates a good rape room or three. We had no right to shut them down. They should have just stayed open so that we would have had a better example of how to run Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib.
        Hey, PCKnowledge, what does PC stand for? Poor Coherence?
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Locky - I've had enough of your idiotic comments. No intelligence service in the Mideast or the western countries have ever said that. This is a charge that the neocons have brought with absolutely no proof whatsoever. That it gets repeated over and over again by neocon propogandists simply reinforces in your minds that if so many neocons say it, it must be true.
        Listen - Saddam dismantled his weapons under supervision by UN inspectors. Scott Ritter, a former Republican conservative, was head of 14 missions in Iraq. Hans Blix found none. David Kay and Charles Duelfer found none. Our occupation forces searched frantically for WMD's and found none.
        Syria is still furious at Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. If they did have Iraq's WMD's, they would surely have threatened Israel w/ those same weapons.
        Saddam did have weapons. Those weapons no longer exist.
        You made the charge they exist in Syria. PROVE IT!!
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        "Syria is still furious at Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. If they did have Iraq's WMD's, they would surely have threatened Israel w/ those same weapons."
        Why on Earth would they do that? I mean syria is stupid but give them some credit. If they were to all of a sudden come out with some wmd we would all know where it came from. Not to mention their using those weapons to threaten Israel would give the free world reason to all together boot stomp the entire nation.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Tang - Why would Syria be stupid just to be the storage bin for Saddam, risk getting caught and castigated by the international community, but get no benefit from it.
        If they had Saddam's weapons, the ONLY reason they would accept it is to get an advantage for themselves. There is absolutely no reason for them to do favors for Saddam with no return.
        Therefore, if they have not used these weapons to their advantage - they simply don't have it.
        Locky - you are saying that not having found any weapons in Iraq means that they were transported to Syria. Basically you are arguing that the absence of proof of WMD's proves their presence. Totally illogical.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        You do not know that. Why would they use them now? Why would they let anyone know that they have them now? While Bush/Cheney are still in office? Are you kidding me? They know that al it would take to seal their fate would be to let the world know they have these. Immediatly Bush would be proven right about Iraq and Syria, and the entire world would come together to back him up. There most deinately would not be a dem in the white house next year, or congress. Because the American public would know that Bush did not lie, was in fact right, and that it was the dems who were trying to end a much needed war. For every reason you can come up with for Syria to release that they have these weapons, I could come up with 20 showing why it would be a bad move.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Tang - You do not know either that the weapons were transported. At least I have the efforts of so many weapons inspectors to back up my belief that the weapons were indeed destroyed. You have no basis at all for your belief that the weapons were transported. You are simply parroting what other neocons believe.
        I am parroting what the weapons inspectors report.
        In a post below, you asked me to prove that Bush and Cheney are lying about the WMD's. Read my posts.
        Now I pose the challenge to you.
        Prove that the weapons were transported. Even easier, prove that Saddam had weapons just before the invasion in order to justify Bush's attack.
        You asked me to prove a negative, prove an absence. I tried my best to do so. Your task is easier - you simply have to prove a positive, prove a presence. Yet you have utterly failed to post your own proof.
        Come on, let's see it. NOW.
        Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Tang and Locky - You 2 guys are trying to debate what Syria was thinking of, what their motives may have been, what could be present or absent. Idiots. These are just diversionary tactics. Who knows what they were THINKING.
        Let's get serious here.
        Let's talk about IRAQ. Let's talk about WMD's that Saddam made.
        You both have made the claim that there were weapons IN SADDAM'S POSSESSION in order to justify Bush's attack.
        Remember, the accusation that the weapons were transported was made only AFTER THE INSPECTION TEAMS FOUND NOTHING.
        I repeat my challenge - Prove that there were weapons in Iraq that justified Bush's invasion!!!
        Reply
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Sinophil, likewise, you say Bush/Cheney lied to get us into war: PROVE IT!
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        All right. The CIA had contact with at least 2 scientists in Iraq who had relatives in the US. They both reported no WMD's. The CIA did turn one Iraqi general who reported no WMD's.
        Saddam's own son-in-law, who I believe was also a general defected briefly and reported no WMD's. Stupidly, he returned to Iraq and was executed.
        Starting in 12/02, Iraq made several attempts to contact our CIA, Pentagon, and State Depatment to prove there were no more WMD's. Gen Habbush, head of Iraq intelligence contacted Vincent Cannistraro of the CIA. Messages were also sent to the State Dept thru Egypt, Syria, France, Germany, and Russia. All were denied
        Imad Hage, a Lebanese-American, became a go-between for Habbash, Hassan al-Obeidi (chief of Iraq Intelligence foreign affairs dept) and Tariq Aziz and our DoD Office of Special Plans. His contact was Michael Maloof. At various stages, Iraq offered large oil concessions, mining rights, support for any Israel-Palestine peace plan, ....
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        UN-supervised elections in Iraq, and transfer of custody of their top al-Qaida prisoner, Abdul Rahman Yasin.
        Most importantly, they offered the free entry of up to 5000 FBI agents to investigate the entire country to look for WMD's.
        Maloof reported all this to Jamie Duran, next in line in the DoD under Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. He supposedly reported all this to his 2 superiors. All these offers were turned down. Hage was told to tell the Iraqis "We will meet them in Baghdad." Later, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld both denied knowing of these contacts.
        That denial would have us believe that a 3rd level bureaucrat kept this information secret and so effectively made the decision to launch an invasion, not the president.
        William Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector (UNSCOM)in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, personally supervised the destruction of WMD's in 30 separate missions. He led 14 of those missions. He testified BEFORE the 2003 invasion that there were no more WMD's.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Hans Blix verified that there were no more WMD's in Iraq.
        ALL OF THESE PROOFS, PERSONAL TESTIMONIES, OFFERS OF NEGOTIATIONS WERE IGNORED, SUPPRESSED, OR LIED ABOUT.
        I can only conclude that the decision to invade was already a foregone conclusion and the bloodlust of these rabid WH officials, including Bush would not be satisfied until Iraqi and American blood was spilled on Iraq sands.
        Well, Locky, all these bits I have gleaned over the past couple years in my readings. Proof enough for you??
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        That denial would have us believe that a 3rd level bureaucrat kept this information secret and so effectively made the decision to launch an invasion, not the president.
        You just proved my point. Thank you.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Locky - I must be very dense. Could you please explain what your point is.
        My point is that this bureaucrat would not have dared hold back such an important piece of information from his superiors. A peace offer from a foreign sovereign state is beyond the scope of power for a bureaucrat to approve or deny.
        Therefore, his superiors must have known about it.
        If I understand you correctly, you are saying that these bureaucrats are ALLOWED to make decisions of WAR, send people to their deaths, and squander BILLIONS of dollars?
        What type of management style do you call that? In the heavy handed power style of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, do you honestly think Jamie Duran would have gotten away with that?
        If Bush truly let the bungling of a bureaucrat allow him to stumble into a war, Bush would be the most incompetent executive in the history of the US.
        Your post is far too subtle for me. So please, explain to me what exactly your point is.
        Reply
      - 0%
        cloud158 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        So where are the facts supporting your statement pcknowledge? What percentage of the pro war people think were looking for Osama in Iraq? How would his capture prevent Iraq?
        See what is so ridiculous about your comment is that if Osama were caught it would gain support for the administration, make them seem a little more competant, gain support for a SUCCESSFUL war on terror and more. There would be nothing but gold for capturing Osama, finding a new poster boy for the war would have been easy as cake.
        Reply
    - 0%
      IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      BB64: "Before you try to lay all of the blame on Bush, you need to take a serious look at the faulty intel from the CIA. Simply put, they're not doing a very good job."
      ...and I might add the Clinton Administration literally dismantled and refused to fund the intel activity, claiming the ACLU, we were violating someone's ( but not an Americans ) rights, I might add. Your enemy still has intel gathering, and you do not. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you don't have good intelligence on your enemy, your fight with them may not be pretty. I've learned that from Uncles and relatives who serves in ther armed forced of our country, not theirs.
      But it is really easy to be an armchair quarterback if you don't ever play in the game? Once in the game the picture changes. You don't get instant replay either or a do over.
      Reply
      15 Replies
      - 0%
        Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        One pretty simple rule is you don't attack another country that did not attack you then try and claim the moral high ground. Another thin is you don't start a war you can't afford, that one too seems to have been missed by this would be dictator.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        So we never should have attacked Germany in WW2, is that what you're saying?
        Sounds like a pretty stupid rule to me.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        So we never should have attacked Germany in WW2, is that what you're saying?
        Sounds like a pretty stupid rule to me.?????????
        Germany declared war on USA, so like it or not USA was at war.
        Now how does that equate with Iraq? or is there a new batch of WH intel coming out to support this lack of thought of yours
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        The islamic jihadists declared a holy war on the USA. What's the difference?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        blinkers8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        You'll miss this, tang, since it's so late, but your question begs the classic response: "If you've got to ask, you'll never know".
        Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Tang - "The islamic jihadists declared a holy war on the USA. What's the difference?"
        Are you for real? Iraq is a sovereign, secular state with a government, an innocent population, a people that was living in relative harmony, an economic structure that supported this population, families that just want to survive and raise their children.
        Islamic jihadists are a motley aggregation of fanatic, religious extremists with no national affilation, no unifying leader, no all encompassing philosophy other than hatred and the cult of death. They are a threat to any govt that does not cater to their whims. They are outcasts and are rejected by most governmental entities in the world.
        Remember, Bush went into Iraq to liberate the people from Saddam, from terrorism. He ended up killing and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, creating thousands more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.
        Remember, Bush said that most of the islamic insurgents are...
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        foreigners infiltrating into Iraq, NOT Iraqis.
        Theoretically, we are fighting a battle against islamic jihadists in Iraq. But we are not actually fighting Iraq anymore. Theoretically, we are just keeping the peace between the muslim sects and factions until the new Iraqi government can stand up on its own.
        As usual, however, it is the innocent civilians that suffer the most.
        Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Sooner or later you have to take on despots and dictators, especially when they are killing thousands upon thousands of their own citizens, like Hitler and Saddam Insane was. Some say it isn't your business, well, that is until they come for you? By then, its too late.
        Reply
      - 0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Inca - You may be right about the total amount of intelligence funding under Clinton. I do not have the time to look it up.
        However, Clinton did finance a serious attempt at assassinating Saddam in 2000. The CIA funneled money to several dissident army officers and to the Kurds. Whether the CIA or these groups messed up I do not know. The result is that several hundred to thousands of rebels were executed. This ended the entire CIA ground humintel network in Iraq. This, in turn, led to further CIA intelligence failures in Iraq.
        So you can not accuse Clinton of not trying. He did finance this assassination attempt. He failed, but at least he tried.
        Please don't bring up this nonsense about the ACLU. In all the hundreds of conservative posts I have come across, yours is the first that claimed the ACLU decided our foreign affairs. It looks silly and weakens your position.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I'm told that after the botched assination attempt on Ben Laden by the Clinton Administration, one of which was botched by Madlyn Albright, telling Clinton to warn Pakistan we were coming, whose insiders then warned Ben Laden, that was when Ben Laden declared war on America. This was what one of my Uncles told me. Duh? Warn your enemy that you're coming? Have television crews on shore waiting for you to arrive so they can film your beach landing?
        The sad part, as I see it, when you're wanting to restore your liberties, we're better off with a Democrat in office, but when it comes to the wisdom of war, we've always been better off with a Republican, ever since Roosevelt, and he was a crippled old man. Some say Eleanor was running the white house then, long before Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton showed up.
        You're right. We would never had entered WWII had we waited for some of these cowards. Freedom isn't free. You have to at some point, be offensive to keep it.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        You're right. We would never had entered WWII had we waited for some of these cowards. Freedom isn't free. You have to at some point, be offensive to keep it.
        Need to read your history again, you were dragged into war, one by sneak attack, the other because Germany declared war on you.
        USA was not offensive until 44 in Europe, but the Pacific was almost all USA
        Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Inca- What are you talking about? Albright and Clinton are much smarter than what you give them credit for here. Clinton and the entire US intelligence services had been after OBL since the USS Cole attack. Everyone, including Clinton, immediately suspected OBL for the attack. There was an opportunity to assassinate OBL, but the CIA refused to certify unequivocally that OBL was the mastermind of the USS Cole attack. Therefore Clinton held back. He did not want any mistakes and, therefore, listened to his advisors. Unlike Bush and Cheney, who twisted arms and altered reports to get the answers they wanted to justify the invasion of Iraq, Clinton put no pressure on the CIA to alter or falsify reports.
        OBL had declared war on America long before. He hated the US ever since we installed bases in Saudi Arabia in 1990. He has long stated that it was a sacrilege against Islam. It had nothing to do w/ Clinton.
        The bulk of our forces were withdrawn in 2003. Unfortunately that did not...
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        lessen OBL's hatred of USA. Instead, our invasion of Iraq has only served to give OBL another reason to hate us. It also gave OBL the perfect practice field to train more insurgents and terrorists. Hands-on, practical training against live targets (US GI's) beats boring classroom lectures any old day.
        Hannibal gave you a correct and pithy reply about WWII. I only want to add that the US has a long tradition of isolationism. Woodrow Wilson in WWI only tentatively wanted to declare war on Germany; but Congress was determinedly against it initially, even after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. Only after numerous more sinkings of US ships and Gernmany's attempt to secretly get Mexico's alliance did Congress finally declare war on Germany - in 1917.
        Reply
        
        0%
        IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Both the assination attempts on Saddam and Ben Laden were fraught with mistakes. So were the attempted rescue of our hostages in Iran.
        When will we ever learn that operations like these are best done by trained military, not political idiots, no matter which party they're in?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Inca - I think that most of the assassination attempts by the CIA have been failures and merely resulted in angering the target victim. The CIA has attempted numerous assassinations of Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, Patrice Lumumba and several other Latin American leaders. The only successful mission I can think of is the killing of Che Guevarra.
        The KGB and the Mossad have a better success rate in assassinations than our CIA
        Reply
    - 0%
      jdhatl8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      It was the Bushites who wanted this war, so yes, they are to blame. No-one else would have invaded Iraq at that point in time. This is an actual clear cut black and white issue for a change. Only it's too late no matter whether we leave or stay
      Reply
      12 Replies
      - 0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Curse those Bushites for convincing the dems that saddam had wmd and needed to be taken out during the late 90's!
        Let me ask you this, if the dems really were lied too, who would you rather have protecting you, the ones who lied to get their way, or the ones who were too stupid to check the intel for themselves? (which we know is not the case seeing as how hildabeast was one of them who was "lied too". Afterall, she was talking of saddams wmd before President Bush was even elected.)
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Well the way I see it is in the 60's Rep started Saddam's rise to power, in the 80's sold him WMD's to fight Iran, in the 90's stabbed him in the back and in the first decade of the 21st century hung him; and now you ask if this is what someone would like to protect them.
        Sure glad I am not an American as with protection like that I would feel like I have been screwed and not even a kiss in the process; well maybe the kiss of death
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Aside from dodging the point, you do bring up some compelling arguments. At the time that we armed him, we were also arming Iran. we wanted them to kill each other off so we could avoid this mess we are in right now. We also did not stab him in the back during the 90's. We stopped him from invading an allied nation. We did not hang him either. The Iraqis did.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Lots of spin there buddy, Iraq was invaded in Desert storm only after 4 years of fighting Iran for you and also while fighting Iran the CIA were selling arms with Iran for the Contra fiasco.
        But one of the reasons for invading Iraq in 91 was that Iraq was trying to sell its oil in Euro's and USA did not like this, also Kuwait was stealing Iraq oil, so yes after 25 years of being USA's friend Saddam was hung out to dry.
        And if USA had not invaded in 2003 Saddam would not have been hung, this was a US decision, just like Blackwater, Iraqies had no say
        Reply
        
        0%
        Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        tanglang: "At the time that we armed him, we were also arming Iran. we wanted them to kill each other off so we could avoid this mess we are in right now."
        Now that's a really heartwarming thought. This sounds much better than arming one side only.
        .
        "We also did not stab him in the back during the 90's."
        Well, that's debatable.
        "Saddam Hussein had an emergency meeting with April Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, on 25 July 1990, airing his concerns but stating his intention to continue talks. April Glaspie informed SaddÄ;m that the United States had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. Not exactly true as subsequent events would prove."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Good call
        Reply
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I'm not sure if I would call a total invasion of ones country a "border dispute". That seems like a stretch. As for my heartwarming thought, that's life in the real world. It is much better for your eneimes to kill eachother right?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Sure good for business also when you can sell weapons to both sides and still back at home claim the moral high ground
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Damn skippy. :o)
        Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        tang - "the ones who were too stupid to check the intel for themselves?"
        HUH? Congress has no intel network, no command authority over these services, no input into the policies and strategies. They only have supervisory powers. In that, they also depend on what information the intel services supply or report.
        Bush and Cheney are the ones who have total control over the intel network and what information they want released to congress. They are the ones who have acess to ALL the intel - CIA, FBI, Pentagon, State Dept, DNI, Joint Chjiefs of Staff, etc. They dictate what they want the reports to say.
        Bush presented a 4 page summary to congress to convince them about the WMD's. Congress has no way to get any other info.
        In times of crisis, ordinary citizens and lesser officials look to their leaders. There is an intrinsic tendency to trust your leaders. Bush abused and betrayed that trust. He and Cheney twisted, altered, misinterpreted the data and reports to satisfy...
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        their bloodlust and their perverted world view.
        BUSH AND CHENEY ARE THE ONLY ONES TO BLAME FOR THIS MISBEGGOTEN AND SENSELESS WAR.
        Why are you trying to shift the blame onto congress?
        Did Bush not say the HE WAS THE DECIDER? That alone implies that he gave no import to the misgivings or warnings of people against the war. We did not have to assign responsibility to Bush. He himself claimed responsibility for launching the invasion.
        Reply
      - 0%
        Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I agree. It's not leaving that's the problem but starting this war in the first place. I hope Bush and his supporters are happy that they managed to turn a secular society, where women enjoyed quite a bit of freedom, into a fundamentalist Islamic one where women are executed for the clothes they wear.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      BB64: "I ask, where was the real CIA report? They had to have presented one to someone concerning about Saddam's fall and what Iran and Syria might do."
      Some wise men did foresee what taking down Saddam would mean as early as 1994. The problem is that their wisdom has somehow evaporated between 1994 and 2002.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Candida - What a gem of a video clip you dug up!! I do remember that both Gen schwarzkopf and Sec of Def Richard Bruce Cheney were against the invasion into Iraq by Operation Desert Storm. But to actually hear the words coming out of Cheney's mouth was delightful!
        Thank you so much.
        Talk about flip-flops. This is truly one of the most amazing, consequential, and disastrous flip-flops in world history.
        Reply
    - 0%
      sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      BB64 - You are right that the CIA has had its share of intelligence failures.
      However, in regards to the search for evidence for Iraq WMD's, it was a roaring success. The CIA was ordered, along w/ Pentagon intelligence and the State Dept, not to determine WHETHER there were still WMD's in Iraq, but rather to prove the administration's assertion that there still were WMD's. They accomplished the assignment given to them. There was plenty of evidence to show there were none, but that was NOT their mission.
      Reply
  - 0%
    Daylight8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Charlson
    The truth is that the war is waged on the basis of lies, Iraqis never supported American invasion or so called Democracy and freedom. If this war is against terrorism by now it is over, it against Islam which you will never win even if you fight this war for another hundred years, you will be the looser. You have already lost the war and you are waiting for a face serving exercise.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      crghss8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Daylight it's time that you stop reading your quran by candlelight and switch to an electric bulb.
      Reply
- 0%
  quackpot8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Perhaps Iraqis such as the general featured in this film, are the ones that need to police Iraq..not the U.S. Army?
  The situation depicted here is the result of over four years of arming the militias to the teeth while allowing the Iraq government to be content to eat off of the U.S. and British gravy-train.
  It is now time to tell the Iraq do-nothing government the gravy-train is over. After over four years, it is now time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate and defend their own country, and for the U.S. to empower the Iraqis to do so.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    The problem is once any Iraqi has sided with the invaders, American, British or other, they become the enemy of the Iraqi people. There is no fix in Iraq other than a new dictator from within, and it's going to be a bloodbath until that happens, Saddam should never have been killed. All western forces must pull out and allow whatever come next to take place before there can be some sort of peace.
    Reply
- 0%
  marshx8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  but a pertial withdrawal recently was met with calm. its not about scoring points, its about safety for both british troops and ordinary Iraqis, british troops will stay for monitoring and training.
  In my eyes, so long as no one is being blown up, its a success!
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    marshx: "In my eyes, so long as no one is being blown up, its a success!"
    But people are being blown up, and women and children are being killed. Don't they matter? Is it still a success?
    Reply
- 0%
  NelsonR8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  The Brits are smart while progressively moving forward after obeying Bush's lunacy. They have found enlightenment while most Americans agree. There will always be that minority such as yourself BB64 who adore wars and imbecile leaders to follow.
  This war will never be won, mark your calendar for that quote since I will remind you of it. We are bankrupt yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Lets take over the world!!!
  We have Bush for another year, many more counries can be conquered.
  Reply
  12 Replies
  - 0%
    IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    No, the British just cut and run. Reminds me of stories my father told of certain countires armies during WWII. Every time they thought they might lose, they changed sides.
    Reply
    11 Replies
    - 0%
      crghss8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      The Brits (and French) left the world with the Palestinian fiasco also.
      Reply
    - 0%
      Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Maybe you should do some digging and find the truth for a change, you could definitely benefit from it.
      Reply
    - 0%
      HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Hey IncaQueen, enlighten me please, When did the Brits cut and run in any war, and as for Iraq, like Vietnam the British people did not support this war and as a result of this Blair, shrubs poodle was forced to resign.
      You see in England if a leader loses the support of the people he can be forced out of office, no impeachment necessary.
      And it seems that shrub has lost American support but no elected official has the ball s to go after him and what 28% still revere him as a demi-god? What a mess
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 0%
        ADAGUY8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Well said!
        Reply
      - 0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Revere him as a demi-god? You get all that by his approval ratings? How do you know that everyone who said he is not doing a good job is against the war? I don't think he is doing a good job but that is because he an the other anti-American liberals in congress wanted to sell us out to the mexican invaders last summer. Besides, the last time I saw the approval ratings for congress they were less than 16%. But of course to the left that means that 84% are upset that they have not ended the war yet.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        He is still in power and still giving the American people the finger, isn't he.
        As for congress, aren't they politicians/lawyers also?
        Effing bunch of liars and cheats the lot of them and it won't matter who you elect next year as it is more of the same.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I can get on board with some of that.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        And you have a happy holiday and safe travels this season.
        Cheers
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Same to you.
        Reply
      - 0%
        adamsat8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        It's not even a matter of cut and run I thought the plan was to get the Iraq people to take control. The American's seemed to have forgotten that, and appear to want to stay there forever. Yes it's not safe (but have you walked through Nottingham late at night (DON'T))but at some stage you have to let them have a go on their own.
        Reply
    - 0%
      sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Inca - "The British just cut and run."
      Well they had a wonderful example to emulate. They were simply imitating what Bush did in Afghanistan.
      The other way to interpret the British action is that they got smarter faster than Bush and realized we are not the world's savior.
      Bush once said God told him he was meant to be president. If Bush truly believed that, he probably regards himself as the world's 2nd savior.
      Reply
- 0%
  MyCampingMall8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  It's time for the Iraqi's to stand up and walk. A baby walks after about a year to 11/2 years. Why is it taking the Iraqi's so long to shoulder their responsibilities?
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    pcknowledge8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    It's taking so long because Bush doesn't want them to govern their own country. Bush wants to impose his ideas of how they should govern their country. And how they should work with our government. And at the same time Bush wants to control their oil fields. Bush wants them to hand over their oil & run the country according to his standards. This just won't work...
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      schmirt8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      People seem to believe we operate in a vacuum in Iraq. The truth is: There are forces on the extremes and interference from nieghbors that dont want to allow Iraqis to govern thier own country. There are others who want to 'impose' thier ideas. How can people not see this?
      The problem with the initial American exit strategy was that it did not want to use the heavy hand(or large footprint)to impose its will. The result was a security vacuum and under-developed Iraqi institutions to govern. America could have washed its hands and left the people to fend for themselves among criminals, militias, and Jihadists. After all, America had achieved its mission--insuring the disarming and removal of Saddam. But America has decided to take responsibility to not leave Iraqis to the wolves.
      Critics ask why is it so difficult and how long will it take as if there is no enemy of the people who want the Iraqi govt. to fail for thier own gain and/or to defeat America too.
      Reply
- 0%
  Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  The only Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys I see are the American people that see what the shrub and his cronies are doing but are to afraid to stand up and do anything to stop it.
  Reply
- 0%
  BoxMonkey8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Good for the Brits . We need to do the same . Get out , let them shoot it out amonst themselves . After all , it's not a commonwealth of the USA .
  Reply
- 0%
  Daylight8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  BB64
  I read the whole article. Isn't this what the DNC promised to do in the last election? Cut and run. Never thought it would be the Brits, but new Prime Minister, new rules. They are close to the cheese eating surrender monkeys, perhaps it's rubbing off.
  Same fate is awaiting the Americans, the Americans also will be kicked out of the region because the Iraqi people and the Muslims all over the world know and believe that America is an oppressor an invader and consider Americans as the enemy of the Islamic world. This war is on Islam, it is not about terrorism.
  Reply
0%
joeblowe8 months, 2 weeks ago

4 1/2 years and the Iraqis aren't up to the task of governing their own country? With all the help, money, training they've received? What is wrong with this picture? Could it be that they really AREN'T civilized over there? They really ARE largely in favor of anarchy? Or tribal rule? Are they really so damn ignorant that they kill women just for... well, practically anything? Apparently they ARE. I'm about to the point where I'd say, "Screw 'em, let they go to hell in their own handbag" and have NOTHING further to do with the entire lot of them. Then when they have killed each other enough, just go in and help ourselves to the oil. They don't need it - they don't even seem to WANT a modern society.
Reply
19 Replies
- 0%
  Dionys8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Maybe they're just not interested in our form of "democracy" where the corporations make all the decisions and run the show.
  Reply
  17 Replies
  - 0%
    joeblowe8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Perhaps not. Perhaps they ARE more interested in the form of "government" where outlaw gangs, tribal warlords, and religious zealots fight amongst each other killing pretty much indiscriminately for scraps of "power" - while in the meantime the country in general devolves to the stone age. OK, maybe bronze. Perhaps that IS true. However, I doubt VERY much that the ordinary citizen of Iraq feels that way. I have a VERY strong feeling that the JoeBlowe (I can't figure it out, what's JoeBlowe translate to in Arabic dialect? Al Jowe Blow?) on the street in Baghdad would MUCH rather have corporations making decisions and running the show. Although he'd PROBABLY rather have DECENT corporations (a la Ben and Jerry, for example) than something like Enron or Exxon. But even THEY are better than Osama the Warlord -- trust me.
    Reply
    3 Replies
    - 0%
      Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      I thought an American of all people could understand the idea of give me liberty to chose my own fate or give me death. Are these true ideas or just words used to drum up nationalism when it suits some ones purpose? Any government of Iraqi origin is better than one of US origin to most Iraqi's, doesn't that ring a bell in your mind somewhere, the war of independence?
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Jaydee40, those word apply only to Americans. You should know that by now.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      joeblowe: "Perhaps they ARE more interested in the form of "government" where outlaw gangs, tribal warlords, and religious zealots fight amongst each other"
      They did have a stable and secular government, remember? It was overthrown by a foreign power, setting the stage for a civil war. Yes, in any civil war, competing fraction fight for power, and the rest of the population suffers. All this was quite predictable from the start.
      Reply
  - 0%
    crghss8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    "Maybe they're just not interested in our form of "democracy" "
    Like giving women rights. Allow homosexuals to live. And not supporting Shira law. Whats wrong with us. Asking people to behave like humans.
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%

Hello!

UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at guardian.co.uk

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 162

BB648 months, 2 weeks ago

Charlson8 months, 2 weeks ago

BB648 months, 2 weeks ago

quackpot8 months, 2 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago

pcknowledge8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

cloud158 months, 2 weeks ago

IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago

Locky128 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

blinkers8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

jdhatl8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago

Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

Daylight8 months, 2 weeks ago

crghss8 months, 2 weeks ago

quackpot8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago

marshx8 months, 2 weeks ago

Candida8 months, 2 weeks ago

NelsonR8 months, 2 weeks ago

IncaQueen8 months, 2 weeks ago

crghss8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jaydee408 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

ADAGUY8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

HannibalBarca8 months, 2 weeks ago

tanglang8 months, 2 weeks ago

adamsat8 months, 2 weeks ago

sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago

MyCampingMall8 months, 2 weeks ago