I listened to so little of the seante interrogation of Gen. Casey but I became so frustrated of the no-follow-up qustion. Nothing camne to truth.

So now I should disbelieve the under-officers? I don't think so. And it becomes to hang with the same awful odour of Vietnam.

I am so, so sorry for all the waste.

STOP IT NOW.

Well, you and who? and since when? I think many of us have been very bothered by this whole campaign before the first tank landed.

Gosh, are we so suckered. Gen. Casey, Gen. Petreaus too!!!

They have both basically said they don't know what is going on but have been promoted (or will be) despite this. How much more recognition of Congress and Senate disconnection from responsibility do you need?

I will be writing to my senators and congresspeople at the weekend. WILL YOU?

In Petraeus' defense, we didn't have any local friends who could've told us the difference between the Mahdi Army and anyone else.

Which just goes to show how foolish this whole undertaking was.

Petraeus doesn't matter at this point. None of the personnel questions mean anything going forward - this thing can't be salvaged, at least not from the U.S. point of view, no matter who is leading it.

The whole idea of building a national Iraqi police force/army is inane. I don't know if there was ever a real possibility to create a non-sectarian police and military. But whether or not there was before, there isn't now. Iraq has dissolved into feuding sectarian militias, and the people nominally in control of the government are just one of the stronger militias. In no way are they part of a national government with national legitimacy.

Without that basic building block, U.S. military forces have no chance of building anything lasting. It doesn't matter if you have Petraeus, Napoleon, or Elmer Fudd in charge; it'll end the same way.

Petraeus - the wonder general who does push-ups; it's so 2004.

I will be writing to my senators and congresspeople at the weekend. WILL YOU?

I do so on a regular basis, sometimes they get three or more emails on specific topics in one 24-hour period from me.

(I gave you the nickel tour of the Iran crannies of my brain on the other thread, btw.:)

Mithrandir --

If YOU were in a hostile environment, who would you talk to to find out about safety and neutrality? Your own soldiers and those who want to talk to you, or the people in the environment and those who don't.

That's how simple it is and how stupid the US Army has been.

And that is how stupid the administration is too!

I don't know what is surprising about this revelation. The US invasion of Iraq successfully got rid of the Sunni power structure. The decision was made by Wolfowitz not to allow former Baathists into the new Iraqi army. Not only does the Mahdi militia dislike the American occupation but there are several other Shia groups who dislike the US even more than them. So now we've got Sunni insurgents and Shia militia getting intelligence info from plants in the army. I don't see how this could have been avoided given that the whole conception of this war and early decision-making were totally disastrous and wrong-headed. We're getting exactly what we paid for (or will pay for during the next 50 years).

many years ago the brit army took a major hit in these lands.

i relish the destruction of the usa forces in afghanistan, iraq.

it is sort of how i feel about the usa forces on the north amerikan frontier, after the war between the states.

my favorite day was that contest on the highlands overlooking the little bighorn river. when the 7th cav was eradicated.

i want to see these latter day "indians" take out the us forces similarly.

don't you? and if you don't, why don't you?

The day that Petaeus agreed to accept a fourth star, I was in the blood-bank at DDE at Ft. Leavenworth. By the time my shift was over, all the enlisted under e-4 had morphed his name to Dave Betray-us.

Blue Girl, Red State --

thank you for the "nickel tour". I can't even begin to express how I am so much in line with your thinking.

And that is why it is so important to stop the degeneration now. There are so many loonies out there! And so hard to stop.

"There ain't enough Indians in the world to defeat the 7th Cav."....George Armstrong Custer

Kevin,

I agree, but who else is dumb enough, not to mention available to take the gig at this point?

About a year ago, you and I sat in a room with Wesley Clark and ome of us asked him about a tripartite Iraq. He said no dice at the time.

I wonder what he'd say now, we should ask him...

many years ago the brit army took a major hit in these lands.

i relish the destruction of the usa forces in afghanistan, iraq.

Albert! Long time, no see!

Got any conspiracy theories for us tonight, nutjob? How about you explain why you think Adolph Hitler "had the right idea" about killing all the Jews during the Holocaust?

Never let bullshit go unchallenged. An argument unchallenged is an argument accepted. Challenge them all. Make them defend those indefensible positions. Especially on these boards. Here, it isn't about the 50 or so of us who comment - it's about the lurkers. Challenge the bullshit and present cogent, coherent positions that can be defended We stop the agenda of the end-timers by spreading reality.

And if I get any more schmaltzy I'm going to puke. So I'll just say "Goodnight, all."

...don't you? and if you don't, why don't you?

Posted by: albertchampion

Of course not, you idiot.

Why would anyone condone present destruction and loss of life, and, furthermore, justify it by past war and loss of life.

You are promoting a negative by condoning a negative. Good job! Fool!

You can probably pinpoint the moment that US chances of securing a peaceful Iraq dropped to zero as the day when somebody decided that it would be a good idea to shut down al-Sadr's newspaper and arrest him. Up until then he was critical and stirring people up against the US, but he was actually peaceful - now he's a bigger threat to Iraq's stability than either al-Qaeda or the Sunni groups.

That and disbanding the old Iraqi Army are probably the stand out moments of idiocy. I guess the people responsible have probably been given Medals of Freedom by now, huh?

Just wanted to point out how uniformly exellent McClatchey (the former Knight Ridder) has been on the whole Iraq war - they questioned it BEFORE it happened, and then have unrelentingly told the truth about the whole damn debacle.

So everytime the NY times or the WaPo ries to defend itself by saying" but everybody else was saying the same thing" " - point out the boys from KR/McClatchey. It shuts them up quickly.

Sorry, albert, get back in yur can.

We're the good guys.

Kevin, Gen. Petreaus did exactly what his superiors told him to do - build an "iraqi" security force as quickly as possible and get through as many bullet points as he could, however he could. Progress measured by the media and white house was, at that time, benchmarketted solely by the number of recruits signed up. They went for hundreds of thousands of people in months. Previous to KR and others revealing that almost none of the iraqi army was able to operate on its own, numbers were the only standard.

I think the more disturbing part of getting him in charge is that the only reason he would be there now would be because he never seriously barked upwards about having to eat such a huge shit sandwich.

Good comments about Gen. Petraeus from PBS' Newshour.

An example:

DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: No. First of all, in Mosul when he arrived with the 101st, there was no insurgency. That area was fairly pacific. I spoke with some soldiers in the 101st who'd been on patrol, and they talked about patrolling there over 30 days without any incident, until finally they were approached.

And someone at marketplace walked up and, in perfect English, said, "Do you see a problem here?" And they said, "No." And they said, "Well, then, why are you here?" The next day, they had their first RPG attack on the patrol. Soldiers said, "We were not attacked -- we did not patrol because we were attacked. We were attacked because we patrolled."

You know, everything I've heard suggests that Gen. David Petraeus is a terrific officer in all respects.

Meaning what, dude? That journalists, politicians and PR personel have no clue as to what constitutes a 'good general', such that anytime you hear all about how somebody is a great general, san evidence, you know you're being suckered by a propaganda campaign?

Well, DUH.

They were telling us all about how Tommy Franks was a great general, but in the three outings of his I know of (Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II) his actual performance was decidely poor. Flashy, but poor. I have no idea how good a general Petraeus is because I have no record of his performance. Excepting, of course, what you just mentioned above. I note there, that the Iraqi 'security forces' have never been much good for anything the entire time we've been there.

I don't know gow much of that is Petraeus' fault, but if he gets assigned eventually, to something else (not Iraq currently, that's a no-win) and he screws it up, you'll know then!

m, that's the way the cookie's judged

About a year ago, you and I sat in a room with Wesley Clark and ome of us asked him about a tripartite Iraq. He said no dice at the time.

Yeah, who gets the oil-less middle part of Iraq? Hmmmm. I wonder how that's going to be decided.

They all knew. The only suckers were back in the US. A certain delusional President and the morons who bought into his vision.

Look for Petraeus to do great in the private sector.

Kevin,

I'll second WarDepartment - Petraues is very good at what he does. But he has no control over what he is asked to do.

Three things:

1. After all - even if he DID think that training the Iraqis was a bad idea, would you want him to deliberately do a BAD job? That would be advocating insubordination and the kind of "republicans hate government so they screw it up on purpose" behavior that we usually critique.

2. There's also the fact that, if you were most concerned about a Sunni insurgency in 2003-4, arming and training Shiite militias made the most sense.

3. Who do you train? Whoever shows up. Sunnis didn't join the army and police. Kurds already have well-trained militias. Shiites are the only ones queuing to be blown up in early-morning recruitment center bombings, so you train what you get.

Army is not being suckered.

Who are the Mahdi army? Mostly poor Shia from slums of Baghdad and poor areas of the country.

Who is deserate enough to sign up for a dangerous job? Poor young men from urban slums and poor areas of the country.

Sunnis are fighting the US and the new Iraqi army/police so they are not going to signup to fight against their own relatives.

The supporters of al Sadr and the people who sign up for the new police and military are one and the same. There is no help for it. This is what Bush ordered. The military can only carry out plans within the political environment created for them by Bush.

DUH

So how many generals do we have left to audition for the job?

h

I see a United States army, overextended, underequipped--I see reservists who were looking forward to one weekend a month and flood and forest fire duty sitting in a war longer than World War II, not knowing the language let alone friend from foe, having had friends turned to jelly and also having had friends shoot down women and children because they couldn't tell what was going on--and no end in sight--and I see a general staff watching their beloved army falling to pieces before their eyes, worse then Vietnam ever was, with their civilian commanders , clueless all along, now engaged in an operation simply because everybody told them not to--

--the vision I have is, after this surge fails and they announce that they're going to escalate some more, that a major general, standing stone-faced at a press conference, with a strange groan pulls a service automatic and blow's Dubya's head off and shouts "Duty, Honor, Country!" before the Secret Service riddles him with bullets..

pbg: I see a United States army, overextended, underequipped--I see reservists who were looking forward to one weekend a month and flood and forest fire duty sitting in a war longer than World War II

all of that is true....

but as i like to say...

hey...

they volunteered...

(smirk)

Is this the best you can offer? Reports from junior officers leading troops on the ground? Hah! I get my information from Michelle Malkin - Why, that intrepid soul recently spent FOUR whole days in Iraq. She even saw a hole in a roof of a mosque; said it must have been termites. Geez, I once landed at the airport in Boston while flying to Europe. So, I really know Boston.

albertchampion: i want to see these latter day "indians" take out the us forces similarly.

don't you? and if you don't, why don't you?

No, I don't, because in a significant sense, I am part of them. I want them to leave Iraq and come home safely, with their shields not on them. I also want the administration that started this clusterfuck to be at least embarassed and preferably indicted, but I certainly don't want American forces destroyed.

Not only did the Guard and Reserve volunteer, but they should have known that the businesses that they worked for would fire them, without any consequences. After all, the businesses shouldn't have to sacrifice for Bush's War.

Petraeus will fail. The question is not whether he's good enough to succeed, because success is impossible. Baghdad does not belong to us, and it never will. The question is: How much violence will he inflict and how much will he prevent? I really hope that he is smart enough to protect our troops and the people of Iraq until we finally realize that it's time to leave.

Bothered by it? How about enraged.

Maybe Petraeus and Casey can be coaxed to stage a coup over the weekend...

>"We're the good guys."

That's a very popular myth and (naturally) deeply ingrained in Americans.

I think a rational examination of American history would reveal otherwise. Not to say that there have not been some good things the US has done... but in the big picture, we are just like the rest of humanity.

When it comes down to really nasty things like extermination, Hitler had his jews, we had our Indians. The beat goes on.

I am bothered by Gen. Petraeus, but not because he was not cognizant of training militia as Iraqi army and police, but because he suckered his troops and the American people into thinking any fighting by US military forces could succeed at doing anything other than make Iraq a worse place. He did not sucker the President or Congress, they support more US aggression for political reasons.

Those junior officers had better remember what happened to Capt. Freeman. Any more complaining, and they will be visited by some Blackwater operatives who will shoot them in the back of the head for having the balls to say what they think. Of course, Iran will be held responsible.

Ah, Kevin.

No surprise here. Top Liberal Cartoon Kevin Drum maligning one of the great American generals of our time. What makes Petreas so great is that he's like a scholar and a soldier all mixed up into one. That's neat. And you libs can't stand it.

Petreas, just to give you a little background,had a successful tour in Mosel, where he developed his own anti-insurgency tactics. They worked there. They'll work in Bagdad.

Gates said victory will be declared in August, and maybe then you can have your precious redeployment. But victory first.

f Tom Lasseter is to be believed -- and I think he is -- the junior officers leading our troops are not sanguine about our prospects in Baghdad.

"ZOE: You sanguine about the kinda reception we're gonna get? MAL: Absolutely. What's sanguine?
ZOE: Hopeful. Plus, point of interest, it also means bloody.
MAL: Well, that pretty much covers all the options, now don't it?"

Seems about right.

Buford,
You are comparing the fight with American Indians with Hitlers plan to wipe all Jews off of the face of the earth.

That's why you don't compare anybody to Hitler. Unless you want to lose the argument.

No one could have anticipated this.

Gen. Petraeus was charged with training the Iraqi army, not the police.

But to answer Kevin's question: yes, I am bothered by this. I wondered in the summer of 2003, when the 101st's area of operations around Mosul seemed to be doing much better than other areas in Iraq, if the sensible thing wouldn't be to promote Petraeus ahead of his seniors and give him charge of the ground forces in country. This wasn't done, a subject for a longer post some other time. Instead Petraeus was assigned a subordinate command pursuant to someone else's strategy, and his success in that command has I fear been more assumed than demonstrated.

The administration slogan throughout the 2004-5 period was "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Petraeus was in charge of standing them up, but the people he was training were mostly Shiites, and he was training them while an insurgency by Sunni Arabs targeting Shiites (including, of course, members of and recruits to the army and police) was going on without pause. Without the insurgency what might have resulted was a national army, stronger relative to other Iraqi institutions than might be desirable but at least not immediately dangerous. But as things now most of the men Petraeus was charged with training have good reason to want to seek revenge. Expecting his training to be stronger than the urge of revenge is expecting a lot. If Petraeus was not aware of this situation and said nothing about it, well, that's not a good sign to say the least.

I actually don't think that a Sadrist rising against the Americans is likely (though I certainly understand why a lieutenant patrolling Baghdad would be concerned about the possibility). The Sadrists remember 2004 just as we do; they remember what American firepower can do to unsupported infantry. Perhaps even more important, though, they know the Americans won't be "surging" permanently. They'll go to ground, and we'll draw down our forces in the Baghdad area -- maybe in three months, maybe in six, as Lt. Etienne predicts here. And as soon as we leave they will go after the Sunni Arabs, or start fighting with the Badr Corps, or both. And, yes, the training they've received will be a definite advantage.

What makes Petreas so great is that he's like a scholar and a soldier all mixed up into one. That's neat.

The 13-year-old version of Egbert is on duty.

Personally, I feel what makes Gen. Petraeus so great is that he knows how to spell.

So how many generals do we have left to audition for the job? - hancock

Well, I think Darth Cheney is down to about three. And it seems he can actually do that thing where he lifts his finger and the general who failed to catch Osama's Millennium Falcon starts choking to death through the Internet now. He doesn't even have to be in the same room as acck crrrrk goke hhhhhhhh g g g

And the city in Iraq is "Mosul".

"Mosel" is a river in Germany; it's also a small town in Wisconsin. I'm not aware of insurgent activities in either location, apart from the annual Oktoberfest fallout.

Egbert, I realize that your right hand is busy with something else, but in the future, try using both hands when you type.

Brojo >"...Any more complaining, and they will be visited by some Blackwater operatives who will shoot them in the back of the head for having the balls to say what they think. Of course, Iran will be held responsible."

Yea, scary times these.

Time to withdraw from Baghdad & let things take their course.

And how many people, as if anyone cared, will die today from automobile accidents ?

There are blindnesses and then there is blind.

"A nation that continues to make distinctions between its fighting man and its thinking man will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards." - Thucydides

Even rational and essentially dispassionate critics of the Iraq fiasco like Kevin are somehow unable to accept the fact that the era of colonial/imperial wars was over some time ago, and that any enterprise that even remotely resembles an effort to occupy another country is bound to fail. In light of this fundamental historical imperative, all the talk of the desirability of one tactic vs. the other in Iraq is completely futile.

Yeah, who gets the oil-less middle part of Iraq? Hmmmm. I wonder how that's going to be decided. Posted by: chuck on February 2, 2007 at 8:19 AM

The middle part is also the part with all the water. Can't drink oil, can you?

THE BLAME GAME:

Blame it on the CIA.

Blame it on the generals.

Blame it on the Clinton Administration.

Blame it on Al-Qaeda.

Blame it on foreign fighters.

Blame it on the Sunnis.

Blame it on the Shias.

Blame it on the Al Maliki government

Blame it on Iran.

Blame it on the weather.

But DON'T blame it on us.

Moqtada al Sadr is Iraq's Dictator in Training. He should be taken out. It might be argued that he'd be replaced by someone just as bad, but that's not inevitable, since he has significance as the son of a Saddam-martyred father.

I don't think anyone has been unaware of the dangers of training the Iraqi army. I mean, why the hell do you think we haven't given them any tanks, aircraft, or artillery? Just think about the bind the military has been in--they can't be expected to train and equip their enemies, but if they don't train and equip somebody then they're disobeying orders.

I believe egbert has figured out the exit strategy. We were were being too subtle.

Gates said victory will be declared in August, and maybe then you can have your precious redeployment. But victory first.

In fairness to Gates, he couldn't make it plainer. We can't pull out until victory occurs. Victory occurs when it is declared. It will be declared in August. Troop redeployment will begin.

Republican political candidates will tout "victory" and troop draw downs during their campaigns. If a civil war is raging in Iraq during this campaign it will be attributed to Iraq's failure to achieve our goals for them. Tsk tsk. Those underachieving Iraqis aren't working up to their potential.

Susan Paxton: Moqtada al Sadr is Iraq's Dictator in Training. He should be taken out. It might be argued that he'd be replaced by someone just as bad, but that's not inevitable, since he has significance as the son of a Saddam-martyred father.

He may also be guilty of murdering a senior Shi'ite cleric. Until that's proven, however, how can it be to anyone's advantage, other than his second in command, to martyr the son of a martyr?

Around there(Iraq), they’re starting to drop like sickened flies, as the fetid stench of false pulchritude and blatant nepotism play out their last retarded act to a crowd that is visibly beginning to thin and throw licorice candies at the stage. The evil white poodle of doom continues to loiter in the parking lot of our discontent. Some say his name is Yorick, to which I slyly reply, “Ah, Yorick! I knew him Horatio! Many was the time he bore (and bored) me on his lumpen and flea-ridden back!” which totally confuses everybody. But I have bigger lunkers to skin and fry. The dull now sharpened arrow of pain and despair, waylaid and delivered at the end of the random female bumper weighs heavily upon my stress level and systolic blood pressure as the ominous clouds of elective back surgery are no longer a distant fuzzy specter but a menacing boogey man, passing the kidney stone of corporeal dread until all hope for simple resolution gives up the ghost and faces the dreaded noise of certain permanent malfunction in regards to a continuing subsistence without twinge or tweak of physical trepidation.

"Yeah, who gets the oil-less middle part of Iraq? Hmmmm. I wonder how that's going to be decided."
Posted by: chuck on February 2, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Maybe we will ask the Sunni Kurds to share the Northern Oil Patch with the Sunni Arabs. If they don't, then we'll let Turkey do what they like with Kurdistan? That way you've got the Sunni Oil Patch in the North and Shia Oil Patch in the South. The Kurds won't like it, but maybe they are becoming a little more "expendable" given our troubles with the Iraqi adventure.

That's a really good point, Kevin. I am bothered by that. Are there any good links out there assessing Petreus' command?

The best solution to this problem is to let Iraq figure this out on it's own. Even Bush's victory hands Iraq over to a theocracy beholden to his axis of evil country Iran. This troop surge won't only not work, but it is setting up our forces to participate in the first official American genocide. Our troops are about to receive kill or capture orders on all military age males in Baghdad as we assist the Shi'ites of Iraq in the murder of all Sunni's. This is exactly what we should not allow our military to be used for. It's time for Bush to go down with his failure. Let's remember this the next time some political moron wants to convince the American people that invading a defenseless country unprovoked for the sake of pre-emptively solving a non-problem is a good idea. Bush is a moron, but what does that make the American people?

...."All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they'll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It'll be called the 'Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, 'Wait, and we will be victorious.' That's what they preach. And it will be their victory."

But won't the surge take care of all this? Tell me again about the rabbits.

There seems to be another surge going on right now, but this surge is being brought to us by the muj.

Another helochopper went down today. We are losing one every three days. I wonder, what have the muj figured out? Where are our counter measures?

Its gonna be a long, long spring and summer.

They are getting good at shooting them down, aren't they? And it also looks like the insurgents are targeting leadership - Sgt's and Officers. last night the News hour had an Honor roll of ten, six of whom were in leadership rolls - three Sergeants, a Warrant Officer, a Captain and a Major.

The best thing you americans have to do is:
1) forget about Irak, as Bolton said. If those people aren't happy for the wonderful things the US did for them, it's too bad.
2) attack Iran, another shock and awe, nice TV images of bombing and technology.
3) French bashing is always fun, don't forget it.

You were all behind your president back in 2003. Most of you are responsible of the mess created. The better way is to create more mess, elsewhere, Iran, Syria, in order to forget the previous one. It could last forever. And it's good for business.

Moqtada al Sadr is Iraq's Dictator in Training. He should be taken out. It might be argued that he'd be replaced by someone just as bad, but that's not inevitable, since he has significance as the son of a Saddam-martyred father.

You obviously understand the importance of martyrs in driving a movement and following from that you want to make another?

Against all odds, we managed to make Saddam a Sunni martyr, so you want to make al-Sadr into a Shi'a martyr? And it doesn't strike you as being more than a little counterproductive?

Buford wrote: "When it comes down to really nasty things like extermination, Hitler had his jews, we had our Indians."

DR replied: "You are comparing the fight with American Indians with Hitlers plan to wipe all Jews off of the face of the earth. That's why you don't compare anybody to Hitler. Unless you want to lose the argument."

It's true that there's no comparison between Hitler's campaign to exterminate the Jews with the genocide of indigenous Americans by the European invaders.

Hitler only killed six million people, whereas the European invaders exterminated an estimated one hundred million indigenous Americans.

The simple truth is that America, "the land of the free", was founded and built on genocide and slavery that were among the worst in all of human history.

European invaders exterminated an estimated one hundred million indigenous Americans.

SecularAnimist, just for the sake of clarity, be careful with that hundred million figure. That represents the highest estimates. The lowest are 15-20 million and I have heard good arguments for a number near 60-70 million at peak which may have been a generation or two before AD 1492.

DR replied: "You are comparing the fight with American Indians with Hitlers plan to wipe all Jews off of the face of the earth. That's why you don't compare anybody to Hitler. Unless you want to lose the argument."

I disagree... on several points.

1) Much of the rhetoric, planning and actions of the Indian wars advocated and directed extermination of the indegenious peoples.

Perhaps the most brutal weapon involved was starvation, in the deliberate eradication of the Buffalo.

2) It is worth noting that Hitlers original plans didn't call for extermination of the Jews, but relocation to another area. His aim was establishing a nation with a pure culture (aryan) that wouldn't be influenced by corrupting ideologies and 'foreign' cultures. [Ironically, this is also the underlying principle of Zionism itself].

His original intention to deport the jews led to one of the odder alliances in history.

One of the main Zionist/terrorist organizations of the day, 'The Stern Gang' offering to fight against the British in exchange for promise of swift establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine by the Nazis.

Developments in the course of WWII soon ruled out Hitlers 'Plan A' and led the establishment of concentration camps as the infamous 'Final Solution'.

Hitlers concentration camps also pale in comparison to the brutal effeciveness of Stalin's campaigns... and the numbers of people killed.

Moving forward in time we have Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other illuminaries.

Like I said, the beat goes on.

Keith G and Secular Animist, I think that the worst of the killing was by epidemic diseases, and the worst of that occured even before the English landed in what we now call Virginia and Massachusetts. I apologize for not having a source handy, some of this was in Rivers of Gold, Rivers of Blood, and some in Guns, Germs and Steel.

It is true that the northern Europeans attempted an intentional biological warfare with smallpox, but the worst damage was done by the diseases (emphasize the plural)that the Spaniards carried with them through all the areas that they explored, including Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. It's possible that these diseases killed the Mississipians, though it is also possible that the Mississipians were killed in combat with the many hunter-gatherer tribes. Then the English and French spread variants of the same diseases without any understanding that they were the agents (vectors, if you prefer) of the diseases that they discovered the Americans to be suffering from.

It's a sad and awful story, but I don't think it ranks with the systematic transport and murder of millions of the Jews by the Germans in just 12 years. Some of the elements of the crimes are the same, and the rhetoric and intentions of the killers, but not the scale.

Someone has stolen my nom.

I don't know what the rules are in this chat room, but it doesn't seem right.

But if stealing noms is o.k., guess I'll try it. I like the nom "spider" a lot. Maybe even "egbert." I sure could have some fun with that one, huh?

"You were all behind your president back in 2003. Most of you are responsible of the mess created."

Who is 'YOU' whiteman?

Frank - Kevin Drum was the very model of the liberal war-supporter in 2003.

'if we partition Iraq, who gets the part without oil?'

-seriously, who cares. We're not socialists. we're not fighting to make the world a more equitable place financially.
If you live in the poor country, well life is just sucky that way. It sucks to live in Mexico compared to the US also. That doesnt mean we have an obligation to give mexico or mexicans enough money to live like us. Thats not to say we should screw them or not trade with them fairly, but living on the wrong side of a border can suck. and that applies in the middle east as well as anywhere.