4,000!

There shall be much more blood of the innocents paid by way of monay, er, I mean, the U.S.A.!

Me name is a link.

peace

Andrew J. Aviles,
number 24

love and blessings to his family,
and all the ones who have lost a friend, a brother, a sister, a dad, a mom, grandparent ...

Dear Mallika,
here is a little about Andy

from the article by
David Cho, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 20, 2003

~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~

On bended knees, Oscar Aviles and his wife stroked the gold-colored box holding the remains of their son, Marine Lance Corporal Andrew Julian Aviles ... bowing in the sweltering afternoon heat yesterday at Arlington National Cemetery, saying a last goodbye.

Their grief was heightened by thoughts of what might have been. "Andy," as everyone called him, was only 18, his father said repeatedly.

Just a year ago, he was graduating from high school in Tampa. He was a member of the National Honor Society and student body president. A bright future lay ahead, starting with a full scholarship at Florida State University.

But he put that off to join the Marine Corps reserves and was called up in early February. He told his parents that he thought he would be in Iraq only a short time.

On April 7, just 17 days shy of his 19th birthday, Andy Aviles was killed when his amphibious assault vehicle was showered with enemy fire as his unit approached Baghdad.

Yesterday, he became the 24th casualty of the Iraq war buried at Arlington.

"My wife, I don't think she's come to grasp it completely," Oscar Aviles said earlier this week, choking back sobs. "She's still hoping that he's coming back, and so am I, even though I know that's not the case."

Norma Tamayo-Aviles first sensed that something might have happened to her son after hearing a report on her car radio that a Marine from Florida had been killed near Baghdad. No name was given, but she had this worried feeling, she told her husband when she got home.

They knew for sure later that evening when a car pulled into the driveway and five people in uniforms got out. Norma, hearing the car doors shut and the heavy footsteps approaching, ran to the door, crying out, "Oh my God, let it not be them."

Oscar recalled asking the Marines standing on his porch, "Did he just get hurt?" even though he knew better. The men lowered their eyes. After a moment, one of them spoke: "Can we come in?"

It was then that Norma broke into uncontrolled screams and sobs.

Shock and grief also reverberated at Robinson High School, Principal Kevin McCarthy said. A memorial service in the school courtyard was attended by 1,250 students, more than 50 members of Aviles's family and the mayor of Tampa.

"It was a very touching thing that happened at our school," McCarthy said. "It will not be forgotten. He will not be forgotten."

The cremated remains of Marine Lance Corporal Andrew Aviles were interred with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. At the time of his death, Aviles was a member of the 4th Assault Amphibian Battalion, 4th Marine Division.

Aviles died when his military convoy came under attack in Iraq on April 7, 2003.

Aviles was a National Honor Society member, graduated third in his class and planned to study business at Florida State University. He put off a full academic scholarship to FSU to serve in the Marine Reserves.

loha Millika

I remember my cousin who is an artist, and this was years ago, was doing a postage stamp painting of a soldier who made his transition. The regular size painting was given to the family. I know the postage size paintings are presented somewhere. Artist from all over participate.

Numbers are man made. There is no wasted energy or life. What kills me is there is no mention of the Iraqis who too lost their lives. The woman and children. Forgiveness is the greatest weapon there is. Focus on their Brilliance for they still shine. We are experiencing a planetary shift to remember our stellar memory of who we are. When you turn on the Light , the darkness leaves. love patty

dear Craig,
Andy might be there in the mosaic,
bless him - and all the ones whose lives have been lost ...
~ Kate

dear Patty,
Every life is precious.

love,
~ Kate

Aloha Kate

Did you watch the TEDtalk video of Jill Bolte Taylor, the brain scientist who suffered a stroke on the left side of her brain. I loved how Deepak shared about the video and the non-local mind, and no personal identity. War is just an event of space-time reality, and it is not the event it is what we think about it that upsets us. And I agree that all life is precious, there is no loss. Desire and suffering are the same root, of a Tao that is forever changing. We are groundless....in delightful uncertainty of not knowing who I am? love patty

Hi Mallika,

It is amazing the amount of effort that is put forth to save a single life. The extreme effort individuals will make to save another's life.

If only this same effort would be put forth to switch from oil as an energy source. It is that simple, eliminate the use of oil. It would save a lot of lives. If we had spent the half trillion dollars spent on the war on alternative energy every house would now have a roof of solar cells, and those new horizontal wind mills would be everywhere and those new more efficient than LEDs plasma based light bulbs would be in every socket and every house would have a battery to store and forward the electrons. Magnets and coils of copper wire would harness natural movement in every shape and form.

All we need is the collective will to do so, and we could achieve an extraordinary infrastructure change generating a lot of work. There is plenty of money because we create money out of thin air when we commit to creating future value. To say there is not enough money is to say there is a limit to what we can create as a civilization. There is no limit.

Could we switch the country over in 18 months if it would save our country? Yes, if ego was brushed to the side.

Those that currently benefit are an impediment to change and they create the illusion of obstacles blocking the new reality, one not dependant on oil.

Mallika,

That makes quite a deep impression. I share your depth of emotion about the loss of trees that I see every day as I drive here and there in my bio-region. It's madness. Where is the nurturing heart of intelligence? It is rising up from earth and coming down from heaven and we are the voices! Thanks for your voice.

Trish~~

The solution to the world's conflict is for the most part effortless; we simply all need to shift where we are placing our attention.

We need a guiding light, somebody please make it happen, a combined effort to create a voice to be heard by all, a voice born of compassion that would carry the wisdom and shed the light.

Inspired Designs
Inspired Poems

I am in the midst of brilliance:

Nice!

peace

O and I was wondering how can one "misspeak" about having bullets flying at you: you know when you are being shot at, it never leaves you, and when someone seeks political gain by mentioning haw they braved danger, when in fact they were talking to little girls surrounded by army dudes with smiles on their faces

the duplicity is sickening. She should have just said she had a blonde moment! Har har har!

Do not judge yet blessed are the ones who call evil evil. Quite a fix eh . . .

peace

Richard: sometimes I think you are totally insane and then sometimes (like now) I think you are the sanest voice I've ever heard.

Can you give us a list of immediate action steps we can take NOW to make that shift in our own individual worlds? For instance, the switch from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescents made total sense to me long back, and I'm ready to move on to LEDs and plasmas and whatever else is out there. There's likely a dozen more steps I could act on now. If you provide the guidance, I'm sure there are many here at IB who will participate in a switch to a more conscious and sustainable lifestyle (and life).

Wow .... pretty unbelievable Millika, as I thought - no way! I went back and checked a few times and yes, you actually did do it - all 4000. Personally, I would not have done so, therefore, I am surprised and amazed at the original thought that caused you to do such a thing.

Love, Char

Mallika,

This is a memorial you have created to these fallen heroes that reminds me, in some way, of the Vietnam Memorial. The young woman who designed the Vietnam Memorial, I believe, was original in her design compared to the others, b/c her design was based on the idea of showing people the sheer volume of the lives lost--it was not ornate in any way, but ironically had the greatest impact on those who saw it.
I will be honest--it is hard to mentally conceive of how great the number of the lives lost--what you have created however makes it possible to conceive of it--my thoughts: we have lost too many, too many tragic losses, I had no idea how many...I hope that the war will end soon.

Mallika :

You expressed the frustration and pain those people had gone through in these words. I can feel it to myself.

Mohan varadaraju

4,000 dead! “So!”

Top ten reasons why four thousand, four million, four billion, or even four trillion lives don’t matter:

1) Money
2) More Money
3) Power for the sake of Power
4) Greed
5) Land
6) Diamonds
7) Gold
8) Oil
9) the Glory of Men (see “patriotism is idolatry” please)
10) My God is bigger and better than yours!

You can mix and match these any way you want, and always be sure to add “we are doing God’s work” on top, and I will guarantee you war, not only for a hundred years, but for as long as you can imagine!

You see, war is a lot like God, if we didn’t have one we would have to invent/manufacture one. War, like God, gives the little people a reason for their very existence, and it provides talking points for the rich and powerful to keep us little people amazed and dumbfounded; “God wants us to spread freedom at any cost,” “the rulers (and their ‘warriors’) must even become evil themselves to defeat the evil of ‘our’ enemy” (and of course “our” evil rulers [and ‘warriors’] are in reality blessed because they are “doing God’s work” even though they are evilly doing it! NOT!), “freedom demands sacrifice” (the bloody sacrifice of children [ours, theirs, and even yours] is indispensable!!), “freedom isn’t cheap” (in fact it can cost three trillion dollars and even more . . .): In their “truths” there are only lies, in fact

“our” leaders can, and do, lie to us, rob us, and will joyfully even kill us, but as long as “free” markets are opened and “the Gospel” is preached, “our” rulers are, again, “doing God’s work” (NOT!) so all evil they do is actually good! And woe to thee who call evil good and good evil . . .

And if you disagree with me you are a communist faggot doughfaced momma’s boy!

Real men have no inner Stevenson debates, real men act with unthinking moral clarity to rid this world of evil! NOT!

Speaking of evil

Look at John War Dog McCain. His scarred face, Scarface (how ironically evil) is literally made of evil, he is in many respects the rich mans’ very own Darth Vader, and yet so many allegedly “good” people cannot wait to see what new wars he will manufacture. McCain is the progeny of warmakers, so peace is not even on the agenda, there is no place for peace on this Warworld of his, and there are millions more exactly like him.

So War Dog McCain/Mussolini/Bush/Hitler/Reagan/Stalin etc., accepts Christ right as he dies, and like a vicious serial killer who professes his faith in Christ as he is fastened into his electric chair, then exclaims how he shall wait for the rest of the elect in heaven, where they will be praised by God and eternally talk about war, killing, glory, “the excitement,” and probably even Hollywood and money I suppose . . .

Maybe Wolfowitz will even talk God into buying some life insurance . . .

4,000 dead! "So!"

“We” have only begun to fight, and the World Bank is in dire need of some fresh blood.

Peace NEVER!

Amen

John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight..."

Thus we are not to fight now.

Stupidity, plain and simple.

There is no shortage of idiots around the world. When one gets into power he surrounds himself with like thinking people and take us all for a ride whether we want or not. American culture seems to give all benefits of the doubt to the President. So it is not nearly as hard for him as it is for the rest of us to do similar crazy thing.

The enormity of the tragedy finally struck me while going through this post.

4,000 American lives, an estimated 60 to 100,000 Iraqis, God only knows how many injured and maimed for life, a nation destroyed and at the end of it all (not yet) the net result is a big fat Zero.

To what purpose? Who is responsible? Who will pay?

The only answer - a deafening silence.

Dara

Clinton & Obama on 4000

Clinton Still Believes In Iraq Mission

The reason Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her Iraq war vote is because she clearly believes in the American "mission" in Iraq. Here is a statement from her campaign today on the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq:

"In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'"

Clinton presents Iraq as a resounding success where a tyrannical regime was removed from power, and freedom was brought to the Iraqi people. From this perspective, withdrawal is justified because the major missions have been accomplished, not because the war itself was a mistake. Also, as has been repeatedly made clear over the past twelve months, a sizable residual force will be left behind to continue some of the secondary missions of the war.

Compare this to Obama's statement on 4,000:

" Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service."

For all the supposed lack of policy differences between Obama and Clinton, even on their Iraq withdrawal plans, this remains a fundamental, deeply ideological discrepancy. The Iraq war has ended America's brief tenure as the world's only superpower, and effectively instigated a genocide in Iraq. If you still think this was a good idea that was worth the costs, even if it was badly managed, then you simply have a fundamentally different view of the world and America's role in the world than someone who thinks the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Even though I know it is something no presidential candidate can ever directly say and still hope to remain viable, the fact is that our soldiers in Iraq did not die for a good cause. Quite the opposite has occurred: they died as part of an effort that has eroded America's power faster than any other event since the Civil War, and which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the past fifty years. It was a mistake of colossal proportions, not "the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being." A candidate's ability or inability to recognize that mistake remains the best possible way to measure how effective a Commander in Chief he or she would be.

by Chris Bowers at Open Left

Remember the State of the Union Speech by Pres. Bush about a month ago? Clinton "rose to her feet and clapped" when Bush proudly claimed, the "SURGE was working"...

Do you understand why McCain and Hillary Clinton are "so close" as been repeatedly asserted in several nuances by Bill Clinton?

Really, you believe when she says that she was NOT voting to give authorization on War when she voted for the Iraq War bill?

Dara, all I can think is, we're all going to pay.

In the US, there's shame and quiet fortitude in hopes that a new president will start some process of a redemption and cleanup. But if this had happened the other way around: 4,000 Iraqi lives lost and 60 to 100,000 Americans... the US shame would be anger, and there'd be no silence.

Has anyone read stories or essays that showed what it would be like if the tables had been turned like that?

I believe that if you have a Clinton white house, you will see a surge in Iraq, resumption of the draft (gratis Clinton supporter, John Murtha), and possibly incursion into Iran.

Somehow I can't help but think that 9-11 was blow-back from Serbia, in fact, connected to Sadam Hussein--at least indirectly--and about resource control.

So if you want the draft and you want a war, VOTE FOR CLINTON.

From the man who claims his judgment qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief:

"I believe that the success will be fairly easy." (9/24/02)
-
"We’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." (9/29/02)
-
"We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." (1/22/03)
-
"[T]here’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators." (3/24/03)
---Senator John McCain

And Pres. Bush a day ago said, the current violence in Iraq is a necessary part of development of Iraq, and that he is happy about it.

These demagogues will justify even genocides!

Dear Heather,

#23, sorry didnt see your comment earlier.

My comment about the silence was not directed at the US in particular. Iraq has in some way or other effected the lives of people the world over.

What has puzzled me is that ever since the Democrats ousted the Republicans in the US Congress and Senate there has been a dwindling of focus on Iraq. The administrations keeps routinely issuing statements that the surge is working and everyones is happy to let it be at that.

Take IB itself. How much was written about Iraq and the situation there earlier. Now theres hardly any mention, except in relation to how it affects the chances of various presidential candidates.

For the rest of world, Iraq is something that people would like to shut out of their collective thinking and forget about till they are rudely jolted. Exactly the same as with Tibet.

dear Dara,
Your words hit home ... I know for myself, I have not shut it out, nor forgotten what the U.S. actions in Iraq have led to ...
In time,
may there be healing
and peace.
love,
~ Kate

Hi John,
# 21. When Sen Obama says "..It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future..." isn't he in effect saying "lets just wash our hands off this whole sorry state of affairs and get on with our lives."

Surely one expects better from a prospective commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation and only super power in the world?

Regards,
Dara

Hi again Kate,

Was just leaving when I saw your comment. I know how deeply you care, just wish that the rest of us had your conscience and ability to reach out, the world would be more at peace if we did.

Love,
Dara

"isn't he in effect saying "lets just wash our hands off this whole sorry state of affairs and get on with our lives.""

No He Isn't.

Sorry to say this but you are ignorant of his position on Iraq or you are just so dumb, Dara.

Hillary's and Obama's plan to withdraw are almost indistinguishable.

The only difference is that Hillary seems to still believe that the war was justified, and it was not a mistake.

"The administrations keeps routinely issuing statements that the surge is working and everyones is happy to let it be at that."

And Hillary is happy too, that the "surge" is working.

It is amazing, how you Dara, have absolutely no idea of Obama's policy to end the war in Iraq, and have the gall to make a straw man assessment that he is irresponsible, while the most irresponsible act is the continuing presence and troop surge in Iraq which is in fact creating further turmoil that is resulting out of an invasion based on lies.

"..It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future..."

This is exactly what the majority of Americans want the commnader-in-chief in Bush should have said and done.

Fact 1: The war was irresponsible, arrogant and based on lies.

Fact 2: Our continuing presence is bringing more instability to not just Iraq but for the entire region.

fact 3: contrary to propaganda, Surge is not what was working. The supposedly relative peace sometime back which coincided with the "surge" was largely due to the cease fire deals with Muqtada Al Sadr. This has now broken in the last few days, and you are seeing internal violence again.

If you disagree with these facts, you are either screwed up in your head, or you wnat to read what you want to read, about situation on the ground and about Obama's policy on Iraq, withdrawal and steps to push for peace for ex.

"Surely one expects better from a prospective commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation and only super power in the world?"

Yeah, the "commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation only super power in the world"(can't laugh more) should invade Iran and bring freedom and democracy to Iranians and bring peace to the region as well.

The real scourge of the earth or not the religious freaks seeking war of good vs. evil , but the low information opinionated nuts and self-righteous chickens like Dara lacking on critical thinking skills.

The days of super power called Amercia are over. If you don't play as a team with like minded global partners, you are finished. The global balance of power is shifting. Amercia has already learned harsh lessons with its misadventures in Iraq. But the arrogance is till there in the neo-conservative world view who still remain in denial. The American people are taken for a ride with their distorted views.

Obama's stand regarding preemptive war and negotiating with adversaries, is not new, this has been followed by many former presidents. But some people want to paint him irresponsible and naive for this. Obama said that he would take out Al Queda targets in Pakistan, if Musharaf fails to act. He was mocked for this; Bush said Obama wants to attack an allied country. But only a few weeks later pentagon carried out (and is still carrying out) missile strikes on Al Queda targets in the North Western Province.

Eight Generals and Admirals who served under both republican and democratic presidents said unequivocally, a few weeks ago, that he is ready to be the commander-in-chief. But, Dara thinks that Obama's stand on Iraq doesn't make him fit to the commander-in-chief of the most powerful Military.

"The real scourge of the earth or not the religious freaks seeking war of good vs. evil , but the low information opinionated nuts and self-righteous chickens like Dara lacking on critical thinking skills."

John, you obviously dont know me one bit so I can laugh at what you have written about me. But I certainly wont get into the name calling game with you or anyone. A lawyer friend of mine once told me 'argument weak, shout like hell!' LOL its taken you 7 posts to do it. Unfortunately that is not going to prevent me from voicing my opinion. So dont waste your time. If you want to discuss things calmly and reassonably I would be delighted to engage in a dialogue, debate, discussion or whatever you wish to call it.

Dara

" A lawyer friend of mine once told me 'argument weak, shout like hell!' LOL its taken you 7 posts to do it."

That's not my "weak argument" but my passion and anger.

That just shows again your weak critical thinking skills and your ignorance about issues and stances of the candidates which is irrefutable.

"Unfortunately that is not going to prevent me from voicing my opinion. So dont waste your time."

That's the point. You found an excuse of my attack on you to justify the righteousness of your opinion.

"If you want to discuss things calmly and reassonably I would be delighted to engage in a dialogue, debate, discussion or whatever you wish to call it."

Really? you have not shown any level of critical thinking skills or showed any desire to be informed or corrected, therefore I see no point in wasting my time trying to educate you till you show some redeeming qualities.

John,
I dont want to discuss you and me. No interest to anybody. If you want to talk about what the topic of this thread is then please do so rationally.
I will certainly not lose any sleep or waste any time in trying to 'redeem' myself to you. LOL that was your funniest remark yet.
dara

"John, you obviously dont know me one bit so I can laugh at what you have written about me."

Sure, I don't know much about you. But to say I don't know "one bit" is pure exaggeration. I based my opinion on your analysis of a statement, and that's part of who you are. That's my personal opinion. And I will voice my opinion against such narrow minded distorted views, so don't waste you time talking about decency and calmness, and being okay with me sucking up to you with good manners, or praising you as a genius of some kind.

John,

LOL

dara

"I dont want to discuss you and me. "

If you don't want to discuss, you shouldn't have raised that point as a veiled defense of your opinions, in #38.

"... in trying to 'redeem' myself to you."

I didn't say you should "redeem" for me. But you should do it for yourself. If I find any evidence in your participation at intentblog..that's what I am talking about. Its clear though in your responses that you feel good about your rigid beliefs, and close mindedness.

John
I stand by what I said on Obama and his views in ythe speech you quoted :)

Dara

Dara's Hypocrisy Alert#1:

She can praise others as a "genius" based solely on a comment by a person. But she won't be okay if someone calls her a "dimwit" giving lot of supporting evidence.

John,

I still stand by what I said about Obama and his views on Iraq from the speech you quoted :)

Now I intend to catch a bit of afternoon siesta and leave you for an hour or so to take this further with your 'passion and anger'.

Dara

John,

"But she won't be okay if someone calls her ...."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL you excel yourself.

I'll repeat, you dont know me one bit. But I've obviously got you working up a lather.

Dara

"I stand by what I said on Obama and his views in ythe speech you quoted :)"

[Self-righteousness Alert]

Sure you can stand by your opinion about Obama. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster if you wish. But your justification for that conclusion based on that excerpt is flawed and weak. Its not borne out awareness and informed analysis but out of of cherry picking fallacy and its distorted interpretation and of plain ignorance about Obama's stand on the issue.

You show no willingness to learn. That puts one in the real scum of the earth bracket.

"I stand by what I said on Obama and his views in ythe speech you quoted :)"

[Self-righteousness Alert]

Sure you can stand by your opinion about Obama. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster if you wish. But your justification for that conclusion based on that excerpt is flawed and weak. Its not borne out awareness and informed analysis but out of of cherry picking fallacy and its distorted interpretation and of plain ignorance about Obama's stand on the issue.

You show no willingness to learn. That puts one in the real scum of the earth bracket.

"I'll repeat, you dont know me one bit."

Your close mindedness amazes me. "One bit" again?

So what are you?

I am saying you are okay praising someone who writes a comment with which you agree with, with exaggerated labels, but you object('that's not what I am','you don't one bit about me',) when someone calls you names while providing sufficient evidence why he/she thinks your arguments are weak and you deserve to be called upon that.

"So what are you?"

Are you some kind of a goddess who can just read out statements from the book of truth?

You think by repeating words like "Surge is working", "Iraq has WMD" "Iran is training Al Queda" etc, they become truth? Of course, knowing you a "bit" I don't think you would believe those things. But the thing with you is that you show the same ignorance in other issues, like in judging Obama and his position on Iraq based on your interpretation of an excerpt, while showing no real progress in learning more about the issue."

Look John, and I mean this sincerely, I really don't want to play word or mind games with you.

First of all, Im a 64 year old man living in India. The imp in me got carried away but on second thoughts I should have corrected your wrong inference instead of gloating over it. For that my sincere apology.

Now coming back to the issue on hand, lets join battle again! I'll confine myslf to the issues involved. Im not going to read through all the posts above for total accuracy but am taking it as things come to mind.

Obama talks of withdrawing and letting the Iraqi's take responsibility. I ask again, isn't this just walking away as if to say its not our baby anymore? This is exactly the impression that prevails about the US in this part of the world. That they are trigger happy, will create a mess and then walk away. Which is what Obama's words say to me. You say Ive got it all wrong but without answering my question I dont see how.

As for the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Wasn't that what they were doing before the coalition came in and took it apart? Is it fair now to leave them be? Shouldn't responsible people be talking of rebuilding the country and trying to establish order? I think it is evading the issue to now say that Bush and the neo-cons alone are to blame, If I remember right, something like 70% of the US public was all for going in, not just Bush, Chenney, Rummsfeld or Hillary. Where are those 70% hotheads now? To pass the blame on to a few politicians because the public has changed its mind is meaningless. In fact what this means is that at time 70% disagreed with Obama's stand. He may have been proved right now but that does not absolve him from taking responsibility for helping the Iraqi people and government. No one but no one has anything to say on how to get the Iraqi's back on their feet. Thats what really bothers me about these statements I hear coming up during the campaign.

You say that one of the points he made, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, was that he was willing to bomb Pakistani hide outs to get at the Al- Qaida. Pakistan is a sovereign country, the days when you walked in shooting from the hip and asking questions later are long gone. Either he has completely misread the situation or is naive about dealing with other sovereign nations. Then why stop at Pakistan, Iran according to the US President also harbours terrorists. So will Iran be on the Obama list too if these reports are correct? Believe me nothing would harm US interests more than this kind of action. Pakistan is a country whose undercurrents have been totally misread by the US for long. The very heart of the tremendous anti US feeling there is because the US treats that country like a client state. These are fiercely independent people in the main, specially in areas bordering Afghanistan.

There is more but enough unto the day, see you to-morrow.

Dara

I doff my dunces cap to you, Dara. Lordy, think what would have happened to Iraq if John had been president at the time, if the way he tried to steamroller you is anything to go by.

Come on John, let's work together. You and your so-called critical thinking. Who gives you sole rights on the criteria for that? Universe is a broad place, I find and so do you. We know so little as we grapple with our notions of consciousness. How then critical thinking?

Peace brother?

Dear Dara,
I was one deeply opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

I believe America should retreat and U.S. troops systematically withdrawn (with a due date ... a year after the election, if not sooner - would be nice, imo).

But the U.S. is obligated and morally responsible to help the country rebuild and recover.

One issue (and its a big one) the candidates are discussing - what to do about Iraq. The Democrats and Republicans do no agree on the same plan.

love,
~ Kate

"First of all, Im a 64 year old man living in India. "

Why do you think that information puts any validity to your arguments? I asked you what are you, if not a bigot with ignorant views about political stances of the presidential candidates on whom you are commenting.

"Im not going to read through all the posts above for total accuracy but am *taking it as things come to mind.*"

That's the real problem!

Your mind... and your foolishness seems to be growing with age. Your wisdom too is growing but slower in comparison, it seems.

I will tell you more about it.

"Obama talks of withdrawing and letting the Iraqi's take responsibility. I ask again, isn't this just walking away as if to say its not our baby anymore?"

No Sir, it isn't.

"This is exactly the impression that prevails about the US in this part of the world. That they are trigger happy, will create a mess and then walk away. Which is what Obama's words say to me."

Perhpas so, in some uniformed quarters whcih are many. Many people in that part of the world as in India, like Bush too.

"You say Ive got it all wrong but without answering my question I dont see how."

Good. I have to now wonder what you know about Obama's plan for Iraq? Apart from your notion that he is leaving Iraq irresponsibly. Do you know that Obama's plan for Iraq is almost indistinguishable with Hillary and John Edwards or any other democratic presidential candidate, and they just defer in some details about how to go about it?

*********************************
The Problem

The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.

Military Strain: The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.

Barack Obama's Plan:

*Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

*Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

*Regional Diplomacy

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

*Humanitarian Initiative

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

*************

This is the official stand of democratic party. If you don't like it, go for McMoreWar

"As for the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own country. Wasn't that what they were doing before the coalition came in and took it apart? Is it fair now to leave them be? Shouldn't responsible people be talking of rebuilding the country and trying to establish order? I think it is evading the issue to now say that Bush and the neo-cons alone are to blame, If I remember right, something like 70% of the US public was all for going in, not just Bush, Chenney, Rummsfeld or Hillary. Where are those 70% hotheads now? To pass the blame on to a few politicians because the public has changed its mind is meaningless."

Americans were mislead by Bush Co. into believing that Iraq had WMD and that Iraq was somehow responsible for 911 attacks. An analysis shows the Bush administration lied more than 4000 times, in the events that led to war. And for you information, they talked about a brief military intervention, not a prolonged war and invasion. They failed to bring an end to war that has taken more time than world wars and the Vietnam war in which American troops were involved. They could have ended the war if Bush administration had the will and moral responsibility to bring peace to Iraq.

"In fact what this means is that at time 70% disagreed with Obama's stand. He may have been proved right now but that does not absolve him from taking responsibility for helping the Iraqi people and government."

Who said he is not taking responsibility for the Iraqis? The continued presence of an occupational force is counter productive in itself.

"No one but no one has anything to say on how to get the Iraqi's back on their feet. Thats what really bothers me about these statements I hear coming up during the campaign."

Obviously, you just read what you want to read. That's why I was saying that you are totally ignorant of Obama's plan and Iraq policy.

For ex: "Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven."

*************************
Read "Obama's Plan to Responsibly End the War in Iraq"

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf
*************************

::>

"You say that one of the points he made, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, was that he was willing to bomb Pakistani hide outs to get at the Al- Qaida."

"Either he has completely misread the situation or is naive about dealing with other sovereign nations. Then why stop at Pakistan, Iran according to the US President also harbours terrorists. So will Iran be on the Obama list too if these reports are correct?"

Now that assumption about Obama's policy is totally ridiculous. These are the arguments and misrepresentation you hear from people lacking any critical thinking skills and those who lack the will to be informed.

For starters, his statement from my quote was not "opposed" to Hillary's official position. Although she differs in negotiating without preconditions with unfriendly countries like Iran. Something that's opposed to what many presidents in the past who negotiated with some real dictators in the history. It is just that his statement was blown out of proportion. What he said was, IF he had actionable intelligence and IF Musharrf FAILS to act he reserves the 'right to strike' al quida targets. Which is exactly what the current Bush administration is doing. Which was also the policy of former president Clinton.

"Believe me nothing would harm US interests more than this kind of action. Pakistan is a country whose undercurrents have been totally misread by the US for long. The very heart of the tremendous anti US feeling there is because the US treats that country like a client state. These are fiercely independent people in the main, specially in areas bordering Afghanistan."

Sure. Do you even know that American Military is carrying out attacks on the Afghani borders in Pakistan with the support of Pakistani Military? Perhaps you are ignorant, and what Obama said, was not about attacking preemptively a sovereign nation as Bush seems to be doing. If Obama's position on this responsible use of military news to you, that's been the consistent official position of the most powerful nation on earth.

For your info, al quida is not just a problem to Amercia , it is also a common problem for Pakistanis as well. That' why they are allies of America on that front. And Obama is not talking about attacking the proud tribal militia in the north western province as you were assuming.

You need not just a lesson in American presidential politics but a lesson on facts and you a lot of information before you chew up some certain quotes and make your own senile interpretations.

I believe America should retreat and U.S. troops systematically withdrawn (with a due date ... a year after the election, if not sooner - would be nice, imo).

But the U.S. is obligated and morally responsible to help the country rebuild and recover.

::>::>::

Dear Kate, Obama agree with you, and so do Hillary.

Cheers!

"There is more but enough unto the day, see you to-morrow. Dara"

I suppose, in your current sate of mind you may have difficulty to learn something new, so until you show some redeeming qualities, please forgive me for not responding to your misrepresentations and senile rants.

The funny thing for me was to read your views on your stating that the tribal people of NWFP (who are not the same as al quida, although they might sympathize with al quida and some might even provide shelter) are so full of pride and the assumption that Obama is going to attack Pakistan something like Bush attacked Afghanistan or Iraq.

PS. I should confess I thought you were an ignorant America or westerner named Dara Cooper. I am glad to know that you are some Dara Singh, your views are consistent with the ignorance in world politics especially about Iraq and America in India.

John,

I am not comparing Clintons plan or anyone else's with the Obama one. I said it would be irresponsible because I feel that pulling out troops without establishing a degree of stability first is irresponsible.

Moreover, the Obama plan of pulling out upto 2 brigades etc. was subsequently clarified as a best case scenario. Which means that if things are stable this is how it will come about. I have no problem with that. What I would like to know more about is what is his worst case scenario plan? The first is obvious, even a subaltern can make out a best case plan, you need a commander to work out the bad cases. Thats what matters. To my mind the only plan will be what the staff on the ground there feels at the time when withdrawals are planned. I think shooting off plans just now for what will be done 9 or 11 months from now is simply not a professional assesment. It is just saying what people want to hear. What I want to hear is what the commanders on the ground, not retired generals, feel about the situation. Unfortunately that is something we will never know.

Now as regards getting other nations involved etc. Again I have no problem with what he plans, in fact it is what I have always supported here and blamed this administration for not taking help from those who are willing. As to the 'at least' $2 billion he plans to provide. As Zia said to Carter (and I presume you are familiar with that) "Peanuts". Has anybody done an assessment of what Iraq requires? How much does the war cost? The figure I remember is a few billion a month. I somehow dont see that as accepting responsibility. You broke it you mend it. The rest can help you, but its your baby.

The refugees you talk of, I think in Saddam's day there were just as many refugees outside Iraq, the difference being they were Shia, most of those who have fled now are in all probability Sunni. One chaotic state has been replaced by another.

Coming to Pakistan. Yes I am aware of the flights the unmanned drones and the joint operations with the Pakistanis. Obama, according to your explanation is not planning anything new, except for the IF this and IF that situation then he reserves the right to pre-empt. My answer to that remains, those days are gone. He will only add to the ill will and anti US sentiment and help ferment even more trouble.

Dara

John,

Now as far as your personal comments are concerned I have decided to deal with them seperately here.

You disappoint me! I was expecting more, much more, old fool, ancient relic, references to walking sticks and arm chairs etc. I only got senile partly right :(

All I have to say to you is that what you have to say is really more a reflection on you rather than me, so I suggest you think some more :)

Now I refuse to get involved in a ping pong match with you again to-day. Will reply to anything you may say once a day.

Oh I forgot, "so until you show some redeeming qualities, please forgive me for not responding to your misrepresentations and senile rants." Well lets see if you are a man of your word.

In any case you're forgiven!

Dara

ps. Its not my fault I was born a male. Stop behaving as if I jilted you ;)

Dear Kate,

I know you have always maintained the view you have expressed here. Our only point of difference is that IMO (not so humble at that lol)it is not possible to set a date.

The deciding factor should be a semblance of stability in Iraq. That is a pre-requisite if further chaos is to be avoided. I could be wrong, but I wish someone would tell me why? :)

Love,
Dara

Hi Edmund,

I agree entirely, lets discuss and talk, we are friends here. Thats what IB means to me and why Im here. It was a fun place and we owe it to ourselves to keep it that way.

Regards
Dara

DARA:"Oh I forgot, "so until you show some redeeming qualities, please forgive me for not responding to your misrepresentations and senile rants." Well lets see if you are a man of your word."

You showed some redeeming qualities in #58, therefore I choose to respond, without your kind permission.

::::>>>>>::::::>>>>::::::

My criticism of you is in you responding to a statement made by Obama without perhpas not knowing fully his plan. So I will leave it at that, without trying to rebut anything you said in that regard.

::>>::>>::

Obama's position regarding attacking Al Queda targets in a hypothetical situation in Musharaf's Pakistan, is nothing different from what Bush is doing right now on the Pakistani side of Afghan-Pakistani border. Pakistani govt. as of now knows they cannot act effectively, alone, on a common threat(al queda), therefore it now seems they (although previously, they were against such actions) don't mind the American attacks on their soil.

::>>::>>::

The continued occupation of Iraq by American Troops is adding to the ill will as well...

Americans are not seen a liberators, then or now. The current violence is Iraq is rising in the past few days -- even with the increased troops and strengthening of Iraqi forces -- because of the failed cease fire talks with Al Sadr. These things will continue to happen as long as Americans try to use more force and less diplomacy.

Amercia has made a mistake by attacking Iraq. Acknowledging that is very important to gain any goodwill among the Iraqis.

To compared this situation with pre-Saddam days as a justification for war or the continued occupation would be disingenuous. China's human rights' and Tibet violation and South Korea's regime to name just two would top off what Saddam's had done to his country men. After five years we have 4,000+ US dead , 40,000+ US casualties, and at least 500,000 Iraqi dead and countless wounded and not to mention several million displaced. The current US Administration failed to negotiate with Iran, which is a key players in bringing any lasting peace to the region. McCain continues to falsely claim that Iraq is training (Sunni)Al Queda (not the Shiite militia) in Iraq that are resisting the American troops, in the hope that enough Americans believe that Iran is the real culprit for their failure and it is perhpas time to attack Iran which is the real thorn in the region -- as Bush administration seems to be putting forward plans in the Congress with their neo conservative mindset.

The Bush administration had 5 years to establish order, and have now many more months still ahead before Obama or Hillary, if Democrats win, come to power to implement his/her responsible plan for withdrawal, taking into account the ground situation, which seems to be the best way that could eventually lead to lasting peace.

This latest post by Arianna Huffington at HuffPo addresses some of the things discussed above, and the difficulties in conveying the message about ending the war by the Democrats like Obama and Hillary:

Closing the Message Gap on Iraq: A Responsible Plan to End the War

Posted March 30, 2008

When John McCain talks about Iraq, people are often left scratching their head in amazement and confusion. From his comfort with a hundred year occupation, to his claim that al-Qaeda wants to knee-cap his candidacy, to his "gaffes" about an al-Qeada/Iran connection, to his assurances that "the surge is working" (which came just before the latest return to chaos), he is looking more and more like a man utterly detached from reality.

Yet recent polls have shown McCain topping both Clinton and Obama as the candidate voters see as most capable of dealing with the war in Iraq. And it's not even close. Gallup had him favored on Iraq over either Democrat by 14 points. The LA Times had him besting Clinton on the war by 16 points, and Obama by 13 points.

So what the hell is going on here? What accounts for such a major -- and potentially disastrous -- disconnect?

In short, Democratic candidates up and down the ticket are facing a message gap when it comes to Iraq. McCain's rah-rah pitch is very simple and upbeat: "Vote for me and I will win the war." Democrats have a tougher time trying to answer the question: "What are you going to do about Iraq?"

Part of the problem is the unrealized promises of 2006. Dashed hopes often metastasize into cynicism and mistrust. So this time around, voters want to hear more than "I am going to end the war." They want to know how. Specifically. Concretely. In detail.

Enter Darcy Burner, a Democratic challenger who is running for Congress in Washington state. Working with national security experts and retired military generals such as Major Gen. Paul Eaton, the officer in charge of training the Iraqi military immediately after the invasion in 2003 and 2004, she developed "A Responsible Plan to End the War," a comprehensive approach to Iraq based on legislation already introduced in Congress.

The 20-page plan (which you can read in its entirety here), doesn't just lay out how to end the war -- it also addresses the institutional failures that led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This includes rebuilding the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, banning the use of armed military contractors like Blackwater, banning torture, promoting government transparency, and restoring accountability through the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution.

As of today, 45 Democratic challengers have signed on to the plan -- including 41 running for the House and 4 running for the Senate. Among the candidates who helped Burner launch the project are Chellie Pingree, running in Maine's First Congressional District; Donna Edwards, running in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District; Tom Perriello, running in Virginia's Fifth Congressional District; and Eric Massa, running in New York's Twenty-ninth Congressional District.

It's worth noting that this is no collection of "make love, not war" pacifists. Massa is a 24-year Navy veteran. Edwards' father was in the Air Force. Burner's brother served in Iraq. And they are all clear that there are real threats facing America, and that our military needs to stop being distracted -- and depleted -- in Iraq, so it can better address the mounting dangers in Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan where al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself. So, for national security reasons, they are united in their commitment to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and begin to repair the damage the war has done to America's standing in the world.

The idea is to band together a group of challengers running on a shared platform who, if elected, will be able to head into Congress armed with a mandate, supported by allies, and wielding a specific legislative agenda designed to end the war. Call it A Contract to Restore America.

It is also an effective way to let voters know that this is a group of Democrats who won't cave in every time the GOP accuses them of cutting-and-running or not supporting the troops, or when the media once again float the "precipitous withdrawal" meme.

It also moves the debate beyond "stay the course vs end the war". As Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and a backer of the Responsible Plan, puts it: "Bringing our troops home is the first, but not the only step that must be taken to ensure a debacle like Iraq never happens again. This plan addresses the root causes that allowed the Bush administration to lead this country into this mess, and sets us in the right direction."

When President Bush can portray the resurgent violence in Iraq as "a very positive moment" -- one that "shows the progress" made during the surge -- and not be booed off the national stage by the public and the media, it's clear Democrats still have their work cut out for them in closing the message gap on Iraq. The Responsible Plan provides a powerful tool for doing just that.

Check out this video put together by some of the candidates backing the plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpvuCuNsAwI

Ref. 62. "A Responsible Plan to End the War," a comprehensive approach to Iraq based on legislation already introduced in Congress...

"The 20-page plan (which you can read in its entirety here)...

Here's the Link:

http://responsibleplan.com/plan

Nirmal Mankani at Open Left offers public perception about Iraq War.... addresses some of the points raised by Dara.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=AA225540C7893CA64E118E308EEAA9DE?diaryId=4866

When thinking about building public support for withdrawal from Iraq, voters fall into three groups: 1) people who favor withdrawal, 2) people who oppose or are ambivalent about withdrawal, but have negative feelings about the war, and 3) people who oppose withdrawal, and have positive feelings about the war. Many voters think the war is going poorly or dislike the war, but aren't convinced that withdrawal is the right solution. Consequently, we've seen many Democratic leaders equivocate on their opposition to the war.

....We have the 54% who support withdrawal on our side, and will have the most difficult time convincing the 27% who both oppose withdrawal and believe that the war is going well (this group is mostly self-identified Republicans).

... If these 19% think the war is going poorly, which should imply that the United States isn't currently achieving its political objectives, why don't they want to withdraw?

...This group's reluctance to support withdrawal may be because their dislike for the war is complicated by Bush's rationales for staying in Iraq: that withdrawal would cause a civil war that would draw the entire region into conflict, and that withdrawal would make Iraq an Al Qaeda stronghold. These assumptions are often repeated uncritically in the media and are probably salient considerations for many people when they form their position on withdrawal.

...The problem with these rationales to oppose withdrawal is that they are wrong, and are justifications to continue a flawed foreign policy. I'll leave it to smarter foreign policy minds to explain why responsible withdrawal from Iraq won't further *inflame Shiite-Sunni tensions*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702405_pf.html] or leave an *Al Qaeda stronghold*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423/cole] in the long term.

*Ending the war responsibly*[http://responsibleplan.com/] entails challenging these false assumptions, particularly by fighting the media conventional wisdom that contributes to much of the public believing them. The Bush administration has put forward, and the media has largely accepted, a series of *false choices*[http://www.theseminal.com/2007/10/03/some-things-change-some-things-stay-the-same/] involving *worst-case scenarios*[http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/zbig_speak_you_listen.php] when it comes to Iraq. They claimed that either we invade Iraq, or Saddam Hussein will use WMDs. Now, they assert that either we stay in Iraq, or the terrorists will come after us here. If we want to build public support for withdrawal, we need to challenge these false choice scenarios that contribute to confused feelings about Iraq.

"You showed some redeeming qualities in #58, therefore I choose to respond, without your kind permission."

Hehehe, flattery will get you everywhere :)

Dara

John and Dara, your late exchange is very interesting.

You both acknowledge the blindness of the current US admin to the realities of the Iraq situation on every practical front. The issue of on-the-ground versus blind willfullness is something that hasn't been examined with depth in the US in popular media -- yet it's the cause of our being in Iraq and why things have gone wrong there.