Good luck to the people of Iraq with their newfound freedom.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._nm/iraq_dc_148

So history proves the Bush haters were wrong... again. lots of people said we'd never hand-over Iraq. Remember Phish, from back in May...

"Ok, I didn't think he was pulling out troops on the 30th, even though I'll admit that is what I wrote. My mistake. But I still don't think he'll handover control to the newly appointed Iraq government."

I'll stand corrected Snoopy, but just because we handed over sovereignty, doesn't mean Iraq is any better off today. It's still a bad, bad situation over there and a lot of people are still being killed.

It doesn't change my opinion about Bush, or the fact that he still hasn't come up with a good reason for us to have attacked in the first place. Look at how many people have been sacrificed. But we've already been over this - I'm not going to get into the Bush discussion with you all over again. It's a waste of time, since neither you nor I are going to change our opinions. How nice of you to try and rub it in my face though - I'm sure you were counting down the days until June 30th. Me? I'm counting down the days until November 2, 2004!

Typical. Would you admit they're better off now than when Saddam and Sons were feeding live people into shredders, and otherwise maiming, torturing, raping, starving, and killing hundreds of thousands or millions.

I just happen to remember your very admant statement that you felt the transfer would not take place, despite arguments to the contrary, Phish. It kinda reminded me of the "war for oil" argument so many libs made.

Yes, while I'm not wishing my life away, I too look forward to election day -- but I think for a different reason.

You wanna make a friendly wager on the outcome?

HHhmmm.... If I went with the polls right now, I could say with a decent amount of confidence that Kerry would win, but we all know that can change between now and then. So you want to bet that Bush will win? Is that what you're proposing?

I honestly don't know who will win at this point, but I'll make a friendly wager, if you want.

I think Bush would win now, and will win in November. I think the people will see the differences between now and November and will vote in Bush -- and it will not be as close as last time.

As a wager, how about something like the loser agreeing to make only one post the day after Bush or Kerry's concession speech, something along the line of "Kerry is the man, and I'm full of crap. Go Kerry!" if I lose (Kerry wins), and replace Kerry with Bush if you lose (Bush wins).

I think (and hope) Bush will follow in his father's footsteps, but I will make your wager Snoopy. I am now, even more than before, looking forward to Election Day!

Puppet government protecting US interests. Is it really handed over?!

You make a serious charge, Mel, one even the libs I have heard on the radio today have not made. I assume you have some evidence to support that charge and you're willing to share it.

Nope. Just my own personal opinion. (Besides, any "evidence" I could offer is just other people's published opinions anyway.) There's no such thing as an "objective" source on this kind of matter.

Good question IMO. I'm not convinced and I don't expect the rest of the world to be convinced either. As they say, "the proof is in the pudding". It is by their actions that we will see just how independant the new government of Iraq actually is.

And I'm a staunch conservative and support Bush. But I'm not so stupid as to think that just saying something is true (that Iraq is independant) automatically MAKES it so.

Funny the UN and NATO recognizes them as a soverign nation. Guess thats not "the rest of the world".

Being recognized as a "sovereign" nation doesn't mean it can't be so controlled by another nation as to be justifiably called a "puppet government". Sovereignty in name does not equate with total independance in practice, and we've got a long and deplorable history of setting up puppet governments in South America.

I totally agree! Iraq is just a puppet nation of the US, like Czechoslovakia was for the Soviet Union. We're still controlling every move over there.

Geez... give the US time to get its' hand out of the puppet.

Of course the US is going to be in control of the strings for awhile. The nation's new government is less than 24 hours old. The point is, it is the first major step in the US getting the heck out. The next one is the UN mandated elections that need to take place before the end of January.

The also reconized Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia; Iraq is a puppet nation, and I believe that Iraq will do whatever the US wants them to do.

Just a thought... Maybe not in this initial election, or one in the next couple years, but what if the UN elections result in a "write-in" vote or some similar sort having Saddam surprisingly winning or another leader very against US policies winning? Iraq has a history of militarisitic leaders, so who's saying an election will change their idea of a leader/figurehead?

I was just wondering what the US would do... Cuba and Iran bring back bad failed memories of US intervention in foreign governments.

I'm very split on the "sovereign" Iraq because I see total chaos and anarchy in a few months, weeks, or days after a complete US withdrawal; I also see grave consequences if the US remains very influential in Iraqi politics.

We MUST let go eventually, but there can be no reasonably defined timeline, making the problem even tougher.

Saddam needs to be taken out of the picture altogether.

But if they freely choose an oppressive regime for themselves, then so be it. There may be consequences in terms of trade restrictions or a lack of ecnomic favors, but as a sovereign nation, it's basically their right to determine their destiny. To expect them to become a clone of the United States is ridiculous.

The reason we were justified in going in as we did was because of the threat posed to the rest of the world. A threat that the liberal press would like us to believe never existed, but that was real nonetheless.

Oh Phish........

Bush is the man, and I'm full of crap. Go Bush!

Trueblue - anyone who frequents this board knows that the statement I made is not anything I believe or stand by. I only made it to uphold a bet.

But you've only upheld half the bet, dear Phish.

Anybody following the battle at Fallujah? It looks like this op is being done right. Door-to-door blanketing of the entire city, so there's no place left to hide. They say they've got about 70% covered and the last 30% of the city boxed in.

The only downside appears to be that al-Zarqawi probably squirted out of the city during the build-up phase.

Am I imagining things, or does this "offensive" seem too easy to other folks, too?

When we first went in, they didn't put up as big a fight as I had expected. Things calmed down for a while so that we had a false sense of security, then all he-double toothpicks broke loose.

Now, it almost seems like it's happening again. We aren't going to be stupid enough to fall for that a second time, are we?

No. The insurgents are stupid. They actually thought that they could stand toe-to-toe in a normal military engagement, instead of hit and run terror tactics. That's the difference.

SMan, I sure hope you're right; I've got this feeling that they'll repeat the previous process and then awaken just as the elections are happening. When they prevent the elections, they dash Bush's hopes of bringing them a democracy. He sent enough signals that this was an important issue to him - why wouldn't a terrorist want to do that?

The leopards don't seem willing to change their spots. I don't know if it's because they'd prefer the familiarity of what they've known all their lives, or what - It just doesn't make sense to me....

We ended our first offensive against Fallujah because of our politicians and Arab pressure. The Marines were well on their way to taking Fallujah last time, but the "World" thought it would be best if we just let the IP (Iraqi police) take things from there. Big Mistake.

Glad we are taking out the trash now. Kinda dumb we announced our plans before completely surrounding Fallujah. To much time for the terrorist to flee.

I don't think it's necessarily "too easy": our guys have trained a lot for many decades, for just this kind of combat.

However, I do share your fear that this will go like the rest of the war did. That we'll take the city and then find that relatively small numbers of enemy combatants stick around, sniping at us instead of engaging us in direct combat.

I don't think it's a matter of our being stupid so much as it is being simply unavoidable when the enemy combatants are so powerfully feared by the civilians. The civilians are too afraid to point them out to our forces, so they can hide very effectively. But short of killing 'em all and letting God sort 'em out (which is out of the question), I'm not sure we can totally avoid that problem.

You're probably right, but I'm beginning to think we ought to have our guys think more like them in order to save themselves. We're basically trying to protect their temples and their citizens (rightly, I say), and they don't give a hoot about anything of ours.

I think we've learned those lessons already sheash. Just yesterday, Marines leveled a mosque that was being used by terrorists as a safe haven, and Marines were taking fire from morters and Ak's from inside the grounds. According to ROE (Rules of Engagement) any religious building that is being used as a defensive position is considered to be a valid military target.

As far as the citizens not pointing out the terrorists, BMIC is right. It's hard to fight this kind of war when your enemy, AKA: Cowards, hide behind the veil of being a civilian.