This morning on Radio National some twurp was being interviewed... I say twurp although the bloke might be a nice guy, a well informed guy, an expert in something. He had the gall to suggest that no-one, whether we supported the war or not, could foresee then at the time of the invasion, what the present situation is... Well mate, that's trying to whitewash the warmongers and dip the peace people in tar. I remember telling everyone who would listen about the probable result (havoc, resistance, terrorism, sectarian violence, destruction, resentment towards the US troops, etc) and write about it in letters to the president and our own one eyed cyclop Johnnee (more of a one-eyed midget) in late 2002, but few would listen, no-one prepared to look at the history of that country in which "we", WMD fanfare to the fore, wanted to democratise in a jiffy via a list of lies and killings that now make Saddam look like an angel... It's  ugly when the mirowfloners of the expertise-fartoosing-network tell us we did not know better!... Blast off mongrel!... that's another lie to your string of porkies. If you want to justify your stupidity, do it without dipping us in it.

Blair Iraq war support 'a debacle'          

The foreign policies of Tony Blair, the British prime minister, has failed because of his inability to influence Washington and his successor must carve out a leading role for Britain within Europe instead, a UK think-tank has said.

US: Iraq attacks hit record high          

Violent attacks in Iraq have risen to the highest level on record, the US defence department has said in a quarterly report, describing the al-Mahdi Army fighters of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as the single biggest threat to stability.
 
The report said there were an average of 959 attacks every week between August 12 and November 10.

-------------------------

As if the US was not part of the problem but they keep blaming the others...  

“Victory in Iraq is achievable,” Mr. Bush said, addressing reporters in the ornate Indian Treaty Room across the street from the White House, in an historic office building once occupied by the Navy. He went on: “The fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that’s troubling to the American people. But I don’t believe most Americans want us just to get out now.”
------------------------
Gus: Sure Mr President... But what does "victory" means?

*Signing of a peace treaty with Saddam, already six foot under the daisies from having been hung? funny.
*More palm-treed holiday resorts, for rich Americans, like those in Dubai, etc?... Private oil kingdoms like the Saudis or the Sultan of...? Hum...
*Peace in the region? Sure, we buy that...
*Iraqi united in running their democratic country? Sure, dream on, gently...
*Poor Palestinian living in their shanty territories which Israel claim to be hers?... Hum...
*Iranians being peaceful loving people? Yes, but do not press their buttons so hard...
*US troops staying in the region to make sure nothing goes astray after veectoree?... Hum... Risky...
*US diplomacy telling everyone what to do or else?... Hum... Patronising...
*Rebuilding in Iraq having been completed to everyone satisfaction without profiteering or corruption?... Hahaha...
*Iraqis and Iranians not resenting the presence of foreign troops on their soil?... Yer must be kiddin'
*Iraqi factious groups not indulging in vengeance?... one can hope...
*All US troops back home because the peace does not require their services anymore? In 2035 may be... or when they're kicked out...
* Everyone over-there (Middle East) believing that You, the President, was right to unsettle the place, resulting in the killing of 2.4 per cent of each family in Iraq (650.000 estimated with an error margin or 5 per cent in a proper and rigorous survey), so that everyone can go and dance freely in the streets, or do business with the United States on a preferential basis?... Not on your Nelly...
*Declare that you knew there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction before invading Iraq? Can you acknowledge that you LIED?... We know you did...
*More oil for the US?... Certainly as it had appeared way before the invasion that it was the true purpose of the exercise...
*Making sure everone's (Muslim mostly) happy about all the processes that brought "Veectoree" to the US? Dream on, little man...

Yes, Mr President, you're pushing s%$#t uphill... and it ain't smelling of goodwill. 

from the centre for american progress …..

‘In 1991, then-Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Colin Powell, a Vietnam veteran, outlined what became known as the "Powell Doctrine": "military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged." (President Bush reiterated these points in 2000: "Whenever America uses forces in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear and the victory must be overwhelming.") Years later, the military is bogged down in Iraq in what Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has called "an absolute replay of Vietnam." Public opinion has shifted against the war, and rather than outline an exit strategy, the White House is pushing a plan to "surge" in 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq -- over the objections of the Joint Chiefs and the vast majority of Americans. Rather than learn the lessons of Vietnam laid out by the Powell Doctrine, Bush is taking his advice from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who believes the "overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out." At a time when attacks against American and Iraqi targets are at their highest levels, the nation can ill-afford to follow Kissinger's advice.

Bush is learning the wrong lessons from Vietnam, leaning towards adopting a plan by Fred Kagan, a scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Kagan's plan calls for a troop surge of around 30,000 that "would probably last for anywhere from 18 to 24 months." The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes said the plan was an "application" of the "counterinsurgency approach" that was executed "so successfully" in Vietnam. ("Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win," Barnes claims.) Barnes is echoing the revisionist views of Kissinger, who has been the "most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs." Kissinger - who since Vietnam has "blamed the defeat on a combination of the liberal congressmen who refused to vote for continued aid to South Vietnam in 1974 and Saigon's own unfortunate lack of will" - has been telling Bush "victory is the only meaningful exit strategy." But Kissinger is pedaling a false history. The New Republic's Rick Perlstein wrote about Kissinger's thinking in 1972: "We've got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which -- after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January '74, no one will give a damn." Historians came to call this the "decent interval" strategy: "Having pledged to Saigon -- and American conservatives -- that Communist troops would not be allowed in South Vietnam after a peace deal was signed, Kissinger negotiated the opposite." Yet to this day, Kissinger blames others for his own failures.

Kagan's report, titled "Choosing Victory," says, "We must send more American combat forces into Iraq." Last week, Kagan briefed Bush on the plan. His report specifically calls for at least 30,000 more Army and Marines per year for the next two years, and advocates longer tours for ground forces and increased deployments for National Guard troops. (Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann of the Center for American Progress explain how Kagan's plan "would not only fail to secure Iraq but also leave the United States less secure, by further degrading American ground forces.") CNN's Suzanne Malveaux reported yesterday that Kagan's think tank, AEI, "has the president’s ear and is influencing his thinking" on Iraq. Bush has also met with others who favor escalation, including Johns Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen. The White House is pushing the idea "over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." "The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops." (A year ago, Bush claimed his decisions on troop levels were guided by the "sober judgment of our military leaders.") Centcom Commander Gen. John Abizaid said he and the commanders on the ground opposed the plan because "more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." "I have not seen a case that persuades me that [Iraqi security] would be better" with more forces, Powell said last weekend. Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "flatly told Gen. George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, that he doesn't want more U.S. personnel deployed to the country."

Any attempt to send more troops to Iraq would, "at the moment, threaten to break our nation’s all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security." Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned the active-duty Army "will break" under current rotation schedules, and Powell said "the active Army is about broken." ("I haven't heard the word 'broken,'" Bush said yesterday, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.'") Incoming House Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton (D-MO) said the military was "bleeding" and "we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an ardent supporter of escalation, has admitted putting tens of thousands more troops in Iraq would "put a terrible strain on the Army and Marine Corps." "Absolutely, it would be terrible," he said, "we're going to be asking people to go back again and again, maybe even extend their tours." McCain has suggested enlarging military forces within the two branches -- an idea that is impossible to carry out over the short-term. Now, it is "essential that we fully fund the replacement and repair of Army and Marine equipment" that is "being used at as much as nine times the planned rate, abused by harsh environments, and depleted due to losses in combat." Over the long-term, the military should be expanded, not to increase our footprint in Iraq, but to meet the challenges America faces around the world.’

from the international relations centre www.globalgoodneighbor.org

Do we have the courage ....

to change course?

to be global good neighbors?

Spread a little hope this holiday season. Watch a make-you smile, must see flash video - Global Good Neighbor – for a brighter new year & a new political season, when hope can overcome fear.

We suggest a range of actions that you can take to inject Global Good Neighbor into the public debate about our international relations.

Our goal is that individuals, organizations, and policymakers embrace the Global Good Neighbor framework as their own. That means seizing hold of the idea that U.S. foreign policy should be guided by good neighbor principles—and then taking that concept into your discussions with friends, neighbors, and constituents whenever the topic is international relations.

What You Can Do

The Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said Friday that exceptional measures were being taken to improve electricity supplies across the country, by increasing generation capacity by 250 megawatts.

 

Al-Shahristani, who took control of the electricity portfolio after the electricity minister resigned, said that the increase was due to the operation of plants in the southern city of Nasiriyah, as well as reducing power allocated for officials.

 

'We have decided to remove all emergency lines for officials and rich citizens, in cooperation with the security forces, and we have started from the Green Zone in central Baghdad,' al-Shahristani told reporters.

 

Locals have complained that a huge amount of power is allocated for the Green Zone, the heavily fortified administrative area in central Baghdad, which does not suffer from power cuts at all, while the rest of city suffers from chronic power shortages.

 

Iraq announces exceptional measures to improve electricity