How many lies will Petraeus tell Congress and the American people next week?

1- The surge is working.
- The Iraqis are taking more responsibility for their own "security".
3- There are problems.
4-We're dealing with the problems.
5- Civilian frastructure is being rebuilt.
6-?? More lies. Until the next time he opens his mouth.

A idea? Write your neswspaper and get some letters in saying here comes the next bunch of lies from that "ass-kissing little chicken-sh*t". Quote is from Admiral Fallon , Petraeus' old boss about his sucking up.

" If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think this is going to be very popular". What a crock, the U.S. has been doing that for the last 5 years and has been making trouble for the whole country of Iraq. As for being not popular Mr. Crock er; this statement is the epitome of hypocrisy!

let's hope they have more success than in the u.s. and elsewhere with their demonstration...............

They`d better do it quick, while there are still a million Iraqis alive with enough limbs intact to march.

Those who march will be lucky if they only get tasered.

Large rallies against the occupation and the groups that organize then within the popular resistance are rarely covered in the US corporate media which has become inseparable from Army Psy Ops and the NSA. That they happen isn't all that unusual though a rally that large would be hard to ignore. I don't know that Sadr has the popular backing to pull it off as he is a divisive figure.

A million Muslims is about 5% of what we have left of the Iraqi population. Suppose 5% of the U.S. population had a peace march.

The last one was peaceful and included a mix of Sunni and Shiite.

I'm telling you these people will get along if we get out!

- "If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.

- Sadr has millions of followers and was able to summon tens of thousands of people on to the streets in Baghdad for demonstrations during last week's fighting. A march to Najaf would potentially mobilize swathes of Shi'ite Iraq.

Ryan Crocker, is this the stupidest man in Iraq? Ryan, I know you are a stud as far a Maliki's secretary in the Green Zone is concerned but Sadr getting millions of people together is the definition of popular.

why is the word OCCUPATION in quotes in the first paragraph?

It is not news that Iraqi's are overwhelmingly opposed to the occupation, but it will be interesting to see how this is going to (not) be covered in the corporate media.

"If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.
________________________

This kind of statement and the mentality behind it explain why most Iraqis think it's cool to shoot Americans. Americans have become very popular in Iraq, at least for purposes of target practice.

An opportunity for Cheney.

All the dead enders in one place.

Cheney: the American WMD.

If al-Sadr achieves his million-man march, we should bring him to the US to organize one here.

The corporate mega-media will determine the "success or failure" of the demonstration on their terms. Just like here in America.
The best coverage of large demonstrations is on Youtube shot by people there.
...that's how I followed the G-8 conference demonstrations.

Good for Sadr, 1 million strong, get the US out of there!

Maybe the media will cover the event like they cover Tibet.

If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.

Quote from article.

Weellllllll ! This beats the Beijing Olympics ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! This is sung to the chunts of Tibet Tibet. You Americans really crack me up ! This American ambassador Crocker is truely a clown of the first order, He makes jokes in the face of a million man march.

Tibet belongs to the People's Republic of China AND THE RIOTING & KILLING OF HAN CHINESE WAS ACTIIVELY ORGANISED BY THE CIA. Hey ! Yankee it is not true that the Iraqis ask for the Americans to stay. The Iraqis want the Americans out, so this demonstration is proof that there is no pretext left for the Yanks to pretend that their stooge Al Malaki represents the wishes of the people of Iraq.

Yes ! USA remember, what you said to China by your Henry Paulson, NEGOTIATE WITH AL SADR AND DO NOT USE FORCE ! Right ? The peoples of the world must demonstrate our commitment to peace in Iraq by calling for the USA to do the right thing, GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

WHAT TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN BIGGEST EMBASSY BUILDING IN THE WORLD; TURN IT INTO A BASKETBALL STADIUM !

Bill BRG -

You forgot Petraeus' favorite lie: the march is being organized by Iran.

jj

NOT a good idea...Sadr will get one million Iraq's together in one place, then Maliki will get the US to blow them all up

Oh, it sounds impressive-- but once they funnel that million into Free Speech Zones in the middle of nowhere, they won't get any attention at all.

sadr has shown that he prefers peace to war by reeling in his forces. al-maliki and bush state that they are not going after sadr when they go after basra. sadr states that there will be a million man march to get the occupiers out of iraq. crocker's reaction to the idea is that these little iraqis are only capable of disruption and want to do it on a larger scale as though they are soccer thugs from england. wouldn't the mutual power involved in an alliance of al maliki's government and al sadr's popular uprising point to a breach in the wall of stalemate? if we get out of iraq like sadr says we should wouldn't there be enough rational power in iraq to take care of the likes of al qaeda? no one would have anyone to fight anymore. as it stands now the iraqi people keep in the memory the thousands and thousands who have died deaths related to our occupation. there is real hatred there. we really are the ones in the way here. may sadr's march open america's eyes to this fact after its being blinded for so long by the notion that we would be welcomed with flowers like the sixties love-child Richard Cheney suggested.

I, too, predict trouble. The U.S. will blame it on someone else and more Iraqis will die. But if there is a march here at the same time (when exactly is this scheduled?) I would definitely be there. Actually, the 4th of July should be a travel day, and the 5th of July we should all march with our upside-down American flags waving.

WTF,

I agree. Bring the man here to organize. But I doubt George the Inferior will give up.

maybe the problem is that the administration has trouble using words properly. "If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.

When you get a whole lot of people together, it is by definition popular.

What is truly ironic is that without the actions of Dubya, Cheney, & Co., Sadr would merely be the wayward son of a famous imam who was murdered by Saddam's government. The Iraq fiasco has given this creep a platform to power and prominence he would have never achieved before "Mission Accomplished." A picture of Sadr can placed in the encyclopedia next to the article about the Law of Unintended Consequences.

NMBill,

"I'm telling you these people will get along if we get out!"

I agree completely. The analogy I use is, imagine a brutal foreign occupation of the US where, people begin to notice that the occupier puts only Catholics in the traitor-puppet government. You can be sure that US cities would quickly fill with sectarian strife far worse than Derry in the worst of the Troubles.

So this call for a massive anti-occuaption protest - something all Iraqis can agree on, is a good move on his part.

Yes, I aggree that Reuters efectively calling it the "so-called occupation" is pretty irritating. But the fact is must USAns have trouble with the concept of the US occupying a nation, since they tend to think we already own the whole world.

Some may be correct - we often provide provocateurs to start trouble, then hammer the peaceful protesters. This time, it will backfire. Most of the Middle East, even many in the nations who are our so-called allies, will blow the doors off this occupation if Maliki or the US attacks such a demonstration. Wanna see the Shiite (various sects), Sunnis and Kurds unite - just blow away a couple thousand of them at one time - then we'll see how long it takes Bushie to declare 'mission accomplished.'

Awwww, poor little liberal babies have diaper rash. Poooooor baby.

Watching all of you libs parading around in your red diapers for the past several years has given me much to think about.

I personally am against the war, but only because it is putting us in debt up to our eyeballs. That money could be used to put more police on the streets, to prevent illegal aliens from coming in, and to strengthen our military. Instead we are pouring it into an effort that seems futile.

I do believe that this war is largely about oil, and I am fine with that, as long as we win quickly and efficiently. Having a strategic foothold in the oil-rich Middle East is a good move. But it should not take this long. Obviously our military is not being forceful enough.

This will give them a taste of, for the people, of the people, and by the people.
A meaningless exercise, that will fall on deaf ears.

Why are we supporting Maliki and his Supreme Council allies who want to have the Shiite south break away from the rest of Iraq?

Oh yeah, the imperial strategy of divide and conquer.

"I personally am against the war" and later "I do believe that this war is largely about oil, and I am fine with that as long as we win quickly and efficiently."

Enough said.

Standard monopoly media operating procedure for covering rallies they don't agree with is to ignore the tens of thousands (or millions) of peaceful marchers (along with what their message is) and focus on the 20 people causing violence or disruption - even though those 20 people are often not affiliated with or supported by the rest of the marchers.

The Seattle march against the undemocratic practices of the WTO was mislabled as an "anti-globalization" movement even though most of the marchers were part of a global movement that wants a more democratic and humane form of globalization. The image I rember most was not the tens of thousands of marchers, but the repeated film loop of a few young teenagers throwing rocks at a window.

15 million people marched before Bush's war and occupation in Iraq, but the media only got excited when one of the floats was set on fire.

It is time for the monopoly media to be replaced completely by the more democratic internet.

The danger presented by Sadr is that he threatens to defeat the divide and control strategy by unifying Iraqis against all foreign intervention: the U.S., Al Qaeda (sp?), etc. Sadr follows a strong family tradition in this regard. His grandfather fought British occupation; his father was killed for his opposition to Saddam. So, in opposing the Sadrists, Bush is killing the very people that we "liberated." It was Bush's father who encouraged the Sadrists and other Shia, as well as the Kurds, to revolt in '91 before selling them out to death by Saddam. Now, the Kurds too, are being sold out again at the hands of our NATO friends, the Turks.

I learned the above on John McCain's website.(a belated April fool's)

What? You mean we aren't being greeted with flowers?

Well, Claudius, what I should have clarified was that I am against the war NOW, because I am wearied by the casualties and the monetary cost, but that I am fine with the original intent of the war if the goal was to secure oil. Unfortunately, the war has taken too long, and I am just anxious for it to be over.

But listening to the Great Unwashed shouting "No Blood for Oil," well, obviously they do not understand just how important oil is to our economy. Yes, we made the mistake of leaning to heavily upon it, but that is a burden which our country must bear until we develop more viable energy sources.

"Anti_Marx,

How are you with the way we were led into war?"

Could you be more specific? I assume you mean being deceived, so...

In a perfect world, the leaders of nations would not need to mislead their citizens. However, due to the sensitive nature of matters such as war, it is unfortunately a necessity to utilize propaganda, especially in a country so politically divided as ours. I do not enjoy being lied to - I feel it insults my intelligence and breeds distrust - but I can understand the reasons for doing so.

Again, in a perfect world, Bush could have whipped up the American mood into a desire for revenge for the 9/11 attacks. I would rather have seen him play a little more to emotions and perhaps a little less to reason (i.e., the supposed WMDs being stashed in Iraq).

Bottom line is, if you are going to wage an aggressive or retaliatory war, you need to be able to stand behind your decision, and never apologize for it. Instead of BSing about the search for WMDs, or Iraqi democracy, talk about how many insurgents and Al-Qaeda operatives we have killed. Many Americans wanted blood after 9/11, and Bush failed to capitalize on that need.

Anti_Marx,

How are you with the way we were led into war?

The problem with that sort of (il)logic, Anti_Marx, is that if one country feels justified in waging war for natural resources, then it should expect to become the target of other nations once it secures those resources.

In other words, "chickens will come home to roost".

And even if every American worked at securing the nation from attack, it could not defend the country's borders from, say 5.7 Billion people.

anti-Marx, There are over a million innocent men, women, and CHILDREN, who are now dead because of this illegal invasion, and occupation. I hope someday, this minor detail, has at least a modicum of effect on your conscience.
Or are you really that cold?

I thought we all agreed a long time ago that the market determines who gets the oil.

This just came in over the news wire:

- Scientists have discovered a previously unknown species of homo genus, the prehistoric "BushCheneyathal-Man". When defrosted in the microwave, its first words were:

"BushCheneyathal-Man see oil, BushCheneyathal-Man want oil, BushCheneyathal-Man take oil errrrrr!"

Hey anti-marx- We could have bought all the oil we wanted from Iraq for less than the cost of the war. But you would prefer to steal it. How's that workin' out?

The illegal US occupation of Iraq is a bonanza without end for hundreds of thousands of US military industrial complex employees and their millions of dependents, and tens of millions more in secondary services. New SUVs for the whole family! Flip those burgers and feed those bombmakers! Look out - million man march could break the pipeline! Cut the news feed!

Ok, first Garvey: I believe that you are absolutely right - if a nation secures resources aggressively, then it will become a target for other nations. But the sad truth is that war has almost always been about resources, and I fear it always will. Perhaps the wars of the future will be all the more savage as the world grows (sadly) more interconnected. If America does not secure resources for itself, other superpowers (namely China) will. I see a war with China in our future for this very reason.

The more a nation acquires, the more it will be envied and hated by others. That is where the military comes in, of course. I believe that now, more than ever, we should be strengthening and unifying our country from within for this very reason. But I also believe that we should be selective in our leveraging of strength, because we do not want to earn any more enmity than is necessary.

We will never be attacked by 5.7 billion people so long as we are selective in our sabre-rattling. I personally prefer peace. Had we never been attacked on 9/11, I would never support a war of aggression. I do, however believe in retaliatory warfare. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation that we can simply bomb into the stone age. Sadly, however, we are limited to a kind of "proxy war" in a nation that did not attack us. But if being in Iraq draws members of AQ into our gunsights (as it has), then we are getting our revenge.

As long as America remains strong, there will be incentive for other nations to ally with us if we treat our allies well.

Terry B - Your numbers are inaccurate by about 1,000%. Also consider how many of those innocent people were killed by roadside bombs planted by insurgents.

The fact that our troops are there against the wishes of many people does not change the fact that they have the right to defend themselves if attacked. The blood of civilians is on the hands of everyone involved - not just the U.S.

"Hey anti-marx- We could have bought all the oil we wanted from Iraq for less than the cost of the war. But you would prefer to steal it. How's that workin' out?"

Well, hamster, I mentioned later on that I would never have supported a war solely on the basis of gathering oil. The problem is one can only be so coherent in these forums, so I guess I left some things out.

What I mean to say is that the American people wanted revenge - they wanted blood for what was done on 9/11. And those who did were right to want this. But because we were attacked by an organization that knows no country, we had to draw them to us in order to kill them.

Now, I do believe that this war is largely about oil, but I also believe that the government saw an opportunity to accomplish two simultaneous goals - securing a Middle East foothold, and giving the American people their "pound of flesh." I won't claim that our reasons to going to war were entirely pure, and now with 4000 of our guys dead I do want it to end. But the fact is, revenge was needed, and it seemed like a good time to gain a foothold in the M.E.

I may not completely agree with you, but this is a riot! lol

"BushCheneyathal-Man see oil, BushCheneyathal-Man want oil, BushCheneyathal-Man take oil errrrrr!"

Anti-marx, You sound coherent but your thesis that we went to Iraq to "draw in" Al Qaeda is well, a crock of shit. Al Qaeda was a thinly disguised excuse for going into Iraq, which they longed to do even before 9/11. Read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" for a concise history of how the emphasis shifted from punishing Al Qaeda within days after 9/11; and then remember GWB's famous "I just don't think about him that much anymore". It was NEVER about getting a "pound of flesh" even if some Americans wanted that. We didn't just draw them in, we created them where none had been.

And I call for a six billion strong march by the citizens of the world against escalating American Imperialism and military brutality.

I call for a boycott by six billion people against all American products.

I call for all governments of the world to boycott America and American politicians, to cut off all links with the White House and the Pentagon.

It's time the world moved against America otherwise we'll have no world left.

www.dangerouscreation.com