From deep down in the article come these tidbits:
In addition to the withdrawal timetable, the Iraqi insurgents have demanded:

• An end to U.S. and Iraqi military operations against insurgent forces.

• Compensation for Iraqis killed by U.S. and government forces and reimbursement for property damage.

• An end to the ban on army officers from Saddam's regime in the Iraqi military.

• An end to the government ban on former members of the Baath Party — which ruled the country under Saddam.

• The release of insurgent detainees.

Some of these are really unacceptable. The US should pay reparations? Um, isn't that what the LOSER does?

My initial reaction to this news was, if they want the US to leave 'yesterday' then stop blowing things up. Stability means the US leaves. You want to keep the US around longer, keep blowing things up.

From deep down in the article come these tidbits:
In addition to the withdrawal timetable, the Iraqi insurgents have demanded:

• An end to U.S. and Iraqi military operations against insurgent forces.

• Compensation for Iraqis killed by U.S. and government forces and reimbursement for property damage.

• An end to the ban on army officers from Saddam's regime in the Iraqi military.

• An end to the government ban on former members of the Baath Party — which ruled the country under Saddam.

• The release of insurgent detainees.

Some of these are really unacceptable. The US should pay reparations? Um, isn't that what the LOSER does?

My initial reaction to this news was, if they want the US to leave 'yesterday' then stop blowing things up. Stability means the US leaves. You want to keep the US around longer, keep blowing things up.

I've said before a time table for withdrawl might be acceptable, if it is part of a comprehensive agreement with the insurgents, the Iraqi government, and us. I think a time table for withdrawl in the abscense of any kind of peace agreement is a bad idea. In any event, if we can reach an agreement we will need to insist on some type of mechanism to ensure that the insurgents and the Iraqi government actually honor their obligations. With the Americans this should not be a problem, as the international pressure on us is always intense.

Some of the terms do seem unpalatable, however, these are probably the opening move in negotiations.

Interesting, did you see that Pelosi's signature was on the bottom. Bet they planned to take that off before giving it to the prime minister.

“My initial reaction to this news was, if they want the US to leave 'yesterday' then stop blowing things up. Stability means the US leaves. You want to keep the US around longer, keep blowing things up.”
Posted by: adriandrews at June 29, 2006 01:54 PM

EXACTLY!

This is the same thing with the Palestinians. If you want your own state and have Israel out of it, stop firing missiles at Israel and stop the suicide bombing.

President Bush has repeatedly stated when the Iraqi government / army / police can stand on its own, that would be our queue to withdraw forces. So what is all the fighting really all about? Maybe someone should ask this question first!

I'm gonna catch flack for this, but i'll present it anyways.

We are an invading force, we have no right, only responsibilites.

IMO, Maliki is going to deal with these guys, he has to; we will see a timetable, i think two years is very shrewd of them, they understand they have to appease the US homefront, if they can get guarantees for us to leave, and take our bases with us, then they can claim a victory with their own people. Remember that a vast majority of these militia groups are locals, most just loose affiliations of many neighborhood sized groups.

we are going to have to pay something for the damage we have caused from our lack of security, although I think we will probably never pay anything since we will veto any resolution in the UN and drag our "coalition" with us...if they know whats good for them LOL.

I think the best we can hope for here is our eating of some crow, going home, and wishing them well in their nacent democracy, although I think it wont last, as soon as we are gone, the Kurds are going to break away, and then Shia will want about the same.

Right, negotions with sunni extremists. I'm not disagreeing with you B.Poster, I'm just incredulous that a peace offer from an insurgent group in Iraq is receiving ANY attention at all.

Even if we were to agree to a timetable, there could be no absolute guarantee that we sould follow, because it simply might not be possible, given our goals in Iraq. Bush has said plainly that he will not withdraw our troops until the Iraqi government has achieved stability enough to survive on it's own. That may happen in two years, ten years, maybe never, we have no way of knowing. So any agreement would involve a lot of guesses and conditional guarantees, which are not likely to be acceptable to muslim extremists.

I guess the question is, how much can we (they) trust an insurgent group to uphold any agreement, let alone one that involves enforcing a cease-fire. I just can't see any way this would work.

We will have to pay for "damage we have caused from our lack of security,..."????

what?????

We free an entire population from the day-to-day horror of living under the Hussein regime, in which any person at any time could be hauled off to be tortured, raped, and/or butchered, often with loved ones forced to watch.

We stop the mass killings which filled so many huge graves.

We build schools in areas which have never had schools.

We build facilities to bring electicity, sewage treatment, and clean water to areas which have never had them.

We allow the development of a free market, in which millions of Iraqis are now flourishing.

We create an environment in which Iraqis can, for the first time, experience elected representational government.

And you think we have to pay for WHAT, exactly, Eye?

Many hundreds of Americans have given their lives to provide this country with the basic foundations of freedom and democracy. And just how much do you think WE should pay IRAQ for that privilege?

And you go on to say:
"I think the best we can hope for here is our eating of some crow..." Oh, really? You mean you would stop short of demanding the total humiliation and disgrace your philosophical ancestors demanded in Viet Nam? Why stop at mere eating of crow? Why not go the whole Kerry route, and have us slink away in abject surrender? You've already got US paying THEM for the act of freeing them, why settle for mere humiliation?

Yes, I do believe that YOU believe that "..... the best we can hope for here is our eating of some crow.." Because you are a Liberal, and therefore incapable of either expecting, identifying, or being pleased by anything even remotely positive. What's good for America is bad for Liberals, and obviously what is bad for America is the only thing that can bring a smile to your pallid lips.

No, TEO, this country is not going to "eat crow". You may, as you like. You may not only prefer the dismal dank recesses of Liberalisms, in which this country is the worst evil in the world, in which we can do no right, and in which we are always and forever doomed to disgrace and defeat, you many continue to advocate your positions.

Bur fortunately, you may not force them upon this country as these identicaal positions were foisted on a too-trusting America in the late 60's and early 70's. No, the only way you can achieve your goals of misery and defeat and negativism is to elect one of your own kind, again. And the more the country is exposed to your shameful desire to see us brought down, the less likely that is to happen.

This offer is an addmition by the "dead enders" that they have lost and this is their best option.

The details of the offer are really unimportant, they are just negotiating points. What is important is that it is an an opening toward ending the "insurgency", and permitting us to leave with some degree of assurance that a permanent democracy has been established in the M iddle east.

Had the democrats "cut and run" strategy prevailed, this would never have been proffered.

Almiranta,

Please provide some facts for your assertions about the building process, and please juxtapose that against the amount of money we set aside for rebuilding, that was sucked up into security, and fraud by US contractors...thanks, baby.

The rest of your rant is meaningless as usual, but thanks for stopping by to releive your pent up agression for not being the Op-Ed writer you so obviously wish you were, ciao, fuzzy-britches!

TEO, you gave us a bunch of quotes in another thread that where not verifiable. Live up to your own standard before you ask someone else to verify their post, hypocrite! Otherwise we can certainly call your posts meaningless too.

A Liberal writes, “Please provide some facts for your assertions about the building process”
Translation: “Spend your time proving I’m wrong, because I’m not bright enough to do my own research or prepare a coherent response.”

A Liberal writes, “please juxtapose that against the amount of money … “
Translation: “my word of the day calendar is ‘Juxtapose’ but I’m too lazy to read the meaning so I’ll use it in a sentence and see if anyone corrects me.”

A Liberal writes, “The rest of your rant is meaningless as usual,”
Translation: “I don’t even understand what you are writing about so I’ll just disagree.”

Ironic that you would quote a prison movie, doncha think?

TEO,

We are not invaders, nor occupiers - we are the people who overthrew the Saddamire regime, and are now in Iraq at the express invitation of the legitimate Iraqi government.

The groups offering a truce are Sunni - you'll note that we don't get a lot of Shia terrorist groups attacking either us or the Iraqi government. These are, in the end, people who were suckered in to a die hard position by the Baathists and rejectionists who were certain that the US would cut and run after suffering some casualties...fortunately, we have a President with the courage to stick it out, even in the face of mindlessl leftwing demands for a withdrawal.

This is the preliminary for surrender negotiations on the part of the bulk of the armed enemies in Iraq...this is what happens when you win a war, TEO...

Interesting, did you see that Pelosi's signature was on the bottom. Bet they planned to take that off before giving it to the prime minister.

lol, bill--good one!

Actually, she, Reid-tard, and the rest of the usual gang of idiots were out puffing their chests out when SCOTUS handed one to the bad guys today. And the drive-by media? They were the same, calling this a "big defeat for George Bush," "Bush's war on terror," etc. The fact is, this is our war, ours and our coalition's. It's a freakin' shame that these leftists are too namby-pamby to participate. And this "big defeat for George Bush?" It's a big defeat for the world--the free world...

Nate

I agree wtih you a peace treaty with insurgents does ssem to be unlikely. This is why I stated that we would need ome mechanism to make sure that the insurgents and the Iraqi government honor their part of the agreement.

TEO

The bases will need to be used by the Iraqi military. If part of an honorable agreement includes the US paying something, this is how it is. We could veto a security council resolution. They could go through the general assembly and get a resolution. They may have to present their side. This may not be comfortable for them. If they get a resolution through the general assembly that is favorable to them, while I don't think it is legally binding, it would send quite a message. They could then use the media to shine a bright light on American actions. In summary, America would have to honor the agreement.

I think the appropiate response to our coalition allies is "thank you", not to lol at them. When they chose to assist us where they could, they took an enormous risk. To drag them along, implies power we just don't seem to have.

Hmm... I'm going to say be very cautious about this. The old "too good to be true" rule is in effect here. Also, don't forget what Freedom always brings up in these cases, that these muslim extremists follow a teaching (or wha they think is being taught I'm not a big religion guy) that states it's perfectly fine to make treaties with infidels and then break them when you feel like it.

They could very well make this deal with the only desire to break it when they feel like it. So I say be warry.

Sorry Mark but we are invaders and occupiers. Sure we ousted Sadaam who was a bad dude. But an awful lot of innocent civilians have died as a result of our presence their.

BTW: where in the world is Osama bin Laden? Or are we still not thinking much about him this week? Our desire to establish a permanent military presence there is so transparent.

Democracy does not come at the end of a gun.

Also where the heck has that 1/2 trillion gone that we have sunk in to this blatant imperialism? (Hint: it didn't go to proper armor for the troops)

Ash,

Invaders - yes. Liberators - yes. Occupiers - no. How can we be an occupying force when there is a democratically elected government in place who wants us to remain until teh Iraqi Security Forces are capable of handling the security for the nation.

TEO: To clarify my previous post, you say we are going to drag our coalition allies along. I'm wondering how we are going to do this. To use the military would require Congress to declare war or at the very least for Congress to authorize the use of force, as with Iraq. We might try to use our influence through the IMF or the World Bank, but the world bank has an independent body to review abuses. The IMF is headed by a European. This is probably designed to put an additional check on everyone. If we abuse someone who took a risk and helped us, they would can take it up with the UN general assembly, furthermore, the US is closely monitored by the American and International media and abuses are vigorously reported. It just does not seem like there will be much opportunity to drag anyone along. When countries chose to help us in any way they could, they took an enormous risk. This made them a bigger target for terrorists. I think the appropiate response to someone who takes an enormous risk to help you is "thank you" followed by "how can I help you?" On that note, I'm sure we will try to help them, in some way. I agree with you that some of the militias are local neighborhood militias who pose no threat to us. Others do. Good human intellegence will be needed to identify the ones who pose a threat to us.

KttR,

If there are some quotes you would like me to source, please, let me know, ill find them for you, or retract the statement.

Bane,

If you really teach kids, and you don't know the meaning of 'juxtapose', then we are in some serious trouble in regards to the state of our teaching standards.

Juxtapose: To place side by side, especially for comparison or contrast.

Because I asked for her to quote me some numbers doesn't make me lazy; It reflects poorly on her for not taking the time to research her own assumptions before she rattled them off, all nice and packaged for yes-men such as yourself to gobble up.

anything else you wanna prattle on about?

Mark,

The problem with calling it "surrender", is that we don't get to decide the term of this negotiation. Maliki is going to accept some of these demands, because the other option is an ongoing insurgency, which we cannot control, nor stop, and neither can he.

Whether Bush gets to make political hay from this, is out of his hands, he will spin it, until such time as the talks either bear fruit, or they break down, but we are not controlling either of those options; much like the rest of his plan, we will wait and see.

Almiranta,

"We stop the mass killings which filled so many huge graves."

--You mean aside from the graves we are filling up, one at a time, to the tune of somewhere between 30,000-60,000 dead, none of which we even bother to account for.

You mentioned all the work we have been doing, and while I applaud all the guys and girls over there busting their asses to try and build a better life for these Iraqis, the security situation over there has sucked up the money that was to be used to build these wonderful projects, leaving most of them half finished, if that.

The money has just dissapeared, into army and police coffers, and the regular Iraqi still has an average of 12 hours of electricity (6 in baghdad), water rationing, and the oil is just today back to pre-war levels; I would say that leads most people who care to look, to believe that the plan for peace was sacrificed when this administration realized they wouldn't have the "cake-walk" that was alluded to in '03.

"A reconstruction contract for the building of 142 primary health centers across Iraq is running out of money, after two years and roughly $200 million, with no more than 20 clinics now expected to be completed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says.

Parsons, according to the Corps, will walk away from more than 120 clinics that on average are two-thirds finished. Auditors say the project serves as a warning for other U.S. reconstruction efforts due to be completed this year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201209.html

"We allow the development of a free market, in which millions of Iraqis are now flourishing."

--Can you tell me what you meant by this quote? How can you say that the noral Iraqi is flourishing when atleast a third of the country still has worries about daily attacks and kidnappings just going to get water to survive?
I may be wrong, but I don't see any numbers for business startups in Iraq or the state of the economy.

So, basically, the cheery news you wish was there, just isn't materializing, money is flowing like rivers there, but mainly to protect people's asses, and not the Iraqis who really need it.

We will see just how impressed the American people are come November.

My response to this "offer" by "insurgents" is no. Hell no. The US/Iraq should accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from these terrorists.

"that these muslim extremists follow a teaching...that states it's perfectly fine to make treaties with infidels and then break them when you feel like it."-Gozer

:) Exactly, Gozer. I hope EVERYONE is aware that these Sunni insurgents view Shia Muslims as infidels who deserve death. Why do people think Iraqi Sunni insurgents blow up Iraqi Shia Muslims every day in Iraq??? It's not just for what the Shias do. It's for what the Shia Muslims are. Shia Muslims are infidels in the eyes of Sunni insurgents/terrorists (whatever name you want to give these murderers).

IIRC, last night Donald Rumsfeld said that the US would reject this offer because it would just say to the terrorists that all they have to do is wait 2 years and then they can claim victory.

Muslim jihadists think in terms of decades not years. Waiting two years would be easy. It would give them a chance to re-arm, recruit new terrorists and would spell disaster for the US and the new Iraqi democracy. Making a peace-treaty with terrorists-especially Muslim terrorists-is stupid. Hunt them down and eliminate them.

Ash

Non combatants have died. Of late, most of them have been killed by the terrorists. If they want us out, its really pretty simple. Stop deliberately blowing up civilians. Whether we keep permanent bases there and how many troops it will entail will be up to the soverign Iraqi government. I suspect if we they are allied with us, we may keep a force of some type there for the foreseeable future. This will be decided by the soverign Iraqi government.

Where is Osama? Good question. I think he is most likely in hiding afraid to show his face. At the beginning I was afraid the US government would focus entirely on Bin Laden and ignore the bigger picture. The US government had made a number of mistakes but fortunately this has not been one of them.

You write: "Democracy does not come at the end of a gun." I'm not sure this leftist talking point is true. We have had the civil war that the end result was to free the slaves. We had the American Revolution. From my knowledge of the American Revolution, I think we had French assistance. Sometimes help from the outside may be required.

None of what I have written is to imply that the Iraq served American national interests. A compelling case could be made that it did not. We may not know for some time whether the outcome will be successful or not. President George W. Bush will ultimately be judged by what he actually accomplishes and not by what he intended to accomplish.

Part of the problem with the policy we have is it is based on hope. Hope that the Iraqis can resolve their differences. Hope that democracy in Iraq can flourish. Hope that the seed of democracy will spread to the rest of the Middle East. I pray that Iraq will successully establish a pro-American, stable, and successful Democracy. We can help them along way but we will not be able to control it.

"You write: "Democracy does not come at the end of a gun." I'm not sure this leftist talking point is true. We have had the civil war that the end result was to free the slaves. We had the American Revolution. From my knowledge of the American Revolution, I think we had French assistance. Sometimes help from the outside may be required."-B.Poster

Exactly.

"Democracy does not come at the end of a gun." Is just the latest BS talking point from the left. The left should NEVER be in power in America again.

*Chuckles*

See Freedom, I read your gigantic posts and retain some of the info. ;)

I'm curious TEO, are you saying that nothing has improved in Iraq? That there are no new buisnesses or repaired facilities or new schools? Or are you just saying you haven't found any sources with that information?

My response to this "offer" by "insurgents" is no. Hell no. The US/Iraq should accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from these terrorists.

Yeah. Like that's gonna happen. That is just another way of saying we are in a perpetual war. Oh and if you truly think that is possible, I think Kimberly has some beachfront property in Arizona for sale. See her.

First what the f is a talking point?

Even if it is a talking point doesn't mean it's not true. The attempt to correlate the Civil or even Revolutionary war with this current invasion is at best "nuts"

If I understand talking points correctly are these not Republican ones:

We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

If youre not with us youre against us.

Stay the course.

Cut and run.

It's a post 9-11 world.

I could go on but I am starting to vomit in my mouth a little thinking about this crap

Ashes,

I said-The US/Iraq should accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from these terrorists.

Ash said-"Yeah. Like that's gonna happen. That is just another way of saying we are in a perpetual war."

Bwahaha! You just admitted that America-the most powerful military force on the planet-can't win against Islamic terrorists in Iraq. And you wonder why we Republicans call you liberals defeatists. Keep posting, Ash, every time you do, you help the Republicans to win in November.

Sometimes talking points are true. Sometimes they are not. A talking point is a catchy phrase that is easy to remember and to repeat. Exact comparisions to the civil war, Revolutionary War and the Iraq war are not possible. During the Revoltionary War and the Civil War Americans fought for their own freedom. In Iraq we are fighting to help someone else gain freedom. In the Revolutionary War we received assistance from France. My understanding is it is unlikely we could have defeated England without French help. I could be wrong of course. The point is that Democracy and freedom sometimes require the use of a gun to create it and to defend it. The founding fathers seem to have understood this. This is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the constitution. This particular talking point seems to be false. At the risk of this post being to long, I'm going to examine each talking point you list. I think you are correct. They came from Republicans.

"We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." - Some of the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere have global reach. If their resources are in Iraq or elsewhere in the middle east fighting us, they can't use those resources here. I think that because we took the fight to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan probably has alot to do with why we have not seen another attack since 911 on US soil, however, this is difficult to prove. My analysis could be wrong. Just because we took the fight to the terrorists in the middle east does not mean they can't or won't attack here again. Should they succeed with another attack on US soil, the person who came up with this may look mighty silly. It is not known, at this time, if this particular talking point is correct.

"If you're not with us you're against us." This sounds very simillar to the following: "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the Amrican people, in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory." Franklin D. Roosevelt on 12/7/41 immediately after Pearl Harbor. Yes, I know exact comparisons to WWII and the current situation are not valid. Also, exact comparisons to Vietnam are not valid either. The current situation has similarities to both WWII and Vietnam. The context of, if you are not with us you are against us, seems to have been in relation to that anyone who supports a terrorist in any way will be considered a legitmate target. This statement recognizes that there is no moral equivalence between the US and its terrorists enemies. I think this statement is valid. This does not mean that the Iraq war is the proper battle field or that it served American interests. A case could be made that the Iraq war was an imprudent decison, but the statement itself seems to be valid.

"Stay the course." - I discuss this in a previous post. The current "course" is largely predicated on hope and it depends to a large degree on the actions of others that we have no control over. I'm very skeptical of it. Time will tell, if the this talking point is correct. Right now it is not known.

"Cut and run" - This appears to refer to unilateral surrender. In the most recent context it seems to have been used to set a time table for withrawl from Iraq and to make it public even without a peace agreement with the insurgents. It seems such a move would hand a victory to the terrorists and would be conceeding Iraq to them. This talking point seems to be valid.

"Its a post 911 world." - After the 911 attacks, this lowered the threshold for some people at which threats to national security would be tolerated. Some people felt that we needed to take threats to national security more seriously and that we needed to take a more pro actie approach. I may over state the threats from time to time, but some people think this is a "boogey man." This threat is real. The boogey man is not. This does not make the current strategies that are being used the correct ones. I do think 911 should have been a wake up call for us and it should have shown us that we needed to change our policies. I think the talking point is a valid one.

Ash,

Actually, democracy can only come after battle - people have to suffer to be free. You might recall an 8 year long war we had to fight to gain our democracy.

Gozer,

I am not saying there has been nothing done, there has been a lot of work that the US has engaged in, the things that actually got done were done by the US Army, and not by contractors, as the story I quoted alludes to.

I wasn't able to find solid, verifiable information of Iraqi business start-ups, or how many schools were "built", instead of many who were called "reconstructed" when all they got was a fresh coat of paint; if the info is out there, I would love to see some of it.

But when we have 18.6 billions dollars for reconstructions, and most of it gets funneled into other areas, what do you want me to call that? What are we going to do, give another 20 billion, and hope the contractors will get it done this time, instead of sub-contracting it out and verifying progress by photograph?

My view is that instead of wasting money on projects which may end up partially done, if even started, lets hold this money in escrow, until the government can secure the peace, what is the point in rebuilding the power grid, when its gonna get blown up as soon as its done, this seems like making political hay back home, rather than a smart reconstruction plan.

TEO, your missing the point entirely. You want us to give you our sources along with our posts or you dismiss it as “meaningless”. You on the other hand post alleged quotes and don’t give us your sources. You have a double standard. It’s not O.K. for us to post without giving our sources but it is O.K. for you to post without giving your sources, at least until your confronted. Besides what your asking Almiranta for a source of information that if you listened or read anything other than liberal sources you would know it’s been in the news. But I don’t expect you will acknowledge any source that is not liberal or “neutral” in nature. So if you are going to ask us to give you our sources in our posts you have to do the same, or what your asking is hypocritical nonsense!

TEO,

Here's your source. The US Agency for International Development puts out a bi-weekly summary of the thousands of projects either completed or in progress in Iraq, by both US Forces and contractors. Try reading it sometime, you might learn something.

A-10

I know some contractors who either are in Iraq or have been to Iraq. They have attested to the projects we have completed or are working on. One of them has expressed concern to me about what he thinks would happen if we leave to early.

TEO

You make a very good point. Too often government officials on both sides of the aisle throw money at something for political purposes. Perhaps some of this money should be held in escrow until we can improve the security situation. We must always remember to judge leaders by their actual results and not by what they intended to accomplish or by how much money they threw at the situation.

KttR,

Are you really this stupid, aor are you just pretending?

please find me some quotes you want some reference on, if there is such a problem with me making conjecture statements, then show me where, please, i'll quote them or retract the statement, its pretty simple.

because i asked someone to back up their un-sourced assumptions about things, doesn't mean anything ,except that I don't buy into the face value of her assumptions, is that crystal?

A-10,

Thanks for the link, it's good to have it all in one place; I was hoping for an impartial, international estimate of the situation, but this will do until I find something from the UN or another verifiable NGO.

As I said in my original post, I am not denying that work has been done, and that it is benefiting the people of Iraq, but our accomplishments mean very little to the people who are forced to live in fear from security threats, you would think after 3 years the world's most prolific military could do something about the mounting violence, instead of just preaching about "staying the course" while people dissapear and end up tortured and dead.

TEO, right back at you, are YOU that stupid that you don't understand what I am trying to say? It looks like you didn't read my post. I am not asking for your sources knucklehead. Almiranta's post where not "assumptions". They were in the news, just not in what you'd read because they are from conservative news sources. How plainly do I need to write before you understand? You don’t post your sources along with your statements but you ask us to, that’s a double standard. Do us a favor and always post your sources

KttR,

Then feel free to ask when you want sourcing for them. just as I asked her

I will, especially when I have a source that has a differing perspective on what you are posting. Hopefully I will be more articulate, I will be the first to admit that I could not make a living as a writer.

TEO,

"I was hoping for an impartial, international estimate of the situation, but this will do until I find something from the UN or another verifiable NGO."

Well you don't want to find something from the UN if you want an inpartial estimate of the situation. Why is it that you suspect every report from the Bush Administration to be false?

"you would think after 3 years the world's most prolific military could do something about the mounting violence"

We could, without any trouble. We could turn Iraq into a 158,000 square mile parking lot, without even using our nukes. But we are attempting to quell the violence with a minimum of collateral damage. That is why so many American have been killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq. In previous wars, we would have indiscrimately killed all in our way. We are not doing that now. During WWII, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed by both sides. It was considered one of the prices you have to pay to win a war. In Iraq, we are attempting to win the peace (I believe we have already won the war - rather the battle - for Iraq), without wholesale killing of civilians.

You can blame us for being a compassionate military, but that's what we are.