Britain Hands Over Basra Security To Iraq

Many Worry A Power Vacuum Could Leave The Region Susceptible To Return Of Violence

(CBS/AP)  British forces formally handed over responsibility Sunday for the last region in Iraq under their control, marking the start of what Britain hopes will be a transition to a mission aimed at aiding the economy and providing jobs in an oil-rich region beset by militia infighting.

The commander of British forces in Basra, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, said soldiers had successfully wrested the region from the grip of its enemies.

"I now formally hand it back to its friends," Binns said shortly before he, Basra's governor and the Iraqi commander added their signatures to the papers giving Iraq formal control of the far southern province.

Mowafaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, said Iraq was ready.

"The security improvements didn't come from nothing, but were the result of huge efforts from both the government and Iraqi people in fighting terrorism, extremism, militias and outlaws," al-Rubaie said.

Basra's city center was festooned with flags, lights and banners to mark the occasion. But U.S. officials worry that a power vacuum could heighten the influence of Iran and threaten land routes used by the Americans to bring ammunition, food and other supplies from Kuwait to troops to the north.

Basra's governor, Mohammad al-Waili, said the Iraqis were ready to take over security.

"They are completely prepared to deal with this issue," al-Waili said.

In Baghdad, there was some skepticism that Iraqi forces were ready to take control in Basra, but many agreed that the handover was a positive sign.

"I hope it will be followed by similar steps across the country. Such steps are good for Iraqis," said Awatif Qazaz, a Baghdadi woman.

But Osama Juwad said he feared the security forces were infiltrated by militias.

Britain's participation in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing presence of troops is deeply unpopular in Britain - as is the $12 billion annual cost of operations there. A total of 174 British personnel have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

British officials have said they will retain the ability to help Iraqi troops quickly if widespread violence erupts, but they are also reducing the number of troops in the country from 4,500 to 2,000 by spring. In the months soon after Saddam Hussein was toppled, there were about 40,000 British troops in Iraq.

The main players in Basra and southern Iraq are the powerful Shiite entities - the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia; Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader the largest Shiite political party and the Badr Brigade militia, which has largely been absorbed into the Iraqi security forces; and the Fadhila party, which also has its own fighters and a member as Basra's governor.

Basra police chief Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf survived two assassination attempts in a single week last month and has accused religious vigilante militias of terrorizing women and Christians in the city.

In other developments:

Al Qaeda's No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri said in a new video posted Monday that the United States is trying to hide its failures in Iraq and warned that the mujahedeen there are increasing in strength.

Turkish warplanes hit Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq early Sunday, Turkey's military said, the first such attack since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. An Iraqi official said the planes attacked several villages, killing one woman.

A top U.S. general in Iraq says violence is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion. He says the Iraqi government now has the window it needs to move forward with efforts to reach political reconciliation among its rival sects. Lieutenant General Ray Odierno says the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, have seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began.



© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam

• Photos Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
• Photos Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
• Photos Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28

Latest in Iraq After Saddam

Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq

Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq

Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2
• next

See all 74 Comments

by ontheleft December 16, 2007 5:28 AM PST

So the British will have gone from 40,000 troops in 2003 to 2000 by this spring. Meanwhile, U.S. troop levels have not decreased since 2003. They are currently at about 170,000. Once the British leave completely, Bush will make up stories of Iran gaining control of Basra due to the "power vacuum". He''ll then send in 40,000 additional American troops to Basra. Not sure where he''s going to get them from. That "problem" could be resolved by starting an unnecessary war with Iran and thus giving an excuse to start drafting.

Reply to this comment

by ramos937 December 16, 2007 5:52 AM PST

Billions have been spent and other vast resources also in training the Iraq security forces. Now the UK has said enough is enough. Your country is in your hands - mess it up, keep fighting, turn it over to AQI or whatever. We have done what we can. We are out of here.

The UK is doing the right thing. We desperately need to follow its lead. I know we have billions invested in new bases, the new US Embassy, etc. but it simply is not worth the additional cost in human lives to stay there.

Reply to this comment

by samthetvcat December 16, 2007 6:51 AM PST

If Iraqis true agenda is to not cooperate with each other and instead have a winner-take-all showdown for power and control of the country and the oil, then it would seem to better serve their agenda to wait until the election''s over, right? So maybe this area will be quiet at least for the next year . . . plus yeah, everybody must think Shrub is a complete loose cannon and probably don''t want to give him an excuse to go nuts so close to Iran . . .

Reply to this comment

by samthetvcat December 16, 2007 6:52 AM PST

PS ( . . . by sending more troops into the Southern region . . . )

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:16 AM PST

(cont)

I''m frankly sick to death of hearing about how "tough" our next president is going to be. Our current president has shown just what being tough is good for: nothing. The country is less safe, we''ve got 80,000 returned soldiers suffering from life-long injuries, we''ve made enemies out of friends all over the world, and this country''s been going down the tube, with joblessness rising, the economy teetering, and the once mighty dollar headed for Third World currency status.

Until I hear political candidates start talking about slashing military spending -- and I mean on the order of 75 percent, none of this nickel-and-dime stuff, and about funding the things that really need funding -- I''m not even listening to these moronic campaigns.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin''s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:17 AM PST

(cont)


Now we''re left with $90 billion.

Well, it turns out that''s about what the government spends on "social programs." You know, like welfare -- the thing that we were supposedly ending? Truth is, of course, that over the last decade, the number of poor people and hungry people in the U.S. has been rising, not falling, so maybe we should rethink that "ending welfare as we know it" mantra, and start thinking about improving the lives of those at the bottom of the ladder. That extra $90 billion, by doubling social programs -- especially if it was spent on housing and job creation -- would go a long way towards making America a better place for all. It would also reduce crime significantly, meaning we''d have a whole lot of money freed up that currently goes to police and prisons, so we could spent that money on other good stuff too.

So who''s going to make this eminently sensible proposal?

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:18 AM PST

(cont)

Geez! We still have another $130 billion left!

The federal government right now only spends some $40 billion a year on science, energy, and the environment. That includes nuclear power and waste containment, and the entire NASA budget. Given the global climate change disaster we''re facing, we should probably double that, with the added $40 billion going all to environmental research, don''t you think?

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:19 AM PST

(cont)


Well, for starters, if we accept for argument''s sake that the Social Security System is running at a deficit and will eventually be defunded (which I do not believe for a minute), actuaries say that injecting about $130 billion a year into the fund (the equivalent of increasing everyone''s SSI payroll tax by 2 percent) would solve the alleged problem indefinitely, allowing all current and future Americans to count on an inflation-adjusted secure retirement forever. So let''s do that. Then there''s education. Currently, the federal government spends about $58 billion a year on education. That gives us classroom sizes in our cities of 30-35 kids (40 here in Philadelphia). More like child abuse (and teacher abuse) than education. So what say we boost that amount by 50 percent -- a much better educational reform than a lot of stupid "No Child Left Behind" testing regimens. Then there''s healthcare, on which the government spends a paltry $52 billion, leaving us with declining life expectancies and infant mortality rates, particularly among our poorest citizens, that are a scandal. Let''s boost that spending by 50 percent, too.

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:19 AM PST

(cont)


We could even take a few billion of that $115 billion military budget and shift it productively from our huge and useless strategic nuclear program (you know, the one that just lost six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for 36 hours, and flew them across the country, unprotected and unnoticed) over to operations such as border patrol, satellite monitoring, and the Coast Guard, where it might actually help protect us, instead of just funding futuristic weapons that will never be used for anything but helping generals justify their stars by having units to command.

So here we would be with still, by a factor of two, the largest and most advanced military in the world, but at peace and with $315 billion a year suddenly freed up and at our disposal.

What might we do with all that money?

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:20 AM PST

(cont)


Well, maybe not. It turns out if you add up all the military budgets of America''s other "major" enemies -- those so-called "rogue" states such as Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria -- and throw in a few extra possible hostiles for good measure such as Myanmar, Somalia, and, oh, what the heck, Grenada (you never know when that troublesome little island might have another revolution!), it comes to a grand total of $15 billion spent on military stuff. That''s less than one-seventh of what we''d still be spending.

And of course we wouldn''t be alone. Our allies -- Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Israel, Holland, Canada, Italy, Australia, South Korea, and Spain for example, though there are surely more who would come to our aid in a crisis -- collectively spend another $258 billion on their militaries (and yet even today we have our military based in many of those countries. Go figure!). So we would hardly be at anybody''s mercy.

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:21 AM PST

(cont)

(cont)

But hold on a minute. If we cut the U.S. military budget down to a paltry $115 billion a year, that would still leave us with by far the largest military budget in the entire world. The next biggest spender on its military is China, at $62.5 billion, followed by Russia, at $62 billion. That is to say, our military budget, if slashed by 75%, would still be about equal to Russia''s and China''s military budgets combined. And that only tells part of the story. Most of China''s army is a repressive police force, required to keep order in what is a widely despised dictatorship, and would never be available for foreign adventures. (That''s why China, with a million or more soldiers, hasn''t ever invaded Taiwan, with a population of just 23 million. The army China could spare for an invasion would probably be no larger than the one little Taiwan could field to defend itself.) The same can be said for Russia, which is eternally in danger of splitting apart into myriad smaller states, and has to be held together by threat of force. Figuring that neither China nor Russia is likely to attack us anyway, given that one needs us to buy all the junk they make, and the other needs us to buy their oil, maybe we should look at those "axis of evil" states and their ilk, that might think we''re easy pickins if we were to slash our military spending.

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:22 AM PST

(cont)

Now, the first thing we need to do is address the criticism that such an action would be abandoning the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, whose countries we have been systematically destroying for the last 4-6 years.

Okay. I agree we have an obligation here. So let''s allocate say $50 billion in annual aid to those two countries, to be funneled through international aid organizations, from the UN to CARE and the Red Cross/Red Crescent.

That still leaves $315 billion in funds to play with. We also have to address those who will ask fearfully if we aren''t opening ourselves to attack from our many enemies abroad.

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by taotxzen December 16, 2007 8:23 AM PST

Imagine a Campaign that Called for Slashing Military Spending by 75%

While the Democratic and Republican candidates for president blather on about non-issues such as who will be meaner to immigrants, who will use the most water on torture victims, who wanted to be president at the youngest age, who''s the best Christian and other such nonsense, and while Congress and the president dance their meaningless dance of pretend conflict, let''s for a moment ponder something more momentous.

What if the U.S. just packed up and left Iraq and Afghanistan, and brought the troops all home, shut down the 750-odd overseas bases we operate around the globe, and slashed our military budget by 75 percent? That would be an instant savings of roughly $365 billion per year.

(cont)

Reply to this comment

by gkc99 December 16, 2007 8:54 AM PST

"DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist". . .


And he needs a lot more spam advertising Viagra, cheap "Swiss" watches, porn, and stock tips sent to him.

Reply to this comment

by antizion December 16, 2007 8:59 AM PST

It was peaceful before we arrived and it will be peaceful after we are gone. Until then, we are killing every patriot that would pick up a gun and defend their nation on behalf of Israel which has a stated mission to expand their borders from the Tigres to the Euphraties rivers.

Bush, Cheney and this blackmailed congress of perverts do everything the Israeli Nazis want. Without the stupid red state rednecks to do their fighting for them, the zionist are powerless.

Only in America do you have to go half way around the world and kill people to get your pentagon welfare check.

Reply to this comment

by fibonacci_ December 16, 2007 9:02 AM PST

One region down...many more to go.

Reply to this comment

by mh4cbs1 December 16, 2007 9:14 AM PST

Of course "US officials worry that a power vacuum...).

How noble that the invader/occupiers (US), who launched a Needless War based on LIES, that has left a few hundred thousand DEAD and cities in ruins, are so concerned. The real concern is that the justification for US occupation will end.

The Cheney/Bush NeoCons could care less about how many must die for their vision of regional dominance and control of the Oil.

Eventually, after enough killing has taken place, all that will be left will be the Oil and a decimated society. The "Coalition" will have reduced to Exxon, Chevron, our $500 Million US "Embassy" and our permanently installed military. The US will declare victory (again), and all the blood, shattered lives and dead bodies will be swept quietly under the rug.

But Cheney and Bush can rot in hell for their War Crimes for Oil.

Reply to this comment

by runningralph December 16, 2007 9:20 AM PST

taotxzen,
You make a good case for defunding the military. The problem there is without the military we would be defenseless. Look at history, look at nature- what happens to a defenseless body? I''m all for taxpayer relief and oversight on spending. I''m sure there are some expenses that could be trimmed. But we could no more exist without the military than we could without police. Military opeations and maintenance only accounts for 1/3 of the military budget. The rest goes to taking care of the personnel and developing new technology for them.
Money spent by the military goes back into the US economy. If you are a tax and spender think af it as a big WPA project. But don''t forget, without the military the US would be a body with AIDS.

Reply to this comment

by mh4cbs1 December 16, 2007 9:23 AM PST

tao..

The US will spend $686 BILLION on War in 2008 (Needless War On Iraq plus the usual corporate-War-Machine feeding). While massive tax cuts go to the rich and our good jobs are outsourced overseas.

Face It. Corporate Power RULES this nation. Corporate lobbyists write our laws, our politicians are bought off, our corporate media acts as cheerleaders for War (instead of exposing the LIES).

Many states are in a panic for revenue. Our War Machine costs about $13 BILLION PER YEAR average PER STATE !!

When will the American People WAKE UP and realize they are being screw*d by their Corporate Politicians.

Reply to this comment

by mh4cbs1 December 16, 2007 9:28 AM PST

runningralph:
Really, your comments are idiotic. The COLD WAR IS OVER! There is no more arms race! We do NOT need to spend anywhere near $686 BILLION each year to protect ourselves. Of course we need a military. Do we need huge US bases spread across the entire globe?

Americans are so cowardly, apathetic and full of fear that they roll-over and say "protect us, protect us", and let the corporate War Machine pigs gorge themselves at the trough.

Reply to this comment

by trillion1 December 16, 2007 9:51 AM PST

Business has always had a hand in goverment but I never thought they had complete control until now. Gas and oil company''s write our national energy policies, big drug and insurance write our national health policies. Mostly behind closed doors. Most Americans want the fiasco in Iraq to end with-in a year, most Americans are against illegal amnesty and want our borders protected, most Americans want fair trade not free trade. There isn''t even a hint that ANY of these things will happen dispite the fact it is the will of the majority. It all starts with campaign contributions and just escalates from there.

Reply to this comment

by mygramma December 16, 2007 10:17 AM PST

The only example of "cut and run" that I know of, apart from the US exit from Viet Nam. When Winston Churchill spoke of Britain''s finest hour, he spoke of a brave and courageous nation of people standing up to the world''s greatest tyrant as they endured enormous hardship: pluck at it''s very best.

Not any more. Under Tony Blair, Britain bought into a great mistake. They succeeded brilliantly at first, then the going got tough and they retreated to the outskirts as the warring Shia clans took control while killing each other. The Brits wilted. Now they are leaving. And so, they put another blunder on top of the original. Not one of their finest hours.

Reply to this comment

by neoconrcrazy December 16, 2007 11:15 AM PST

let us see now if, as the diehard neocon islamohating rabble says, "if we leave there will be a bloodbath".

No bloodbath - we leave too. period.

Reply to this comment

by beehive21-2009 December 16, 2007 11:36 AM PST

The word on the street,lots of $$$ to be made in war.We,all knock big oil ,however, we give Billons in tax cuts ? approved by congress by one vote.They made Billions / quarter,either its time to buy oil stock or vote em out.

Reply to this comment

by baghdadshere December 16, 2007 12:07 PM PST

Hello leftists Osama-lovers brainwashed_by_democrats_antiwar_propaganda, you better buy some sneakers and shoes cause when we withdraw and Iran takes control of Iraq and the Persian Gulf there wont be oil anymore to fuel your cars and buses.

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 1:53 PM PST

BaghdadsHere,,,, Start thinking outside the shoe box you''ve been in... ---- Iran is not a threat.. All you do is exagerate the problems. There are other battles in the war on terror we need to get along with, Algeria, Somolia, Sudan, Chad, & other countries.

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 2:35 PM PST

Too bad we screen people harder for a job at McDonald''s than we do for President of our country -- We might have gotten somewhere in this War on Terror by now

Reply to this comment

by poopusbuttus December 16, 2007 3:57 PM PST

ICEMAN_1960
RED164
RAFTERMAN
SMIRK5
FEELFREE
HUNGRY1968
ZOOTALLURES
NEOBRIAN
CONDUMISM
USAYESTERDAY
STARLEO
SGTRDS
JH6379
FORMRUSMCSGT
FLOYDZEPP
TUCKERNDFW


All of you dummies are going to lose in 08....

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 4:06 PM PST

poopusbuttus,,,,, Hi, Happy Sunday... Did you take my advice & build a wall between the baby Jesus & the 3 Wise Men in your Nativity Scene yet ???

Reply to this comment

by poopusbuttus December 16, 2007 4:15 PM PST

Ohhhh JWHITMAN, even after I complemented you on anothr link. Dont make me put you on the list :)

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 4:46 PM PST

poopusbuttus,,,, No, not another list. I''m already X''ed off of the GOP list for Christmas ---- I said "Happy Sunday", what more do you want ??

Reply to this comment

by johnshaft4 December 16, 2007 5:08 PM PST

In reality, the Brits are handing Basra over to the "fair and balanced" Fox security.

Reply to this comment

by underdogus December 16, 2007 5:22 PM PST

HAVE NO FEAR UNDERDOG IS HERE!!!

Reply to this comment

by speakinup December 16, 2007 6:19 PM PST

J-WHITMAN
ICEMAN_1960
RED164
RAFTERMAN
SMIRK5
FEELFREE
HUNGRY1968
ZOOTALLURES
NEOBR
IAN
CONDUMISM
USAYESTERDAY
STARLEO
S
GTRDS
JH6379
FORMRUSMCSGT
FLOYDZEPP
TUCKERNDFW

All of you dummies are going to lose in 08....

Posted by poopusbuttus




What are you EVER talking about poopusbuttus, they are losers NOW!

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 6:25 PM PST

speakinup,,,, Don''t you have some news to catch up on, or a cross to burn in someone''s yard ????

Reply to this comment

by bobmarisol December 16, 2007 6:36 PM PST

Too bad we screen people harder for a job at McDonald''''s than we do for President of our country -- We might have gotten somewhere in this War on Terror by now
Posted by j-whitman at 02:35 PM : Dec 16, 2007


Are you a total idiot J-whitman or are you just talking out of your butt?? You claim we are not getting anywhere in the war on terror, yet you have zero facts to back up your opinion. We have been attacked on our soil a total of ZERO times since 9/11. Is that not success? Its not like Al Queda took a vacation. They are constantly seeking to kill us, seeking to form evil plots against us. But our president who you hate has kept us safe. He has taken an offensive approach against terrorists, striking them in their regions instead of waiting for them to come into our land. We have killed or captured 2/3 of the Al Queda leadership, and thousands of Al Queda fighters. We can only guess how many thousands of American lives have been saved due to Mr. Bush''s efforts. But you uneducated liberals just believe what CBS tells you.

Reply to this comment

by underdogus December 16, 2007 6:41 PM PST

secret agents for the MUSLIMS....j whitman#1

Reply to this comment

by underdogus December 16, 2007 6:42 PM PST

FEELFREE
second in command!!

Reply to this comment

by speakinup December 16, 2007 6:43 PM PST

Bob - first time poster here on CBS ? I find your comment directed at j-whitman refreshing.

So, j-whitman, I quote Bob''s first sentence - some thing I''ve been telling you for a long time, and you never respond to,

"Are you a total idiot J-whitman or are you just talking out of your butt?? You claim we are not getting anywhere in the war on terror, yet you have zero facts to back up your opinion. - BobM

Bob - you MADE my evening, dude. J-W is so out of touch with reality, and it is so nice to hear some other total stranger come to the same conclusion as myself.

Note j-w - didn''t take him long to see your modis operandi either did it. Duh! The truth hurts don''t it, J-W ?

Reply to this comment

by speakinup December 16, 2007 6:45 PM PST

underdogus, yeah, j-whitman''s double - oh - zero.

Reply to this comment

by underdogus December 16, 2007 6:55 PM PST

J-WHITMAN
ICEMAN_1960
RED164
RAFTERMA
N
SMIRK5
FEELFREE
HUNGRY1968
ZOOTALL
URES
NEOBR
IAN
CONDUMISM
USAYESTERDA
Y
STARLEO
S
GTRDS
JH6379
FORMRUSMCS
GT
FLOYDZEPP
TUCKERNDFW

anti US anti ISRAEL pro JIHAD bums!!!

Reply to this comment

by bobmarisol December 16, 2007 7:40 PM PST

Speakinup -- glad I was able to "make your night" -- and I''m glad that there are people like you who are intelligent and educated enough not to believe everything they hear on CBS and the other liberal news networks. Did you notice that CBS always loved to talk about Iraq when there were car bombings, but then after the troop surge reduced violence in Baghdad by 70% CBS barely mentioned the war anymore? Then a few days ago there was the first big attack in Baghdad in months, and guess what -- CBS was all over it! They were giddy with excitement to talk about another car bomb! Its like they were in withdrawal or something.

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 7:55 PM PST

bobmarisol,,,, Pay no attention to speakinup, she''s got an infection she won''t go see her OBGYN doctor about...... How do you define progress on the War on Terror ??? By more incompetence ??

Reply to this comment

by bobmarisol December 16, 2007 8:04 PM PST

J-whitman -- why do you make a stupid personal comment about speakinup, who you dont even know? Is it just because you have no facts to back up your uneducated opinion? You ask how I define progress in the war on terror, and I say read my last post to you. We have killed or captured 2/3 of the Al Queda leadership. We have thwarted hundreds of terror plots, saving countless American lives (including yours possibly). We have not been attacked even one time on our soil. You can continue to criticize Bush without having any valid reasons, or you can start to read and educate yourself about the war and the evil mentality of our enemy. I for one am glad we have a President who is not afraid to stand up and fight against Al Queda, even though there are so many liberals in our own country who want to surrender Iraq to the terrorists and to stop pouring water on terrorists faces even though the terrorists have no qualms about cutting off the heads of Americans.

Reply to this comment

by speakinup December 16, 2007 8:24 PM PST

Thank-you, bobmarisol, for being the voice of reason.

As for J-whitman''s comments, I''ve grown used to them, and in fact encourage him to make them. All they serve to do is discredit himself.

You are expressing the very points I have tried to impress upon him since about six months ago.

There are many Bush Bashers on this site. Some are far left US politically, and then there are a few even farther to the left, that think the Democrats aren''t liberal enough. Feelfree is a hugo chavez supporter.

The guy with the pen name poopusbuttus (go figure..) pretty much made a complete list of them a few pages back.

Reply to this comment

by bobmarisol December 16, 2007 8:26 PM PST

We have not been attacked even one time on our soil.
Posted by bobmarisol at 08:04 PM : Dec 16, 2007


Note -- I meant we have not been attacked even once on our soil since 9/11, of course.

Reply to this comment

by speakinup December 16, 2007 8:27 PM PST

"Did you notice that CBS always loved to talk about Iraq when ... Bob

Absolutly. The libs on this site used to say there was no way we were going to win in Iraq, and that the surge would just get more killed.

They have pretty much shut up about that - too embarrassed I guess. Well, don''t be a stranger...

Reply to this comment

by sbb2211 December 16, 2007 9:32 PM PST

j-whitman

"How do you define progress on the War on Terror ???"

Anything that makes a Liberal mad or pissed off.

Reply to this comment

by sbb2211 December 16, 2007 9:34 PM PST

ainttaken

"so....now that the insurgents are (finally)in their "last throes".......
can I guess speakinup will be takin his next vacation on the banks of the Tigris? finding some of those incredible bargains in the Bahgdad market?
maybe stick all your savings in the Iraqi stock market?
pulling his head out of his asss???"

No, he''ll pay for your ticket so that you can see for yourself.

Idiot.

Reply to this comment

by j-whitman December 16, 2007 9:42 PM PST

SBB2211,,,,, High degrees of incompetence from our nations leaders **** Libs off,, What really makes us mad is why you people think Americans are your enemy.

Reply to this comment

• 1
• 2
• next

See all 74 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[ontheleft]

So the British will have gone from 40,000 troops in 2003 to 2000 by this spring. Meanwhile, U.S. troop levels have not decreased since 2003. They are currently at about 170,000. Once the British leave completely, Bush will make up stories of Iran gaining control of Basra due to the "power vacuum". He''ll then send in 40,000 additional American troops to Basra. Not sure where he''s going to get them from. That "problem" could be resolved by starting an unnecessary war with Iran and thus giving an excuse to start drafting.

[ramos937]

Billions have been spent and other vast resources also in training the Iraq security forces. Now the UK has said enough is enough. Your country is in your hands - mess it up, keep fighting, turn it over to AQI or whatever. We have done what we can. We are out of here.

The UK is doing the right thing. We desperately need to follow its lead. I know we have billions invested in new bases, the new US Embassy, etc. but it simply is not worth the additional cost in human lives to stay there.

[samthetvcat]

If Iraqis true agenda is to not cooperate with each other and instead have a winner-take-all showdown for power and control of the country and the oil, then it would seem to better serve their agenda to wait until the election''s over, right? So maybe this area will be quiet at least for the next year . . . plus yeah, everybody must think Shrub is a complete loose cannon and probably don''t want to give him an excuse to go nuts so close to Iran . . .

[samthetvcat]

PS ( . . . by sending more troops into the Southern region . . . )

[taotxzen]

(cont)

I''m frankly sick to death of hearing about how "tough" our next president is going to be. Our current president has shown just what being tough is good for: nothing. The country is less safe, we''ve got 80,000 returned soldiers suffering from life-long injuries, we''ve made enemies out of friends all over the world, and this country''s been going down the tube, with joblessness rising, the economy teetering, and the once mighty dollar headed for Third World currency status.

Until I hear political candidates start talking about slashing military spending -- and I mean on the order of 75 percent, none of this nickel-and-dime stuff, and about funding the things that really need funding -- I''m not even listening to these moronic campaigns.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin''s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

[taotxzen]

(cont)


Now we''re left with $90 billion.

Well, it turns out that''s about what the government spends on "social programs." You know, like welfare -- the thing that we were supposedly ending? Truth is, of course, that over the last decade, the number of poor people and hungry people in the U.S. has been rising, not falling, so maybe we should rethink that "ending welfare as we know it" mantra, and start thinking about improving the lives of those at the bottom of the ladder. That extra $90 billion, by doubling social programs -- especially if it was spent on housing and job creation -- would go a long way towards making America a better place for all. It would also reduce crime significantly, meaning we''d have a whole lot of money freed up that currently goes to police and prisons, so we could spent that money on other good stuff too.

So who''s going to make this eminently sensible proposal?

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Geez! We still have another $130 billion left!

The federal government right now only spends some $40 billion a year on science, energy, and the environment. That includes nuclear power and waste containment, and the entire NASA budget. Given the global climate change disaster we''re facing, we should probably double that, with the added $40 billion going all to environmental research, don''t you think?

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)


Well, for starters, if we accept for argument''s sake that the Social Security System is running at a deficit and will eventually be defunded (which I do not believe for a minute), actuaries say that injecting about $130 billion a year into the fund (the equivalent of increasing everyone''s SSI payroll tax by 2 percent) would solve the alleged problem indefinitely, allowing all current and future Americans to count on an inflation-adjusted secure retirement forever. So let''s do that. Then there''s education. Currently, the federal government spends about $58 billion a year on education. That gives us classroom sizes in our cities of 30-35 kids (40 here in Philadelphia). More like child abuse (and teacher abuse) than education. So what say we boost that amount by 50 percent -- a much better educational reform than a lot of stupid "No Child Left Behind" testing regimens. Then there''s healthcare, on which the government spends a paltry $52 billion, leaving us with declining life expectancies and infant mortality rates, particularly among our poorest citizens, that are a scandal. Let''s boost that spending by 50 percent, too.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)


We could even take a few billion of that $115 billion military budget and shift it productively from our huge and useless strategic nuclear program (you know, the one that just lost six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for 36 hours, and flew them across the country, unprotected and unnoticed) over to operations such as border patrol, satellite monitoring, and the Coast Guard, where it might actually help protect us, instead of just funding futuristic weapons that will never be used for anything but helping generals justify their stars by having units to command.

So here we would be with still, by a factor of two, the largest and most advanced military in the world, but at peace and with $315 billion a year suddenly freed up and at our disposal.

What might we do with all that money?

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)


Well, maybe not. It turns out if you add up all the military budgets of America''s other "major" enemies -- those so-called "rogue" states such as Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria -- and throw in a few extra possible hostiles for good measure such as Myanmar, Somalia, and, oh, what the heck, Grenada (you never know when that troublesome little island might have another revolution!), it comes to a grand total of $15 billion spent on military stuff. That''s less than one-seventh of what we''d still be spending.

And of course we wouldn''t be alone. Our allies -- Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Israel, Holland, Canada, Italy, Australia, South Korea, and Spain for example, though there are surely more who would come to our aid in a crisis -- collectively spend another $258 billion on their militaries (and yet even today we have our military based in many of those countries. Go figure!). So we would hardly be at anybody''s mercy.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

(cont)

But hold on a minute. If we cut the U.S. military budget down to a paltry $115 billion a year, that would still leave us with by far the largest military budget in the entire world. The next biggest spender on its military is China, at $62.5 billion, followed by Russia, at $62 billion. That is to say, our military budget, if slashed by 75%, would still be about equal to Russia''s and China''s military budgets combined. And that only tells part of the story. Most of China''s army is a repressive police force, required to keep order in what is a widely despised dictatorship, and would never be available for foreign adventures. (That''s why China, with a million or more soldiers, hasn''t ever invaded Taiwan, with a population of just 23 million. The army China could spare for an invasion would probably be no larger than the one little Taiwan could field to defend itself.) The same can be said for Russia, which is eternally in danger of splitting apart into myriad smaller states, and has to be held together by threat of force. Figuring that neither China nor Russia is likely to attack us anyway, given that one needs us to buy all the junk they make, and the other needs us to buy their oil, maybe we should look at those "axis of evil" states and their ilk, that might think we''re easy pickins if we were to slash our military spending.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Now, the first thing we need to do is address the criticism that such an action would be abandoning the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, whose countries we have been systematically destroying for the last 4-6 years.

Okay. I agree we have an obligation here. So let''s allocate say $50 billion in annual aid to those two countries, to be funneled through international aid organizations, from the UN to CARE and the Red Cross/Red Crescent.

That still leaves $315 billion in funds to play with. We also have to address those who will ask fearfully if we aren''t opening ourselves to attack from our many enemies abroad.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

Imagine a Campaign that Called for Slashing Military Spending by 75%

While the Democratic and Republican candidates for president blather on about non-issues such as who will be meaner to immigrants, who will use the most water on torture victims, who wanted to be president at the youngest age, who''s the best Christian and other such nonsense, and while Congress and the president dance their meaningless dance of pretend conflict, let''s for a moment ponder something more momentous.

What if the U.S. just packed up and left Iraq and Afghanistan, and brought the troops all home, shut down the 750-odd overseas bases we operate around the globe, and slashed our military budget by 75 percent? That would be an instant savings of roughly $365 billion per year.

(cont)

[gkc99]

"DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist". . .


And he needs a lot more spam advertising Viagra, cheap "Swiss" watches, porn, and stock tips sent to him.

[antizion]

It was peaceful before we arrived and it will be peaceful after we are gone. Until then, we are killing every patriot that would pick up a gun and defend their nation on behalf of Israel which has a stated mission to expand their borders from the Tigres to the Euphraties rivers.

Bush, Cheney and this blackmailed congress of perverts do everything the Israeli Nazis want. Without the stupid red state rednecks to do their fighting for them, the zionist are powerless.

Only in America do you have to go half way around the world and kill people to get your pentagon welfare check.

[fibonacci_]

One region down...many more to go.

[mh4cbs1]

Of course "US officials worry that a power vacuum...).

How noble that the invader/occupiers (US), who launched a Needless War based on LIES, that has left a few hundred thousand DEAD and cities in ruins, are so concerned. The real concern is that the justification for US occupation will end.

The Cheney/Bush NeoCons could care less about how many must die for their vision of regional dominance and control of the Oil.

Eventually, after enough killing has taken place, all that will be left will be the Oil and a decimated society. The "Coalition" will have reduced to Exxon, Chevron, our $500 Million US "Embassy" and our permanently installed military. The US will declare victory (again), and all the blood, shattered lives and dead bodies will be swept quietly under the rug.

But Cheney and Bush can rot in hell for their War Crimes for Oil.

[runningralph]

taotxzen,
You make a good case for defunding the military. The problem there is without the military we would be defenseless. Look at history, look at nature- what happens to a defenseless body? I''m all for taxpayer relief and oversight on spending. I''m sure there are some expenses that could be trimmed. But we could no more exist without the military than we could without police. Military opeations and maintenance only accounts for 1/3 of the military budget. The rest goes to taking care of the personnel and developing new technology for them.
Money spent by the military goes back into the US economy. If you are a tax and spender think af it as a big WPA project. But don''t forget, without the military the US would be a body with AIDS.

[mh4cbs1]

tao..

The US will spend $686 BILLION on War in 2008 (Needless War On Iraq plus the usual corporate-War-Machine feeding). While massive tax cuts go to the rich and our good jobs are outsourced overseas.

Face It. Corporate Power RULES this nation. Corporate lobbyists write our laws, our politicians are bought off, our corporate media acts as cheerleaders for War (instead of exposing the LIES).

Many states are in a panic for revenue. Our War Machine costs about $13 BILLION PER YEAR average PER STATE !!

When will the American People WAKE UP and realize they are being screw*d by their Corporate Politicians.

[mh4cbs1]

runningralph:
Really, your comments are idiotic. The COLD WAR IS OVER! There is no more arms race! We do NOT need to spend anywhere near $686 BILLION each year to protect ourselves. Of course we need a military. Do we need huge US bases spread across the entire globe?

Americans are so cowardly, apathetic and full of fear that they roll-over and say "protect us, protect us", and let the corporate War Machine pigs gorge themselves at the trough.

[trillion1]

Business has always had a hand in goverment but I never thought they had complete control until now. Gas and oil company''s write our national energy policies, big drug and insurance write our national health policies. Mostly behind closed doors. Most Americans want the fiasco in Iraq to end with-in a year, most Americans are against illegal amnesty and want our borders protected, most Americans want fair trade not free trade. There isn''t even a hint that ANY of these things will happen dispite the fact it is the will of the majority. It all starts with campaign contributions and just escalates from there.

[mygramma]

The only example of "cut and run" that I know of, apart from the US exit from Viet Nam. When Winston Churchill spoke of Britain''s finest hour, he spoke of a brave and courageous nation of people standing up to the world''s greatest tyrant as they endured enormous hardship: pluck at it''s very best.

Not any more. Under Tony Blair, Britain bought into a great mistake. They succeeded brilliantly at first, then the going got tough and they retreated to the outskirts as the warring Shia clans took control while killing each other. The Brits wilted. Now they are leaving. And so, they put another blunder on top of the original. Not one of their finest hours.

[neoconrcrazy]

let us see now if, as the diehard neocon islamohating rabble says, "if we leave there will be a bloodbath".

No bloodbath - we leave too. period.

[beehive21-2009]

The word on the street,lots of $$$ to be made in war.We,all knock big oil ,however, we give Billons in tax cuts ? approved by congress by one vote.They made Billions / quarter,either its time to buy oil stock or vote em out.

[baghdadshere]

Hello leftists Osama-lovers brainwashed_by_democrats_antiwar_propaganda, you better buy some sneakers and shoes cause when we withdraw and Iran takes control of Iraq and the Persian Gulf there wont be oil anymore to fuel your cars and buses.

[j-whitman]

BaghdadsHere,,,, Start thinking outside the shoe box you''ve been in... ---- Iran is not a threat.. All you do is exagerate the problems. There are other battles in the war on terror we need to get along with, Algeria, Somolia, Sudan, Chad, & other countries.

[j-whitman]

Too bad we screen people harder for a job at McDonald''s than we do for President of our country -- We might have gotten somewhere in this War on Terror by now

[poopusbuttus]

ICEMAN_1960
RED164
RAFTERMAN
SMIRK5
FEELFREE
HUNGRY1968
ZOOTALLURES
NEOBRIAN
CONDUMISM
USAYESTERDAY
STARLEO
SGTRDS
JH6379
FORMRUSMCSGT
FLOYDZEPP
TUCKERNDFW


All of you dummies are going to lose in 08....

[j-whitman]

poopusbuttus,,,,, Hi, Happy Sunday... Did you take my advice & build a wall between the baby Jesus & the 3 Wise Men in your Nativity Scene yet ???

[poopusbuttus]

Ohhhh JWHITMAN, even after I complemented you on anothr link. Dont make me put you on the list :)

[j-whitman]

poopusbuttus,,,, No, not another list. I''m already X''ed off of the GOP list for Christmas ---- I said "Happy Sunday", what more do you want ??

[johnshaft4]

In reality, the Brits are handing Basra over to the "fair and balanced" Fox security.

[underdogus]

HAVE NO FEAR UNDERDOG IS HERE!!!

[speakinup]

J-WHITMAN
ICEMAN_1960
RED164
RAFTERMAN
SMIRK5
FEELFREE
HUNGRY1968
ZOOTALLURES
NEOBR
IAN
CONDUMISM
USAYESTERDAY
STARLEO
S
GTRDS
JH6379
FORMRUSMCSGT
FLOYDZEPP
TUCKERNDFW

All of you dummies are going to lose in 08....

Posted by poopusbuttus




What are you EVER talking about poopusbuttus, they are losers NOW!

[j-whitman]

speakinup,,,, Don''t you have some news to catch up on, or a cross to burn in someone''s yard ????

[bobmarisol]

Too bad we screen people harder for a job at McDonald''''s than we do for President of our country -- We might have gotten somewhere in this War on Terror by now
Posted by j-whitman at 02:35 PM : Dec 16, 2007


Are you a total idiot J-whitman or are you just talking out of your butt?? You claim we are not getting anywhere in the war on terror, yet you have zero facts to back up your opinion. We have been attacked on our soil a total of ZERO times since 9/11. Is that not success? Its not like Al Queda took a vacation. They are constantly seeking to kill us, seeking to form evil plots against us. But our president who you hate has kept us safe. He has taken an offensive approach against terrorists, striking them in their regions instead of waiting for them to come into our land. We have killed or captured 2/3 of the Al Queda leadership, and thousands of Al Queda fighters. We can only guess how many thousands of American lives have been saved due to Mr. Bush''s efforts. But you uneducated liberals just believe what CBS tells you.

[underdogus]

secret agents for the MUSLIMS....j whitman#1

[underdogus]

FEELFREE
second in command!!

[speakinup]

Bob - first time poster here on CBS ? I find your comment directed at j-whitman refreshing.

So, j-whitman, I quote Bob''s first sentence - some thing I''ve been telling you for a long time, and you never respond to,

"Are you a total idiot J-whitman or are you just talking out of your butt?? You claim we are not getting anywhere in the war on terror, yet you have zero facts to back up your opinion. - BobM

Bob - you MADE my evening, dude. J-W is so out of touch with reality, and it is so nice to hear some other total stranger come to the same conclusion as myself.

Note j-w - didn''t take him long to see your modis operandi either did it. Duh! The truth hurts don''t it, J-W ?

[speakinup]

underdogus, yeah, j-whitman''s double - oh - zero.

[underdogus]

J-WHITMAN
ICEMAN_1960
RED164
RAFTERMA
N
SMIRK5
FEELFREE
HUNGRY1968
ZOOTALL
URES
NEOBR
IAN
CONDUMISM
USAYESTERDA
Y
STARLEO
S
GTRDS
JH6379
FORMRUSMCS
GT
FLOYDZEPP
TUCKERNDFW

anti US anti ISRAEL pro JIHAD bums!!!

[bobmarisol]

Speakinup -- glad I was able to "make your night" -- and I''m glad that there are people like you who are intelligent and educated enough not to believe everything they hear on CBS and the other liberal news networks. Did you notice that CBS always loved to talk about Iraq when there were car bombings, but then after the troop surge reduced violence in Baghdad by 70% CBS barely mentioned the war anymore? Then a few days ago there was the first big attack in Baghdad in months, and guess what -- CBS was all over it! They were giddy with excitement to talk about another car bomb! Its like they were in withdrawal or something.

[j-whitman]

bobmarisol,,,, Pay no attention to speakinup, she''s got an infection she won''t go see her OBGYN doctor about...... How do you define progress on the War on Terror ??? By more incompetence ??

[bobmarisol]

J-whitman -- why do you make a stupid personal comment about speakinup, who you dont even know? Is it just because you have no facts to back up your uneducated opinion? You ask how I define progress in the war on terror, and I say read my last post to you. We have killed or captured 2/3 of the Al Queda leadership. We have thwarted hundreds of terror plots, saving countless American lives (including yours possibly). We have not been attacked even one time on our soil. You can continue to criticize Bush without having any valid reasons, or you can start to read and educate yourself about the war and the evil mentality of our enemy. I for one am glad we have a President who is not afraid to stand up and fight against Al Queda, even though there are so many liberals in our own country who want to surrender Iraq to the terrorists and to stop pouring water on terrorists faces even though the terrorists have no qualms about cutting off the heads of Americans.

[speakinup]

Thank-you, bobmarisol, for being the voice of reason.

As for J-whitman''s comments, I''ve grown used to them, and in fact encourage him to make them. All they serve to do is discredit himself.

You are expressing the very points I have tried to impress upon him since about six months ago.

There are many Bush Bashers on this site. Some are far left US politically, and then there are a few even farther to the left, that think the Democrats aren''t liberal enough. Feelfree is a hugo chavez supporter.

The guy with the pen name poopusbuttus (go figure..) pretty much made a complete list of them a few pages back.

[bobmarisol]

We have not been attacked even one time on our soil.
Posted by bobmarisol at 08:04 PM : Dec 16, 2007


Note -- I meant we have not been attacked even once on our soil since 9/11, of course.

[speakinup]

"Did you notice that CBS always loved to talk about Iraq when ... Bob

Absolutly. The libs on this site used to say there was no way we were going to win in Iraq, and that the surge would just get more killed.

They have pretty much shut up about that - too embarrassed I guess. Well, don''t be a stranger...

[sbb2211]

j-whitman

"How do you define progress on the War on Terror ???"

Anything that makes a Liberal mad or pissed off.

[sbb2211]

ainttaken

"so....now that the insurgents are (finally)in their "last throes".......
can I guess speakinup will be takin his next vacation on the banks of the Tigris? finding some of those incredible bargains in the Bahgdad market?
maybe stick all your savings in the Iraqi stock market?
pulling his head out of his asss???"

No, he''ll pay for your ticket so that you can see for yourself.

Idiot.

[j-whitman]

SBB2211,,,,, High degrees of incompetence from our nations leaders **** Libs off,, What really makes us mad is why you people think Americans are your enemy.