Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Glenn Greenwald: Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack, the authors of the commentary A War We Just Might Win, were among the most voracious cheerleaders for Bush's invasion and, as the war began to collapse, among its most deceitful defenders. They were not only advocates of the war, but cheerleaders for the Surge. And yet all day Monday, this country's media loudly hailed them as being exactly the opposite of what they really are. It was 24 hours of unadulterated, amazingly coordinated war propaganda that could not have been any further removed from the truth.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

dave

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

BWHAHAHAHAHHAH Wonder what ROC will have to say now ehhhhhhhhh Dave. What a buncjh of delusional suckers that they are. bwhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

Larry

Nothing to see here Move Along

Same thing I said yesterday, (this is the same article that TR and Doc quoted from yesterday, but thanks for playing) namely that Greenwald, who has never been to Iraq, makes his name by criticizing the war. O'Hanlon and Pollock, who are paid by Brookings to actually analyze and report back on the war, have been there on numerous occasions, talked to the troops, analyzed the situation and reported back to their bosses. My $$ is on the eyewitnesses, not the pundit.

I know it drives you guys on the far left crazy, but Brookings is a liberal thinktank, and to hear this type of news coming from that organization has to turn your special little world that you have crafted in your heads on end.

Frankly, the far-left's vilification of these two guys is embarassing and lends credence to the Right's assertion that the Left desperately wants Iraq to be a failure so that liberalism can regain its perceived losses from 1994-2004. I personally don't agree with that line of thinking, but people like Greenwald do nothing to disabuse people of that notion.

bwhahahahahahah the delusions and deflections keep on slipping slipping slipping into the Future. LMAO

Larry

Keep singing to yourself Larry, all the people in your own little world probably really enjoy it.

"Left desperately wants Iraq to be a failure so that liberalism can regain its perceived losses from 1994-2004."

Hitting the crack pipe a little early today, are we?

Hitting the crack pipe a little early today, are we?


Posted by Dave at 2007-08-01 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nah see it's that Bush Lemming Juice has poisoned His brain therefore He can not think clearly.

Larry

Larry and Dave-

Try, for once, to respond substantively, if you can.

"Try, for once, to respond substantively, if you can."

If only you were capable of offering something of substance to respond to...

ROC-

If they can't or won't, I will. It is hard to reconcile competing viewpoints on what is happening in Iraq given the fact that whenever "good" news comes out of that mess it turns out that success, if you want to call it that, is fleeting. I think most people on the left want to see good news, but when the GOP starts waving any good news in our face, scepticism prevails.

I do agree that the cries of outrage against these two analysts is embarassing, but don't think that it is totally unjustified...they have been providing semi-positive reports from Iraq for a long time.

"BWHAHAHAHAHHAH..... bwhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha"

Damn, Larry, this hysterical laughter brings to mind Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." I'm going to forward some of your posts to Soros to show that you've completely lost it and he's wasting his money paying you to post this idiotic stuff.

Dave-

Gee, Lefty was able to craft a response, I guess that reading comprehension is a little more difficult for you.

LCL-

I understand where you are coming from and share your caution when viewing news reports, one way or the other, from Iraq. However, my main point is that, as a lawyer, I am far more accepting of eyewitness recollections then the double or triple hearsay of a pundit like Greenwald, who is merely pandering to a willing audience like Larry, Doc, Tony or Dave.

I am far more accepting of eyewitness recollections then the double or triple hearsay of a pundit like Greenwald, who is merely pandering to a willing audience like Larry, Doc, Tony or Dave.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 02:38 PM | Reply


Yeah like John (I could walk anywhere in Baghdad unescorted) McCain's "Eyewitness" statements. Yeah isn't THAT just a barrel full of monkeys. I was born in the afternoon but it wasn't YESTERDAY afternoon.

Larry

he DEVIL is in the details folks... did anyone notice or catch that Cheney on Larry King Live was careful to make special mention of this article in the NYT and how positive it was.

This is from an Administration that does not follow polls or care what the American people think. They do not even read newspapers (so they say when asked pointed questions) but the very day this article appeared Cheney was aware of it and quoting it on CNN.

The DEVIL is in the details!

Larry-

At least you are trying to be responsive, and I respect that. I tend to discount the public recitation of anything a Pol. says after a visit to a war zone, because they are playing to the cameras and their constituency.

DBoy-

Of course Cheney brings that up, just as Reid, Pelosi, Hillary would bring up something that supports their agenda.

Interesting, in the article they wrote, they stated that we were losing months ago, (left applause), same people come BACK from IRAQ and state, we might be winning (right applause). And the ultra liberal salon.com spins the story, with "spin" in the title. The author calls it propaganda for Bush, I call his article propaganda for the left.

just goes to show, positive news = bad for lefties
bad news = bad for righties.

Answer - how sad is it that the left has ivested in defeat? What happens if we do win? Has anyone on the left actually thought of that?

Cooper: [We have] Michael Ware, who has been there in Baghdad and all across Iraq almost nonstop since the fighting began. Right now, he's embedded with American forces in Diyala Province, coming to us through a nightscope camera. Because of the danger there, they're not allowed to turn on any camera lights. Michael, you just heard the vice president saying he expects General Petraeus to report significant progress when he gives his assessment come September. What do you think of the vice president's evaluation?


Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.

The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.

And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created
. [emphasis mine]

So, to say the obvious, we're building up Sunni forces just as we once built up Saddam (who was Sunni) so he could oppose Iran. But once we leave, how will our having built up Sunni militias IN THE LONG RUN help Iraq to be at peace, and help the Sunnis and Shiites stop wanting to kill each other? Doesn't sound promising to me...

A bit later in the Ware interview:

COOPER: Well, the vice president also referred to this New York Times op-ed written by -- by Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, who returned from Iraq. They were applauding the military progress and the Iraqi security forces' ability to hold areas and keep insurgents out. How much have the Iraqi troops themselves actually improved?


WARE: Well, there has been improvement in the Iraqi troops. They are standing up, to a greater degree, in certain pockets.

But, honestly, Anderson, it is a myth to believe that the Iraqi forces have been rid of their sectarian or militia ties. No matter how much any commander wants to tell you, the minute the American forces turn their backs, these guys revert to form, be that Sunni or Shia lines, Kurdish ethnic lines, or be it militia lines.

So, there is still no sense of unity. And, without America to act as the big baby-sitter, this thing is not going to last. So all these successes that O'Hanlon and Pollack point to exist. They're real. But the report is very one-dimensional. It doesn't look at what's being done to achieve this and what long-term sustainability there is. ... The question is, is America prepared to pay this price? [emphasis mine]


www.huffingtonpost.com

Does this sound as sunny as the O'Hanlon/Pollack report Righto?

Tony,

Ware: "Well, Anderson, there is progress."
WARE: "Well, there has been improvement in the Iraqi troops."

Thats all we need to know.. thanks for posting!!!

"Frankly, the far-left's vilification of these two guys is embarassing and lends credence to the Right's assertion that the Left desperately wants Iraq to be a failure so that liberalism can regain its perceived losses from 1994-2004. I personally don't agree with that line of thinking, but people like Greenwald do nothing to disabuse people of that notion."


If we have to talk about Iraq in basic terms such as wins and losses or victory and defeat then it is only logical to lean towards the negative. I don't know how you could possibly call it a positive experience.

The reasons that justified our invasion proved to be untrue. It was barely planned and based on naive assumptions. It has cost us much more than we were led to believe or than was necessary.

Sure, it would be a nice thing if Iraqis got a proper democracy running but our government is not responsible to Iraqis. It is responsible to us and should not be asking Americans to die on behalf of Iraqis. Nor should it demand that the rest of us pay for such a war.

From a US standpoint, the only thing we have to "gain" is that Iraq won't fall into the hands of extremists who will sponsor terror. Being that this was the case before we invaded, it isn't really a gain.

We would be compounding our incredibly naive assumptions to assume an Iraqi democracy would be an ally. They don't really like us and will elect leaders that reflect their opinion of us and our policies.

The overall experience in Iraq is a tragedy for the US, even in the best case scenario. So if you want to talk about wins and losses, it has to be a loss.

The only people that come across desperate to me are the ones that try to repaint this as a noble crusade to spread democracy. That is not the the war that was sold to us and it is not the job of our government to worry about the citizens of other countries to our detriment.

If Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy right now and we start pulling out today, this whole project was still an unecessary loss of life and money. That is reality. All this touchy-feely nonsense about how great Iraqis are going to have it thanks to us is the desperate fantasy.

cross posted this from another blog

some additional numbers

numbers of doctors 3/03 34,000

number that have left iraq 12,000
number that have been killed 2,000
number kidnapped 250

annual number of medical school grads 2250
% of these that will leave IRaq 20%

here are some other dandies

% of High School age Iraqis enrolled in school 33%
% of school aged kids attending classes 30%

go ahead and have hope

unemployment continues for the past 4 years to hover around 40%

Inflation in 2006 50%

Foreign Banks that have opened office in Iraq 0

seems to me if there were to be some hope of achieving stability a prerequisite would be an educated, working population.

instead, we have dirt poor people, not educating themselves, losing the professionals that give opportunities for some quality of life, without jobs, therefore without hope.

how can one build a stable society on these foundations?

we are touting as success some short term quieting of violence.

christ americans have a short attention span.

the quieting of the violence was to promote an opportunity for politicos to achieve something.

well sunnis quit govt and govt goes on vacation.

are americans that stupid?

ROC, ever hear of Judy Miller? Please sweet Jesus, help these poor slumbering fools wake up.

Left Coast>>
I do agree that the cries of outrage against these two analysts is embarassing, but don't think that it is totally unjustified...they have been providing semi-positive reports from Iraq for a long time.


You also, people like o'hanlon should be strung up. please, wake up.

Greenwald is consistently spot on in his disassembling of jackasses like pollack and o'hanlon. Did you even read Greenwald. Sheesh.....

Answer - how sad is it that the left has ivested in defeat? What happens if we do win? Has anyone on the left actually thought of that?

How many years will it take for you to realize that "defeat" was bought and paid for the very minute we invaded Iraq under false pretenses? And that the ethnic divisions between the Iraqi people will never allow them to coalesce into a stable democratic government because their history and religious beliefs stand in opposition to the notions of equality in the first place?

How are we going to "win" a civil war in a country we have no business in? We aren't fighting a war, we're undertaking a police/security action and now arming mortal enemies for their future battle royale. Congratulations, Iraq is now completely unstable and the majority Shiites will align with their brother Shiites in Iran.

The operative question is why do you still support an effort that is undermining every goal Bush stated we have in regards to Iraq?

Thats all we need to know.. thanks for posting!!!

Are you George W. Bush moonlighting before taking your nap? Sounds like exactly what he would say and its prima facia evidence that you know even less than he does! We're arming both Shiites and Sunnis who happen to hate each other. What happens when the Saudi AQ members are routed out of Iraq? Might they turn these weapons against our troops or each other?

Ever heard of blowback? You should have, we've been experiencing it since the ammo dumps were left unguarded during our initial invasion and the army was disbanded. Kindly tell us which Democrats made those bone-headed decisions?

40% of iraqis dont have jobs.

2/3's of their children dont go to school

1 to 2 thousand of their citizens are killed in bombings, shootings and torture every month

their utilities are in a mess (and let me remind you it gets hot in Iraq, human waste and heat dont mix well without AC)

there government is in shambles with different portions quitting on a regular basis.

there police forces are made up of militia members.

they are occupied by a foreign force.

neighboring countries use proxies to stir violence in the country.

the only economy is oil based (ie oil only, no manufacturing).

but things are improving.

keep thinking that.

Tony-

If I wanted to bold the parts that were parroting Pollock and O'Hanlon, I could acheive the same effect. You are bolding Ware's opinion about the progress he is seeing, but the one thing that is notable is this passage: "So all these successes that O'Hanlon and Pollack point to exist. They're real."

This is what is infuriating people like Larry, Dave and Goggles, since they so desperately want to believe what Greenwald says.

I agree that there is a terrible cost to this war (not that it is the exception amongst wars) but the real question is what do we do about it now? If stability is increasing, do we continue to help things stabilize or do we leave and let the Iraqis clean up our mess?

I was always taught that if you make a mess, clean it up. Right or wrong, I think we, as Americans, now owe it to the Iraqis to clean up the mess that we made.

Frankly, the far-left's vilification of these two guys is embarassing and lends credence to the Right's assertion that the Left desperately wants Iraq to be a failure so that liberalism can regain its perceived losses from 1994-2004. I personally don't agree with that line of thinking, but people like Greenwald do nothing to disabuse people of that notion.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 01:25 PM | Reply |

Tin-foil hat conspiracy speak, its like when the left says the right only went in for the oil. Its a fundamentally retarded train of thought, and really just intellectually dishonest. And the problem lies in that the less well read righties will take that idea and run with it, and before you know some newspaper is claiming Pelosi is blowing Osama. Its all bullshit, and is becoming the only tacit argument against left leaning posistions. See "clinton deflection(tm)".

Although undoubtedly, a failure in Iraq would in fact give liberals an edge, lets not forget it wasn't the liberals that put us in that mess. To put this into perspective, if this was a nascar race and you blow your engine going to fast, it doesn't suddenly become the fault of the guy behind you because he was able to take advantage of something YOU fucked up. The dems are not running the war, they can't even pass a vote, to have a vote to cut off funding for the war for christ sakes. They have no choice but to benefit from the failure in iraq handed to them by the GOP.

Lets not forget its not by any means the sole reason the liberals are getting that edge. They are doing pretty good on the corruption aspects.

I agree that there is a terrible cost to this war (not that it is the exception amongst wars) but the real question is what do we do about it now? If stability is increasing, do we continue to help things stabilize or do we leave and let the Iraqis clean up our mess?

I was always taught that if you make a mess, clean it up. Right or wrong, I think we, as Americans, now owe it to the Iraqis to clean up the mess that we made.

Posted by Rightocenter


you do make an excellent point, americans do have a moral obligation here. one problem, we dont have it within our power to clean up the mess.

iraq is bush's catch 22.

btw this is just the beginning of the war of perception to be waged over the next 6 weeks until petraeus's report.

his report will be obfuscating, giving all politicos the rope the want to make whatever policy decisions they already want to enact. that is politics 101.

well it has taken 3657 lives, 500 billion to increase electrical power 6.7% that aint good

for a 20% increase in potable water

look at the sewage number

better than 50% have NO sewage

NICE

Tin-foil hat conspiracy speak, its like when the left says the right only went in for the oil.

Posted by KnightHawk at 2007-08-01 05:13 PM


I couldn't agree more, but the fact remains that the spin-meisters on the right (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc.) get great mileage from that talking point. However, people like Greenwald add fuel to that fire.

To put this into perspective, if this was a nascar race and you blow your engine going to fast, it doesn't suddenly become the fault of the guy behind you because he was able to take advantage of something YOU fucked up. The dems are not running the war, they can't even pass a vote, to have a vote to cut off funding for the war for christ sakes. They have no choice but to benefit from the failure in iraq handed to them by the GOP.

Thank you Knighthawk!

The problem, Righto, is in the details left out by those focussing on the progress without acknowledging how that progress is gained. The mitigating circumstances far outweigh any progress being made by the surge. The Iraqi Security Forces are nothing more than Shiite militias, which is precisely what they turn into the second they're off duty. The decrease in violence has largely been brought about by the ethnic cleansing of the Baghdad neighborhoods, not just the boots on the ground. The Sunnis have vowed not to participate nor acknowledge a central government, yet we arm them to fight AQ in Anbar. Who will they fight once AQ is gone?

For every positive, there appear to be ten negatives, eight of which will cause an ultimate implosion. There is no "win" to be gained in Iraq. It was never on the table, it was a delusion of grandeur which never existed. This is the reality I see, and our troops are caught up in a hell they never should have been party to.

his report will be obfuscating, giving all politicos the rope the want to make whatever policy decisions they already want to enact. that is politics 101.

Posted by truthhurts at 2007-08-01 05:17 PM


I would be surprise if it isn't full of cavaets and doublespeak, you don't get to General without playing the political game to the hilt.

As I said in on the back page, if Iraq is going to be stable, we have to be involved. Can we afford it? I'm not sure we can afford not to.

are americans that stupid?



Posted by truthhurts


yes

I was always taught that if you make a mess, clean it up. Right or wrong, I think we, as Americans, now owe it to the Iraqis to clean up the mess that we made.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 05:12 PM | Reply


Why should those whom did NOT make the mess be asked to help clean it up?? In effect You are stating that Dubya made the mess but is immature enough to clean up His own shit so the grown ups have to do it for Him. I find that funny I really do.

Larry

There is NO DECREASE IN US CASUALTIES ...

Here are the US casualties in Iraq/month starting in 2006:

1/06 62, 2/06 55, 3/06 31, 4/06 76, 5/06 69, 6/06 61, 7/06 43, 8/06 65, 9/06 72, 10/06 106, 11/06 70, 12/06 112

1/07 83, 2/07 81, 3/07 81, 4/07 104, 5/07 126, 6/07 101, 7/07 78

As one can clearly see the "drop" in US casualties last month is only a "drop" because the previous three months were so bloody. If one considers the rest of 2007, neglecting April, May and June the US death tolls are nearly consistent ...

In-fact the average US deaths in Iraq in 2007 (less April, May and June) is 80.75/month ...

And, the average US death toll in Iraq since 1/06 (including ALL months) is 77.68/month ...

This is just more smoke and mirrors by the Bush Administration in an attempt to rally support for keeping US troops in Iraq at least until the OSAs are signed ...

But, Rally away!!! YAY: Only the AVERAGE number of American friends and family were killed for oil this month!!!

GooOOOO TEAM!!!

Larry-

Why should those whom did NOT make the mess be asked to help clean it up?

How do you segregate yourself from the country who made the mess? Is Western Nebraska going to secede from the Union?

In effect You are stating that Dubya made the mess but is immature enough to clean up His own shit so the grown ups have to do it for Him.

Not at all. Bush has put into place a much maligned plan which is reportedly making some progress. But you want the "Adults" to put a stop to that plan by removing all the troops. Do you honestly think that is going to improve the lot of the Iraqi people?

Try to give me a reasoned answer rather then your usual condescending and vacuous bullshit.

"I was always taught that if you make a mess, clean it up. Right or wrong, I think we, as Americans, now owe it to the Iraqis to clean up the mess that we made."

We're not talking about knocking a dinner plate off the kitchen table.

Iraqis are responsible for their own actions and they have done plenty to ensure that their country will be a mess for quite some time. They are men and women equal to anyone else on the planet and they need to be held to the same standard as everyone else. Predictable or not, the ethnic violence occuring in Iraq is the fault of Iraqis, not us.

I don't think you'll find any soldier who has been there, including those that support the war, who would say that they feel that their fellow soldiers, especially those who have already served at least one tour, have a 'moral obligation' to stay there indefinitely while the rest of country goes on with business as usual. You're not taking the moral high ground by saying that other people need to pay a huge price in order to satisfy what you've decided is a moral obligation. This country is sacrificing shit for this war - mostly because our reasons for being there are bullshit and our politicians know it. They can't stay in office by asking us to sacrifice for a pointless war effort. So the burden falls entirely on those who have pledged to defend us and their families. I find it entirely amoral to say these people need to sacrifice more to satisfy some sense of guilt on our part as we are not willing to do anything to further the war effort.

I know I want nothing to do with Iraq. At least I'm fair minded enough to say that no American should have to be there. I don't get how you can talk about moral obligations while shoving the obligation off on people who have given enough already.

"Do you honestly think that is going to improve the lot of the Iraqi people?"

It is not the job of our government or our military to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

Never was.

Sully-

I don't care if you call it a moral, ethical, geopolitical or humanist obligation, the fact of the matter is that we created the anarchy, and I believe that we should set things right. On this we will have to agree to disagree.

You say that no American should have to be there, fair enough. Who then should be there to help the Iraqis through this period of anarchy?

Answer - how sad is it that the left has ivested in defeat? What happens if we do win? Has anyone on the left actually thought of that?

Posted by FormerLib at 2007-08-01 04:50 PM


hmmm still a bit slo huh FormerHuman?

Of course we will win... hmmm gee we have to don't we?

Now all we have to do is define win. Declare a Win and leave.

We should never have been there and don't forget it.

The mess is made... we will muddle through... we are America.

but at what cost?

And who will do the cleaning up after Chimpy gets done slinging his feces all over the planet?

...its like when the left says the right only went in for the oil.

Only for the oil?

Wrong.

The oil was the primary motivation but not the only factor. Iraq was also about seizing the "unitary moment" when the US stood as the world's sole super-power and using that fact to America's advantage. That was the plan. It's another lie, of course. The advantage has always been to corporate America and always at the expense of the rest of America.

Trying to suggest that oil wasn't a factor in the decision to invade and occupy is a righty tighty talking point. One that belongs in the tin foil hat camp not the reality based one.

Be Well.

How do you segregate yourself from the country who made the mess? Is Western Nebraska going to secede from the Union?

In effect You are stating that Dubya made the mess but is immature enough to clean up His own shit so the grown ups have to do it for Him.

Not at all. Bush has put into place a much maligned plan which is reportedly making some progress. But you want the "Adults" to put a stop to that plan by removing all the troops. Do you honestly think that is going to improve the lot of the Iraqi people?

Try to give me a reasoned answer rather then your usual condescending and vacuous bullshit.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

First off Dubya is not America He is the one who made the mess NOT America. You and Your ilk continually declare a President IS America You did it just now.
Secondly How long Must We stay there 10 Years 20?? How long do You want to stay and "Help" clean up Dubya's mess that He hath Made?? While We are supposedly Helping we are making more of a mess while doing it. So how long do You want to stay??

Larry


"It is not the job of our government or our military to improve the lot of the Iraqi people."

Glad that is clarified. Evil as Saddam was, he kept 'em from killing each other. Now tell me again what our government's role in Iraq really is. herm

"Who then should be there to help the Iraqis through this period of anarchy?"

They're not a nation of adult sized babies.

They need to work this out themselves. Or they can fight it out to see which ethnic group gets to dominate the others and they can live with the consequences of that decision. Just like grownups.

To assume that they just won't do whatever they want once we leave is incredibly naive anyway.







First off Dubya is not America He is the one who made the mess NOT America. You and Your ilk continually declare a President IS America You did it just now.

Dead wrong, and you know that. Or do you want me to paste the quotations from all the Democrats about how Saddam was a threat again. Congress is as much as fault as the people who voted Bush in, and while I know that you didn't vote for him, you can't just wash your hands from what your country, whether you agree or not, has done in Iraq.

I am a realist, and think that we will have a presence in Iraq at least as long as we have had one in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. If you think otherwise, you are incredibly naive (and after seven years of discussions I am pretty sure you are not.)

To assume that they just won't do whatever they want once we leave is incredibly naive anyway.

Posted by Sully at 2007-08-01 06:03 PM


What is incredibly naive is to think that we are going to leave, period.

and while I know that you didn't vote for him, you can't just wash your hands from what your country, whether you agree or not, has done in Iraq.

There's no reason why not.

It's funny ROC that Condi Rice Colin Powell and Dick Cheney all declared Saddam was IMPOTENT. You REALLY want to bring up the Democrat quotes???

Larry

There's no reason why not.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2007-08-01 06:08 PM


Personally, that is your choice. Realistically? Do you really think that the absolute best choice is to pull everything out of Iraq and let it spiral out of control? If so, why?

Don't deflect Larry, answer the question, I know you can do it.

"What is incredibly naive is to think that we are going to leave, period."

So the punishment for signing up to defend this country should be indefinite deployment to Iraq?

The American public needs to pay a billion a month indefinitely because Iraq needs to be babysat?

It may be naive to think our current government has any intention of ever leaving.

But it would be more naive to think that the public isn't eventually going to vote out politicians who undermine our military and waste our treasury for the benefit of people who hate us.

Things change. The idiotic plans our current leaders have made for Iraq will be thrown just like any other piece of garbage.

No I didn't Deflect ROC it was YOU when You brought up the Democrats. As You kept insisting about a Month ago that Dubya controls the Military so therefore this is on HIM not anyone else. For the one who controls the action Controls the responsibility.

Larry

Tony,

Ware: "Well, Anderson, there is progress."
WARE: "Well, there has been improvement in the Iraqi troops."

Thats all we need to know.. thanks for posting!!!

Posted by FormerLib at 2007-08-01 04:56 PM



With this quote, I hereby dub FormerLib a troll and will no longer be feeding his stupid ass.

Thanks for playing.



I would also like to remind all of those individuals that believe that progress is being made and that we as a country owe it to the Iraqis to stabilize their country, that the maximum enlistment age in now 42 and your service is greatly appreciated by GWB.

Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.

But it would be more naive to think that the public isn't eventually going to vote out politicians who undermine our military and waste our treasury for the benefit of people who hate us.

Things change. The idiotic plans our current leaders have made for Iraq will be thrown just like any other piece of garbage.

Posted by Sully at 2007-08-01 06:16 PM


The American people have already voted out the GOP'rs who they think needed to go, and more are going to follow in the next two election cycles. However, it doesn't matter if it is the current administration, our next administration or the one in 2015, we ain't leaving. Get used to it.

"Do you really think that the absolute best choice is to pull everything out of Iraq and let it spiral out of control? If so, why?"

Of course it is the best choice for us.

Why? Because that way, no Americans die when Iraqis decide they can't live peacefully unless their ethnic group dominates the others. And the US taxpayer isn't paying for the opportunity to piss away our soldier's lives. Iraqis have to live with the consequences if they choose to behave like animals. Our troops shouldn't have to......

Just who's interests do you think our government is supposed to look out for?

As You kept insisting about a Month ago that Dubya controls the Military so therefore this is on HIM not anyone else. For the one who controls the action Controls the responsibility.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-08-01 06:21 PM


Thanks for the response, and fair enough, he is the CinC. However, it is the American Military, and its citizenry is ultimately responsible for the actions of their elected leaders, whether they voted for them or not.

I am not saying that Bush is not responsible and the Dems are, far from it. All of the blame for the mismanagement of Iraq rests squarely on Bush's shoulders, and he admits as much.

But this shouldn't be about blame, it should be about results. Do you think that the best possible result would come about by pulling every American out of Iraq?

" However, it doesn't matter if it is the current administration, our next administration or the one in 2015, we ain't leaving. Get used to it."

I'm glad you've abandonned trying to justify our continuing a presence in Iraq.

Instead you've moved on to pretending that you know what is going to happen in the future. "Things are going to go my way whether I'm right or not - get used to it!". Great arguement.

If you want to believe that Americans want to go broke while killing off our military, go ahead. I think that sooner or later, it will be political suicide to talk about staying in Iraq.

Sully-

You don't think that a power vaccuum in Iraq, created by the US, isn't going to be a problem for us?

"There's no reason why not.
Posted by Doc_Sarvis"

Personally, that is your choice. Realistically? Do you really think that the absolute best choice is to pull everything out of Iraq and let it spiral out of control? If so, why?
Posted by Rightocenter


"Liet it spiral out of control"? Surely you don't think it's under control at the moment, do you?

I think it's in the best interests of the United States for us to say, in effect: "Look, we elected a lying scoundrel to head what became a kakistocracy, a nasty perversion of the American system of government. He relied, at best, on faulty intelligence---without ever getting it pinned down---to drag the American people into a war of his choosing. And Iraq got very, very fucked up. We're going to go away now and rethink everything: who we are as a people, what we are as a nation, what our true national interests are, what we can do to make the world a better and safer place."

As for the region, I think the US is in line for some serious reformulation of its philosophy about what role we should play. I'm not sure the Iranian ascendancy that Bush has brought about is a particularly good idea, and I'm damn sure you'd find the Saudis and others agreeing with that observation. (Hence the alleged reason for funneling $20 billion in arms to the Arabs and $30 billion to the Israelis, courtesy of the American taxpayer, in yet another redistribution of wealth to our corporate masters.)

That's for a start.

I know you won't like it, just like I don't like having to be around while Bush's mess gets cleaned up by others. (Had those who voted for the guy ever bothered to learn anything about his life history, they would have known that this is s.o.p. insofar as he's concerned.)

I have never tried to justify it, I just have accepted from the start that we would be there as long as I lived. This is no different then other geopolitically and strategically important places. Ever heard of Diego Garcia? Why do you think we have bases there?

It's not an argument, its reality. Once Obama or Hillary get into the WH, and get those initial NSA briefings, they will quickly realize that it would be political suicide to ultimately abandon Iraq completely.

"You don't think that a power vaccuum in Iraq, created by the US, isn't going to be a problem for us?"

It could degenerate into a Somalia type situation - only the warlords control a large chunk of the world's oil. That would be bad.

It could turn into an oil-rich, pro-terror theocracy - probably worse for us.

It could turn into a democracy full of people who don't like us and who elects leaders who reflect that dislike. Also bad.

Iraqis could all magically turn into Jr. Americans and start spreading their newfound love for us across the region. (the neocon pipe dream)

Or anything in between could happen.

I don't believe we can do much more than delay the ultimate outcome. It ain't up to us. I don't see the point in asking people to die over there just so we can pretend, for little while longer, that we have control over what Iraqis will eventually decide.

Do you really think that the absolute best choice is to pull everything out of Iraq and let it spiral out of control? If so, why?"

Best choice to pull everybody out?

Hell, yeah!

Coupla reasons for that...

First, Iraq is already spinning out of control right now.

Second, Afghanistan is failing and needs more troops.

Third, the only chance Iraq has to get rid of the foreign AQ transplants is too stop fighting the insurgency against the US. Leave getting out too long and they become a permanent fixture.

Fourth, the war was founded on lies and the original reasons to go in, (Get rid of Saddam, Find the WMDs) are fait accompli in the first case and totally bogues in the second. Ergo Mission Accomplished.

Declare Victory and get the fuck out.

Be Well.

I have never tried to justify it, I just have accepted from the start that we would be there as long as I lived. Ever heard of Diego Garcia? Why do you think we have bases there?


Sorry, but I didn't sign up to support some insane Pax Americana. Getting bogged down in the Iraqi tarbaby, spending well over a trillion $, losing who knows how many Americans, contributing to the death of who knows how many Iraqis...that doesn't seem to be in our national interest at all.

If the American people let the kakistocrats keep this up much longer, you won't have to worry about soliders of the empire on Diego Garcia or anywhere else, because our country will be going down history's memory hole.

But this shouldn't be about blame, it should be about results. Do you think that the best possible result would come about by pulling every American out of Iraq?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

How long must one keep a car that keeps breaking down?? 10 Years 20 Years?? I know around these parts we would be selling it(Off loading) it to the Junker. So how long do YOU want to waste Human life for a lost cause??

Larry

Sully-

I think that the country that Iraq will ultimately resemble (whether we help them or not) is Turkey...Muslim majority, relatively friendly, secular democracy who deals with us firmly when it is not in their interests.

That is neither the neo-con pipe dream or the left-wingers wet-dream, but something that the US can live with. I agree it ain't up to us, the Iraqis will ultimately decide what is right for them. What I can't, in good conscience agree with is that pulling out completely is going to help them get to that point.

Pomme de Mort-

Iraq has spun about as much as it is going to with us there, and the signs are pointing to deals with the Sunni insurgents to get AQ out while keeping the Gov't at bay until things settle down. One thing that TR was right about is that it is now coming out that these deals with the Sheiks could have been done two years ago and weren't. Now that we are doing it, things seem to be calming down.

As for more troops for Afganistan, what is the UN going to do about it? Why should the US put more in?

As for Victory, isn't the usual liberal talking point that it is impossible? If so, how do you declare it?

As for more troops for Afganistan, what is the UN going to do about it? Why should the US put more in?

As for Victory, isn't the usual liberal talking point that it is impossible? If so, how do you declare it?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 07:01 PM | Reply


Why should the UN Help us in Afghanistan. Dubya gave them the proverbial finger when He invaded Iraq Illegally. It's like a Parent to a child that gives their Parent the middle finger. The Grown Up declares fine no problem just don't ask for help when You need it.

Larry

Doc-

That's fine, but as Robert Gilpin opined in "The Rise of American Hegemony", a key component to maintaining political and economic power is the projection of military power through alliances with current allies and former enemies.

The bases we have all over the world have helped over the past 50 years to build our country and economy into what it is. If you don't like what we have become, you are obviously welcome to that opinion.

But next time you drive in your Camry using gas from Saudi Arabia to buy a toy made in China for your kids, keep in mind that the US economic and political expansion over the past 50 years made that possible.

Larry-

My apologies, I should have said NATO as it related to troops. That being said, the UN has a significant reconstruction presence in Afganistan, and has been in discussions with NATO to add peacekeepers to assist in security on UN projects.

Having been corrected, the question still stands:

What is NATO going to do about it? Why should the US put more troops into Afganistan?

The "We Might just win the war" OPED was great, but check out this news story I found in Today's NY Times.

"Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government's electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

It would be the first change in the law since the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants became public in December 2005.

In the past few days, Mr. Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to make the change before its August recess, which could begin this weekend. Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism. "
www.nytimes.com

A few more stories like the above on a daily basis and they might be on track to being the "paper of record" instead of the liberal rag it's become.

What is NATO going to do about it? Why should the US put more troops into Afganistan?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 07:22 PM | Reply


Because they attacked us(If You believe the official story) therefore it is necessary for us to shoulder the most burden with regards to Afghanistan.

Larry

Larry-

If you believe the official story, they also attacked people from 22 other countries, including hundreds of Brits, Germans and Italians...the building just happened to be on our territory.

If you believe the official story, they also attacked people from 22 other countries, including hundreds of Brits, Germans and Italians...the building just happened to be on our territory.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-01 07:29 PM | Reply


Whether I do or don't thats not important. The important thing is We are supposedly the worlds super power so therefore if We want to declare Ourselves top dog then it is Imperative that We supply most of the troops in AFghanistan. Or does that only pertain to Iraq??

Larry

A burglar breaks into a home where three related residents live in an uneasy truce, forever just short of wiping each other out.

While the burglar is taking the silver, one resident gets our the old family blunderbuss and shoots. Another resident drops to the floor.

Who's to blame here? herm

Hey, guys, this has been a very enjoyable and informative thread to read. I wish every topic could elicit such response. Thanks (and I wish every non-libroool could be like ROC and actually stay on topic, resist flaming and actually make some sense).

We're not on topic when you suggest that WE made the mess and thus must stay until it's cleaned up.

WE? I didn't. Bush did - over the dead bodies, so to speak, of thinking Americans. WE had nothing to do with it ...

This doublethink tries to rationalize a Murrican preesence in Iraq forever. The mess CANNOT go away until we go away.

Hey, we're not there for the Iraqi people. There's no profit in people. We're there for other reasons, explored and explained long ago. herm.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate running that wants to bring the troops home.

Bring Our Troops Home Now

by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on July 12, 2007

I rise in opposition to HR 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation's seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed.

I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial "Iraq regime change" legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing US commitments in the Middle East.

www.lewrockwell.com

but as Robert Gilpin opined in "The Rise of American Hegemony", a key component to maintaining political and economic power is the projection of military power through alliances with current allies and former enemies.

What about the misapplication of power, ignoring (for the most part) the advice of current allies?

""You say that no American should have to be there, fair enough. Who then should be there to help the Iraqis through this period of anarchy?""

Perhaps the children of the wealthy and the politicians who sent the children of the working class over there. Bring back the draft and then we'll see if America really wants to accept the responsibility for the disaster that the right wing has caused. We are now paying up to $50,000 enlistment bonuses because even the less educated youth are realizing that they are being used as cannon fodder simply to prevent the president from having to accept the reality of his arrogance and stupidity. If the rich and powerful don't want to risk their kids then fuck it, we pull out and let the chips fall where they may. Don't preach about responsiblity while the children of the wealthy sit home safe and sound, it rings so hollow as to be pure hypocrisy.

Left desperately wants Iraq to be a failure so that liberalism can regain its perceived losses from 1994-2004."

Hitting the crack pipe a little early today, are we?


Posted by Dave at 2007-08-01 01:46 PM | Reply


its not so much that the left is thirsting for failure but it is a FACT that they have invested thier campaign in our defeat since the only way they can be proved correct is that defeat. do they want soldiers to die? please....thats bullshit...do they want us to lose?.......well what would they look like when iraq is able to secure themselves and they are an ally in the global war on terror?


again as to this argument.......its interesting to watch liberals revolt against positive news from iraq.......and lets say these two ARE redneck conservatives....the left believes that makes them automatic liars....and thats also bullshit......if you read the entire article you would read about the proof of thier statements and the qualifications of those statements......


and finnaly.....could some of you from the left tell me the time and day that brookings came over to the RIGHT side....I dont seem to remember them being on the right side in the near past? just when was it that they 'saw the light of the right'.......

yeah okay danni....lets keep making everything a classwar issue.....sure.........and during what war did people of means not pull strings in some form or fashion? and that IN NO WAY means that I agree with it....but again....as long as its a volunteer military, these heros KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE GETTING INTO and might happen to them.....
and STILL they sign up.........and they should be applauded, not attacked at being too stupid to get out of it.......LIKE A DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE ONCE SAID...............

"Know exactly what they are getting into...."

Not unless they actually had a combat tour. And, after that, what could prepare them for people in their own government trying to screw them out of their disability payments for PTSD?

and finnaly.....could some of you from the left tell me the time and day that brookings came over to the RIGHT side....I dont seem to remember them being on the right side in the near past? just when was it that they 'saw the light of the right'.

BL2, they know the Brooking Institution is liberal think tank. They are just in damage control mode and striking out in the only way they know how -- kill the messenger.

Of course in this case, the messenger is the NY Times, Brookings Institution, and two liberals who have been harsh critics of the war in the past.

As Cal thomas said, "This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat. What would they do; what could they do should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? Some might, but the "alternative" media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won't let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their "lying eyes."

On "NBC Nightly News" last week, anchor Brian Williams ignored the column by O'Hanlon and Pollack and instead focused on "a draft U.S. report," saying "there are disturbing new details about corruption at the very top of the Iraqi government." ABC's Terry McCarthy apparently didn't receive, or ignored, the Democratic talking points when he said of the O'Hanlon-Pollack column on "World News Tonight," "the report tracks fairly closely with what we're seeing." David Martin on "CBS Evening News" reported on July 31, "With one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February."

NBC News notwithstanding, these somewhat upbeat assessments on CBS, ABC (and in The New York Times) must be unsettling to a lot of Democrats. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, who flipped on her "favorite" baseball team when it became politically expedient to do so, will have a tough time selling the line, "I believed in victory from the beginning."
www.townhall.com

""its not so much that the left is thirsting for failure but it is a FACT that they have invested thier campaign in our defeat since the only way they can be proved correct is that defeat.""

Yes, you are right, most Americans do realize that things will not get better in this country for the middle class until the right wing nuts are out of office. Their disastrous war in Iraq has just been a wake up call as to how dangerous you lunatics are when you gain power. America is finally waking up and it will be a very long time before the right wing crazies, like yourself, are in power again.

America is finally waking up and it will be a very long time before the right wing crazies, like yourself, are in power again.

Dani, whose crazy?

"But those (9/11) conspirace theories though perhaps not correct are still closer to the truth than the 9-11 Commission report."
Posted by danni at 2007-08-02 08:38 AM | Reply |

LOL

""As Cal thomas said""

....that is all you have to say. Cal Thomas is a right wing nut and has always been a right wing nut. Right next to Ed Anger, Cal Thomas is one of our oldest and craziest columnists. Nothing he has to say is of any interest to anyone with a brain.

""Of course in this case, the messenger is the NY Times, Brookings Institution, and two liberals who have been harsh critics of the war in the past.""

They have been cheerleaders for the war in the past, even the recent past.

"""With one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February.""

Highest number of troops killed in the month of July in several years. So that little statistic is completely bogus. Utter crap. Bull shit. GEt my point?

This op-ed piece is a last ditch effort to defend the undefensible, to sell, once again, the failed war in Iraq which is going to drag REpublicans down in the next election and allow Democrats to control both the Executive and The Legislative and thus is scaring the bejesus out of Republicans and righties.

""Dani, whose crazy?""

Anyone who believes what people who won't testify under oath tells them. To most folks who actually can think...when someone refuses to take the oath...we generally don't accept what they say as the truth and probably suspect that they are lying through their teeth. But hey, that's just us in the reality community.

It is laughable that the right thinks they can continue to sell the Iraq war as necessary without also reinstituting the draft and thus putting their own kids at risk. If they won't do that then they have no reasonable expectation that the country will believe their bull shit any longer.
Such an important war...that it required tax cuts for the wealthy....God, how can anyone even listen to these liars????

Danni.

Is this you:

www.nbeaujon.com


Sure seems like it.

right wing crazies, like yourself, are in power again.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-02



thank you....this may be the biggest compliment you have ever thrown my way......I assure you that rightwing crazies are better off than invested in defeat stalinists........



and here is the end to the debate on who these men are.....

ohaniln is a senior fellow at the brookings and pollock is the director of research at the saban center for middle east policy at brookings and the article itself was in the NY times........
you cant move into those positions and have anything to do with the right..............


and now talking about spin.......please do try and spin the liberal background of this article into right wing kooks............why cant you just admit it......liberals somewhere in the world have found some positive developments in iraq along with more bad shit to be taken care of.........
come on....it wont hurt for long......and besides as badly as your save america congress has turned out for you......YOU ALL HAVE MORE TROUBLE ON YOUR HANDS THAN THIS ANYWAY>........

BL2, like I said, Liberals know that this article in the NY Times is absolutely damning for them -- at the very least it prevents them from claiming that the only people who stil believe that the war can be "won" are kooks.

Obviously, that is not ture -- and the pst two weeks there seems to be a crescendo of good news squeaking it's way into the mainstream media who cannot, in good conscience, ignore it any more.

"What I can't, in good conscience agree with is that pulling out completely is going to help them get to that point."

I peronsally think that our presence there is divisive.

But to me, that is a secondary consideration.

To me, the primary consideration is what is best for Americans. It is in our best interest not to waste lives and money on a situation that is ultimately out of our control. It is in our best interest to stop running up a huge deficit. It is in our best interest not to undermine our military.

""BL2, like I said, Liberals know that this article in the NY Times is absolutely damning for them""

With the dishonest spin put on it by some like Joe Scarborough....but in reality this is nonsense written by two reporters who have been supportive of Bush and his war since before the invasion. But don't let the facts bother you BOWA, you never do.

""and the pst two weeks there seems to be a crescendo of good news""

Gee, this sounds so familliar....kind of like "the insurgency is in its last throes."
Do you guys realize how repititious your cheerleading is???
What should be dawning on you is that you have been constantly fooled, over and over, simply because you can't accept the fact that the invasion was a mistake from the beginning.

I think another important point here is being ignored. A majority of the Army and Marine units we had left to deploy were sent to Iraq as part of the "surge". We have VERY few units left that can be rotated into the combat area. In fact our forces are stretched so thin that Air Force and Navy troops are being given 2 weeks of combat training and put out on the front line with the Army and Marines.

www.drudge.com

Our equipment stockpiles are being decimated by this war. There's no way enough Strikers and Cougars can be built to replace the Humvees, Bradleys, and Strikers being destroyed over there, and now Iran is helping insurgents make EFP's (explosively formed penetrator) to kill our battle tanks.

Here's an interesting video on militarytimes.com

www.militarytimes.com

Retired Generals and even Colin Powell have said our Army is in shambles, and will it will take DECADES to replace the equipment and troops lost in this war.

There's been alot of talk on how long we should stay, but has anyone considered how long we CAN stay? How much more punishment should our troops endure refereeing a civil war before we say enough is enough?

COALITION OF THE BILLING: MORE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ THAN U.S. TROOPS

...Yesterday's Los Angeles Times published a piece by Christian Miller, Private Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Iraq, that shows how Bush has made the occupation of Iraq into a for-profit bonanza for his campaign contributors.

And we're not talking about a few million here and a few million here. As I've said before, generational wealth-- that of which a new and venal plutocracy takes root-- is being created for the few while the sons and daughters, brothers, fathers, husbands, wives, friends of regular folks are dying meaningless, brutish deaths to protect the accumulation of vast riches for the few.

Private contractors? I'm not talking just about plumbers and people who are paving driveways -- although they're there too, driven by desperation to find good-paying work in such a hostile environment; I'm talking about the war profiteers and the mercenaries and companies that supply them.

"Mercenaries." It's a word that makes normal Americans recoil in horror. Our elementary school books teach us-- or did when I was a kid-- that mercenaries highed by the British, Hessians, were the worst of our enemies in our own Revolutionary War, when we were the terrorists fighting for our freedom and King George III was... well, King George II.

The DWT correspondent in Baghdad, "Fred," tells me he puts it in his contract that he never has to be around mercenaries from Blackwater, the private America run by American neofascist billionaire Erik Prince.


The Iraqis, he tells me, hate the mercenaries-- and for good reason-- in a way they don't hate American troops and as much as we, as a people, hated King George (the III's) Hessians.

Is DDENTON Darrin or Dave?

Wow, this is just peachy...

www.telegraph.co.uk

If Shrub hadn't over-extended us in Iraq, maybe we might have had the ability to go after Iran. Then again, Iran might not be supplying sniper rifles to militants if we weren't in Iraq in the first place.

Ride_on,

I doubt you'd believe it, but I'm neither, and I speak for myself.

Perhaps the children of the wealthy and the politicians who sent the children of the working class over there. ... If the rich and powerful don't want to risk their kids then fuck it, we pull out and let the chips fall where they may. Don't preach about responsiblity while the children of the wealthy sit home safe and sound, it rings so hollow as to be pure hypocrisy.

Posted by danni at 2007-08-02 08:36 AM


Oh, I get it, its not that you don't want any Americans there, just the kids of the rich and wealthy. So I guess Soros, Penn, Reid, Feinstein, et al. would be really stoked if you made their kids enlist.

The point is, regardless of class, race or whatever else makes you bitter about the war, should America help make things right from here on out, or leave. Having rich American kids there still means, to use the favorite lib talking point, "wasting American lives and treasure."

Formerlib made an excellent point in the early part of the thread: what if we actually do win?

My first response to that question is: no one in the Bush administration will clearly define what "win" means. Is it benchmarks? no sectarian violence? stable oil supply flow? restoration of water and electricity to citizens? restoration of infrastructure? Non-interference from Syria, Iran, et al? These have all been paraded around by various groups as indications of success, and true, they are symptoms. But the reason that the majority of Americans are now against this police action is: it's been five years and there is no end in sight.

My second response is: the surge may indeed be tamping down violence. Great news! But how long can we sustain it? Maybe a year? And then what? The DoD can not continue to extend soldiers' tours of duty without mass resignations or significant signs of resistance from families (read: congressional constituents) After this "house-of-extended-tour-cards" comes crashing down in 2008, we still face renewed violence, with the new element: we will be unable to quell it.

My third response is: What would happen if Iran suddenly, truly made a nuclear weapon? One cannot serve two masters. We now have neither the economic means, the numbers of troops, nor the global support to occupy simultaneously two Islamic countries. What would we do right now if...say, China invaded Taiwan to suppress their creep towards independence? We couldn't do a damn thing but wag our finger at them.

Finally, I respond to that question with an economic warning. We cannot sustain indefinitely the huge military spending, recruitment bonuses, and veteran medical care at the current rate of deficit spending. Sooner, probably not later, bills must be paid, or else the dollar's value will continue to slide against the Pound, Euro, and Yuan...and we will continue our inflation until the American middle class is more like the "middle-poor" class.

""Having rich American kids there still means, to use the favorite lib talking point, "wasting American lives and treasure."

Bull shit. It would mean an almost immediate withdrawl. Clue...those folks don't send their kids to die in unnecessary wars...they send other folks' kids.
My point was probably over your head. It was that when the kids of the rich are drafted we usually end the conflict PDQ.
duh!

"use the favorite lib talking point, "wasting American lives and treasure."

You refer to dead soldiers as a talking point?

If we went in there to mitigage a threat that never existed, what else can you call the expense of the war but a waste?

Whether or not you think we should stay, I don't see why you can't admit that going to war over imaginary threats is wasteful.

Bull shit. It would mean an almost immediate withdrawl. Clue...those folks don't send their kids to die in unnecessary wars...they send other folks' kids.
My point was probably over your head. It was that when the kids of the rich are drafted we usually end the conflict PDQ.
duh!

Posted by danni at 2007-08-02 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You tell Him Danni. You Go Girl.

Larry

these somewhat upbeat assessments on CBS, ABC (and in The New York Times) must be unsettling to a lot of Democrats

They should be unsettling for everyone, given the role these organs played in shilling for Bush's war.

To me, the primary consideration is what is best for Americans. It is in our best interest not to waste lives and money on a situation that is ultimately out of our control. It is in our best interest to stop running up a huge deficit. It is in our best interest not to undermine our military.


Posted by Sully at 2007-08-02 09:50 AM


I think everyone agrees with you, its just a matter of how to proceed to address these issues.

Whether we like it or not, we will have a HUGE embassy and at least 30,000 troops in Iraq for the next couple of decades. The problem that faces the people in the Beltway is how to stabilize things so that we can maintain that presence.

Looking back in history, the Korean War has as many, if not more parallels to Iraq then Vietnam: Unpopular war that really accomplished nothing, devastated countryside, respected commanders relieved of duty because of the situation, hugely unpopular President, etc. Substitute Islamism for Communism and you get the point. After Panmunjon, a sizable chunk of the US along with most South Koreans wanted the US out, but the SK leadership (which took 10 years to form a workable government) implored the US to stay as a deterrent to the North.

That has worked out well for both the US and South Koreans, but it took a lot of political will from both Truman and Eisenhower to get it done.

So, do we have the same fortitude as those gentlemen did?

Sully-

It is a talking point, and you not only know it, but use it constantly. I only quoted it because of the cynicism that is contained therein.

Danni-

We are talking past each other. My question is do you agree that we should pull out entirely, i.e. no American presence whatsoever?

Doc and Sully were able to answer the question, can you?

Larry-

LOL, since when did Danni start speaking for you?

The Delusions keep on flowing. The Mind Justifications keep on going. Why am I not surprised. They have to justify their support somehow I guess.

Larry

Great post, ROC. I'm not sure we do have the will. Korea was quite different than Iraq, of course, as South Korea was actually invaded with China threatening to assist with their own troops and bankrolling the north. On the other hand, WE invaded IRAQ, under the pretense of protecting ourselves from an imminent attack (some said biological, some implied nuclear) that proved to be...well, charitably it proved to be non-existent; many others call it fabricated. But I do agree with you that the aftermath of Iraq will certainly look similar in many ways to Korea, with even a DMZ possible to separate Kurds from Sunni from Shi'a.

Larry-

Substance, not drivel, drives a conversation.

Substance, not drivel, drives a conversation.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-02 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually it's electrical Impulses to the Brain that Drives Conversation. Just an FYI.

Larry

Sam-

Although partitioning has been thrown around, the problem is and will always remain what to do with the oil revenues...if you partition the Sunni areas away from the others, the Sunnis are screwed, since they have no oil.

At least in Korea there were no shared resources to speak of (if you have ever been there you would know that it is mostly rock, hills and scrub brush) so the dividing line was 100% politics.

Larry-

But upon receiving those impulses, the Brain creates substance, if it is capable.

C'mon, I know you are better than that.

Korea was quite different than Iraq, of course, as South Korea was actually invaded with China threatening to assist with their own troops and bankrolling the north

Sam-

Taking the longer term view, Iraq did invade a neighbor just 13 years before the current war, and we did kick them out, just as we did the NK and Chinese in 1952. The major difference is that we waited too long to oust the people responsible for that invasion. If we had toppled Saddam in 1993 and gone through all this pain then, the parallels are almost spot on.

"It is a talking point, and you not only know it, but use it constantly."

I use it constantly because its a tragedy that should never be repeated again. The CIC should do his homework before asking people to die on our behalf.

Answer my question: Do you think it was wasteful to invade Iraq over an imaginary threat or not?

""We are talking past each other. My question is do you agree that we should pull out entirely, i.e. no American presence whatsoever?""

Originally I didn't. I went along with the "pottery barn rule" even though I opposed our invasion of Iraq in the first place. However, that was then, today I think we should just leave because inevitably that is what we are going to do anyway, even if many won't admit it yet and thus any soldiers killed now or in the future are having thier lives wasted in a cause we already know is doomed. It is one thing to ask a soldier to risk his/her life in a conflict that you have some expectation of winning, it is another to ask them to risk their lives in an occupation that we know is failing and has virtually no hope of succeeding. Even the supposed successes recently of Patreus are due to increased troop strength and as soon as we leave it will revert to its previous condition so the troops are trying to bring peace to Iraqis who won't cooperate long term. Without their cooperation and active participation it is a wasted effort and that is what I believe it is in spite of the attempts to spin it differently lately by reporters who have supported the war from the beginning, and thus have no credibility.

""If we had toppled Saddam in 1993 and gone through all this pain then, the parallels are almost spot on.""

Perhaps you would like to consult with George Bush 1 about that. He warned us that invading and occupying would result in exactly the situation that it has. He wasn't alone either. This invasion was brought about by people who did not have a clue about Iraq and we are paying the price for their ignorance and arrogance.

Oh BTW, Bush the first had a force of 500,000+ to do the job with and still didn't think it would work, much less Rummy's criminally stupid plan to do it with 150,000.

Danni-

First of all, thanks for the reasoned and non-vitriolic response to my question. I know that you think that Bush, Rummy, Bremer, et al. are criminally stupid, and respect your right to have that opinion. However, the reasons that we are here are not relevant to what we do now, regardless of your personal animosity.

I agree that if the Iraqis never do anything to resolve their internal divisions and problems that there is nothing that we can do to stop the violence. However, I think that the Iraqi people will ultimately get tired of this BS and will address these issues.

One thing that gives me hope personally is the fact that there is at least one Iraqi division which is fully trained, integrated and operating at a level which is acceptable to their US trainers. Hopefully, if that continues to spread to other divisions, then no matter how fucked up the Interior Ministry and Police forces are, the Iraqi Military can keep the peace long enough for cooler heads to prevail.

Back in the 50's, the SKDF (South Korean Defense Force) and Police were riddled with NK sympathizers and useless in policing South Korea, and the US and UN MP's had to do the job for almost nine years. Once infrastructure was restored, a unity government in place and the NK influence swept north, South Korea started to flourish and troop drawdowns started.

I'll say it again, do we have the fortitude to finish what we started, regardless of the reasons therefor?

I'll say it again, do we have the fortitude to finish what we started, regardless of the reasons therefor?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-02 02:18 PM | Reply


So in 20 Years the situation is still the same WILL YOU THEN concede that We need to pull out?? Or will You still be cheering We need to stay the course diatribe??

Larry

Larry, if the situation is the same 5 years from now I will agree that nothing can be done. Indeed, if the shia and sunni start fighting a full blown civil war (with troops or militias from either side fighting openly, house to house for territory) then we absolutely step aside.

However, that is not the case now, and if the positive trends continue as noted by the analysts from Brookings, then there is continued hope that the mess can ultimately be cleaned up.

The problem that the anti-war left has with this is that all of the political capital that they have invested in Iraq goes for naught if things improve in Iraq... James Clyburn, the Majority Whip in Congress, admitted as much yesterday:

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

I think everyone wants things to improve for the Iraqis so that we can draw down the majority of our troops. What pisses me off is that both sides are playing politics with Iraq without regard for the real sacrifices that our troops are making. At the end of the day, a soldier getting shot at doesn't care what party his Congressman belongs to, he/she wants to kill the person shooting at him/her and get back to base alive.

but it is a FACT that they have invested thier campaign in our defeat since the only way they can be proved correct is that defeat.

there you go again BL2 talking Dittohead crap and parroting Rush Limbaugh...

It has never been about defeat ... America is not in danger of being defeated...after all who is it will we be surrendering to again?

It is about the Truth ... it is about doing the right thing. It is about creating REAL security for this country not some fake plastic fascist state.

Where are the WMDs?
How was Saddam Hussein a imminent threat to America?
Where were the 9/11 hijackers from again?
Why are we fighting them there?
How have we made America more secure?
How long will the war take?
How much will it cost?
How will it be funded?
Support the Troops!

The American People were lied about all these things and more.

So explain to us again how is holding this administration accountable for its lies and deceit investing in defeat?

Rightocenter - considering you made such a big deal about people not answering your questions, I'm surprised you refuse to answer mine:

Do you consider it wasteful that we invaded Iraq with a incomplete plans in order to neutralize a threat that did not exist and have lost 3,500 lives and hundreds of billions as a result?

Sully-

I didn't respond due to a little thing called a lunch meeting.

I don't agree that the threat did not exist, after all, Saddam invaded two of his neighbors over the past 25 years. I agree that the threat had diminished with sanctions, Gulf I and the no-fly zones, and that he had not reconstituted his WMD programs, but to say he was not a threat ignores the past. Sanctions don't last forever, and every report about the WMD debacle concedes that if sanctions were lifted, Saddam would have reconstituted his programs.

I agree that we invaded with incomplete plans, and that it has cost a lot of lives and money. But I think that we would have had to do it anyway once Saddam (or his sons, if sanctions lasted that long) started waving the saber again.

So it was "flawed," butt not inhumane or greed incarnate, and still in the "national interest," whatever the hell that might be? herm

"but to say he was not a threat ignores the past"

Saddam never posed any threat to the US.


Stricly from a national security standpoint, we'd of probaby been better off with him running the whole region and keeping the religious extremists under his boot.

Stricly from a national security standpoint, we'd of probaby been better off with him running the whole region and keeping the religious extremists under his boot.

Posted by Sully at 2007-08-02 05:53 PM


Like it or not, anything that threatens our energy supplies is a threat to national security. And it will remain that way until we are all posting this on the internet with a computer using some type of alternative power source (solar, wind, nuclear). Until then, energy (especially, gasp, oil) will be a major component of our national security.

Japan entered WWII not because they wanted world domination, but because they perceived, rightfully or wrongfully, that the US was going to cut off their energy supplies. An unfettered Saddam posed a very real threat in that regard.

Taken in that light, of course this war was about oil, but not in the simplistic sense that most people think: we were not necessarily trying to take Iraq's oil, but to make sure that our existing supplies (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE) were not threatened.

Taken in that light, of course this war was about oil, but not in the simplistic sense that most people think: we were not necessarily trying to take Iraq's oil, but to make sure that our existing supplies (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE) were not threatened.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-02 06:26 PM | Reply


Ofd course they are vtaking the Oil don't kid Yourself ROC. The Big Oil COnglomerqates are staking claims to that Oil as we speak. Oh and this Begs the question what God damned right do w2e have to take another Country's Oil?? You mean to tell Me You don't have a problem taking another Country's Natural Resourses??? Funny Dat Be.

Larry

I don't agree that the threat did not exist, after all, Saddam invaded two of his neighbors over the past 25 years. I agree that the threat had diminished with sanctions, Gulf I and the no-fly zones, and that he had not reconstituted his WMD programs, but to say he was not a threat ignores the past. Sanctions don't last forever, and every report about the WMD debacle concedes that if sanctions were lifted, Saddam would have reconstituted his programs.

I agree that we invaded with incomplete plans, and that it has cost a lot of lives and money. But I think that we would have had to do it anyway once Saddam (or his sons, if sanctions lasted that long) started waving the saber again.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-02 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Oh COme on You can not be serious aqnd declare Saddam was a threat. Firsty of all We helped and gave Him "Permission" to Invade Iran. Next We gave Him Permission to invade Kuwait til the Saudis had a royal(Pun Intended) fit. Where was the threat?? Oh and If You want to declare that the attacks upon Our AIrcraft Flying in the No Fly ZOnes Let Me remind You that those were Blatantly Illegal and Violated not only the UN Resolutions but they Violated the UN Charter as well. So where's the threat?? We had no reason to Invade Iraq it is just You guys whom supported it are trying like Hell to justify it in Your minds so You can sleep better in Your old age when this Shit comes back to haunt You. You Dig??

Larry

However, I think that the Iraqi people will ultimately get tired of this BS and will address these issues.

Almost without exception right-wingers from the White House on down have no idea who or what an Iraqi Muslim is or what motivates them. Yet, like Bush, they are convinced that Iraqis will magically come to their senses, forget that their country was destroyed and by whom and find their way to a way of life advocated for them by those very destroyers. The more optimistic of them are still in flowers and chocolate mode and imagine that nice juicy oil contracts will be offered to them too once they "get tired of this BS".

This from the party which exploits that segment of the American population which still holds grudges and a sense of grievance from our very own Civil War which ended nearly 150 years ago.

Larry-

I agree that we helped him against Iran (who we had no love for, obviously) but you seriously think we gave him "permission" to invade Kuwait? Was that so that the Bush family crime cabal could get a war under its belt?

As for the "no-fly" zones, that was implemented by the prior administrations, and was a poor apology for allowing Saddam to massacre tens of thousands of shiites in the south immediately after the war.

Get real.

Blue-

Do you think so little of the Iraqi people that they will never be able to resolve their differences?

And still holding a grudge over the Civil War? Wow, get over it.

"The Iraqi people" are among those resisting the US control of their country. "Al Qaida in Iraq" is a splinter group which came into Iraq after the US occupation, but which is likely attracting disillusioned young Iraqis to join their anti-American and anti Maliki operations.

Bush hides behind Petraous who is simply trying to buy time and be able to say the Iraqi forces are in greater control. But the Iraqi forces are among those groups who want the Iraqi government to fail and who want the US out.

The so-called "victory" which Bush/Cheney will pull out of the hat sometime next year will involve giving asylum to probably millions of Iraqis, those who have left already, and those who have helped our forces.

What does that do for our security "over here"?

And remember every one of these "optimistic" reports contains the phrase. "The situation in Iraq remains grave". You bet it does.

Yes I am saying We gave Him Permission tyo Invade Kuwait until the Saudi Royals had a shit fit. The Reason was to try and keep the Relationship between Iraq and the United States going. Don't forget that Bob Dole and His clan were trying to get some grain contracts and some other things with Saddam Hussein in 1990. Bank on THAT. Oh and YOU get real.

Larry

Yes I do think large segments of the South still hold grudges against those who they think made them victims of an unjust war that took away their rights. Enough to do everything in their power to thwart equal rights for African Americans through the 1960's, enough to vote consistently for Democrats who exploited that until the 60's and enough to vote Republican since then. Look up Nixon's Southern Strategy to get the details.

Does this have any bearing on the current situation in Iraq? In the sense that grudges get held out of a sense of grievance and it's difficult to argue that the Iraqis don't have the right to hold them.

"The Iraqi people" are among those resisting the US control of their country.

Some are, some support us. Used as a generic, I refer to everyone who wants a stable country that provides jobs, security and the essentials.

"Al Qaida in Iraq" is a splinter group which came into Iraq after the US occupation, but which is likely attracting disillusioned young Iraqis to join their anti-American and anti Maliki operations.

Agreed.

Bush hides behind Petraous who is simply trying to buy time and be able to say the Iraqi forces are in greater control.

I'm not sure Bush "hides" behind Petreous, but I certainly agree that his counterinsurgency tactics are trying to "buy time" for the country to stabilize so that Iraqi forces can assume control.

But the Iraqi forces are among those groups who want the Iraqi government to fail and who want the US out.

Give me a source for the proposition that "the Iraqi forces...want the Iraqi government to fail" and I will discuss it.

The so-called "victory" which Bush/Cheney will pull out of the hat sometime next year will involve giving asylum to probably millions of Iraqis, those who have left already, and those who have helped our forces.

What does that do for our security "over here"?


I don't know about millions, but if even if tens of thousands of people seek asylum, are you saying that we should tell them to look elsewhere? If they are properly screened, it shouldn't be a problem.

And remember every one of these "optimistic" reports contains the phrase. "The situation in Iraq remains grave". You bet it does.

It is grave, but hopefully will get better. Or don't you want it to?

Larry-

Source please...and try to make it something other then thinkprogress.org or whatreallyhappened.com.

Blue-

I see your point, and old prejudices die hard. It took 20 years before reconstruction of the South had progressed enough that Union troops could be moved back to their home states-up to that point the US Army deliberately stationed Northern troops in charge of Southern commands.

Which gets us back to the fortitude question: Do we have the balls to do what is right, given the mess that we have created?

Righto-
re: Do we have the balls to do what is right, given the mess that we have created?

"We"?

No. Not as long as "we" continue to shill and obstruct (and vote) for "we".

Righto-
re: I don't know about millions, but if even if tens of thousands of people seek asylum, are you saying that we should tell them to look elsewhere? If they are properly screened, it shouldn't be a problem.

It seems that you don't know.

How many Iraqi refugees have "we" allowed into our country? (Look it up)

Boyd these bastards want to shift the blame and the responsibility away from them and spread it to everyone. Thjis is how they operate. They get their tits in a wringer and then they want everyone to help get themselves out of deep shit. It never fails. They talk a big game then whine and snivel like lil Kids.

Larry

How many Iraqi refugees have "we" allowed into our country? (Look it up)

Posted by Boyd at 2007-08-02 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

If memory serves Me correctly somewhere around 700 Seven Hundred. THAT is it.

Larry

"If memory serves Me correctly somewhere around 700 Seven Hundred. THAT is it.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr"


Students:

Compare and contrast with the number of Vietnamese refugees in the US; The number of Holocaust refugees.

I'd think that the fact that so many Iraqi forces are also members of some private army or death squad is evidence enough they want the formal government to fail on one or more levels.

Of course, I'd think that because I'm interested in the reality of Iraq.

But, you know, if you play your cards really right, I'm sure you can help sink this country to the tune of another $500 billion and 4,000 casualties fighting a war there for another five years.

Do we have the balls to do what is right, given the mess that we have created?

I think "balls" is the wrong word. Fortitude might be a better one. It's hard to deliberately choose to put yourself in jeopardy purely out of a sense of obligation to correct a bad situation that you yourself caused. It's harder to sustain it over a long period when the only reward likely is the sense that you're doing the right thing. It's harder yet to do it when you not only get no thanks for doing so but hatred and scorn instead.

That's where these neocon swine with their jingoistic notions of American exceptionalism and mad schemes of an American hegemony earned as a right have placed us. We do have an obligation to Iraq. It was us who destroyed their country and directly and indirectly caused the violent or premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of them. So we're stuck with an obligation that hardly anybody wants, is costing us dearly and yet seems inescapable - at least in the short term.

We who oppose Bush and his policies are often accused of Bush-bashing and Bush Derangement Syndrome. Speaking only for myself I can't see how it is deranged to oppose Bush and his disastrous policies and if anybody ever needed a good bashing, it's him.

I still do not see how We that opposed the Illegal Iraq War are responsible for it. If I robbed a Bank it would be upon My shoulders NO ONE elses. So why Should I or anyone like Me be required to pick up the pieces?? It is Immature to expect others to pick up after You.

Larry

Don't fret precious I'm here,
step away from the window
and go back to sleep

Lay your head down child
I won't let the boogeymen come
Count their bodies like sheep
To the rhythm of the war drums
Pay no mind to the rabble
Pay no mind to the rabble
Head down, go to sleep
To the rhythm of the war drums

Pay no mind what other voices say
They don't care about you, like I do, (like I do)
Safe from pain, and truth, and choice, and other poison devils,
See, they don't give a fuck about you, like I do.

Just stay with me,
safe and ignorant, go,
back to sleep, go
back to sleep

Lay your head down child
I won't let the boogeymen come
Count their bodies like sheep
To the rhythm of the war drums
Pay no mind to the rabble
Pay no mind to the rabble
Head down, go to sleep
To the rhythm of the war drums

I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices son
They're one and the same
I must isolate you
Isolate and save you from yourself

Swayin' to the rhythm of the new world order and
Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums
The boogeymen are coming
The boogeymen are coming
Keep your head down, go to sleep
To the rhythm of the war drums

Stay with me
Safe and ignorant
Just stay with me
I'll hold you and protect you from the other ones,
The evil ones, don't love you son,
Go back to sleep.

Perfect Circle "pet"

""We who oppose Bush and his policies are often accused of Bush-bashing and Bush Derangement Syndrome.""

Also known as sanity.

This is interesting.

www.militarytimes.com

"We"?

No. Not as long as "we" continue to shill and obstruct (and vote) for "we".

Posted by Boyd at 2007-08-02 08:37 PM

and


Boyd these bastards want to shift the blame and the responsibility away from them and spread it to everyone. Thjis is how they operate. They get their tits in a wringer and then they want everyone to help get themselves out of deep shit. It never fails. They talk a big game then whine and snivel like lil Kids.

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-08-02 08:51 PM


You hate Bush with the core of your being, we all get that. Let's say that Hillary/Obama/Dem of your choice becomes President in '08. Do "we" have the fortitude to clean up the mess that the Satanistic Bush Crime Cabal (or epithet of your choice) created? Or is your solution just to leave the Iraqis to clean up on their own and blame it on the prior administration?

It is Immature to expect others to pick up after You.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-08-02 11:54 PM


My point exactly...I just think that America is the sum of its parts, not Right or Left, Bush Voters v. Haters, etc. The next President will, barring some massive fuckup by the Dems, be a Dem. At that time, do you maintain that position, or if "Your" President says that we have to clean up, do you change your tune?

I think "balls" is the wrong word. Fortitude might be a better one. It's hard to deliberately choose to put yourself in jeopardy purely out of a sense of obligation to correct a bad situation that you yourself caused. It's harder to sustain it over a long period when the only reward likely is the sense that you're doing the right thing. It's harder yet to do it when you not only get no thanks for doing so but hatred and scorn instead.

...

We do have an obligation to Iraq. It was us who destroyed their country and directly and indirectly caused the violent or premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of them. So we're stuck with an obligation that hardly anybody wants, is costing us dearly and yet seems inescapable - at least in the short term.

Posted by BlueInBushland at 2007-08-02 11:31 PM


Stripped of the vitriol, we agree, and if you read earlier posts, "Fortitude" is the term I used first. The question then becomes, what do we do to rectify the situation and satisfy the obligation?

You hate Bush with the core of your being, we all get that. Let's say that Hillary/Obama/Dem of your choice becomes President in '08. Do "we" have the fortitude to clean up the mess that the Satanistic Bush Crime Cabal (or epithet of your choice) created? Or is your solution just to leave the Iraqis to clean up on their own and blame it on the prior administration?

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-08-03 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No way not Our Responsiobility We did not make the mess. No matter how despwerate You right wingers are to shift responsibility upon those that didn't support it. Would You support Me if I robbed a Bank?? SERIOUSLY?? This one is on Dubya. How can You expect another to clean up something for which they didn't do??

Larry

Larry-

Bush is gone in 17 months, and we will still be in Iraq. What then?

Forget the Bush bogeyman for a second...let's say you have been elected President. What does President Mohr do about the mess that Bush left on your plate?

I would be begining a withdrawl and saving as many AMerican lives as possible THAT is what I would do if I became President in 2009. Bank on THAT.

Larry

Larry-

See, that wasn't so hard. Do you withdraw everyone, shut down the embassy and leave the Iraqi's to their own devices or do you try on some (minimal or otherwise) to help provide some assistance?

What about President Boyd? What does he do?

Wonder what ROC will have to say now ehhhhhhhhh Dave.

I think that ROC has answered that question, and kudos to him for trying to draw people out to an honest and frank discussion on a passionate issue.

The next President (Hill/Obama/Larry/Boyd) is going to have his or her work cut out for them, and facing the "reality" of Iraq will not have too many good choices. While those of us who hate the position Bush has put us in would love to erase history, deep down we know that we can't, and have to make the best of the shit sandwich that the neo-cons have served us.

Realistically, if nothing has changed, and the surge has ended, which it will because we can't sustain it forever, I think that we consolidate around any gains made, work to make those areas better, protect our embassy and hope the Iraqi's pull their keffiyeh out of their burkas, stop killing each other and put in place whatever system works best for them.

I agree with ROC that we aren't going to be leaving Iraq any time in the next quarter century, so we might as well deal with it.

"...we aren't going to be leaving Iraq any time in the next quarter century, so we might as well deal with it."

I know Bush did it and we can't undo it, but the ONLY realistic approach is "sorry, we blew it, we're outa here as of yesterday; send us the bill." Anything else will not take 25 years. It will take forever. herm

LCL-

Thanks. When you talk about consolidating gains, does that mean that if an area (i.e. Ramahdi) is stable we stay there and ignore the rest?

Herm-

When you say "send us the bill", what exactly do you mean...reparations, restitution, foreign aid?

Larry? Boyd?

I suggest everyone read this:

www.huffingtonpost.com

The True Meaning Of The Alliance Between The US Military And The Sunni Insurgents

This a major setback for the U.S. plans, made necessary by the miserable failure of the surge. The basic agreement is that the U.S. will turn over the fight in these communities to these new recruited "former" insurgents. Or, put another way, instead of U.S. troops trying to pacify these neighborhoods, they will let these local residents police their own communities. But, keep in mind, these local residents are nothing more than the militiamen/insurgents who have been fighting the U.S. So right away, we see that this is a retreat by the U.S. from these cities and neighborhoods.

Remember that the surge was supposed to destroy the militias and place the Iraqi government in control of Sunni communities. Instead, the U.S. is now granting local control to the very militias it has been fighting since the end of "major combat operations." This means that, in many Anbar cities and a growing number of neighborhoods in Baghdad, the U.S. is giving up on its effort to pacify the country, and instead allowing the insurgency to rule these areas unhindered.


In other words, the surge is weakening the US position and strengthening the hand of the very people who've been targeting and killing Americans since the insurgency began!

Whatever the US does after January 20, 2009 will be dictated by conditions on the ground at that time and whether or not the unity government even exists then. There is no way to anticipate the hand our next President will be dealt. The only thing we can do is make our choice based upon their judgment, not just on their abstract ideas which may be meaningless in the future.

Tony-

I read Schwartz's post this morning (yes, I read the HP regularly, and have since Andrew Breitbart set it up for Ariana) and dismissed it as the rantings of a self proclaimed "anarchist" and professor at Stony Brook Univ. who writes books on Radical Protest and why the CIA is responsible for every ill of the world. Yes, it is part of the counterinsurgency manual to engage the insurgents in assisting in stabilizing their territory, but since the troops are actually staying in Anbar and working with these former insurgents, to say that the US is "allowing the insurgency to rule these areas unhindered" flies against most reports coming out of Iraq. If Michael actually left the cosy confines of Stony Brook to spend some time in Iraq and confirmed this with his own eyes, then I would listen. However, his punditry from afar is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

This, however, I found interesting:

Whatever the US does after January 20, 2009 will be dictated by conditions on the ground at that time and whether or not the unity government even exists then.

Sounds like you are tearing a page from Bush's notepad, since he has been saying that for a couple of years now, to a cacophony of jeers from the Left.

"Well, if you take a look at what happened on September 11th, 2001, it's estimated that the aftershocks of that could have cost up to $1 trillion."
-- Tony Snow, on new Congressional Budget Office report that puts the cost of the Iraq war at more than $1 trillion

There is nothing about the failure of our mission in Iraq that the White House won't spin, lie, or obfuscate.

Herm- When you say "send us the bill", what exactly do you mean...reparations, restitution, foreign aid?

A fine, meaningful question. I'd want to listen to all sides. But we will have spent a trillion (?) tearing the place apart for 17 gallons of gasoline and a chance to make our commander in chimp feel heroic. How much would it cost to buy a prosthetic limb for every kid who lost a real one, either to our weapons or to the weapons used in the civil war which we abetted? herm

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable