Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Completely Delusional
The preznit says the violence in Iraq between Shia and Sunni is not a civil war but rather an Al Qaeda plot against the West. I kid you not. Here's the Associated Press with the story:
So I guess since the preznit believes Iraq has been in "this phase" for a while now and the preznit hasn't seen fit to change war policy the whole time, it wouldn't be out of order to figure the current surge in violence won't bring a change in policy either?
And that would be right. Again, the Associated Press:
It looks like we're getting more of the same. Behind the scenes, it seems that the Bushies have told the Baker-Hamilton Commission in no uncertain terms that phased withdrawal of U.S. troops and diplomacy with Iran and Syria are out. Rumor has it that James Baker got the message and is crafting a plan that will be to the liking of both Bush and Cheney while forcing Democrats to take part ownership of this fucking mess by signing onto Bush's "Stand and Bleed" policy for at least the next 6-9 months.
And of course none of this policy wrangling is REALLY about solving the problems in Iraq. It's simply about finding a way to place blame on somebody other than Barbara Bush's incompetent little boy.
I suspect that the American people, usually pretty easily manipulated overall, won't be so easily fooled this time around. Post-Katrina, Bush no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. And as the carnage in Iraq grows worse each month and the administration simply throws its hands in the air and changes nothing but the rhetoric, most people seem to know EXACTLY who's to blame for this awful, awful mess.
TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — President Bush said Tuesday that the sectarian violence rocking Iraq is part of an al-Qaeda plot to goad Iraqi factions into repeated attacks and counterattacks.
"No question it's tough, no question about it," Bush said at a news conference with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves. "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al-Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal."
Bush, who travels to Jordan later in the week for a summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the latest cycle of violence does not represent a new era in Iraq. The country is reeling from the deadliest week of sectarian fighting since the war began in March 2003.
"We've been in this phase for a while," Bush said.
The president dated the current spike in violence to the Feb. 22 bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra, which triggered reprisal attacks between Shiites and Sunnis and raised fears of civil war.
So I guess since the preznit believes Iraq has been in "this phase" for a while now and the preznit hasn't seen fit to change war policy the whole time, it wouldn't be out of order to figure the current surge in violence won't bring a change in policy either?
And that would be right. Again, the Associated Press:
Directly seeking help from Iran and Syria with Iraq, as part of new, aggressive diplomacy throughout the region, is expected to be among the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton group.
But Bush continued to express his administration's reluctance to talk with two nations it regards as pariah states working to destabilize the Middle East.
Iran, the top U.S. rival in the region, has reached out to Iraq and Syria in recent days — an attempt viewed as a bid to assert its role as a powerbroker in Iraq.
Bush said Iraq is a sovereign nation, free to meet with its neighbors. "If that's what they think they ought to do, that's fine," he said. "One thing Iraq would like to see is for the Iranians to leave them alone."
The president added that the U.S. will only deal with Iran when they suspend their program of enriching uranium, which could be used in a nuclear weapon arsenal.
"The Iranians and the Syrians should help — not destabilize — this young democracy," he said.
It looks like we're getting more of the same. Behind the scenes, it seems that the Bushies have told the Baker-Hamilton Commission in no uncertain terms that phased withdrawal of U.S. troops and diplomacy with Iran and Syria are out. Rumor has it that James Baker got the message and is crafting a plan that will be to the liking of both Bush and Cheney while forcing Democrats to take part ownership of this fucking mess by signing onto Bush's "Stand and Bleed" policy for at least the next 6-9 months.
And of course none of this policy wrangling is REALLY about solving the problems in Iraq. It's simply about finding a way to place blame on somebody other than Barbara Bush's incompetent little boy.
I suspect that the American people, usually pretty easily manipulated overall, won't be so easily fooled this time around. Post-Katrina, Bush no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. And as the carnage in Iraq grows worse each month and the administration simply throws its hands in the air and changes nothing but the rhetoric, most people seem to know EXACTLY who's to blame for this awful, awful mess.
Comments:
<< Home
reality, as always, you're long on complaints and short on alternatives.
If you want to rant and rave about the state of things in Iraq, you should also provide a few ideas about what changes should be made and WHY your strategies would lead to better results than we hope to achieve via our current plans.
If you want to rant and rave about the state of things in Iraq, you should also provide a few ideas about what changes should be made and WHY your strategies would lead to better results than we hope to achieve via our current plans.
Why should RBE have to come up with alternatives when the administration doesn't have any?
I find it quite ironic that people like yourself who advocate the war expect those of us who were against the war to come up with a solution to the mess.
Shouldn't the people who started this war be first to provide alternatives?
I find it quite ironic that people like yourself who advocate the war expect those of us who were against the war to come up with a solution to the mess.
Shouldn't the people who started this war be first to provide alternatives?
Bullshit - as pt says, why should opponents come up with alternatives when the admin and supporters like yourself don't have them?
I didn't invade the country, I said invading it was a bad idea and I said invading with so few troops was REALLY a bad idea. The Pottery Barn rule applies - it's Bush's war, he broke the country, he owns it, baby, along with the chickenhawk motherfuckers who cheerled the whole way without asking any of the sober questions like: a) Is the containment of Saddam working? b) Does Saddam REALLY have WMD's or are we believing our own hype c) Is invading a country of 26 million with a force of 152,000 troops REALLY a good idea or should you send in the 400,000 General Shineski said would be necessary to secure the peace?
The scary thing is, even after all this time, the guy in charge hasn't learned his lessons, which are:
First one: Don't invade a country with a Sunni/Shia mix if you don't understand what the terms "Sunni" or "Shia" mean
Second one: Don't invade a country with too few troops to secure it.
Third one: At the first signs of an insurgency, address the problem rather than deny it (and let it grow fairly unabated for many months)
Fourth one: When things go wrong, don't stubbornly stick to your plan as the ONLY WAY and call any and every critic a "Cut and Runner" and a "Defeatist."
Fifth one: When your family throws you a lifeline and provides a Commission to give you cover to change policy, don't screw it up by telling the Commission, "Sorry, it's my way or no way."
I didn't invade the country, I said invading it was a bad idea and I said invading with so few troops was REALLY a bad idea. The Pottery Barn rule applies - it's Bush's war, he broke the country, he owns it, baby, along with the chickenhawk motherfuckers who cheerled the whole way without asking any of the sober questions like: a) Is the containment of Saddam working? b) Does Saddam REALLY have WMD's or are we believing our own hype c) Is invading a country of 26 million with a force of 152,000 troops REALLY a good idea or should you send in the 400,000 General Shineski said would be necessary to secure the peace?
The scary thing is, even after all this time, the guy in charge hasn't learned his lessons, which are:
First one: Don't invade a country with a Sunni/Shia mix if you don't understand what the terms "Sunni" or "Shia" mean
Second one: Don't invade a country with too few troops to secure it.
Third one: At the first signs of an insurgency, address the problem rather than deny it (and let it grow fairly unabated for many months)
Fourth one: When things go wrong, don't stubbornly stick to your plan as the ONLY WAY and call any and every critic a "Cut and Runner" and a "Defeatist."
Fifth one: When your family throws you a lifeline and provides a Commission to give you cover to change policy, don't screw it up by telling the Commission, "Sorry, it's my way or no way."
reality and praguetwin, as always you two avoid any real analysis.
Let's get real.
Tomorrow is another day. Soldiers' lives are on the line. Civilian lives are on the line.
US military leaders must know their objective.
Let's assume you are now in charge. What would you order our mililtary to do tomorrow and every day after that?
If you can't offer a response, then just shut up and admit to yourselves you're blowhards.
If you think withdrawing our troops is the answer, then man-up and say so.
But frankly, I don't think either of you two clowns believe an overnight withdrawal of troops will solve the muslim problem.
I think both of you know that if we leave the middle east unchecked, some middle-easterners will attack us again.
So instead of dancing around the topic like nitwits, cough up a strategy.
Let's get real.
Tomorrow is another day. Soldiers' lives are on the line. Civilian lives are on the line.
US military leaders must know their objective.
Let's assume you are now in charge. What would you order our mililtary to do tomorrow and every day after that?
If you can't offer a response, then just shut up and admit to yourselves you're blowhards.
If you think withdrawing our troops is the answer, then man-up and say so.
But frankly, I don't think either of you two clowns believe an overnight withdrawal of troops will solve the muslim problem.
I think both of you know that if we leave the middle east unchecked, some middle-easterners will attack us again.
So instead of dancing around the topic like nitwits, cough up a strategy.
Why don't you sign up and put your money where you mouth is in this Global Conflict Against Muslim Extremism?
Frankly, I think people like yourself, who bang the drum for war so safely from the comfort of your own home and working cubicle but completely avoid any real meaningful action that would directly effect the war, are beneath contempt. If this war is so important to you and you think we need to win it so badly, why don't you take a physical action in support of the war besides leaving comments at blogs? Or are you too much of a coward to put your money where you mouth is and actually step into uniform to fight those big bad Mulsims your so terrified of?
Frankly, I think people like yourself, who bang the drum for war so safely from the comfort of your own home and working cubicle but completely avoid any real meaningful action that would directly effect the war, are beneath contempt. If this war is so important to you and you think we need to win it so badly, why don't you take a physical action in support of the war besides leaving comments at blogs? Or are you too much of a coward to put your money where you mouth is and actually step into uniform to fight those big bad Mulsims your so terrified of?
reality, you wrote:
"Why don't you sign up and put your money where you mouth is in this Global Conflict Against Muslim Extremism?"
As a matter of fact, several months ago I dropped by my friendly Army Recruiter's office and tried to do exactly what you suggested.
However, despite having an engineering degree and some useful experience, I was told "Sir, you are too old to enlist."
So ended my military exploits.
You also wrote:
"Frankly, I think people like yourself, who bang the drum for war so safely from the comfort of your own home and working cubicle but completely avoid any real meaningful action that would directly effect the war, are beneath contempt."
Ouch. That hurts. Really
By the way, you created a blog to bang your drum, toot your horn and generally plaster your views around cyberspace in hopes of collecting an army of fellow travelers. It's amusing that you think you operate on a lofty plane for being a strident and shrill opponent of freedom and democracy.
You added:
"If this war is so important to you and you think we need to win it so badly, why don't you take a physical action in support of the war besides leaving comments at blogs?"
As usual, like nyc_educator and other teachers I've encountered, you're happiest in the role of blog dictator -- standing against free and open discussions that include opposing points of view.
You've got the mistaken idea you're standing on the moral high ground. But, in fact, you have no idea how shortsighted your beliefs are or that you are standing on a strategic sand pile.
And, as I mentioned in another post, you don't have a plan or an idea. It's tough to argue that our current course is wrong when you can't offer a more promising strategy and that suggests a more desirable outcome.
It's as though you believe the region will settle into some state of equilibrium if we simply depart. But that's never been the case, and as long as the region is a democracy-free zone, it never will be the case.
What would the middle east look like if we had not removed saddam? I suppose you're in the camp of those who think there was no major trouble brewing between Iraq and its neighbors before we rolled in. Or that Iran wasn't well on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons.
"Why don't you sign up and put your money where you mouth is in this Global Conflict Against Muslim Extremism?"
As a matter of fact, several months ago I dropped by my friendly Army Recruiter's office and tried to do exactly what you suggested.
However, despite having an engineering degree and some useful experience, I was told "Sir, you are too old to enlist."
So ended my military exploits.
You also wrote:
"Frankly, I think people like yourself, who bang the drum for war so safely from the comfort of your own home and working cubicle but completely avoid any real meaningful action that would directly effect the war, are beneath contempt."
Ouch. That hurts. Really
By the way, you created a blog to bang your drum, toot your horn and generally plaster your views around cyberspace in hopes of collecting an army of fellow travelers. It's amusing that you think you operate on a lofty plane for being a strident and shrill opponent of freedom and democracy.
You added:
"If this war is so important to you and you think we need to win it so badly, why don't you take a physical action in support of the war besides leaving comments at blogs?"
As usual, like nyc_educator and other teachers I've encountered, you're happiest in the role of blog dictator -- standing against free and open discussions that include opposing points of view.
You've got the mistaken idea you're standing on the moral high ground. But, in fact, you have no idea how shortsighted your beliefs are or that you are standing on a strategic sand pile.
And, as I mentioned in another post, you don't have a plan or an idea. It's tough to argue that our current course is wrong when you can't offer a more promising strategy and that suggests a more desirable outcome.
It's as though you believe the region will settle into some state of equilibrium if we simply depart. But that's never been the case, and as long as the region is a democracy-free zone, it never will be the case.
What would the middle east look like if we had not removed saddam? I suppose you're in the camp of those who think there was no major trouble brewing between Iraq and its neighbors before we rolled in. Or that Iran wasn't well on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons.
No Slappz,
Let us accept that there was trouble brewing between Iraq and its neighbors. Let us also accept tha Iran was well on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
Let us recall the deep emnity that existed betweeen Saddam and Iran.
Now answer the following question: Would the interests of the U.S. and Israel, not to mention Jordan and Lebanon, have been bettter serve to leave Saddam in situ as a foil to Iranian ambitions?
If not, why not?
Let us accept that there was trouble brewing between Iraq and its neighbors. Let us also accept tha Iran was well on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
Let us recall the deep emnity that existed betweeen Saddam and Iran.
Now answer the following question: Would the interests of the U.S. and Israel, not to mention Jordan and Lebanon, have been bettter serve to leave Saddam in situ as a foil to Iranian ambitions?
If not, why not?
# posted by 
: 1:48 PM
: 1:48 PM
loop garoo, you asked:
"Would the interests of the U.S. and Israel, not to mention Jordan and Lebanon, have been bettter serve to leave Saddam in situ as a foil to Iranian ambitions?"
No.
The presence of saddam had no dampening effect on Iranian activities in Lebanon or anywhere else. Therefore Israel gained no edge in the safety department. Furthermore, saddam was a benefactor who paid generous sums to the families of departed palestinian suicide bombers.
With saddam gone and Iraq in turmoil, the Iranians are now sizing up their neighbor and wondering how to seize it.
If you're looking for ways to keep Iranians busy and generally off the streets, invading Iraq will do the trick. While that slaughter is underway, their bomb-making will ocntinue till they finally produce one or two or ten that are likely to work when ahmadinejad pushes the button and sends them toward Tel Aviv.
As for Jordan, well, it's nothing more than a poor nation that exports the occasional world-class terrorist and refuses to allow palestinians to settle within its borders. Ironically, the only middle-east country open to palestinians is Israel. But muslims don't like to discuss how much they hate each other.
Like H.L. Mencken said about women, the only people muslims hate more than Christians and Jews are other muslims.
Meanwhile, Jordan is of little use to the muslim world. It lacks almost everything, particularly oil.
Anyway, the least crappy alternative that serves the interests of the US, Israel and the world is a democratic middle east.
If adherence to the Koran remains a hurdle over which democracy cannot climb, the next least crappiest alternative is the partitioning of Iraq into its three tribal parts.
If Iran wants to annex the shiite region, who cares? As long as Iran doesn't seize the kurdish oil region, they can have the rest. That will keep them busy slaughtering and ethnically cleansing for several years.
But that won't stop the Iranians from working on the bomb.
Perhaps Pakistan will begin to object to another nuclear neighbor, one likely to start a war with Israel that would very likely unleash nuclear shots flying in from many parts, not just Israel.
I don't know why anyone would think Iran or any other islamic dictatorship would chuck its essential West-hating nature. But a thousand years of history clearly demonstrates that muslims under any form of government aren't at home unless they've created some misery to wallow in, which is then blamed on the non-muslims of the world, no matter how far away they live.
It's the koran. The thing is worse than crack. And they believe that book answers all life's questions. One ridiculous little book.
"Would the interests of the U.S. and Israel, not to mention Jordan and Lebanon, have been bettter serve to leave Saddam in situ as a foil to Iranian ambitions?"
No.
The presence of saddam had no dampening effect on Iranian activities in Lebanon or anywhere else. Therefore Israel gained no edge in the safety department. Furthermore, saddam was a benefactor who paid generous sums to the families of departed palestinian suicide bombers.
With saddam gone and Iraq in turmoil, the Iranians are now sizing up their neighbor and wondering how to seize it.
If you're looking for ways to keep Iranians busy and generally off the streets, invading Iraq will do the trick. While that slaughter is underway, their bomb-making will ocntinue till they finally produce one or two or ten that are likely to work when ahmadinejad pushes the button and sends them toward Tel Aviv.
As for Jordan, well, it's nothing more than a poor nation that exports the occasional world-class terrorist and refuses to allow palestinians to settle within its borders. Ironically, the only middle-east country open to palestinians is Israel. But muslims don't like to discuss how much they hate each other.
Like H.L. Mencken said about women, the only people muslims hate more than Christians and Jews are other muslims.
Meanwhile, Jordan is of little use to the muslim world. It lacks almost everything, particularly oil.
Anyway, the least crappy alternative that serves the interests of the US, Israel and the world is a democratic middle east.
If adherence to the Koran remains a hurdle over which democracy cannot climb, the next least crappiest alternative is the partitioning of Iraq into its three tribal parts.
If Iran wants to annex the shiite region, who cares? As long as Iran doesn't seize the kurdish oil region, they can have the rest. That will keep them busy slaughtering and ethnically cleansing for several years.
But that won't stop the Iranians from working on the bomb.
Perhaps Pakistan will begin to object to another nuclear neighbor, one likely to start a war with Israel that would very likely unleash nuclear shots flying in from many parts, not just Israel.
I don't know why anyone would think Iran or any other islamic dictatorship would chuck its essential West-hating nature. But a thousand years of history clearly demonstrates that muslims under any form of government aren't at home unless they've created some misery to wallow in, which is then blamed on the non-muslims of the world, no matter how far away they live.
It's the koran. The thing is worse than crack. And they believe that book answers all life's questions. One ridiculous little book.
I'm glad to hear you tried to enlist. Since your too old for the Army, perhaps one of the privatized companies providing services, like KBR, will take your services? I'm sure they could use an engineer. And if they can't, then drive a truck. Anything to help the Great Crusade Against World Wide Extremist Jihad, or whatever the fuck their calling the WoT these days.
Why should I provide a plan for Iraq when Bush and Cheney don't give a shit about any plans but their own? The Bush Family provided him with a perfect out plan with this Baker-Hamilton Commission, but Little Georgie was too stubborn to take it. So we'll get more of the same and more people will die and it's all because the man in charge is a delusional nutcase with a messianic complex who thinks only he knows how to "complete the mission."
Why should I provide a plan for Iraq when Bush and Cheney don't give a shit about any plans but their own? The Bush Family provided him with a perfect out plan with this Baker-Hamilton Commission, but Little Georgie was too stubborn to take it. So we'll get more of the same and more people will die and it's all because the man in charge is a delusional nutcase with a messianic complex who thinks only he knows how to "complete the mission."
reality, you wrote:
"Why should I provide a plan for Iraq when Bush and Cheney don't give a shit about any plans but their own?"
Why should you offer some ideas? Because unless you've got thoughts on what will lead us to a better place the path we're following you've got no rational basis for claiming the current strategy won't work.
Your argument boils down to screaming that the current actions won't get us to where we want to be simply because you say so.
That kind of statement could have been made during much of WWII. In the Battle of the Bulge 19,000 US troops died in six weeks.
I'm sure you'd have been among the isolationists of that era; they were just as convinced of their own rightness as you. But they were wrong.
As for working in Iraq as an engineer, well, I'm all but certain no one would hire me in that capacity because I haven't worked in engineering since college. Truck driving, well, I don't have a commercial driver's license, but that's probably not an issue over there.
Since you're interested in seeing me in Iraq, why don't you check the some job listings for me and let me know what's available. I can guarantee you I will contact the potential employers.
"Why should I provide a plan for Iraq when Bush and Cheney don't give a shit about any plans but their own?"
Why should you offer some ideas? Because unless you've got thoughts on what will lead us to a better place the path we're following you've got no rational basis for claiming the current strategy won't work.
Your argument boils down to screaming that the current actions won't get us to where we want to be simply because you say so.
That kind of statement could have been made during much of WWII. In the Battle of the Bulge 19,000 US troops died in six weeks.
I'm sure you'd have been among the isolationists of that era; they were just as convinced of their own rightness as you. But they were wrong.
As for working in Iraq as an engineer, well, I'm all but certain no one would hire me in that capacity because I haven't worked in engineering since college. Truck driving, well, I don't have a commercial driver's license, but that's probably not an issue over there.
Since you're interested in seeing me in Iraq, why don't you check the some job listings for me and let me know what's available. I can guarantee you I will contact the potential employers.
When they decided to invade Iraq, I said finish the mission in Afghanistan. They didn't listen. When they decided to invade Iraq w/ 150,000+ troops, I said brings at least 200,000 more (per Shinseki.) They didn't listen. When the insurgency first started to rage, I said send on more troops even if you have to start a draft to do it (McCain said something very similar, btw.) They didn't do it.
Sorry - thias is not my fault and certainly not my responsibility to clean up. it is the responsibility of the administration and the uncritical war supporters like yourself who never once took the admin to task for its arrogance, incompetence, and screw-ups.
Sorry - thias is not my fault and certainly not my responsibility to clean up. it is the responsibility of the administration and the uncritical war supporters like yourself who never once took the admin to task for its arrogance, incompetence, and screw-ups.
No_slappz,
Still no solutions, but I see you have reduced yourself to name calling.
For a guy too old to enlist, your arguing style certainly is juvenille.
Who cares if Iran takes the south of Iraq? I think Kuwait and Saudia Arabia to name two.
All we are saying is if you belive this war was the right thing to do, why dont you outline the positive end-game here and how we get there.
Us "clowns" would really appreciate it, because we just can't see a good result in our limited sights.
Once again, I urge you to enlighten me. Once again, I'm sure you will fail to do so.
Still no solutions, but I see you have reduced yourself to name calling.
For a guy too old to enlist, your arguing style certainly is juvenille.
Who cares if Iran takes the south of Iraq? I think Kuwait and Saudia Arabia to name two.
All we are saying is if you belive this war was the right thing to do, why dont you outline the positive end-game here and how we get there.
Us "clowns" would really appreciate it, because we just can't see a good result in our limited sights.
Once again, I urge you to enlighten me. Once again, I'm sure you will fail to do so.
No Slappz,
I disagree w/ nearly everyting in your last post.
As I have remarked elsewhere, democracy is not for evryone. The idea of a democratic Iraq has no historical basis and will have no empiracl reality.
Saddam Hussein never posed a serious threat to our national security. It would have been better to devote our resources to finishing the mmission in Afghanistan which is now in serious jeapardy.
What do you think Saddam Hussein would be doing when confronted w/ Iranian nuclear ambitions?
Yes Jordan has no oil but it is beginning to develop its people as a resource.
As for the Palestinians, would you want them living in your country fomenting trouble? It is completely unclear to me that the Palestinians want anything other than the destruction of Israel. If that were to be accomplished, they would then bein eating each other. Oh wait, they are doing that already.
I disagree w/ nearly everyting in your last post.
As I have remarked elsewhere, democracy is not for evryone. The idea of a democratic Iraq has no historical basis and will have no empiracl reality.
Saddam Hussein never posed a serious threat to our national security. It would have been better to devote our resources to finishing the mmission in Afghanistan which is now in serious jeapardy.
What do you think Saddam Hussein would be doing when confronted w/ Iranian nuclear ambitions?
Yes Jordan has no oil but it is beginning to develop its people as a resource.
As for the Palestinians, would you want them living in your country fomenting trouble? It is completely unclear to me that the Palestinians want anything other than the destruction of Israel. If that were to be accomplished, they would then bein eating each other. Oh wait, they are doing that already.
# posted by : 1:08 PM
: 1:08 PM
loop garoo, you wrote:
"As I have remarked elsewhere, democracy is not for evryone."
Says you.
You wrote:
"The idea of a democratic Iraq has no historical basis and will have no empiracl reality."
Democracy was without an historical basis in Japan, Germany, the US, Israel and every other nation in which it arose.
Your prediction of democracy's failure in Iraq and, by extension, the other middle east muslim dictatorships, means we should put aside all high-minded ideals and concentrate on ensuring that a modern oil industry is built in each middle eastern state and that oil flows unimpeded to world markets to be purchased at market prices.
You wrote:
"What do you think Saddam Hussein would be doing when confronted w/ Iranian nuclear ambitions?"
He'd seek a nuclear bomb of his own. If you think saddam's desire for a bomb would hamper Iran's drive or willingness to attack, you are mistaken. Both countries are willing to incur massive deaths as they move through their pointless existences.
Meanwhile, saddam was confronted with the fact that its neighbor was going nuclear. You might recall that saddam was developing his own nuclear capabilities at Osirik until Israel bombed the facility in 1981. Did Israel do Iran a favor bombing the Iraqi facility? Or did Israel head off a big problem for the world?
An arms race among muslims does not resemble a similar game between countries like the US and the former Soviet Union.
"As I have remarked elsewhere, democracy is not for evryone."
Says you.
You wrote:
"The idea of a democratic Iraq has no historical basis and will have no empiracl reality."
Democracy was without an historical basis in Japan, Germany, the US, Israel and every other nation in which it arose.
Your prediction of democracy's failure in Iraq and, by extension, the other middle east muslim dictatorships, means we should put aside all high-minded ideals and concentrate on ensuring that a modern oil industry is built in each middle eastern state and that oil flows unimpeded to world markets to be purchased at market prices.
You wrote:
"What do you think Saddam Hussein would be doing when confronted w/ Iranian nuclear ambitions?"
He'd seek a nuclear bomb of his own. If you think saddam's desire for a bomb would hamper Iran's drive or willingness to attack, you are mistaken. Both countries are willing to incur massive deaths as they move through their pointless existences.
Meanwhile, saddam was confronted with the fact that its neighbor was going nuclear. You might recall that saddam was developing his own nuclear capabilities at Osirik until Israel bombed the facility in 1981. Did Israel do Iran a favor bombing the Iraqi facility? Or did Israel head off a big problem for the world?
An arms race among muslims does not resemble a similar game between countries like the US and the former Soviet Union.
Yep,
Once again a total failure on your part to explain what the next move is.
I'm sensing you believe the whole area should either be colonized or glassed.
Am I wrong?
Once again a total failure on your part to explain what the next move is.
I'm sensing you believe the whole area should either be colonized or glassed.
Am I wrong?
No Slappz,
I have concluded that it is posssible you may be taught. Start w/ reading history, something at which President Bush and the Neocons failed miserably.
1. You stated that Democracy had no historical basis in Germany, Japan, Israel, and the U.S. Wrongo. Germany and Japan had traditions of representative governemnt that began in the latter part of the 19th century so there was some historical precedent for democracy when those nations were freed from the yoke of tyranny. Israel was created in 1948 by people basing its governmnet on western democratic models. The United States was created in 1787, having experienced a tradition of representative government that began in early colonial days w/ New England town meetings and Virginia's House of Burgesses which was established in 1619.
2. Iraq was created by the British afetr WW I. It was granted independence in 1932. It was a monarchy w/ a parliment but the parliment was only viable between about 1948-58, although the country always suffered from military coups and was ruled by the military btween 1958 and the ousting of Saddam Hussein.
It would appear that like the president and his advisors, you believe that b/c democracy works in the U.S. and in other places, it should work everywhere. You appear to believe this notwithstanding your low opinion (which opinion may be well justified) of the non Jewish and Christian peoples of the Middle East.
Democracy in the Middle east, w/ the exception of Israel, is democracy in name only. Would you call Iran democratic? How about Egypt? And, I fear for the fragile deomocracy in Lebanon, thanks to Syrian sympathizers chief amongst whom are the Hezbollah terrorists.
I do not advocate the abadonment of idealism. I favor, however, policies based on realism, rather than the baseless thought processes that propelled our country into a war that has no political solution.
I have concluded that it is posssible you may be taught. Start w/ reading history, something at which President Bush and the Neocons failed miserably.
1. You stated that Democracy had no historical basis in Germany, Japan, Israel, and the U.S. Wrongo. Germany and Japan had traditions of representative governemnt that began in the latter part of the 19th century so there was some historical precedent for democracy when those nations were freed from the yoke of tyranny. Israel was created in 1948 by people basing its governmnet on western democratic models. The United States was created in 1787, having experienced a tradition of representative government that began in early colonial days w/ New England town meetings and Virginia's House of Burgesses which was established in 1619.
2. Iraq was created by the British afetr WW I. It was granted independence in 1932. It was a monarchy w/ a parliment but the parliment was only viable between about 1948-58, although the country always suffered from military coups and was ruled by the military btween 1958 and the ousting of Saddam Hussein.
It would appear that like the president and his advisors, you believe that b/c democracy works in the U.S. and in other places, it should work everywhere. You appear to believe this notwithstanding your low opinion (which opinion may be well justified) of the non Jewish and Christian peoples of the Middle East.
Democracy in the Middle east, w/ the exception of Israel, is democracy in name only. Would you call Iran democratic? How about Egypt? And, I fear for the fragile deomocracy in Lebanon, thanks to Syrian sympathizers chief amongst whom are the Hezbollah terrorists.
I do not advocate the abadonment of idealism. I favor, however, policies based on realism, rather than the baseless thought processes that propelled our country into a war that has no political solution.
# posted by : 3:04 PM
: 3:04 PM
praguetwin, you wrote:
"I find it quite ironic that people like yourself who advocate the war expect those of us who were against the war to come up with a solution to the mess."
You're part of the contingent that wants to change course -- in other words, surrender. You'll have to spell out your plan before those in power will give any thought to giving up the quest for victory.
You wrote:
"Shouldn't the people who started this war be first to provide alternatives?"
The administration is continuing down the path it believes will lead to victory. Why on earth would the Bush administration switch to another strategy when it hasn't lost faith in the current plan?
You, as a member of complaining class, took on the job of finding a new way by disagreeing with the plan we're following now.
"I find it quite ironic that people like yourself who advocate the war expect those of us who were against the war to come up with a solution to the mess."
You're part of the contingent that wants to change course -- in other words, surrender. You'll have to spell out your plan before those in power will give any thought to giving up the quest for victory.
You wrote:
"Shouldn't the people who started this war be first to provide alternatives?"
The administration is continuing down the path it believes will lead to victory. Why on earth would the Bush administration switch to another strategy when it hasn't lost faith in the current plan?
You, as a member of complaining class, took on the job of finding a new way by disagreeing with the plan we're following now.
praguetwin, you wrote:
"Who cares if Iran takes the south of Iraq? I think Kuwait and Saudia Arabia to name two."
They might care because they would feel threatened. So what? Who cares?
I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia might send troops to fight a Syrian/Iranian takeover of Lebanon. That's the best Saudi joke I've ever heard.
What's funnier is the fact that Saudi Arabia would form an alliance with Israel if the Lebanese situation really blew up.
You asked:
"All we are saying is if you belive this war was the right thing to do, why dont you outline the positive end-game here and how we get there."
That's easy. The goal is a democratic middle east, which started with the conversion of Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by the arrival of democracy in all the other middle east nations.
How do we get there?
First, kill all the militia leaders, moqtadr al-sadr first and all the rest as soon after as possible.
The kill the leadership of Syria; kill the leadership of Iran and whenever gunmen are spotted running into mosques, smash them with bombs and rockets.
Despite what you think, the number of fighters attacking US troops in Iraq is small. Even if you think there are as many enemy fighters as there are US troops, the number is small.
Iraq is a nation of 25 million people, none of whom want moqtadr al-sadr to grab power. No one wants any of the other militia leaders running the country either.
It's pretty obvious the current bloodletting would look like a trickle compared with the rivers of blood that would flow if any of the militia leaders were to rise to the top of the heap.
There are many millions of voters in Iraq. None of them are shooting at our troops. None of them want any of these power-mad mullahs in charge. Many millions want democracy.
Think of it this way. If the US were invaded in the way liberals are describing our move into Iraq, the citizens of the US would shoot holes through all of them in short order.
Iraq is a gun-crazy country. But if the residents felt as oppressed by the US presence as the lefty media suggests, they'd have long ago shot tens of thousands of US troops.
However, many millions of Iraqi voters want democracy, which is exactly what the various militia fighters don't want.
Six months of smashing the militias, and the destruction of the Syrian and Iranian governments would turn everything in our favor in a big hurry.
"Who cares if Iran takes the south of Iraq? I think Kuwait and Saudia Arabia to name two."
They might care because they would feel threatened. So what? Who cares?
I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia might send troops to fight a Syrian/Iranian takeover of Lebanon. That's the best Saudi joke I've ever heard.
What's funnier is the fact that Saudi Arabia would form an alliance with Israel if the Lebanese situation really blew up.
You asked:
"All we are saying is if you belive this war was the right thing to do, why dont you outline the positive end-game here and how we get there."
That's easy. The goal is a democratic middle east, which started with the conversion of Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by the arrival of democracy in all the other middle east nations.
How do we get there?
First, kill all the militia leaders, moqtadr al-sadr first and all the rest as soon after as possible.
The kill the leadership of Syria; kill the leadership of Iran and whenever gunmen are spotted running into mosques, smash them with bombs and rockets.
Despite what you think, the number of fighters attacking US troops in Iraq is small. Even if you think there are as many enemy fighters as there are US troops, the number is small.
Iraq is a nation of 25 million people, none of whom want moqtadr al-sadr to grab power. No one wants any of the other militia leaders running the country either.
It's pretty obvious the current bloodletting would look like a trickle compared with the rivers of blood that would flow if any of the militia leaders were to rise to the top of the heap.
There are many millions of voters in Iraq. None of them are shooting at our troops. None of them want any of these power-mad mullahs in charge. Many millions want democracy.
Think of it this way. If the US were invaded in the way liberals are describing our move into Iraq, the citizens of the US would shoot holes through all of them in short order.
Iraq is a gun-crazy country. But if the residents felt as oppressed by the US presence as the lefty media suggests, they'd have long ago shot tens of thousands of US troops.
However, many millions of Iraqi voters want democracy, which is exactly what the various militia fighters don't want.
Six months of smashing the militias, and the destruction of the Syrian and Iranian governments would turn everything in our favor in a big hurry.
loop garoo, you wrote:
"1. You stated that Democracy had no historical basis in Germany, Japan, Israel, and the U.S. Wrongo."
Not really.
You wrote:
"Germany and Japan had traditions of representative governemnt that began in the latter part of the 19th century so there was some historical precedent for democracy when those nations were freed from the yoke of tyranny."
A few years of mucking around is almost, but not quite, nothing.
Meanwhile, WWII -- and the post-war experience of Germany and Japan -- cleared up any doubts about the power of the US to completely remodel countries and fashion them into successful democracies.
By the way, those country make-overs required seven years of post-war effort.
You wrote:
"It would appear that like the president and his advisors, you believe that b/c democracy works in the U.S. and in other places, it should work everywhere."
I'm not hopeful that democracy will arise on the African continent. The sub-saharan nations are even less likely to embrace it than the northern muslim nations.
You wrote:
"You appear to believe this notwithstanding your low opinion (which opinion may be well justified) of the non Jewish and Christian peoples of the Middle East."
I do not have a low opinion of the Christians of the middle east. My low opinion is mainly reserved for muslims.
You wrote:
"Democracy in the Middle east, w/ the exception of Israel, is democracy in name only."
No kidding?
You asked:
"Would you call Iran democratic?"
No.
You asked:
"How about Egypt?"
No.
You opined:
"And, I fear for the fragile deomocracy in Lebanon, thanks to Syrian sympathizers chief amongst whom are the Hezbollah terrorists."
There is no democracy in Lebanon. Nor has there been one. And any day now hassan nasrallah will complete his takeover of the country. Then Syria and Iran will hold considerable power in the middle east.
We should bomb hezbollah and nasrallah into tiny pieces before they link with hamas and resume their attacks on Israel.
Post a Comment
"1. You stated that Democracy had no historical basis in Germany, Japan, Israel, and the U.S. Wrongo."
Not really.
You wrote:
"Germany and Japan had traditions of representative governemnt that began in the latter part of the 19th century so there was some historical precedent for democracy when those nations were freed from the yoke of tyranny."
A few years of mucking around is almost, but not quite, nothing.
Meanwhile, WWII -- and the post-war experience of Germany and Japan -- cleared up any doubts about the power of the US to completely remodel countries and fashion them into successful democracies.
By the way, those country make-overs required seven years of post-war effort.
You wrote:
"It would appear that like the president and his advisors, you believe that b/c democracy works in the U.S. and in other places, it should work everywhere."
I'm not hopeful that democracy will arise on the African continent. The sub-saharan nations are even less likely to embrace it than the northern muslim nations.
You wrote:
"You appear to believe this notwithstanding your low opinion (which opinion may be well justified) of the non Jewish and Christian peoples of the Middle East."
I do not have a low opinion of the Christians of the middle east. My low opinion is mainly reserved for muslims.
You wrote:
"Democracy in the Middle east, w/ the exception of Israel, is democracy in name only."
No kidding?
You asked:
"Would you call Iran democratic?"
No.
You asked:
"How about Egypt?"
No.
You opined:
"And, I fear for the fragile deomocracy in Lebanon, thanks to Syrian sympathizers chief amongst whom are the Hezbollah terrorists."
There is no democracy in Lebanon. Nor has there been one. And any day now hassan nasrallah will complete his takeover of the country. Then Syria and Iran will hold considerable power in the middle east.
We should bomb hezbollah and nasrallah into tiny pieces before they link with hamas and resume their attacks on Israel.
<< Home
