News Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning-This time it's OIL

[russ_watters]

You can't be serious. 'Stay the course' has no meaning when there is no charted course.

Are you claiming that there there has been a coherent strategy in Iraq?

*I* am claiming that Kerry's presidency would have had at least as much guidance as Bush's, wrt Iraq. Would you like me to find the letters from former military commanders that claim time and again that there was no viable exit strategy? How about the ones that claim that the reasons for *invading* were questionable? How about the ones from the pentagon showing global terrorism up 3 fold over last year, which was 2 fold over the year before? Or the ones that state clearly that majorly insufficient troops were thought sufficient, in March 2003?

Are you seriously saying that Bush has any clue as to what we're doing there? If so, please tell me what that reason, and "plan" is.

Pattylou, could you please reread that post of mine? You didn't respond to it, and from what you wrote, it looks like you completely missed what I said.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is the Iraqis are not showing significant, consistent progress in becoming stable. So if we "stay the course" it will be a very long and costly path...to where? Assuming there would be a time when it is felt there is enough stability (trained military/police, etc.), the chances of civil war and anarchy still exist. It is a no-win situation. Worse, it saps U.S. resources and actually fuels terrorism in the meantime. In looking at the pros and cons, an exist plan is a no-brainer IMO, and as stated above, we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out. Actually Kerry would be a good envoy for this (having grown up in Germany and speaking French, etc.).

Let's face it, Bush supporters don't want to admit the invasion to be a mistake, and sure as heck don't want to concede anything to other countries, and certainly not to leaders in our country who are not in their Republican circle. We will all go down in flames together because of the prideful stupidity.

Excellent example of what I'm talking about: nowhere in there is a course of action suggested, its all about blame and politicking. And maybe that's just it - do you guys just plain consider the situation untenable? Nothing we do will help, so we may as well just pull out?

Edit: Heck, even that would be politicking - it would be a Vietnam-style abandonment and a clear-cut admission of failure for people to point at. It seems like people want it just so they can point at it.

 

[russ_watters]

No, we wouldn't.

We'd be starting from having residual troops there, and recent history, and relationships with the police forces we're training, and on-the-job know-how of the armed forces that were stationed there, and bases that have been built, and a non-Saddam government in place...

How can you argue that we're making progress and should stay the course, and then turn around and argue that leaving would revert back to square one? Do you recognize the illogic here?

My mind boggles.

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

I don't understand why you don't understand. The conditions you describe us going back to would not exist if the country deteriorated into anarchy, which you seem to agree would probably happen if we left!

And about dropping back to square one - did you read and understand my "tipping point" explanation? Regardless, again, you said you agreed that the country would probably decend into anarchy if we left - which is precisely what going back to square one means!

For example, no, the partially trained police force would not remain if anarchy took over, it would dissolve. That's part of what anarchy means. And the corollary: if the police force did remain, they wouldn't be in anarchy, and we wouldn't go back! It doesn't get any more perfectly self-contradictory than to say a police force could function in an anarchy.

 

[Hurkyl]

The strategy that Russ laid out is possibly workable, provided the Iraqi gov't can reach the threshold of being able to fight the insurgents.

And is of what I currently favor too. I guess it always just seemed so obvious to me I never felt the need to articulate it.

As Patty pointed out, we may be able to achieve that sooner if we set a timetable, let the terrorists give it their best shot and deal with them all at once.

As I see it, setting a timetable is a "greedy" thing: doing so would net short-term gains, but risks huge long-term losses if the job takes longer than was allotted.

I don't particularly trust anyone's ability to set the timetable: these sorts of projections are so very frequently underestimated. (Though, I imagine that's partly due to pressure to show off how quickly the job can get done) As such, I view the long-term risk of setting a timetable as being almost certain.

Of course, while I expect in the long run that the long-term losses will outweigh the short-term gains, I guess I don't really have an argument as to why that should be the case.

 

[vanesch]

I have two questions for those advocating the stay (Hurkyl and Russ, not to name them).

1) Do you think that with your current presence you will be able to stop a civil war from develloping ? Or would you need massively more soldiers ?

2) And if your presence is needed to hold back a civil war, how long do you think you will need to do so ? 3 years ? 10 years ? 15 years ?

 

[loseyourname]

We are the United States of America. We should set the bar on elections. And we don't keep paper trails. My mind boggles.

25 states, accounting for 56% of the electoral vote, have legislation requiring a paper trail. 13 more states have such legislation pending.

www.verifiedvoting.org

I've posted this in every single one of the 'election fraud' threads, oftentimes in response to you.

Edit: By the way, you don't have to respond to this, as it will be pulling the thread off-topic. I just want to remind you.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have two questions for those advocating the stay (Hurkyl and Russ, not to name them).

1) Do you think that with your current presence you will be able to stop a civil war from develloping ? Or would you need massively more soldiers ?

2) And if your presence is needed to hold back a civil war, how long do you think you will need to do so ? 3 years ? 10 years ? 15 years ?

I can honestly say that I don't know.

 

[Anttech]

So you or I may not agree with a member's ideas for solutions. Then suggest one yourself.

I was being sarcastic :-) I aggree with Art (I normally do), and even gave an example of what can be accomplised when greavences are talked through...

I also aggree with you, the method currently being used to fight Terrorism isn't working, so we do need to readdress how we are fighting it...

 

[Skyhunter]

As I see it, setting a timetable is a "greedy" thing: doing so would net short-term gains, but risks huge long-term losses if the job takes longer than was allotted.

I don't particularly trust anyone,s ability to set the timetable: these sorts of projections are so very frequently underestimated. (Though, I imagine that's partly due to pressure to show off how quickly the job can get done) As such, I view the long-term risk of setting a timetable as being almost certain.

Of course, while I expect in the long run that the long-term losses will outweigh the short-term gains, I guess I don't really have an argument as to why that should be the case.

I don't believe Bush has any intention of leaving and never did.

Goals can be set and a draw down could be implemented as the goals are met. He refuses to say when we will leave because he doesn't intend to.

He lied to start the war. He is being dishonest about leaving now.

Do you not see what is so obvious to many?

The Army is building permanent bases. The Twin towers were attacked because we have bases in Saudi Arabia. The US started this war as far as the terrorists are concerned. They use terror but so do we. Operation "Shock and Awe" was a terror campaign, just ask any of the innocent Iraqi civilians that witnessed it. Because the US is engaging in torture we can't even claim a moral high ground.

We are the same as our enemy so why should the Iraqi people believe we are going to somehow make life better for them?

They don't want us there. Tell them we are going to leave and then tell them when and how, and what must be done in order to make it possible. As it stands, they don't believe George Bush anymore than I do.

 

[pattylou]

25 states, accounting for 56% of the electoral vote, have legislation requiring a paper trail. 13 more states have such legislation pending.Edit: By the way, you don't have to respond to this, as it will be pulling the thread off-topic. I just want to remind you.

Yes, and this move appears to be in response to loudmouths who are demanding paper trails.

From your numbers, I take it we have 12 states with no such legislation. This is why I haven't acknowledged your comments on this before. 12 is too many.

I'll leave off the other vote problems for the moment, in the interest of not derailing the thread further. The move towards paper trails is good! I assume we only use paper ballots in some of those states, for recounts. Do you rememebr how much opposition was thrown up to recounting Florida, and Ohio?

 

[SOS2008]

Excellent example of what I'm talking about: nowhere in there is a course of action suggested, its all about blame and politicking. And maybe that's just it - do you guys just plain consider the situation untenable? Nothing we do will help, so we may as well just pull out?

Yes, we need to "cut our losses" not "stay the course" and this uncompromising attitude of the Bushies that you and other conservatives so admire, and all of you who will not admit to mistakes, and that you were wrong about invading Iraq (you won't because of your neocon dreams of imperialism under the auspices of spreading freedom and democracy, which I have debunked countless times) is resulting in the over-extension that is the fallacy of this philosophy, as well as global strife and anti-American sentiment. I have provided solutions, but good old mind set prevents you from seeing it:

...we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out

If you could tell me why your "stay the course" with no guarantee of success plan is better than an exit plan such as this, with gradual draw down along with UN peace keeping and nation building measures, please do. I think we should get people together, like Wes Clark, etc. and begin addressing this problem realistically.

 

[outsider]

. We are the same as our enemy so why should the Iraqi people believe we are going to somehow make life better for them?

This signal has been transmitted for a few years now, and hipocracy will prevent some individuals from receiving this frequency.

I have provided solutions, but good old mind set prevents you from seeing it:

exactly.

They don't want us there. Tell them we are going to leave and then tell them when and how, and what must be done in order to make it possible. As it stands, they don't believe George Bush anymore than I do.

Yes, reasoning is a good way to re-establish some credibility to the world community. As long as it's Bush, any good solutions will be bastardized. His whole "gang" (in my opinion) does not have the decency and heart to do more than turn profits at any price. As Skyhunter asked before, why do you think C. Powell stepped down? I'm not trying to change this over to a bash Bush party again, but the people have got to realize that to effect great change and solve this problem, America needs a commander who has good intents rather than an inferiority complex.

I say again, this is not a bash Bush, but I recognize that his Administration will not be able to lead this country to the so-called promised land. The solutions that we can come up with are less than half the battle as my experience tells me that giving a good idea to a bad boss leads to bastardization of the idea.

So the plan or solution should involve getting the Prez out of office. Maintaining the battle is necessary, but as suggested before, this could be placed on a timeline. In doing this placing an understanding that (like in soccer) whoever is ahead by the end of 90mins is the winner and we can go home with pride. Otherwise, someone is always extending the match... this will become a fight to the finish instead of a lose-leave-town match (that was a wrestling reference for any fans out there).

The plan should also include a way of opening the lines of communication with all the "intended enemies" (this includes Korea, China, Russia too). To facilitate the opening of these communications, the UN should be consulted and the duality of gaining international support will be a biproduct of taking a reasonable stance. This will reduce some of the pressure from all sides as the world is all preparing for the day they will have to face America.

America as I see it right now is like an early Mike Tyson of sorts, willing to take on all comers with an inflaming cocky attitude. He was a fighter who only knew how to fight... other people did his thinking for him and all he did was throw punches... he did the best he could and gained a big fat head as a result. Now he is a laffing stock.

I can honestly say that I don't know.

at least you are honest about it and that is a step in the right direction.

 

[Skyhunter]

America as I see it right now is like an early Mike Tyson of sorts, willing to take on all comers with an inflaming cocky attitude. He was a fighter who only knew how to fight... other people did his thinking for him and all he did was throw punches... he did the best he could and gained a big fat head as a result. Now he is a laffing stock.

No ear biting please!

 

[Skyhunter]

The plan should also include a way of opening the lines of communication with all the "intended enemies" (this includes Korea, China, Russia too). To facilitate the opening of these communications, the UN should be consulted and the duality of gaining international support will be a biproduct of taking a reasonable stance. This will reduce some of the pressure from all sides as the world is all preparing for the day they will have to face America.

I am glad that you mentioned China and Russia and not Iran. I don't think Iran is a threat to us. A possible threat to Israel but not necessarily to us. The people of Iran are not their government. I know Persians who fought in the revolution to overthrow the Shah, and they were shocked by what happened once they won.

These people are not our enemies and they are the still the majority in Iran. Although many of them fought died in the Iran/Iraq war. We need to support the Iranian people and not make the same mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am not talking about the invasions and occupations, those are the results of old failed policies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

Going back would be a problem. As has already been stated US intervention is what is fueling the problem. To go back after leaving would likely precipitate more problems.
And as already pointed out I seriously doubt the US will ever be leaving completely unless asked to (or told to more likely).
As far as a time table is concerned I believe the White House is reticent in announcing one officially because they probably believe that announcing one and having it turn out incorrect would have a worse impact politically than waiting until they feel they can be sure the time table will be correct. I'm sure there is one and it is probably fluctuating as events transpire. That and again, as Skyhunter pointed out, I don't see them figuring on ever actually leaving entirely. They may not want to advertise that.

 

[outsider]

I am glad that you mentioned China and Russia and not Iran. I don't think Iran is a threat to us. A possible threat to Israel but not necessarily to us. The people of Iran are not their government. I know Persians who fought in the revolution to overthrow the Shah, and they were shocked by what happened once they won.

These people are not our enemies and they are the still the majority in Iran. Although many of them fought died in the Iran/Iraq war. We need to support the Iranian people and not make the same mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am not talking about the invasions and occupations, those are the results of old failed policies.

actually, after speaking to some iranians... they do consider america a threat... this is due to the adhoc style of the current admin... thus my posts that said Bush is part of the problem that needs to be addressed regardless of how many great ideas that come out. the iranians reluctantly divulged this to me and didn't want to go into great detail (which is completely understandable as I'm not iranian) but they said that at this time anything can happen and it wouldn't surprise them.

 

[outsider]

Going back would be a problem. As has already been stated US intervention is what is fueling the problem. To go back after leaving would likely precipitate more problems.
And as already pointed out I seriously doubt the US will ever be leaving completely unless asked to (or told to more likely).
As far as a time table is concerned I believe the White House is reticent in announcing one officially because they probably believe that announcing one and having it turn out incorrect would have a worse impact politically than waiting until they feel they can be sure the time table will be correct. I'm sure there is one and it is probably fluctuating as events transpire. That and again, as Skyhunter pointed out, I don't see them figuring on ever actually leaving entirely. They may not want to advertise that.

Strange enough, I actually agree with your post. I believe that fighting does not have to take place, but a support system will have to remain for a period of time. When I say pull out, I really mean to stop fighting and try alternatives to resolve the matters that exist. Words and understanding mend differences. War creates deep seeded hate and psychological scars that last a lifetime. Ask any of the "comfort women" of WW2.

 

[Hurkyl]

The Army is building permanent bases. The Twin towers were attacked because we have bases in Saudi Arabia. The US started this war as far as the terrorists are concerned. They use terror but so do we. Operation "Shock and Awe" was a terror campaign, just ask any of the innocent Iraqi civilians that witnessed it. Because the US is engaging in torture we can't even claim a moral high ground.

We are the same as our enemy so why should the Iraqi people believe we are going to somehow make life better for them?

Progress in discussion would be much better if you would just make the points you're trying to make, rather than ludicrous comparisons like this. There's a big difference between "terrorizing" enemy troops and terrorizing civilian populations.

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)

They don't want us there.

Let's try this again: some don't want is there. You don't have nearly enough information to claim they don't want us there. (Well, I suppose that you could have that information, and just refraining from presenting it... but I don't have nearly enough information to make that a reasonable assumption. )

Yes, we need to "cut our losses" not "stay the course" and this uncompromising attitude of the Bushies that you and other conservatives so admire, and all of you who will not admit to mistakes, and that you were wrong about invading Iraq (you won't because of your neocon dreams of imperialism under the auspices of spreading freedom and democracy, which I have debunked countless times) is resulting in the over-extension that is the fallacy of this philosophy, as well as global strife and anti-American sentiment

Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

If you were really so sure that there is no hope, then it is more likely you'll persuade us to your point of view by presenting a convincing argument that there is no hope than your current course of action of asserting that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced.

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

 

[Anttech]

Let's try this again: some don't want is there. You don't have nearly enough information to claim they don't want us there

Do you have proof that the iraqi's want you there?

Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

Do you believe that this "course of action" is actually working good for the Iraqi's? Seems to me you do... The funny thing is that the majority of people on this Earth would dissagree with you... So being democratic, perhaps you should listen to the voice of the majority and push your government to have a rethink on its stratagy... Because I wouldn't hedge my bets on the current "course of action" "potentially stabilizing Iraq" All the news reports and information point to this NOT happening...

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

True, but are YOU (personal) too arrogant to see with all the news reports coming out of bagdad that Bushes/US army current course is NOT working!

 

[vanesch]

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)

I must have missed reporting of that grand festivity !

 

[faust9]

Progress in discussion would be much better if you would just make the points you're trying to make, rather than ludicrous comparisons like this. There's a big difference between "terrorizing" enemy troops and terrorizing civilian populations.

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)




Let's try this again: some don't want is there. You don't have nearly enough information to claim they don't want us there. (Well, I suppose that you could have that information, and just refraining from presenting it... but I don't have nearly enough information to make that a reasonable assumption. )




Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

If you were really so sure that there is no hope, then it is more likely you'll persuade us to your point of view by presenting a convincing argument that there is no hope than your current course of action of asserting that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced.

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

Yes, but this idea that somehow staying an unplotted course will result in a stable region is without thought or merit. By all accounts we have no plan for Iraq and have not had one since day two. Day one went fine---kill the bad guys and win with superior firepower. Day two---control the lands and people---is where the thought process broke down. With that we have no real plan and that is painfully evident in the constitution process. The current draft does not do what we had hoped it would---allow for religious freedom. The current draft is more akin to the Iranian system where the Sharia and Koran are the supreme laws(how does one decide if a secular law infringes upon muslim law---a council of "religions elders" just like in Iran) with secular laws a very distant second.

We are not building another democracy we are putting together another democratic face on a religious government. How is that staying the course and what course are we staying? What are we doing there? Please tell me. Please tell me how we are effecting change in Iraq and the region when the three parties in Iraq cannot agree on a fundamental form governemnt. Two(the oil rich two) are working to shut out the third which will cause more strife and resentment---how is that stabilizing Iraq and staying the democratic course?

You can keep repeating tag lines but you are doing so without substance. Simply saying things are getting better doesn't make it so. Continually using the terms "Global war on terror" and "Iraq" in the same sentence doesn't mean we are protecting ourselves from terrorism by invading Iraq. Saying something does not make it so. Our efforts to build a democracy are faltering and will go the way of the shah. We have a 'governemnt' in Iraq who live in the green zone detached from the real world---which is why people like Al Sistani can exert so much influence.

The "stay the course" mentally is put forth with little thought IMHO and relies on the constant repetition of Bush to enforce the point and minimize the critical thought of the American masses. "Global war on terrorism---stay the course in Iraq". Well, staying the course is less and less a viable solution to the American public. About 36% of American actually think Bush is handeling the war correcty----very low number---and that is because the constant drum beat of "stay the course" with no course stay has finally been recognized as nothing more than hollow propoganda.

[edit] fixed some spelling errors.

 

[vanesch]

Yes, but this idea that somehow staying an unplotted course will result in a stable region is without thought or merit. By all accounts we have no plan for Iraq and have not had one since day two. Day one went fine---kill the bad guys and win with superior firepower. Day two---control the lands and people---is were the thought process broke down. With that we have no real plan and that is painfully evident in the constitution process. The current draft does not do what we had hoped it would---allow for religious freedom. The current draft is more akin to the Iranian system where the Sharia and Koran are the supreme laws(how does one decide if a secular law infringes upon muslim law---a council of "religions elders" just like in Iran) with secular laws a very distant second.

We are not building another democracy we are putting together another democratic face on a religious government. How is that staying the course and what course are we staying? What are we doing there? Please tell me. Please tell me how we are effecting change in Iraq and the region when the three parties in Iraq cannot agree on a fundamental governemnt. Two(the oil rich two) are working to shut out the third which will cause more strife and resentment---who is that stabilizing Iraq and staying the democratic course?

You can keep repeating tag lines but you are doing so without substance. Simply saying things are getting better doesn't make it so. Continually using the terms "Global war on terror" and "Iraq" in the same sentence doesn't mean we are protecting ourselves from terrorism by invading Iraq. Saying something does not make it so. Our efforts to build a democracy are faltering and will go the way of the shah. We have an 'governemnt' in Iraq who like in the green zone detached from the real world---which is why people like Al Sistani can exert so much influence.

The "stay the course" mentally is put forth with little though IMHO and relies on the constant repetition of Bush to enforce the point and minimize the critical thought of the American masses. "Global war on terrorism---stay the course in Iraq". Well, staying the course is a less and less viable solution to the American public. About 36% of American actually think Bush is handeling the war correcty----very low number---and that is because the constant drum beat of "stay the course" with no course has finally been recognized as nothing more than hollow propoganda.

Hear hear

 

[Smurf]

The current draft does not do what we had hoped it would---allow for religious freedom.

Religious freedom is guaranteed in article 12 and 13(f) of the iraqi constitution.

 

[faust9]

Religious freedom is guaranteed in article 12 and 13(f) of the iraqi constitution.

However, all laws are subject to religious review---loophole.

[edit]Articles 90 and 91 BTW.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you have proof that the iraqi's want you there?

No, I do not. That is why I did not assert that the Iraqis want the coalition there.

Let me remind you that the fact I cannot prove the Iraqis want the coalition there does not support your assertion that the Iraqis do not want the coalition here.

Do you believe that this "course of action" is actually working good for the Iraqi's?

No, I hope that the current course of action is working good for the Iraqi. But more importantly, I believe the current course of action is almost certainly better than if the coalition just dropped everything and left.

True, but are YOU (personal) too arrogant to see with all the news reports coming out of bagdad that Bushes/US army current course is NOT working!

I must not have access to the news reports that you do.

I see news reports that show bad things happening. This alone is not proof that the current course is not working. More importantly, this is certainly not proof that the current course is worse than abandoning ship.

But, there are also news reports of good things happening too.

 

[Hurkyl]

P.S. quite frankly, I would support the formation of a religious theocracy if that's what the Iraqi people want to have. (Since, of course, that's more important than what I might want the Iraqi people to have)

 

[Skyhunter]

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)

So what would you call this?

A fraternity hazing?

LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.

In a survey published on the Web site of the Lancet medical journal on Friday, experts from the United States and Iraq also said the risk of death for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the invasion.

There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

The researchers surveyed nearly 1000 Iraqi households in September, asking how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.

They then compared the death rate among those households during the 15 months before the invasion with the 18 months after it, getting death certificates where they could.

The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

Let's try this again: some don't want is there. You don't have nearly enough information to claim they don't want us there. (Well, I suppose that you could have that information, and just refraining from presenting it... but I don't have nearly enough information to make that a reasonable assumption. )

There is a huge insurgency and it is growing. I am fairly certain that the insurgents don't want us there. And it would be reasonable to assume, that not all of the non-insurgents are particularly thrilled with having their country occupied by a foreign power.

Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

If I believed that was our motive I would support it but in the words of king George "fool me twice... well you can't get fooled again."

If you were really so sure that there is no hope, then it is more likely you'll persuade us to your point of view by presenting a convincing argument that there is no hope than your current course of action of asserting that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced.

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

I don't think you are to arrogant to be convinced. I think you want to believe this administration because you are an American. You want to believe the best about America. That is why you are willing to disregard all the inconsistencies and ignore the blatant lies from the mouth of your president. If the Downing street memo does not convince you that they lied and led us to war under false pretenses there is nothing I can say to convince you. I argue for the sake of others who may view this thread.

 

[vanesch]

P.S. quite frankly, I would support the formation of a religious theocracy if that's what the Iraqi people want to have. (Since, of course, that's more important than what I might want the Iraqi people to have)

I think this is very sad. If all Iraqis wanted that, I'd say they're silly but let them have it. But we now have an ethnic group imposing this upon another one. Imagine that tomorrow, because they are in a majority, people decide to change the US into a Christian theocracy...
I think they were better off with Saddam than with a theocracy, honestly.

 

[Skyhunter]

P.S. quite frankly, I would support the formation of a religious theocracy if that's what the Iraqi people want to have. (Since, of course, that's more important than what I might want the Iraqi people to have)

I would support this as well. But not with the lives of American soldiers.

btw-I do not support the idea of abandoning Iraq and just cutting and running. I agree with Colin Powell, we broke it, we own it. My argument is that this administration has lost all credibility. We need a regime change here in America before we can solve the problems in Iraq!

 

[Skyhunter]

I think this is very sad. If all Iraqis wanted that, I'd say they're silly but let them have it. But we now have an ethnic group imposing this upon another one. Imagine that tomorrow, because they are in a majority, people decide to change the US into a Christian theocracy...
I think they were better off with Saddam than with a theocracy, honestly.

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[outsider]

it is suggested that iraq is a country that was metaphorically sick...

America is the doctor who diagnosed it, and is force feeding the medication... (we don't want their illness to spread)... after some regular treatments and a burning of cancerous cells, iraq will get a lobotomy and learn to adapt to an American friendly system... thereafter a regular colonic is all that will be required to keep their people happy.

Drug companies make people believe they are sick... propoganda is powerful, and people will do anything to get better.

lame post... i know... the justifications from the bush admin are just are equally lame...

 

[vanesch]

Not necessarily, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think that a dictator is better than a theocracy (hell, almost ANYTHING is better than a theocracy), because sooner or later, the dictator will be gone (when he dies of old age, for instance). Against theocracy, there's not much that you can do except a religious war. Europe has had a theocratic reign for more than 1000 years ! It's not the brightest period in its history.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think that a dictator is better than a theocracy (hell, almost ANYTHING is better than a theocracy), because sooner or later, the dictator will be gone (when he dies of old age, for instance). Against theocracy, there's not much that you can do except a religious war. Europe has had a theocratic reign for more than 1000 years ! It's not the brightest period in its history.

Good point. I wasn't looking at the larger scope. Damn trees got in the way and I couldn't see the forest.

 

[BobG]

P.S. quite frankly, I would support the formation of a religious theocracy if that's what the Iraqi people want to have. (Since, of course, that's more important than what I might want the Iraqi people to have)

I think this is very sad. If all Iraqis wanted that, I'd say they're silly but let them have it. But we now have an ethnic group imposing this upon another one. Imagine that tomorrow, because they are in a majority, people decide to change the US into a Christian theocracy...
I think they were better off with Saddam than with a theocracy, honestly.

I think this is a key point. Under Saddam, you had a dictator popular with Sunnis who repressed and killed Kurds and Shiites. Right now, the Iraqi constitution is looking as if it might just turn into Shiites imposing their will on Sunnis and Kurds and eliminating womens' rights, to boot. Not much of an improvement, even if it didn't virtually guarantee more problems with insurgents in the Sunni region.

Even if all of Iraq wanted a Shiite theocracy, I wouldn't consider a Shiite theocracy in Iraq something worth Americans fighting for.

 

[alexandra]

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)

Did you mean this, Hurkyl?

Reference: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm

A Tale of Two Photos

You have probably seen the photos of the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled, and TV footage of jubilant Iraqis rolling the bronze head around, bringing back memories of so many previous popular uprisings – 1989, 1956, 1953...

If there is one thing this war has taught us all, it's that we can't believe what we're told. For Donald Rumsfeld these were "breathtaking". For the British Army they were "historic". For BBC Radio they were "amazing".


A wide angle shot in which you can see the whole of Fardus Square (conveniently located just opposite the Palestine Hotel where the international media are based), and the presence of at most around 200 people – most of them US troops (note the tanks and armored vehicles) and assembled journalists.

The BBC website had the honesty to say that "dozens" of Iraqis were involved, but this grain of truth was swamped by the overwhelming impression of mass joy. The radio and TV were even worse.

Photographs can be viewed here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm

Check the other page as well:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
alex

 

[1123581321]

Did you mean this, Hurkyl?



Photographs can be viewed here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2838.htm

Check the other page as well:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
alex

Trust me, if there wasn't as much celebrating as claimed, cnn would have shown it. Anything good happening in Iraq won't be reported by CNN unless they have to, but they'll still try to spin it.

you can't trust everything you see on the internet. let's see that same story from some other sources.

 

[alexandra]

Trust me, if there wasn't as much celebrating as claimed, cnn would have shown it. Anything good happening in Iraq won't be reported by CNN unless they have to, but they'll still try to spin it.

you can't trust everything you see on the internet. let's see that same story from some other sources.

What can I say, fibonacci? You say the photographs are not real, somehow? Perception theory tells us that we will create a reality we want to believe. CNN is not quite as anti-government or 'left' as you think it is. CNN is just as right-wing as the rest of the official media channels.

(Ok, I'm ducking for cover...)

alex

 

[Burnsys]

Trust me, if there wasn't as much celebrating as claimed, cnn would have shown it. Anything good happening in Iraq won't be reported by CNN unless they have to, but they'll still try to spin it.

you can't trust everything you see on the internet. let's see that same story from some other sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/

Yeah Rigth!

 

[alexandra]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.statue/

Yeah Rigth!

See, fibonacci? Did CNN support or not support the lies about the 'crowds'! It amazes me what some people think are 'liberal' sources of information!

alex

 

[SOS2008]

Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

If you were really so sure that there is no hope, then it is more likely you'll persuade us to your point of view by presenting a convincing argument that there is no hope than your current course of action of asserting that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced.

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

Progress in discussion would be much better if you would please include member names when you quote them in your posts.

What I realize is that neocons want a permanent presence in Iraq, and want to likewise expand into other areas of the Middle East (e.g., Iran, maybe Syria, etc.), so excuse me if I'm skeptical about altruistic motives of really giving a #$%&! about the Iraqi people -- Not to mention this administration and its supporters lack any understanding of the Middle East, and why people like me were against the invasion from day one. And to that point, I agree with earlier posts regarding Iran and also having Persian friends (clear back to the hostage crisis) and hearing their views--At least read publications by Middle East experts, for example, like Robin Wright http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/rwright.htm -- people who actually know what they're talking about. I hope Bush is contained until 2008, and hopefully the new administration will be able to mend fences and create a better foreign policy.

To answer your question, the U.S., particularly under our very unpopular president Bush is not likely to ever achieve stability in Iraq. The only chance in hell is if people like Clark, Kerry, even Clinton or Carter could become involved to gain international support so as to allow the U.S. troops to draw down. I don't see Bush accepting what he would view as humiliating admittance of incompetency. So we're screwed until we get a new president (i.e., 2008).

And I don't agree that an open time table will be detrimental, because I believe the resistance to U.S. presence will continue regardless of what we do. Who cares if terrorists claim victory against Bush, since most of the world already knows victory against an idiot doesn't mean much. Also, if Iraq collapses, let's weigh the damage of this happening versus the U.S. staying. Think about these things, and tell us how it would make a difference, not just that you fear it would happen.

 

[Smurf]

Trust me, if there wasn't as much celebrating as claimed, cnn would have shown it. Anything good happening in Iraq won't be reported by CNN unless they have to, but they'll still try to spin it.

See, fibonacci? Did CNN support or not support the lies about the 'crowds'! It amazes me what some people think are 'liberal' sources of information!

alex

for sure alex, there is not a single 'liberal' news organization in america (well at least not on TV). How often has CNN reported on labour strikes, on the use of sweat shops by corporations (and their tax cuts), when has CNN ever aired any coverage at of any of the massive anti-bush rallies? Or any rally at all, any of the demonstations outside the white house, any of the squattings in government buildings? When did CNN report on the recent events of the zapatista movement? When has CNN covered no borders encuentro? When did CNN cover the shutting down of indymedia in Paris? When did CNN say anything about the enviromental protest in iceland that the police attacked, completely unprovoked?

I wonder, how many of these events you've even heard of before now 112?

They couldn't. They wouldn't be allowed to. If they aired anything that harmfull to the corporations they would be sued out of business, just like the eXile branch that had to shut down after only a single publication. It wouldn't happen, it wouldn't be allowed.

Everything's just Radical right and not-quite radical right. There is no liberal mass media in the USA today, it's not allowed. America isn't free anymore.

 

[Skyhunter]

Everything's just Radical right and not-quite radical right. There is no liberal mass media in the USA today, it's not allowed. America isn't free anymore.

There is Air America Radio if you can call that liberal mass media.

We still have NPR and PBS for objective news.

Oops maybe I spoke to soon.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0502-01.htm

Oh well there is still the internet.

(not even going to look I don't want to know)

 

[pattylou]

A BBC ed. report today, indicated that Katrina is lighting a fire under journalistic butts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4214516.stm

Otherwise, I saw a report a month or two ago, that in the 70's the democrats took their money from media and put it into grass roots organisations.

If this is true, and if there has been a switch towards GOP friendly reporting, then perhaps it is because democrats haven't been donating as much to the media.

Over thrity years, that could make a slow but steady difference.

 

[Smurf]

There is Air America Radio if you can call that liberal mass media.

We still have NPR and PBS for objective news.

Oops maybe I spoke to soon.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0502-01.htm

Oh well there is still the internet.

(not even going to look I don't want to know)

Never heard air america, hope it's good. PBS I like, some of the best documentaries I've seen on PBS. And yes, the internet is the last bastion for non-conformist news networks. Thank god for the net.

 

[Skyhunter]

Never heard air america, hope it's good. PBS I like, some of the best documentaries I've seen on PBS. And yes, the internet is the last bastion for non-conformist news networks. Thank god for the net.

Air America is a liberal radio network formed as a counter to the right wing talk shows that domninate AM radio.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen

 

[Smurf]

Hey, at least we can claim much better music bands!

 

[Skyhunter]

A BBC ed. report today, indicated that Katrina is lighting a fire under journalistic butts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4214516.stm

Otherwise, I saw a report a month or two ago, that in the 70's the democrats took their money from media and put it into grass roots organisations.

If this is true, and if there has been a switch towards GOP friendly reporting, then perhaps it is because democrats haven't been donating as much to the media.

Over thirty years, that could make a slow but steady difference.

The biggest change was when Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine that required anyone using the public airwaves to present all sides of a political issue. This allowed wealthy ideologues to bankroll people like Rush Limbaugh. They only present one side and that is usually so distorted that it isn't even remotely related to the truth. They screen their calls so the listeners get the impression that everyone agrees with them except for a "few wacko vegetarian eco-terrorists. After 20 years they now have a following of about 20 million brain-washed followers that believe their is a liberal conspiracy against America.

just watch and see how many respond to this post