 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
December 12, 2005
By: KISSINGER ON IRAQ....Should we announce a firm set of benchmarks for withdrawal from Iraq? Henry Kissinger thinks not, and suggests that the key issue is "whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or as an aspect of a prudent and carefully planned move on behalf of international security." Oddly enough, that's one of the very reasons I'm in favor of setting benchmarks: it provides a perception that we're leaving on our own terms, not getting chased out. Given the current stalemate in Iraq, and the slim prospects for breaking this stalemate in the future, it seems like it's only a matter of time before something happens that forces an American withdrawal la Beirut or Somalia, and that would be far more dangerous to American credibility than a planned withdrawal following successful elections. Kissinger also makes the point that our ultimate goal is a political one, not a military one:
Well, yes. But what makes us think that the presence of U.S. forces will help this to happen? Since a considerable part of the insurgency is motivated by the presence of American troops, withdrawal seems more likely to help this process along than a continued U.S. presence would. The fundamental problem is that Kissinger and the hawks seem to foresee a decade-long U.S. presence in Iraq, something that I think would be disastrous beyond comprehension. The United States has never demonstrated either the desire or the skill to fight a successful counterinsurgency, and it's delusional to think that the American public will put up with a ten-year stalemate. But that's what we're likely to get. In fact, a prolonged U.S. presence is the very thing that's guaranteed to keep the insurgency alive regardless of whether or not we have the help of Iraqi troops, and eventually this is almost certain to lead to some fatal disaster that will force a hasty withdrawal whether we like it or not. Benchmarks may not be a panacea and withdrawal is certain to be messy under any circumstances but they do send a strong signal that we have firm plans to leave, and to leave on our own terms. This is better for the Iraqis and better for the United States, and it's the best chance we have to influence a reasonable outcome in the region. An open-ended presence, conversely, is practically an invitation to failure. —Kevin Drum 6:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (113)Comments
The fundamental problem is that Kissinger and the hawks seem to foresee a decade-long U.S. presence in Iraq, something that I think would be disastrous beyond comprehension. I have an idea that should please everybody: let's make Iraq the 51st state. A couple of months of basic cable, and they'll be pacified and drooling, just like the rest of us. Posted by: craigie on December 13, 2005 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINKThe USSR was a real threat. Well, that's a piece of news. I spent most of my younger life listening to the Left tell me that the U.S.S.R.'s threat was all an invention of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and that the entire Cold War was largely the fault of American warmongers. Especially that nut Reagan, who kept insisting that the U.S.S.R. was evil despite what the Enlightened kept trying to tell him. Posted by: tbrosz on December 13, 2005 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINKEspecially that nut Reagan, who kept insisting that the U.S.S.R. was evil despite what the Enlightened kept trying to tell him. You left out the part where St Ronny went back and, like, talked to the Evil Empire, and in so doing allowed Gorby the space to remake the place. It's so inconvenient when not blowing shit up turns out to be the right thing to do, isn't it? Posted by: craigie on December 13, 2005 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINKKevin Drum: I think you've become too invested in the idea that the American presence is what's mainly fueling the insurgency. I doubt very much this is the case, although it would make things simpler for everybody if it were (then US withdrawal would be all it would take to defeat the insurgents). Hmmmm...before we invaded Iraq, no insurgency. After we invaded, insurgency. Connection? Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINKPale Rider: You're right about how our troops are stationed, and I accept your experience of the conditions over there. Certainly some nations are more accepting of our presence than others. But I stand by my assertion that the American population largely ignored all these foreign troop placements because, even in the Balkans, none of the troops were getting shot at and killed, especially over a period of over two years. When U.S. troops stop dying, America's concern over troops stationed in Iraq, even over the long term, will fade. As Spock once said, it may not be logical, but it's true. Posted by: tbrosz on December 13, 2005 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINKBefore we invaded Iraq, the insurgents (Baathists, Sunni ruling classes) ran the place. There wasn't any need for an "insurgency." Posted by: tbrosz on December 13, 2005 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINKI am normally a lurker, and I skipped all previous comments to say this: Why would anyone listen to a Cold War Dinosaur like Kissinger? He should just fade into the distance...please? Posted by: Arturo on December 13, 2005 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINKFlanders: I think most people can see that much of the Cold War was set up by the outcome of WWII, primarily due to the territorial agreements at the end of that war. Was this the WWII we had in reality, or the WWII of Flanders' imagination in which we didn't go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor? Before we invaded Iraq, the insurgents (Baathists, Sunni ruling classes) ran the place. There wasn't any need for an "insurgency." Which indicates, doesn't it, that our invading and overthrowing that ruling class had more than a little to do with that "insurgency." Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINKHenry Kissinger
Monty Python Posted by: floopmeister on December 13, 2005 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINKSome time ago, there was a phrase bandied about in the financial industry, "perception is reality" and this should weigh heavily during the consideration of business policy. I suspect that this was originally from Madison Avenue. Somewhere upthread, there was the contention that this somehow should be primarily a sales job (was it alex? - sorry) because it is worthless if so one buys it. Now we have a Blast From The Past, none other than Henry Kissenger swooping in with his two cents worth. Since he hold no official position, I am assuming his value is for the sales pitch. I am so bewildered at the lack of business savvy from a Rebublican administration. Yes, make the sale. But in the end you have to deliver the product or execute the service. Where is the delivery or the execution? Where has any of it been all along in Iraq? Tell us definitively what it is we've purchased! The administration has minimized this whole thing into a Sales Pitch, while real sons, daughters, husbands and wives are killed, wounded, or forever changed by the lack of a cohesive plan. (A delivery of what has been sold to the public). And what do they do to right this wrong? They bring in an relic from the Vietnam war whose record in warfare is not stellar. Here is the value of benchmarking: The people paying for this have a better understanding of what they are buying. The brave people consenting to deliver the goods have an understanding of what they are committing to (bad grammar - sorry). The Iraqui people have something by which to measure whether or not our word is ultimately credible. And why stop at the Iraquis? We would have a better chance at rebuilding globally the credibility that Mr Bush has spent as his "political capital" in the last 2.5 years.
But I stand by my assertion that the American population largely ignored all these foreign troop placements because, even in the Balkans, none of the troops were getting shot at and killed, especially over a period of over two years. Imagine that -- the American public is actually concerned about American soldiers dying!!! My God, what a brave and controversial stand Flanders is taking. How counterintuitive that we care more when our people are dying than when they're not, and yet, once you examine it more deeply, as Flanders has done, how blindingly clear! When U.S. troops stop dying, America's concern over troops stationed in Iraq, even over the long term, will fade. And when every little Iraqi girl has a pony they'll all come to love America. It may not be logical, but it's true. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINKBut I stand by my assertion that the American population largely ignored all these foreign troop placements because, even in the Balkans, none of the troops were getting shot at and killed, especially over a period of over two years. Yeah, and the Romans felt the same about the Pictish or Danube frontiers, as well. The citizens of any Empire never give a shit when the borders are quiet. This is not an insight. There's a poem by Kipling which makes exactly the same point... Posted by: floopmeister on December 13, 2005 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINKWell, that's a piece of news. I spent most of my younger life listening to the Left tell me that the U.S.S.R.'s threat was all an invention of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and that the entire Cold War was largely the fault of American warmongers. Especially that nut Reagan, who kept insisting that the U.S.S.R. was evil despite what the Enlightened kept trying to tell him. Well, that's a piece of news. I spent most of my younger life listening to the Right telling me that The Blacks and The Gays and The Feminists were coming to kill us all, and that the destruction of American society was due to the evil liberal agitators. Especially that nut Martin Luther King, who kept insisting on civil rights despite what the Responsible kept trying to tell him. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINKAnd when every little Iraqi girl has a pony they'll all come to love America. It may not be logical, but it's true. Fucking funny. I spent most of my younger life listening to the Right telling me that The Blacks and The Gays and The Feminists were coming to kill us all, and that the destruction of American society was due to the evil liberal agitators. Especially that nut Martin Luther King, who kept insisting on civil rights despite what the Responsible kept trying to tell him. Fucking true. "Prudent and carefully planned" -- has Kissinger been awake/alive the last five years? There's nothing about Bush's Iraq adventure that's been either prudent or carefully planned. We'll leave when the new Shia government tells us to, probably before the third anniversary of shock and awe. Posted by: Brian Boru on December 13, 2005 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINKI have an idea that should please everybody: let's make Iraq the 51st state. Better yet, let's trade it for Texas. Trade in our used set of oil rich, intolerant, gun-toting, fundamentalist fanatics and get a brand new lot to play with. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINKI expect that troop levels will be down to 75,000 by November with casualties down to a couple a month. That's a keeper, Mike K. Somehow I do not believe this to be a very accurate prediction. See you on election day. Posted by: bobbyp on December 13, 2005 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINKWhen U.S. troops stop dying, America's concern over troops stationed in Iraq, even over the long term, will fade. As Spock once said, it may not be logical, but it's true. But of course, one has to assume first that U.S. troops will stop dying. This will happen when Iraquis can "stand on their own". This efficacy is critically dependent on U.S. troops dying in their place while they train Iraquis to "not cut and run"..... dog--meet tail. Posted by: bobbyp on December 13, 2005 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINKLet's get real: Benchmarks aren't the answer. A timetable is. Benchmarks won't be met. I say this because no heretofore made goal or prediction has yet been fulfilled; why now? Therefore, they will have us where they want us until hell freezes over. A benchmark is a promise to leave when they let us leave. A timetable is a promise to leave, period. It's that simple. And it's all the difference in the world. All we have to do is declare victory and leave. Posted by: Libby Sosume on December 13, 2005 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINKI have an idea that should please everybody: let's make Iraq the 51st state. Better yet, let's trade it for Texas. Trade in our used set of oil rich, intolerant, gun-toting, fundamentalist fanatics and get a brand new lot to play with. Stefan is on to something here....if any of you have been to Texas ( I was there for a two month stretch) you might agree that it is scarily like being in a third world country. Perhaps a trade would be worth considering. Heck, there have been big land transactions in our past (the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska from Russia). Why not a trade with oil production Texas? Hey...Dick Cheney would be all over this like white on rice....I am surprised that this is not one of the benchmarks that he is avoiding... But then again...he lives in Wyoming. "When U.S. troops stop dying, America's concern over troops stationed in Iraq, even over the long term, will fade." This is exactly right, and this is exactly the nub of the problem. US troops will stop dying whenever we stop taking the lead in confronting al-Qaeda in the Muslim lands of Afghanistan and Iraq, not before. From a strategic and political point of view, we cannot stop taking the lead in either location for the forseeable future. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we stopped confronting them before reducing them to a ghost of their former selves, they would regroup and raise hell to such a degree that 9/11, as they already boast, will seem like child's play in comparison. Retreat and defeat are not practible options as they were, or seemed to be, in the case of Lebanon (Reagan) or Bush senior (Somalia). At this point, even the French want us to win this thing in Iraq, because the imaginable alternatives are, well, unimaginable for France every bit as much as for the US. As for the non-al-Qaeda Sunni insurgents, the re-enfranchisement of the Sunni minority by means of the political process will take away from them their reason to be. So long as we are not calling the shots, anymore than we are in Korea or Qatar or Japan or Germany or wherever else we now have bases, permanent US bases in Iraq will not be a strong rallying point. It's important to realize that the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq fears and loathes a government malleable to Iran more than they fear and loathe us. A significant drawdown of US troops is in the offing in the next year or two, but don't expect a complete withdrawal. At the very least, there will be a permanent base or bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, pretty much out of harm's way. Posted by: JohnFH on December 13, 2005 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINKConsider that Dubya sees himself divinely ordained to lead our country triumphantly through the Final Battle--Armageddon. He keeps saying that "history" will vindicate him. It's in Cheney's financial interest to keep Dubya engaged in war as long as Halliburton gets the profits. [Think too of the larger military-industrial complex.] Everything in Iraq seems to have been scripted to foment insurgency and instability. Why are we in Iraq? Oil, sure, but also Israel and Iran and Syria and even Saudi Arabia, not the mention plain old profit motive. In order to create the conditions for the Final Battle, Bush needs to keep the situation tense and violent and needs to keep troops in theater. Oh yeah, they'll bring some troops home, catering to public opinion, but don't take your eyes off Syria, where even as i write this a "shadow war" is being fought with American troops on Syrian territory (according to Sy Hersh, New Yorker Magazine). Posted by: pzykr on December 13, 2005 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINKLet's get real: Benchmarks aren't the answer. A timetable is. Benchmarks won't be met. I say this because no heretofore made goal or prediction has yet been fulfilled; why now? Therefore, they will have us where they want us until hell freezes over. A benchmark is a promise to leave when they let us leave. A timetable is a promise to leave, period. It's that simple. And it's all the difference in the world. All we have to do is declare victory and leave. I am not sure I agree with the definition of a benchmark. - Please humor me here. - My thoughts are that a benchmark is more of a pre-defined IF-THEN circmstance. The key here (at least in my thoughts) is that there is a pre-determination of how many troops will be recalled or re-deployed dependent on what happens. I would like to see us able to hold the Bush Adminstration's feet to the fire based on a measurable set of circumstances. Sadly, not only does Bush not want to commit to a timetable, he does not want to be held accountable to a flexible set of IF/THEN circumsances. My objection to how this (the War in Iraq) is being waged is that it seems to be entirely haphazard on a military basis AND more cynically, building or receding accordng to the voting needs of the Republican Party in US national elective offices. It smacks of all things wrong with politics -- and nothing regarding military prowess or reason where human lives (Iraqui lives included) are concerned. The benchmarking is the best attempt at flexibility that the US public can tolerate (IMHO). However, with the knowledge that the war was initiated over falsehoods, omitted information, and a fevered sales pitch, I really do not have faith that GWB and his team will do right by his constituancy and do any of this. Rather, we will get the same rhetoric until he and his cronies are voted out. Watch the alignment of Rebublicans running for office in 2006 and 2008 realtive to how the public responds to the War in Iraq. Posted by: rainyday on December 13, 2005 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINKU mean Kissinger "the butcher"? I think it should be pointed out to the Arab world that have a civil implosion isn't going to be the wisest move when it comes to defending their assets, ie. oil, in the long term. Ten years from now, the world is going to be a lot more desperate for energy and they will have expended all their iud's on their neighbor's children. Posted by: brodix on December 13, 2005 at 6:46 AM | PERMALINKBut I stand by my assertion that the American population largely ignored all these foreign troop placements because, even in the Balkans, none of the troops were getting shot at and killed, especially over a period of over two years. Guys get killed all the time in Korea. Guys get shot and killed by North Korean troops all the time. In the years since the armistice, North Korea soldiers have ventured into South Korean territory and killed American soldiers. Here's an article that highlights much of what is true about the situation in Korea: January 3, 2003 Hidden Casualties & Secret Diplomacy: Although most people don't realize it, the Korean War never officially ended. It has been a legal ceasefire for the past 50 years. The public has been led to believe, however, that the war was, for all practical purposes, over. The truth is, the fighting has never stopped. [snip] For one year, from September of 1989 to September of 1990, I served in a high level intelligence unit in South Korea called CSCT #1, or Combat Support Coordination Team #1. Its mission was to act as a liaison unit between the US 8th Army and the South Korean 1st Army. [snip] Before I was sent to my unit I received a classified briefing at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona that was attended by all US Army personnel who had received similar orders. Everyone there was informed of how grave the situation was in South Korea. Riots, tear gas, and low level combat were all possible. We were advised by one speaker to hope and pray that we didn't receive orders for the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) because, on average, about eight American soldiers were killed there every year by North Korean forces by sniper fire or in small skirmishes. Eight soldiers a year might sound like a low number. But the important thing to note is that this information, at least to my knowledge, has never been made public before. The majority of soldiers who were killed by North Korean forces were almost assuredly never recognized for their ultimate sacrifice. In other words, there could be approximately 400 families out there, and perhaps more, who were never told that their son or daughter was killed in combat. Most likely, they were told that they were swept away in a flooded river or died by accident when a grenade or some other weapon malfunctioned. Multiple incidents, some publicly known and others never before revealed, validate the eight soldiers a year estimate. In 1968, for example, one US sailor from the captured USS Pueblo died (and may have been killed) while in custody of the North Koreans. In 1976 two soldiers were brutally killed with axes when they attempted to remove a tree that was obstructing the vision of UN soldiers on the DMZ. In another incident in 1984, one South Korean and three North Korean soldiers were killed in a gun battle when a Soviet translator attempted to defect by crossing the DMZ into South Korea. All three of these incidents, among numerous others, are widely known, including the axe murders which were captured on film by the US Army. Far more astonishing are the events about which the public was never told. These incidents are particularly revealing as to how much effort the US has put into avoiding going to full scale war since 1953. For example, it's estimated that North Korea has dug approximately 20 tunnels under the DMZ into South Korea. These are invasion routes, two for every North Korean combat infantry division along the border. In the late winter of 1990, the same year that Iraq invaded Kuwait, one of these tunnels was discovered by the US Army. This was the fourth such tunnel that had been found since the beginning of the 1953 ceasefire. The official story offered by the US military at the time was that only a few bomb sniffing dogs were killed by mines. However, a soldier I knew who served in the unit which went down into the tunnel told me a far different story. According to this man, US and South Korean forces were confronted by an entire North Korean company under the DMZ on the South Korean side. What ensued was a firefight which resulted in the deaths of more than 50 North Koreans as well as a half dozen or so American soldiers. That same year, approximately two months after this skirmish, it was announced that North Korea was finally releasing the remains of several soldiers who had been killed during the Korean War. According to my source, the North Koreans did this in exchange for the bodies of all the men who were killed in the invasion tunnel months earlier. Another incident was recently revealed to me at an anti-war presentation I was giving where I met a man who served in the US Army in the early 1960s and was stationed in South Korea on the DMZ. According to this man, one of his buddies was killed by sniper fire while he was driving his Jeep. The man's parents were told that he died when his vehicle overturned on a slippery road. The casket, as is likely common in deaths such as this, was sent home sealed according to my source.
I wonder what the administration will do if AliSistani's slate wins the election (i.e. the election goes straight down sectarian lines) and the Shia dominated regime (sorry, duly elected government),at the possible behest of Iran, tells the US to leave? Not asks,tells. As far as arming the Iraqi army, most of their equipment is old Eastern Bloc stuff. The Armor Division that is currently forming is getting T-72 tanks that are being donated by Hungary. Standard issue rifle is the AK-47, trucks are all old Soviet stuff,etc. Sounds like a capable force to me, since they'll have less protection from IEDs and other potential devices than us. Yep, even the withdrawal,under whatever political circumstances occasion it, is going to be bloody. Posted by: TJM on December 13, 2005 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINKKissinger is obviously drawing parallels to Vietnam here. You know, the whole worry about the US 'losing face' and the succor this could provide to our enemies. This is a thorough misreading both of the consequences of Vietnam and of the true nature of power in general. The analogy to the "humiliating" defeat in Vietnam is quite interesting. Nixon certainly telegraphed his intentions quite well in advance. While I'm not sure there were explicit, publicly disseminated "timeframes" for withdrawal, clearly the plans to leave the theatre were begun quite a bit of time before the last helicopter flew out of Saigon. In the end, Nixon claimed it was a strategic withdrawal, everyone else saw it as a retreat, and the United States was deeply "humiliated". The end result: Vietnam ended up like it would have ended up anyway, a few streets in Smolensk and Havana were named after Ho Chi Minh, and Communism died within twenty years. Same goes for Iraq. The idea that 150,000 or 200,000 US troops, backed by no civil administration, are going to significantly change the outcome of events on the ground in Iraq is absurd. This policy might make some sense if Paul Bremer and the CPA were still in charge of a real "colony" in Iraq. But the US troops there are now literally policemen or peacekeepers with shoot to kill orders. Why is everyone, Dems and Republicans alike, so intent on believing that the presence or absence of a public withdrawal plan is going to make any difference either to the insurgency or to the development of the Iraqi state? Most of the insurgents probably know that the Americans are going to leave at some point in the not-too-distant future anyway. Sure they might get publicly excited upon hearing of a withdrawal plan. But so what? They're also likely to get excited every time a Humvee blows up. As for the Iraqi state, hasn't the time come to see that it actually has already developed to the point where it is capable of independent action of a sort,and that this is not neccesarily a good thing? When do we stop waiting for this new ARVN to get better and start realizing that ARVN is the way it is because of the basic nature of the people that make up ARVN? What exactly is going to change about these people in 2 years? When soldiers become corrupt and develop split loyalties, it is not at all an easy thing to change. Posted by: kokblok on December 13, 2005 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINKPURPLE THUMBS YOU LIBERAL COWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! PURPLE THUMBS!!!!!!!!!!!!! W IS WINNING THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS. Clinton! Oral! Posted by: Patton on December 13, 2005 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINKlibby A timetable, i.e., calendar-based events no matter what, make sense only if you're admitting defeat or at least don't care about the outcome. Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINKHave to disagree with Kissinger as a smart guy comment. Let's remember his record: Vietnam - pullout debacle, East Timor slaughter, Chile, coup murder, support for dirty war throughout Latin America, etc. And his quotes: Oh yes, we can cut and run, Kissinger did it in Vietnam. Unbelievable that he of all people says the US can't do that. "The countries relevant to Iraq's security and stability, or which consider their security and stability affected by the emerging arrangements, must be given a sense of participation in the next stage of Iraq policy." The countries surrounding Iraq want the US to fail: Iran, Syria, etc. And Turkey wants to crush the Kurds. So we have a problem: we engage the neighbours, but they don't want what the US wants. Ain't going to work. And that's the basic problem with Kissinger: everything sounds good, nice complicated sentences. But he doesn't put together good policies - they just don't work. And this isn't going to work either.
Samuel... It's not that simple. As per Melvin Laird... Summary: During Richard Nixon's first term, when I served as secretary of defense, we withdrew most U.S. forces from Vietnam while building up the South's ability to defend itself. The result was a success -- until Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975. Washington should follow a similar strategy now, but this time finish the job properly. The countries surrounding Iraq want the US to fail: Iran, Syria, etc. Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Turkey? Jordan? You're cherry-picking your neighbors. And Turkey wants to crush the Kurds. Not that simple.
Too simple. RSM-- A timetable, i.e., calendar-based events no matter what, make sense only if you're admitting defeat or at least don't care about the outcome. And remember, unless we admit defeat we haven't actually lost, no matter what the reality is. As long as we don't say "uncle" we can claim to be the winners -- at least in the school yard mentality of the rabid Republicans. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINKUh, if you think the military situation in South Vietnam was going well in 1973 or 1974, you are either extremely gullible or a total jackass. South Vietnam repelled an earlier North Vietnamese attack but, ultimately, the corrupt regime fell because they simply couldn't hold back the onslaught. I would submit that a lack of political legitimacy in the eyes of the people, rather than military capability, doomed South Vietnam. Had we not been mucking around in their electoral process and allowing their leaders to be assassinated... Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINKRed State Mike, Yeah -- timetables, benchmarks, whatever you call them are nothing but conversational placeholders designed to disguise the fact that everybody knows that we're leaving, and that it's going to be sooner rather than later. We can save some modicum of face and pretend we're leaving of our own free will now, or we can leave a few years later clinging to the skids of our helicopters. Either way, though, we're leaving a mess behind. Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINKPR We cut off the South Vietnamese funding in 1975, while at the same time the USSR was sending a billion or so the NVA's way. When we did fund them, it was less than what the NVA were getting. Small country with backing of global power against small country? You have to address that in discussing the fall of South Vietnam. Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK"The new Iraqi government may request the US to leave and THEN what will our leaders do?" Leave. It seems to me that the Iraqi people have been willing to take great risks to vote, join in the fight against insurgents, establish a democracy.
Really, the whole arguement isn't about having a timetable at all: obviously, every military withdrawal will be planned far in advance and will thus be carried out according to a timetable. The argument is really a PR argument: should the timetable be made PUBLIC or not. Snooooozzzeee. Not true. In some sense, we've already been withdrawing. We've been moving forces to remote bases in the desert and out of the cities, which lowers our profile and aids in force protection. Next is Kuwait. Then back to the US of A. The gear takes a while to move. The people? Can be done fast. Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINKIn some sense, we've already been withdrawing. Don't you mean cutting and running? Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK"A timetable, i.e., calendar-based events no matter what, make sense only if you're admitting defeat or at least don't care about the outcome." Or if the outcome you have is just fine. Remember, a lot of us just signed on to dump Sadaam. It is not that we don't care, it is that after dumping Sadaam, our business should wind down, civil war or not. At least that's what I signed up for.
Again, possibly. Americans still uniformly hate Islamic Jihadis, and they are willing to lose troops if the kill ratio is high. For this point of view, we have a problem, our desire to kill Jihadis is interfering with our responsibility to support Iraqi elections. This was the danger, getting voted out before we could slaughter a zillion of the assholes. "I think you've become too invested in the idea that the American presence is what's mainly fueling the insurgency." I think the insurgency is a battle between Iranian sponsored Shiite, and Baathists sponsered Sunni. We are siding nominally with the Shiite, because they have been elected. There is a hidden agenda, namely, the Shiite are not Sunni Jihadi. This gives the Yanks a bias, and for that reason; as stated above, we should probably leave. The soldier on the ground is actually politically neutral regarding Iraqi politics, except he is sworn to prevent civil war, a big problem for him in Iraq. He would rather shoot Jihadi, and he is starting to compromise his position to get within shooting distance of Jihadi. It is time to start leaving. The war against terrorism can revert to assassination of Al Queda leaders, special forces operations. We can even leave some special forces in Iraq just to hunt down and kill Jihadi, up to a point, but our fight is now interfering with Iraqi politics. Posted by: Matt on December 13, 2005 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINKDon't you mean cutting and running? No, that would be a calendar-based withdrawal. Pulling back to desert bases is done as locals take over the security, such as in Najaf. Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINKWe cut off the South Vietnamese funding in 1975, while at the same time the USSR was sending a billion or so the NVA's way. When we did fund them, it was less than what the NVA were getting. Small country with backing of global power against small country? You have to address that in discussing the fall of South Vietnam. Yes, but you missed my point. How did we get to the point where South Vietnam fell? By interfering in their political process and determining who won and who lost their elections. There is a troubling amount of CIA and Pentagon involvement in Iraq's political discourse. Whether it is CIA help going to candidates or Pentagon money going to plant pro-democracy and pro-coalition news stories in the Iraqi media, there is a parallel here between how we were very heavy handed in Vietnam and very heavy handed and manipulative in Iraq. Of course, we're really fighting the Iranians with all that help and propaganda, but that's another topic. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINKRSM-- Re: Iraq. I was trying to make the point that a lot of this talk about the "likely effect" of setting a withdrawal date is pure speculation and nonsense. The idea that some insurgent in Ramadi is going to take at face value any US public statement about withdrawal is ridiculous. The insurgency has its own imperatives. Some of them think the US will stay forever, others think they will leave soon. None of these beliefs are much changed by the various pronouncements of US generals or officials. If we both agree that withdrawal will take place relatively soon in any case, what on earth are we arguing about? Posted by: kokblok on December 13, 2005 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINKUh, if you think the military situation in South Vietnam was going well in 1973 or 1974, you are either extremely gullible or a total jackass. South Vietnam repelled an earlier North Vietnamese attack but, ultimately, the corrupt regime fell because they simply couldn't hold back the onslaught. No. Vietnam was a lost cause to begin with because we inserted ourselves into a civil war. The "democratic" South never had a chance. Remember, it wasn't the French, British or Americans that ran the Japanese out of Vietnam. It was the Vietmihn, the precursor to the communist party that took over the North. These are the same people who kicked France's ass back to Europe after WWII. We were beat before we got there. Posted by: Jeff II on December 13, 2005 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINKStefan, I guess your definition of a mess would be a freely elected representational government, an inclusive constitution, a 200,000 strong military and security force and Saddam on trial in front of his peers. Seems to me Iraq was lot more messy before we got there. Oh I know what you're going to say though, the Iraq's are too stupid to know who to vote into office and the military and security forces (guys who risk their lives everyday are too weak to do anything). Is anyone paying attention to what is happening in Iraq this week with the elections? Lot's of confidence and purple thumbs out there. Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINKJeff II nails it-- "We inserted ourselves into a civil war." In Iraq, we showed up unprepared to STOP a civil war and ended up starting one. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKI guess your definition of a mess would be a freely elected representational government, an inclusive constitution, a 200,000 strong military and security force and Saddam on trial in front of his peers. Right on cue! Ignorant shithead Jay shows up with the SAME discredited numbers he was trying to peddle earlier. Jay--you're a shill and a liar and no one believes anything you say. Care to revisit your position on "killing all Muslim cockroaches?" or can we assume that this is your one post of the day before you shit your pants and run for the woods again... Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINKPale, I see the facist is home from school Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKWithout any brains or real argument he resorts to name calling. What grade are you in again? Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK...a ten-year stalemate. But that's what we're likely to get. No it's not. The withdrawal begins prior to November 2006 elections. That's when Bush declares "victory". This war has been a tool for the election/reelection of Repubs from the outset 2002, 2004, (2006?)... Posted by: ckelly on December 13, 2005 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINKRSM, it is that simple. The most powerful neighbours Iran, Turkey disagree with fundamental tenets of US policy. Saudi Arabia is rich but ineffectual - and most of its own people don't like the US. Same with Jordan. Iran has already signed agreements with the current Iraqi regime. In that last poll of Iraqis (how the heck did they get a representative sample is beyond me, but) two thirds of Iraqis want the US out. And, Kissinger did throw in the towel in Vietnam. Twenty years after Dien Bien Phu the US finally gave up propping up the South Vietnamese government. Saying that we were at yet another turning point is fantasy. And unless we come up with a better plan in Iraq the US will do the exact same thing again. Given the current leadership of the Iraq effort - it will be a simple choice between abandoning Iraq or watching the US army crumble. The US can NOT sustain the current program. Posted by: Samuel Knight on December 13, 2005 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINKHmmmm...before we invaded Iraq, no insurgency. After we invaded, insurgency. Connection? Of course there's a connection. Don't be dense, Stefan. Before the invasion Saddam Hussein was in power. Many (probably most) of the current insurgents are people who supported his regime, and want to return to power. The point is their enemy is any government they don't control (ie., any government not dominated by the Sunni minority). America's departure is not going to change this. America's departure may allow them to win, however, if the Iraqi government is not strong enough to defend itself. Posted by: P.B. Almeida on December 13, 2005 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINKjay, Yes, but you missed my point. How did we get to the point where South Vietnam fell? By interfering in their political process and determining who won and who lost their elections. I think that billion extra dollars of military support by the USSR for NVA is pretty darn important. Weapons, gas, food for their Army... From the PBS site In early January 1973, the Nixon White House convinced the Thieu-Ky regime in Saigon that they would not abandon the GVN if they signed onto the peace accord. and January 6, 1975 In a disastrous loss for the South Vietnamese, the NVA take Phuoc Long city and the surrounding province. The attack, a blatant violation of the Paris peace agreement, produces no retaliation from the United States. Nice timeline from this site. http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline69-75.htm Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKAmerica's departure is not going to change this. America's departure may allow them to win, however, if the Iraqi government is not strong enough to defend itself. America's continued presence there is never going to change this either. The truth is the Iraqi government is never going to be strong enough to defend itself without our help, at least not at any point in the next five to ten years. Can America afford the money and men it would take to fund that kind of open-ended commitment? No, it plainly can't. We don't even have two years left in us before the Army breaks. Samuel, This week is HUGE for Iraqi's and they are stepping up in a big way. "A better plan"? Two successful elections, a third one in two days, an inclusive constitution, Saddam on trial, a 200,000 strong Iraqi military and security force. What exactly "better" plan would you want? Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKRight now there's about one Iraqi battalion -- i.e. about a thousand men -- that can operate without American support... What IS the real number of self-supportive Iraqi battalions? I've heard the number 1. I thought that Bush recently trumpeted ~30. What is reality? This goes a long way to determining Bush's view of "victory". Are we not just stuck with taking Bush/the military's word on the number so therefore they can declare victory whenever they damn well please (aka fall 2006). Posted by: ckelly on December 13, 2005 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINKI'd say there's been a substantial shriveling thus far But the water was cold! I just got out of the water! Posted by: ckelly on December 13, 2005 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINKJay-- You're so terrified of Bush being able to declare victory. The good people of Iraq are the one's who will declare victory and that has always been the case. Remember someone said "We will stand down when the Iraq's stand up". That is the measure of victory and that is happening right in front of our eyes. Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK"The United States has never demonstrated either the desire or the skill to fight a successful counterinsurgency." This is simply not true, we fought a very successful one in the Phillipines at the turn of the century. But that victory is what makes the case that we cannot win here. In order to defeat insurgencies that have popular support, you have to be unrelentingly brutal, willing to commit mass slaughter and beat the population into submission. M odern taboos against aggressive war and the profileration of media make that an impossible course for the U.S. to take. World opinion (and U.S. opinion) simply won't stand for those tactics today. In fact, the Philipines action was highly controversial in its time though it only lasted 3 years and many of the brutal details were successfully covered up by our government. That is what makes me so angry about the Bush's war of choice, he has put us in a situation where the only way to win is to do things we will not do. Instead, you get atrocities on the margins which makes this the worst of both worlds. With a total committment to brutality, we would lose our soul but we would also probably win. Here we are losing our soul over time with not reasonable chance of victory. Posted by: UofAZGrad on December 13, 2005 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINKKokblok, are you now debating my punctuation? Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINKKokblok, "grammatically correct" is the phrase I think you were looking for. Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINKckelly, www.exile.ru/2005-October-07/ - 22k Jay, When U.S. troops stop dying, America's concern over troops stationed in Iraq, even over the long term, will fade. Ah yes, but not the terrorists' concerns. We'll just be creating more jihadists. Good plan. Posted by: ckelly on December 13, 2005 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINKRSM, I think that billion extra dollars of military support by the USSR for NVA is pretty darn important. Weapons, gas, food for their Army... Did you miss the part where I agreed with you on that? Yes, but you missed my point [as in, YES, you're correct on that point.] I was trying to add that the Soviet aid to North Vietnam AND a lack of legitimacy in South Vietnam towards that government were both factors in the fall of RVN in 1975. This is hilarious--I'm having a polite rational discussion with you while fending off the genocidal racist fuckhead Jay who always runs off with a baby diaper full of poo poo when it gets pointed out to him that he has no credibility to post here because of the fact that he is an unthinking shill and has advocated the "killing of all Muslim cockroaches." Jay actually uses that 'home from school' line on me on Sundays when there is no school because he is a dumbass... Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINKYou write English like a 12-year old Liberian child soldier. Yeah, but that Liberian child soldier has seen combat and is definitely braver than our resident chickenshit chickenhawk Jay... Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINKThe good people of Iraq are the one's who will declare victory The good people of Iraq have asked that we leave as soon as possible. what are we waiting for? by the way...Jay, why not join the Army? Or are you another chickenhawk fighting a war from your keyboard? Posted by: Maccabee on December 13, 2005 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINKJay, And I only focus on your grammar because it is the most interesting aspect of your posts. Posted by: kokblok on December 13, 2005 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINKAnd I only focus on your grammar because it is the most interesting aspect of your posts. That was better than anything I wrote this morning. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINKDid you miss the part where I agreed with you on that? Dude, that is SO not allowed on this site. Point taken... RSM, To you, I say "ha!" Good day to you, sir. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINKckelly wrote: "What IS the real number of self-supportive Iraqi battalions? I've heard the number 1. I thought that Bush recently trumpeted ~30. What is reality?" And it's even worse than that, because if we have 30 battalions that basically consist of Kurdish and Shiite fighters whose primary loyalty is to their tribe, religion, ethnic group, etc., rather than to their elected leaders and to a unified Iraq, then the numbers aren't even remotely an accurate measurement of the true state of affairs. Posted by: PaulB on December 13, 2005 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINKReading through this thread, it is obvious to all but the most naive that the asshole Jay is just a right wing troll, spewing talking points he neither believes in nor deviates from. Debating him is a waste of time. Ask the blathering ass what the duration of a "LAST THROE" is, then move on. He is removed from reality, just like Monkey Boy and the Dick. Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 13, 2005 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINKPale Rider-- Pale, does your mom know you're using the computer. So you've resorted to debating punctuation and grammer, having hopelessly lost the debate on the war. BTW, if the U.S. forces would accept a 58 year old, sign me up!!! Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINKPale. "RSM, to you I say ha!" Wow, there is no intelligent life here. Posted by: Jay on December 13, 2005 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKkokblok, "Every proper noun deserves a chance to participate in the property market!" Taxing proper nouns is a confiscatory act and an abuse of the power of the Federal Government! The proper noun should possess all that it can while maintaining independence from an out-of-control tax system that destroys our free markets and renders our system bankrupt! Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINKStefan has gone beyond Bush derangement syndrome. He now has Mike K derangement syndrome. Can't we all be just friends ? Tookie would want us to be friends. Posted by: Mike K on December 13, 2005 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKMany (probably most) of the current insurgents are people who supported his regime, Which of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism which was supposed to be why we're in Iraq and what Bush STILL insists. Posted by: ckelly on December 13, 2005 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKSo you've resorted to debating punctuation and grammer, Well, it's actually 'grammar' but I don't really care. You see, you're debating "kokblok." Actually, "kokblok" is kicking your ass. having hopelessly lost the debate on the war. Having hopelessly lost the war? Way to go, you defeatist slimebag. BTW, if the U.S. forces would accept a 58 year old, sign me up!!! They take up to age 42 right now. Isn't that kind of pathetic? BTW, send your idiot kids to the recruiter if you love GWB and the war so much. So instead of diapers you were "Depends." Thank you for the demographic information. Makes it easier to hunt you down on the Internets... you were "Depends." Sorry, you wear "Depends." And Mike K shows up to give us the perspective of a batty old fart. It's a rich and vibrant debate today. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINKJay-- What were you saying again? Oh yeah, "Everything is great in Iraq!" To which I could only reply "No, things are pretty bad!" Then we can regress into saying things like "nanny-nanny-goo-goo!!!". You see why I think grammatical discussions might be more interesting. And just wait, you may get your wish of being a 58-year old conscript if this recruiting shortage continues. Posted by: Kokblok on December 13, 2005 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINKAnd just wait, you may get your wish of being a 58-year old conscript if this recruiting shortage continues. Not if he can successfully fake being Mongoloid or something like that. Jay--play up the fact that you continually shit yourself and run away from the slightest danger if you want to get out of having to go fight in the war you champion so brilliantly. Didn't Martin Mull get out of Vietnam by showing up to his draft physical with a fish sandwich--which was an uncooked fish wrapped in tinfoil? Am I remembering the wrong details on that? Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKHey Pale Rider, Did anybody else laugh out loud at the idea of Henry Kissinger uttering the words, "whether, in the end, withdrawal will be perceived as a forced retreat or as an aspect of a prudent and carefully planned move on behalf of international security"? That's the joke of the week. Posted by: Wally on December 13, 2005 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKWally, But why does anyone take Kissinger seriously anymore? I thought with Greenspan we had already reached our quota of inscrutable, crotchety elderly men in positions of power. It must be the sex appeal. Posted by: kokblok on December 13, 2005 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKHey Pale Rider, Posted by: kokblok
Anyway, adios. When the trolls like Jay destroy the discourse to this degree, and everyone feeds their bullshit with grammar lessons and inanities like the one I just offered, then the blog just becomes a waste of time. Beam me up, Scotty. Posted by: Pissed Off American on December 13, 2005 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKThat's a little unfair, don't you think? I mean, you don't really know if Jay is a coward. You've never met him. All I can say for certain is that he is 58 years old and has bad grammar. Let's not impugn the courage of people we've never met. Being 58 years old, after all, is a pretty good reason not to be fighting in a war. It's plenty fair. Anyone who advocates that we "kill all Muslim cockroaches" really doesn't deserve to be treated fairly; nor is it a waste of time pointing out that such people are ridiculous chickenhawks. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKJay: Lot's of confidence and purple thumbs out there. Quoting press releases from the White House web site isn't very original, but typical of the groupthink (lemmings) of BIS sufferers. $300 billion and 2000+ American lives spent for a people who never stood up and fought for themselves in all the decades that Saddam ruled Iraq. How pathetic to compare such people to our Founding Fathers. $300 billion and 2000+ American lives spent for a people who never lifted a finger to help themselves, but instead lied to US intelligence agencies to con us into invading. But hardly a dime for actual Americans struck by natural disasters they could not have prevented. Ask this: why did Bush rush to invade Iraq, rush to spend hundreds of billions of American dollars for non-Americans, and rush to a war that will accomplish nothing for Americans, but hesitates and delays in addressing pressing problems arising from natural disasters at home? Bush has already forgotten the victims of Katrina, but he's still swooning over an Iraqi people who never lifted a finger against Saddam and thus, if conservatives are to be believed, left the entire world at risk of terrible horrors. Where were you, Jay, when Reagan and Bush 41 were funding Saddam, giving him the means to create WMDs, and looking the other way while he used those WMDs on the Kurds? Supporting those conservative administrations and, thus, indirectly supporting Saddam's regime. That makes you and your fellow conservatives, not liberals, allies of Saddam, as guilty of his crimes as any other aider and abettor. Posted by: Advocate for God on December 13, 2005 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKBTW, if the U.S. forces would accept a 58 year old, sign me up!!! Halliburton will. You can sign up to work as a truck driver, ferrying supplies on Iraq's lovely IED festooned highways, or work as a cook or clerk in one of the US camps, the weary routine of your days broken up by the occassional thrill of a mortar bombardment. Or you can volunteer to go paint some schools. So with all these options open to you, why aren't you Helping Freedom Ring (TM)? Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKBTW, if the U.S. forces would accept a 58 year old, sign me up!!! Wait a couple of hundred years. With his wife dead and buried, and life nearly over at 75, John Perry takes the only logical course of action left him: he joins the army. Sounds good, but you don't just get to fight jihadis... Now better known as the Colonial Defense Force (CDF), Perry's service-of-choice has extended its reach into interstellar space to pave the way for human colonization of other planets while fending off marauding aliens. Great book. Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINKHalliburton will. You can sign up to work as a truck driver, ferrying supplies on Iraq's lovely IED festooned highways, or work as a cook or clerk in one of the US camps, the weary routine of your days broken up by the occassional thrill of a mortar bombardment. Those guys make some serious cha-ching! No taxes, high pay. I have friends over their working for AID supporting the Iraqi Bank. Also making good money. Also doing similar in Afghanistan. Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKAdvocate for God wrote: $300 billion and 2000+ American lives spent for a people who never stood up and fought for themselves in all the decades that Saddam ruled Iraq [...] who never lifted a finger to help themselves, but instead lied to US intelligence agencies to con us into invading [..] why did Bush rush to invade Iraq, rush to spend hundreds of billions of American dollars for non-Americans, and rush to a war that will accomplish nothing for Americans ... Because the war will accomplish something for the only "Americans" that Bush cares about: it will give control of Iraq's oil supplies to his cronies and financial backers in the US oil companies. The war has absolutely nothing to do with benefitting the Iraqi people; on the contrary, the primary aim of the war is to steal the oil wealth that lies beneath their soil and give it to Bush's pals. Remember this whenever Bush talks about "the Iraqi people": not only is he directly responsible for killing tens of thousands of them, but he did so in the process of stealing from them. Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 13, 2005 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK$300 billion and 2000+ American lives spent for a people who never stood up and fought for themselves in all the decades that Saddam ruled Iraq Secular, I can't believe you'd regurgitate that BS. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm Browse through here for list of revolts against Saddam. http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_iraq.html Posted by: Red State Mike on December 13, 2005 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINKRed State Mike: Secular, I can't believe you'd regurgitate that BS. I was quoting a comment posted by Advocate for God. You might notice that that first paragraph of my comment begins "Advocate for God wrote" and then has some text in italics, which is what I quoted from his previous comment. I was not agreeing with AFG's assertion that the people of Iraq "never stood up and fought for themselves" by quoting it. I am aware that there was resistance to Saddam's dictatorship by the people of Iraq. The point of my comment was that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was not for the benefit of the Iraqi people, any more than the Reagan/Bush administration's support of Saddam's dictatorship was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Bush's only interest in Iraq is to secure control of Iraq's oil for US oil companies, and to establish a US puppet government and permanent US bases in Iraq that will facilitate US control of oil supplies throughout the region. Bush's talk about the Iraqi people is nothing but the basest, most cynical, sneering propaganda intended for the consumption of gullible, ill-informed people here in the US. Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 13, 2005 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKsecular That's why I said "regurgitate". Red State Mike: That's why I said "regurgitate". If by "regurgitate" you meant "quote" then I don't understand why you wrote "Secular, I can't believe you'd regurgitate that BS." I quote "BS" that other people post here all the time when I reply to their comments. It's merely a way of making it clear what I am replying to. Nothing unbelievable about that. I don't really keep track of this, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of what I quote from other people's comments that I'm replying to is what I would consider to be BS that I don't agree with in any way, shape or form. So the point of your "I can't believe you'd regurgitate that BS" comment escapes me. Since I quoted you in my last two comments, I suppose I am now "regurgitating" your BS. Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 13, 2005 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINKThose guys make some serious cha-ching! No taxes, high pay. Even more reason for Jay to get off his cowardly ass and get himself to Iraq. After all, as Mike K reminds us, the very future of Western civilization is at stake in Iraq. It is, according to Bush, the Central Front in the War on Terra (TM). So why wouldn't Jay want to be right in the thick of it, risking kidnapping and beheading every day in order to spread the Gospel of George? Posted by: Stefan on December 13, 2005 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINKFor some time now, whenever I have the chance, I like to catch up on the latest debate on Iraq. Considering that I am in Baghdad I think it's intersting to hear what you all have to say. Most of your comments are thought provoking in one way or another and the rest are funny. I just hope that all of this energy that you are using to debate online is equal to the amount of time you are spending voicing your opinions to your elected representation. Thank you Posted by: Ash on December 13, 2005 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINKUS troops should withdraw when a democratically elected Iraqi government tells them it's time to go. That's a satisfactory outcome for everybody even if it does lack that sinister aura of conspiracy and hidden agendas. Right now Congress wants them to stay and so do the Iraqi authorities. I think they will both know when the time is right. Posted by: gazelle on December 13, 2005 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINKI don't really keep track of this, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of what I quote from other people's comments that I'm replying to is what I would consider to be BS that I don't agree with in any way, shape or form. Hmmm, If you quote it without taking issue but instead leave it unchallenged, I assume you are "me too-ing" it. AFG posted a flat out incorrect statement which you used as a jumping off point. Bulding on his termite-ridden logical foundation calls into question the logic your entire following argument, rightly or wrongly. Posted by: red state mike on December 13, 2005 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINKRSM, Termites? Holy cow, call the exterminator. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 13, 2005 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK"But what makes us think that the presence of U.S. forces will help this [training] to happen?" who the f else is going to train them? Posted by: pissant on December 14, 2005 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINKDrum said: "Oddly enough, that's one of the very reasons I'm in favor of setting benchmarks: it provides a perception that we're leaving on our own terms, not getting chased out. " Really? We will be leaving Iraq based on the mere passage of time, not based on the capacity of Iraqi security forces to defend their nation (as judged by our military commanders and Iraqi political leaders) against a small group of heavily armed insurgents? And that will provide the "perception" that we're leaving on our own terms, not getting chased out? Makes sense to me! But al Qaeda won't see it that way, sad to say (and that's the problem). Posted by: Engram on December 14, 2005 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINKRemember this whenever Bush talks about "the Iraqi people": not only is he directly responsible for killing tens of thousands of them, but he did so in the process of stealing from them. Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 13, 2005 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK And whenever a lefty talks about Bush's motives? Ever ask yourself what his are? Humiliate Bush at the expense of those people voting this week - and ignoring the request of their elected leaders not to help defend a new democracy....while denying Saddam Hussein was a horrible leader wh committed ethnic cleansing while trial testimony is in their face. Lots of distraction after distraction, with only one core agenda. Senseless Bush bashing with no regard for your own country or the rest of the world.... Can you at least delay the defeatism so the people risking their lives to vote don't think you guys are going to cut and run and leave it to the anti-democrats to take revenge? There are days when the left convinces me that the Soviets should have won the cold war - simply because they would have wiped out the american left along with everyone else.
There are days when the left convinces me that the Soviets should have won the cold war - simply because they would have wiped out the american left along with everyone else. Uh huh. And the Russians would have boiled your Chinese ass along with us. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 14, 2005 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINKDear Mr McAristotle, But if the Soviets had won the cold war, from whence would you get your McGriddles? Bu hao!!!! Posted by: kokblok on December 14, 2005 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKCredit cards are practically href="http://www.creditcards.lt">Credit
To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/instant-approval-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/airline-milescards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/business-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/gas-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/low-insterest-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/american-express-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/bank-ofamerica-creditcards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/chase-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/citibank-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/columbus-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/discover-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/hsbc-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/USbank-credit-cards.html"> href="http://www.creditcardswanted.com/calculator-mortgage.html">calculator Dish Network Satellite, If you are looking for best online insurance quotes, you might be interested Home equity loans Home href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.net">web href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com">affiliate href="http://www.affiliateprogramswanted.com/affiliate-resources.html">affiliate Get paid surf get paid Online travel reservation, travel href="http://www.travelsuper.com">discount href="http://www.travelswanted.com/san-francisco-hotels.html">san href="http://www.travelswanted.com/new-york-hotels.html">new href="http://www.travelswanted.com/toronto-hotels.html">toronto href="http://www.travelswanted.com/venice-hotels.html">venice href="http://www.travelswanted.com/thailand-hotels.html">thailand href="http://www.travelswanted.com/palm-springs-hotels.html">palm href="http://www.travelswanted.com/manhattan-hotels.html">manhattan href="http://weightlosspillsproducts.blogspot.com/2005/11/yerbaslim-ingredients.html">YerbaSlim href="http://weightlosspillsproducts.blogspot.com/2005/11/weight-loss-pills-yerbaslim.html">Weight href="http://www.best-web-hosts.be">best web hosting web 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
