Oh bullshit, Kevin. Quit being such a nattering nabob of negativity.

Of course Iraq will be a beacon for something in the near future and forseeable future--- a beacon for the clusterfuck that was and is the Bush assministrations failed foreign policies.

As usual, the Democrats are advising surrender to the terrorists. Post revolutionary war, it took a very long time to get the foundations of American democracy right. Deep down, liberals realize this. However, the thought that republicans might be helped in the polls by a flowering democracy in the middle east is too much for the democrats to bear, so it's trying to make the situation look as bad as possible. Democrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of lives to make republicans look bad.

Well, Podhoretz I would describe as clinically insane. So that leaves Inhofe and Bush left in Happy Outcome World.

One hope is that with Democrat wins this fall, we can purge Bush. I think the odds of him finishing out his term are 50/50. If he can't shit, he should get off the pot (or we should get him off it). Add a Vice Presidential courtesy flush for Cheney.

Pardon the analogies. But that's our only hope for getting those soldiers and Marines redeployed before the fall of '08.

Kevin, you say: "That is, it would be great if this outcome were actually possible given the policies being pursued by the George Bush administration." And you put your finger on the button.

As wrong and inept as the killer clowns are, they have succeeded in narrowing the choices to the ones they love best. I'm relieved that they're not profiting from exacerbating every crisis, becuase I want to believe in my government.

Post revolutionary war, it took a very long time to get the foundations of American democracy right.

Yes, the constant carriage bombings of civilian populations by rival religious militias really made the post-revolutionary period tense. The way Washington's people kept kidnapping and beheading Adams's people was doubtless also really fucking scary.

American Hawk:

Thank you, post-rat cage Winston Smith.

DoublePlusGood!

Bob

American Hawk:

How exactly does "the thought of" a flowering democracy in the Mideast effect the outcome on the ground?

Telepathy? Clairvoyance? Telekinesis?

Bob

As I wrote a year ago:

"With rising U.S. casualties, an emboldened insurgency, American credibility in tatters and no end in sight, any plan forward must define what, at this late date, can be said to constitute "success" in Iraq and whether or not success so defined is still be possible. If not, and if American defeat is inevitable, we should cut our losses begin to withdraw now."

For the full story, see:
"What is to Be Done? A 10-Point Plan for Iraq."

For the details, see

But with the possible exception of Norman Podhoretz (and James Inhofe!), even the hawkiest of the hawks aren't pretending any longer that we can keep order in Iraq, let alone make it into a beacon for oppressed Shiites, with the troops we have there now.

Really? I would disagree with your liberal views. By staying the course, we can stil defeat the insurgency and empower Iraq's security forces to such an extent such that Iraq's nascent democracy can be secure. Such a achievement would be a great victory for Bush and would justify his liberation of Iraq from Saddam and his murderous thugs.

American Hawk:

In '91, the year before an election, GHWB had an 80+ approval rating in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Except for a handful of antiwar activists and (mostly European) journalists, America -- including the Democrats -- was solidly behind what was an unquestioned military victory. The biggest critics *within* the political establishment were the hawks who thought we should've marched into Baghdad and helped the Kurds and Shia with their uprisings.

A year later, Bush's polls were about where his son's are now. The war had no effect, nor was it in any substantive way a Democratic campaign issue.

Bob

Dear Kevin: The 2006 World Series of Poker is currently being aired on ESPN. The single most common error that leades to going broke, even among the most highly skilled professionals, is the aggressive behavior spawned by a tough loss.
Irag was a bad beat. All we can do as a nation is fold and move on. Yes, that'll be very tough on the Iraqis. But let's be real. It's not as if anyone in this country gave a shit about them in the first place.

It's worth noting who Ressam works for.

Taking Dickie Scaife money should automatically disqualify someone from being taken seriously.

.

No matter what your political bent is, I think the current intractibility of the Iraq fiasco is the most damning failure of this administration. Even if I was perfectly aligned with Bush on every political issue, I would still consider his presidency a failure. The past six years have demonstrated one thing time and again--poor leadership. You cannot lead the most powerful nation in the world based on wisfhul thinking. This administration has dug us into a hole it will take generations to dig out of. And for what? Even if one believes that military aggressiveness and pre-emption is the key to preventing terrorism, this nightmare has simultaneously unbalanced the global security landscape and bogged our military down for a generation. And they have nothing to show for it except irrelevant and disingenuous claism about "No Attacks Since 9/11!" If I were a conservative voter, I would be calling for my Republican Congress to investigate this administration's fatal errors of judgment, not making excuses for them. Do no Republicans taste the bitter irony in the fact that George W. Bush has managed to cock up the execution of the very doctrine that is named after him?

JMG: Irag was a bad beat. All we can do as a nation is fold and move on.

I am not a poker player (IANAPP), but isn't a "bad beat" one where one played a solid hand and lost anyway? 'Cause that doesn't seem to describe Iraq very well.

Andrew_Wyatt:

Cognitive dissonance *that* intense would probably throw off their pacemakers and damage their hip replacements.

Bob

"Nobody thinks that today: a pullout now would almost certainly unleash an unbelievable bloodbath in Baghdad and beyond. This virtual certainty of slaughter is a painful reality, and it makes it harder than ever to continue counseling withdrawal."

WTF is going on there right now? It is a bloodbath, chaotic, civil war already. If we pullout, there will be nothing new in terms of the violence, I believe that our presence there actually makes the violence worse. I have no quams about "counseling withdrawal", its not very hard at all. Look at the reality over there. We shouldn't have gone in the first place and we need to leave NOW. Nothing can justify a war based on false misleading information to justify your case. I don't care what the outcome is, a democracy, a theocracy, Bush can never justify his actions in attacking Iraq. NEVER. We've now killed just as many as Saddam had so are we murderous thugs also? This quagmire is a disaster and an Iraq under Saddam might have been able to counter any Iranian threat but now forget it. Iraq is going to be a new sphere of influence for Iran. Democracy in Lebanon went well too eh? Thanks Bush. Thanks Israel. You both suck.

"Nobody thinks that today: a pullout now would almost certainly unleash an unbelievable bloodbath in Baghdad and beyond. This virtual certainty of slaughter is a painful reality, and it makes it harder than ever to continue counseling withdrawal."

WTF is going on there right now? It is a bloodbath, chaotic, civil war already. If we pullout, there will be nothing new in terms of the violence, I believe that our presence there actually makes the violence worse. I have no quams about "counseling withdrawal", its not very hard at all. Look at the reality over there. We shouldn't have gone in the first place and we need to leave NOW. Nothing can justify a war based on false misleading information to justify your case. I don't care what the outcome is, a democracy, a theocracy, Bush can never justify his actions in attacking Iraq. NEVER. We've now killed just as many as Saddam had so are we murderous thugs also? This quagmire is a disaster and an Iraq under Saddam might have been able to counter any Iranian threat but now forget it. Iraq is going to be a new sphere of influence for Iran. Democracy in Lebanon went well too eh? Thanks Bush. Thanks Israel. You both suck.

What reason is there to believe that a democratic Iraq would be a pro-Western Iraq?

Anyway, I have this theory that not Iran but the United States are out to dominate the Middle East. Think about it: Arming Israel and Turkey, supporting various dictators, invading Iraq...

That would be great!

You know what else would be great? If puppy dogs shat key lime pie instead of shit.

"Nobody thinks that today: a pullout now would almost certainly unleash an unbelievable bloodbath in Baghdad and beyond. This virtual certainty of slaughter is a painful reality, and it makes it harder than ever to continue counseling withdrawal."

WTF is going on there right now? It is a bloodbath, chaotic, civil war already. If we pullout, there will be nothing new in terms of the violence, I believe that our presence there actually makes the violence worse. I have no quams about "counseling withdrawal", its not very hard at all. Look at the reality over there. We shouldn't have gone in the first place and we need to leave NOW. Nothing can justify a war based on false misleading information to justify your case. I don't care what the outcome is, a democracy, a theocracy, Bush can never justify his actions in attacking Iraq. NEVER. We've now killed just as many as Saddam had so are we murderous thugs also? This quagmire is a disaster and an Iraq under Saddam might have been able to counter any Iranian threat but now forget it. Iraq is going to be a new sphere of influence for Iran. Democracy in Lebanon went well too eh? Thanks Bush. Thanks Israel. You both suck.

I'm probably hopelessly naive about the possibility of succeeding in my proposed endeavor, but why don't we (I mean the US Military in Iraq and Iraqi Contractors) pick out a few impressive infrastructure improvement projects (Water, Sewer, Electric, Oil), massively fund them using local contractors and use the US Military for project security. Complete them quickly, let the "unity government" take credit for them and then hie US troops "over the horizon"?

I've not seen anyone in politics suggest this road to a plausible "victory" and exit strategy.

I can't help but think a US led tripartite partition of Iraq would be an invitation to a bigger disaster than we have on our hands now. If the Iraqis finally arrive at that end, so be it. But it would be arrogant beyond belief to think an American led initiative to that end would be successful. Just think of the likely Iranian, Syrian and Turkish reaction to anything remotely resembling an independent Kurdistan.

I don't advocate full withdrawl.

I advocate pulling the bulk of our forces into Kurdistan to 1) get us out of the middle between the Shia and the Sunnis and 2) keep an eye on any jihad-exporting Afghanistan-like al Qaeda training camps that might develop.

We had Saddam neatly in his box before the war. Now, like it or not, stability in Iraq has become a bona-fide US national security issue.

Pains my heart as a diehard war opponent to say it -- but it doesn't make it any less true besides.

And the reasons we got into it are, at this point, sadly irrelevant.

Bob

Aaron Adams:

An independent Kurdistan is already a reality. Flying an Iraqi flag there is illegal.

Bob

dj moonbat is right on the poker reference with regard to a "bad beat". But +1 for JMG's initial point about aggressive play after a bad loss. That sort of "doubling down"--to use more card-playing references--is common in virtually every field of human endeavor ...

"And the reasons we got into it are, at this point, sadly irrelevant."

No to quote king bush, "I reject that"... There's this little thing called credibility which to some people might be important. I will never forget why / how we were lead into this clusterfuck. To not remember that, to me, is irrelevant.

The US invasion and occupation is the direct cause of the bloodbaths occuring now in Iraq. Some bloodbaths were drawn by the US military and some were part of natural sectarian differences inherent to Iraq. All of this was known and voiced by leftists prior to the invasion.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the US military presence is preventing any bloodbaths now. The assertion that the US military is preventing greater bloodbaths is a conservative talking point entertained seriously by moderates. They played that card in Viet Nam, too. That is a mistake and plays into the militants hands, as usual.

Making Iraq a beacon for oppressed Shiites seems to be a disingenuous statement. The majority of people in Southern Lebanon are Shiites, yet the US just sponsored a little war to eliminate them as a political force. Shiites are shit upon by all, except Iran.

Iran has a stable limited democracy. Iran's stability is a threat to US and Israeli hegemony in the region, and neither wants to negotiate or compromise with this oil rich nation. Instead, the US wants to do to Iran what it has done to Iraq. It cannot happen because Iran does not have the kind of sectarian divisions Iraq did, nor does the US have the resources to invade and win a war of occupaiton with Iran.
The US could make Iran a nuclear wasteland. Let us hope that option is unacceptable to most Americans. The git-r-done folks accepted.

The US should open relations with Iran and guarantee its security. Iran is only extremist in its own nationalism. It has not demonstrated any territorial aggression. Good relations with Iran will reduce conflict in Iraq, lower oil prices, and help Israel begin to compromise with its neighbors, which in the long run it must do anyway. It is a win win win.

The question is why is the US so intent on having conflict with Iran? I think it is a desire to provide monopoly oil profits for the wealthy corporations who have bought the government. Both parties use the same talking points when discussing Iran's belligerence, which is nothing more than providing aid to the weakest of the weak, like the people of Southern Lebanon and the Palestinians. Iran used to be wholly owned by the oil companies, through the Shah, and they want it back. The people of Iran, like people everywhere, want self-determination, which is anathema to imperialist capitalism.

dee:

I didn't say a word about remembering it. We need hearings and accountability for the Bush regime in the biggest way imaginable, up to and including possible impeachment for war crimes.

I merely stated that as far as our national security goes (an entirely separate issue), it is nonetheless at this point sadly irrelevant.

Bob

Hostile:

Spot on. It is in our long-term stragetic interests to develop a relationship with Iran.

It isn't long for the mullahs, either. The Iran/Iraq war baby boom has a huge youth cohort who hate them and hate the religious police. Despite the frothings of Ahamadinejad, there is less anti-US rhetoric in Terhan than perhaps any Muslim capital in the Mideast.

By sabre rattling so relentlessly, we're really letting a golden opportunity pass us by.

Bob

Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 12:44 PM:

There was no love loss between Adams and Jefferson though.

From 5 mins of looking at Wikipedia:

- Many years later, Jefferson hailed Adams as, "The Colossus of that Congress--the great pillar of support to the Declaration of Independence, and its ablest advocate and champion on the floor of the House." [Lipscomb & Bergh, ed. Writings of Thomas Jefferson 13:xxiv]

- Always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimes absolutely mad. - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, 1789

- He (Adams) is profound in his views and accurate in his judgment, except where knowledge of the world is necessary to form a judgment. He is so amiable that I pronounce you will love him, if ever you become acquainted with him. He would be, as he was, a great man in Congress. - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, 1787

As usual, Thomas1 makes a broad statement without knowing any of the context of what he's talking about. You'd think he would eventually realize that he displays his ignorance every time he touches his keyboard...While the two men couldn't be called the best of friends, there was respect in their rivalry. It's not like they were sending death squads to massacre the others' supporters.

on the other hand, Iraq could soon have lots of alternative sources of electricity:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/commanders-in-iraq-urgently-request-renewable-power-options/index.php#more

As usual, the Republican'ts are sacrificing a lot of Americab lives for nothing just so they don't have to admit to their foolhardy and mistaken ways, as otherwise they will lose whatever political power they have in the coming election.

Unfortunately, as bad as they are now, they're likely to be even worse a year from now.

Are things worse in Iraq now than they were a year ago? Oil production is up, electrical production is up, deaths in the pilgrimmage are down, civilian deaths oscillate month to month but are not higher at their peaks than they were at last year's peaks. The Iraqi army and police forces are larger and more effective than last year.

I think you are just disappointed that improvement is occuring slowly.

Would that progress were as good in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and the area controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

I am reminded that a third of the migrants who took the Oregon Trail died en route. Times and circumstances are different, but Iraq is nowhere near as bleak as that.

In the LA Times today, A. Yasmine Rassam writes that Iran is out to dominate the Middle East:

It makes sense, therefore, that the first line of defense against Iran's ambitions is a stable, democratic Iraq, which would provide a formidable counterbalance to Iran.

Fascinating! That's exactly what we had when Saddam was running Iraq (into the ground).

Who said Iraq isn't Vietnam? We had to destroy the country to save the country, or something like that.

And the notion that a democratic Iraq would be a counter balance to Iran is pure BS. An elected Iraq government would be majority Shiites, most of whom have deep loyalties to Iran. If we are lucky, a democratic Iraq will merely forge a strong alliance with Iran, rather than being its puppet.

提供中国办公用品、设备行业研究报告，办公用品行业动态，办公用品供求信息，办公用品 行业产品采购目录，办公用品企业黄页，办公用品市场供需和网上报价，办公用品技术报道， 企业办公知识和相关法律等内容服务的办公用品行业网站.

北京办公用品平价超市QQ:807951 热线: 010-51265701/86021966/82951029 北京办公用品平价超市主要提供办公 用品和文具等商品的网上采购以及办公用品批发零售，超市经营办公用品齐全，产品品种达 数万种。是向政府及各单位提供办公用品采购及配送等服务的专业性网站网站友情链接: ...

办公用品|办公用品批发|办公设备|保险箱－上海福特办公用品网上海福特办公用品网，主要提供办公用品，桌面用品，书写工具，财务用品，电脑耗材， 文件存储，纸制用品，专业销售点钞机，考勤机，碎纸机，白板，文件柜，保险箱、保险 柜、产品有虎王保险箱、金狮保险箱、迪堡大王保险箱和富甲保险箱等办公设备，欢迎各 ...

UWIN-优文办公用品购物网-办公用品网提供办公用品批发,办公用品超市优文办公用品购物网办公地址搬迁致-北京市海淀区学院路甲38号长城电脑大厦B405 邮编：100083 ---请外地客户汇款时注意付款地址！ ... 版权所有Uwin北京优文办公用品 购物网京ICP备05027589号百盛购物中心庄胜崇光百货太平洋百货盈科店昌平新世纪商场燕莎 ...

办公用品墨盒硒鼓耗材网-E易网办公用品墨盒专卖E易办公用品耗材公司,墨盒硒鼓办公用品零售企业,北京配送墨盒硒鼓,北京办公用品,办公 用品耗材网站,复印传真绘图纸.

办公用品一站式深圳采购网|办公用品，办公设备，家私，家具，耗材 ...深圳办公用品网是大型的办公用品采购商城。主要销售办公设备、办公耗材、办公文具、 品牌电脑、数码产品、商务礼品、办公家具等办公用品，让您真正的体验一站式服务的便捷， 更有效的提高工作效率.

welcome to Caitian彩田办公用品网是一家专业的办公用品网,电话机,墨盒,碎纸机,硒鼓, 考勤钟,保险箱,文件夹,订书机,上海办公用品 多小类,近万种产品, 为客户提供'一站式服务'.100 大类,25 是一家专业的办公用品生产、销售、维修、服务 ...

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/08/23/truman-clings-to-a-lost-cause-in-japan.php

A) We shouldn't have invaded at all.
B) We should have secured all ammunition dumps
C) We should have secured the borders
D) We should have immediately began democracy at the local level
E) We should not have fired the army.
F) We should have depended on local companies and workers to rebuild, and merely provided supplies and security
G) We should have imposed a constitution and organization of government that would have kept all three factions in balance.
H) We should have put tighter rules of engagement in place, one that put more risk on our troops to protect Iraqi civilians.
I) We should have immediately developed integrated police squads and military units.
J) We should have kept the mercenaries out of the country, and let our military provide security.
K) We should never have used torture to gather information
L) We should have had due process and a justice system ready to move into place to deal with all suspects.
M) We should have waited for the 4th ID to land in Kuwait before launching the invasion, which would have been fresh to secure Bagdad and prevent the looting.

I don't think there is any way to stuff this genie back in the bottle. We've let the Shia take control of the country, we let the Iranian Shia dominate the Iraqi Shia, we've killed too many civilians, destroyed too much infrastructure, tortured too many people, let too many weapons go free and created too many people with a will to use them.

We would need to completely destroy the piece of crap government we created there, create something better that would somehow not disenfrancise everyone, and take full responsibility for the broken pottery long enough to bring blue helmets in.

All of which is pretty well impossible now.

for a more optimistic assessment, go here, and follow all of the links:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

There IS a timetable for withdrawal.

The only problem is, it's Bush's timetable, not America's. And it takes place all on one day:

January 20, 2009.

Bush has publicly announced his intention to stay in Iraq until the end of his term, and then cut and run, leaving this pile of flaming dogshit on the doorstep of the next president.

Hey, it's a start. Once Boy George bugs out of Iraq, we'll only have 130,000 to go.

Which is why I think my suggestion for a Democratic campaign slogan makes so much sense:

"They gambled. They lost. And they stuck us with the bill."

Democrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of lives to make republicans look bad.
Posted by: American Hawk on August 23, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

AH, I think you unintentionally mixed up your parties...

Republicans are willing to sacrifice a lot of lives (in Iraq and elsewhere) to make Democrats look bad.

I am sure that is what you meant...right? Right.

Apology accepted....

for a more optimistic assessment, go here, and follow all of the links:

will there be ponies?

Here is a threat that I hope Syria carries out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6033144,00.html

The world can easily send all its civilian relief into Lebanon through Israel. Syria isn't needed for anything useful.

"I am reminded that a third of the migrants who took the Oregon Trail died en route. Times and circumstances are different, but Iraq is nowhere near as bleak as that."

Reminded huh? The highest estimate my google searching has just turned up is 1/17 or 5.8%. And one wave of migration was partially in response to a cholera epidemic from which many people died in route. Several sources stated that the death rate was similar to that in the areas people were leaving.

Those goalposts are just leaping back now though aren't they? "Iraq is a success because less than 30% of its population have died."

Sad. Very Sad.

we're really letting a golden opportunity pass us by.

GWB's epitaph should be:

"Never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

"We should have depended on local companies and workers to rebuild, and merely provided supplies and security"

This one struck me as funny because this was (whether you neocons will admit it or not) one of the reasons Bush went to Iraq in the first place, to put more $$$ into businesses he and cheney are tied to. Its disgusting. I mean, does it bother anyone that we have a king who is implying that it doesn't matter what the majority of people I serve say, I'm going to do what I want to do and stay the course? Does that piss anyone off?

another "good news" item from Iraq:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/08/22/story273387.html

you can follow the reconstruction of the Iraqi judicial system in the biweekly updates of the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index.

Cheer up! Iraq is a mess, not a "blood bath". Saddam was the blood bath. Iran is preparing a blood bath (re-arming its children for war.) but Iraq is only a mess.

This was tried before in the 1980’s. At that time Saddam Hussein was the client; he was used by the US to contain the growing influence of Iran. The new California on the Euphrates vision (neocon) is nothing more than a mirage created by mixing the old containment strategy with Francis Fukuyama’s End of History, a sprinkle of the domino theory and a heavy dose of evangelical zeal. The problem with all this is that inside every Middle Easterner is not an American waiting to be liberated. It is also abundantly clear that we have not arrived at an end-of-history consensus. Iraq is the case in point. And that is why it is important.

This is about a post-Cold War economic vision of one world and one global market. The idea is that capitalism and prosperity, as defined by the Washington consensus, will be used to dilute the long-standing conflicts and animosities in the Middle East. It is not about the institutions of liberal democratic government. It is a doctrinal fantasy about the end of politics put to the test with the lives of Arabs. It is a mirror image of that other great 20th century doctrinal fantasy- communism.

Iran hasn't't invaded anybody and they aren't spending like mad on armaments: they spend a asmaller fraction of their national income on war than we do, and their national income is very much smaller. It is hard to see why anyone would consider them a serious strategic threat t the US. Stupidity, perhaps?

How we got into Iraq is more important than Iraq: incompetence and insanity in high places is much more dangerous than all the Moslems in the world put together, like that would ever happen.

The only step the hawks don't take is to draw the obvious conclusion from these two observations.

Well, let's face it: If hawks (and Republicans) drew the obvious conclusions, their policy proposals would collapse.

The GOP's adherents are fervent practicioners of cognitive dissonance.

Thomas1,

I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but are you saying other Vietnam veterans, including those in the United States Senate are somehow worth less than a commentator on MSNBC.

That sure doesn't sound like supporting the troops...but then again, I would expect no less...

Stop taking semi-rhetorical questions out of context while simultaneously making a fool of yourself...it doesn't serve your cause well..

"leaving this pile of flaming dogshit on the doorstep of the next president"

Kinda like what Daddy did for Clinton, only on a larger scale. Am I cool or what? Now watch this drive.

I believe Gen. McCaffrey said Iraq was NOT Vietnam, on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. Posted by: Thomas1

Who gives a shit what a Class A war criminal like McCaffrey has to say anything? Like Oliver North, he's not a sentient being, but plays one on TV!

yet even another opinion:

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12335

Is redeployment sufficient?

a third of the migrants who took the Oregon Trail died en route

They didn't mean the actual migrants on the Oregon Trail, they meant their scores on the computer game when they were in remedial reading class (at their charter school).

justmy2:

Although I voted for Kerry, I respect GENERAL McCaffrey's assessment on this specific question much more.

Why do you assume I was talking about John Kerry?

My point is there are a lot of opinions out there, and you know what they say about opinions...

The original question was basically rhetorical and you are spending a lot of time trying to disprove something that can not be empirically proved one way or the other...

Who gives a shit what a Class A war criminal like McCaffrey has to say? Like Oliver North, he's not a sentient being, but plays one on TV!

Thank you.

I meant to say...

Why do you assume I was exclusively talking about John Kerry?

but you get my point...

How about that little matter of Iran using nuclear weapons to somehow to provoke Armageddon and cause the Hidden Imam, Mahdi, to climb out of the well and bring world-domination?

I didn't know the Not-reverend John Hagee was a Shiite.

Andrew_Wyatt wrote: "If I were a conservative voter, I would be calling for my Republican Congress to investigate this administration's fatal errors of judgment, not making excuses for them."

Unfortunately, in the present-day USA, "conservative" means "neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave", i.e. the "Ann Coulter conservatives" (like frequent commenter rdw) whose so-called "conservatism" is actually classic fascism, and has no content other than profound, willful ignorance, hating "liberals", and worshipping George W. Bush, The Great Infallible Hero Who Protects Us All From Islamofascism, who sits in their pantheon of idols alongside Ronald Reagan, The Great Hero Who Single-Handedly Defeated Communism.

The "conservative voter" of today would really prefer to be relieved altogether of the burden of voting; he would rather be the subservient subject of an all-powerful king than a free citizen of a self-governing democratic republic.

Say, republicrat? How's Hamilton doing up there in Canada?

You don't get it, Kevin, making Iran the "Evil Empire" of the Middle East was part of the plan! The rightards have needed a boogeyman since the USSR went belly-up. They tried China (remember the "spy plane" incident?), but China's far too heavily invested in the US to piss them off too much.

Viola, that leaves Iran! Rightards get to scream "Islamofascists" with as much glee as they used with "Commies". They get to align the American left with their new enemy, and, best of all, they get to spend tons of money on new weapons systems to combat the nuclear-armed state sponsor of terror.

Oh please, the bloodbath in Iraq was an inevitable and foreseeable result of the events of 2001-- that's January 20th, 2001.

to thomas1:

" gcochran:

How about that little matter of Iran using nuclear weapons to somehow to provoke Armageddon and cause the Hidden Imam, Mahdi, to climb out of the well and bring world-domination? "

Right, the world ended yesterday. I must have slept through the Last Trump. Forgot to set the alarm. In real life, of course, Iran's foreign policy is considerably more cautious and generally saner than ours. Ask anybody.
But you make my point: you're a loon. There are loons like you in high places, and they're a hell of a lot more of a threat than Iran ever could be.
As for Adams and Jefferson - you may not know that Adams' last words were "Jefferson still survives!" Since you apparently don't know jack about anything.

Although, to be fair, _every_ country's foreign policy is saner than ours. Nobody else has a head of state who worries about a non-existent caliphate. They're not talking about the threat of the Mahdi in the Financial Times.
Nobody else is eager to invest hundreds of billions in 'Arab Democracy'.

Where Bush's Arrogance Has Taken Us

By Jim Hightower,
http://www.alternet.org/story/40678/

Follow the Money

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
-"Howling Paul" Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003

* The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion

* As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248

* Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)

* Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion (includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)
****

There's a lot more where this come from and you can go to hightower's web site and d/l a nifty little poster of all the damning facts.

(Bonus: at http://www.ronaldmchummer.com/index.php you can construct your own McDonald's sign protesting their 'Hummers with a Happy Meal' promotion. Petition to McDonald's, too)

I cringe when read the word "hawk" in regards to the pro-war crowd - I think a mass substitution of "coward" for "hawk" reads much better.

I didn't appreciate false charges like that about John Kerry, and I certainly won't put up with those against McCaffrey either -- your rabid response is ironic given that McCaffrey is a Democrat just stating the truth -- no wonder our Party can't be trusted with national security anymore : (Posted by: Thomas1

First of all, fuck you, Charlie. Second, McCaffrey is about as much a Democrat as you are. Finally, the Army's attempted whitewash of McCaffrey's action at the end of the first Gulf War is well-documented.

The best article detailing McCaffrey's crime is, unfortunately, behind the subscription wall at the Atlantic Monthly.

Otherwise, here

here

here

'Hummers with a Happy Meal'

I thought a hummer was a "happy ending"....

Vultures is a better description of the pro-war faction. They love to eat the already dead but do not have the courage to do the actual killing themselves, which is left to the poor who join the military as a last resort social welfare program to improve their lives.

I thought a hummer was a "happy ending"....
Posted by: Disputo

Want fries with that, sir?

republicrat: Cheer up! Iraq is a mess, not a "blood bath". Saddam was the blood bath.

since saddam was captured...

more americans have died in iraq...

than during hussien's roughly 30-years in power

combined..

cfshep...fyi...federal debt grows past 8.5-trillion this week

Post revolutionary war, it took a very long time to get the foundations of American democracy right.

Which foreign army was occupying the US in the post-revolutionary war period ?

Kevin wrote: ... a pullout now would almost certainly unleash an unbelievable bloodbath in Baghdad and beyond. This virtual certainty of slaughter is a painful reality, and it makes it harder than ever to continue counseling withdrawal.

The sad truth is that there is already an ongoing "unbelievable bloodbath" in Iraq with thousands of innocent civilians being killed every month.

The sad truth is that this ongoing "unbelievable bloodbath" is an actual certainty and not a "virtual" certainty (and by the way, Kevin's assertion that a "virtual certainty", which by definition refers to something that is not an actuality and can only be someone's opinion about what might happen, is a "painful reality", is nonsensical gibberish).

The sad truth is that there is absolutely no evidence that the presence of US troops is doing anything to prevent this actual ongoing "unbelievable bloodbath" and on the contrary the presence of US troops is exacerbating it.

All of which makes it "harder than ever" -- and grossly irresponsible -- to continue counseling anything other than immediate, complete withdrawal.

But that's what sensible liberal mush-heads who assert neoconservative talking points about what some people think might happen as though they were proven facts, continue to counsel.

Marine Corps Equipment After Iraq:

Over the past three years the Marine Corps has maintained 40 percent of its ground equipment, 50 percent of its communications equipment, and 20 percent of its aviation assets in Iraq. This equipment is used at as much as nine times its planned rate, abused by a harsh environment, and depleted due to losses in combat. To maintain acceptable readiness levels, the Marines have been taking equipment from non-deployed units and drawing down Maritime Prepositioned stocks, including equipment stored in Europe, thus limiting their ability to respond to contingencies outside of Iraq.

Resetting and recovering the force will be expensive. The cost of restoring the Marines’ ground and aviation equipment to its pre-Iraq level, as of the summer of 2006, will require $12 billion plus an additional $5 billion for each year the Marines remain in Iraq.

I thought a hummer was a "happy ending"....
Posted by: Disputo on August 23, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, but it's an impeachable offense.

War-Profiteering, apparently, is not.

Back to what Kevin said: my response is that bush blew the best recent chance for any kind of decent outcome earlier this year.

The current government in Baghdad had one tiny chance to get some credibility. How? By getting a statement from the US that we didn't intend to stay there. This commitment would have given them stature and a reason for the different factions to take them seriously and work with them.

It would have cost us nothing either because it's plain that we have to get out sometime, and it would have been better to look good when we made that commitment-- to help legitimate the government we wanted in there and commit to the inevitable withdrawal from a position of strength-- than to wait and be forced out by the bombers.

But noo-oo-oh, not bush. Sheriffs don't do that.

The problem is that without that kind of commitment the current Iraqi government is now nothing more than a puppet government like all the ones in Saigon that we propped up so we could do what we wanted.

Apparently none of the big brains in the administration had the gray matter to see that, though. Dumb clucks cost lives.

If we pull out now, the danger is that the Shiite militia will organize, get vehicles, and use large-scale military tactics to take entire Sunni villages into custody, to camps for orderly disposal. Probably by beheading. (which is not an unheard of event in that region - ie. when the Mongols executed 800,000 Persians).

This occurrance will be blamed on Liberals, just like they blame Liberals for "the Killing Fields" - as a result of our pullout from VietNam.

Once that's done, then the Shia and Kurds will have to duke it out. Potentially, the Iraqi Shia and Iran will team-up - potentially with Turkey.

If we stay, we're preventing organized genocide, but we're allowing this low-level genocidal conflict to continue.

It's Bush's fault we're fucked like this - but there's no way to un-fuck this situation.

KD: No matter what we do, Iraq is not going to be a beacon for anything for a very, very long time.

Wrong!

Iraq is surely going to be a beacon for Shiite fundamentalism for the next few generations.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Shiite fundamentalist Persian Gulf

WTF?

Osama_Been_Forgotten: If we pull out now, the danger is that the Shiite militia will organize,

Will organize?

HUH?

What?

What exactly do you think the Al Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq have been doing during the twenty years prior to the deposing of Saddam Hussein?

The Shiite militia IS organized.

The Shiite militia HAS BEEN organized.

The Shiite militia has been waiting and longing for these days for decades.

The Shiite militia IS going to exact revenge for the persecution the Shiites suffered under SH.

It is a matter of time.

As soon as the US is EXPULSED, it will happen.

The Shiite militia IS organized.

According to Juan Cole:

"Al-Zaman says that the US military has concluded that there are 20 militias openly operating in Iraq, and that dealing with them is the business of the Iraqi government. (Typically "militias" refers to armed Shiite groups, most of whom are at least nominally allied with parties that support the government. Sunni such groups are typically instead referred to as "insurgents," and the US is actively fighting those.)"

By "organized" - I mean;

Train in large unit tactics, use of tanks, planes, helicopters, etc.

Right now, they simply can not operate like that, with the presence of US troops. They can operate on a small scale, like guerillas, or thugs, or death squads, but not like a formal Army.

The Shiite militia IS going to exact revenge for the persecution the Shiites suffered under SH.
It is a matter of time.
As soon as the US is EXPULSED, it will happen.

That is precisely my point.

That is exactly why the US can not leave. If we leave, we'll (Liberals) be made responsible for what happens after. Just like we (LIberals) were made responsible for the actions of the Khmer Rouge after we got out of VietNam. (the conservative mind...)

Aren't the Soviets responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the Afghan civil war after they left?

Aren't the Soviets responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the Afghan civil war after they left?
No. Bill Clinton is.

But seriously, you're right. It will be a bloodbath, and somehow it'll be our fault because it's the bleeding-heart PC liberals that made our troops fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Certainly it will never be the fault of the fuckwads that sent them in undermanned and ill-equipped.

After all, if we'd been allowed to drop 3x as many bombs on SEA as we did on Europe in WWII, instead of a measly 2x, things would have turned out differently and now they'd be making Nike sneakers and Banana Republic shirts and good shit like that in Vietnam. Oh, wait a minute...

The current status of the Iraqi war, and the likely outcome, are all part of the Republican Plan for Endless War.

OBF, I agree with your last post except for this: That is exactly why the US can not leave. If we leave, we'll (Liberals) be made responsible for what happens after. Just like we (LIberals) were made responsible for the actions of the Khmer Rouge after we got out of VietNam. (the conservative mind...)

About half of the Democrats voted against giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. If those same liberal Democrats lead the effort to get out, the blame for any bloodbath would actually fall mostly on the Democrats and Republicans who voted for the authorization.

The vote for the war was about 75% in Congress and about 65% in public opinion. A defeat for the US or a greusome bloodbath after an ambiguous withdrawal is a defeat for those large majorities, in my opinion.

I think liberals should really argue for the policies that they support (a la the supporters of Ned Lamont) and not worry about the political repercussions. If they are correct, they'll get credit, just not universal approbation.

When liberals, such as Kevin Drum from time to time, complain that they'll suffer political damage from a withdrawal from Iraq, I think that is simply an acknowledgement from them that they might be wrong. If they were absolutely certain that they were right (as Kos and Lamont seem to be) they would be anticipating success, not fearing electoral losses.

What actually happened after the US withdrew from VietNam was that everybody blamed everybody. The 1976 election preserved Democratic majorities in the congress, and a Democrat was elected president.

Huh?

Doesn't the argument boil down to: Since staying longer has made things worse in Iraq, we need to stay longer so things don't get even worse.

Cognitive dissonace aside, I realize folks are trying to play the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" card, but that ignores the obvious benefits of freeing our armed forces to do something productive (like not getting killed) and removing (pardon the expression) our proverbial dicks from the Middle East punchbowl. It should go without saying that there has to be a sufficiently compelling reason to fight a war, not just simply that "we can't stop now."

cramer: An elected Iraq government would be majority Shiites, most of whom have deep loyalties to Iran.

And yet most Arabs in Iran are disaffected with the Iranian government, which is entirely Persian. There are frequent minor revolts by the Arab Shiites against the Iranian government.

JeffII: Who gives a shit what a Class A war criminal like McCaffrey has to say anything? Like Oliver North, he's not a sentient being, but plays one on TV!

Is the rest of the information that you provide this unreliable?

How's Hamilton doing up there in Canada?

It always looked like a nice place to live, but I haven't been there recently. Isn't that off-topic, like my energy post above?

since saddam was captured...
...
more americans have died in iraq...
...
than during hussien's roughly 30-years in power
...
combined..

I was including Iraqi blood in the bloodbath.

but I do like historical comparisons. More Americans died taking Okinawa than died at Pearl Harbor, and lots more Japanese civilians had to be killed to implement democracy there than have been killed since the American invasion of Iraq.

More Americans die in two months of driving than died in the WTC attacks. Maybe we should forget that we have any foreign enemies and simply drive less.

Well, I think the French did down from Canada and then the British again in 1814, of course there was also Mexico and Spain -- Remember the Maine -- but you probably weren't referring to the Confederate States as a "foreign army" right?

I guess I should have said the 13 colonies that formed America in the post-revolution era when the new government was being formed as opposed to any location in North America. Remember, America wasn't composed of 50 states after the revolution and much of the territory that is now part of the US wasn't always part of the US.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration missed the fact that Iraq is not ethnically/religiously homogenous enough to actually be a country without a ruthless despot. The best approach now would be an attempt to divide the country into the 3 separate entities, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. The second best approach would be to leave, in which case option 1 would occur on its own, or the Shia will ruthlessly put down the Sunnis and the Kurds in a bloody civil war that will reestablish the traditional Middle Eastern political order.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration missed the fact that Iraq is not ethnically/religiously homogenous enough to actually be a country without a ruthless despot.

They didn't miss that at all; in fact, they are counting on that. They're playing a double con.

If we pull out now, the danger is that the Shiite militia will organize, get vehicles, and use large-scale military tactics to take entire Sunni villages into custody, to camps for orderly disposal.

I think this type of thinking comes from relentless mass media repetition.

There is no evidence that Iraqi Shiites would resort to systemic genocide.Iraqi Shiites are not German Nazi Christians. The sectarian killing going on now is based on retaliation for recent crimes.

Iraqi Shiites are not obsessed with efficient organization. Iraqi Shiites are not obedient like the Germans or Japanese. Iraqi Shiites do not have the industrial base for orderly disposal. Iraqi Shiites do not have the ideology to dehumanize entire populations. Baathists did, but they were secular ideologues.

My question is -- if US moves out of Iraq why in the world does anyone think Iran will successfully move in?

isn't this the same Iran that Iraq fought for 10 years? seems to me that Iraq could go from becoming America's New Vietnam to Iran's New Vietnam

"Understand the war on terror as free-market capitalist enterprise rather than as some sort of public or government service, and in the nightly newscasts we see before us (in Iraq) victory, not defeat." Lewis Lapham, Harper's, Sept, 2006.

US Stock Exchange share prices, 2003/2006

Lockheed Martin: $52 / $75
Boeing: $33 / $77
ExxonMobil $36 / $65
Chevron $36 / $66
Halliburton $22 / $74
Fluor $34 / $77

One reason the US has flourished as a country is the ability to recognize mistakes, and pull the plug no matter how much it hurts our pride. Unlike other countries, we haven't continued down an obviously flawed paths until the country is run into the ground and ruined.

American Hawk writes:

As usual, the Democrats are advising surrender to the terrorists.

We surrendered to the Communists in Vietnam, licked our chops, and were the wiser for it. The dominoes didn't fall. The world didn't end. There is nothing intrinsically moral about "staying the course" in Iraq. It was a mistake to go in, it's clear we aren't doing any more good by staying there, the neocon experiment failed, and it's time to pull the plug. If there if a point when American interest are actually threatened, we can always send in the military again. Israel is more than capable of dealing with its enemies and threats against it. It's time to act sensibly and listen to our heads.

republicrat wrote: Maybe we should forget that we have any foreign enemies and simply drive less.

If we drove less, we wouldn't have as many foreign enemies, because we wouldn't have to install and prop up brutal dictatorships, or invade countries and kill thousands of people, in order to have control of their oil.

Get this,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14469309/from/RS.5/

The Bush administration wants to log the Sequoia National Forest because it's a fire hazard.

Posted by: Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK
I respect GENERAL McCaffrey's assessment on this specific question, with his experience and knowledge on the ground, much more than Hagel's too.
Many of us who still remember PRESIDENT TRUMAN are being shut out of the modern-day Democratic Party . . .
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas,
I went to the transcript and read it very carefully. If you support Gen McCaffery you support withdrawl NOW. He doesn't say so explicitly but you can't read his comments and come to any other conclusion. He basically feels that every day the army stays in Iraq, America is weakened.

I found his comments after the part you quoted very interesting as well:

GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, you know, from the start, I’ve done everything I could to say there is no point of connection between Vietnam and Iraq. Completely different strategic connotation. However, the domestic politics of this are starting to look eerily, uncannily, like the late ‘60s. You know, one of the, one of the other problems that I think the administration is trying to face up to finally, certainly the National Security Council is, we drained $55 billion out of the U.S. Air Force and the Navy and we’re putting that money into ammunition, medical care for wounded soldiers. We’re, we’re literally giving up our modernization program for the forces that need to be there in 10, 20 years to deter the People’s Republic of China. We don’t need the F-22 to confront the Iranian—Iraqi insurgents; we need that high-tech capability to make sure we maintain stability in the coming years.
So the danger is, we end up 36 months from now with our military fundamentally broken. And that’s what I’m concerned about.

Did you also see his answer to the Iran nuclear issue? It was basically, they are going to become a nuclear power, get use to it and plan around it, there is no military solution to Iran's bomb ambitions.

Truman had the balls to fire the most popular general in American History and stop World War 3, I am sure he would crush a yes man like Lieberman who is too cowardly to question any war America is involved in.

Lieberman was never a good Democrat. If you repeat something long enough people believe it. He built his "I'm a great Democrat" reputation on strategic voting and a happy personality. But if you look closely at his record you will see betrayal of the party's deepest values at key moments, in particular with regards to accounting standards, the bankcruptcy bill, social security, and supreme court nominees. Since 2004 he has continously positioned himself against the party in the press by not simply supporting the President in Iraq but also attacking all those who criticise the conduct of the executive branch as "traitors". For many this was the last staw and explains why he will go down to ignominious defeat this November.

So Thomas1, read McCaffrey a little closer and see Lieberman for what he is, you won't just be a better Democrat but a better American for it.
I guarantee you'll feel better too.
Cleaner and clearer.
Bush has soiled America and it is up to Democrats to clean up his mess, why don't you join us?

I rechecked the Iraq Index, comparing years such as June2004 - June 2005 and June 2005 to June 2006 (or August to August, March to March, depending on which were the most recent data available.) Deaths of foreigners, military and civilian, were down last year compared to the previous year. Deaths of Iraqis, however, were up. 15 of the 18 provinces have little violence and are free of foreign troops.

Also improved, however, are access to sewer facilities and availability of potable water. Construction projects are underway in many places, and most of those are free of violence.

The American War of 1812 to 1815 indeed led to British occupations in several of the 13 original Colonies.

Some thirty years after the end of the American Revolution...

And this is somehow supposed to compare with the
US nation building exercise in Iraq ?

Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 4:49 PM:

if you want to ask your question now that way, then only the British occupied the original 13 Colonies again in 1814.

Umm...but they didn't, Thomas1. You can say that the District of Maine was occupied, but that wasn't incorporated into a state until 1820.

please don't insinuate that I am the one ignorant of American history

I'm insinuating, Thomas1. Now put down your copy of US History for Dummies and slowly back away from the keyboard...

15 of the 18 provinces have little violence and are free of foreign troops.

From Prof. Juan Cole's "Top Ten Myths about Iraq in 2005":

1. The guerrilla war is being waged only in four provinces. This canard is trotted out by everyone from think tank flacks to US generals, and it is shameful. Iraq has 18 provinces, but some of them are lightly populated. The most populous province is Baghdad, which has some 6 million residents, or nearly one-fourth of the entire population of the country. It also contains the capital. It is one of the four being mentioned! Another of the four, Ninevah province, has a population of some 1.8 million and contains Mosul, a city of over a million and the country's third largest! It is not clear what other two provinces are being referred to, but they are probably Salahuddin and Anbar provinces, other big centers of guerrilla activity, bringing the total for the "only four provinces" to something like 10 million of Iraq's 26 million people.

But the "four provinces" allegation is misleading on another level. It is simply false. Guerrilla attacks occur routinely beyond the confines of Anbar, Salahuddin, Ninevah and Baghdad. Diyala province is a big center of the guerrilla movement and has witnessed thousands of deaths in the ongoing unconventional war. Babil province just south of Baghdad is a major center of back alley warfare between Sunnis and Shiites and attacks on Coalition troops. Attacks, assassinations and bombings are routine in Kirkuk province in the north, a volatile mixture of Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs engaged in a subterranean battle for dominance of the area's oil fields. So that is 7 provinces, and certainly half the population of the country lives in these 7, which are daily affected by the ongoing violence. It is true that violence is rare in the 3 northern provinces of the Kurdistan confederacy. And the Shiite south is much less violent than the 7 provinces of the center-north, on a good day. But some of this calm in the south is an illusion deriving from poor on the ground reporting. It appears to be the case that British troops are engaged in an ongoing struggle with guerrilla forces of the Marsh Arabs in Maysan Province. Even calm is not always a good sign. The southern port city of Basra appears to come by its via a reign of terror by Shiite religious militias.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html

The main problem with occupation is that the occupied have time on their side. Unless, of course, you kill off most of the natives. Perhaps the Republicants are not averse to the latter method of resolving the issue.

Construction projects are underway in many places, and most of those are free of violence.

Oh yeah? Prove it.

Where's Tom "wouldn't it be wonderful" Friedman when you need him? Isn't it about time for him to say the next six months will be decisive?

And why's everyone always jumping on John Adams? After all, he laid the groundwork for our current debate on immigration and civil rights with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

And what about my pony? When you guys talk about Iraq becoming a stable beacon for democracy in the mid-East you always forget my pony.

and there is this:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2344042

Oh yeah? Prove it.

You didn't see the George W. Bush School For Kids Who Can't Read Good? We don't want to give away the location, for security reasons.

Nevermind, it was just blown up by a really tiny truck bomb.

Viet Nam War and Gulf War Criminal General McCaffery: So the danger is, we end up 36 months from now with our military fundamentally broken.

Something good can come from our invasion and occupation of Iraq afterall.

Thomas1, I do so wish you would type fewer posts and spend that extra time making sure that there is a clear focus and purpose to what you do write.

You dump so much stuff that I am reminded of the high school juniors I used to teach. Using a "shotgun approach" to an essay, they would provide a ton of verbage hoping that something would hit target.

Can the rest of you stop playing along with "Thomas1's" insane fiction that he's a Democrat? He's Charlie/Cheney/Doug M./Paul/Craig and a host of other nom de loons, he's crazy, and we all know it -- so why talk to him? If he started claiming he was Napoleon (give him time) would you debate with him about the legitimacy of his claim to the French throne? Stop indulging this bedbug and his pathetic need for attention.

Oh, and Thomas1? Adding a sentence like, "The American War of 1812 to 1815 indeed led to British occupations in several of the 13 original Colonies." to your presentation of Wikipedia material does nothing to enhance your credibility.

Now, if you would have said that British forces in the War of 1812 captured and occupied parts of the original colonies, then you would have been more accurate.

However, to echo something said earlier, you are comparing apples and oranges. Different times, different circumstances.

Stefan on August 23, 2006 at 5:50 PM:

Can the rest of you stop playing along with "Thomas1's" insane fiction that he's a Democrat?

Sorry...I guess he's, like, Joe Lieberman's Mini Me...

Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 6:00 PM:

I never stated that entire Colonies were occupied

Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 4:49 PM:

..the British occupied the original 13 Colonies again in 1814.

Not only is Thomas1's comparison invalid, he doesn't have his facts straight, and he's willing to lie about what he has written.

I'm done with him.

As for getting back to the subject of Kevin's post: There's going to be a bloodbath if we leave immediately or if the US stays indefinitely. The only real choice is how many US troops will be sacrificed and how much of our money will be sacrificed...

Of course your idea for withdrawal was a good one Kevin. We did have the cover of the election, in spite of the fact that the election and the Iraqi constitution are both fatally flawed.

This is shaping up to be another Vietnam. The American public, slowly, via Congressional budget cuts, will have to force the executive branch out of Iraq, or at least give cover.

I doubt an American President will have the guts to say, "It was a mistake and we are leaving".

republicrat: I was including Iraqi blood in the bloodbath.

"How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? The answer is not that damned many."

-Dick Cheney, 1992

(4 years after Saddam gassed the Kurdish people)

Thomas1 is comparing our occupation of Iraq to Britain's occupation of the United States during the War of 1812. But weren't the Brits the "bad guys"? What does that make us in Iraq?

His argumentation is maybe just too advanced for my wittle bwain. Someone enlighten me!

12 Passengers Arrested After Flight to India Returns to Amsterdam

I am not happy to see this

Thomas1: I answered the question.

But - and please excuse my ignorance in these obviously very complicated matters - they weren't occupying the States in continuation of a policy of furthering our initial strivings for democracy were they?

Are things worse in Iraq now than they were a year ago? Oil production is up, electrical production is up...

To be as charitable as is possible for me when someone is cheerfully diminishing the horrible slaughter of Iraqis as something that pales in comparison to the successful sewer projects there, let me just say that these statements are misleading and inarguably inaccurate as a description of the current state of affairs in Iraq.

From the Brookings Iraq Index:

Enemy initiated attacks against the coalition and its partners at an all time high.

Average weekly attacks at an all time high.

Number of daily attacks close to the all time high.

Multiple fatality bombings at an all time high.

Deaths in Baghdad at an all time high.

Sectarian violence at an all time high.

Internally displaced persons due to sectarian violence up tenfold since the Samarra bombing, over 162,000 people homeless now.

Crude oil production less than it was in January 2004 and not significantly up over the past year.

Gas prices at an all time high.

Electricity production less than it was in August 2004.

Average hours of electricity in Baghdad close to the all time low.

The professional class and those of means are fleeing Iraq, and over one million Iraqis have streamed into Jordan, Syria, and elsewhere to escape the violence.

Tell them it's not a bloodbath, then please take your half-assed warmed over witless crap and peddle it somewhere else.

comparing our occupation of Iraq to Britain's occupation of the United States during the War of 1812

Iraq needs a General Jackson to teach us a lesson.

Thomas1: You will have to ask Stephens why he asked the question.

Well I'll try turning my thinking cap on now and have a go at what Stephens might have meant. You know, I think - oooh, this is so hard! - he might have been refering to the fact that America's democracy evolved as an internal movement of its own people. They had some friendly help from the French and some indians, but the revolution was substantially their own doing, and so it wasn't necessary for anybody to stick around afterwards to make sure we didn't try to blow each other up.

And here I thought all along there was some point to all those posts of yours with countless lines of wiki quotes. (What a lot of work!) Oh except for providing a technical counter-example which proves absolutely nothing at all!

And here I thought all along there was some point to all those posts of yours with countless lines of wiki quotes.

There is no point to Thomas, anything he writes, or engaging in dialogue with him. He is a time wasting troll, whose only purpose in life is to steal your vital bodily fluids.

Kevin is normally awful on Iraq and anything else related to miliary issues, but he also has the virtue of being honest much of the time, such as here recognizing (for all his criticism of Bush) that it would be a terrible mistake to withdraw now:
"a pullout now would almost certainly unleash an unbelievable bloodbath in Baghdad and beyond. This virtual certainty of slaughter is a painful reality, and it makes it harder than ever to continue counseling withdrawal."

But most revealing is how lame his rationale is for last year's counseling of withdrawal -- as you read what Kevin wrote, ask yourself what person with the authority would ever make this decision on such flimsy rationale and consider how it shows the weak intellectural premise for the liberal's demand of "redeployment":

"[pull out] seemed like the best of a bad set of options. The elections gave us a reasonable pretext, and it seemed at least plausible that our continued presence was helping to fuel the insurgency while also providing the fledgling government with an excuse for failing to take responsibility for security itself. Conversely, our continuing presence would do little to stop the violence and would make it ever plainer to the world that our strained military was unable to cope with a determined guerrilla insurgency. Pulling out certainly didn't guarantee any kind of good outcome in Iraq, but it seemed like Iraq's best chance.

It may indeed take 30 years for democracy to take root in Iraq too.

Not if US troops are still occupying the capital

You will have to ask Stephens why he asked the question.

I asked the question in response to a comment about the United States taking a while to form
a stable government. My point was that the situation in Iraq is very different than the
situation in post revolution America.

Maybe you should have looked at the context of my question (the comment I was responding to was posted with my question) before you went off on a Wikipedia cut and paste spree.

How long were U.S. troops in Germany after WWII before unification?

Germany was peaceful and stable long before unification...Again you are comparing different situations.

As for knowing the context of your question, I in fact quoted what you were responding to, so I think you assume too much.

Then why did you write this:

You will have to ask Stephens why he asked the question.

And how is your response relevant to the question in the context in which it was asked ?

"As usual, the Democrats are advising surrender to the terrorists."

Please cite example, or else crawl back under bridge and go back to masturbating quietly,
Unamerican Chickenshit.

American troop deaths are lower though.

Really? We've started resurrecting them? Because as far as I can tell American troop deaths are higher every day....

"Really? I would disagree with your liberal views."

Wow, Al, what a surprising premise. You never cease to impress with your ability to come up with fresh new takes on each topic. Saying the president is right in everything he does takes a lot of courage, especially when the subject of the post is actually the rising tide of violence in the land of flowering democracy.

If only the rest of the country could stay the course with the same dogged and infantile determination with which you attach yourself to Bush's behind -- well, we'd all be speaking Arabic, quite frankly.

"Democrats are willing to sacrifice a lot of lives to make republicans look bad."

Wow, I missed that line, AH. Have you consulted your therapist lately?

I mean, it really is all about YOU, isn't it, Dr. Mengele?

Playing toy soldiers with other people's lives is fun, unless you're the other people. In this case, you brave keyboarders are debating the lives of real people in harm's way, whose deaths, maimings, and years away from their families do not seem to affect you.

I'm a US Army veteran (E-5), and I say, pack up and leave. Do not say good-bye. Just leave.

Fuck every chickenhawk who ever wanted a war but didn't want to serve. You know who you are.

租车 上海租车 租车 上海租车 上海租车 汽车租赁 上海租车 上海汽车租赁 汽车租赁

两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 性爱文学 偷拍走光图 漂亮美眉图片 泳装写真 乳罩内裤图片 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影下载 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说下载 成人小说下载 乱伦图片

I am comparing IRAN's interference in Iraq to Britain's interference in the United States during the War of 1812. Both were detrimental to democracy taking root.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

That's a very humorus interpretation of American history. Revisionsim on the fly.
Last time I checked, Iraq was not part of the United States and had not just thrown off the tyranny of a foreign overseas power.
I think it says much of the conservative foreign policy mind set that a commenter can come on this thread and not see that the United States fills the role of the British in 1812-1814 not the role of the Americans.

Disappointing.

what I won't support though is an impeachment of Bush

As much as he deserves it, it ain't going to happen so you can sleep tight. I would also say that the elected Democrats in congress know how impeachment can fail to work as a political strategy - look at Clinton. Censure will happen though.

-- I agreed with Lieberman on Iraq, the bankruptcy bill, Social Security reform, and Supreme Court nominees. For that, we are shunned from the Democratic Party. Just remember what happened when the Reagan Democrats voted.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 23, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

I would say you are not shunned, you have simply defined yourself out of the party. Your values are not the Democratic party's values. By your thoughts and feelings you are a Republican and probably a conservative republican at that, moderate republicans do not back social security meddling, moderate republicans are disturbed by the recent supreme court nominees.

Reagan Democrats kept their core love of the American worker and traditional working class values. None of your positions do that. A Reagan Democrat would never have agreed with social security betrayal or the Bankcruptcy bill straightjacket.
Calling any Democrat who agrees with the republican proposal of the moment a Reagan Democrat does not make it true.

I smell astroturf. You stink of it Thomas1. Gotta say you had me fooled at the beginning of the thread but I see it now. You don't talk like any 60 year old Democrat I have ever met.

Liebeman is a Democrat like Bush is an orator.
Lose you illusions Thomas1. See through the veil.
What newspaper do you read?
What TV news do you look at?
How do you do it?

This is the general who convinced me that the liberals were right and Liberman was out of his tree.
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/odom_national_interest_summer_2004.pdf

More on the safety of Baghdad:

http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/mean-streets.html

and here:

http://reuters.excite.com/article/20060822/2006-08-22T172327Z_01_GEO743062_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.html

You keep recycling the same article from a two-week old military initiative to say how fantastic things are in Iraq, in contradistinction to the reams of evidence I cited that rebutted your earlier claims.

While beefing up troops in Baghdad has lowered the violence a little, I encourage you to google "Iraqis" and "killed" in the News section to get a feel for how things are still going. The violence has just geographically shifted a little, which always happens. And besides, I don't imagine the White House views this as a long-term solution.

Probably just until the November elections.

This Pollyanish tactic of saying "Look, things will be great after [Operation Lightning, Operation Phantom Fury, Election #1, Election #2] is tired.

When you are ready to talk objectively about the situation in Iraq...well, I don't expect that will ever happen.

Last year I began arguing that we should start a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq because it seemed like the best of a bad set of options.

Really? The earliest I'm aware of your advocacy of this position is February of this year. I'm probably mistaken, but would not have had to ask if 'last year' had been made a link to the post(s) in which you began arguing for withdrawal.

Our host, Kevin Drum, supported this war but didn't want to serve either.

He was wrong, and I told him so then.

Some of us are too old to serve any more -- are you saying we can't have an opinion on the war unless we are on active duty?

I am saying that if you were EVER fit for service and passed on the opportunity, you have no right whatever to say other people should make a sacrifice that you avoided.

Windhorse: When you are ready to talk objectively about the situation in Iraq...well, I don't expect that will ever happen.

That looks like it is addressed to me. I read plenty of bad news from Iraq; one reason I come here is to be sure that I am up to date on the bad news. What is post is complementary to the relentless pessimism of Kevin Drum: on Iraq and on energy and some other topics I counter his depression with more balanced appraisals.

My overall assessment of Iraq, as I wrote above, it is a mess not a disaster, and not uniformly worse than its neighbors Syria and Iran. I doubt that anybody here would really like to visit Damascus, Baghdad, and Teheran, and try to independently ride around assessing all of all three countries, but the job would not be most dangerous in Iraq compared to the others.

And Iraq is considerably improved over the days of Saddam Hussein -- even average deaths per day and per week are lower, and the Shiite pilgrimmages have happened with little violence now four years running, after prohibition during the Baathist rule.

the following site has more complete coverage than Kevin Drum and political animal:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/the_ongoing_battle_for_baghdad.php

what you want is many complementary sources of information.

What is post is complementary to the relentless pessimism of Kevin Drum: on Iraq and on energy and some other topics I counter his depression with more balanced appraisals.

It's not "balanced" to post wishful thinking. When someone is dying of terminal cancer, it's not balanced to say that at least their 401(k) is doing all right or that, "yeah, they might suffering terribly -- but at least their hair looks nice."

It's not "balanced" to simply state the opposing point of view because you wished it were expressed here.

Nor is it "balanced" to cite facts out of context. For instance, let's use as an example something you cited. Is electricity production up? Yes. But what is the context? Energy production is:

1) lower than it's been in the past
2) far less than what the Iraqis need to survive
3) more expensive than ever for the ordinary, cash-strapped Iraq in a country with a 50% unemployment rate
4) far short of the production goals, said goals which have never -- not once -- been met
5) largely reliant on personal generators which are expensive to fuel and are meant for backup -- not for modern cities to rely on
6) so poorly distributed that the average hours of available electricity in Baghdad was close to its historic low last month.

So, in context, is the fact that electricity production is up a sign of progress in Iraq? No, in fact it's not.

An "appraisal" requires fact in context, not some jackass appeal to one positive story in the press or one fact out of context.

My overall assessment of Iraq, as I wrote above, it is a mess not a disaster, and not uniformly worse than its neighbors Syria and Iran.

You're psychotic. Syria and Iran are not experiencing internal bloodbaths, critical energy shortages, abhorrent living conditions, and a complete lack of safety and security.

Only a sociopath or a very immature, narcissistic individual could cheerfully overlook the the real human suffering in Iraq in order to appear clever on a blog or pursue some puerile agenda. I'm guessing you're the latter.

what you want is many complementary sources of information.

Actually what one wants is many accurate sources of information. Most of us here get our info from very diverse sources, and in my case that also includes my Iraqi friends.

Let's remind ourselves, finally, pace jerks like Hannity: Those who really "undermined the war" were those who bungled the execution of it, not those who revealed and complained about that bungling.