It's a battle of failed right wing policies vs. failed right wing policies.

Of course we can't keep anything secret anymore, with traitors like you and the NYT out there -- all I can say is thank God you weren't around during WWII or we would all be speaking German right now.

it's never Bush's fault
it's never Bush's fault
no matter what happens
it's never Bush's fault

Kevin wrote: Would this be an appalling strategy to follow? Of course it would. Appalling options are all that's left to us in Iraq.

It would be a very comfortable strategy for all the Reagan administration retreads in the Bush administration, since it is much the same policy that the Reagan administration followed in Central America in the 1980s, with its support of the death-squad dictatorship governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, which murdered tens of thousands of innocent people.

Appalling options are all that's left to us in Iraq.

When will an American politician stand up and say this? We know the Republicans hide behind platitudes and buzz words like "failure is not an option." But the Democrats talk up their opposition to the war without proposing a solution? And why is that? Because the only solutions are appalling.

So somebody needs to draw a line and say, "All of our options are disastrous, so saying that an option would be disastrous doesn't rule it out."

It's Bush's fault he's been too accomodating and for actually think "bipartisanship" could work with traitors.

Jeffery,

Our enemies are not as dumb as our right wingers. Unfortunately.

But if the Democrat Party can't come up with a solution that will make everyone happy, it means the Republicans, who created the mess in the first place, were right all along!

Did I mention that you're all a bunch of traitors ?

Kevin,

I've tried to forgive the misguided HAWKS (spit) who wanted this war of choice, but every time I read articles like this my anger at you and your ilk flares anew.

You ruined a country; you’ve set generations of people against each other because you wanted vengeance. I know you've apologized and you've got your excuses (misled, bad execution, etc.) but that and a shovel have helped you bury a generation.

I can never forgive you HAWKS (spit) who wanted this war.

It seems that America's Right-Wing is now doing the bidding of Iranian Mullahs.

Make my day, liberals. Vote to defund the war.

On 9/11 nearly three thousand people died horrible horrible deaths and tens of billions of dollars in damage were incurred.

In direct response to this, Pres. Bush inadvertently fathers in Iraq a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic which has close and long standing ties to the mortal enemy of Israel, viz. Iran, a sc called `axis of evil'.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Fundamentalist Islamic Republic

WTF?

Would this be an appalling strategy to follow? Of course it would.

Of course it wouldn't be. Remember the terrorist Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who tried to wipe out the Shiites. This is payback time and we should support the Shiites in their retaliation for the Sunni's mass slaughter of the Shiites. If we aren't willing the support the Shiites, this will only embolden the Sunni terrorists into thiking America is weak and they can bring back Saddam and his Baathist terrorist allies back to power again. We cannot allow this to happen.

Kenneth is right,
Nancy Pelosi is the best Speaker of the House we've ever had.

All we have left are bad options. But the options on Iraq have been bad for decades. There hasn't been a 'good' option.

She's not Speaker yet.

There's not much question that Shiite forces are eventually going to wipe out the Sunni insurgency, but it's probably slightly better for them to do it on their own instead of doing it with our active help

Agreed.

I am surprised it took the administration policy people so long to figure out the only way to 'win' is to ally with the largest popular faction. But I am of the opinion that it would be better for the US to withdraw now rather than take sides in a regional sectarian conflict.

Staying and fighting with the Shiites is what will lead to a greater destabilization of the region, not leaving.

Hey, if real Iraqi police set up a security checkpoint and use it to kidnap and murder people was it a fake check point?

Just askin'.

When will an American politician stand up and say this?

I heard John Edwards say pretty much that on the radio yesterday.

I've said it before: Iraq is Kobayashi Maru made real. The only difference is that there is no computer to reprogram.

Al,

The Iraqi Shiites *hate* America, Americans, Western democracy, etc.

The Al Dawa, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, and Muqtada al-Sadr are not loyal to the USA.

Hostile:

Good thing every President who fought the Cold War in West Germany didn't take your particular brand of advice, huh?

She's going to be so good, she'll go back in time and make Hastert resign his post just so that she can start early. You'll see. That's why she's the best Speaker Of The House we've ever had.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_kidnap_dc

here's the link.

Boronx:

Do you REALLY think the House Dems are actually going to go on the record and vote to defund the war?

Remember the terrorist Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who tried to wipe out the Shiites.

With the backing of the United States, who saw his regime as a tool in the global struggle against communism and the terrorists that sought to spread that ideology. And now, the Right proposes to back Shi'ite terrorists who want to wipe out Sunnis to use the regime they establish in the global struggle against theocratic Islamism and the terorists that seek to advance that ideology. And, if the right gets to do that, in another generation or so they'll be looking to back some Sunni terrorists who want to wipe out Shi'ites in order to use their regime in the global struggle against some other ideology, ad infinitum.

Klyde,
No that's not a checkpoint, it's a Freedom Point. We need more of them in this country, to make you liberals appreciate the freedoms we conservatives give you.

This is payback time and we should support the Shiites in their retaliation for the Sunni's mass slaughter of the Shiites. If we aren't willing the support the Shiites, this will only embolden the Sunni terrorists into thiking America is weak and they can bring back Saddam and his Baathist terrorist allies back to power again.

See? The only options are appalling.
Right, let's fight with the Shiites. We could get the Iranians to provide us with secret intelligence on the Sunnis. It would help us win.

Right, let's fight with the Shiites. We could get the Iranians to provide us with secret intelligence on the Sunnis. It would help us win.

"Win" what?

Kevin, Nir Rosen's latest piece on Iraq is, if anything, even more despairing:

Anatomy of a Civil War

Make sure there aren't any blunt objects in the room either before reading it.

Klyde,
No that's not a checkpoint, it's a Freedom Point. We need more of them in this country, to make you liberals appreciate the freedoms we conservatives give you.

Good one.

A very interesting site, I think. The Idea of Technometry was new for me but worth to be read and thought abot it (although I'm not a native english-speaker and have some difficulties whith this language)

And now, the Right proposes to back Shi'ite terrorists who want to wipe out Sunnis to use the regime they establish in the global struggle against theocratic Islamism and the terrorists that seek to advance that ideology.

of course the Shiite govt will probably end up looking a lot like Iran's. and we know how that goes...

Good thing every President who fought the Cold War in West Germany didn't take your particular brand of advice, huh?

Posted by: Jeffery

So the invasion/occupation is no longer the new WWII it's the new cold war.

Damn more desperate and delusional with each day.

So Team Bush will now help the Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Well, Iran will be totally down with that, but there is nothing that says the Shiites can pacify the country, even with great brutality. Where will the Sunnis find friends?

Jeffery, I may not always be correct, but I am always certain.

Klyde:

Ever since "Mission Accomplished" and the end of major combat operations, Iraq has been more similar to the Cold War -- some of you pinko liberals wanted us to surrender that one as well.

There's an old piece of advice on civil wars I recall. I don't remember who said it first.

1. Don't get involved in civil wars.
2. If you do, pick a side.
3. Make sure your side wins.

Murtha was a bad choice. good to see the House Dems are smart enough to see that. i suspect Pelosi knew it, too.

Well, Iraq shouldn't have attacked us if they didn't want this to happen.

Down goes Frazier:

Kinda funny about Murtha, especially since he was THE anti-war figurehead -- Pelosi is not even officially Speaker yet and already handed he first defeat!

cleek:

So, Pelosi was backing Murtha even though she knew he was a bad choice?! Some balls she's got there.

Ongoing chaos is necessary to justify permanent US bases in Iraq. The Bushling probably believed what his overseers told him about planting democracy and our troops returning home in glory, but at the deepest, most devious level, destabilizing Iraq was always a necessary part of the plan.

There were plenty of people smart enough to foresee this chaos. Some of them incited it.

The Sunnis in the region already think that the US is trying to establish a vast Shiite power.

In a talk given by Mark Danner, he said that he couldn't number the times when, after an interview with a Sunni was over and the tape recorder was turned off, the interviewee would ask Danner why the US was trying to establish a Shi-ite superstate.

As he said, and I've read elsewhere, Iraqis simply don't believe that the US can't get the infrastructure set up and the security corrected. Our superpower status, and incredible wealth, makes it implausible to them that the US is simply incompetent.

Keep in mind as well that the original plan was to insert a Shiite strongman. These people are idiots. Pure and simple. They live in some bizarre fantasy world, a world where tax cuts increase revenue and war ends when the statue falls.

and in future years surviving Iraqis will look disgustedly upon Bush the Butcher and wistfully upon Saddam the martyr whose iron-handed policies keep Iraq together and at peace within itself. What a legacy!

I am alone. I have no partner and not much of a social life. Please forgive my pathetic attempts to draw attention to myself, comments threads are the only means of expressing myself.

Jeffrey: "the end of major combat operations"

I'm sorry, when did that happen again? I don't think the 105 soldiers who died last month quite heard you.

Actually, revenues did increase after the tax cuts and I seem to remember aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln Bush acknowledged that the war on terror would continue for a long time. Maybe you have a cite that Bush said "the war is over because Saddam's statue fell"?

Why not PARTITION?

Better to manage the breakup (including mass migrations) than simply pull out and allow ethnic cleansing on a horrific scale.

What's so great about a unitary Iraqi state anyway? Isn't a weak Iraqi state just fine--leading to a polarization between Iran and Saudis that balances the Middle East & makes them more concerned for their immediate, newly dysfunctional neighbor than for ideologically opposing the U.S.?

And I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of Biden...

Well, Rozen's post does help to illuminate a couple of things, possibly.

One, Khalilzad's imminent departure: he has been trying to get the Sunni insurgents involved in the political process. If Bush intends to lean toward supporting the Shias, it may explain why Khalilzad is on the way out.

Two, it's probably obvious to most insiders that Iran is the major player in the region now. Bush has defeated their main adversary for them, and has got their boys in power in the Iraqi "government." Everyone is suggesting that we need to "talk" to Iran; perhaps one way of appeasing Iran without overtly appearing to do so is to get behind their boys in the Iraqi civil war.

And, yes, I meant "appeasing," wingnuts.

Ray:

People thought the same about Truman once too. History vindicated him as well.

Ongoing chaos is necessary to justify permanent US bases in Iraq.

Nobody has suggested that there won't be permanent bases in Iraq. That objective, which I think was the only real foreign policy objective, has never been taken off the table. The bases have been built, and they will be occupied, no matter what.

The fact that there is never any discussion about these bases indicates that even the phased withdrawal Democrats recognize that this is a non-negotiable item.

polthereal:

Did "partition" work in Germany after WWII? I'd much rather get this job done than wait 60 years.

There were plenty of people smart enough to foresee this chaos. Some of them incited it.

Indeed, blindfoldoff hits it squarely on the head. Check out the old stuff that Wurmser, et al. wrote on the utility of creating chaos in Iraq.

There's not much question that Shiite forces are eventually going to wipe out the Sunni insurgency...

By what magic is that going to come about?

Are the Sunnis, or their weapons, or their hatred of the Shiites, going to be erased in their entirety from all of Iraq?

Kevin, you just can't be serious. Apallingly bad? Have you buried your moral compass? It might "shorten the conflict," but it would do so by killing millions of Sunnis. How do you think Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the world would respond? Equally bad, it stregthens Iran's hand tremendously, and gives them even more control over oil. Finally, we've already started it. Who do you think set the Shia death squads loose in the first place? (See NYT: "The Salvador Option." Also Newsweek.) It's worked reallly well so far.

How about we drop one nuke in Iraq every 3 days until they stop fighting. That's better than "millions dead" at least, right?

Oh... let's not participate in a genocide, ok?

We need to withdraw over the horizon. Not only to reduce an occupier's presence, not only to help the government to shoulder its burden, but because we are probably going to need to bomb the crap out of some militias and strongmen over the next few years, and our soldiers in bases in the middle of Iraq are going to get plastered in retaliation. Our supply lines are ridiculous at this point. Our soldiers are primarily fulfilling the role of hostages.

There is no reason to believe the Sunni's would win or lose at this point - they are the better trained and better educated force. The shia have Iran, but the Sunni's would have Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria backing them.

What should be apparent from this is that civil war would be disasterous for the entire region. Not only because it would put the shia and sunni countries into direct conflict and would certainly cause a lot of oil production to get hit, but also because religious civil wars fuel fundamentalism, and fundamentalism breeds more terrorism wherever it rears its head.

Nothing would empower Al Qaida more than siding with the Shia in a genocide/ ethnic cleansing of Iraq. That is absolutely the worst option.

A bad option is simply to let it play out without our involvement. Its possible that without our intervening, leaders would emerge to reconcile the their differences.

Another bad option is to squelch the conflict hard, attacking any military force found to be aggressive, and forcing the sides to the bargaining table.

Another bad option is pacifying the country, collecting all weapons and bringing in international peacekeepers once leaders are put into place willing to ask for them. US troops would move to the borders in camps away from Iraqi population centers to prevent foreign intervention.

Iraq is currently the natural state of republican policies - religiously fundementalist with no church/state separation, every houshold with a gun, a weak central government, and an unregulated economy. Is it any wonder it looks it does?

O.K., but I never said it was a "good" option -- my vote has always been to stay there until the Iraqi government is ready for us to leave.

The Republican administration will withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq before the next Presidential election. The only question that remains for Republicans is how to blame the resulting chaos on the Democrats. And they're already busy at setting up the Democrats for the fall. Stay tuned.

Lead story on CNN.com right now: "Pelosi wins then loses"! LOL

Well, Robert, if the Dems actually vote to defund the war, that would at least be ONE way, don't you think?

Iraq is currently the natural state of republican policies

Read the article in the latest New Yorker about the Republican/capitalist paradise of Lagos, Nigeria to find out what the ideal Republican city is all about.

So, Pelosi was backing Murtha even though she knew he was a bad choice?!

fuck off Trolly

Bush and the Iraq study group (getting their advice from the Pentagon) still think Iraq is a military problem. It isn't. Iraq is a political problem. Until we demand that Bush find a way to jump start the political process and actually pursue a diplomatic solution to Iraq, we make zero progress. Congress needs to start talking to policy wonks and foreign diplomats instead of continued more of the same from military commanders.

There is NO military fix for Iraq. Unfortunately for us, Bush doesn't do diplomacy. Bush thinks talking to opponents is appeasement. Because of Bush we are not pursuing the diplomatic steps that lead out of Iraq. Notice how Rice has disappeared?

Shouldn't we rename this Blog the Asshat Jeffery Show?

Why not PARTITION?

Because the Iraqis don't want it, its not our country, and its kind of hard to enforce a partition on people who don't want to be partitioned, unless you have different outside powers occupying each of the partitioned segments; further, the groups that would be partitioned don't currently live in separate, geographically compact areas that would make partition practical without mass forced deportations.

cleek:

You were the one who "suspects" that Pelosi knew Murtha was a bad choice. Mine was a logical question based on your own, stated belief.

All we have left are bad options. But the options on Iraq have been bad for decades. There hasn't been a 'good' option.

You haven't been reading the memos! Before the war, Saddam's Iraq was a peaceful, prosperous place where everyone had electricity, kites to fly, and Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds lived in happy harmony with each other. Abu Ghraib was a summer resort.

Without that stupid war, Saddam would even now be wringing his handkerchief, tearfully pleading with the United Nations to help him as his worst enemy across the border refines nuclear bomb material. Certainly he would never have thought of responding to Iran with violence and offending the U.N. and the rest of the world.

Nothing would empower Al Qaida more than siding with the Shia in a genocide/ ethnic cleansing of Iraq.

Al-Qaeda are radical Sunnis. Not much chance that they will side with Shia when the civil war moves from hot to very hot. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq mainly to fuck with us.

You were the one who

no, really. fuck off, Trolly.

Jefferey laughingly posts:

"all I can say is thank God you weren't around during WWII or we would all be speaking German right now."

That's about all you can say, & it says nothing.

Recall that Dems WERE in control during WWII, and that it went much better than things are going on in Iraq.

A more apt comparison would be thank goodness you neocon RW lemmings weren't around during WWII, or we would have invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor, and sold our harbor security rights to Japan.

.

It's good to see that our friendly neighborhood concern troll has finally come out of the closet as a full bore gibbering wingnut asshole.

Losing an election sucks, doesn't it?

Read the article in the latest New Yorker about the Republican/capitalist paradise of Lagos, Nigeria to find out what the ideal Republican city is all about.

Iraq will ultimately be the apotheosis of Republican ideals: no gun control, no taxes, no public services, no public schools, women out of the workforce, no free speech, no freedom of religion, no separation of church and state, no abortion, no civil rights, the death penalty for gays, etc. It'll be heaven on earth for the wingnuts!

So GeeDubya is going to send 20K more troops into Iraq, following up on McCain's phony plans.

After that fails, will they finally realize that it was doomed from the start, or will they simply continue to point fingers & blame others for their failed policies and ideology . . . .

There is no other choice.

.

KG:

I would certainly settle for a Democrat like Truman again.

Because the Iraqis don't want [partition]

The Kurds certainly do, and so do many Sunnis. Except for those in the professional class voting with their feet, the Shiites, naturally, do not.

It'll be heaven on earth for the wingnuts!

i urge everyone here to join with me in starting a Iraq Relocation Service for Wingnuts. i predict a huge demand for a service to help wingnuts find housing, employment and guns, in this new conservative paradise of Iraq! the throngs of wingnuts who hear about this wingnutty utopia but just don't have the desire to do the research into the forms, permits and body-armor selection will need someone to guide them. it can be you!

In the case of GWB's continuing Iraqi debacle, "Stay the Course" should really be revised as "The Show Must Go On".

You haven't been reading the memos! Before the war, Saddam's Iraq was a peaceful, prosperous place where everyone had electricity, kites to fly, and Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds lived in happy harmony with each other.

Isn't there someplace where people can practice writing irony before posting with the grownups?

Seriously, this is the sort of black-or-white thinking that got us into this mess. "You're against the war? Oh, I guess you think it's just peachy that Saddam is tearing people's tongues out with pliers."

I would certainly settle for a Democrat like Truman again.

Jeffery, NO! DON'T DO IT! Don't ever say anything nice about a Democrat, not even Truman. They're misunderestimating my willingness to be tripartisan and it's all gonna end up bad when they force me to surrender to Obama bin Laden.

Stay with me boy, don't let the terrorists win in Iraq like they did in the House and Senate.

Seriously, this is the sort of black-or-white thinking that got us into this mess.

it's not even thinking - it's just talking-point parroting. he's a parrot-troll.

Hey, wally, what do YOU think Saddam would be doing right now in response to Iran building nuclear weapons?

Iraq will ultimately be the apotheosis of Republican ideals: no gun control, no taxes, no public services, no public schools, women out of the workforce, no free speech, no freedom of religion, no separation of church and state, no abortion, no civil rights, the death penalty for gays, etc. It'll be heaven on earth for the wingnuts!

Wow, that's an observation both astute and disturbing. Iraq is the failed state that results from Republicans having complete control over policy.

clark:

Building really ornate sandcastles with his metric ton of useless yellowcake.

Iraq the Wingnut Paradise. Baghdad Chamber of Commerce:

"Come and Visit Beautiful, Historic Baghdad. Have a BLAST !"

Bob

I thought you were leaving, Bob?

Bob, please don't go. Without you, I'm as lonely as a kitten who's lost her mommy. Let me suckle a little more, mommy.

"clark", who is probably Charlie, wrote: "Hey, wally, what do YOU think Saddam would be doing right now in response to Iran building nuclear weapons?"

As a matter of fact, Iran is not building nuclear weapons.

Hey, wally, what do YOU think Saddam would be doing right now in response to Iran building nuclear weapons?

That's a very good question, but it's a hypothetical about a hypothetical. What do YOU think will stop Americans from dying in Iraq?

Partition is a really, really terrible idea. It's going to leave the Sunni -- the most Western-looking and educated cohort in Iraq -- without much in the way of resources. The Kurds will continue their revanchist ambitions in Iran, Turkey and Syria (on this model), and Iran will exert tons of influence over the Shiastan in Eastern Iraq. It will be the Yugoslavization of Iraq after Tito's death, and due to the greater Sunni-Shia conflict in the region, draw the surrounding powers into it. It would be, truly, al Qaeda's dream to give them an impoverished Sunni region within which to encamp.

Some here thing partition can be done in a reasonably humane fashion, sort of an ethnic cleansing under armed escort. That remains to be seen; but what is sure is that the hardening of sectarian attitudes which will ensue completely delegitimates the notion of creating democracy -- a system of government which reconciles factions to a common will.

If Iraq gives in to primitive sectarianism and winds up partitioning, the very best you can say for it is the total intellectual discrediting of neocon foreign policy ideas forevermore.

Bob

here thing = here think

Bob, I've been a wreck since you left. I've been calling out your name every five minutes, on every thread I could find. I was like a little puppy, lost in a dark wood, searching for his big strong, and handsome, pal. "Bob/rmck1?" I would whine, again and again - but you never answered. I piddled on myself every time I dared think I'd lost you forever.

Partition is a really, really terrible idea.

That it is. But the whole point of this thread is that they are all really terrible ideas. Arguments for why a particular option is bad/wrong/dangerous are a dime a dozen.

More on partition:

Even those Iraqis that do want partition don't want the same partition, and aren't likely to come to mutual agreement. Someone has to enforce the partition lines, after someone carries out the mass forced deportations to make, especially, a Sunni/Shi'ite partition into compact regions a reality.

Forced partition would be a terrible, immoral idea if it there was a credible way to make it work, as it is, its even worse than that, a terrible, immoral, impractical idea.

There is a way out of this mess.

If a neutral delegation can be called and relied on, outside any American political influence, a convocation of world leaders could settle things. The Americans would have to be properly contrite, apologize for the incredible mess we have made and be ready to lose some things, including some that Israel will hate. Then we can make a new start and expect cooperation from the whole world. No one, especially the Arab countries in the neighborhood, benefits from a disintegrating Iraq. Cooler and more intelligent heads can get this situation under control.

Unfortunately, it requires neutralizing Bush and his crowd. The world does not trust that man enough to make any deals with him that will cause everyone else to have to go out on a limb. The world knows he will be more interested in saving face, playing to his base and getting his crowd elected next time than actually solving anything. They also know he is so reflexively pro-Israel that his policies are frozen into utter inflexibility. He is a huge liability and to solve anything he must be kept out of the way.

Either a neutral American delegation that has absolute authority to make policy, or do it entirely through the United nations. Americans will hate not being masters of the situation but it will be best for us in the long run if we accept loss of control.

We must think creatively. How about, in exchange for Iran’s cooperation, we give them entire Nuclear power plants worth billions. They must allow thorough inspection and also agree to sell cheap energy to iraq. I’m just thinking out loud, but out-of-the-box solutions must be found.

We, with no small help from the Jewish lobby (see Rashid Khalidi’s new book “The Iron Cage”), are completely responsible for this mess. Both will have to give up much if we expect others to solve it for us.

LOL, James of DC -- especially assuming that means "Dictrict of Columbia" -- how exactly do you propose a neutral AMERICAN delegation, outside the CONSTITUTION, or the United Nations with AMERICAN veto on the Secuity Council? You want to think "creatively" like, say, some coup d’État? If it weren't so sad, it would be hilarious.

Are you an al Qaeda plant, James? Seriously, you are just innocently "talking out loud" about Americans accepting loss of control but, in the very next sentence, you want us to build entire nuclear power plants for the terrorists. Why not just cut straight to the chase and build them some fully-stocked nuclear missile silos instead?

"As he said, and I've read elsewhere, Iraqis simply don't believe that the US can't get the infrastructure set up and the security corrected. Our superpower status, and incredible wealth, makes it implausible to them that the US is simply incompetent."

Well, they are right. It isn't only incompetence, it was also our lack of significant effort and our governments intentional direction of funds to republican political supporters rather than iraqi people. It was always more important to bush that the war be cheap and benefit his cronies than that it be sucessful. Incompetence made him think success was possible, even long after it was obvious that it was not. But in the end the american right never thought thier adventure in Iraq was important enough to run it like a real war.

If they had beleived 1/4 of thier "clash of civilizations" rhetoric they would have tried a lot harder. Given their massive incompetence and the general difficulty of the post war situation it might not have made much difference short of waiting five years while we built up a much larger military then invading Iraq, successfully rebuilt afghanistan, and leaned on Israel hard so we went into Iraq with a store of goodwill rather than bad.

Of course in the end the consequences of spectacular failure are far greater than the advantages of success. They might have tried harder had they considered failure, but there is that incompetence again.

Forced partition would be a terrible, immoral idea if it there was a credible way to make it work, as it is, its even worse than that, a terrible, immoral, impractical idea.
Posted by: cmdicely

Just so. And there's the tiny little problem that every group and subgroup involved wants the oil fields for themselves.

The Kurds also have other partition aspirations of their own which are of considerable concern to their neighbors who have made it clear that they are not willing to stand by while those aspirations are financed by Kurdish oil revenues.

Our 'dear ally' Pakistan? Sunni Pakistan?

It's a battle between bad and flat-out immoral.

I just have to say that this is the worst possible idea they could propose and it stems from our blinkered thinking which assumes that the peoples of Iraq are just like us with a different religion. Wrong.

Hadley is assuming that the Iraq civil war is like the old American Civil War and there will be a winner and a loser on the field of battle and then two old noble generals, one Shiite, one Sunni, will sit down shake hands and move on to reconstruction. This is the wrong model. The right model is the Thirty Years War in Central Europe from 1618 to 1648, which was a war to determine the very future of Christianity and the power that flows from it. Iraq is too important for the Sunnis to lose and it is too tempting for the Shiites to give up on. Here is my prediction, if the USA goes for the all Shiite option the remaining Sunni nations in the Arab world will mobilize and intervene to stop it. For Saudi Arabia this could mean the toppling of the regime, likewise Egypt. Sunni Muslims are not going to be unmoved by the displacement and massacre of 16 million of their co-religionists by an American Shiite alliance of conveniance.

Of course we can't keep anything secret anymore, with traitors like you and the NYT out there -- all I can say is thank God you weren't around during WWII or we would all be speaking German right now.
Posted by: Jeffery on November 16, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

That is a hillarious comment considering that the information was leaked on purpose by the administration to guage DC support. Your a real tool Jeff.

PS- stop playing with white powder in your parents basement.

If everything is a BAD idea, I've another Bad idea.
Load the troops on planes, helicopters and boats and GET THE F OUT!! NOW!!!

Oh, too simple minded? We have to consider this and what about that? BLAH BLAH BLAH

Get Out NOW!!!

.

I'm not playing with powder, nor do my parents even have a basement. Next personal attack?

Or, you could explain how you know that it was leaked with Bush's approval?

Hey Jeff,
What's it like being unemployed after the Dems swept congress? Get used to it chump, we're ready to make more wingnuts cry in 2008.
Stop jerking off to Malkin and Coulter and get a real job, like a real American, not a castrated party apparchik. Republican Loser. Good work electing a segregationist as your Senate leader. Hey maybe your writing us from your minumum security cell after all there are so many republicans in lockdown these days. Say hi to Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney for me, ok?

More posts about what a bad idea partition is. This thread is about as compelling as a Mac vs. PC argument c. 1998. Complete with the self-amused troll.

Once more, with feeling: every one of us can write literate or snarky or vituperative posts about what a bad idea it is to ______ in Iraq. Every one of us can blame Bush for being in denial, and blame the Democrats for criticizing without putting up any ideas of their own.

What are we going to do to stop Americans from being killed in Iraq? Bear in mind that there is no answer that is not impractical, immoral, and/or dangerous.

That's fine, Nemesis, if you'd rather not explain how you think Bush approved the leak, I can't force you. Laura Rozen could help this discussion by revealing her unnamed sources. I wouldn't be surprised if they are Democrats though. To respond to the rest of your personal attacks, I am employed just fine and not incarcerated, thank you very much for your sincere concern.

P.S. wally -- I already gave my answer how to end the war in Iraq.

You mean it's a battle between dumb and dumber?

Or W and Dumbya, perhaps?

Hands up, everyone who is surprised by this outcome.

Although having a conversation with Jeffery is oxymoronic...

You said your solution was to stay until the Iraqis could stand up for themselves. That implies that you believe that Iraqis are capable of standing up for themselves in the face of these fanatics.

But it's not a "solution." We've been doing that for well over three years and nobody believes that it's working. Not the military, not the Republicans, not the Democrats. Only the president and three staff writers at the Weekly Standard think everything's going fine.

But OK, let's stay the course. How long should we give them to stand up for themselves? Another year? Two? Ten? Do you really believe the American public will stand for that?

Why not PARTITION?

Because the Iraqis don't want it, its not our country, and its kind of hard to enforce a partition on people who don't want to be partitioned, unless you have different outside powers occupying each of the partitioned segments; further, the groups that would be partitioned don't currently live in separate, geographically compact areas that would make partition practical without mass forced deportations. Posted by: cmdicely

First of all, there is no such thing as an "Iraqi." So what this mythical creature wants is pointless. There is no cultural, religious, ethnic or whatever standard of national cohesiveness you'd care to offer.

Second, a de facto partition has existed with Kurdistan since 1991. The recent U.S. invasion has only strengthened this. It should be encouraged, as the Kurds are the only legitimate ethnic group with a history and identity beyond the tribe or village, which often trump even the larger religious "identity" of Shia or Sunni.

Finally, chopping the fake country of Iraq into additional sections will be no messier politically, though surely more violent, than former Soviet satelite states gaining (or regaining) independence in the 1990s. With or without a U.S. invasion, this would have been Iraq's fate in the next decade or so.

The President has admitted things are not always "fine" -- it's a WAR, man! As for how long, I would ask how long did we give West Germany? It may, unfortunately, take that long, or longer.

As for how long, I would ask how long did we give West Germany?

What does this mean? Were the West Germans killing each other by the thousands four years after WWII ended? American troops weren't in Germany to stabilize the Germans, they were there to keep the Russians out. If Iran had a million soldiers threatening to invade Iraq, you could make a case for having American troops in Iraq.

(...looking for a wall to bang my head on)

Of course, there are some differences. That's why I said it may take longer than 60 years.

Fair enough. But if all options in Iraq are terrible, some are fantasies.

Having all the Sunnis and Shias and Kurds hold hands and sing "We are the world" is one solution.

Keeping American troops in Iraq for 60 years is another.

This is what I suggested two years ago.

Put all the Sunnis on busses, and send them to Jordan and/or Syria.

The Shiites own Iraq now. They've owned it since we took out Saddam and his army. The only way to save the Sunnis is to send them somewhere safe, or to put half a million troops in there to protect them. Indefinitely.

And, no one thought at the time of the Potsdam Agreement that it would take that long either. I'm hoping we can get Iraq finished sooner, but I'm not making any promises either.

wally wrote: What are we going to do to stop Americans from being killed in Iraq? Bear in mind that there is no answer that is not impractical, immoral, and/or dangerous.

Here's an answer.

Acknowledge that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a crime, an illegal war of unprovoked aggression based on the sickening lies of George W. Bush and other principals of the Bush administration, and then withdraw all the American troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, beginning immediately.

Allow the people who live in the region called "Iraq" to determine their own destiny by whatever means they choose, and pay reparations to them through an appropriate United Nations agency for the death and destruction caused by Bush's criminal war (and the US/UK sanctions before that, and the Reagan & first Bush administrations' support of Saddam Hussein before that).

"Contrary to the President's position, we think it's important to spell out the details of a plan to get us out of this uncontrollable mess in Iraq. We recommend first that our government advise the government of Iraq and advise the American people and the Congress that we’re going to begin a withdrawal next month, December of this year, and we'll have all Americans out of Iraq by June of next year. That's about a six-month span.

"We're not advocating a mad dash to the border, not a stampede or what the critics call 'cut and run.' We're advocating an orderly withdrawal, not the kind of forced withdrawal that took place in Vietnam so many years ago, where we saw the TV pictures of our last survivors there being airlifted off the roof of the embassy.

"We also advocate that simultaneously with the American withdrawal, the Iraqi government invite brother Muslim and Arab states to 'loan' them, if I can use that word, law enforcement people to try to preserve some degree of order over the next couple of years, and the United States, as the major invader of Iraq, would be expected to pick up some of the cost for maintaining law and order there, but by people in the area, not by American troops."

-- George McGovern on Democracy Now!, Wednesday 11/15/2006

"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There's enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that's the only way we’re going to end this war."

-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich, on Democracy Now!, Wednesday 11/15/2006

As a matter of fact, Iran is not building nuclear weapons.

Now THAT'S having your head up your butt! I doubt Saddam would have been as gullible about Iran's blatant lies as you are.

Are we assuming the plutonium the IAEA has detected was for space probes?

no one thought at the time of the Potsdam Agreement that it would take that long either.

That what would take that long? Do you think the Potsdam summit was about how to withdraw the troops from Europe? They DIVIDED Germany after the war, they weren't holding talks on how to REUNITE it. Plus you didn't have American troops dying by the hundreds in 1949. This isn't just a false analogy, there is no connection whatsoever.

The Potsdam Agreement, adopted in July of 1945, established the legal framework for the occupation of Germany in the wake of World War II. According to the agreement, Germany would be formally under the sovereignty of the four major wartime allies -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union -- until a German government acceptable to them all could be reconstituted. Germany would be divided into four sectors, each administered by one of the allies. Berlin, though surrounded by the Soviet sector, would be similarly divided, with the western allies occupying an enclave consisting of the western parts of the city. According to the agreement, the occupation of Berlin would only end as a result of a four-power agreement (this clause did not apply to Germany as a whole). The western allies were guaranteed an air corridor to their sectors of Berlin, and the Soviets also informally allowed road and rail access between West Berlin and the western parts of Germany.

At first, this arrangement was officially a temporary administrative expedient, and all parties declared that Germany and Berlin would soon be reunited. However, as the relations between the western allies and the Soviet Union soured, and the Cold War began, the joint administration of Germany and Berlin broke down. Soon Soviet-occupied Berlin and western-occupied Berlin had entirely separate city administrations. In 1948, the Soviets tried to force the issue and expel the western allies from Berlin by imposing a land blockade on the western sectors. The west responded by using its guaranteed air corridors to resupply the city in what became known as the Berlin Airlift.

In May 1949, the Soviets lifted their blockade, and the future of West Berlin as a separate jurisdiction was ensured. By the end of that year, two new states had been created out of occupied Germany -- the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in the West and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) in the East -- with West Berlin an enclave surrounded by, but not part of, the latter.

After the Cold War, on November 9, 1989 the wall was opened, and the two cities were once again physically -- though still not legally -- united. The so-called Two Plus Four Treaty, signed by the two German states and the four wartime allies, paved the way for German reunification and an end to the western occupation of West Berlin. On October 3, 1990 West Berlin and East Berlin were united as the city of Berlin, which then acceded to the Federal Republic as a state, along with the rest of East Germany. 45 long, hard years of separation.

wally:

You need to read up on the history of German reunification, dude.

wally wrote: This isn't just a false analogy, there is no connection whatsoever.

That's Charlie's specialty.

clark wrote: Now THAT'S having your head up your butt! I doubt Saddam would have been as gullible about Iran's blatant lies as you are. Are we assuming the plutonium the IAEA has detected was for space probes?

Please post your evidence that Iran is "building nuclear weapons."

Like I've said before, SecularAnimist -- vote to defund the war -- make my day!

The Potsdam Agreement blah blah blah unsourced unsourced

The Wikipidiot strikes again.

Just ignore it and keep talking about how Bush has fucked up the Middle East beyond his ability to fix it.

You need to read up on the history of German reunification, dude.

I read a couple of paragraphs that somebody pasted into this thread, and I missed the part where:

1) Hundreds of Americans died every year from 1945 to 1949.

2) Thousands of Germans died every year from 1945 to 1949; or where

3) The number one issue for the vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative, was how to reunify Germany

Here is Senator Russ Feingold's answer. His July 2007 target date for "U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq" echoes George McGovern's plan:

On Election Day, the American people weighed in at the ballot box: They want to get our troops out of Iraq. Voters rejected the president's failed Iraq policy, putting Democrats in charge of Congress and responsible for setting a new direction for Iraq, and, most importantly, for our national security.

Democrats agree that we should begin redeploying troops, but some do not want to set a target deadline for the majority of troops to be withdrawn. That is a mistake. Without a target date, redeployment could drag on indefinitely. The president consistently refused to set a target date for withdrawal, and Democrats shouldn't follow in his footsteps. Democrats should move forward with a new Iraq policy that includes a target date for the redeployment of U.S. troops so that we can refocus on defeating global terrorist networks.

On Tuesday, I introduced legislation requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007. My legislation recognizes that a target date for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq will help pressure the Iraqis to get their political house in order. Simply announcing when we will begin redeployment, without any end date, is unlikely to put adequate pressure on the Iraqis.

A target date isn't just critical to our Iraq policy, it is essential for our national security policy. We cannot adequately focus on the pressing national security challenges we face around the globe when so many of our brave troops are in Iraq, and so many billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent there. A timetable ensures that we can refocus our resources on fighting terrorist networks and on addressing trouble spots around the world that threaten our national security.

Because problems in Iraq won't dry up overnight, my legislation would allow for a minimal level of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counterterrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

But our current Iraq policy is making the United States weaker, not stronger. The president has continually refused to change our current approach in Iraq, despite a growing number of policymakers and experts, including many Republicans, advocating for a change of course. Voters responded to his failed policies by putting Democrats in control of Congress. They want to change course, and they have given Democrats the chance to finally put our national security policy right by proposing a timetable for redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq.

The president's policy has us in Iraq with no end in sight. But the Iraqis need an end in sight to get their political house in order, and we need an end in sight so we can get back to fighting terrorist networks. Our disproportionate focus on Iraq has undermined our ability to confront the terrorist threat around the globe. Now Democrats can start to turn these wrong-headed policies around. But we won't do that by continuing our open-ended commitment of troops on Iraq. And we won't do it with tepid or muddled policies of our own. We will do it by setting a target date for redeployment, so that we can direct our resources to defeating the terrorist organizations that seek to harm this country.

Are we assuming the plutonium the IAEA has detected was for space probes?

Hey, "clark," how about this:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/reportintelcommittee.pdf

I disagree with Russ "Cut and Run" Feingold, just like I did with John "I'm a Coward" Murtha.

Even if you partition Iraq, how will Sunnis be protected from Shia death-squads? Are we going to build another wall?

Good fences make good neighbors - but it's a sad commentary about people who can't stop being assholes.

The Sunnis will just have to "man-up" and learn how to fight.

wally:

Someone else first brought up the idea of partition, Then YOU were the one to (mistakenly) post: "They DIVIDED Germany after the war, they weren't holding talks on how to REUNITE it." What else are you mistaken about?

And, I never said German reunification was the #1 goal of Americans at the time or that Americans/Germans were dying in huge numbers -- that's why I conceded there are SOME differences -- that's the very definition of an analogy BTW.

Charlie posting as "Jeffery" wrote: I disagree with Russ "Cut and Run" Feingold, just like I did with John "I'm a Coward" Murtha.

That's because you are an asshole.

Even people who are not assholes disagree with Feingold and Murtha -- hell, the DEMOCRATS in the House just voted against Big John!

(aha, I've found another wall)

Someone else first brought up the idea of partition, Then YOU were the one to (mistakenly) post: "They DIVIDED Germany after the war, they weren't holding talks on how to REUNITE it." What else are you mistaken about?

No, someone else brought up the idea of partition and YOU brought up Germany.

And now that I know Stalin, Churchill, and Truman were trying to figure out how NOT to partition Germany, I won't bring it up again any more, either.

Thomas:

I just typed the word "vote", didn't I? Or, do you think all those Democrats voted against Murtha because they agree with him 100% of the time?

wally:

Maybe one of us hit our head too hard -- I've read that three times now -- I still can't understand what you are saying. Are you saying a forced partition of Iraq could gain NOTHING from a historical comparison to Germany?

I don't know if anybody saw it, but outgoing Sen. Mark Dayton said almost verbatim "we're left with a worse option for Iraq and a worse option for Iraq." I guess when you no longer care about your political future, you can tell the truth.

Anything less than perfect unity is a sign that the Dems are in disarray. And that is why you will lose in November.

Jeffery, virtually all the work was done by the time H. Truman took over - certainly where your nonsensical post about Germany was concerned.

My point stands.

.

I guess when you no longer care about your political future, you can tell the truth.

I wonder if in early January we'll get similar assessments of the prospects in Iraq from Man on Dog, It Burns It Burns and You Firefighters Are Doing a Halfassed Job Putting It Out, Weapon-Digging Weldon, Richard "Endanger THIS" Pombo, Jim No-Talent, Whistlin' Dixie Allen and all the other charmers who are heading out. Will there be a mass truth-telling ceremony among outgoers to follow the Congressional swearing-in?

And, I never said German reunification was the #1 goal of Americans at the time or that Americans/Germans were dying in huge numbers -- that's why I conceded there are SOME differences -- that's the very definition of an analogy BTW.

So what are the likenesses between Germany post WWII and Iraq now? Germany had been waging war and was defeated. Two different powers occupied it at the end of the war. One power, the Soviet Union, insisted in remaining in control of the area it occupied. When it tried to expand this territory, the other power, the U.S., refused to allow it. Germans were not fighting with each other. There was no question of sectarian hatred and revenge. Germany did not still have powerful tribal loyalties. The new German government did not command an army that was infiltrated by soldiers who actually worked for rival militias. There was no resistance, and no foreign fighters.

I see no likeness at all between today's Iraq and post-war Germany. IF Iraq were partitioned AND if a super power controlled one part and refused to allow reunification, it might take as long to unite it again as it did to unite East and West Germany. So what? What has that got to do with the dilemma of making Iraq stable now?

Lovely. Is this proposed US-sponsored ethnic cleansing to make up for all the Shia who got killed when they rose up against Saddam at US urging after the first Gulf War?

cowalker wrote: I see no likeness at all between today's Iraq and post-war Germany.

Of course you don't -- because the comment suggesting that there was some relevant likeness was another bit of inane bullshit from Charlie Lawrence, posting recently as "Jeffery", who has made a career of posting inane bullshit on this site to get attention, because he is a pathetic asshole.

Maybe one of us hit our head too hard -- I've read that three times now -- I still can't understand what you are saying. You injected Germany into this, and I am saying, quite explicitly,that a forced partition of Iraq could gain NOTHING from a historical comparison to Germany.

I honestly can't think of a single thing that corresponds. Germany instigated two horrendous wars in the last century, and after the second one, the victorious Allies said, That's enough, we're splitting you in two and occupying you. Doesn't sound like Iraq, does it? Germany did not immediately dissolve into civil strife. The U.S. very openly sided with one Germany against the other one, and kept troops in W. Germany to defend against another superpower's troops in E. Germany. All with the pretty unanimous support of the American people, and few complaints from the West Germans, for decades. What do you see that I don't see?

I do recall that right after the U.S. mission in Iraq was pronounced "accomplished," and some peaky Muslims started killing people, that the right wing brought up the "Werewolves," the fanatic Nazis who continued to fight after V-E day. Maybe it's just some hang-up on the Germans....

""Nothing would empower Al Qaida more than siding with the Shia in a genocide/ ethnic cleansing of Iraq.""

"Al-Qaeda are radical Sunnis. Not much chance that they will side with Shia when the civil war moves from hot to very hot. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq mainly to fuck with us.""

You need to re-read what you quoted ... that is exactly my point. Picking the shia side, then killing tens or hundreds of thousands of sunnis would empower the ability of Al qaida to recruit terrorists. The refugee situation alone would be disasterous in this regard - that was a large part of the reason the Clinton administration went into Kosov0, to deny Al Qaidsa a foothold in Europe.

Which part of -

"Gunmen dressed as cops kidnapped up to 150 staff and visitors at a Baghdad school Tuesday,
the largest mass abduction since Bush invaded."

- do Right Wing Lemmings not comprehend about Iraq?

Oh . . . wait . . . 20K additional troops will calm things down - just ask those erstwhile neocon military strategists, McCain & GeeDubya.

Heckuvajob, Rummy.

.

ABC News has a short article on former Senator George McGovern and Prof. William R. Polk of the University of Chicago and their plan for withdrawing from Iraq, as set forth in their book Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now.

Excerpt:

McGovern and Polk say the U.S. military presence in Iraq is helping foment the escalating violence. They say the military should begin what McGovern called an "orderly" withdrawal over the next six months. This is the only way, they argue, to cut down on the violence and allow the United States to contribute aid that actually helps rebuild Iraq.

[...]

For their book, Polk said he studied 12 conflicts throughout history and found that there is a clear pattern.

"In every case, when the principle occupying force pulled out its army, the fighting subsides," he said.

First of all, there is no such thing as an "Iraqi."

Strange. Plenty of people seem to think they are Iraqis.

Second, a de facto partition has existed with Kurdistan since 1991. The recent U.S. invasion has only strengthened this.

Actually, the US invasion in many ways weakened it, since giving the Kurds a substantial role in the governance of the whole country and stake in its success has lessened both demands and actions aimed at permanent separation by major Kurdish groups.

Though its mixed, since Iraqi Kurdistan has also been one of the more successful regions of the country.

Still, while its not the usually proposed partition, a two-way split into "Kurdistan" and "Arab Iraq" is, if not actually practical, a bit less of a fantasy than the usually suggested 3-way split, OTOH, it doesn't actually solve any of the problems that the 3-way split is supposed to solve, since that partition is supposed to solve the Sunni/Shi'ite strife and acheive piece and stability.

Finally, chopping the fake country of Iraq into additional sections will be no messier politically, though surely more violent, than former Soviet satelite states gaining (or regaining) independence in the 1990s. With or without a U.S. invasion, this would have been Iraq's fate in the next decade or so.

Maybe, and if they want to partition themselves they should be free to do so, just as the former Soviet states did. A US-imposed partition has nothing going for it. A US-imposed partition only even remotely has a chance of having any success (even in effecting a partition, much less acheiving some good end) if we have a side we're supporting, and then only works if its a split between "the people we're backing" and "the people we aren't backing".

A three-way imposed partition might work (in the same limited sense of "work") if you had at least one of the other two partitions backed by some substantial outside power, but even then has no utility in acheiving anything in the national interest of the United States.

Better for us to just get out and not try to impose some useless "solution" just to pretend that we were acheiving something from the whole disaster.

that the right wing brought up the "Werewolves," the fanatic Nazis who continued to fight after V-E day.

Except, of course, that there were no such Werewolves. It's a pure myth, outright invention, never happened. There was no organized German resistance to American occupation after V-E Day, and US forces suffered zero -- that's right, zero -- combat casualties after the surrender.

免费性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴部 美女乳房 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说

Jeffery,

Fascinating history about Berlin - So, you are saying that East and West Berlin were divided in the 50s and that no one could enter East Berlin because of the wall? Those secular humanist history teachers of mine never told me that. So they lying?

I confess that this post surprises me. Our support us Shiites at the expense of Sunnis is not a 100 percent deal I’m sure, but we have most definitely supported the Shiites much more than the Sunnis. We have taken their side for a long time.

The “coalition” government we set up is dominated by Shiites, especially given the fact that Sunnis were not able to participate in the elections as fully as the Shiites, Kurds, Turkmen and others. Thus, the resources we’ve put into Iraqi government (e.g., training the police force) have been heavily slanted toward the Shiites and Kurds.

In spite of this, the better organized Sunnis are putting up a terrific fight and I’m afraid they are most likely able to continue to do so. So, to me, this statement by Kevin is a little iffy:

There's not much question that Shiite forces are eventually going to wipe out the Sunni insurgency ..

Maybe so, maybe not. I believe what I see. The Sunnis were not able to prevail these past few decades for no reason.

成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 手机铃声制作 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 经典铃声 最新手机铃声 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Stefan:

U.S. military personnel indeed died in the line of duty in Germany following the end of WWII (see below).

thethirdPaul:

Not sure if your teachers were lying or not, but the Berlin Wall was built by the Soviet Union to prevent East Germans from escaping into West Berlin, not the other way around. Construction of the Berlin Wall, in violation of the Potsdam Agreement, began on August 13, 1961. Even after that, 5000 brave East Germans successfully escaped over the Wall. Varying reports claim either 192 or 239 people were killed trying to cross, and many more injured / captured trying to escape. Before the 1950's, perhaps you are thinking about the Berlin Blockade and massive airlift that lasted from June 24, 1948 to September 30, 1949 -- the Berlin Airlift Monument, in Berlin-Tempelhof, commemorates the names of 39 British and 31 American pilots who lost their lives during the operation -- you (and Stefan) can read more about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_airlift

As for the Berlin Wall itself, there were eventually eight border crossings, allowing visits by West Berliners, West Germans, western foreigners and Allied personnel into East Berlin, as well as visits of East German citizens into West Berlin, provided they held the necessary permit. Those crossings were restricted according to which nationality was allowed to use it (East Germans, West Germans, West Berliners, other countries). The most famous was Friedrichstrae (Checkpoint Charlie), which was restricted to Allied personnel and non-German citizens.

Several other border crossings existed between West Berlin and surrounding East Germany. These could be used for transit between West Germany and West Berlin, for visits by West Berliners into East Germany, for transit into countries neighbouring East Germany (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark), and for visits by East Germans into West Berlin carrying a permit. After the 1972 agreements, new crossings were opened to allow West Berlin waste be transported into East German dumps, as well as some crossings for access to West Berlin's exclaves as well.

In addition, during most of the history of the Wall, Allied military personnel, officials, and diplomats were able to pass into East Berlin without passport check; likewise Soviet patrols could pass into West Berlin. This was a requirement of the post-war Four Powers Agreements.

West Berliners were initially subject to very severe restrictions; all crossing points were closed to West Berliners between August 26, 1961 and December 17, 1963, and it was not until September 1971 that travel restrictions were eased following a Four Powers Agreement on transit issues. Passage in and out of West Berlin was limited to twelve crossing points on the Wall, though all but two of these were reserved for Germans. I hope that answers your questions.

Jeffery,

Not quite - Thanks for the date of the wall - But, could people pass freely between East and West Berlin in the 50s? - Wiki is not quite clear on this - kind of a grey area - Thought you might have more expertise on the subject.

Well, yes, from after the Berlin blockade to the Wall (and why it was built), huge numbers of professionals and skilled workers migrated daily from East to West Berlin –- earning the name "Grenzgänger" –- frequently because of lucrative opportunities connected with rebuilding Western Europe funded by the Marshall Plan (one day the entire Mathematics Department of the University of Leipzig defected). In total, around 2.5 million between 1949 and 1962: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#Official_crossings_and_usage

rcmk1,

Thanks for the info from Wiki - I know that it is not easy to pull together historical data unless you use a source such as Wiki - At least you only quoted a small portion concerning that period.

However, I was playing with Sir Jeffery - In trying to answer a question about post war Germany, he posted his usual tomes from Wiki - As I spent three days in East and West Berlin in 1958, having hitch hiked from West Germany to West Berlin, I was merely trying to find his level of personal experience - I was also stationed near Stuttgart when the wall was being built - I remember vivedly having my week end pass suspended when I made the mistake of returning to the kaserne early one Sunday - An Army Brigade was being sent up the Autobahn from Nuremberg to call the Russian bluff about not allowing us to resupply our Berlin garrison - Had to spend the day with a crazy Captain who wanted to shoot people with his .45, because he didn't think they were taking the moment seriously enough.

After three days in East Berlin, I was finally stopped by a VoPo, who spoke no English - He had a machine gun on his shoulder strap - He kept turning my passport up and down - Finally, he recognized Washington, DC on the passport - This seemed to impress him and he let me continue on my way.
It was a bit disconcerting to try to avoid the rain on the old LindenAllee and stepping into the entrance of some Communist headquarters.

And I did meet several East Berliners who stayed at the Youth Hostel in West Berlin while working, as you pointed out, up thread. Yes, access on the S and U Bahns allowed cross traffic.

Finally crossed through the Brandenburg Tor, stopped at the Russian War Memorial, took some pictures of the Russian soldiers and had to run like hell from a crazed Russian soldier into the Tiergarten. Perhaps he thought I was trying to capture his "soul".

But all info from Sir Jeffery, is greatly appreciated.

Paul, totally fascinating story.

dirt bike motocross
mini chopper
dirt bike
motorcycle
go kart
mobility scooter
Galf cart
atv quads
moped scooter
pocket bike
scooter

U.S. military personnel indeed died in the line of duty in Germany following the end of WWII (see below).

Line of duty, yes. Combat against armed German resistance or mythical "Werewolves," no. The Berlin airlift was not anti-insurgent combat.

According to "America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq," a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany—and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan cases—was zero.

www.slate.com/id/2087768/

"unleash the Shiites" In other words, turn it from a low-level civil war into a full-scale one.

Oh, and how do you think the neighboring Sunni-majority nations like Jordon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would respond when they saw their fellow religionists being slaughtered by the thousands? Why stop at a civil war when you can have a regional one?

I see Jeffrey is being irrelevant with his historical comparisons again. What he is describing were actions that were caused in the Cold War run by the USSR, not a domestic insurgency/uprising from occupation. Where the West had ground control there were no combat deaths going on, at least not any tied to any German originated action. All Jeffrey has listed is his ignorance or deception, because only those two choices are available given what he has been saying here. What else do we have to expect from this illustrious member of our Trolletariat?

As to the post topic itself, Drum's final line really does capture the reality of the situation for America, it is choosing between bad and worse, all the potential good outcomes have already been foreclosed thanks to this Administration's incompetence and the rubber stamp GOP Congress not doing oversight to keep them on course, as is supposed to be their job according to the Constitution. After all, Bush couldn't declare war on Iraq without the Congress' permission, which underscores that they have an equal authority where this issue is concerned, even though the President is CinC. It means that they have the right to oversee and suggest changes; the President is not bound by law to have to take those suggestions, which is how the system is supposed to work. It keeps things open and allows for flexible thinking and responses to difficult situation, an American talent until recently.

My views on the strategic disaster that is Iraq are well known to any regular readers of this blog. I felt that it was well before the invasion began, and I knew Bushco was playing the world as well as the American people for stupid when he started lying about nuclear weapons threat capabilities like he and Blair did Sept 7 2002 at Camp David (especially since it was not until they started talking about nuclear threats that the American public opinion started shifting towards favouring the confrontation/war with Iraq). Worse, having decided to launch this war under false pretenses they never once seriously considered the possibility that things might not work out exactly as they planned them too, that they might not be able to simply change out the leadership at the top with Chalabi and company. That such a failure would create a power vacuum America would have to fill. It was for this part of a planned invasion of Iraq that Shinseki's numbers would be needed, and why he gave them in his testimony to the Senate.

All that can be done now is limit the damage much as possible, to America, to Iraq, and to the region and world security. As it is the Iraq debacle and the incompetence and most of all the use of USSR tools of secret prisoners and torture as a tool of state security by America has massively damaged not just her reputation but that of the Western world. After all, America prior to Bushco really was seen as the leader of the Western/free world by many thanks to her decades long service throughout the Cold War. Not anymore and the fact the Western nations stood by and let America do this along with the few allies of military consequence she could bring along with her has not helped our hearts and minds cause for the good within the Western society's ideals. Anyone that believes victory for America in Iraq at this point onwards is at all possible is either so ignorant as to not be worth taking seriously, so far in denial that they cannot be trusted for anything remotely resembling sensible, or is incredibly dishonest for some reason (Most likely politically partisan in nature, more because what other reason would one have at this late date?).

Iraq is a disaster, was a disaster in the making before the invasion both in terms of strategic thinking and in terms of preparations for long term execution. There are no good solutions now, not for anyone involved, and that more than anything else is something America and Americans are going to need to come to terms with before they ever get forgiven by the rest of the world for creating this disaster in the most sensitive and unstable part of the world. A part of the world where the ripple effect spread outward enormously thanks to the oil and global energy circumstances now and for decades to come. It is going to be a looooong time before the situation settles down in Iraq and the Gulf region thanks to this blunder, and historians for decades to (assuming we live this long as a civilized species) centuries to even millennia (like the way we look back to say Greek and Roman strategic disasters) will analyze and debate how this came about and how it weakened (and who knows could end up being the true beginning of the end/destruction of the American supremacy/power in the world) America as the dominant global (hyper)superpower. It really is that bad, this is not defeatism, it is the acknowledgment of the harsh truth/reality of the Iraq situation. The sooner the American government starts dealing with it as such the better for America and America's soldiers. Clearly the American people are far closer to that understanding than the GOP and the Bush Administration, hence the midterm results and the underlying motivations for the across the board repudiation of the GOP, Bush, and the incompetent governance in both domestic and foreign affairs.

" There's not much question that Shiite forces are eventually going to wipe out the Sunni insurgency .."

That's totally naive, Kevin, and it's embarrassing that someone of your intellectual capacity would even suggest that. The Sunnis are much better organized, much tougher militarily, and much better armed than the Shiites. That's why the Sunni Arab forces are still causing the majority of American casualties, even though potshots from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias are now the most common attacks on US forces.

The Shiite Arabs are themselves bitterly disunited and fighting each other-- much of the "sectarian" violence in Baghdad and Basra is, in fact, rival Shiite militias working to off each other. Basra is one of the most violent cities in Iraq because of it. Tell me, Kevin, what does "supporting the Shiites" mean when the Shiites are warring with each other? For that matter, in Kirkuk, the Shiite Arabs support their fellow Sunni Arabs more than they do the Kurds. So whom do we choose here? The Kurds or the Shiite Arabs, who hate each other?

The Shiites aren't going to try to conquer Anbar province, let alone Mosul and Tikrit, because 1. the Sunni Arabs are deadly and have already made these regions into slaughterhouses for the US military, and 2. there's little of value there-- little oil. The Shiites would be suffering tremendous damage and incurring huge costs for paltry gain. Now why, Kevin Drum, do you think they would want to do that? The Shiites are already sitting atop the best oilfields in southern Iraq-- they already have what they want. If anything, it's the Sunni Arabs who have the most to gain by invading their neighbors, not the other way around.

Two other problems with the "support the Shiites" plan, Kevin. One is that our allies in the Middle East-- mostly Sunni Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan-- would react with rage if they see us as basically aligning with the Shiites against their Sunni Arab co-religionists. This would be about the surest way to spur an Arab oil embargo against us, or worse.

We've had this alliance with Saudi Arabia for decades now, and while the regime is corrupt, it's definitely been in our interests. Leaving Iraq's Sunni Arabs for slaughter in Iraq would permanently fracture the US-Saudi alliance, causing us far more damage than almost any other foreign policy.

Another thing, too-- supporting the Shiites would basically make Iran the region's undisputed hegemon. Iran would basically control the oil in southern Iraq, and essentially push the US out of the region for good. Israel, obviously, would not be very happy-- nor would Turkey, due to the Kurds. Such an obvious siding with Iran is far too disastrous idea.

The best idea would be to not take sides, impose some form of federalist system of government (i.e., de facto independence for the different regions), and then withdraw. But obviously, that's not happening either.

"If you invade Iraq you're going to end up taking sides in the middle of a vicious civil war." Just one of the many predictions back in those blithe, innocent days before the full stupidity of the (neo) conservatives was unveiled to the world.

On the Official List of Catastrophic Strategic Blunders, this one just edges out opening a second front in Russia and going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Apparently there is no cruel lesson in history so obvious that it cannot be ignored by the determined stupidity of the conservative mind.

Hope you've all been taking your iocane powder supplements.

Scotian wrote: "I see Jeffrey is being irrelevant with his historical comparisons again ... All Jeffrey has listed is his ignorance or deception ..."

"Jeffery", of course, is actually Charlie Lawrence, and irrelevance, ignorance, and deception is all he ever has to offer, regardless of what pseudonym he is using at any given time.

He is really only interested in getting attention, and as such, he is a "troll" in the true sense of the term (someone who "trolls" for attention by posting deliberately obnoxious, annoying or inflammatory comments, as a fisherman "trolls" for fish by dragging a lure through the water).

Now I understand. The Shias have built a wall down the middle or Iraq, in violation of treaties. The Iranian army is now on the other side, preventing Shias from crossing to the Sunni side. The U.S. is on the Sunni side, defending the Sunnis against the Iranian army poised on the other side of the wall.

Or wait, was it the Sunnis that built the wall? You know, that mainstream media, we just can't count on them to give us the truth.

SA:

I know he is Chuckles, you know I know he is Chuckles, and as you saw I wasted little time on him. The only reason I bothered was even for Chuckles these so called historical analogies were wildly off the mark/irrelevant. Otherwise I would do what I usually tend to do with Chuckles and his sock puppet brigade, ignore him altogether.

I don't think the guy we know as "Charlie" is Charlie Lawrence; that's the name of a real individual he co-opted by using information (references to family members, fake e-mail that's kind of close to the real Charlie Lawrence's e-mail, etc.) that implies the real guy. None of it is exact enough that he could be caught in an outright impersonation.

I don't think "Charlie" is a lawyer (for evidence, look at his constantly smacked down legal "opinions"), although he likes to read about the law and legal history. He probably works at a low-responsibility job in which he can spend most of the day surfing, not any kind of paid trolling gig as people sometimes seem to think. He likely has no family or social responsibilities to speak of. About the only thing he's put out there that's probably legit is that he lives, or once lived, in or near Irvine.

thethirdPaul, that wiki quote was not left by yours truly.

Oh well, he doesn't seem to be around today, at least ...

Bob

good!perfit!
-----------------------------------------------------
数据恢复车载MP3U盘让经理人魅力十足。