Another disasterous foreign policy decision by the Bush administration. Is anyone surprised?

I think that might be why the Saudi's gave Cheney a talking to...

ooops, I see that Kevin has already posted on the Saudi lecture to Cheney...

Because after all -- when you have a tribalist society with an imposed proportional-slate parliament that's all identity politics all the time -- WHAT'S MINORITY RIGHTS GOT TO DO WITH IT ?

Yeah, that'll teach 'em a lesson or two about what democracy *really* means, all right ...

Damn, but didn't Plato have this number in The Republic ...

Bob

I like the idea of Bush coming down on the Shiite side with Iraq, Hezbollah and Muqtada al-Sadr. It just seems so Bushian. Why invade an innocent country if your actions can't help those who hate you most?

The result would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved.

This is tricky. What if it got to the scale of genocide? And what does this say about trying to stop genocides in places like Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia?

Saudi Arabia may not appreciate the appearance of a Shiite-controlled, Iran-friendly nation on it's border.

And the Kurds, forming a proportion of the "winning" 80%, may find a deal with the Shiites for some sort of self-determination or autonomy. Cue an enraged and possibly intervening Turkey.

Stir in Iran, and you have a regional war, fresh-baked and spicy. That's a party!

And Jesus, Israel gets so freaking bombed every time there's a party...

Kevin,

You are rarely out front with an accurate prediction, but even broken clocks are right twice a day...Kevin, perhaps your time has arrived!

OK, now I'm confused.

I thought we were there because we were supposed to be keeping the situation from getting REALLY bloody.

But now we're going to actively participate in the genocide.

Wha' happen?

If this is genocide, then Philadelphia is Auschwitz.

It's not genocide now, but with the current level of temperature we could see one if the two sides face each other unchecked.

Ah, Kevin.

This is an outstanding idea. The dead-enders of the Baathist regime must be dealt with. They stand in the way of democracy and the New Middle East, just like their Syrian brethren.

This is called giving the Shi'ites the tools to finish the job. Once the Shi'ite forces are able to excise the Baathist blight, the Sunni populace will no longer be cowered in fear and can join the body politique.

Turn things over to the Shiites and leave?

What will you say after the hundreds of thousands of Sunnis are slaughtered over the next months? Of course, you will say, "It's Bush's fault."

We're finally on the road to a shooting war with the Saudi Arabia. Armageddon here we come. I'm leaving a note in my pocket for the athiests in case I get raptured!

Our support of Bush is finally going to pay off. If you enlist before the march on Baghdad you'll have major street cred in the after life.

"Turn things over to the Shiites and leave?"

You would prefer, instead, to ally with the Shi'ites against the Sunnis? Just how helpful will that be?

"What will you say after the hundreds of thousands of Sunnis are slaughtered over the next months?"

The same thing I'll say when we help slaughter those Sunnis. And the same thing I'll say when we finally do leave Iraq and the slaughter happens at that time.

"Of course, you will say, 'It's Bush's fault.'"

Can you think of a good reason why I shouldn't?

egbert wrote: "Once the Shi'ite forces are able to excise the Baathist blight, the Sunni populace will no longer be cowered in fear and can join the body politique."

Run along and play, egbert, dear. The grownups would like to have a discussion now.

Sorry, that should be the march on Mecca! The antichrist was born on 6/6/6. Our earthly struggle with him will soon begin in earnest.

Praise God, Reagan, and Bush for the opportunity to live at such a critical juncture and to have such a large stockpile of nuclear devices at our disposal!!!

We ought to set up a multiple listing service so that Sunnis and Shiites caught in unfriendly neighborhoods can trade houses in an orderly and equitable fashion.

Seriously, partition is looking better all the time. If this be ethnic cleansing, make the most of it -- which is to say, make it as painless as possible.

Kevin, your cynicism becomes you.

It's one thing to leave Iraq, knowing the likely result. It is something else entirely when you put a cringe-worthy name to it and throw in with the shia.

If anyone thinks that Iraq's Sunni neighbors are going to sit around while their countries are flooded with refugees, well, they are dead wrong. This policy is both morally repugnant and extremely stupid.

Instead of calling it the 80% solution, why not the 85% solution...As in you declare war on most muslims in order to hand one of the most important countries in the world to Islam's whacky cousin.

Right. Since the Shi'a are a minority in the Muslim world, this would be really sensible. If you liked the 1973 oil shock, stay tuned for the effect this would have.

Please, somebody in the White House exhibit an ounce of sense. Just once? Please?

Well, lets see. We can get the Sunnis royally P.O.'d at us by throwing Iraqi Sunnis to the Shiites. Then, we can attack Iran and get the Shiites royally P.O.'d at us.

These guys really are trying to bring on Armageddon!

These guys really are trying to bring on Armageddon!

It really makes you wonder what they are talking about at those meetings with Adbullah the Boy King, or the Saudis. They're obviously not talking policy.

There ain't no easy way out of this. If we retreat to the north, protect the Turkey an Iran borders. Scare the Sunnis into thinking that the Saudis will be their protectors, maybe they will compromis a minority victory

"The result would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved"

What an astonishing statement. More astonishing is to see is so baldly admitted to.

This is a watershed moment.

This is the neocons/Israelists are getting their way over the realists/Arabists.

The neocons want to strengthen the shia so they can be played against the sunni's with the goal of weakening the Saudi's. They believe it won't help Iran because, well neocons are pretty stupid.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10185

(1) Will it be the policy of the U.S. Congress to somewhere down the road abandon the Kurdish minority to the mercies of the Sunni/Syria/Saudi crowd?

(2) If huge numbers of Iraqi refugees begin piling up at the Jordanian and Kuwaiti borders, will the U.S. Congress welcome them here as legitimate refugees from political oppression? Why or why not?

(3) If the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court both seize upon anthropogenic global warming as the absolute truth, don't you know, but at the same time work in every way to handicap the U.S. nuclear industry, will that mean a towering bird whacker on every hillside (most of the time not turning because the wind really doesn't blow that steadily?)

(4) Say what you will about present Iraq policy, Iraq did produce a record amount of oil last month. My gas now costs 2.30 a gallon. I sure hope I'm not paying 4.60 a gallon in 2008 and only able to get Hugo's Citgo produce, as Alaska oil sits untapped in pristine uselessness.

(5) What ho! Soon I get to kick back and live off the working saps! I'm starting to feel more like an entitlement slug already. Why should the U.S. Navy have a dozen aircraft carrier battle groups when what this country really needs is more prescription medication costing $800 a bottle that will rescue me from a lifetime of bad choices. Thank goodness most of my 401K is invested in pharmaceutical companies!

(6) How the heck can Britney Spears make money from not wearing panties? The new Congress should investigate this! Maybe its an anti-Wal Mart thing, as by far most American women wear Wal Mart panties. Whatever. I think I'd better get my eyeglass prescription updated, as this San Francisco values thing is for real.

(7) I suppose the pragmatic new Congress will not be sending a manned mission to Mars. That's over-reaching, don't you know! So long as they don't try to prohibit any private groups from doing it on our own, as I really do hate the idea of being retired.

Links, Mike? (Especially for Iraqi oil production stats and Britney pix.)

Now we know why we we're fighting them there so they don't follow us home. We're afraid of the flood of refugees. (It's okay, we've already got lots of Iranians and Lebanese in Southern California.)

I think that the Kurds are struggling with Sunnis in Mosul and Kirkuk, so whether we side with the Shiites or keep our hands off, the Kurds should do okay, if they can smooth things over with the Turks (both the locals and the country next door).

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站，是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.
万维网火车站,您进行火车票查询和了解火车站的摇篮，我们会为您提供最新的列车时刻表信息。欢迎光临!

My guess is if the US withdrawed the Sunni wouldn't be exterminated or some such. They were Iraq's professional soldiers. Not so easy to kill.

I think that the Kurds are struggling with Sunnis in Mosul and Kirkuk

The Kurds are Sunnis! Henny Penny, sucky fucky!!!!

Mike Cook: I suppose the pragmatic new Congress will not be sending a manned mission to Mars.... So long as they don't try to prohibit any private groups from doing it on our own, as I really do hate the idea of being retired.

Please Mike, by all means, go to Mars! In fact, I'll call my representatives in the morning to make sure they don't stand in your way.

Anyone here object to Mike going to Mars?

I still can't figure out how you lost last month....just your insight on women's underwear, by itself, should have been enough to put you over the top. Could it be the voters in Washington's 33rd district don't wear panties? Or maybe it's a priorities thing. As in:

"Say what you will about 106 American troops dying last month; Iraq did produce a record amount of oil. My gas now costs $2.30 a gallon."

Sorry, Enozinho, I meant the Sunni Arabs, who haven't been treating the Kurds terribly well for quite some time.

Evangelicals don't like being called Fundamentalists, either. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

Bush wants to kill 20 percent of the Iraq population.

AND Washington Post is actively helping Bush in that direction, with their "We don't put a label on Bush's genocide."

Bush does this and the rest of world will write the US off completely, not that they haven't already. I wonder if the Saudis will just let it happen in trade for 60 a barrel money.

Who really is the infidel?

I mean for trade for $60 a barrel in money.

Are the Kurds really all Shia? Perhaps the majority in Iraq, but those near or beyond the Iranian border? Somehow given the notoriously complicated demography of the ME, and my ignorance, I doubt this.

How can anyone deny that this war isn't about oil, when Bush has decided to allow the killing of 20 of Iraq's population to keep those military bases and control of the oil?

Well, to answer my own question:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan.htm

Just to clear things up.

The Kurds are Sunni, yet they identify themselves with their ethnicity more often than not due to the oast 100 years of Arab oppression, specifically Sunni Arab oppression. There are Shia Kurds (Faylis), but they're not significant in terms of numbers or on the inter-Kurdish political scene.

I think this 80% solution seems like a good idea, as long as there are some sort of vanguards/tweaks to prevent all out genocide.

For one, an 80% solution would help facilitate a partition. The Kurds and I would say significant portion of Shia (SCIRI, some from Dawa) are in favor of highly-decentralized federalism. The Sunnis aren't. So if we have Kurds and Shia with full control in Iraq, it would be easier to impliment a partition without facing political obstacles.

The Sunnis are fighting this federlasim idea with their teeth because their regions don't have any oil and all reports indicate that senior Sunni political figures wouldn't accept oil revenue in proportion to their population (about %18).

Well, they're going to have to get used to the fact that supporting a brutal insurgency isn't going to result in the Shia/Kurds handing the country to them, along with all their oil.

An organized partition would also stabilize the situation and provide cover for us to initiate drastic troop withdrawals. This should be done in conjunction with Iran-Syria negiotiations and covert activity directed at the Iraqi political elites within the Shia/Kurdish leadership to secure our interests.

Also, a number of posters have implied that anything directed at Iran would yield a negative reaction from Iraqi Shia. While it's true that Iran has proxies in the Shia community (and in the Kurdish community) it would be wrong to assume that Iraqi Shia are Iranian pawns.

Even SCIRI, which was funded and spent years in exile in Iran, is trying to secure Iraqi Shia interests (which run counter to those of Iran at this moment) by meeting drastically departing from the Iranian line. Most Iraqi Shia harbor a lot of resentment towards Palestinians due to the Palestinian support for Saddam and it's hard to imagine them going in mass to support Iran's pro-Palestine stance.

This is not to say that an 80% solution would come perfectly handy. However, it seems much better than the current situation.

So now the US presence in Iraq is an intricate trigger for World War III and the only options being discussed are a straight forward detonation and a slow burn we hope will fizzle out before the region is at war.

If we survive the next six months will someone please remind the country that sound bites make crappy foreign policy and the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth shouldn't be in charge of implementing it.

For the record, I'm placing bets on a Chinese-Kahzak-Russian alliance coming out on top.

Is an 80 percent Shia margin of victory in an election (along with scattered massacres of Sunnis) a sign of democracy or tyranny?

An 80 percent solution makes Saddam Hussein look like a skilled mediator.

An 80 percent solution makes Saddam Hussein look like a skilled mediator.

AND the real butcher of Baghdad is - George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Now would be a good time to be a conscientious objector if your in the military. This war is not about democracy or anything close to democracy. It's about keeping those billion dollar military bases and control of the oil no matter how many Iraqis die. The war never was about anything else.

Kevin,

You are rarely out front with an accurate prediction, but even broken clocks are right twice a day...Kevin, perhaps your time has arrived!

-- S Brennan

Brennan is right, Kevin saw right though it into the truth. And now we know that the Washington Post wasn't about to spell it out to the American Public. The Washington Post knows it but they'll be damn to let the American public know this, because that newspaper is too busy helping Bush avoid the obvious "label" of civil war, actively bending reality the way Bush is bend into lie.

Please Carl Levin, get out out of this damn war, NOW would be good.

And this is why Pelosi doesn't want to impeach Bush, someone has to lead the genocide in Iraq. The Clinton's just want to let Bush do it this. This is why the Clintons have been in lock step with Bush and why Bill Clinton insisted those 16 words were just a mistake. And why Bill Clinton insisted that Bush didn't legally need the UN's okay before going to war, and why Kofi Annan said it's an illegal war. This is also why NATO will never, ever help Bush.

AND a word about GM's BIG STUPID IDEA to keep Americans dependent on fossil fuel.

Instead of making a hybird vehicle that would really save on gas, GM believes that the American consumer is so stupid that he/she won't realize that if you have to "plug" your vehicle in, you re not paying pay the same amount, either though the pump or in your utility bill. This isn't like Toyota or Honda at all. It's an idea intended to keep Exxon/Mobil happy.

Americans should tell CEO Rick Wagoner to take his executive severance package and go straight to hell. No American should have to bail out GM ever again in not one more act of bankruptcy.

"Iraq did produce a record amount of oil last month"

No link given, and of course, it's a complete fantasy:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27909414.htm

The result would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved.

2002: no bloodbath
2007: bloodbath

What changed?

Typical. Forgetting the moral implications of standing by while genocide occurs, how stupid is it to give the Sunnis, roughly 85% (I've seen various statistics)of the world's Muslims, another reason to hate America.

Oh, but that's blaming America first. So maybe I'm wrong. Can these folks really be that stupid?

"The result would be bloody but at least we wouldn't be involved". Is this what the idiotic liberal position on the war has come to? See no evil, do no evil? I suspect these brain cramps are the result of you finally figuring out that your vaunted cries for withdrawal were quite foolish. Time to be snide and dismissive.

A Shiite alliance can't happen: Sadr wouldn't let it happen, Iran wouldn't let it happen, Saudi Arabia would be really pissed off. If democrats were smart they would start to focus on the Sunni and Kurds, get as close as possible to them, and put pressure on Shiite controlled gov't to do something useful - which they can't. But if we cozy up to a Sunni strongman and the Kurds we'll be well placed [viz alternative to non-option of withdrawal] when shit inevitably hits fan.

Wow...as unhinged as the wingnuts were by the stinging defeats suffered by Republicans in the recent elections, the fact that Bush's adventure in Iraq has failed so obviously that only Bush himself can remain in denial about it has them absolutely deranged.

Is this what the idiotic liberal position on the war has come to?

No, jackass, this is what Bush's idiotic policy has come to -- as Kevin said, we either withdraw, or the bloodbath occurs with our participation.

And, I might add, hundreds more American casualties. Of course, "saintsimon" and the wingnuts here won't be among them, will they?

Kevin, I don't know if we are now equally foolish, but I made this post a very long time ago.

This is the reason we got out of Somalia. If you go in with your military, you have to take sides. As long as you stay with your military, you have to take sides and primary responsibility for killing scores of people. And who knows for how long or to what degree you will even suceed?

Allow me to emphasize: if you are the strongest military presence, you have to not only take sides, but YOU are primarily responsible for all the death and destruction.

I don't personally enjoy playing God when it comes to deciding who lives and who dies, who prospers and who bites the dust. Especially when it's was not (and is not) my security that was at stake in the first place.

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK.

Oh shit, the link supports everything Kevin just said!!

We're screwed . . .

Maybe once the Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis (or as Bush likes to call them: "Paks") etc. see us slaughtering Sunnis on behalf of the Shia, they'll come up with ways to make our lives hard. Ya think? The Shia might be the majority in Iran and Iraq, but they're a minority of Muslims worldwide.

There's a hell of a lot of them, though.

We're screwed.

A few folks posting here just can't get over how mad they are over this unjustified invasion. Your anger and wishful thinking re: "we should never have invaded!" are wasted effort *now*. Face facts - we are on the ground. No time machine will take us back in time and change this.

Supporting the Sunni insurgents over the Shiite militias makes the most strategic sense. Given our allies in the region, and the threat of potential Iranian nuclear weapons, backing the Sunnis is the better strategic move in the diplomatic game. The principle problem I have with backing the Sunni is simple. The Shiites are the elected government of the country. The United States claims to support democracy - and this foolish administration loudly proclaimed that the *mission* is to bring democracy to these oppressed people. Morally, the US should not undermine the very government that was elected - given our *supposed* motives for the invasion.

On another level, since Bush says that Al-Qaeda is/was another principle reason for invading Iraq, supporting Sunnis would be almost like *supporting* Al-Qaeda. (Yes, Bin-Laden is a Wahhabi, but they are a Sunni splinter group) I can in no way see his administration able to do that - even if it makes the most strategic sense to do so. Thus, in my opinion, there is absolutely NO chance that the US government will do what the Saudis may want us to do - support the Sunnis.

There ain't no easy way out of this. If we retreat to the north, protect the Turkey an Iran borders. Scare the Sunnis into thinking that the Saudis will be their protectors, maybe they will compromis a minority victory

What???

Columnist Joe Klein, whose opinion I rarely agree with, had a jarring insight in the latest Time magazine about the situation in Iraq. Klein noted that all of this blather from the Bush Administration about the Iraq government doing this or doing that, was meaningless nonsense because “Iraq no longer exists as a coherent governmental entity.”

Let me repeat that in boldface type, for emphasis - ”Iraq no longer exists as a coherent governmental entity.”

Once we recognize this very sobering point, our strategic options become much more limited. The U.S. should begin drafting solutions for this region, post-civil war and helping building a humanitarian coalition of countries to help with the thousands of refugees and preventing outbreaks of cholera, etc. because the United State’s illegal invasion and occupation has caused what used to be the country of Iraq to disintegrate. It no longer exists!

Btw - just because the US invaded Iraq - it does not mean that the Iraqi's are blameless when it comes to the killing that is going on there now. Every person is morally responsible for their own actions. Each Iraqi who murders another Iraqi is not innnocent of the crime simply because the United States invaded their country. That is like saying : "a couple of thieves broke into my house, so the courts should have no problem with me using that excuse to kill my wife for the insurance money."

*points finger at Pale Rider*

The deepest problem with the "80% solution" is that the other 20% likely represent 60% of the effective armed strength. The Sunnis ruled in Iraq for a number of decades, and know how to win the fight for control when their only foes are the other 80% of the population -- the situation that will recur when we leave, as in time we certainly will.

Expect a massive bloodbath, and don't be surprised if the Sunnis win out again, hating America only more than before.

A few folks posting here just can't get over how mad they are over this unjustified invasion.

Example?

Or are you going to regale us with tales of your in-laws again?

little ole jim is absolutely correct - This is what happened in Beirut in the early 80s. We first sent in the Marines to escort Arafat and his Merry Men safely out of Lebanon. The Marines were well received.
However, we sent them back as part of a three nation peacekeeping force. This is when Cap Weinberger and Rumsfeld decided to back the Lebanese Army and provide fire support from the USS New Jersey flotilla. This is when the proverbial shit hit the fan and has not diminished to this day.

Hey, Mike Cook, out late cruising Pacific Coast Highway; got a little sloshed did you boy?

Spock,

I don't think assigning blame is meaningful at this point. It really doesn't matter who is to blame, although there is plenty to go around. As a supposed Judeo-Christian nation, I think it is now time to think in humanitarian terms about what to do to minimize the suffering and death. "Winning" is not meaningful, as the country of Iraq has disintegrated. We should be thinking more in terms of preventing a repeat of the Rwanda catastrophe of 1994.

TCD

Won't be adopted? You're assuming common sense, Kevin which is in short supply at the WH.

what affect will this decision have on those wingnuts who consider its main benefactor, ahmednezadi, to be the reincarnation of hitler? will they drop their blind worship of our fearless leader?

Oh come now, I'm sure someone will suggest letting the Kurds take over and taking on the Sunni AND Shia thus involving us potentially in wars with Saudia Arabia and Iran forcing us to depend on oil from... from... Hugo Chavez.

Btw - just because the US invaded Iraq - it does not mean that the Iraqi's are blameless when it comes to the killing that is going on there now. Every person is morally responsible for their own actions. Each Iraqi who murders another Iraqi is not innnocent of the crime simply because the United States invaded their country.

As neat an example of erroneous either-or thinking as one could hope for.

It's not that they are innocent in these horrible crimes. It is that we have unnecessarily and irrevocably implicated ourselves in them.

To me the most persuasive reason for opposing the aggressive war in Iraq--other than the fact that it was aggressive war--was that if we went in there we were going to end up picking winners and losers among factions with whom we have no interests in common, and inextricably entangling our national fate with people whose political and cultural realities we didn't understand and wouldn't bother learning.

We did break it, and we do own it.

few folks posting here just can't get over how mad they are over this unjustified invasion.

The single stupidest strategic blunder in the history of the country? You're g*damn right I'm not getting over how mad I am about it. I'm not ever going to stop being mad about it either. And I'm not getting over being mad at the profoundly stupid enablers who went along with it. We have absolutely no earthly business picking winners and losers among Sunnis and Shiites, and the fact that we now probably have no choice but to do so is just one of the ridiculously obvious reasons why we never should have gone in in the first place.

So sure, let's go ahead and back the Shi'ites. Let's go ahead and start helping them train up them death squads and power-drill wielders. Whatever we have to do, sure. But stop being mad about the people who put us here? Never.

Conservative Deflator -

As a general rule, the world body politic has only given lip service to preventing genocide. Yes, there are specific instances where there were active efforts on the ground to prevent it, but there are plenty more instances where the world (not just the US) just sat around and watched.

Rwanda...hmm....didnt that come on Clinton's watch? Democrats and Republican administrations are similar in their hit and miss history of preventing genocide.

DrBB -

At no time have I implied that the US is not responsible for the current mess in Iraq.

Pale Rider, in a different post, said "you want to start laying the blame on the Iraqis to give Bush cover for the disasterous decision to go to way. You wand to "frame" this debate like this:

"George Bush gave the Iraqis a chance to have democracy, but they screwed it up!

And that's fucking dishonest as hell. You can't get away with framing the discussion that way because it is overly simplistic bullshit."

I don't want to give Bush cover for his bad judgement. I simply want to point out that Iraqis have *choices*. Nobody is forcing them to kill one another. Our blunder is no excuse for them either. Our aggression was wrong. But that does not give Shiites the moral right to kill innocent Sunni civilians. That does not give the Sunnis the moral right to kill Shiites. They are still responsible for their own actions.

As a general rule, the world body politic has only given lip service to preventing genocide.

Which hardly absolves the US of its responsibility for unleashing this anarchy on Iraq.

Good Ford...I haven't seen a more self-impressed purveyor of right-wing rationalizations since tbrosz. "Spock" should be ashamed of himself.

Otherwise, why not simply allow "the Devil made me do it!" as a legitimate alibi in court?

Rwanda...hmm....didnt that come on Clinton's watch? Democrats and Republican administrations are similar in their hit and miss history of preventing genocide.
Posted by: Spock

So the clenis sent US troops to Rwanda, disbanded it's army, destroyed it's civil service and unleashed a bloody civil war there? How did I miss that?

Hmmmm..."Spock" follows this

At no time have I implied that the US is not responsible for the current mess in Iraq.

with this

Our aggression was wrong. But that does not give Shiites the moral right to kill innocent Sunni civilians. That does not give the Sunnis the moral right to kill Shiites. They are still responsible for their own actions.

"Spock," as a self-styled "forward thinking individual", is surely acquainted with the concept of a straw man argument. No one is claiming that the Shiites have the moral right to kill innocent civilians, or that individuals are responsible for their actions.

Unfortunately, the fact that the United States visited a condition of Hobbesian anarchy on the country means that individuals are, by and large, unable to be held accountable for their actions.

And, of course, it's extremely difficult to see "Spock"'s myuddying of the waters with this bullshit as anything other than a lame attempt to distract attention with the Bush Administration's culpability for this mess, and the larger point that -- far short of holding the responsible for their actions by putting them on trial for war crimes -- they simply have no credibility or ability in extricating the US from this disaster.

Thus, Pale Rider's charge from the other thread stands unrefuted, although we're grateful to "Spock" for reminding us -- as if he doesn't with every post anyway -- how little credibility he, "Spock," has.

What's astonishing is that "Spock" seems to genuinely believe he's making cogent arguments.

I simply want to point out that Iraqis have *choices*. Nobody is forcing them to kill one another. Our blunder is no excuse for them either.

Sounds like you're blaming the victim for getting the disease.

Our "blunder" is what you're calling it? That's rich. Just a quiet hint to you--when you invade a country, emplace a viceroy, use the CIA to structure and organize the elections, influence the direction of the Iraqi Constitution, destroy the infrastructure, disband the police, the Army and the courts and eliminate all of the institutions that bring any semblance of law and order and social responsibility, you *are* responsible for the results of that action. That's not merely a "blunder." That's a cock-up of the first order and the greatest strategic mistake in the history of the United States of America.

I mean, really. How fucking obvious does it have to be?

Spock said: “As a general rule, the world body politic has only given lip service to preventing genocide.

Gregory said : ”Which hardly absolves the US of its responsibility for unleashing this anarchy on Iraq.

I’m sorry Gregory, where is it exactly that I said the the US is absolved of its responsibility. Where? Nowhere. I have repeatedly agreed with that point. What I have disagreed with is the frequent absolving of Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion. If liberal thinking absolves adults for their own actions then I want no part of it in my government, *ever*.

the fact that the United States visited a condition of Hobbesian anarchy on the country means that individuals are, by and large, unable to be held accountable for their actions

people are always responsible for their own actions.

What I have disagreed with is the frequent absolving of Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion. If liberal thinking absolves adults for their own actions then I want no part of it in my government, *ever*.

Yeah, but who unleashed hell on those people? Who was it? Hmmm?

This is the new wingnut meme, as I stated earlier and quoted by "spock."

George Bush gave the Iraqis a chance to have democracy, but they screwed it up!

I haven't had time to go through much on the right wing side of things--I did read where Peggy Noonan thinks we need to be more gracious as a people and just get along.

Let me point out something I read from Stefan yesterday--all of this criticism from George Will and Peggy Noonan about the "boorish" behavior of Senator Elect James Webb--where Webb basically stood up to the President and deflected some rather intrusive questioning when the President asked about Webb's son, who is an enlisted Marine in Iraq right now.

Stefan brilliantly reminded us of the contretemps between Vice President Cheney and Senator Patrick Leahy when Cheney told Leahy to "go fuck yourself."

Spock, go fuck yourself. See, if Cheney can say it on the floor of the US Senate, I can say it to you on a blog thread.

Rwanda did happen on Clinton's watch and represents one of his greatest failures of leadership. I am not so blindly partisan to suggest Clinton did not miss an opportunity to help stave off a humanitarian catastrophe. That was 12 years ago. Today is today. We need to rally world support for humanitarian support for the people of the former country of Iraq. The "war" is over.

Drum:

..we'd be viewed as actively cooperating with a massacre..

Or, perhaps, the only brake lever that prevents large-scale sectarian massacres from occurring.

That's spin, but reasonable spin. Doubleplusgood, it provides cover for continued involvement in the region...On the surface, to prevent large-scale massacres...But beneath, it allows the US to still remain a player concerning its interests: oil, the US dollar, and supplying contractors with lots of your coin.

That's not merely a "blunder." That's a cock-up of the first order and the greatest strategic mistake in the history of the United States of America.

i don't think anyone is disputing that.

Thanks, Gregory.

If someone has seen the spread of this theme out there, I'd be curious to read how exactly they're going to go about "blaming" Iraq on the Iraqis themselves.

Doesn't this fly in the face of "Marching Orders from the House of Saud," two items below this one on your site? Gerald Scorse

where is it exactly that I said the the US is absolved of its responsibility. Where? Nowhere. I have repeatedly agreed with that point. What I have disagreed with is the frequent absolving of Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion. [emphasis mine]

What "frequent absolving of Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion"? The fact that you keep babbling about this straw man can't be seen as anything other than absolving the US of its responsibility, despite your disclaimers. That dog just won't hunt.

But again -- What "frequent absolving of Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion"? Cite me one post here (or are you talking about your in-laws again -- that was hilarious!) that absolves "Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion"? Put up or shut up.

But it doesn't matter -- I have a news flash for you, Mr. "I don't want the government restricting my precious freedoms." We have a government, and everyone sacrifices a bit of their own freedom, precisely so we won't have to live in the state of anarchy Hobbes described. Iraq's government was risible, but it did maintain some sort of order. By its invasion, the US is responsible for the conditions that followed. Your finger-pointing at the individual Iraqis obscures the fact that Bush's disastrous invasion gave them an opportunity to act that they otherwise would not have had. That's why you're guilty of absolving the US or its responsibility, no matter what kind of bullshit disclaimers you toss out.

It doesn't suprise me that rugged-individual-libertarians like you are ignorant of seventh grade civics, but its' astonishing that rugged-individual-libertarians like you -- who invariably hold a pretense of intellectualism -- are so shamefully ignorant of Hobbes, let alone Locke and Rousseau.

So, you have a simple choice -- rip up your straw man argument, or continue your smug intellectual dishoensty. I suspect I know what path you'll take.

Doesn't this fly in the face of "Marching Orders from the House of Saud," two items below this one on your site?

it sure does - which is why it's a great example of just how fucked-up this situation is.

choice A: take the strong side in a civil war, anger the Saudis, and please Iran

choice B: take the minority side in a civil war please the Saudis, anger Iran and the majority of Iraqis.

choice C: try to prevent the two sides from killing each other. a.k.a. Stay The Course

What "frequent absolving of Iraqis for their own behavior towards one another in response to this foolish invasion"?

raises hand:

Unfortunately, the fact that the United States visited a condition of Hobbesian anarchy on the country means that individuals are, by and large, unable to be held accountable for their actions.

One more thing, "Spock" -- as a science fiction fan, I find your choice of handle offensive. Not because I begrudge a conservative naming him/herself after a science fiction character -- there's a conservative who posts as "Zathras" who displays rare and refreshing intellectual honesty -- but because you call yourself "Spock" yet seem determined to employ every logical fallacy known to man. Or Vulcan.

raises hand

No, cleek; pointing out that the anarchy in Iraq gives Iraqis the opportunity to commit atrocities by rendering unlikely that they'll be held accountable for their actions doesn't absolve them of their responsibility.

Their actions remain morally shameful, and contra "Spock"'s straw man no one is arguing otherwise.

but because you call yourself "Spock" yet seem determined to employ every logical fallacy known to man. Or Vulcan.

Smells like Charlie to me...

Time to be snide and dismissive.

Posted by: saintsimon

Consider yourself snidely dismissed, saintsimon; go share your blinding insights with Bush/Cheney, they've been out of ideas for quite some time.

choice C: try to prevent the two sides from killing each other. a.k.a. Stay The Course

I might add that under choice C, we're failing to prevent the two sides from killing each other, and sacrificing untold lives and treasure in this futile effort to boot.

Don't you all like the idea of us killing the side we formerly supported? Don't you all like the idea of killing our former allies and dying ourselves and wasting our resources to produce an Iranian ally? What's the matter with you all? It's the Ultimate Bush accomplishment: destroy our country to help our enemy.

If Bush had thought about it he couldn't have devised a worse scenario. It's horrifying that people are made to suffer so much for that ass's ego. And never forget: his benefit. The Bush family doesn't sneeze without trying to calculate their own benefit.

weight loss pills
penis enlargement
penis enlargement
acne treatment
weight loss
penis enlargement pills
penis pills
penis enlargement products
penis enlargement pills

penis enlargement
penis enlargement pills
weight loss pills

We need to rally world support for humanitarian support for the people of the former country of Iraq. The "war" is over.
Just who feeds Iraq. Oil for food...the UN has a new program? The Iraqi government? bush?

Where are our usual Republican trolls?

Here's where the rubber hits the road, where blood flows like wine, and where are they?

Gone.

I guess Bush should use the excuse: "the oil made me do it." "My Daddy made me do it." Then he would be ok with you, Gregory.

Intelligent adults are responsible for their own actions. Bad upbringing, poverty, bad government, genetics, doesn't change that fact. Yes, they can have an *influence*. But that does not change who made the decision. If you pull the trigger, it was your motor-neurons that did the firing. You can't *only* blame Budweiser if you get drunk and have a car accident.

Maybe that is a fundamental difference in the way I see the world from you. I see people as responsible for their own actions and behaviors. If I screw up, it is my fault. I don't look around to see who I can blame.

Kevin Drum: The alternative being mooted here would put us directly on the Shiite side, and we'd be viewed as actively cooperating with a massacre of the Sunni minority no matter how hard we protested otherwise. It's hard to imagine a more disastrous end to a disastrous war.

It is important to liberals to see themselves as good, moral people. Therefore, they think foreign policy works that way. It doesn't. Foreign policy ia mostly about self-interest. Countries generally want to go with the winners.

The US ended WW2 by means of a massacre of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, we were regarded as the leading country in the world. Why? Because, we won.

In short, if Iraq forms a stable government run by Shia that's an ally of the US, we will be seen as the winners, regardless of how that result was achieved. I hope a massacre of Sunnis doesn't take place. But, if it does, it won't matter whether or not the US is viewed as actively cooperating.

No, cleek; pointing out that the anarchy in Iraq gives Iraqis the opportunity to commit atrocities by rendering unlikely that they'll be held accountable for their actions doesn't absolve them of their responsibility.

apologies. i misread this:

"Unfortunately, the fact that the United States visited a condition of Hobbesian anarchy on the country means that individuals are, by and large, unable to be held accountable for their actions."

...to mean something like "we've created a situation where they cannot be blamed for what they do - they are beyond accountability, the poor mindless fools." not "we've created a situation where there is nobody to enforce accountability."

quite a difference. :)

Intelligent adults are responsible for their own actions. Bad upbringing, poverty, bad government, genetics, doesn't change that fact. Yes, they can have an *influence*. But that does not change who made the decision. If you pull the trigger, it was your motor-neurons that did the firing. You can't *only* blame Budweiser if you get drunk and have a car accident.

But if the US government invades your country, installs a puppet government, strips away the police, the courts and the ability to get treatment for your problem and shoots up your car at a checkpoint, can you still blame it on Bud? Which is nasty shit, by the way. Can you, in future hypotheticals, not use that skunky shit? Go with Sam Adams or Heineken, please.

I think it's cool that you have shrunk down the invasion of a country of 26 million to being the ultimate responsibility of one person and one individual. Guess what? You cannot simplify the societal upheaval of a country like Iraq after it has been invaded and occupied by reducing the matter to being the "personal responsibility" of one single person. But it makes it easier to push that theme of absolving Bush, doesn't it? Because when we approach this issue the way it's supposed to be approached, your whole house of cards collapses in a heap.

Maybe that is a fundamental difference in the way I see the world from you. I see people as responsible for their own actions and behaviors. If I screw up, it is my fault. I don't look around to see who I can blame.

There isn't a lot of personal introspection or responsibility there, though. This is somewhat like conservatives who praised Rush Limbaugh for getting treatment for drugs. Oh, yes--Rush is getting help and Rush is taking responsibility for his actions. Meanwhile, he's paying Roy Black to fight tooth and nail to keep people from discovering that he broke the law, committed felonies and engaged in doctor shopping, but hey--Rush took responsibility. He just made sure the whole thing was pleaded down to nothing.

but at least we wouldn't be involved.

Yup, only culpable for thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths.

Been said a thousands of times, but it still stuns me that they went in there with only infantile knowledge of the M.E. its cultures and conflicts.

I don't want to give Bush cover for his bad judgement.

Really?

I simply want to point out that Iraqis have *choices*. Nobody is forcing them to kill one another. Our blunder is no excuse for them either. Our aggression was wrong. But that does not give Shiites the moral right to kill innocent Sunni civilians. That does not give the Sunnis the moral right to kill Shiites. They are still responsible for their own actions.

Uh...who here is saying that Shiites have the moral right to kill Sunni civilians, or Sunnis the moral right to kill Shiites? Absolutely no one. So what, exactly, are you arguing against, except the straw men you've built up in your own mind? Your argument, while technically correct, is only trivially true since it's not really a point of contention.

Of course, Saudi and other Sunnis will be enraged, hurting us geopolitically, oil-wise, etc.

This is why the US won't accept Iraqi refugees. The Lebanese have taken in almost a million Iraqi refugees, and the US has only allowed 202 Iraqi refugees in.

I guess Bush should use the excuse: "the oil made me do it." "My Daddy made me do it." Then he would be ok with you, Gregory.

And with that, "Spock" abandons all pretence as an honest commentator.

Spock on December 1, 2006 at 10:40 AM:

Intelligent adults are responsible for their own actions.

People act consistently with their own internal values. If their environment has instilled a set of values where killing another for revenge or stoning a woman to death for adultery is acceptable, then their actions can be considered a product of their environment...Regardless as to whether you or I think that they are wrong. This does not absolve a person from responsibility for an action, but please realize that holding a person or group of people in Iraq to the same societal standards we have here in the US isn't workable.

OT: our long national nightmare is over: Pelosi has made her decision about the Intelligence chair.

Kevin,i normally agree with you but you are condoning massacre here.
"The result would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved."

No...too late .YOU ARE INVOLVED EITHER WAY!

apologies. i misread this

No problem, cleek; I apologize in turn for not being clear.

"Spock," on the other hand, has had the distinction made clear, but for some reason refuses to recognize it. He prefers to view Iraq as a situation where thousands of individual Iraqis are making individual decisions, not as a collective anarchy for which Bush and the United States government are responsible.

And yet "Spock" protests about being accused of defending the US's responsibility. Seems to me he's trying his best.

Not successfully, mind you, but...

Maybe that is a fundamental difference in the way I see the world from you. I see people as responsible for their own actions and behaviors. If I screw up, it is my fault. I don't look around to see who I can blame.

Well, at least we know "Spock" isn't George W. Bush....

But really, this is nonsense, since it isn't us who've screwed up -- it's Bush and the Republicans. The right wing has fucked up, and it's the right wing which is desperately rationalizing, unwilling to accept responsibility for their own behaviors and actions, trying to find someone else to blame.

The thought "if I screw up, it's my fault" never even flits across the collective consciousness of the GOP. It's always "if I screw up, it's the Democrats' fault. Don't ask me how, or why, but it's their fault, I just know it, because it can't possibly be mine."

It is important to liberals to see themselves as good, moral people.

Fortunately, "ex-liberal" isn't saddled with this burden.

Of course, "ex-liberal"'s proclivity for straw man arguments like the above, along with assorted other intellectual dishonesty, made this point clear long before his/her/its condoning the bloody mess Bush created in Iraq.

if Iraq forms a stable government run by Shia that's an ally of the US, we will be seen as the winners

And if pigs had wings...

ex liberal

The US ended WW2 by means of a massacre of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, we were regarded as the leading country in the world. Why? Because, we won.

There weren't millions of Japanese in other countries not involved in the war. There weren't Japanese terrorist organizations in other countries. There will be consequences for the US if we are seen as helping the Shia massacre the Sunni.

Never-was-a-liberal: The US ended WW2 by means of a massacre of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet, we were regarded as the leading country in the world. Why? Because, we won.

The Patron Saint of False Equivalents has started early this morning.

Let's see:

The US is to Japan, circa 1945,

as

The US is to Iraqi Sunnis, in 2006?

You must have loved those analogy questions back in your SAT days.

There weren't millions of Japanese in other countries not involved in the war.

I'm grateful to tomeck for reminding me that "ex-liberal"'s post was so chockablock with intellectual dishoensty, I missed some first time around.

With all the bogus analogies to WWII going around, it's amazing -- no, it isn't, really -- that Bush apologists like "el-liberal" gloss over the fact that Germany and Japan were the aggressors.

"ex-liberal"'s hunger for total warfare in Iraq -- if not the entire Muslim world -- is readily apparent, but saner heads realize that playing into al Qaeda's hands even more than Bush has already done is likely not in America's best interest -- nor is it a course that America -- which sees itself as as good, moral people" irrespective of "liberals" and "conservatives" (good Ford, was "ex-liberal" so dishoenst as to imply that conservatives don't think it important to see themselves "as good, moral people"?! By crackey, so he/she/it was!) -- has any interest in pursuing, the barking mad lunatics at Little Green Footballs notwithdtanding.

tomeck: There weren't millions of Japanese in other countries not involved in the war. There weren't Japanese terrorist organizations in other countries. There will be consequences for the US if we are seen as helping the Shia massacre the Sunni.

You may be right, tomeck. But, I think the consequences will depend mostly on whether we are seen as winning or losing.

IMHO the US has bent over backwards to be nice to the Sunnis, with little in return. After we conquered the country, we didn't take reprisals against the Sunnis. We made sure they were a part of the governmental structure. Even though the Sunnis initially chose to boycott the government and commit insurgent attacks, we continued to make them welcome in the Iraqi government. We forced the Shia to give the Sunnis a significant role in the government, beyond what their votes would require.

What did we get for all these generous moves? Not much from the Sunnis nor from the rest of the world. The Iraqi government is not succeeding. That's the bottom line.

George Bush gave the Iraqis a chance to have democracy, but they screwed it up!

Damn, I knew I should have copyrighted that! Granted my version was slightly different - We brought freedom and democracy to Iraq and they blew it but I think it would have help up in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

This meme really works for right wingers because not only does it blame the victim but it blames a victim unlikely to defend themselves to the american people.

But...but...I thought that if the US had invaded the Japanese mainland in 1945 there would have been a million or more casualties and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually SAVED lives rather than the other way around.

I mean, there are several schools of thought on this, but I thought this was settled a long time ago by the events of Okinawa, where the Japanese civilians were throwing themselves off cliffs at the sight of the American invaders.

IMHO the US has bent over backwards to be nice to the Sunnis, with little in return.

Ever heard of a nutty little town called Fallujah???

The only bending over done there was to really give it to the Sunnis, and Vasoline wasn't used.

The Iraqi government is not succeeding. That's the bottom line.

well, i'll agree with that.

Just a quiet hint to you--when you invade a country, emplace a viceroy, use the CIA to structure and organize the elections, influence the direction of the Iraqi Constitution, destroy the infrastructure, disband the police, the Army and the courts and eliminate all of the institutions that bring any semblance of law and order and social responsibility, you *are* responsible for the results of that action. That's not merely a "blunder." That's a cock-up of the first order and the greatest strategic mistake in the history of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, not much exaggeration, if any, in that statement. The Iraqi constitution and elections were not legitimate and they will not stand.

I can easily imagine utter chaos in any country that experienced the same. Good people would be helpless to control the fall-out. It would be nasty anywhere.

The United States betrayed the Sunnis when they invaded Iraq, when Rumsfeld and Feith gave the order for de-Baathification and when they sentenced Saddam to death. Of all these it was the de-Baathification that turned ALL the Sunnis against the US. Not only did it destroy the capacity of the country to function it put everyone with any capability in that nation into the street without a means of making a living and it effectively excluded them from making a living.

According to Feith the importance of the decree was:
We've got to show all the Iraqis that we're serious about building a New Iraq. And that means that Saddam's instruments of repression have no role in that new nation.

Mark Danner writes
The political implications within Iraq were incalculable, for the de-Baathification and the dissolution of the army both appeared to the Sunnis to be declarations of open warfare against them, convincing many that they would be judged not by standards of individual conduct but by the fact of their membership in a group—judged not according to what they had done but according to who they were. This in itself undermined what hope there was