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 to create the sine qua non of a stable democracy: a loyal opposition, which is to say an opposition that believes enough in the fairness of the system that it will renounce violence. "You Americans, you know," as a young Sunni had told me in October 2003, when the insurgency was already in full flower, "you have created your enemies here."

Conan The Barbarian: "After we conquered the country, we didn't take reprisals against the Sunnis."

Are you angry that we didn't get to hear the lamentations of their women?

I think the consequences will depend mostly on whether we are seen as winning or losing.

It's a bit late for "whether," "ex-liberal." It's also too bad that your enthusiasm for sacrifice in the name of the US's PR image doesn't include putting your own ass in uniform.

It's also too bad that the mountains of manure you've posted here teaches us that your "IMHO" isn't worth a bucket of cold piss.

"If a Pub screws up, it's the Dems fault"

Well, many Pubs abhor Joint and Several Liability - They also view the Dems as a morally defective product - As they live in a No-Fault bizarro world of their own, they still believe in filing class actions for the Product Liability of Democrats. All costs to be borne by defendants

Think I will shed a tear for the bombings, when the Japanese and their Prime Minister shed a few for Nanking and stop going to the War Memorial to honor the war criminals.

A Shi'a dominated state of Iraq is the only outcome possible. The Shi'a have a super majority demographic in Iraq. It may be unpleasant and the result may be major repression of the Sunni bordering on genocide, but prior to the US invasion the roles were reveresed and encouraged by the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations.

My hope, and I think historically indicated, is that the Shi'a will not be as vicious towards the Sunnis as the Sunnis were to them. I could be wrong, and I think initially violence will escalate should Sadr assume national leadership, but the Shi'a of Iraq do not seem to have the capability to commit the horrors that the Iraqi Sunnis have. The problem would be that the Sunnis will never submit to political rule by the Shi'a, continuing their insurgency against the civilian Shi'a population, which will then create ever greater retaliation against their civilian population.

To Americans this seems a horrible outcome to our invasion, but those same Americans did turn away from the Shi'a after the Gulf War of '91. The Shi'a who attempted to follow G.H.W. Bush's advice and overthrow Saddam were slautered, while Americans were in a self-congratulatory state of mind. I saw Basra Shiites being beaten by Sunnis on TV, who were almost certainly then executed. Americans really have no moral authority to condemn what the Shi'a might do to the Sunnis, as they are complicit in helping Saddam do the same thing to the Shi'a, thanks to our super fantastic presidents Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.

The Iraqi constitution and elections were not legitimate and they will not stand.

As I indicate with my frequent references to Hobbes, the inability of Iraq's government to maintain any kind of order outside the Green Zone, forget about the entire capital, means that it is not legitimate. QED.

Afghanistan, same deal, albeit to a lesser extent. They don't call Karzai the "Mayor of Kabul" for nothing.

And, by the by, let's not forget that yet another consequence of Bush's Excellent Adventure in Iraq is our failure to finish the job in Afghanistan.

After Bush ruined the GOP's decades-long branding effort in a few short years, the American people won't trust Republicans with national security for a generation.

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

Damn, I knew I should have copyrighted that!

Yeah, that’s pretty pathetically funny, but where I work the biggest Bush supporters started saying that, literally, a year ago. Only, they specifically added, “They are hopeless, they appreciate nothing, we should just bomb them all.” If there was any humor or joking involved, they had me fooled.

I’ve lived among such folks all my life, and still, don’t really think I could make such stuff up. It’s always even worse that I thought it would be.

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

But...but what about all the painted schools??? Wasn't it ex-liberal himself who just a few short months ago was citing the painted schools as a sure sign that the Iraqi government was succeeding?

Pale Rider:

Are you being sarcastic in your 11:26 AM post?

Wasn't it ex-liberal himself who just a few short months ago was citing the painted schools as a sure sign that the Iraqi government was succeeding?

Yes.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (hat tip Atrios).

Pale Rider: 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.

No, no, those were freedom falls at the feet of their liberators....

"putting your own ass into uniform"

Please, Gregory, cut the boy some slack - DoD has lowered intelligence standards a great deal, but they have not lowered them That much.

Perhaps when they form the Bush League Chimp Brigade, his personal honor guard, he will qualify.

Spock wrote: 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.

Nothing can change the past. No one has suggested that. But muttering bromides like "we are on the ground" is meaningless and does not justify the Iraq war or its continuation.

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a crime -- an illegal war of unprovoked aggression based on deliberate, sickening lies about a nonexistent threat from nonexistent Iraqi "WMD", a war which has murdered tens of thousands of innocent people, a war waged for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for the Bush and Cheney families and their cronies and financial backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex.

Bush and Cheney are criminals.

All US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq as quickly as possible, beginning immediately.

Congress should immediately begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney.

Bush and Cheney should be impeached, removed from office, indicted, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and treason, under the applicable US and international laws.

The people who live in the region called "Iraq" should determine their own destiny by whatever means they choose.

The USA should pay appropriately massive reparations, administered openly and transparently by an appropriate international body, to the people who live in the region called "Iraq" for the death and destruction that Bush and Cheney's criminal war has brought upon them.

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.

Hm. Several posters have insisted that they're not "only" blaming the US; they DO hold Iraqis moral responsible, but a) this does not get the US off the culpability hook, partly because b) the US has created the conditions that make it difficult or impossible to bring these (guilty) Iraqis to justice.

Meanwhile, Spock has said repeatedly that he doesn't hold the US blameless, just that he DOES want to insist that the Iraqis are also to blame, over against his opponents who want to ONLY blame the US and NOT the Iraqis. But, by their statements at least, no one on either side of the argument actually does want to blame ONLY the US or ONLY the Iraqis.

So, um, what's the disagreement again?

Stefan: But...but what about all the painted schools??? Wasn't it ex-liberal himself who just a few short months ago was citing the painted schools as a sure sign that the Iraqi government was succeeding?

Yes, I'm afraid so. I was wrong to focus on the importance of material things -- schools, hospitials, oil production, electricity, GNP growth, clean water, etc. These are all important, but I now see that they're secondary compared to the need for a reasonably honest government, the rule of law, and reasonable security.

The US substantially succeeded in the material side, although less than some hoped for. But, it won't matter whether we succeeded or failed in material things, if the whole country falls into chaos.

As Andrew Sullivan succinctly points out:

Any legitimate government has a monopoly on the use of force.

It's clear that in Malarki's case, this is not true.

Same with Karzai.

Sock-puppets.

"ex-liberal" wrote: I now see that they're secondary compared to the need for a reasonably honest government

Your support for the Bush Administration reveals that this statement, too, is a lie.

In fact, the only post of yours that is not a lie is "I was wrong."

Rest assured, we know that. Always.

Re the "George Bush gave the Iraqis a chance to have democracy, but they screwed it up!" meme and its even more dishonest accompaniment, "Bush the great visionary bit off more than the American people were willing to chew": I'm minded of one of my favorite quotes by another visionary leader who was let down by those around him. Apologies to Godwin as always:

"It all happened because nobody trusted me, nobody believed in me, and the generals let me down."
-A Hitler, Fuhrerbunker, Late April 1945

Unfortunately for the Iraqis there was never a realistic plan. There was Rumsfeld’s plan to get in fast and get out with a light force and there was the neocon ‘Road to Jerusalem’ nation-building plan. The neocons thought their man Ahmad Chalabi (he’s Shiite see) would be installed as the emperor of Iraq and from him would come the transformation of Iraq and then Iran and the isolation of Syria and Hizbollah. The transformation would end with the political and military disarmament of the Palestinians. It was all crazy, wildly elitist, and a-historical, but at least it was a plan. After Bush gave the no-go on Chalabi there was nothing but Rumsfeld’s light force left in a country with no government or military. Now Mr. Black-and-white-don’t-give-me-the-details-I-use-my-gut is running the post-war war for righteousness sake.

By the way - the "government" in Lebanon is also not legitimate. Hezbollah is the legitimate government in most of southern Lebanon. I may disagree with their methods and policies (may those bastards burn in hell) - but the point is; the UN-recognized government of Lebanon can not stop or control Hezbollah - therefore, Lebanon is de facto, two separate countries. (maybe not for long, given the events of the past couple of days).

It may be a bad idea to back the Kurds and Shiites against the Sunnis, but it would just be codification of what we are already doing. Supporting the government against the resistance is the same thing. In fact, to say that we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up, which is to say we will leave when the Iraqi government is able to hold its own against the insurgents, is the same as saying we will leave when one side is able to win the civil war.

There was Rumsfeld’s plan to get in fast and get out with a light force and there was the neocon ‘Road to Jerusalem’ nation-building plan.
Posted by: bellumregio on December 1, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

This "plan" was a ruse, you see, to trick you into believing the "incompetence" meme.

The real plan - the intent, was to take Iraq's oil off the market for the duration of the Peak Oil production peak. This prevented an oil glut, this prevented oil from falling below the $18/bbl it was in 1998, (Imagine what it would have been if sanctions had been lifted in 1996). In keeping this oil off the market, oil prices were manipulated to a more profitable level for the duration of the peak - which is probably stretched out another 10-20 years as a result. Designed to keep the seven sisters (or isn't it now 5) in very profitable business, (and with that money, their maintenance of political influence).

This was not incompetence. It was their plan. Just enough troops to cause chaos. Not enough to win. All their doing is gaming the market. Just like Enron did when they took electricity production off the market in 2000.

schools, hospitials, oil production, electricity, GNP growth, clean water, etc. These are all important, but I now see that they're secondary compared to the need for a reasonably honest government, the rule of law, and reasonable security.

Ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of Needs? If was developed for the individual, but can be applied to society. Basics come first. The latter is necessary for the former to occur in any meaningful fashion. By the way, what good are schools and hospitals when all of the educated professionals have fled and no teachers, doctors or nurses remain?

impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice, the Shi'a of Lebanon are also the most populous group in the country, yet they are also the poorest and least represented by any government that nation has ever had. They also received the greatest assault from Israel's many invasions. Hezbollah is changing that.

I know, Sharia lawmaking and autocratic rule by theocrats are not acceptable to our way of life, but to the Shi'a of Lebanon, and would be to the majority in Iraq, it is a great improvement to what they had prior. I am reminded of the horrible living standards of African-Americans in the South after reconstruction. To European Americans the conditions the oppressed ex-slaves were living in were horrible, but to the ex-slaves it was a an improvement from what they had prior by a magnitude of thousands. I think the Shi'a of Leabanon feel that way and I hope the Shi'a of Iraq will have that same feeling someday.

I was wrong to focus on the importance of material things -- schools, hospitials, oil production, electricity, GNP growth, clean water, etc.

The US substantially succeeded in the material side, although less than some hoped for.

Wow, some of us do accept different sets of information, don’t we? I’ve seen no objective information that indicates these material things have impoved. In the case of oil production, electricity, and clean water, I’ve seen just the opposite.

I know, Sharia lawmaking and autocratic rule by theocrats are not acceptable to our way of life, but to the Shi'a of Lebanon, and would be to the majority in Iraq, it is a great improvement to what they had prior.

I don't know about that. The first time a woman is beheaded in public because her burka fell off in the bazaar, I would be willing to bet you the Republicans are going to blame Howard Dean for it.

little ole jim from red country:

jim, the Brookings Institution keeps track of these figures here.

-- GDP is 40% above pre-war levels. Overall, Iraq is substantially wealthier.

-- Crude oil production rose above pre-war levels. but has now decreased below it.

-- Revenue from oil sales has risen quite a bit, then dipped some. I presume it's far in excess of pre-war level, when most oil couldn't be sold.

-- Electricity rose to slightly exceed pre-war levels recently.

-- I've seen reports of improvements in clean water, but Brookings has no statistics on it.

Anyhow, I stand by my apology. I now see that the lack of security and government control trumps any question of whether any particular indicator is rising or falling, or whether it's above or below pre-war levels.

Bill O'Arrogantone rails against the "tranfer of wealth" - Well, considering the material side, there has been a massive transfer of wealth - It is from the American tax payer to that of the bottom lines of Halliburton and the whores sent to Iraq to "rebuild" the country.

Spock,

I don't think it's particularly inaccurate of you to say that the Iraqi's share responsibility for what is happening. But we can't, in good conscience, bring up that point without acknowledging how our invasion, lack of planning, and generally blithe adventurism have lead to this situation. A string of our bad descisions, beginning with the inherently flawed idea of invading Iraq, has created near total anarchy in their country. At this point the Iraqis caught in the situation are simply looking out for what they see as their individual and tribal interests, but they're doing so with almost no governing framework to guide their actions.

None of this is to say the death squads aren't to blame for what they do and shouldn't be pursued and persecuted when possible, but the environment there is so extreme that I'm not sure what the corallary of your observation is. Even if Iraqis do share responsibility, where are you going from that point?

Yes, little Fauxone, security does matter - Build a school - Great, but if the teachers have fled in fear, and the students are not safe in attending, what good is it?

More hospitals - Great - Better for the flood of casualties.

Funny thing that in Siberia, there are many who yearn for the "good old days" of the Soviets. At least, if you obeyed the Kremlin, you were relatively safe - Now, there are a myriad of God Fathers and the Russians have left the Siberians to dangle. The Kremlin, of yore, provided security and support for them. Now, they have "freedom" - Now, what would their "purple fingers" vote for?

Yes, a "little" bit of a mixed bag according to Brookings, but pretty disappointing. Three years plus after the invasion, people have especially been disappointed about the electricity and oil production (mostly worse than before if you look at the past year). Also, I've seen reports that the water is horrible (lots of dead bodies in the water).

Also, some observers really question Brookings measurements, see JuanCole.com.

The first time a woman is beheaded in public because her burka fell off in the bazaar

I believe the Taliban of Afghanistan are Sunni and have used Sharia law as an instrument of oppression against women, inluding execution. I do not know of any instance where women are beheaded for not wearing a burka or a scarf in Iraq, a Shiite ruled nation. Shiites have been demonized in the US because of the Iranian Revolution, which cost US petro industries billions in profits. The US petro occupied government and controlled press have utilized the power of propaganda to make Shi'a seem like Jim Jones' Christians, stimulating fantasies of women being beheaded for daring to show their face and hordes bent on sucide bombing us back to the Middle Ages, but it is the Sunnis who act this way.

I’ve seen no objective information that indicates these material things have impoved. In the case of oil production, electricity, and clean water, I’ve seen just the opposite.

little ole jim points out yet another of "ex-liberal"'s lies.

little ole jim from red country, I see no search engine on Prof. Cole's blog, so am unable to find his comments re. Brookings Institution. In eny event, I would assign higher credibility to Brookings than to Cole.

I agree that the material improvement in Iraq is disappointing. Of course, the reason it's not better is the insurgency.

But, I repeat that the material situation isn't the crucial element. Japan after WW2 and South Korea after the Korean War were very poor. It took them many years to reach the level of wealth that Iraq has today. Yet, they developed effective democracies.

In eny event, I would assign higher credibility to Brookings than to Cole.

Given that your noxious trail of bullshit leaves you with no credibility whatsoever, who cares?

"ex-liberal," no one here mistakes you for an honest commentator. Your lies are easily debunked (although, as little ole jim reminds us, sometimes to numerous to do so in completeness). Why do you bother?

The Brookings Institution:

This article came out when there was pushback on the Lancet study Re: deaths in Iraq being properly measured.

...And other groups that track deaths in Iraq dispute the findings. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, which tracks statistics in its Iraq Index, said: "I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off." The Brooking Index, relying on the UN (which gets figures from the Iraqi health ministry) and the Iraq Body Count (IBC), estimates the civilian death toll at about 62,000.

So if a corrupt Iraqi ministry tells the Brookings Institute that "deaths are very low" or that, by extension, that "oil production is up" that means we shouldn't question the veracity of the information? Aren't these the same people who decided to stop publicly releasing the information--kinda calls into question the accuracy of anything the Brookings Institution, doesn't it, since they're depending on the Iraqi ministries for their info?

I mean, is there a difference between pure propaganda and what a ministry official wants you to know?

Let's get some "independent" verification of these so-called facts, okay?

And the reason for the insurgency is your presidents cocked-up vision for the middle east.

I agree that the material improvement in Iraq is disappointing.

Even when he/she/it is forced to agree, "ex-liberal" is dishoenst. "Disappointing," indeed.

Of course, the reason it's not better is the insurgency.

LOL...of course! Yes, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's failure to plan for, or deal with, the insurgency in Iraq is responsibile for our failure there. That's exactly why these incompetent boobs -- and the Party that produced them -- can't be trusted with national security.

Japan after WW2 and South Korea after the Korean War were very poor. It took them many years to reach the level of wealth that Iraq has today. Yet, they developed effective democracies.

"ex-liberal" is spinning so dervishly that he/she/it risks imploding. Mere moments after blaming the failure to reconstruct Iraq on the insurgency, "ex-liberal" proposes an analogy of two countries that -- wait for it! -- didn't have to endure a postwar unsurgency! Hilarious!

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

Nice try. We're not going to forget how this country was duped, cajoled, and railroaded into this war. It would be convenient for you, I'm sure, if everyone were suddenly struck with amnesia, but it's not going to happen.

We're never going to forget, and we're never going to forget assholes like you who enabled this catastrophe.

Oh yeah, you might also consider that remembering the past is perhaps the best way not to repeat it. Sort of how we (i.e. YOU) forgot the lessons of Vietnam in less than 3 short decades.

-- GDP is 40% above pre-war levels. Overall, Iraq is substantially wealthier.

Think that has anything to do with the US taxpayer provided $2 billion a week that we're pumping into their economy? Take away the money we're spending to prop them up and the picture suddenly looks quite different.

Japan after WW2 and South Korea after the Korean War were very poor. It took them many years to reach the level of wealth that Iraq has today. Yet, they developed effective democracies.

Yeah? So what? Neither of those countries suffered from a debilitating insurgency, civil war, or massive ethnic/sectarian violence and death squads. So what you're essentially saying is that "two countries that were nothing whatsoever like Iraq eventually became wealthy democracies." What a stunning insight.

According to the CIA's world factbook, Iraq's GDP real growth rate declined by 3%.

Unemployment is estimated to be as high as 30%.

Whoa, things are looking up.

Stefan, I agree with your acknowledgement of the US contributions to the Iraqi infrastructure, which have helped their economy a great deal.

And, we should also give credit to Halliburton and other contractors. They did much of the actual work under difficult and dangerous circumstaces.

We did give credit to Halliburton. All the full faith and backing of the US Treasury, in fact. And it has not been a wise investment. I can't believe you would try to peddle that bullshhit here.

And, we should also give credit to Halliburton and other contractors. They did much of the actual work under difficult and dangerous circumstaces.

Talk about a fastball down the middle of the plate--come on, lurkers! Take this pitch and put it over the fence.

Halliburton? You actually brought up Halliburton? Can you take this act on the road?

Of course, the reason it's not better is the insurgency.

One thing that bothers me about Americans' attitude towards the Iraq insurgency is their expectation that Iraqis should collaborate with Americans and their plans to reshape Iraq rather than have a natural reaction to resist foreign occupiers. If the USSR had successfully invaded and occupied the US, to bring civil rights to African Americans in the Fifties, as an analogy to bringing democracy to Iraq, I wonder how many who support Bush's War would have collaborated with the Soviets. Occupied peoples usually want to kill the occupiers and kill those who collaborate with them. For the occupied, ridding the nation of invaders will trump almost any other national interest, even if defeat is certain.

I can't believe you would try to peddle that bullshit here.

You haven't known "ex-liberal" long, have you?

No, but I imagine George Costanza in Frank and Estelles basement, furiously typing away.

I apologize about the African American analogy, they have already suffered enough in our history and do not need to be a subject for such speculation. I should have used a Chinese invasion in present time to bring universal healthcare to the American people. If China successfully invaded and occupied the US in order to bring adequate healthcare to all Americans, I would expect most Americans to resist them with violence and use similar tactics the Iraqi inurgents use, including killing collaborators. Even with such a great goal of either bringing civil rights to all Americans or healthcare to all Americans, most Americans, including Chinese Americans and African Americans, would fight to the bitter end to reestablish our self-determination. Let us acknowledge the Iraqi peoples have the same right to resist that we would take against foreign invaders.

...Sets up for the pitch...

Pale Rider on December 1, 2006 at 1:44 PM:

Halliburton? You actually brought up Halliburton?

Must be feverish from drinking some of that untreated water polluted with sewage.

...base hit...

Cyntax -

The vast majority of my comments regarding responsibility are aimed at Pale Rider's statements regarding the responsibility for violence in Iraq. In his statements, he appears to not want people to be able to blame the Iraqis for anything they they are doing because it seems very important to him that the US be completely responsible for their actions. He has repeatedly said that he does not want there to be any excuse for the failure of Iraqi democracy placed on Iraqis. It all has to be on the US.

Simple as that. Read his posts. I am not setting up any straw man here - regardless of what Gregory is saying. I am responding to his statements because *I* don't think it is logical for the Iraqis to be held completely blameless for this failure.

That was a stand-up triple, grape_crush. Halliburton has been poisoning our troops, and the link shows that.

Halliburton? What sane person would actually bring up Halliburton?

[from the article]

POLLUTED WITH SEWAGE

Ben Carter, a water purification specialist who worked for KBR at Junction City, told Senate Democrats that KBR officials had assured him the water was being treated.

But after Carter discovered a problem, he started tests and learned that the water drawn from the Euphrates and polluted with sewage and other contaminates, was not being chlorinated.

He said he treated the water tanks for KBR employees, and told company managers the military should be alerted to treat its tanks as well. "I was ordered to concern myself only with the health and safety of KBR personnel," Carter said.

In his statements, he appears to not want people to be able to blame the Iraqis for anything they they are doing because it seems very important to him that the US be completely responsible for their actions. He has repeatedly said that he does not want there to be any excuse for the failure of Iraqi democracy placed on Iraqis. It all has to be on the US.

No, I was just calling you on your bullshit.

And, by the way, I'm dead-set against the Bush administration's willingness to allow the Iraqis to offer "amnesty" for insurgents who have injured or killed US troops.

But feel free to read my posts. Gosh, I'm blushing! So much attention for little old me? Golly!

I should amend my statement that PR appears to want to prevent even the tiniest deflection of the Bush administration from full 1000% responsibility. Even if he has to forgive the atrocities of Iraqi vs Iraqi to do it.

I can accept that Iraqis want to kill Americans - and feel that they have a moral obligation to try and drive us from their country. Trying to kill Americans makes sense - its war. Killing their own people is murder and wrong on a different scale.

little ole jim from red country: I’ve seen no objective information that indicates these material things have impoved. In the case of oil production, electricity, and clean water, I’ve seen just the opposite.

Regarding electricity, it depends on where and when you are. Electricity availability in Baghdad is greater than it was immediately after the 2003 invasion but less than before the invasion and far less than it was before the 1991 war, when we destroyed much of the infrastructure that was never rebuilt. In some places in the hinterland, electricity is better than before the 2003 invasion, though it may be worse than before 1991.

So PR - we can say that the Iraqis are partly responsible for the current failure of democracy in the country?

Pale Rider, I accept your anti-Halliburton anecdote. But Halliburton and other contractors must have done a lot of things right. As Stefan pointed out, the costly US contributions to the Iraqi infra-structure are a big reason for the substantial gain in Iraqi GNP. The US paid, but the actual work was mainly done by contractors.

Spock,

Didn't say you were setting up a strawman, I was just wondering whether there was something else beyond Iraqis culpability you wanted to bring up that might have been getting lost in the fray.

I don't spend a lot of noodle time on Iraqi responsibility for two reasons. First, because I don't perceive it as in our sphere of control, and of course I can't speak for anyone else here, but that may be why it's not being brought up, as opposed to an outright desire to paint the US as solely responsible. The second reason is that for me our culpability trumps the Iraqis'. We haven't given them, or ourselves ironically enough, the tools to win what we initiated.

Halliburton and other contractors must have done a lot of things right.

Objection: Assertion not in evidence (tghe dishonesty of "ex-liberal"'s dismissal of PR's evidence against him as an "anecdote" is also duly noted).

The US paid, but the actual work was mainly done by contractors.

Indeed. The question is, did the US receive fair value for its money? "ex-liberal" is welcome to try to make that case. So far, he/she/it has failed to do so.

As an aside, it's freakin' amazing he/she/it is trying, however poorly, to defend his/her/its ridiculous assertion, isn't it? Then again, "ex-liberal" was foolish and/or dishonest enough to amke the statement, so why not?

But Halliburton and other contractors must have done a lot of things right. As Stefan pointed out, the costly US contributions to the Iraqi infra-structure are a big reason for the substantial gain in Iraqi GNP. The US paid, but the actual work was mainly done by contractors.

I think Stefan brought that up to slam you, dude.

So PR - we can say that the Iraqis are partly responsible for the current failure of democracy in the country?

No, the fact that the CIA meddled in the Iraqi election had a small part to play in all of that. Oh, and we destroyed their institutions and set conditions as to who could participate in the rebuilding and the governing of the country.

Keep pouring gasoline on that burning strawman--you just might put it out with that line of reasoning.

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

Is that to be a new policy, a sort of neo-isolationism? Would it apply to American involvement in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia? In Darfur, southern Sudan, the looming Somali/Ethiopian war, Ruanda and Zimbabwe? Poland, the Baltic, Taiwan and Korea?

Yesterday I posted a link to a news item that the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution calling on the multinational coalition to remain in Iraq. I have not yet read the arguments proffered by the ambassadors from Russia, France and China. Does anyone have a link to them?

I am not setting up any straw man here - regardless of what Gregory is saying.

Au contraire, "Spock". You're setting up straw man because of what you're saying.

Hostile,
That is one of the big mysteries of the war. Nearly every assumption and characterization was wrong to the point of stupid. It was as if Iraq were a blank slate, without culture, history or independence. Did they really think Americans would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers? I think the answer is ‘Yes’.

When the American Enterprise Institute got the fantastically misnamed "Bletchley II" group together to provide "the kinds of ideas and strategy needed to deal with a crisis of the magnitude of 9/11." it is as if they thought they could impose whatever reality they chose. They chose to characterize the Middle East as a malignancy of Islamo-something-ism. Saddam was just a small part of the ideological cancer.

One result of the magical thinking is the belief Chalabi, a secular ally of the Washington neocons, and therefore Israel, long in exile in the West would be acceptable as a leader because he was a Shiite. They also thought the new government could be created outside of Iraq. This is in direct opposition to the messianic democracy stuff of the Bush Doctrine. It will be some time before we understand the thinking but, it is all very elitist.

Bletchley Park is were British cryptographers worked during WWII to decipher Axis codes. I get the impression that Bletchley II was something like a group of deconstructionists getting together to work up some orientalist view of cultural metaphysics in the Middle East. In practical terms we should suspect they wanted the patina of democracy and the reality of a Chilean command and control dictatorship.

Because Iraq has a history and is occupied by real people, reality has turned out differently.

we can say that the Iraqis are partly responsible for the current failure of democracy in the country?

No, "Spock," we can't say that. Iraqis are morally culpable for their own murderous actions. The Bush Administration is responsible for the disaster in Iraq. The effort under way to blame Bush's failure on the Iraqis is pernicious nonsense -- the fact that you embrace it seems to be proof enough of that.

Shorter ex-liberal:

There's not too much killing going on in Iraq . . . there's actually not enough killing going on.

We need to do more killing - a LOT more - and then we will "win," which is so much more important than any other concern.

Ex-liberal in 2002 - We need to invade Iraq because it possesses WMD.

We saw how that turned out.

...as cyntax has said more eloquently than I. "[O]ur culpability trumps the Iraqis'." Exactly.

Chuck - you might want to add "the sane one" to your screen name.

Gregory: The question is, did the US receive fair value for its money?

If Stefan is right that US financed a substantial part of Iraq's 40% GNP growth, then the contractors must have provided considerable value. The money didn't go to the Iraqis in dollar bills; it went into infrastructure projects that the contractors built.

Whether we received "fair" value -- i.e., as much as we ought to have, is hard for me to say, since the circumstances in Iraq were so difficult. A 40% improvement in wealth while an insurgency/civil war was raging sounds pretty impressive to me. Maybe different contractors would have done better work resulting in 50% growth instead, but how can one measure that?

conservative deflator: 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.

I agree.

American forces have allied with the Kurds to drive Sunnis back out of areas that the Sunnis took from Kurds. The U.S. has allied with the central government to drive Sunni militias out of some cities (most of those were re-occupied, but not all.) The U.S. has allied with the central government to drive Shi'ite militias out of areas that they occupied -- most notably Najaf and Sulamaniya, but others. The U.S. has allied with Sunni tribal leaders to fight against the al Qaeda interlopers. I think the best policy now is for the U.S. to coninue to back the elected government, which is majority Shia and Kurdis, and to back the Sunnis in their efforts to rid themselves of the al Qaeda. As the situation changes, the U.S. can continue to work to prevent the worst from happening.

When the U.S. threw off the British yoke, so to speak, the separate provinces were almost entirely independent, a third of the colonists fled to Canada, and the central government hadn't sufficient strenght to collect its own taxes. I present this as another example of transitions that are not smooth. Switzerland suffered a civil war in 1850; the French revolution was followed by a civil war in which the aristocracy was systematically annihilated; the crackup of Yugoslavia motivated the U.S. and European powers to intervene to reduce the bloodshed. I still think that it is possible for American forces to prevent what is being called "full scale civil war", and to prevail upon the Sunnis and Shi'ites not to attempt to conquer/kill all of each other.

According to their rhetoric, Islmists will view an American withdrawal as an American defeat, and will pursue American forces wherever they can find them, including the Balkans. I think therefore that a withdrawal from Iraq should only be undertaken as the initial step in a policy of isolationism. If Americans withdraw, no one will believe U.S. treaty commitments, neither friend nor foe; no one will believe the next declaration of war, even if Congress says "And this time we REALLY mean it, not like 2002 which was a mistake."

Cyntax -

Yes, our culpability is greater. No argument. Just not solely responsible. PR can't even accept that.

Gregory -

See above. Bush's failure because of Iraqis? You bet this administration FUBAR'd. Do I need to add lots of superlatives to somehow emphasize that?

If Stefan is right that US financed a substantial part of Iraq's 40% GNP growth, then the contractors must have provided considerable value.

Not so fast, "ex-liberal" -- I said, and you quoted, The question is, did the US receive fair value for its money?. Iraq's GDP growth != value for the US.

The money didn't go to the Iraqis in dollar bills

Actually, much of it did, to the tune of billins, a good percentage of which we have no accounting for. Again, no value for the US -- and that's without speculating about how much of our own money went to finance the insurgency.

Whether we received "fair" value -- i.e., as much as we ought to have, is hard for me to say, since the circumstances in Iraq were so difficult.

Which difficulty, of course, was the result of Bush's incomeptence, let's not forget. But I'm sure you'll give a sufficiently dishonest statement the ol' college try...

A 40% improvement in wealth while an insurgency/civil war was raging sounds pretty impressive to me.

Yep, I was right. Then again, since you're a demonstrated, repeptitive and unrepentant liar, who gives a tinker's damn what seems impressive to you?

Our contracts with Halliburton et al were nothing more than a massive redistribution of wealth, and with fuck-all to show for it. Oh, but redistribution of wealth is just hunky-dory for you as long as it's redistrubted up. Jackass.

bellumregio: Did they really think Americans would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers? I think the answer is ‘Yes’.

In some places, the Americans were greeted enthusiastically, even with flowers and sweets. When the Americans were fighting alongside Iraqis to recapture Najaf and Nasiriyah (I wrote Sulemaniya above, which was a mistake), the citizens bought them food and coffee in the eveneings when the Mahdi army retreated. This was reported in some of the soldiers' blogs.

In the poll that KD reported here last week, about 2/3 of Iraqis wanted Americans to stay at least 6 more months, and 1/4 wanted Americans to stay as long as is required.

Too much of this debate assumes that Iraqis are either uniformly supportive or uniformly oppositional to American troops. There is support and there is opposition, within every ethnic group, not one of which is homogeneous in any respect.

Well, since Halliburton was so thoughtfully introduced as topic by the trolletariat, check that link. Your heores at Halliburton are paying back 8 million for overbilling in Kosovo.

Heckuva firm there, trollie.

Bush's failure because of Iraqis?

Bush was responsible for his own failure, including the failure to prepare for the insurgency and/or sectarian violence that his own father, and his then-Secretary of State, predicted way back in 1991.

So yes, the Iraqi insurgency contributed to the failure in Iraq. Bush's failure to even acknowledge the possibility, let alone plan for it, renders the current rancidly dishonest campaign to blame the disaster on the Iraqi victims of his incompetence even more disgusting. How nice of you to embrace such dishonesty so cheerfully.

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.

Is it indeed hard to imagine a more disastrous end?

Spock,

It may be more of a misunderstanding than anything else. In my estimation PR tends to swing for the fences when he thinks troll related spin is coming in over the plate which, given some of the posters here, is quite understandable. And really the crux of the issue is what's the corollary of saying the Iraqis share some of the responsibilty? It's not hard to imagine that statement as the stake in the ground for some twisted pretzel-logic arguement that attempts to exonerate GWB. So his zealousness may have been motivated by a desire to block that avenue.

Just my 2 cents.

Gregory -

And you talk about me setting up a straw man -
I neglected to copy your entire response: what I should have cut and pasted was this quote from you: "The effort under way to blame Bush's failure on the Iraqis is pernicious nonsense."

The current administration's policies have the greater culpability of course. I do not now nor have ever disagreed with this. I am not part of any campaign to give Bush any slack. Iraqis are not completely blameless, just vastly less so than our actions have been.

Most Westerners read the map of the world like a Broadway marquee: north is top of the bill—America, Britain, Europe, Russia—and the rest dribbles away into a mass of supporting players punctuated by occasional Star Guests: India, China, Australia. Everyone else gets rounded up into groups: “Africa,” “Asia,” “Latin America.”

But if you’re one of the down-page crowd, the center of the world is wherever you happen to be. Take Iran: it doesn’t fit into any of the groups. Indeed, it’s a buffer zone between most of the important ones: to the west, it borders the Arab world; to the northwest, it borders NATO (and, if Turkey ever passes its endless audition, the European Union); to the north, the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation’s turbulent Caucasus; to the northeast, the Stans—the newly independent states of central Asia; to the east, the old British India, now bifurcated into a Muslim-Hindu nuclear standoff. And its southern shore sits on the central artery that feeds the global economy.

If you divide the world into geographical regions, then, Iran’s neither here nor there. But if you divide it ideologically, the mullahs are ideally positioned at the center of the various provinces of Islam—the Arabs, the Turks, the Stans, and the south Asians. Who better to unite the Muslim world under one inspiring, courageous leadership? If there’s going to be an Islamic superpower, Tehran would seem to be the obvious candidate.

That moment of ascendancy is now upon us. Or as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.” Hmm. I’m not a professional mullah, so I can’t speak to the theological soundness of the argument, but it seems a religious school in the Holy City of Qom has ruled that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.” Well, there’s a surprise. How do you solve a problem? Like, sharia! It’s the one-stop shop for justifying all your geopolitical objectives.

The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.

But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor. In fact, if one were a Machiavellian mullah, the first thing one would do after acquiring nukes would be to hire some obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree to front the program. He’s the equivalent of the yobbo in the English pub who says, “Oy, mate, you lookin’ at my bird?” You haven’t given her a glance, or him; you’re at the other end of the bar head down in the Daily Mirror, trying not to catch his eye. You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face or whether he just gets a kick out of terrifying you into thinking he wants to. But, either way, you just want to get out of the room in one piece. Kooks with nukes is one-way deterrence squared.

If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But Iran’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what they’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist.

If we’d understood Iran back in 1979, we’d understand better the challenges we face today. Come to that, we might not even be facing them. But, with hindsight, what strikes you about the birth of the Islamic Republic is the near total lack of interest by analysts in that adjective: Islamic. Iran was only the second Islamist state, after Saudi Arabia—and, in selecting as their own qualifying adjective the family name, the House of Saud at least indicated a conventional sense of priorities, as the legions of Saudi princes whoring and gambling in the fleshpots of the West have demonstrated exhaustively. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue—though, as the Royal Family has belatedly discovered vis-à-vis the Islamists, they’re somewhat overdrawn on that front. The difference in Iran is simple: with the mullahs, there are no London escort agencies on retainer to supply blondes only. When they say “Islamic Republic,” they mean it. And refusing to take their words at face value has bedeviled Western strategists for three decades.

Twenty-seven years ago, because Islam didn’t fit into the old cold war template, analysts mostly discounted it. We looked at the map like that Broadway marquee: West and East, the old double act. As with most of the down-page turf, Iran’s significance lay in which half of the act she’d sign on with. To the Left, the shah was a high-profile example of an unsavory U.S. client propped up on traditional he-may-be-a-sonofabitch-but-he’s-our-sonofabitch grounds: in those heady days SAVAK, his secret police, were a household name among Western progressives, and insofar as they took the stern-faced man in the turban seriously, they assured themselves he was a kind of novelty front for the urbane Paris émigré socialists who accompanied him back to Tehran. To the realpolitik Right, the issue was Soviet containment: the shah may be our sonofabitch, but he’d outlived his usefulness, and a weak Iran could prove too tempting an invitation to Moscow to fulfill the oldest of czarist dreams—a warm-water port, not to mention control of the Straits of Hormuz. Very few of us considered the strategic implications of an Islamist victory on its own terms—the notion that Iran was checking the neither-of-the-above box and that that box would prove a far greater threat to the Freeish World than Communism.

But that was always Iran’s plan. In 1989, with the Warsaw Pact disintegrating before his eyes, poor beleaguered Mikhail Gorbachev received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block: “I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khomeini wrote to Moscow. “I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system.”

Today many people in the West don’t take that any more seriously than Gorbachev did. But it’s pretty much come to pass. As Communism retreated, radical Islam seeped into Africa and south Asia and the Balkans. Crazy guys holed up in Philippine jungles and the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay who’d have been “Marxist fantasists” a generation or two back are now Islamists: it’s the ideology du jour. At the point of expiry of the Soviet Union in 1991, the peoples of the central Asian republics were for the most part unaware that Iran had even had an “Islamic revolution”; 15 years on, following the proselytizing of thousands of mullahs dispatched to the region by a specially created Iranian government agency, the Stans’ traditionally moderate and in many cases alcoholically lubricated form of Islam is yielding in all but the most remote areas to a fiercer form imported from the south. As the Pentagon has begun to notice, in Iraq Tehran has been quietly duplicating the strategy that delivered southern Lebanon into its control 20 years ago. The degeneration of Baby Assad’s supposedly “secular” Baathist tyranny into full-blown client status and the replacement of Arafat’s depraved “secular” kleptocrat terrorists by Hamas’s even more depraved Islamist terrorists can also be seen as symptoms of Iranification.

So as a geopolitical analyst the ayatollah is not to be disdained. Our failure to understand Iran in the seventies foreshadowed our failure to understand the broader struggle today. As clashes of civilizations go, this one’s between two extremes: on the one hand, a world that has everything it needs to wage decisive war—wealth, armies, industry, technology; on the other, a world that has nothing but pure ideology and plenty of believers. (Its sole resource, oil, would stay in the ground were it not for foreign technology, foreign manpower, and a Western fetishization of domestic environmental aesthetics.)

For this to be a mortal struggle, as the cold war was, the question is: Are they a credible enemy to us?

For a projection of the likely outcome, the question is: Are we a credible enemy to them?

Four years into the “war on terror,” the Bush administration has begun promoting a new formulation: “the long war.” Not a reassuring name. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs—our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower—their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us? If you add to the advantages of will and manpower a nuclear capability, the odds shift dramatically.

What, after all, is the issue underpinning every little goofy incident in the news, from those Danish cartoons of Mohammed to recommendations for polygamy by official commissions in Canada to the banning of the English flag in English prisons because it’s an insensitive “crusader” emblem to the introduction of gender-segregated swimming sessions in municipal pools in Puget Sound? In a word, sovereignty. There is no god but Allah, and thus there is no jurisdiction but Allah’s. Ayatollah Khomeini saw himself not as the leader of a geographical polity but as a leader of a communal one: Islam. Once those urbane socialist émigrés were either dead or on the plane back to Paris, Iran’s nominally “temporal” government took the same view, too: its role is not merely to run national highway departments and education ministries but to advance the cause of Islam worldwide.

If you dust off the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Article One reads: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Iran fails to meet qualification (d), and has never accepted it. The signature act of the new regime was not the usual post-coup bloodletting and summary execution of the shah’s mid-ranking officials but the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by “students” acting with Khomeini’s blessing. Diplomatic missions are recognized as the sovereign territory of that state, and the violation thereof is an act of war. No one in Washington has to fret that Fidel Castro will bomb the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Even in the event of an actual war, the diplomatic staff of both countries would be allowed to depart.

Yet Iran seized protected persons on U.S. soil and held them prisoner for over a year—ostensibly because Washington was planning to restore the shah. But the shah died and the hostages remained. And, when the deal was eventually done and the hostages were released, the sovereign territory of the United States remained in the hands of the gangster regime. Granted that during the Carter administration the Soviets were gobbling up real estate from Afghanistan to Grenada, it’s significant that in this wretched era the only loss of actual U.S. territory was to the Islamists.

Yet Iran paid no price. They got away with it. For the purposes of comparison, in 1980, when the U.S. hostages in Tehran were in their sixth month of captivity, Iranians opposed to the mullahs seized the Islamic Republic’s embassy in London. After six days of negotiation, Her Majesty’s Government sent SAS commandos into the building and restored it to the control of the regime. In refusing to do the same with the “students” occupying the U.S. embassy, the Islamic Republic was explicitly declaring that it was not as other states.

We expect multilateral human-rights Democrats to be unsatisfactory on assertive nationalism, but if they won’t even stand up for international law, what’s the point? Jimmy Carter should have demanded the same service as Tehran got from the British—the swift resolution of the situation by the host government—and, if none was forthcoming, Washington should have reversed the affront to international order quickly, decisively, and in a sufficiently punitive manner. At hinge moments of history, there are never good and bad options, only bad and much much worse. Our options today are significantly worse because we didn’t take the bad one back then.

With the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a British subject, Tehran extended its contempt for sovereignty to claiming jurisdiction over the nationals of foreign states, passing sentence on them, and conscripting citizens of other countries to carry it out. Iran’s supreme leader instructed Muslims around the world to serve as executioners of the Islamic Republic—and they did, killing not Rushdie himself but his Japanese translator, and stabbing the Italian translator, and shooting the Italian publisher, and killing three dozen persons with no connection to the book when a mob burned down a hotel because of the presence of the novelist’s Turkish translator.

Iran’s de facto head of state offered a multimillion-dollar bounty for a whack job on an obscure English novelist. And, as with the embassy siege, he got away with it.

In the latest variation on Marx’s dictum, history repeats itself: first, the unreadable London literary novel; then, the Danish funny pages. But in the 17 years between the Rushdie fatwa and the cartoon jihad, what was supposedly a freakish one-off collision between Islam and the modern world has become routine. We now think it perfectly normal for Muslims to demand the tenets of their religion be applied to society at large: the government of Sweden, for example, has been zealously closing down websites that republish those Danish cartoons. As Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said, “It is in our revolution’s interest, and an essential principle, that when we speak of Islamic objectives, we address all the Muslims of the world.” Or as a female Muslim demonstrator in Toronto put it: “We won’t stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.”

If that’s a little too ferocious, Kofi Annan framed it rather more soothingly: “The offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were first published in a European country which has recently acquired a significant Muslim population, and is not yet sure how to adjust to it.”

If you’ve also “recently acquired” a significant Muslim population and you’re not sure how to “adjust” to it, well, here’s the difference: back when my Belgian grandparents emigrated to Canada, the idea was that the immigrants assimilated to the host country. As Kofi and Co. see it, today the host country has to assimilate to the immigrants: if Islamic law forbids representations of the Prophet, then so must Danish law, and French law, and American law. Iran was the progenitor of this rapacious extraterritoriality, and, if we had understood it more clearly a generation ago, we might be in less danger of seeing large tracts of the developed world being subsumed by it today.

Yet instead the West somehow came to believe that, in a region of authoritarian monarchs and kleptocrat dictators, Iran was a comparative beacon of liberty. The British foreign secretary goes to Tehran and hangs with the mullahs and, even though he’s not a practicing Muslim (yet), ostentatiously does that “peace be upon him” thing whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed. And where does the kissy-face with the A-list imams get him? Ayatollah Khamenei renewed the fatwa on Rushdie only last year. True, President Bush identified Iran as a member of the axis of evil, but a year later the country was being hailed as a “democracy” by then-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and a nation that has seen a “democratic flowering,” as State Department spokesman Richard Boucher put it.

And let’s not forget Bill Clinton’s extraordinary remarks at Davos last year: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.” That’s true in the very narrow sense that there’s a certain similarity between his legal strategy and sharia when it comes to adultery and setting up the gals as the fall guys. But it seems Clinton apparently had a more general commonality in mind: “In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.” America’s first black President is beginning to sound like America’s first Islamist ex-president.

Those remarks are as nutty as Gerald Ford’s denial of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. Iran has an impressive three-decade record of talking the talk and walking the walk—either directly or through client groups like Hezbollah. In 1994, the Argentine Israel Mutual Association was bombed in Buenos Aires. Nearly 100 people died and 250 were injured—the worst massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. An Argentine court eventually issued warrants for two Iranian diplomats plus Ali Fallahian, former intelligence minister, and Ali Akbar Parvaresh, former education minister and deputy speaker of the Majlis.

Why blow up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? Because it’s there. Unlike the Iranian infiltration into Bosnia and Croatia, which helped radicalize not just the local populations but Muslim supporters from Britain and Western Europe, the random slaughter in the Argentine has no strategic value except as a demonstration of muscle and reach.

Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:

contempt for the most basic international conventions;
long-reach extraterritoriality;
effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.
Yet the Europeans remain in denial. Iran was supposedly the Middle Eastern state they could work with. And the chancellors and foreign ministers jetted in to court the mullahs so assiduously that they’re reluctant to give up on the strategy just because a relatively peripheral figure like the, er, head of state is sounding off about Armageddon.

Instead, Western analysts tend to go all Kremlinological. There are, after all, many factions within Iran’s ruling class. What the country’s quick-on-the-nuke president says may not be the final word on the regime’s position. Likewise, what the school of nuclear theologians in Qom says. Likewise, what former president Khatami says. Likewise, what Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, says.

But, given that they’re all in favor of the country having nukes, the point seems somewhat moot. The question then arises, what do they want them for?

By way of illustration, consider the country’s last presidential election. The final round offered a choice between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an alumnus of the U.S. Embassy siege a quarter-century ago, and Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council, which sounds like an EU foreign policy agency but is, in fact, the body that arbitrates between Iran’s political and religious leaderships. Ahmadinejad is a notorious shoot-from-the-lip apocalyptic hothead who believes in the return of the Twelfth (hidden) Imam and quite possibly that he personally is his designated deputy, and he’s also claimed that when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly last year a mystical halo appeared and bathed him in its aura. Ayatollah Rafsanjani, on the other hand, is one of those famous “moderates.”

What’s the difference between a hothead and a moderate? Well, the extremist Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” while the moderate Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is “the most hideous occurrence in history,” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” in one blast, because “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.” Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we’re just arguing over the details.

So the question is: Will they do it?

And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer. If, say, Norway or Ireland acquired nuclear weapons, we might regret the “proliferation,” but we wouldn’t have to contemplate mushroom clouds over neighboring states. In that sense, the civilized world has already lost: to enter into negotiations with a jurisdiction headed by a Holocaust-denying millenarian nut job is, in itself, an act of profound weakness—the first concession, regardless of what weaselly settlement might eventually emerge.

Conversely, a key reason to stop Iran is to demonstrate that we can still muster the will to do so. Instead, the striking characteristic of the long diplomatic dance that brought us to this moment is how September 10th it’s all been. The free world’s delegated negotiators (the European Union) and transnational institutions (the IAEA) have continually given the impression that they’d be content just to boot it down the road to next year or the year after or find some arrangement—this decade’s Oil-for-Food or North Korean deal—that would get them off the hook. If you talk to EU foreign ministers, they’ve already psychologically accepted a nuclear Iran. Indeed, the chief characteristic of the West’s reaction to Iran’s nuclearization has been an enervated fatalism.

Back when nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, your average Western progressive was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute. The mushroom cloud was one of the most familiar images in the culture, a recurring feature of novels and album covers and movie posters. There were bestselling dystopian picture books for children, in which the handful of survivors spent their last days walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now a state openly committed to the annihilation of a neighboring nation has nukes, and we shrug: Can’t be helped. Just the way things are. One hears sophisticated arguments that perhaps the best thing is to let everyone get ’em, and then no one will use them. And if Iran’s head of state happens to threaten to wipe Israel off the map, we should understand that this is a rhetorical stylistic device that’s part of the Persian oral narrative tradition, and it would be a grossly Eurocentric misinterpretation to take it literally.

The fatalists have a point. We may well be headed for a world in which anybody with a few thousand bucks and the right unlisted Asian phone numbers in his Rolodex can get a nuke. But, even so, there are compelling reasons for preventing Iran in particular from going nuclear. Back in his student days at the U.S. embassy, young Mr. Ahmadinejad seized American sovereign territory, and the Americans did nothing. And I would wager that’s still how he looks at the world. And, like Rafsanjani, he would regard, say, Muslim deaths in an obliterated Jerusalem as worthy collateral damage in promoting the greater good of a Jew-free Middle East. The Palestinians and their “right of return” have never been more than a weapon of convenience with which to chastise the West. To assume Tehran would never nuke Israel because a shift in wind direction would contaminate Ramallah is to be as ignorant of history as most Palestinians are: from Yasser Arafat’s uncle, the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the British Mandate, to the insurgents in Iraq today, Islamists have never been shy about slaughtering Muslims in pursuit of their strategic goals.

But it doesn’t have to come to that. Go back to that Argentine bombing. It was, in fact, the second major Iranian-sponsored attack in Buenos Aires. The year before, 1993, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 29 people and injured hundreds more in an attack on the Israeli Embassy. In the case of the community center bombing, the killer had flown from Lebanon a few days earlier and entered Latin America through the porous tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. Suppose Iran had had a “dirty nuke” shipped to Hezbollah, or even the full-blown thing: Would it have been any less easy to get it into the country? And, if a significant chunk of downtown Buenos Aires were rendered uninhabitable, what would the Argentine government do? Iran can project itself to South America effortlessly, but Argentina can’t project itself to the Middle East at all. It can’t nuke Tehran, and it can’t attack Iran in conventional ways.

So any retaliation would be down to others. Would Washington act? It depends how clear the fingerprints were. If the links back to the mullahs were just a teensy-weensy bit tenuous and murky, how eager would the U.S. be to reciprocate? Bush and Rumsfeld might—but an administration of a more Clinto-Powellite bent? How much pressure would there be for investigations under UN auspices? Perhaps Hans Blix could come out of retirement, and we could have a six-month dance through Security-Council coalition-building, with the secretary of state making a last-minute flight to Khartoum to try to persuade Sudan to switch its vote.

Perhaps it’s unduly pessimistic to write the civilized world automatically into what Osama bin Laden called the “weak horse” role (Islam being the “strong horse”). But, if you were an Iranian “moderate” and you’d watched the West’s reaction to the embassy seizure and the Rushdie murders and Hezbollah terrorism, wouldn’t you be thinking along those lines? I don’t suppose Buenos Aires Jews expect to have their institutions nuked any more than 12 years ago they expected to be blown up in their own city by Iranian-backed suicide bombers. Nukes have gone freelance, and there’s nothing much we can do about that, and sooner or later we’ll see the consequences—in Vancouver or Rotterdam, Glasgow or Atlanta. But, that being so, we owe it to ourselves to take the minimal precautionary step of ending the one regime whose political establishment is explicitly pledged to the nuclear annihilation of neighboring states.

Once again, we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.

The cost of de-nuking Iran will be high now but significantly higher with every year it’s postponed. The lesson of the Danish cartoons is the clearest reminder that what is at stake here is the credibility of our civilization. Whether or not we end the nuclearization of the Islamic Republic will be an act that defines our time.

A quarter-century ago, there was a minor British pop hit called “Ayatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer.” If you’re a U.S. diplomat or a British novelist, a Croat Christian or an Argentine Jew, he’s already come way too close. How much closer do you want him to get?

you talk about me setting up a straw man

Accurately, I might add.

nina, that was quite a contribution! Thanks.

Spock:

I am not part of any campaign to give Bush any slack.

Then quit babbling about how Iraqis bear moral responsibility for thier individual acts of violence. You were called out, quite rightly, for implicitly defending Bush by complaining that the responsibility of individual Iraqis was being denied -- when no one here was doing so. That, my son, is a straw man argument, and not the first one you've tossed out in these forums either.

All that said, though you deny participation in it, a cursory examination of the right-wing media and its echo chamber in the mainstream media reveals that there is indeed an effort under way by Bush's apologists to blame Bush's failure on the Iraqis, and said effort is pernicious nonsense.

Moreso, I might add, is the effort to blame Bush's failure on the unwillignness of the American people to bear the costs of Bush's failure in lives and treasure, when Bush's mendacity leading up to the war -- the effort to exaggerate the benefists (expressed as mitigation of risk) and lowball the costs -- shows that Bush was well aware that, as concurrent polls also showed, the American people would not support the actual costs and benefits of the war.

nina, for pity's sake post a summarey and a link, 'kay?

Speaking of nina, "ex-liberal"'s endorsement is enough to recommend dismissing her cut-and-paste monstrosity as dishonest wingnut drivel.

nina is a cut and paste spam attack - it should be deleted accordingly.

Let me (belatedly) clarify a few things on where I stand on one of these issues. I kept quiet on some of these things so that Spock and ex-liberal could continue to hang themselves.

I do think the fact that there are 4 million military age eligible Iraqi males who are currently doing nothing but sit on the fence and let Iraq turn to shit has always been a huge issue. I've been saying that for as long as I've been posting here. That is NOT the fault of the 22 million Iraqis who are not military eligible. That's just the reality of a fucked-up, out of control, chaotic situation in Iraq.

Extrapolating that to say that the Bush administration is not culpable is ludicrous.

The invasion destroyed all of the institutions which are supposed to prevent chaos and instability.

Enough said.

Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb.

...What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%...

Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush's poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.

-Juan Cole

Iran seized protected persons on U.S. soil and held them prisoner

Nina (the mind boggler), those hostages were spies interferring with the internal affairs of a country that had just had a revolution. That US soil was in Tehran, not NYC or LA.

The fact these US spies were released after a year of house detention, instead of being executed, demonstrates that the Iranian Revolutionaries were not the blood thirsty barbarians our petro occupied government would have us believe.

Yeah, Iran has the only time-zone that has a half-hour specification, too. So?

Unfortunately the most reliable way to unify Iraqi Sunni and Shia is to go to war with Israel.

Do you see why the Israeli gov't isn't too keen on the U.S. military just walking away from the mess?

General John Abizaid on The Long War:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/11.30/15-abizaid.html

PR -

Yes, the institutions were destroyed. And now when there are attempts, however feeble, to put new ones in place, it is not the US that is actively infiltrating them, it is not the US that is car-bombing markets.

True, these things would likely never have happened if the US foolish adventurism had not occurred. When the world is turning to hell around you, what should your response be if you are an Iraqi?

Kill your neighbors? Kill the guy down the road in the next town? Neither would be my first thought. Kill the invaders -that is understandable. It is even logical. But planting bombs in crowded markets is not.

It is even logical. But planting bombs in crowded markets is not.

What was Timothy McVeigh's logic?

Yeah, Iran has the only time-zone that has a half-hour specification, too. So?

Actually, not quite. Newfoundland, Canada does as well.

Spock writes:

..stuff about supporting Sunni...
I can in no way see his administration able to do that - even if it makes the most strategic sense to do so.

Therein lies the problem. The Bush admin. won't do what's right for the Mideast or for the US, because they can't admit they were wrong.

Now, THIS is troll spin:

Yes, the institutions were destroyed. And now when there are attempts, however feeble, to put new ones in place, it is not the US that is actively infiltrating them, it is not the US that is car-bombing markets.

The US is occupying the country, and trying to do the right thing. When say "...attempts, however feeble..." you are referring to a half-assed attempt at nation building and our troops are caught in the crossfire of this, caught between actual military operations and political considerations. This is the disaster of our own making, and the politicians that are putting our troops in this Catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don't, can't see the light at the end of the tunnel, position, are the ones to be held responsible. The DECIDER decided to invade Iraq and this is the whirlwind that he and he alone gets to reap. Nice try at giving him cover by pretending NOT to give him cover.

True, these things would likely never have happened if the US foolish adventurism had not occurred. When the world is turning to hell around you, what should your response be if you are an Iraqi?

What should your response be if you're the man responsible for putting the US troops there in the first place? Oh, that's right--accountability for the people responsible--that's what you're attempting to avoid. Nice try, too bad there's a slew of humble posters who can spot it, analyze it, and call you on that bullshit and articulate it for you.

Kill your neighbors? Kill the guy down the road in the next town? Neither would be my first thought. Kill the invaders -that is understandable. It is even logical. But planting bombs in crowded markets is not.

Your first thought? Collaboration, no doubt. You're the mayor of that small town who works with the Russians and the Cubans to send the kid with the tracking device back to the Wolverines lair in Red Dawn. Hey, thanks for killing that hottie Lea Thompson, dude. Way to go. You bastard!

Jennifer Grey, uh, yeah. She was a hottie, too. But Lea Thompson? In her prime? I think one of the funniest lines ever, from Back to the Future, is:

Marty: “Where are my pants?”

Lorraine: “Over there, on my hope chest...”

See what I'm reduced to, spock? You're such a boring and ineffective troll, I have to quote movie lines just to stay interested.

And I'm rapidly losing what little interest I already had...

It is even logical. But planting bombs in crowded markets is not.

Whereas using an F-16 to shoot missiles into wedding parties is eminently logical....

Whereas using an F-16 to shoot missiles into wedding parties is eminently logical....

You guys know why that happens, even today, right? It's when there's a bit of intercept, and the translator says, 'hey, these guys are talking about a wedding!' and everyone jumps.

Everyone jumps because 'wedding' was once used as a codeword for an attack.

So, long story short, missiles fly, planes drop bombs, and wedding after wedding goes up in flames.

An Iraqi groom with blabby friends with cell phones has a life expectancy of about ten minutes...

See what I'm reduced to, spock? You're such a boring and ineffective troll, I have to quote movie lines just to stay interested.

Word.

Although the irony of "Spock" protesting that he isn't trying to shield the Bush Administration by blaming the Iraqis, and then scant minutes later blaming the Iraqis for the violence, does afford a certain grim amusement. It's difficult to escape the impression that "Spock" returns to this theme to contend that, although Bush destroyed Iraq's civil structure and created a Hobbsean jungle, the violence is still somehow the Iraqi's fault.

Earth to "Spock": What you see in Iraq you'd see wherever civil society is destroyed. Hobbes was right about that. You, not so much.

Don't look now, Pale Rider, but you're making the argument that Bush is not 1000% to blame.

PR -

To you, it is all spin and trolling. To me, it is about getting an answer to my questions. You don't want to answer them - fine. But stop putting words or motives in my mouth, particularly ones that are not there. You repeatedly put me up as a straw man saying I am trying to let the administration avoid responsibility, when I have repeatedly blamed them.

You are just furious that I can see that Iraqis themselves are screwing up their own country too. You don't want to see that because you you appear to enjoy your fury at the current administration - you seem to revel in it.

Cyntax wanted to know why I am even concerned about all this. Why should I care if the Iraqis have some blame in this? It is not because I want to excuse Mr Bush and his losers. But because I think it is clear by their actions that the powers that be in Iraq care more about their tribes and religion than they do about peaceful co-existence. They seem to be concerned about power and money - just like this administration - rather than finding solutions that work for all the people in their country.

Bush made a horrible mistake - there should be a trial for war crimes here. But now that the problem is there - it seems that too many of the powers that remain are far more interested in fighting than finding peaceful solutions that work for the entire country.

Red Dawn!! Absolutely...forgot about that wonderful little piece of cinema. My guess is that teenage Red Dawn fantasies are what motivates a significant percentage of the Republican party.

Gregory -

Well, not *all* the structures of Iraq's country were destroyed. Their religious organizations are intact. And not surprising, therefore, that they dominate the political scene.

Gregory -

That's right "me, not so much". Does that mean that (then-Governor) Bush was to blame for al Qaeda using the code word "wedding" in it's attack on the U.S. Embassy?

Red Dawn!! Absolutely...forgot about that wonderful little piece of cinema. My guess is that teenage Red Dawn fantasies are what motivates a significant percentage of the Republican party.

What do you want to bet that Jonah "Doughboy" Goldberg softly murmurs "Wolverines! Wol...ver..inesssss...." as he lulls himself to sleep at night?

Don't look now, Pale Rider, but you're making the argument that Bush is not 1000% to blame.

Don't look now, "Spock," but you're still clinging to that straw man.

And in your subsequent post (where, for added ironical goodness, you misuse the term "straw man").

Well, not *all* the structures of Iraq's country were destroyed. Their religious organizations are intact. And not surprising, therefore, that they dominate the political scene.

A problem predicted by Bush I and Powell in 1991, that Bush the Lesser did nothing -- nothing -- to ameliorate.

You claim to have some kind of speciali insight "that Iraqis themselves are screwing up their own country too", and bemoan how twrrible it is that they aren't "finding solutions that work for all the people in their country."

But that's what happens in the Hobbesian jungle, absent a legitimate government. The US was responsible -- legally, as occupier, as well as morally -- for keeping order. Their failure allowed the course of sectarian strife to ensue.

Again -- you'e trying to blame the Iraqis for "screwing up their own country too," when it's entirely the Bush Administration's fault that they are in this position, and when the Bush Administration's incompetence made such behavior inevitable.

Despite your protestations, and your phony disclaimers about blaming Bush, all you do is talk about how awful the Iraqis are.

Highly illogical.

No, wait -- highly dishonest.

It's a good thing there wasn't any violence in Iraq prior to 2002, otherwise someone would think that the US is solely responsible for the mayhem.

That being said and considering current efforts to focus on the 80% majority (Shiite, Kurds), um........isn't that what democracies are all about? Or since the Democrats swept into office this fall, is it now time we start focusing on the conservative agenda? That would make sense wouldn't it?

Gregory -

To set up a straw man is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Since he was attributing me a position I don't take, I think that qualifies.

As far as Hobbes is concerned....I have repeatedly ignored it because I disagree with him over a basic tenant of his system....I think people are basically good and non-violent and are taught by experience to be otherwise. So your continued reference to a Hobbesian Jungle carries no weight with me.

And the Iraqis? The people are not awful. However, too many support religious based militias that are killing innocents in the interest of gaining power.

"Again -- you're trying to blame the Iraqis for "screwing up their own country too," when it's entirely the Bush Administration's fault that they are in this position" - Greggy

No question. The Iraqi society prior to 2002 was a model society on the highest standard that other countries could have only dreamed to aspire to. For that I applaud the Iraqi's.

And the Iraqis? The people are not awful. However, too many support religious based militias that are killing innocents in the interest of gaining power.

And the Americans? The people are not awful. However, too many support a religious based Administration that is killing innocents in the interest of keeping power.

"And the Americans? However, too many support a religious based Administration that is killing innocents in the interest of keeping power." - Steffy

Still holding onto the complaints of the past? Did Nov. 7 escape you? Or do you just love playing the victim?

I think it's the latter.

Still holding onto the complaints of the past? Did Nov. 7 escape you? Or do you just love playing the victim?

Yeah, it pretty much repudiated five years of Republican bullshit.

It was a sweet moment, I'll give you that.

As far as Hobbes is concerned....I have repeatedly ignored it because I disagree with him over a basic tenant of his system....I think people are basically good and non-violent and are taught by experience to be otherwise. So your continued reference to a Hobbesian Jungle carries no weight with me.

What shocks me is that you can even spell "Hobbes" properly.

I just love these wingnuts and their efforts to look like they actually have an education. As Stefan noted, poor Jonah had to go to a university traditionally for women (it was here in Maryland, they integrated the school, can't recall the name) probably because the thought of having to interact with males who weren't going to put up with his bullshit scared him and his poor mommy, that ratbag Lucianne.

How about you, "spock." Are you a real life graduate of Starfleet Academy or did you get your diploma thanks to daddy and the fact that he was a legacy and they had to take you?

I already know Jay's story--and it ain't pretty.

PR -

I don't need to brag about where I got my education. Let's just say I have more than most. Education doesn't make a man wiser - it just gives him facts. A good education helps you learn to use them.

So...Pale Rider....fancying yourself like you are the Man With No Name coming riding into town with your 6 gun and your axe handle, except you are gonna "gun down" the conservatives instead of the thugs? Instead of facts however, you prefer to arm yourself with insults, innuendo and chutzpah. I guess that makes you feel better about yourself - climb up to the top by putting down those around you. I know your kind, and I despise you.

"We all have it coming, kid"

So...Pale Rider....fancying yourself like you are the Man With No Name coming riding into town with your 6 gun and your axe handle, except you are gonna "gun down" the conservatives instead of the thugs? Instead of facts however, you prefer to arm yourself with insults, innuendo and chutzpah. I guess that makes you feel better about yourself - climb up to the top by putting down those around you. I know your kind, and I despise you.

No, I had to scramble one night to find a handle and the movie was on.

Did you miss the jokes? I'm just here for the laughs, ace.

And if you're a lurker out there who's thinking of chiming in, take this for a handle:

"Red Dawn"

I don't think it has been used, as of yet...

"Pale Rider needs to show one troll the back of his hand so that the other trolls know who brings the thunder and the lightning into the shit storm of their life.
I must say--the work people are doing to fight the trolls is excellent lately. I am humbled by the efforts of others to smack the shit out of these perverted little beasts and I work hard to maintain the honor of being able to post here." - frail rider" Pale rider 10-11-06

This is the example of Frail Riders pathetic tribute to himself. He really must be lonely.

Sadly, there are no tributes to Jay. Just a lot of Kleenex and a curious white stain on his pants...

And immature.

Kevin writes: 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.

I’m surprised that nobody has pointed out the degree to which we have already done this, i.e., supported the Shiites. The government is predominantly a Shiite government and all the resources we have poured into the government have been mostly used for Shiites purposes. For example, we know that Shiite militias permeate the military and police forces that we've sunk so much money into. So, it’s not just the invasion that favored the Shiites by deposing Saddam. It’s everything we’ve done since.

Hence the “Sunni” insurgency.
Hence the “the war is won and the winner is Iran” meme.

Think about it. The longer we “stay with the current course”, the more advantage the Shiites gain.

Thanks for the heads up, Jay.

And immature.

Ouch! That one hurt!

Man, you guys are playing rough tonight.

I think Jay is a little nervous right now. Usually when I pay him the slightest bit of attention he takes a shot or two and runs like a shamefaced little bitch.

"I’m surprised that nobody has pointed out the degree to which we have already done this, i.e., supported the Shiites. The government is predominantly a Shiite government and all the resources we have poured into the government have been mostly used for Shiites purposes." - lojfrc

Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4750066

Again, shouldn't the majority govern in a democracy?

Will the future Democratic House and Senate be bending over backwards to accomodate the right side of the aisle? I think not.

Why should it be different elsewhere?

"I think Jay is a little nervous right now." - Frail Rider

True dat. There's a huge game this weekend that I have loyalties towards, not too mention a few bucks riding on it.

"Usually when I pay him the slightest bit of attention he takes a shot or two and runs like a shamefaced little bitch." - Frail Rider

uh oh......he's bringing the thunder.

uh oh......he's bringing the thunder.

Nah, that's you shitting your pants, Poindexter.

Look at you trying to do something analytical! Let's have a look at Jay's brilliant little statement right here:

Again, shouldn't the majority govern in a democracy?

Sure! Why not?

Results, 2000 Presidential Election:
George W. Bush Republican Texas 50,460,110 47.9%
Albert Gore Democratic Tennessee 51,003,926 48.4%

Uh oh! Jay made a doody all over the blog! Whoopsy-daisy! Cleanup in Aisle 9!

Can you say "Electoral College", Pale Rider?

Can you say "Electoral College", Pale Rider?

Look at spock trying to do some analysis!

Well, if you can find where Jay mentions the 'electoral college' in his comment:

Again, shouldn't the majority govern in a democracy?

You might have a point. Sadly, you don't have a point; just a recurring lack of any insight or ability to discern what is and what is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

How's that burning straw man of yours?

The "majority" are governing here in America, just as in Iraq. That's my point.

The "majority" are governing here in America, just as in Iraq. That's my point.

In case you missed it, the "majority" did not elect George W Bush in 2000. Technically, he's eligible to run in 2008! Whoa, I'll be he wins if he does! He's popular! And his decisions have been pretty good so far! Why not???

Can't anyone play this game? Did the Iraqis choose an 'electoral college' when we told them what to put in their constitution?

"Results, 2000 Presidential Election:
George W. Bush Republican Texas 50,460,110 47.9%
Albert Gore Democratic Tennessee 51,003,926 48.4%" - frail rider

Frail finally exposes the true source of the lefts frustration for the past several years.

It was the people in those little populated red states that sunk them then, but lifted them to victory this fall. Frail hasn't figured that out yet. That damn electoral college.

Hey Spocko,

Despise me also, you boring piece of shit!

What's funnier is that Albert couldn't even carry his own state in the 2000 race.

They're the ones that know him best and they wouldn't even vote for him.

Pale Rider -

No, "technically" he is not eligible to be (s)elected President again. See Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution:

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

thethirdPaul -

Glad to; at least you're not calling me "Charlie".

Pale Rider -

Perhaps you don't live in one of the 41 States that ratified that particular Amendment, so you don't think it applies to you:

1. Maine March 31, 1947
2. Michigan March 31, 1947
3. Iowa April 1, 1947
4. Kansas April 1, 1947
5. New Hampshire April 1, 1947
6. Delaware April 2, 1947
7. Illinois April 3, 1947
8. Oregon April 3, 1947
9. Colorado April 12, 1947
10. California April 15, 1947
11. New Jersey April 15, 1947
12. Vermont April 15, 1947
13. Ohio April 16, 1947
14. Wisconsin April 16, 1947
15. Pennsylvania April 29, 1947
16. Connecticut May 21, 1947
17. Missouri May 22, 1947
18. Nebraska May 23, 1947
19. Virginia January 28, 1948
20. Mississippi February 12, 1948
21. New York March 9, 1948
22. South Dakota January 21, 1949
23. North Dakota February 25, 1949
24. Louisiana May 17, 1950
25. Montana January 25, 1951
26. Indiana January 29, 1951
27. Idaho January 30, 1951
28. New Mexico February 12, 1951
29. Wyoming February 12, 1951
30. Arkansas February 15, 1951
31. Georgia February 17, 1951
32. Tennessee February 20, 1951
33. Texas February 22, 1951
34. Utah February 26, 1951
35. Nevada February 26, 1951
36. Minnesota February 27, 1951 * Resulted in ratification
37. North Carolina February 28, 1951
38. South Carolina March 13, 1951
39. Maryland March 14, 1951
40. Florida April 16, 1951
41. Alabama May 4, 1951

Spock is "Chuckles."

So the hit parade so far is Cheney/Charlie/Jacques/Jeffery/Thomas1 and "Janet."

What did I miss?

thethirdPaul's my wingman tonight. When you fly with thethirdPaul, you'll never find a wingnut on your six.

Guaran-fuckin'-teed, baby.

Kevin writes: 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.

I’m surprised that nobody has pointed out the degree to which we have already done this, i.e., taken side with the Shiites. The government is predominantly a Shiite government and all the resources we have poured into the government have been mostly used for Shiites purposes. For example, we know that Shiite militias permeate the military and police forces that we've sunk so much money into.

Hence the “Sunni” insurgency.
Hence the “the war is won and the winner is (Shiite) Iran” meme.

So, it’s not just the invasion that favored the Shiites by deposing Saddam. It’s everything we’ve done since.

Think about it. The longer we “stay with the current course”, the more advantage the Shiites gain.

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 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 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 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 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 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 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 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电

Ex-liberal bloviated: "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. "

Don't quit your day job, ex-liberal. The US was regarded as the leading country in the world because 1. we were one of the few industrialized nations in the world that hadn't been devastated by the war being waged on our own soil (the mainland) and 2. the Marshall Plan and its equivalent in Japan helped to rebuild much of Europe and Japan to assist them in rapidly getting on their feet.

A large number of the GI's in Germany after 1945 were themselves ethnic Germans from the US and Canada, yet the reconstruction of Japan largely occurred under the auspices of a very different people with no such ethnic kinship that one could cite as a motivating factor-- IOW, it was a very professional affair that had an element of self-interest among the occupiers (re-opening those markets, serving as a bulwark against the Commies), but was ultimately one of the more altruistic foreign policies in centuries.

This is what you and other conservatives just don't get, ex-liberal-- obviously, foreign policy in many countries over the centuries has been largely characterized by self-interest. But what makes the US different in the eyes of the world, is that we've added a different, more globally responsible dimension to ours. (In fact, if anything, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is-- along with the bombing of Dresden-- one of the things that greatly saps the reputation and respect of the USA, in regard to that period.)

This is why you're totally whacked-out if you think the US would gain from joining with the Shiite government in helping to wipe out Sunnis. We would lose all respect as a nation with global standing. We'd also anger the vast majority of the world's Muslims (85-90% Sunni), and infuriate our allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia and UAE-- who could hurt us very badly, switching their oil sales to Euros or yen or something else, with little penalty to themselves. Plus be, uh, rather "unhelpful" to us in the search for al-Qaeda terrorists. Plus we'd be encouraging a regional war that would push the price of oil way, way up, wrecking our economy. Plus, we'd be empowering the Iranian theocracy so much that we'd elevate it to the leading power of the region-- which obviously, is not what Israel or other regional allies are looking forward to.

IOW, morally and strategically, your analysis is stupid. Just tossing moral considerations to the wind and trying to hide behind the crutch of "national self-interest" is pathetically stupid and would only cause us even more damage.

No - I am not anyone named Chuckles, but someone has been posting with my handle - guess he is having some fun at my expense. My last post was timed at 7:40. And it appears this person used it twice before that.

Thanks, but why not use your own handle, amigo.

Wow, I can't believe I skimmed this whole thread :(

Just one correction I'd like to make to "Spock":

> (Yes, Bin-Laden is a Wahhabi, but they are a Sunni splinter group)

You fucking idiot. Wahabism is not any "splinter
group" -- it's the state religion of Saudi Arabia.

Osama is a takfiri Salafist -- with excursions into the
mid-20th century radical anticolonial ideology of the
spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb.

Bob

I seem to be getting signals from listening to NPR that leftist sentiment is gearing up to support Obrador in Mexico on the grounds that Corazone ran a mean-spirited negative campaign and stole the election. I guess if you love Hugo, the Sandinistas, and Castro, you gotta love Obrador.

But I wonder which side the third force in Mexico, the drug lords, are supporting. Anyone know? My guess would be the standing government because that is who protects them and also because drug lords are basically capitalists.

NPR seems to be puzzling on how to portray Raul Castro as the pragmatic, problem-solving socialist who will bring capitalist prosperity to Cuba.

I think it was in 1996 my wife and I filled out FBI reports because we happened to be on the cruise ship that was within two mile of Castro's Mig fighter shooting down two Cessnas that had just bombed Havana with pro-democracy leaflets. Four men died in that brave socialist defense of Cuban independence. From my point of view it looked like cowardly murder that has never been and never will be punished.

Say, if the Palestinians are entitled to everything they abandoned in 1947, can my Catholic Vietnamese neighbors ever expect to be able to recover any of their holdings they had to abandon in the 1975-80 ethnic cleansing period? Do you have to kill people to have a right to return? Cuban right-wingers have been trying to get back since JFK forgot to support the Bay of Pigs, but when they use peaceful means they really seem to get no respect at all.

The last Mexican civil war was an extremely nasty blood bath. I sure don't see how they can do that again without the conflict slopping into the U.S.A. and destabilizing our situation.

Yeah, why if two Cessnas from Cuba violated our air space and "bombed" Miami with Castro birthday cards, our F-18s would just do a "Howdy Pardner" waggle of their wings.

Now, Mikey, go down to lst Ave in Belltown and pick up some undocumented day laborers - Ask them what they think of Corazone. And the good part, Mikey, all you have to do at the end of the work day is drop them over in Kent and tell them that you are a little short, but you will pay them double when you pick them up tomorrow.

Vaya con dios and mios and theos, my love.

really?vcd35免费电影网

How liberals' irrational hatred of Bush has dissolved the ability of even a reasonable guy like Drum to think clearly, he talks about what he thinks will happen to 5 million Sunnis:

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

Isn't the estimate that the Nazis killed 6 million Jewish people? What has happend to liberals?

One of liberals' virtues has been their professed concern for others. Now, their thought process is to first check to seee if Bush is in favor of something, then if so, oppose it even if 6 million people suffer, or 20 million, or 100 million. Amazing.

brian -

Alot of the liberals will just hide behind "It's all Bush's fault anyway - he got us into this mess", then wipe their hands of those deaths.

As I see it, the administration has painted itself into a horrible corner. It cannot exclusively support the Sunnis - it would be a slap in the face of the *supposed* reason we went into Iraq - "freedom and democracy". Supporting rebels against the elected government of Iraq is simply impossible from their standpoint. Geopolitically, it makes the most sense however. But admitting that they need to support the Sunni insurgents/militias would be admitting that this administration had insufficient foresight before the invasion. Too bad they can't/won't admit they were wrong, because this is the best play in this ugly poker hand.

brian wrote: "How liberals' irrational hatred of Bush"

Oh, garbage. It's a great little meme of yours, but it bears no resemblance to reality and it's just an excuse for you to completely turn your brain off and refuse to actually think about the topic under discussion.

"Isn't the estimate that the Nazis killed 6 million Jewish people?"

What does that have to do with anything? You're assuming, a priori, that the Sunni's will all be slaughtered, an assumption that is very much in doubt. If you'd turn your brain on and think, you might actually be able to perceive that this is a civil war and that the two sides are both, unfortunately, quite capable of killing each other. Moreover, both sides have access to resources and allies inside and outside the country.

If, however, the U.S. directly and deliberately allies with the Shi'ite majority in Iraq, that could tip the balance sufficiently that the Sunni's would be overwhelmed. Not only does that make us complicit in the very holocaust you are attempting to invoke in a classic logical fallacy, but it is likely to have serious ripple effects throughout the region and increase the chances that the other Sunni nations would get involved.

"What has happend to liberals?"

Nothing. We're simply using our brains. What's your excuse?

"One of liberals' virtues has been their professed concern for others."

Fortunately, that virtue continues to exist. Sadly, in this case, there are no options that will not result in death and destruction.

"Now, their thought process is to first check to seee if Bush is in favor of something, then if so, oppose it even if 6 million people suffer, or 20 million, or 100 million. Amazing."

The only amazing thing here is your ability to delude yourself.

Crusader -

I guess you prove my point about folks ignoring the Iraqis responsibilities to themselves to stop killing one another. Straw man? I think not.

As for Drum's point.....it is rather sad that he would consider it a reasonable alternative. But I also have to point out that there are likely no alternatives that will avoid further bloodshed at this point. It is perhaps a matter of degree...a degree that we can only imperfectly see.

Pragmatically, I think staying the course in Iraq - while a very ugly decision, is still the only decision that makes sense to this administration. I don't think that Bush will openly support Shi'ite aggression against the Sunnis as long as we are in Iraq. That might be their best protection. But we can't sit on the fence forever....semi-supporting the democratically elected government while trying to change it, while trying to halt the violence, while trying not to get too many GI's killed.

I will agree with Crusader on one point. Bad bad bad decision to even go into Iraq. But if the democrats want to avoid having to do anything with Iraq, they would be violating their principle vow in the recent elections....something that could come home to revisit them in 2008.

In any case, brian, even assuming that opposition to this plan is driven by a knee-jerk response to proposals from the Bush administration, that's still not necessarily a bad thing. Given the Bush administration's track record thus far, one of rotten policy decisions and even worse execution, why should we not have a knee-jerk response?

Among other things, a serious question that needs to be asked is whether this is being proposed because it's the right thing to do? Or because it will, they hope, bring things to a conclusion that much sooner and stop the hemorrhaging of support for Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular? And yes, I know that these are not mutually exclusive.

The really sad thing is that the question even arises but, sadly, that's the reality of dealing with this administration.

I don't think the 80% solution is a serious proposal, not should it be. I realize there are no good, easy answers, but as long as there are significant number of Shia and Sunni sinerely trying to make Iraq work, we should be supporting and strengthening them.

My point about Kevin relates to his abandonment of both reason and the heretofore basic liberal concern for others. Something strange has happened to allow a liberal like Drum to dismiss the potential suffering of 6 million Sunnis (and millions others) as a "result [that] would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved" and declare it the best choice.

Doesn't anyone else recognize this obvious point? I can't think of any explanation other than Bush hatred.

brian wrote: "My point about Kevin relates to his abandonment of both reason and the heretofore basic liberal concern for others."

Your "point" about Kevin was mindless partisan drivel, as I've already noted.

"Something strange has happened to allow a liberal like Drum to dismiss the potential suffering of 6 million Sunnis (and millions others) as a 'result [that] would be bloody, but at least we wouldn't be involved' and declare it the best choice."

The only "strange" thing that has happened is your complete inability to actually think. Had you done so, you might have discovered that you were badly misreading Kevin's intent and that what Kevin was actually saying was an ordinary, completely uncontroversial point.

"Doesn't anyone else recognize this obvious point?"

Not when it's entirely false, as it is in this case.

"I can't think of any explanation other than Bush hatred."

Sigh.... Yes, brian, we know, but that says more about you than it does about Kevin.

Spook/DonP or whatever,

You've hit that "point" of yours so many times with a sledge hammer, that the sucker must be 20 feet in the ground by now. You have become more redundant than the Witless One from Chester County, PA. Your sledge is broken and your "point" matters not one iota to anyone here.

brian:

It's a question of throwing good money (not to mention lives) after bad. If you've invested jillions into a pork barrel project or an impossibly complex weapons system with massive cost overruns and it becomes apparent that it will *never* work -- do you keep funding it?

The natural human impulse is to say yes and keep on shoveling in the resources, hoping for a miracle.

Yeah well, the Pentagon (not to mention undammed river valleys) is (are) riddled with the corpses of these sorts of disasterously grandiose projects that never panned out. At some time you've just got to cut your losses and move on.

Now the only way you can make this criticism of Kevin fairly, brian, is to present an argument of how some drastically new approach might actually make a difference and redeem all those horribly wasted lives -- ours and Iraqis'.

Can you?

If you can't -- then you're just blowin' smoke and chucking an anti-liberal meme.

Which, of course, everybody here will instantly see through.

Bob

The guy posting above under my handle is an imposter. Quit using my handle and get the hell out of here, trollie.

Brian, who cares is a few millions get killed if the US is not involved. Everyone knows that the only crimes against humanity that count are US ones.

By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 29, 11:42 PM ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres appealed for united action against Iran Wednesday, saying the country appears stronger than it really is because of a lack of an international consensus over its nuclear ambitions.

Peres did not call for military action, but said a common approach such as economic sanctions was needed.

"There is a need for a common policy," Peres said at a speech at Yale University.

Peres described Iran as a largely poor country that has not been able to create enough jobs to satisfy its fast growing population.

"Iran is a great problem, but not necessarily a great country," Peres said during a news conference before his speech. "I think as a matter of fact it's a very weak country. What makes Iran so strong? My answer is the weakness of the international community."

The United States has been trying to force Iran, through the threat of sanctions, to act more responsibly both on its nuclear program and its support for extremists. But work on a resolution at the United Nations has been bogged down by disputes pitting Russia and China against the United States and Europeans.

Arab countries want to head off a U.S. or Israeli confrontation with Iran.

The U.S. alleges Iran is secretly developing atomic weapons, while Tehran claims its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity. Iran has repeatedly refused to suspend uranium enrichment, defying an Aug. 31 deadline set by the U.N. Security Council, and has said it will not halt the process as a precondition to negotiations over its nuclear program.

In May, Peres warned Iran that it could be threatened with destruction if it continues to vow to destroy Israel.

Peres discussed the prospects for peace in the Middle East amid a cease-fire and new diplomatic moves to revive long-frozen peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to meet Thursday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem.

Israel and the West are boycotting the current Palestinian government headed by Hamas, an Islamic movement listed by the West as a terror group.

Abbas, a moderate elected separately, is considered a logical partner for peace talks, but his status has been badly eroded by the sweeping Hamas election victory over his Fatah party last January.

Peres emphasized the role of the global economy is overcoming traditional conflicts over land.

Peres' visit brought out about 20 protesters, shouting and waving signs that said "End the Occupation." The group called Peres the "father" of Israel's atomic weapons program who held leadership positions when Israel killed hundreds of civilians in Lebanon last summer.

"He's not a man of peace. He's really a phony," said protester Stanley Heller, chairman of the Middle East Crisis Committee. "Shimon Peres has the blood of many people on his hand."

Peres rejected those arguments, saying Israel has given land for peace and was still attacked by Palestinians and Hezbollah. He said the civilian casualties were unintentional consequences of war.

Peres served as Israel's prime minister from 1984-1986, and again for a six-month period from November 1995 until May 1996 following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

In 1994, Peres won the Nobel Peace Prize together with Rabin and Yasser Arafat, for their efforts toward peace, which culminated in the Oslo Accords.

I suspect that PaulB above is an imposter, too. If you look at the thread below (the one with 500 posts) he is completely different. Here, all of a sudden, he pretends like he's normal.

At the thread below, he behaves like a hysterical queen, "writing with a lisp," and with all kinds of faggy mannerisms like "dear heart" etc. Comes off as a total buffoon. Here he seems more normal. I suspect foul play. ;)

It's obvious what's going on:

thethirdPaul would never dis PaulB -- the two having been compadres in too many debates for that ever to happen. PaulB's mannerisms are PaulB's, and 3Paul isn't any homophobe by a long shot. That thethirdPaul directly above is the spoofer.

And since "Spock" is clearly Charlie, and "nina" is following the long-time Charlie MO of dumping hideously long unattributed crossposts into threads -- it's pretty safe to peg "nina" as Charley's new nom-de-spam -- he's likely the culprit who spoofed 3Paul, too.

Now watch me get spoofed next :)

Charlie, you can exhaust any goodly-sized naming dictionary and a hunk of neologisms besides -- but you're still a fucking unwelcome asshole.

Bob

Yeah, my trolling on that other thread seems to have gotten under someone's skin. Interesting, that.

The Saudi king told Cheney on his visit that Saudi Arabia will definitely step in to protect the Sunnis from slaughter. So Bush can't throw the Sunnis under the bus without horrendous consequences.

Nobody would spoof you, Bob, you're too boring.

And since craigie is pretty unfailingly *witty* ... well then, QED for the above post there :)

Bob

thirdpaul really is delusional if he thinks that American warplanes will shoot down any airplane racing away from an American city. Sorry, that's not the rules. We don't shoot down drug smugglers. A really stupid pilot flying right at New York City or D.C. might get shot down if he refuse to turn when wings are wagged and gestures made at him.

One of the worst things we ever did was when the U.S.S. Vincennes under the command of Capt. Will Rogers shot down an Airbus full of Iranian pilgrims bound for Mecca. The revenge for that took all of six or seven months to arrange. Once an aircraft is visually identified as a non-threat physically we DO NOT shoot it down. Mr. Castro and the Soviet Union, of course, had different values. Do you comprehend that much?

Mike Cook,

In about twenty years, you'll find out just how fucking delusional you really are.

Til then, shut the fuck up, son. Shut the fuck up about what we will or won't do.

You've no idea.

Don't you get it, Mike. PR has spoken. He really knows "what we will or won't do". So everyone else can just STFU. I repeat, Pale Rider has spoken.

And no backtalking, son. Pale Rider will reveal the truth to you in 20 years (about). So at least you've got something to look forward to. Until then, well, you just can't handle the truth.

Sure, nok.

How are things in junior high? Are the girls still pulling your pants down and making your wiggle stick turn purple and hide?

Ah, yes, I see your point, that was juvenile of me, wasn't it?

I am glad you're here, to keep us on the straight-n-narrow, rhetorically, Pale Rider. Yesssiree. Good thing indeed.

Without you posting such insightful and, dare I say it, instructive lines as "You have no idea", what would we do?

Punk.

Great handle, too, Pale.

Lemme guess: Rawhide was already taken, right?

Besides that one might be too evocative, since you get spanked here so often?

How have you been, Freedom Fries?

since you get spanked here so often?

You really "like" that word, don't you? And those girls are so mean, aren't they?

Poor little troll...

nok, at a thread further up, he wrote: "shoot, move, communicate." You gotta see it.

Saw it already. Man, what a loser.

nok, at a thread further up, he wrote: "shoot, move, communicate." You gotta see it.
Posted by: cecce on December 3, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK
Saw it already. Man, what a loser.
Posted by: nok on December 3, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Sock puppet much?

I think we can put to rest this idea of who has been spoofing. Ceece and nok posting two minutes apart in the middle of the night? Don't think it was seredipity...

The 80% solution is definitely a better idea than what is happening now. But our forces might still be needed here and there, still. So I don't see how this leads to immediate withdrawal, Kevin?

A sensible centrist, if you forgive the phrase, alternative would be (a) negotiate with Syria and Turkey and Iran and Saudia Arabia to provide elements of security for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites (minimum 6 to 12 months), (b) arm the Shiites with tanks and other heavy armor (minimum 8 months), (c) push Iraq into a loose federation of semi-autonomous states (12 months), (d) withdraw about half the American troops over one year, (e) commit to a total withdrawal including a dismantling of the astonishingly large Green Zone and airfield facilities (24 months minimum and not capable of being precisely defined).

I've just read George Packer's deeply stirring article about our responsibility to rescue those who were openly on our side during this terrible war. There is no doubt that vengeance will be in people's hearts in Iraq for a long time to come. Alas, it has been in people's hearts in Iraq for decades. And in their minds, as well. Blood feuds are second nature in that culture, and life can be precious and cheap at once. Even if some kind of stability comes to the country, the wellsprings of revenge will not have dried up.

Here's the problem: there is one concern that we did not have with the Vietnamese, and that is the anxiety that, among a flood of favored Iraqis, there will also be some (many?) among the rescued who will come here with foul intentions and evil skills. Yes, terrorists.

Some ideas for dealing with Iran:

1. Proclaim that Iranian nuclear weapons are intolerable. Do not get into an argument about where we have them so why can't Iran? We don't like Iran, we're stronger than they are, so we are going to disallow this because we can. End of story.

2. DOW Iran. Do not build a coalition - if the Brits want to come they can -, or talk about democratization or regime change. Use the UN veto as needed to forestall international action. Let the rioters burn down Paris - Europe is utterly irrelevant these days.

3. The only reason anyone cares about Iran is oil. Other than that, its just another 'i-stan' without the warm fuzzies. US strategy is about the oil.

4. The vast majority of Iran's oil is along the coast of the Persian Gulf. Bad for them, good for us. The opening stages of the war are like Desert Storm; mass air attacks ranging all across Iran to blow up its air force, sink its navy, etc. Marine and air assualt take the oil fields. No attempt is made (beyond a buffer zone) to move inland past the fields.

5. The Marine/air assualt bridegheads are reinforced by regular army. No attempt to expand them. Let that nutty Iranian president proclaim jihad - it really doesn't matter what he does.

6. Expel all Iranian civilians in the bridgeheads to unoccupied Iran. Bring in non-islamic engineers to repair the production facilities, and start the oil flowing. Keep most of it for us, sell some real cheap to China (the Other Country that Matters), and maybe the UK. Sell some at market prices to other countries.

7. With China bought, international opposition may increase, but no one will actually get into a shooting war with us. Let them expel us from NATO, kick us out of the UN, etc. It doesn't matter. With the Other Country That Matters quiet, it's all just background noise. So what if Chirac's approval rating goes up 4%. Doesn't change the fact that France (and the EU) are on an economic and demographic deathspiral.

8. Announce that until Iran complies with our (ridiculously unnacceptable) demands, that we will maintain possession of the oil fields. If the Iranian Army is stupid enough to try and fight, smash them (our army excels at that). Yeah, it's static defense, but so what? We're that much better than them and have lots of naval support.

9. Let the Iranian president, government, and people rant all they want. They can do nothing. Use air strikes to smash Iran's nuke facilities; it doesn't really matter if we get them; they don't have bombs, and no one is going to help them.

10. Smash direct Iranian attempts against either Afghanistan or Iraq. Withdraw into fortified enclaves in Iraq if Sadr's people make trouble. Make vague promises (which we have no intention of keeping) to the Iraqi shiites about reparations after this whole very unfortunate business is over. Get the Sunnis on our side by promising revenge against the shiites. Promise the Kurds a slice of northern Iran - deliver on that one.

11. Don't leave. Prep to stay for years. With no native population, there's no insurgency. The Iranian President will be shown to be an utterly impotent blowhard. Loudly broadcast the Iranian oil money going to us, and not the Iranian population. Let events in non-occupied Iran go as they will; make no attempt to establish a friendly Iranian government.

12. Make a massive domestic investment in alternative fuels - especially fusion and hydrogen tech. The only solution to the mideast is to leave - and we can't do that until the oil problem is solved.

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.

So, bang goes the whole other other rationale for the war which was supposed to have been instilling democracy in Iraq and the whole Wilsonian Idealism puddle of cant that emerged when you all had to 'fess up that WMDs was a crock. Round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Except that Bush and his Bitter Enders won't accept responsibility.

ALINAH Somehow, I can't see your scenarios even remotely reasonable. Why not just raise the Swastika over Washington when we do that? Or the Golden Eagles of Rome? The United States of America will not be an empire of military conquest as long as it is a democratic society.

Oops: we already conquered Iraq.

Just FYI, the post above at 12:08 is not mine.

What's wrong with being on the side of the Sheat, Kevin?

12:08 is evidence nok is using a sock puppet.

Fuck you Pale Rider. I spanked you on the newer thread and made you look stupid.

Motherfucker.

3:26 above is not me. It's some pussy using my handle, because he can't own up to his own opinions.

Shoot, move, communicate.

Say no to AP’s shoddy work

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - Updated: 02:46 AM EST

When a company defrauds its customers, or delivers shoddy goods, the customers sooner or later are going to take their business elsewhere. But if that company has a virtual monopoly, and offers something its customers must have, they may have no choice but to keep taking it.

That’s when the customers, en masse, need to raise a stink. That’s when someone else with the resources needs to seriously consider whether the time is ripe to compete.

The Associated Press is embroiled in a scandal. Conservative bloggers, the new media watchdogs, lifted a rock at the AP.

Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes. But the resulting stink in the blogosphere has barely wrinkled a nose in the mainstream press. The ethics-obsessed Poynter Institute seems to be oblivious to it.

It has to do with the AP’s Iraqi stringers and an oft-quoted Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein. Problem is, the Iraqi police say Capt. Hussein does not exist. The Iraqi police and U.S. military say an incident described in an AP report - Iraqi soldiers standing by as people were burned alive in a mosque - didn’t happen. Another AP-reported incident, U.S. soldiers shooting 11 civilians, also never happened, the military says.

When the AP was forced to acknowledge this situation, it did so in a story about a new Interior Ministry policy regarding false reports. The AP buried the fact that its own false report prompted this new policy.

The AP stands by its reporting.. The AP has cast “Capt. Jamil Hussein” simply as someone not authorized to speak, and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll has sniffed morally: “Good reporting relies on more than government-approved sources.”

The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.

The AP, of course, has been delivering unbalanced reports about U.S. national politics for some time, as when President Bush, whom AP reporters despise, is barely allowed to state his case on an issue before his critics are given twice as much space to pummel him. The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn’t even recognize it has a problem.

This is the point at which, another big American industry learned, people start buying Japanese. But as an American newspaper, if you want to provide your readers with affordable regional, national and international news, you have to deal with the AP.

If newspapers don’t have an alternative, readers do. It’s called the Internet. That’s why newspapers, if they don’t want to be dragged further into irrelevance and disrepute, have to tell The Associated Press they are dissatisfied with its product.

The poster named 'nok' has been spoofing me today and you can find his blog here:

http://cp2000.blogspot.com/

Heading off now, but beaware that there's a lot of spoofing going on. Let's stay in touch via backchannel comms, and don't forget to shoot, move, communicate.

Also the spoofer has been posting a website that he claims is my blog. It's not. I am definitely not a 14 year old girl. Heh. Silly trolls. I am totally not a girl. Very much a guy. And masculine too, very.

Also, I am not gay. I talk about spanking a lot, but that's just a mannerism I picked up in seminary. So what. I am definitely straight. As an arrow, as they say.

So, remember:

Pale Rider, guy. And NOT gay.

Shoot, move, communicate.