December 8, 2006 6:48 AM
Bush backs away from major Iraq group suggestions
President Bush is backing away from some of the major recommendations in the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and will meet with Congressional leaders and members of his own national security advisers before announcing his plans for the war.
Bush is opposed to talks with Syria and Iran as well as commiting to a major reduction of U.S. forces.
Meanwhile Americans told an AP poll they believe the U.S. will have to settle for something less than a clear-cut military victory and are pessimistic about Iraq's ability to forge a stable government.
At the same time, dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.Even so, Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all U.S. troops out right away, the poll indicated. The survey found strong support for a two-year timetable if that's what it took to get U.S. troops out. Seventy-one percent said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that number drops to 60 percent.
A commenter makes an approving reference to yesterday's New York Post cover depicting commission co-chairs Lee Hamilton and James Baker as "Surrender Monkeys."
Is that the message you get from the report? I don't see it. There's no call for unilateral withdrawal and parts of the report can be read to conclude the U.S. needs more troops in Iraq.
December 6, 2006
8:35 AM
JW writes:
First off, we NEED to get diplomatic relations going with Iran. We talk with North Korea more than Iran, and Iran's population likes us a hell of a lot more. This hostile approach taken with Iran is stupid and counter productive.
Second, its pretty obvious that Iraq is totally screwed. I hope monkey boy Bush actually does figure out how to get out of there as well as possible. I dont have a lot of faith that he can do it though. We had an opportunity with Iraq that would have been much easier to take advantage of. Instead, this idiot blew it. The current situation would be much easier to screw up, because even the best outcome isnt that great, but it is very hard to figure out how to get there.
December 6, 2006
9:14 AM
Anonymous writes:
why are today's blog topics so lame?
December 6, 2006
9:24 AM
666 writes:
Diplomatic relations with Iran would be much easier to establish and maintain if Iran wasn't in the hands of a modern day Joseph Stalin, whose regime is backed by the Shiite equivalent of the Taliban. It's not as if we can negotiate and haggle with those wonderful people in Iran who love us...we have to deal with their egomaniacal leaders who hate us.
December 6, 2006
9:37 AM
JW writes:
You know it funny 666, they could say EXACTLY the same thing about us.
December 6, 2006
9:50 AM
jay writes:
Unfortunately Iran isn't going away 666. We have to talk to them even if we find their leadership reprehensible. I don't agree that he's any where near Stalin's level, but he certainly represents a viewpoint that, if prevalent enough, would make it hard for us to maintain our infamous footprint in the region. That being said, the general populous is very pro-West and very moderate. We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because their President is an asshole...you wouldn't want other countries to do that to us would you? We'd never hear from anyone.
It is kind of amazing to me that getting this Administration and former Republican majority to do the right thing is like pulling teeth. The bubble-group think that led us into this mess is the same phenomenon that continues to undermine our progress now that Humpty Dumpty fallen off the wall.
It took losing Congress for the folks with the blinders on to finally realize that maybe they should start listening to people outside the koolaid circle. Now that the ISG has found that we're not only losing the war, but should start withdrawing troops in a year...I'm curious to see which way the spin blows. Will the right somehow spin these findings into part of the master plan (Al Maliki ready to go sir!!)? Will they come up with a new phrase that describes phased withdrawal that assures us it will never be mistaken for cutting and running? OR...Will the right immediately start the obligatory character assassinations and propaganda pushes with their usual vigor and try to discredit the findings?
Whichever way RoveRushIngramRosenPragerO'Reilly orchestrates the choir, I hope they don't sing loud enough to drown out the steady drumbeat of evidence that overwhelmingly calls for a change of direction.
December 6, 2006
9:51 AM
666 writes:
I know JW, and having a drunken coke snorting frat boy for a president doesn't help us much from a global perspective, but it's not as if all the blame lies with us. It's difficult to reach out to people like Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, etc. because they make a living out of hating us. Their standing within their government is heavily dependent on being anti-US. It's their rallying cry. They blather anti-US slogans whenever they score a political victory or suffer a diplomatic setback. Whenever it seems like the global media have forgotten about them, they grab the spotlight again by making anti-US speeches or warning us not to attack them (even if there's no conceivable situation in which we would attack them, it's great for getting attention). The United States is for them what gay marriage is for the Bush administration.
It's not a simple matter of stopping by to have tea or something. It's not as if that's a sure-fire guaranteed recipe for world peace and universal happiness. It would be nice if it were, but it isn't and we have to be able to deal with a non-ideal, non-perfect world in such a manner that will prevent us from either crumbling apart from internal stresses or being blown off the map after pissing off everyone else in the world.
December 6, 2006
10:10 AM
just sayin' writes:
worst President ever!!!
December 6, 2006
10:11 AM
JW writes:
"It's difficult to reach out to people like Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, etc. because they make a living out of hating us."
Ok, Im going to stick to Ahmadinejad because the others are different. He doenst make a living out of hating us. He was elected because of his economic promises, not his anti-us or radical Islam stances. The guy before him was quite moderate. The populace in Iran doenst like crazies. Even their religious leaders are not crazy. They are headed for democracy, provided WE dont give the religious leaders reason to crack down.
"Their standing within their government is heavily dependent on being anti-US."
This is untrue of Iran.
" It's their rallying cry. They blather anti-US slogans whenever they score a political victory or suffer a diplomatic setback."
This is partially true. Did you see Ted Koppel's documentary on Iran? Its on tv now, you should check it out. Hes in a mosque, and they figure out who he is, so the government rep who is there starts them chanting "Death to America" etc. Its just weird. There is no hate. Its totally half hearted. Basically, its just a bunch of people chanting because they are being told to, not because they believe.
" Whenever it seems like the global media have forgotten about them, they grab the spotlight again by making anti-US speeches or warning us not to attack them (even if there's no conceivable situation in which we would attack them, it's great for getting attention)."
Yea, thats not the global media. Thats OUR media.
" The United States is for them what gay marriage is for the Bush administration."
Not true. See the documentary. Read "The J Curve" or "Perilous Power." Iran is VERY pro-America despite some serious bs on our part (supporting Saddam in the Iran Iraq war with chemical weapons, CIA rigging of the coup that toppeled their DEMOCRATIC government in the 1950's, economic sanctions which dont really work but are still not cool....)
December 6, 2006
10:19 AM
JW writes:
I thoght a response to this next part should be in a different post, as it goes directly to the misconceptions Americans have about how our foreign policy should be implemented.
"It's not a simple matter of stopping by to have tea or something. It's not as if that's a sure-fire guaranteed recipe for world peace and universal happiness. It would be nice if it were, but it isn't and we have to be able to deal with a non-ideal, non-perfect world in such a manner that will prevent us from either crumbling apart from internal stresses or being blown off the map after pissing off everyone else in the world."
It is not a matter of Fight or Be Friends. There is middle ground. Additionally, undermining a radical religous government, or a totalitarian communist government, or what ever kind of dictatorial government, is not done in ONLY two ways; military action or sanctions. There are other ways that as Americans, we just dont even discuss. Pick up a copy of "the J Curve" to get some perspective on just what kind of options there are, and just WHO we should actually be worried about in terms of world threat. Iran isnt really one of them, provided we dont give them a reason to be. Saudi Arabia has a MUCH BIGGER possibility of being a global threat. Yes, they are under our thumb now, but the second most powerful man in Saudi Arabia is the kings brother, and he publicly advocates Jihad against the west, and America in particular. They are one dead man (the king) away from a religious government that makes the taliban look like secularists, controls the worlds largest oil reserves, has TONS of money, and has the largest population of possible terrorists on earth. THAT is a threat you will not hear from washington. That is a situation we should be striving to change.
December 6, 2006
10:58 AM
GUILLERMO writes:
I CANNOT BELIEVE BUSH WOULD NOT TAKE THE ADVICE OF THE IRAQ PANEL..BUSH STARTED THE WAR ON LIES AND NOW HE HAS A CHANCE TO GET OUT OF IRAQ.HE STARTED A WAR HE CANNOT FINISH.AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PLUS OTHER COUNTRIES ARE SUFFERING,BECAUSE HE DOEN`T LISTEN.GEORGE YOU AND YOUR CRONIES HAVE FAILED,BIG TIME!
December 6, 2006
11:19 AM
Anonymous writes:
stop screaming fool!
December 6, 2006
11:35 AM
sk writes:
"worst President ever!!!"
No. That would Jimmy Cahtah. Dubya has made some boneheaded mistakes but History will look back with more sanely than those that are afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome now.
Just watch the moonbats shriek over this assertion.
There is a coming battle with Islamofacism and Dubya had the foresight to confront it.
December 6, 2006
11:35 AM
666 writes:
I think you are leaning too heavily on a lopsided crutch, JW. Ian Bremmer, intelligent and insightful as his works may be, has produced a rather subjective thesis engineered around principles developed in the 1950s (which were founded on a very generalized sociological concept), and refined them based on his extensive knowledge of a government that no longer exists. Any template will fit if it is vague enough.
Ahmadinejad is both a Revolutionary guardsman first and a civil engineer second. Throughout his political career he has Islamicized politics in Iran wherever possible, polarized his fellow politicians, criticized the UN and the US and even called for the annihilation of a neighboring nation (Israel). Every political campaign he has participated in relied heavily on the concept of revolution, which is the bloodiest agent of change. He has the full backing of the SRC and has the ears of many neighboring countries.
December 6, 2006
11:39 AM
sk writes:
Query for JW- How do you suggest we go about changing Saudi Arabia?
I do agree on your analysis of the country.
December 6, 2006
12:21 PM
JW writes:
"I think you are leaning too heavily on a lopsided crutch, JW. Ian Bremmer, intelligent and insightful as his works may be, has produced a rather subjective thesis engineered around principles developed in the 1950s (which were founded on a very generalized sociological concept), and refined them based on his extensive knowledge of a government that no longer exists. Any template will fit if it is vague enough."
Bremmer's J Curve concept is pretty damn good. And his analysis using it are based on current governments and recent events. What is very relevant are his arguements on different ways to deal with governments. Further isolation using sanctions is counter productive in that it helps leaders of closed societies maintain their grip on power. I would point out that your "Fundamentalist Muslim" template is not only vague, its stereotypical as well.
I will accept that you may have a point in regards to my leaning on Bremmer's work, but I would challenge you to give me a better point of reference for options regarding Iran.
Again, your description of Iran's current leader could be used to describe Bush with very few changes.
"How do you suggest we go about changing Saudi Arabia? "
We have done some diplomatic pushing to get them to democratize their society. Its fairly fluffy though, and more for propoganda than actual change. The main way we should be working toward this is to push their leaders to reform the school system there. Currently, the majority of Saudis learn in Wahabbi schools. They are not taught the skills they need to compete in business environments. You can see the affect this has by examining the real jobs in Saudi Arabia. They are, for the most part, held by foreigners because the Saudis simply dont have the education to do them. In a very real way this promotes an environment ripe for terrorist ideology.
Also, pushing them to reform their civil rights (especially in regards to women) would be a good idea. Fairly delicate though, as many in power there are rabidly fundamentalist muslim.
Any policy that will open their society to alternative view points through communications would be welcome. Iran has the second biggest sensorship program for the internet in the world (behind China) yet the affect of information flow into the country is still profound. As in China, the sensors seem to have a very hard time keeping up with users intent on circumventing them.
December 6, 2006
12:35 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
Americans should eschew any governmental efforts, and most private efforts, to subvert anybody not in overt war against us.
Subversion will just get us into more pesky foreign entanglements. Native "reformers" might be even worse than what they replace. Supporting any good native reformers would just make them appear as, and perhaps even make them become, traitorious shills for the American empire.
December 6, 2006
12:38 PM
666 writes:
JW
1. Why the hell do you keep bringing up Bush in regards to my criticism of other world leaders? Do you for some reason think that I am a Bush fan? Where in Satan's name did you get that perverse misconception, if so?
2. I have not applied a "Fundamentalist Muslim" template. I have summarized Ahmadinejad's political history in order to explain why I believe he will be difficult, if not impossible, for the US to deal with on a friendly basis.
Don't accuse me of things I haven't done simply because I disagree with you. That's a Hogarian fallacy.
Furthermore, don't pretend that the US is the only entity in favor of sanctions. Do you read the news at all?
December 6, 2006
12:46 PM
history buff writes:
Nikita K. said the Soviets would bury us, but that didn't stop us from talking to them. In fact, there was a hot line hooking up the White House with the Kremlin so that the two sides could talk immediately if trouble was afoot. JFKs brinksmanship during the Cuban Missile Crisis might have proved that we are as crazy as they are, thus helping to thaw the glacier of international relations, but by keeping in touch, it also enabled our culture of blue jeans, individualism and rock and roll to seep through the iron curtain and bring down the politbureau. Guess what, the Russians found out they like Americans, even though our leaders were jerks. The American people are a lot bigger than our politicians. Give the American people a chance to beguile the Persians. We can do a better job than Bush & Co.
December 6, 2006
12:56 PM
hikingartist writes:
There is no graceful exit, because the whole thing was a disaster from the get-go. Given its history and populace, there was never any way Iraq would become a functioning democracy. I can't believe Americans fell for that, no wonder the world thinks we are dunces. Remember after the elections in 2004? Repubs and FOX were crowing "Democrats don't get it" and "Liberals are out of touch"? Let the Repubs figure it out, it's their war. I'm going camping and have a cold beer.
December 6, 2006
1:03 PM
JW writes:
"1. Why the hell do you keep bringing up Bush in regards to my criticism of other world leaders? Do you for some reason think that I am a Bush fan? Where in Satan's name did you get that perverse misconception, if so?"
I am pointing out that your descriptions do not necessarily mean...anything. While one COULD describe Bush in exactly the same way you describe the leader of Iran, it does not really show who he is, or what policy decisions he is likely to make.
"2. I have not applied a "Fundamentalist Muslim" template. I have summarized Ahmadinejad's political history in order to explain why I believe he will be difficult, if not impossible, for the US to deal with on a friendly basis. "
You also said this, "It's difficult to reach out to people like Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, etc. because they make a living out of hating us."
It is untrue in the case of Ahmadinejad simply because his poulace does not hate us. While I agree that he will present diplomatic problems, I DO NOT agree with what I have heard from you, that he is a fundamentalist muslim, therefore Iran is a fundamentalist muslim government, and cannot be dealt with diplomatically.
I will say that I may be misinterpreting your stance here. If so, please put down how YOU would deal with Iran, as so far you have done little more than attack my position, and vilify Iran.
"Don't accuse me of things I haven't done simply because I disagree with you. That's a Hogarian fallacy."
Fair enough. Ill do it if you will, which means no more of this from you;
"Furthermore, don't pretend that the US is the only entity in favor of sanctions. Do you read the news at all? "
We were talking about US foreign policy in regards to the middle east. The fact that I didnt include the rest of the world and their foreign policy in that discussion does not infer that I believe we are the only country examining sanctions. That is you putting words in my mouth.
December 6, 2006
1:05 PM
FYI writes:
The reason Iraq is having such difficulty establishing a stable, fair and effective government is because its populace is composed of highly polarized factions who care more about being loyal to their factions than they do about being loyal to their country as a whole.
Sound familiar? It should.
December 6, 2006
1:12 PM
TV Man writes:
The war can be ended if it is redefined as a television game show similar to survivor. With our technology, we can make it the number one show on Iraqi television with a captive audience everynight to see who gets blown up today. Sorry, el-Sadr. You must leave the sandbox. The last Iraqi alive wins, and then we can say we won the war and didn't cut and run.
December 6, 2006
1:19 PM
JW writes:
"Give the American people a chance to beguile the Persians."
We already have. Its great stuff! If you watch that Koppel documentary, there are tons of people saying they like America. Bunch of kids riding around doing tricks on their bikes, and the one had "Handmade in America" written on his downtube. Loved it!
And if you really want to do your part, Ahmadinejad is giving bonuses to travel agents who book western tourists, and a premium on Americans. Beautiful country. You could go over there and see the sights and be directly responsible for better relations!
Wouldnt try to fly after you visit though. Our "Free" country has this nice little grading system based on where you travel. Got believe going to Iran will get your ability to travel freely minimized right quick.
December 6, 2006
1:20 PM
666 writes:
JW
I profess that, throughout his campaign for the presidency of Iran, Ahmadinejad bolstered his bid by asserting an enmity for the US and the UN. If this isn't a case of making a living out of hating us, I don't know what would be consided such.
I also have not used the phrase "Fundamentalist Muslim" at all in this blog. I mentioned that Ahmadinejad has Islamicized politics in Iran wherever possible, and I did that in order to point out that he is as much a values whore as Bush is, using a religious stance to justify political extremism.
As far as dealing with him is concerned, I am in favor of sanctions (as are the majority, if not the entirety, of UN nations involved in the debate). I do not believe that this will harm Iran by isolating them from the world because Iran has an enlightened and educated population. It is practically impossible to isolate Iran as a whole because they have such an open and learned culture. If we isolate anyone, it will be Ahmadinejad and his lackeys. A significant number of his people may even begin to openly side against him if he stubbornly persists in the face of multinational consensus...kind of the way that more and more Americans are criticizing Bush for the way his policy has isolated us from our allies.
December 6, 2006
1:33 PM
Pinocchio and his big-ass nose for President writes:
Some of the greatest lies in history:
Iraq has got WMD and they gonna git us if we don't charge in and beat 'em up. (George W. Bush, to the people of America)
Iran's nuclear ambitions do not go beyond providing cheap, efficient power to its people (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the world)
The government of North Korea has no higher priority than providing for its people. (Kim Jong Il, to any moron who will listen)
I'm a great leader and do not rely too heavily on anti-US sentiment in order to cover up my incompetence (Hugo Chavez, to his diary)
I didn't do it. Really. (OJ Simpson, to everyone)
December 6, 2006
1:47 PM
sk writes:
Ahmadinejad is not a fundamentalist muslim, he is an extremist. His form of Islam escapes me and I don't have time to go find it, but he believes that it is their end times. That their Allah is coming back and they must destroy Israel and probably the US of A.
Listen to his speech from yesterday, he is not being subtle. Islam has instructed him to warn us before the fight and he is doing that.
December 6, 2006
2:03 PM
JW writes:
Its possible that sanctions would do what you say. I will say that I place no value on what the current thinking on sanctions is simply because they are the normal kneejerk reaction in situations where they are possible.
However, I disagree that sanctions would push the enlightened populace away from Ahmadinejad. Economic sanctions tend to hurt a populace before they hurt those in power. While it is possible that the populace would see this as Ahmadinejad's fault, I think it far more likely that Iranians, being very nationalistic, would step away from moderation, and bolster what they would see as their chosen leaders. I think undermining Ahmadinejad and his ilk by creating favorable relations with Iran that could allow for an even greater influx of ideas from outside their country would be more beneficial than sanctions ever could.
Extremist or not, Ahmadinejad is not the only one who wants nukes. Even moderate Iranians want nukes. They see them as a deterant. I can sympathize with this belief. We gave Saddam chemical weapons to use on them, killing 300,000 Iranians. Would Saddam have attacked a nuclear Iran even with the backing of America? I doubt it. I see this as yet another reason sanctions will not work. Iranians in general see nukes as a national right. If we sanction them for persuing this, the hatred will flow in our direction, rather than toward Ahmadinejad.
As to Israel, when Ahmadinejad says he wishes to "wipe them off the map" is it because they are jewish, or because they have taken lands by force? I dont know the answer, but I do know that there are jews in Iran, allowed to live in peace.
December 6, 2006
2:46 PM
sk writes:
Saddam was at one time, the lesser of two evils and a useful tool against Iran. If you want to look at the last twenty years, he has Russian and Chinese weapons.
There are also plenty of arabs living in Israel but that won't stop Ahmadinejad when he launches a nuke.
Those jews living in Iran are what they call dhimmis, that wouldn't be a role model for anyone.
December 6, 2006
2:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
also, those lands 'taken by force', would that be when Israel was attacked and kept it see Golan Heights et al?
Israel had bought a lot of the land that they are now on before it was even a country. Paid for with money and blood.
The Palestianians need to love their children more than they hate the Jews and there will be peace.
December 6, 2006
3:11 PM
We must impeach the W writes:
W sez he wants victory in Iraq and we will leave when the job is done.
No graceful exit in sight. Even Daddy Shrub's team is telling him to quit. But Jr is not listening.
Its time to bench the dumbass. Congress has to move. Lives depend on it. We lost 10 more today
December 6, 2006
3:16 PM
666 writes:
A significant portion of the American populace is also very nationalistic, but this hasn't prevented them from slowly edging away from a leader (Bush ) that has tendencies to push the extremes of a political philosophy.
Plus, what part of the proposed sanctions will hurt the PEOPLE of Iran? I can't see how banning the sale of missle and nuclear technology to Iran, freezing its military bank accounts, restricting travel visas to Iranian officials involved in its nuclear industry, etc. will hurt the Iranian people.
As far as nukes as a deterrent are concerned, are you actually saying that a nation whose leader preaches revolutionist ideals and has called for the obliteration of an entire nation should be trusted with the ability to produce nukes, just so they can feel safe? How safe could they feel when they are led by an apocalyptic prophet in possession of some of the world's most dangerous weapons?
December 6, 2006
3:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
"A significant portion of the American populace is also very nationalistic, but this hasn't prevented them from slowly edging away from a leader (Bush ) that has tendencies to push the extremes of a political philosophy."
Why have we done this? Is it because some other country told us to through sanctions? Or did we decide on our own?
"Plus, what part of the proposed sanctions will hurt the PEOPLE of Iran? I can't see how banning the sale of missle and nuclear technology to Iran, freezing its military bank accounts, restricting travel visas to Iranian officials involved in its nuclear industry, etc. will hurt the Iranian people."
These are the sanctions most are agreeing with. If America had its way, they would be much worse (we sanction them economically already).
"As far as nukes as a deterrent are concerned, are you actually saying that a nation whose leader preaches revolutionist ideals and has called for the obliteration of an entire nation should be trusted with the ability to produce nukes, just so they can feel safe? How safe could they feel when they are led by an apocalyptic prophet in possession of some of the world's most dangerous weapons?"
This is pure propoganda at its best.
"The fact that the unabridged statement expresses a desire to see the "occupying regime" in Israel become history like the Soviet empire, Saddam Hussein and the Shah regime in Iran is often overlooked by his critics, however."
Dont you think Iran maybe has some reasons to hate us? Yet they dont. Hmm.
Some other poster said that Iraq was the lesser of two evils during their war. Really?
Who started that war?
Who used chemical weapons on civilians and soldiers alike?
WHO GAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO IRAQ FOR USE ON IRAN?
What, other than the islamic revolution of 1979, has Iran really done? And is having a revolution in your own country bad? If you are going to say support Hezbolla, Im going to bring up giving Saddam chemical weapons again, and say Iran STILL OWES US A SLAP.
This whole thing is bs anyway. If you look at states that were our hated enemies and have become our friends you will see one thing,
NONE of them did it by force since ww2. They all chose to do it.
This country is a democracy. Ignorance is no excuse for supporting YOUR GOVERNMENT when they are wrong, or worse, horribly wrong. If you just buy the fact that Iran is enemy number one, you make EXACTLY the same mistake we all made with Iraq. Listening and believing when we should have found out for our damn selves. This time, you have NO excuse.
December 6, 2006
3:59 PM
666 writes:
You are overstating my point of view and lumping me in with the idiots who think we should preemptively nuke Iran now.
One big reason that progressive ("Liberal" to the unimaginative) ideas don't make much progress nowadays is those ideas are championed by people like you, JW. You blow any opposing viewpoint, however minor, out of proportion and lump the moderates in with the extremists, condeming us as a whole. Attacking people who agree with you to some extent isn't exactly a recipe for peace.
You've voiced your opposition to sanctions, so anyone who puts forth any support for sanctions at all is automatically equivalent to those who want to nuke Tehran and then sanction the survivors into extinction? Not everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist, JW.
This is why progressives can't get much done anymore...they're too busy finding excuses to argue amongst themselves.
December 6, 2006
5:38 PM
Anonymous writes:
"One big reason that progressive ("Liberal" to the unimaginative) ideas don't make much progress nowadays..."
And yet the majority of America prefers the "Liberal" (to the unimaginative) agenda to the Republican one. Remind us...who just received a mandate from the American people? The days when you can make blanket statements like "people just don't agree with the Progressive or Liberal agenda" are long over...get used to it.
Iran simply doesn't pose the type of threat to which you attribute to them.
December 6, 2006
6:29 PM
JW writes:
I never said anything like that 666, no need to whine.
I disagree with your sanctions. Period.
I disagree that Iran is this amazing threat. Period.
While I can see that you think I meant you wanted to nuke Iran by the last statement, the reality is that all I was saying is this;
Yet again, the government has come up with the next "Great Threat To Democracy" and yet again, the people of America just buy it.
I understood it with Iraq. We were a nation attacked (even a year later, the feelings were there) and the political capital held by the Bush admin was seemingly limitless.
This time there is no excuse.
BTW, disagreeing with you does not make me a liberal. Also, those of you who have bought into this "Liberal is a bad word, and an insult" are stupid. Yep, stupid.
Im sure you disagree with what Im saying. I tell you what. You can convince me that everything you say is true by answering one question;
What has Iran done in the last 100 years to support this belief that they are a member of "The Axis of Evil"?
And dont just quote bs from the paper, or Ill shoot you down, again. Do some fucking research. Give me something they did that ranks up there with spreading wmd's (like we do) or undermining a democratically elected government (like we do) or attacking other countries without provocation (like we do). If you cant even do that, perhaps they arent really as bad as you think. After all, we do all those things, and I guess you think we are ok.
December 7, 2006
6:01 AM
W writes:
"What has Iran done in the last 100 years to support this belief that they are a member of "The Axis of Evil"?"
Ya see I was watchin the great RR call the Ussr the evil empire and give that great tear down this wall speech.
So i figgure i woud do the same but first I gotta git em to build a wall.
monkey see
monkey do
December 7, 2006
8:54 AM
sk writes:
"As far as nukes as a deterrent are concerned, are you actually saying that a nation whose leader preaches revolutionist ideals and has called for the obliteration of an entire nation should be trusted with the ability to produce nukes, just so they can feel safe? How safe could they feel when they are led by an apocalyptic prophet in possession of some of the world's most dangerous weapons?"
"This is pure propoganda at its best."
____________________________
What? Do you have comprehension problems? Read what Ahmadinejad has said. Listen to his speech, it might be on You Tube or Memri. It is NOT propoganda, it is a warning. Maybe you should open your ears.
December 7, 2006
9:00 AM
sk writes:
Dec. 6 5:38- A mandate? you win by razor thin margins in a few states to get a few extra Senators and you delude yourself into a mandate?
It's going to be fun watching the Dhimmicrats implode except for the fact that our country will suffer more because of their lies in election campaigns.
December 7, 2006
9:04 AM
sk writes:
"Also, those of you who have bought into this "Liberal is a bad word, and an insult" are stupid. Yep, stupid."
Why did most of the 'liberals' change to being called 'progressive'? And I agree with you, they are stupid. Stupid ideas, stupid leaders, stupid sheeple followers.
btw, it isn't what Iran has done in the last 100 years, it is what der leader of Iran is promising to do in the near future. doh.
December 7, 2006
9:09 AM
JW writes:
"What? Do you have comprehension problems? Read what Ahmadinejad has said. Listen to his speech, it might be on You Tube or Memri. It is NOT propoganda, it is a warning. Maybe you should open your ears. "
Ive heard enough of the bs the western media spins this guys words into. The famous "Whipe Israel Of The Map" statement was pimped as a threat of nuclear attack. BS! It wasnt what the guy was saying.
Again, America has found its next "Great threat To Democracy" only this time, you damn well should A) be skeptical if only becasue Iraq was total bs, and B) can actually do some research for yourself. You dont need the CIA to go looking for wmd. You can actually go find COMPLETE texts of what Iran's leader is saying. Hes no cherub, but hes not going to nuke Israel either.
This is just misdirection to get your mind off the failure in Iraq. Id say the same about Afghanistan, but nobody is paying attention to that anyway.
You people are so afraid of Iran. Well, no wonder. My entire life I have been told about how evil they are. Now that Im old enough to make up my own mind, I go looking, and all I find is situations where WE have been evil to them. NOTHING about Iran doing a damn thing to anyone else (other than Iraq, and Iraq attacked them). Bush can say they are evil all day. The western media can take Amenidinijads words out of context all they like. I AINT BUYING THIS LOAD OF CRAP! Not going to get suckered by these fucks AGAIN! I learned my lesson with Iraq. I suggest you do the same.
December 7, 2006
9:11 AM
Jeff writes:
We are witnessing the beginning of the end of what once was the greatest country the world has ever known. The United States of America.
Our forefathers fought for and delivered to succeeding generations a land of great promise and opportunity.
Those who came to America saw an opportunity to make it an even better place, one begotten of dictatorial or oppressive governments. They assimilated quickly to become 'Americans'. The culture of their heritage wasn't forgotten, it was continued and celebrated in the privacy of their own home, not forced on the rest of the country.
Since that time Americans have rallied to support this country and help protect our way of life from those who envy or hate us.
The last political leader who still has the guts and vision clearly is George W. Bush, The President of the United States. If he succumbs to the pressures of this report by allowing others to alter the location of this war, America will change forever.
On 'Altering the location of this war', GW has taken the terrorist war to the location where the terrorists live. By leaving and reducing our commitment to continuing (winning) this war 'over there' the war will follow us home. We will become as any other terrorist bullied country with bombings and internal factions warring in the streets.
Equally amazing is that the very group of people so against America succeeding (terrorist sympathizers called democrats) will be the first sought out by the Taliban and Islamo-Facists who will put a stop to the 'if it feels good do it' culture they espouse.
So many generations of those who've given their lives to see this great country succeed are rolling over in thier graves right now. I personally have grown tired of protecting those who don't appreciate the efforts of their protectors. If GW succumbs, so will I. This should make all the Anti-war, Liberal, Democrat, Progressive, Tree-hugger whiners happy with the outcome as it's exactly as they've asked for it.
December 7, 2006
9:14 AM
JW writes:
"btw, it isn't what Iran has done in the last 100 years, it is what der leader of Iran is promising to do in the near future. doh"
I love it. Right after you get done accusing liberals of being sheep (you really should look up the word. It doesnt mean what you think it does), you step up to the plate and start bleeting...BAHHH BAHHH.
He hasnt promised to do anyting crazy period. You just blissfully accept a misquote used in the western media, rather than finding out what the guy really said, what he really meant.
They havent done anything to deserve this "Axis of Evil" crap.
Hey Jeff, take that crap elsewhere. Weve already debunked that propoganda here.
December 7, 2006
9:18 AM
jay writes:
"GW has taken the terrorist war to the location where the terrorists live"
Jeff, you do realize that Iraq had no ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda before we invaded right? You do realize that we diverted resources away from Afghanistan to go into Iraq, right??
No one is "keeping America from succeeding" except this Administration and their refusal to admit and learn from their mistakes.
You do realize that we're losing the war in Iraq, right?
No offfense guy, but you need to lay off the Rush...and the caffeine.
December 7, 2006
9:19 AM
sk writes:
JW, der leader of Iran was misquoted? Nice. You just keep believing that while the Muslim horde gather. It isn't Iran, it is Islam.
Don't let your BDS blind you to the light. You do know what BDS is don't you?
Jeff, we need more reality around this liberal is a dirty word/progressive non-blog.
December 7, 2006
9:23 AM
sk writes:
"You do realize that we're losing the war in Iraq, right?"
We are losing the 'media' war in Iraq. If you mean we are being overwhelmed with the MSM and their agenda journalism, yes.
Time to take the gloves off for our Army. The rules of engagement need to adapt to the conditions.
December 7, 2006
9:35 AM
Jeff writes:
Hey JW, go sit on a sharp rock!
Just becuase you have the 'most posts' on this blog doesn't mean you have a clue, just means you don't have a real job.
This panel membership was bogus. I'm amazed that the conservatives in this group would put out such a piece of trash as this report. What does V. Jordan have to do with anything in the world. Didn't he retire with Clinton to play golf and fondle as needed?
Where was a military man in this discussion? Colin Powell could have provided some military insight into why a document like this would provide 'aid and comfort' to our enemies. He knew this that sometimes you just have to punch the other guy in the nose when they get out of hand.
Hell in a handbasket... on an express transit.
December 7, 2006
9:48 AM
jay writes:
sk,
Robert Gates, our new Secretary of Defense just admitted that we're losing the war in Iraq. The last time I checked he wasn't a member of the corporate media.
NOW you want to listen to Colin Powell Jeff?!?
(He also admitted we are losing the war)
December 7, 2006
9:51 AM
Jeff writes:
... and you jay need to lay off the halucinagens, go back in the closet and let the military do what they do best. Kick Ass!
The only thing worse for a Military man than being a 'policing' force is to be a 'training' force for a foreign military. Usually they're poorly equipped and not up the standards needed (mentally and physically).
This also means they're working under someone else which isn't conducive to what we train our soldiers to be. We're in charge and as in Vietnam, the only thing that will make us lose is the inability of our political leaders to weather the critics. This is where we've been falling apart recently.
Our soldiers aren't 'consultants' they're fighting machines. Let them do the job and they'll make you proud.
December 7, 2006
9:51 AM
Anonymous writes:
If calling our mistakes in Iraq mistakes is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"...there are a lot of Republicans who are doing just that.
December 7, 2006
9:55 AM
jay writes:
Jeff, this debate has nothing to do with our troops performance...I would have hoped you were smart enough to realize that.
December 7, 2006
9:58 AM
Jeff writes:
Jay,
This debate is about a political document which is putting our soldiers in harms way. The panel membership had no military representation and is purely political. Yes, I am intelligent enough to understand that and a great deal more than you have the capacity for.
December 7, 2006
10:00 AM
jay is a JW sockpuppet writes:
Isn't it time for JW to appear?
December 7, 2006
10:25 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
I know that many of you despise Fox News but I would recommend going there and listening to Tommy Franks reaction to the ISG report. His was truly the most balanced and honest view of the report and it implications that I have heard so far.
JW
I agree with you that the Iranian people are probably the most pro-US population in the mideast. The problem is that their leadership is behaving exactly like Hitler did, and we are headed to a similar outcome. The ISG report has only given the little Hitler more power and more standing than he deserves.
The ISG has traded a few lives today, for millions in the near future.
December 7, 2006
10:41 AM
jay writes:
Jeff, I think if you had the capacity evaluate our current situation without the hinderance of bias you'd realize that this document isn't "putting our soldiers in harms way" or "aiding and comforting the enemy"...quite the opposite...it is getting them out of harms way by dealing with the reality on the ground instead of the spin in Washington. They are simply calling the situation on the ground in Iraq for what it is....an outright failure and the worst foreign policy decision in modern US history. Maybe you should do a little research and realize that many of our best military experts agree with what the report says. I know that fact is very uncomfortable to come to terms with...particularly for folks like yourself who follow your leaders in lockstep, no matter how incompetent they prove to be...but give reality a chance won't ya?
Crouton/Sockpuppet--Go sell crazy some where else...we're all stocked up here. I know you believe that there's a big conspiracy (one of many you keep an eye on no doubt) on this blog and believe that everyone who shares a few similar views must be the same person out to make you look stupid (not a Herculean task by the way)..you need to get some help dude...
Hogar,
Why am I not surprised to see Tommy on TV defending his decisions in Iraq? Would you expect any less of him?
I've said it before and I'll say it again...we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater in Iran just because they have an asshole for a President. Would be a little hypocritical of us don't you think?
December 7, 2006
11:30 AM
JW writes:
"The problem is that their leadership is behaving exactly like Hitler did"
Ok Hogar, you made the claim. Now back it up...
I'll ask again, since there are now SEVERAL of you nut jobs buying into the new "Iranian" threat W is trying to sell...
What has Iran done in the last 100, no, fuck it. What has Iran EVER done to deserve the "Axis of Evil" tag? Now you can actually find something, though you will have to be talking about the persian empire from ages past.
We have actually built and circulated WMD.
We have actually attacked other countries without cause.
We have actually occupied another country unlawfully.
Show me where Iran has done that. Otherwise all you are doing is repeating sensationalist media, which is doing a damn good job of selling you the "Iran" threat where none exists...JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH IRAQ, only with less actual evidence.
December 7, 2006
12:00 PM
am 760 writes:
JW, Couldn't have said it better myself. Keep up the good fight.
December 7, 2006
12:08 PM
history buff writes:
The comments from the panel were very interesting. They all agree that a country as divided as ours cannot fight a war and win. It looks to me that the GOP strategy has done just that, divided the electorate instead of uniting the country behind our international interests.
Bush had the country behind him, but he had to lie about our reasons for going into Iraq, and apparently didn't think lying was a bad thing. And we can see it with Reverend Ted, deception gets people elected and puts people in power, but the lie will undo our cause.
This country's history shows that we are willing to stand up for what is right. Lies never lead to what is right.
Iraq is now a first class mess, but I think someone has to show that he is deserving of the office of President and admit to his deceptions. But he doesn't appear to be someone who can change and grow.
December 7, 2006
12:15 PM
KV writes:
Does anyone remember that Ahmadinedick was amongst the hostage takers back in 1979? Are we now supposed to just let this Monkey make remarks like "Wipe Israel off the map" (out of context- yea right!) and then listen to him about his needs for Nuclear energy? Come on kids, he is a nut and just because "Iran hasn't done anything to anyone in the last 1,000,000,000 years” don't mean shit! Although the populace loves the western lifestyle, he will continue to develop, and my money says use his technology to send a message. Remember the Cuban Missile crisis- how about being 5 min away from the launching of missiles. Nobody really even knew how close we were! Therefore, you can say all of the bullshit that you want about him not wanting to hurt anyone, but that is pure naivety! Wanna take a chance and see if he’ll do it? NO! Anyone even making stupid statements like Ahmadinedick should be displaced!
December 7, 2006
12:24 PM
history buff writes:
KV, what you say may be true, but it doesn't mean we can't talk to Iran. Bush comes off as the strict parent who has to punish the unruly child. Why can't we enter into diplomacy? We did it with the Soviets. Even if you think Amadinawhatever is the antichrist, show some respect for the process. Why do the right wingers have to wear their resentment on their sleeve and act like they always have to be show that they think they are superior? Results are more important than postering.
December 7, 2006
12:27 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
"Does anyone remember that Ahmadinedick was amongst the hostage takers back in 1979? Are we now supposed to just let this Monkey make remarks like "Wipe Israel off the map" (out of context- yea right!) and then listen to him about his needs for Nuclear energy?"
If he were so desirous to become a martyr for the devil, which would be the result of a nuke strike on Israel, he would have done so in 1979 rather than climb his way to the top in a profession with few opportunities for martyrdom.
December 7, 2006
12:40 PM
JW writes:
"Bush comes off as the strict parent who has to punish the unruly child."
You would be right, if the child had actually been unruly.
Chomsky put it the best Ive ever heard, though I have to paraphrase.
"Its like a father saying he has to beat his wife and kids or they will misbehave. Thats not how it works. The burden of proof is not on the wife and children to prove they will not misbehave if not beaten. The burden of proof is on the father to prove that they will, which cannot be done."
So, what Bush really comes off as is an abusive asshole who beats his kids well behaved or not.
December 7, 2006
1:01 PM
jay writes:
How did the devil get involved?
December 7, 2006
1:54 PM
sk writes:
"If he were so desirous to become a martyr for the devil, which would be the result of a nuke strike on Israel, he would have done so in 1979 rather than climb his way to the top in a profession with few opportunities for martyrdom.
What exactly would der Leader of Iran do in 1979 that could possibly compare to climbing his way to the top and using nukes on Israel in 2008?
Nothing for $100 would be the answer. The devil is very patient.
December 7, 2006
2:02 PM
jay writes:
The Easter Bunny is patient as well.
December 7, 2006
2:22 PM
KV writes:
History Buff,
I'm not saying that we shouldn't make a stride to talk to Iran, but I'm definitely saying that their Nuke program must be scrapped or overseen by someone that the world might possibly trust (not the UN), and we need to keep an eye on him. They don't need Nuke power and the guy cannot be trusted. We have freedom of speech here, but you cannot say things like "I will kill the pres" or something stupid like that as the threats are taken seriously just as he should be taken seriously when he says he wants the world to be rid if the scourge of Jews. No problem with the Iranian people here. Almost everyone in the world would like to have everything we have- they're Human. But, the leadership there has made statements and done things that just don't make it seem like they have an interest in real world peace. After all, was it not the Iranian Govt. responsible for stoning a young teen to death 2 weeks ago? She purportedly seduced a married man and did not have 4 male witnesses to say the contrary? Yes, fact and happened! Nice leadership huh?
December 7, 2006
2:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
There are areas around the world that need our attention a lot more than Iran. Stoning a girl? Show a link. Otherwise, see Darfur.
December 7, 2006
2:43 PM
Anonymous writes:
2:27- Yes there are other parts of the world that need- uh once again- American attention. Unfortunately, this thread is not about Darfur- but agreed, very bad situation. This thread is about Iran and any reasoning behind talking to them. Read all of the posts first. You want a link for the stoning- here you go:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35701
http://www.petitiononline.com/Malak/petition.html
Heck, just google stoning and you'll get all kinds of stuff.
December 7, 2006
3:06 PM
jay writes:
Remind me again folks....why don't we want to talk to Iran?
December 7, 2006
3:36 PM
Anonymous writes:
They conspired with the Republicans to make Carter lose the election. That is why I don’t like them. Besides that they took American hostages and requested the Shaw be returned. When he died the summer before the election it took a lot of footwork to keep them from releasing the hostages until Reagan was in office.
December 7, 2006
3:40 PM
jay writes:
Oookaaayyyy...
Anyone else have a reason why we shouldn't engage Iran in talks?
December 7, 2006
5:10 PM
JW writes:
Havent read it myself yet, but I hear that on pg. 85 of the Baker Groups study they recomend privatizing Iraq's oil. Made me smile.
December 7, 2006
7:13 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
Do you remember when Iran took over our embassy and took everyone hostage? That was an act of war for which the leadership should have been wiped off the face of the earth. And what did our friends do? They came to an Iranian party while our people were hostages.
I am perfectly willing to wait this one out. The Democrats are in charge now, and they can talk and talk until the next 9-11 attack, at which point Bush will be blamed for that attack, instead of the terrorists. Bush is far from perfect (and his stock goes down with me every single day), but at least he has a closer view regarding the level of the threat from radical muslims, than Jimmy Carter and the Democrat appeasement crowd.
Jay,
I don't want to harm the people of Iran, but the longer we let Anothernutjob consolidate his power, the closer we get to WWIII.
December 7, 2006
8:17 PM
Surrender Monkeys writes:
Hey Mark,
The NY Post has a much better front page today than the RMN did. :P
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/photos/cover.jpg
December 7, 2006
9:54 PM
JW writes:
Hogar, you are an idiot. Im not saying that to be insulting. Im making an observation based on your general lack of intelligence, evidenced by your complete and utter Republican Ideological Slavery.
For Gods sake, dont think. He and Republicans have already given you all the answers.
December 8, 2006
6:28 AM
Anonymous writes:
The Iraq war was planned many yers ago. Get our troops out and have the people who really carried out 9/11 taken to court.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
December 8, 2006
8:04 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
You can refer to me as ignorant, as I am not all knowing like you, and I think I have a realistic evaluation of what I do and do not know. You can disagree with my conclusions and predictions. You can disagree with my values, and are certainly free to denigrate them. But to say that I lack intelligence is to simply invent your own definition for the term.
December 8, 2006
8:15 AM
Tree writes:
Mark-
Can your tech team fix this blog so when someone post a site, we can click and go?
You know us lazy Americano's. Close n Play of the past when we were in diapers is now click n play and yes, we are back in diapers.
December 8, 2006
8:27 AM
Mark Wolf writes:
Tree,
I've passed this complaint to our tech people. Links used to show up as clickable (is that a word) but now they don't. Can't imagine we can't get this fixed.
Stay tuned.
December 8, 2006
8:27 AM
JW writes:
"But to say that I lack intelligence is to simply invent your own definition for the term."
Not really. You have to lack intelligence to call the 1979 Iranian Revolution an act of war against the USA.
IF they had shot all the US hostages, maybe. Even then it would be hard to convince me because....
Undermining the Iranian Democratic government of the 50's using our CIA and replacing it with a nasty Dictator, THAT is an act of war. Imagine, Hogar, what you would think of a country that did a similar thing to the USA. Declaration of war would take about 2 min against anyone who even TRIED that shit.
Giving WMD (chemical weapons) to Iraq for use on Iran, THAT is an act of war. Imagine if they did that to us. We would absolutely, without delay, attack the crap out of anyone who supplied chemical weapons to our enemies who subsequently used them. Declaration of war would take two min.
You have to be unintelligent to buy the analysis that the Iranian Revolution was an act of war simply because as an American citizen, they just did what we would do in a similar situation, although they did it with more restraint. I have a feeling if we were in the same situation, the embasy personel we took hostage would last a grand total of 5 min before we lined them up and shot them, or worse.
And regardless, they have every right to self determination in regards to their own government.
Our government doesnt like Iran because Iran decided not to be their slaves, and threw them out. We have been punnishing them for forming their own government for damn near 30 years. And in that time, you cant find one example of why they deserve it. That not only makes you ignorant of the facts Hogar, buying into the bs after people make you aware of the facts makes you unintelligent.
December 8, 2006
8:30 AM
Anonymous writes:
JW your claims about self-determination and a country's right to that made me remember something from a couple years back. Someone created and distributed a 'Plan for US Foreign Policy' (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp) supposedly written by Robin Williams (which was false). I'm reminded of that now with the clammoring to 'Get our troops out of Iraq'.
Some of the 'Plan's highlights with some select additions:
1. The US will apologize to the world for our 'interference' in their affairs, past and present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini [Ahmadinedick, Sadaam] and the rest of the 'good old boys'. We will never 'interfere' again.
2. We will withdraw our troups from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would [redeploy] our troops at our borders. No more sneaking through the holes in the fence.
3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After the 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.
4. All future visitors will be thorougly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like there, change it yourself, don't hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.
skiping to 8:
8. If there is a famine of other natural catastrophe in the world, weill not 'interfere'. They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement of whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army [or traded for oil through the UN]. The people who need it most get very little, if any.
9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way no one can call us 'Ugly Americans' any longer.
The devil is the head of state in Iran with a step-child at the helm in Syria.
December 8, 2006
8:40 AM
JW writes:
http://aliveinbaghdad.org/
December 8, 2006
9:03 AM
Anonymous writes:
JW, your sensitivity towards the Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian people is touching.... in fact I think there are many people in high places that would like to know more about you and the things you do...
December 8, 2006
9:07 AM
JW writes:
"JW, your sensitivity towards the Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian people is touching.... in fact I think there are many people in high places that would like to know more about you and the things you do..."
McCarthy would have loved you.
And those people in high places need to learn,
This is a democracy. The people should not fear the government. The government should fear the people.
And the people need to learn,
Your responsibility in a democracy does not begin with election season and end the day after an election. Your government represents you, and therefore you are responsible for all they do.
December 8, 2006
9:09 AM
jay writes:
W hasn't bothered to listen to good advice since before the war began (no imminent threat, no plan to deal with post war insurgency, not enough troops, etc etc)....why would that change now?
December 8, 2006
9:37 AM
774 days to go writes:
The war plan changes need to address partitioning Iraq. Our real problems will begin if we allow an Islamic super state to form. I have stated over and over about how partitioning Iraq is a sound and strategic method of removing our troops. We need to look at the mismanagement of Iraq and realize that we are losing our assets daily and we are actually arming the ‘insurgents’ by providing access to weapons. Our assets need to be back in the US. I shutter to think of an Islamic extremist with an M-1 or a SAM. If we are not going to help Iraq by partitioning it and stopping the civil war we need to withdraw and be ready to fight our way out. The situation is grave and I don’t think they have the brains to get us out of this one. I feel sorry for the soldiers who deserve a more competent leadership. I will never forgive Bush for hanging our soldiers out to dry by not changing his strategy.
December 8, 2006
9:42 AM
David Hakala writes:
The conservatives' wailing and gnashing of teeth make liberals sound like charm school grads. :-) What we are hearing is infantile egotism from people who aren't risking their own lives to prove they're right.
I lost all respect for John McCain (and I really did have some!) when he raved, "There's only one thing worse than an over-stressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps."
"Dead" doesn't seem to bother him.
I have my doubts about using US troops to "advise and train" Iraqi troops. Train them to do what with what? Our troops don't know how to end the fighting, and the Iraqis don't have the weapons that we do. Do we plan to leave a few hundred billions' worth behind, and let Halliburton profiteer by selling ammo and maintenance contracts?
That's a rhetorical question, of course. ;-)
Diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria are just perfunctory formalities. We know they're not going to help. (I don't know that they can help.) Conservatives' opposition to even asking reflects their insecure fear of rejection. That's why they don't get dates, except with underaged chat room acquaintances.
The Hamilton-Baker commission's first recommendation is summarized by the NY Times as:
"Announce a plan for American forces to begin pulling back, whether the Iraqis are ready or not, to signal to the Iraqis that Washington would not prop up the Iraqi government with military forces endlessly."
Fourth recommendation: "Link American withdrawal to the performance of the Iraqi military, leaving open the possibility that American troops would stay longer if the Iraqi government takes on the militias, but threatening accelerated withdrawal if the Iraqi government fails to act decisively and control the violence."
Coincidentally, I'm implementing the very same policies with my son, who turned 16 yesterday. I informed him that 16 year-olds get jobs, not allowances, and he has four weeks to find a new source of fun tickets. During that time, I'll give him $1 for each job application he submits and $5 for each interview he attends. Come Jan. 7, he's gets room & board but nothing more.
Anyone see any difference between my child and Iraq, or have a problem with this strategy?
I laughed my butt off at the president of the alleged nation of Kurdistan's reaction to the Hamilton-Baker report. He sounded EXACTLY like my outraged child!
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=13704
"The Baker Hamilton report is unreasonable and unrealistic. So its totally unacceptable by the people of Kurdistan."
And you're going to what about it, kid? :-)
December 8, 2006
9:54 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
There were certainly actions taken in the 50s which were questionable, but based on the Muslim/Nazi ties during WW II I find them to be normal following the defeat of the Nazis. The muslims were definitely punished for their siding with Hitler, but that does not make those actions a declaration of war, but rather the results of getting on the wrong side during a war.
Not responding directly and decisively to the 1979 invasion of Sovreign American soil was one of a long line of actions which have emboldened our enemies and it will continue to reap actions like 9-11 until we get serious about dealing with terrorism.
Certainly the US is not innocent with regard to our world relations, but taken in context and compared with those with whom we have had to deal with over the last century, we are certainly far and away the best country on earth.
December 8, 2006
10:30 AM
JW writes:
"There were certainly actions taken in the 50s which were questionable, but based on the Muslim/Nazi ties during WW II I find them to be normal following the defeat of the Nazis. The muslims were definitely punished for their siding with Hitler, but that does not make those actions a declaration of war, but rather the results of getting on the wrong side during a war."
There would be an arguement here if it were not for the difference in how we dealt with Europe and Japan after ww2. Where we helped rebuild and democratize western Germany and Japan, we toppled a democratic government in Iran. Also, I find it somewhat disingenuous to say we toppled Iran's democratic government over their involvement in WW2, minor as it was. This was about oil, specifically the desire to take that resource from Iran.
"Not responding directly and decisively to the 1979 invasion of Sovreign American soil was one of a long line of actions which have emboldened our enemies and it will continue to reap actions like 9-11 until we get serious about dealing with terrorism."
If you are saying the Embassy was soverign American soil, that is the general concensus. However, again, I am unclear that they didnt have good reason to do so. Additionally, in reference to your claim that we embolden our enemies with our response to that specific issue, I would say even if that is true, there are multiple options for response. I think our current foreign policy in regards to the middle east in general provides more support for terrorism than any inaction would. We are currently involved in an attempt to staunch the supply of terrorism, without any thought or plan to change actions that provide the demand. This simply will not work, and you can see the proof of this currently playing out in Afghanistan and Iraq. While our inaction may have contributed to a feeling that terrorist could infact attack us, it does nothing to address the reasons for why they wish to do so.
"Certainly the US is not innocent with regard to our world relations, but taken in context and compared with those with whom we have had to deal with over the last century, we are certainly far and away the best country on earth."
This can be argued from a number of perspectives. Again, we gave WMD to Saddam for use against Iran. There is basically nothing that Iran has done that compares. If you wish to argue this perspective in regards to human rights, our policy on this is so unclear as to be undefined. What we critisize in Iran we allow and actually perpetuate in Saudi Arabia.
December 8, 2006
10:34 AM
rawlings writes:
What should we do?
Well, it's a novel idea and a very unpopoular one among left-wing surrender monkeys--but how about: Winning!
Winning! It sounds easy enough. But it takes a tough stance against Islamist regimes in Iran and Syria. It also means having guts. America is a gutsy country. At least half of it is.
December 8, 2006
10:47 AM
NO AMNESTY! writes:
NUKE 'EM
December 8, 2006
10:54 AM
RonT writes:
OF course, this "Winning!" strategy would require:
1) a substantial war tax - so the war can be paid for right now, up front, by the chicken-hawks and peaceniks alike - rather than passing this on to the next generations;
2) a draft, so that fighting age men and women from all across the economic and political landscape share equally in this 'national' effort.
How 'bout it, rawling? Ready to have the chicken hawks stand up and be counted financially and in body counts?
December 8, 2006
11:43 AM
Michael writes:
When someone tells you that they want to kill you and destroy your country and everything it stands for and represents, take them at their word because history shows that it is probably true.
December 8, 2006
11:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
Michael obviously missed the meeting where Bush admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
No Imminent threat
No WMD's
No involvement with AQ or 9/11
Clusterfuck from the get go.
December 8, 2006
12:19 PM
David (R) writes:
Why does the cover of the NY Post remind me of a cheap, 10 cent tabloid? Looks like I'd find it right next to Star and the Enquirer.
December 8, 2006
12:32 PM
history buff writes:
What does it mean to win at this stage of the Iraqi military action? The President and the neo-cons portrayed Iraq as an oppressed nation that would welcome us as liberators, in much the same way the French people welcomed our troops into Paris after we evicted the Nazis. But that analysis was rather conceited and it did not objectively analyze the realpolitic of the Iraqi people.
The Bush doctrine of planting seeds for democracy did not consider whether Iraq is fertile soil for democracy. One of Jesus' parables warns to sow seeds on fertile soil, and to build your house on the rock, not on the sand. Democracy flourishes here because we have a long history extending back to England of private ownership of property, an independent judiciary, and a system where human rights are protected. None of those conditions exist in Iraq. Their most valuable natural asset is oil which is completely owned by the state.
Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq. There were no WMDs, and Bush and the neo-cons were certain there were WMDs even though the UN inspectors could not find any. Bush and the neo-cons also tied Sadaam to Al Quaida, which was another lie. Politicians lie to get elected, but once they undertake to represent our national interest, they have to stop lying and tell the people the truth. Bush got what he wanted, at least quicker than it may have taken, by lying. Thou shalt not lie is in the ten commandments. You would think someone who professes to be religiously devout would understand how sin taints the righteous cause.
One poster states the Democrats are in charge, which is totally inaccurate. The constitution makes the president commander and chief, and it is up to the executive branch to conduct this war effort and -- hopefully -- our diplomatic efforts. The executive branch is also charged with the power to negotiate treaties. The legislature has the power of the purse, the power to declare war, and the power to approve treaties, but its power is secondary in international affairs.
The most incredible irony in yesterday''s news concerns the response of the "conservative" voice to the Baker-Hamilton report. The LA Times reports how the voice of conservative America denounces everything about the commission report, and also charges the Democratic majority in Congress, even before they are sworn in, as somehow being unamerican and hurting our efforts abroad. It is ironic because it is the neo cons who want to bring democracy to Iraq, but when democracy speaks in the greatest democratic nation on earth, they find fault with it.
The overall failure in Iraq points to one cause. Bush and the neo cons defied precedent. Our foreign policy from FDR through Clinton, including Republicans and Democrats alike, has been to contain the problems in the middle east. Their idea of bringing democracy is a complete departure from our well established policy stems from their arrogance and the their manipulations of the truth. Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, they proclaimed themselves the new giants, but their feet are made of clay because they have told too many lies.
December 8, 2006
1:10 PM
David (R) writes:
Hi Buff - Nice post - There's an old axiom that is one of my favorites, and it speaks particularly well to the entire Iraq debacle. It goes: "For any battle or cause to truly be won, it must first be just." Since this cause is not (in my opinion), no matter who we kill or oust, there is no way for us to truly "win" because the merits of why we are there in the first place are completely and utterly fraudulent. To top it off, we have stayed far, far too long. Initially, there was a very strong approval rating from Iraqis - something like 70 or 80% - but we have squandered that good will by appearing to be "occupiers" who many Iraqis believe are there to steal their oil.
Arnie - I think you hit the nail on the head.
December 8, 2006
1:53 PM
rawlings writes:
Ron T.--
Draft? Really?
When lefties advocate the draft, of course, they are doing little more than showing just how sleazy their worldview is. You don't really want a draft. You just want to stick to defenders of freedom abroad.
We don't need a draft. Only 1/3 of our troops are in Iraq. Only 1/3 have served more than one tour of duty. We can win this thing without over-extending our military.
The problem is that the gutless left whirls itselve into a frenzy everytime CNN shows the carnage from a battle. War is tough and deadly. As a recently returned sargeant, Tim Boggs, recently wrote: "war sucks. But a world ruled by islamo-facists sucks more."
Indeed. You lefties are not heroic. Our troops are. I'm a pretty young guy. But I know that years down the road when I'm telling my grandkids stories about heroes I won't be telling them about a bunch of sissies protesting the war against Islamic tyrrany. I'll be telling them about our troops and how I couldn't be prouder than have them emulate our brave soldiers.
So Arnie and the rest of you appesers take heed. You are not heroic to ANYBODY BUT THE MOST DISGRACED SEGMENTS OF SOCIETY.
December 8, 2006
1:59 PM
JW writes:
You know rawlings the main problem here is that if you are correct, we are really screwed. Surrender monkies on the Left (bet thats the first time anyone has ever called Baker a lefty) and complete and utter incompetent idiots on the Right. I mean straight up retards. Doesnt look good. Surrender, or go to war led by stupid people.
Whats a good ole' boy like yourself to do?
December 8, 2006
2:49 PM
history buff writes:
Rawlings, as you say, you are a young man, maybe someday you will see that name calling and using false depictions like appeaser and islamo-fascist are wrong. That is the very problem with the Iraq action. It is premised on a lie and its supporters use propoganda to keep our brave soldiers involved in a situation that doesn't make much sense for our national interest. And I would note, if you feel so strongly about it, why haven't you enlisted? It is easy for you to criticize the American public for rejecting Bush's policy when you can sit in front of your computer and question other citizens' patriotism like any run of the mill lying politician.
December 8, 2006
2:55 PM
David (R) writes:
Rawlings said, that "Tim Boggs, recently wrote: "war sucks. But a world ruled by islamo-facists sucks more."'
If Tim Boggs were really fighting Islamo-facists, I would be in total acceptance here. But the majority of the "insurgents" fighting and killing US Troops and civilians now, are doing so to try and pressure us out of Iraq, not because they want us gone so they can plan more 9/11 attacks. Every week that our valiant troops are there, hatred and fear of the US grows, and so it will continue.
By the way, I voted for Mr. Bush the first time around, and changed party affiliation after his re-election. I'm still a conservative, and not one of the liberals you mentioned. There are many, many conservatives who feel totally betrayed and lied to by this administration. The president, and those in Congress who would blindly side with him, will be (or have been) removed from office in due course, as payment for their utter incompetence and arrogance.
December 8, 2006
4:52 PM
Its time to Resign Bush/Cheney writes:
The Right thing to do is for Bush and Cheney to Resign.
Let Nancy Pelosi run the country.
She will follow the will of the People and follow a different path.
Its time to kick out the right wing nuts out of office
December 8, 2006
9:38 PM
Justin Stone writes:
Sorry for the length of this post, got a little catching up to do....
Geez History Buff, learn your history please. the reason for the hotline was to prevent Nuclear war. That's also why we talked with them. But sometimes we DIDN'T talk with the Soviets. remember Reagan walking out on talks in Iceland. When it's clear there's nothing to gain, then don't talk just for the warm fuzzies. The big difference is that the Russians didn't want to die from nukes any more than we did. Islamofacists however, don't really care if they die when killing you. Major difference! And it wasn't the governments staying in touch that let our culture seep through the Iron curtain. How silly! Iranians probably have more exposure to our culture now than the Soviets did 25 years ago with Satellite TV and the internet.
JW 909 am
So taking a couple hundred civilian diplomats hostage from Soveriegn US soil for 400 days is not evil?
Letting (at the very least, maybe sending is a better word) terrorists go grom Iran into Iraq to blow up innocent civilians is not evil?
Show the text where Ahmadinijad misquoted.
JW 12-7 11:30 am
You tell Hogar to back up his claim, but you never seem to do that. Why don't you back up your claim about Ahmadinijad being misquoted?
history buff on December 7, 2006 12:08 PM
What lies did Bush tell to get us to go into Iraq?
history buff on December 7, 2006 12:24 PM
why can't we talk to Iran? You stated "Results are more important than postering." So when have we gotten results from actually talking. NOT the USSR! That was from engaging them in an economic / Military battle that ran their economy into the ground.
jay on December 8, 2006 09:09 AM
your comment about no imminent threat in Iraq is silly. You can't wait until it's imminent because then you can't do much about it. i.e. N. Korea... we fiddled around with them (talking, dialoging and the like) until they had a Nuke, and now we can't do much about it for fear they'll use it. If we waited until Iraq had WMD in our major cities, we wouldn't have been able to do anything to stop them from using the WMD.
history buff on December 8, 2006 12:32 PM
You show your lack of understanding of history AGAIN.
What lies did Bush tell about going into Iraq? You state the weapons inspectors couldn't find WMD, but they weren't there to FIND them. You don't understand the role of the inspectors. They were there to make sure the WMD were destroyed, and they documented the destruction of quite a bit. So if there never were any WMD, how did Iraq destroy some?
Bush did NOT lie about ties between Saddam and AQ. those have been very clearly documented.
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
You speak of the irony of the "conservative" voices. You are comparing Apples to spaceships. One can be in favor of democracy and still find fault with goofy reports. There's no irony there. Oh, and what were those lies again?
David (R) on December 8, 2006 01:10 PM
Why is the Iraq war not just? You simply make the assertion, but provide no proof or examples. I think it is entirely just. What is unjust about freeing prople from a ruthless dictator? You also state "we have stayed far, far too long." we're still in Germany and Japan after 6 decades, S. Korea for 50 years and they seem to be OK with it. When exactly is it "too long"?
David (R) on December 8, 2006 02:55 PM
You state that the murderers killing our soldiers and innocent Iraqi's are doing so to get us out of Iraq. And which terrorist told you that? And if they are just mad at us, why do they kill Iraqi's in funeral processions? Why do they kill civilians? Why do they kill police? It seems pretty obvious to me that if they hadn't started killing soldiers who are there to help them and innocent civilians we'd be able to leave much more quickly.
December 8, 2006
9:44 PM
flo writes:
Deaths, Dying, Dead, all blood on the hands of insurgents and soldiers on both sides.
Facts: Bush adminstration unlawfully invaded Iraq; Bush adminstration lied to the American public, lied to the world; Bush administration distastefully abused the horror of 9/11 to justify its own unlawful acts; Cheney et al profited from contracts in Iraq; Bush adminstration violated federal law with wiretapping and other forms of monitoring American's private communications; ....
Most generations can only come up with a "few" govermental indescretions, however, how can a relatively normal amercian like me who just gets a glimpse of the daily news come up wth so many stark examples of a government who has done more to ruin the image of hard working caring americans and whose govt has placed a larger target on more americans backs than the Bush goons. .... what about indefinite imprisonment for so called "terrorists" in Guantamano; holding others via CIA inquistitions in secret posts in european cities; and the mess re prison torture at Abu Garab...still the only number i care about are the innocent American women and men who are so bravely serving our country and the over 2 thousand who have perished, including the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have also died.
Solution? IMPEACH BUSH AND BRING OUR COURAGEOUS TROOPS HOME. I hope for a better future for all of us. PEACE.
December 9, 2006
7:31 AM
David (R) writes:
Justin -
Is it your intention to simply challenge or try to nullify the statements of others by picking each of their statements and telling them to "prove it"? It seems so.
"David (R) on December 8, 2006 01:10 PM
Why is the Iraq war not just? You simply make the assertion, but provide no proof or examples. I think it is entirely just. What is unjust about freeing prople from a ruthless dictator? You also state "we have stayed far, far too long." we're still in Germany and Japan after 6 decades, S. Korea for 50 years and they seem to be OK with it. When exactly is it "too long"?"
I offered my OPINION of why the war is not just, and that is because it was based on bullshit reasons for our invading Iraq - you may remember our fearful leader spewing tripe about weapons of mass destruction, blah, blah, blah. And while certain media reports have said over the first two years that certain components or deivery systems for them were found, to my knowledge there still has been no find of sarin or mustard gasses, nuclear warheads or enriched materials for making them, or the massive stockpiles of biologicals that were claimed. You may also remember the inquest that researched the faulty materials and capability claims prepared by the CIA that the invasion was based on. Upon finding that they based the invasion on faulty data, did we apologize and leave? It amazes me that you can say you think any of this action has been just. Here in the US, we actually have all of those WMD that we invaded Iraq for, and if anyone invaded us for it, we all would be screaming at the top of our lungs about the unjustness of it, wouldn't we? Damned right we would. For now, whether this action is "just" or not is in the realm of the person evaluating the matter, and is heavily biased on the input from the media that is used in forming their opinions. Based on what I've read in national and world media outlets, the Iraq invasion is unjust. You're entitled to your own opinion.
.
.
"David (R) on December 8, 2006 02:55 PM
You state that the murderers killing our soldiers and innocent Iraqi's are doing so to get us out of Iraq. And which terrorist told you that? And if they are just mad at us, why do they kill Iraqi's in funeral processions? Why do they kill civilians? Why do they kill police? It seems pretty obvious to me that if they hadn't started killing soldiers who are there to help them and innocent civilians we'd be able to leave much more quickly."
I'm not going to do your thinking for you pardner, and I'm not going to sit here and look up and post all of the references. Even if I did you would simply dispute and/or question everything anyway. But I will reply to the general question you ask in all of the other questions, and that is "what are the insurgents actions intended to do?" The stated objectives, according to reported quotes over the past several years, from various sources such as al-Zarqawi, and several heads of Islamic terror groups is that the Americans don't have the stomach for a long conflict and that public opinion in America will turn against being in Iraq as the body count stacks up, whether that be military or civilian bodies. Iraqi citizen opinion of the US was WAY up in the first few weeks after the invasion, and the longer we have stay, has steadily declined because many Iraqis express concern that we will never leave. Look it up and see for yourself - google is a great search engine.
Look, I'm not trying to be or sound condescendng or anything, but the points you challenge are things that have been widely reported and are generally accepted as being pretty "spot on" as to the truth. I can understand that there are potentially some truly "good" things that will come from the war. While it is possible that in the long-term, there could be a stabilizing affect in the region, it is just as likely (and many would argue it is far more so) that it will destabilize the entire region for years to come.
It would be hard to argue with that when you consider even the Muslims are killing each other off with apparent disregard for murdering their own innocent brothers and sisters. Do you know what the main difference is between Shiite and Sunni Muslims? One believes that only decendants of Muhammed should be the top clerics, and the other thinks any Muslim should be able to take the job. And for that, it's okay to maim and kill the other because they apparently fall into the "infidel" catagory with us. And the outside world is supposed to actually deal with people who are wired that way?
But I don't think we had the right to invade and push them to our way of life and form of government. Over the years, we've stopped Hitler, Stalin, and many others from doing that same thing. Are we 'more right' - do we have the 'real God' on our side? - are our intentions simply more pure? And I have to tell you that I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that we are right to go kick someone's ass because of what they might do. Justin, you may rape one day, so I want you arrested and imprisoned now. In fact, there are a whole slew of ignorant miscreants out there that I don't like. I think I'll have them rounded up too. Well, maybe not, because I'd have to jail me too. We simply don't try and imprison those who "may" do something.
December 9, 2006
9:04 AM
Anonymous writes:
"You also state "we have stayed far, far too long." we're still in Germany and Japan after 6 decades, S. Korea for 50 years and they seem to be OK with it. When exactly is it "too long"?"
One of the worst comparisons I have ever seen .... lemme see if i can help you see the difference here ..... Germany and Japan ruthlessly attacked various nations of the Earth with the intent of world domination ... Saddam was a bastard, killed many of his own people, and thousands of Iranians in a war, but he never attacked the US, Britain, or anyone else besides Israel, and that was a result of the Islamic Jihad mandate to remove Israel from the planet .... not world domination ... it almost looks now like Saddam kept his people under control by being a ruthless bastard ... maybe that's the only way it could be done ... we don't seem to be faring very well no matter how many thousands of them we kill .... but troops remain in Germany and Japan (although they have decreased a lot in recent years) as a matter of the terms of the surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri (if I remember) ... and they certainly aren't there at the ready-state that they were in the 40's and 50's ..... and, "too long" is past the point where the job of liberation is done, and control could/should be turned over to the people of the country, and the population of that country wants you out at a rate of 8 or 9 in every 10 because it's starting to look like you aren't planning on leaving any time soon, and the country is in utter turmoil and chaos because of you .... the very thing you said you came to end .... these people are starting to think things were better under Saddam ... how nice .... maybe it's just possible that not everyone on the planet can live under the "freedom, democracy, self-determination model??
December 9, 2006
2:39 PM
history buff writes:
Jeez, Justin, I have read historical revisionists, but I have never had the opportunity to correspond with one. First of all, the islamofascist thing sounds like a Soviet propoganda conjugation. It is funny that the right wing revisionists use it. If you are going to look at history, you should try to remain objective. Your usage of propoganda immediately exposes you as someone who doesn't care about the truth, but is someone trying to advance an ideological polemic.
As far as history goes, you may be mixing up with your geography studies, because denial is not a river in Egypt.
You seem to be a friendly right winger, so maybe you remember Richard Nixon. If you recall, one his great achievements was his success in the so called kitchen debates with Nikita. Also, if you watched any of the Iraq study group press conference, one of the points made by everyone on the committee is that we did talk to the Russians. I think that disproves your polemic, but in addition, consider the fact the following treaties were negotiated with the Soviets: Limited Test Band Treaty (1963), Outer Space Treaty (1967), Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), SALT I (1972), SALT ii (1979), INF (1987), and the others that followed after Yeltsin came to power.
I admit the economic / military competition statement was a cause of the Soviet downfall. I think the right wingers over-emphasize it so they can somehow take credit for a policy that actually began with FDR.
But most of what you say, the insulting statements about silliness that show your sophistry and conceit, don't really address the meat of what I said. Our foreign policy in the middle east has been consistent from FDR through Clinton, which includes Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I. The current administration broke with precedent. It did not stand on the shoulders of giants. It proclaimed itself to be bigger and smarter than its predecessors.
It seems that the personality projected by the administration contains many disorders. It manipulated the facts to get us into the war. It has not accurately reported what is going on in Iraq. And as far as talking with other countries, there is no guarentee they will be fruitful. They may be like the talks with North Viet Nam which were bogged down by a debate over the shape of the table. But saying they are useless without even trying is a conceit, because it can't be disproven unless you try. And I suspect that the administration just isn't skilled at talks, like it is not skilled at most other matters of foreign policy.
Lies: We know that Sadaam harbors weapons of mass destruction. Sadaam and Al Quaida were allied in the attack on the twin towers.
Maybe you are happy believing what you believe, but the truth is still waiting to be revealed. As much as the administration will try to suppress it, through criminal prosecutions if necessary, I have faith that in this country we will get a fair interpretation of history.
December 10, 2006
1:15 AM
JW writes:
"You tell Hogar to back up his claim, but you never seem to do that. Why don't you back up your claim about Ahmadinijad being misquoted?"
Justin,
You should really read the entire thread before you comment. I posted back up for that.
"So taking a couple hundred civilian diplomats hostage from Soveriegn US soil for 400 days is not evil?"
Compared to what? In its purest sense, sure. It violates all their rights. But compare it to undermining their democratically elected government, or giving Saddam chemical weapons to use on Iranians...not so much. And more to the point, in a world with the kind of horrible crap that happens, is taking 400 people hostage and eventually releasing them realistic evidence that they are the "Axis of Evil"?
"Letting (at the very least, maybe sending is a better word) terrorists go grom Iran into Iraq to blow up innocent civilians is not evil?"
Iran is taking some action in the Iraq conflict. Its their back yard. Would you hate the USA for taking action in Mexico if Mexico looked like Iraq? Probably not. But regardless, there is some info comming out that actually does point to Iran doing some deplorable crap in Iraq. More deplorable than what we have done? Uhhh, debateable. Either way, if you believe that we have the right to affect the scenario over there, Iran must be given the same right as it is LITTERALY their back yard. Otherwise its total hypocracy. And above all that, this has nothing to do with Bush labeling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil".
"Show the text where Ahmadinijad misquoted."
Again, I did. What he said litterally translates to "whipe Israel off the map like the USSR..." Since no one nuked the USSR, Im thinking this isnt very good evidence that he wants to nuke Israel.
December 10, 2006
5:32 PM
Nuts writes:
Soon to come is Bush's own announcement on his new Iraqi strategy this December.
Gee I wonder what new strategy this will be since he is cool to the Baker Hamilton report.
(Odds are he will announce the new strategy is....
lets talk tough to Iran and Syria
lets talk tough to the Palestinian issue.
lets make up a new Iraq report.
Lets elect Al Sadr president of the new democracy. (the public will believe anything)
December 11, 2006
10:29 AM
jay writes:
"your comment about no imminent threat in Iraq is silly. You can't wait until it's imminent because then you can't do much about it. i.e. N. Korea... we fiddled around with them (talking, dialoging and the like) until they had a Nuke, and now we can't do much about it for fear they'll use it. If we waited until Iraq had WMD in our major cities, we wouldn't have been able to do anything to stop them from using the WMD."
Justin...bravo...that is the best way of ignoring the fact that the Whitehouse used the implication of imminent threat to bolster its case for the war that I've seen in a while. Congrats...you get the booby prize.
Personally, I would rather the Whitehouse just told Congress and the American people the truth about the lack of imminent threat, the lack of ties between Saddam and AQ and 9/11, the forged Nigerian yellowcake papers, the fact that we had no credible evidence of any WMD's whatsoever (all of this of course confirmed as being known by the Administration well before the war by the NIE and the recent Senate Report on the matter).
They may have not gotten the vote to go to war immediately. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have pursued an invasion down the road.....but again.....we know that there was no imminent threat and we know now that they had people in our own intelligence agencies telling them that at the time...so what was the rush? Maybe it was those drones with Sarin gas, or the mushroom cloud as our first warning, or the fact that Rummy "knew" where the WMD's were..."in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Personally, I would rather have had the country and Congress make up their own minds with all the information about whether or not to send our boys and girls to die in the sand box...not just the info that bolstered the Republicans' case for war...but maybe you think that's silly.
December 11, 2006
11:01 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW
I freely admit that if Iran had not had oil, we probably would not have taken action against them after WWII, but because they did, we had a greater interest and their alliance with Hitler had greater negative consequences for them. I don't think it is overly productive to rehash actions from more than 50 years ago.
It would be interesting to know how the Iranian people feel about a real choice between a more western style democracy or the autocratic government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Was the general population of Iran happier under the Shah, or now under the Ayatollahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
With regard to the Saudis, they are certainly no angels, but they are still more of a friend than a foe to us in the Mideast. They certainly engage in some very disturbing behavior, but their actions pale in comparison to what Iran is indirectly instigating in Iraq and Lebanon.
With regard to our creating terrorists, when you look at all that has been done in that region over the last 50 years, we have hardly been the worst offender, with regard to the killing of innocent lives. Their reaction to us in not reasonable nor proportional when you look at the entire picture.
December 11, 2006
11:50 AM
JW writes:
Hogar,
That is some seriously shallow analysis. Its hypocritical in the extreme as well. The USA does not get a free pass to do whatever we want to other countries, and then call ourselves the good guys when they get pissed and fight back. That bs about WW2 factoring in the decision to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran is so pathetic I wonder that you believe it.
Your question about the current government of Iran vs The Shah's government is a GOOD QUESTION. Why dont you just quit thinking you know because you heard some two second blurb from Bush, and do some research! BTW, the fact that you call it "autocratic" shows me right off the bat that you know NOTHING about them.
Your take on the Saudis is shallow as well. 15 of 19.
What exactly is Iran indirectly instigating in Iraq and Lebanon? Arent we doing exactly the same thing, on the other side? Its their back yard. Seems like they have more business trying to affect the area than we do.
As for the last, man you are insane. We gave Saddam chemical weapons. He used them. Who over there has been worse than that?
Terrorist do what they do because they have nothing else. We are DIRECTLY responsible for that, and have done NOTHING to stop it. Also, you will notice, there arent any IRANIAN terrorists, but there are TONS of Saudi Terrorists. What do you think that means?
December 12, 2006
10:14 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW,
I think we have been talking about two different interventions. I was referring to the deposing of the Shahs father, and the installation of hte Shah in 1941. Hardly the overthrow of a democratically elected government. You seem to be referring to the struggle between the shah and the Prime Miinister. I don't view that as an overthrow by the US, though we certainly were in favor of it. Certainly not a shining moment in our history but it was a bloodless event and not worthy of comparison with today's events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
Iran is clearly funding the forces who would destabilize the freely elected government of Iraq. They certainly had an axe to grind against Saddam and certainly they have a right to be resentful of our aid to Saddam, but that was all in response to what they started with us in the 1979 embassy incident.
Certainly there are plenty of Saudis who participated in 9-11, but the Saudi government is not actively funding or supporting terrorists. They were themselves attacked following 9-11 and have cracked down on terrorists in their country.