The "Experts" on Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:47:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Generals Zinni and Batiste, think we should stay:

Anthony C. Zinni . . . argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it. “The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. . . . I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.” Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Um, they are not capable of stopping the sectarian violence so that's why we should commit MORE forces to Iraq? Sounds like Rummy talk to me. This is beyond absurd. I would ask General Zinni this question, when do we win? Because 6 months ain't going to do it. 10,000 troops ain't going to do it. Straight talk please. If you don't want us to leave, tell the truth and tell us what it would cost, in blood and treasure.

[S]ome current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.

Since all of this is already happening what in blazes are these generals talking about?

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”
“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”
Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

And Batiste calls is naive? He lives in a fantasyland. He wants all that and I want a pony. Neither of us is likely to see our wishes fulfilled. Just how nuts is Batiste?

Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.

The man is delusional. That will NEVER happen. Ever.

Some military experts said that while the American military is stretched thin, the number of American troops in Iraq could be increased temporarily — by perhaps 10,000 or more, in addition to the 150,000 or so already there — by prolonging combat tours.

Yes, 10,000 more troops will do the trick. I officially do not listen to Zinni and Batiste anymore. They live in a world of fantasy.

< Jack Abramoff Reports to Prison | Republicans Choose Senate Leaders: Lott's In >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The "Experts" on Iraq | 97 comments (97 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

10k more troops (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cpinva on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:22:47 AM EST

isn't going to do it. maybe 350k more troops, but not 10k. a huge part of the problem is that it takes time to properly train and equip an army, from scratch. thanks to the CPA dismanteling the iraqi army, right up front, that's what you have to do.

i was thinking of a comparison to germany & japan, at the end of wwII, and the fact that in both those countries we were able to establish a functioning security & military, nearly overnight, and why iraq is so different, and much more complex.

the difference is what caused germany & japan to become aggressive in the first place: nazism & nationalism, both of which are essentially secular idiologies, both of which everyone could pretty much agree were bad things. hence, it was relatively easy to root out and get rid of it.

iraq suffers from religion, which isn't inherently a bad thing, unless used improperly. you have two different sects, of the same religion, neither of which is inherently bad, both being used as a front for doing bad things.

you aren't going to convince people to abandon their lifelong religious beliefs, it just isn't going to happen. you have to convince them that bad things, done in the name of their religious beliefs, are still bad. that's going to take years and years.

it doesn't help that the country is in chaos, due to our failure to have both sufficient forces and a workable plan in place.

absent both of those, adding more, but still insufficient, troops to the mix is just going to give the various insurgent groups more targets to shoot at.

jarober.................. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:04:45 AM EST

are you suggesting we drop a nuke on baghdad? interesting proposition, except.............iraq, unlike japan, isn't technically at war with us. oh, not to mention, we'd have to get our people out first, or were you planning on not telling them about it either?

actually, victory in the pacific had been defined, go actually read the history books, don't just dust them on the shelves. the only acceptable victory, over japan, was a total victory, period. it was to involve an invasion of the japanese mainland, by up to a million allied troops, ala normandy. allied & japanese casualties were anticipated to be in the hundreds of thousands. only hiroshima & nagasaki stopped it.

this was pretty well known and expected, by both the military and civilian communities.

Here's a question. Say we follow the Murtha "retreat now" plan. Who do you think will fill the power vacuum? Will that be a good thing for the region, or a bad thing?

um, who do you think is filling it now? it isn't us, nor the iraqi government, it's the various and sundry independent militias, supported by who knows who: iran, syria, pakistan? if that weren't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

: Repeat... (none / 0) (#11)
by desertswine on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:50:25 AM EST

comment #6 at 8:55:27.

more dead bodies? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oldtree on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:57:49 AM EST

amazing. idiots that want to retain their job will kill thousands more, maybe tens of thousands. perhaps hundreds of thousands when they decide nukularizing Iran will take the pressure off of their criminal behavior.
and they are still in uniform. sorry, but this shows corruption, cronyism, incompetence, and a willful disregard for human life and the will of the people.
maybe our justice system will work to put all these people in jail for the remainder of their lives, where they can become an "advance warning" to any other idiots that try to do this again

Both these guys are retired... (none / 0) (#14)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:05:51 AM EST

And Zinni has been a critic of the whole operation from the beginning:

Speaking on 60 MINUTES,May 23, Zinni said, "The plan was wrong, it was the wrong war, the wrong place and the wrong time--with little or no planning."

Huh? (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:40:26 AM EST

Now, what does that have to do with what we need to do now?


: This... (none / 0) (#77)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:51:11 AM EST

If it was the wrong place and time then, it still is...except even more so.

Need more terrists (3.00 / 2) (#2)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:30:25 AM EST

"See, when we send more troops there they shoot at them and kill them. That proves we have to be there, right? You can't fight a proper war on terror without you create more terrists, right?"
---dubya

Only one way to find out if they're right... (3.00 / 2) (#5)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:50:43 AM EST

Let's take all our people out of there NOW and see if things get better or worse. If they get worse you can all blame me, since it was my idea. Deal?

Iwo Jima, Okinawa (2.33 / 3) (#4)
by jarober on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:47:19 AM EST

I can imagine TL in 1945, not knowing about the pending A-Bomb, wondering how victory in the Pacific would be defined.

How obtuse are you? (3.00 / 2) (#13)
by Repack Rider on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:04:19 AM EST

We defined "victory" in 1945 as unconditional surrender of the central authority that directed and supplied every single member of the Japanese military.

The people who oppose us in Iraq are not directed or supplied by a central authority. There is no chain of command. Every pissed-off Iraqi who can get his hands on one of the millions of small arms in Iraq becomes, as the advertising goes, "an army of one," responsible to, and directed by no one except his own conscience. He can voluntarily join with others, or he can operate alone. We made the mistake of invading the only country in the world that owns more small arms and ammo than the United States, and actually had MORE high explosives.

There is no central authority to surrender, and no way to interdict the supplies. You can try killing each opponent individually, which costs us fifteen or twenty thousand dollars each, just pisses off his brothers and uncles and cousins and creates more opponents, or we can try your idea.

What WAS your idea?


Just ridiculous (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:55:27 AM EST

Honestly. No susbstantive response can be given this silly comment.


This is not surprising. (3.00 / 3) (#16)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:47:56 AM EST

I'm not surprised that you are unable to make a substantive response to jarober. After all, you failed to make one for Generals Zinni and Batiste, too.

Since your grasp of the situation is thus unclear, I will attempt to explain to you--without presuming to know the generals' thoughts--just how their conclusions are viable responses to the situation in Iraq, which deserve actual consideration and not the casual dismissal that you give them.

At the very least, their conclusions should be given a fair hearing, especially given that they have access to a much greater range of information and expertise than you. That you, without responding substantively to the generals, declare that "I officially do not listen to Zinni and Batiste anymore," because they have a different perspective on Iraq is disgraceful. It is exactly the opposite of reasoned debate.

First, Zinni describes the sectarian violence in Iraq and responds to a simple question: "Will things be made worse or better by withdrawing?" His answer is that things in Iraq will get worse and in fact be more likely to end in civil war should the US withdraw.

This is the first place where he breaks from liberal thought. Many liberals, including here at TalkLeft, have already decided that things can get no worse in Iraq. In fact, they've already claimed that a civil war is in full swing. This makes them largely incapable of understanding why the general is concerned about escalating violence.

That is the point of the second portion you quoted. "Current and retired military officers" believe that Shi'a militias will run wild and "engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing." But you respond that "this is already happening." Why the difference?

You apparently believe that things can get no worse. I (and I bet the generals) would answer: "You ain't seen nothing yet." As things stand in Iraq now, violence between Shi'a and Sunni is limited in geography and scope. Outright religious civil war, the likes of which we saw in the former Yugoslavia, has not begun in Iraq. Outright ethnic cleansing involving the displacement of millions of people, which we're seeing now in Sudan, has not yet occurred in Iraq.

I also wonder at the general's concern for "ethnic cleansing." It might just be a poorly phrased attempt at referring to Shi'a-Sunni violence, though they are technically of mostly the same ethnicity. But it might also refer to the real ethnic violence to be feared: what will happen to the Kurds when we abandon them.

This portion of the general's thought thus represents a simple answer to the question: "What happens if we pull out?" That answer is: "Things get much worse."

So Batiste then describes what should be done to minimize that result. He lists those things that he believes can make our withdrawal less destructive. Without responding to his points at all, not even to give them the slightest analysis, you declare that they are "fantasy."

Apparently, you are content not just to have US forces withdraw, but to have that withdrawal be as bloody and destructive as possible. I pray that you are not "likely to see [your] wishes fulfilled." Batiste should be congratulated for continuing his attempts to lessen violence and improve the lives of Iraqis, even in the face of his countrymen who refuse to even consider such radical ideas.

Batiste goes even further. Suggesting that in the period before Iraq's own military can take control, we will need to increase troop levels is almost axiomatic. IF [troops are needed to hold down violence] AND [Iraq cannot provide those troops] THEN [someone else will have to unless we want violence to increase.] Presumably you do not disagree about the premises, and yet you declare that Batiste is "delusional."

Where's the reasoned debate? Where is the THOUGHTFULNESS that Edger has held up as the standard by which we on TalkLeft should conduct ourselves? It is not to be found in your post, nor in your reply to jarober.


What balsderdash (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:00:20 AM EST

Okinawa has NOTHING to do with this. you think it does. The reason I CHOSE not to is because it was ridiculous beyond belief.

As for the Generals, my response was simple and to the point - don't tell me to stay based on pipe dreams and fanstasies.

You acr asa if the Generals are saying something new.

For exampel -- "First, Zinni describes the sectarian violence in Iraq and responds to a simple question: "Will things be made worse or better by withdrawing?" His answer is that things in Iraq will get worse and in fact be more likely to end in civil war should the US withdraw."

I got news for you and Zinni, we already have a civil war. Our troops are doing no good. Things can not be worse. Adding 10,000 will change nothing.

What do you expect the next six months to bring that the last six months did not? If you think what you and Zinni are saying is susbstance, you are sadly mistaken.

Tell me we have to put in 250,000 more troops and I will take you seriously. Neither you nor Zinni is being serious about this.

You quote Batiste as saying

So Batiste then describes what should be done to minimize that result. He lists those things that he believes can make our withdrawal less destructive. Without responding to his points at all, not even to give them the slightest analysis, you declare that they are "fantasy."
Apparently, you are content not just to have US forces withdraw, but to have that withdrawal be as bloody and destructive as possible. I pray that you are not "likely to see [your] wishes fulfilled." Batiste should be congratulated for continuing his attempts to lessen violence and improve the lives of Iraqis, even in the face of his countrymen who refuse to even consider such radical ideas.

You lie about me and what I want. I telly ou the truth about what Batiste wrote - it is a fantasy wish list. Let's deal in realities, not play silly delusion games.

My critique of B atistse is not the proposal per se, it is the fact that it is based on delusional expectations of what might happen - thousand of coalition troops? Fanstasy. Arbab troops? Fanatsy. More money for Iraq reocnstruction? Fantasy. Heck, might as well call for a draft and tax increases.

Now, can we discuss the REALITIES of what we might do, no fantasy pony wishes?

Batiste goes even further. Suggesting that in the period before Iraq's own military can take control, we will need to increase troop levels is almost axiomatic. IF [troops are needed to hold down violence] AND [Iraq cannot provide those troops] THEN [someone else will have to unless we want violence to increase.] Presumably you do not disagree about the premises, and yet you declare that Batiste is "delusional."


Re: thoughtfulness (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:25:50 AM EST

Your attempt here to use my suggestion for thoughtfulness tries to give a false impression to readers that you and I are on the same page, which could not be farther from reality, and is just about the most disingenuous form of baiting/trolling I've seen in a long time, if ever, and in no way reflects my intention. It is not thoughfulness by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't delude yourself. It defines you, not well, and fools no one else.


It is obvious that some of the... (3.00 / 2) (#26)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:58:32 AM EST

...people posting her have dank the kool-ade, and there will never be any convincing them of the absolute hell on earth we have created in Iraq.

The idea of a domcratic, free Iraq allied with the US is not only a pipe dream, but dangerous to America. We have been proven to be a paper tiger, unable to stabilize Iraq with what was formerly the most powerful military in the world.

Those forces are now broken, and by displaying to the world our inability to handle even a third-world rag-tag bunce of freedom fighters in Iraq will only embolden our enemies and subject us to further terrorists attacks against Americans and American interests.

As in Vietnam, WE HAVE LOST, THE WORLD KNOWS IT, THE MILITARY KNOWS IT, HELL, EVEN TONY BLAIR KNOWS IT, butm you will never convince the stay the course types, Edger, for they either do not understand or appreciate the jeopardy to which bush and his sycophantic congress and generals have exposed our country.

To paraphrase John Kerry, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in [Iraq]. How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"


: Maybe they DRANK the kool-ade, too. (none / 0) (#27)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:59:25 AM EST

Decon (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:50:03 AM EST

You take that comment seriously?

What a self indictment.

Peaches?


Big Tent (none / 0) (#28)
by Peaches on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:00:19 PM EST

What is it you are trying to accomplish? I'd really like to know.

Why are you addressing me? because I criticized you? Please, Big Tent. Take Jim's advice. As one of the four posters of threads on TL you are dragging the other three down.

You really do sound like a child.


Cuz I ike to tease you (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:06:14 PM EST

That's why.

Because you deserve to be teased after your applause for Decon's attacks that's why.

A little reminder for when you decided to lecture and hector.


This is not grade school (none / 0) (#36)
by Peaches on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:19:00 PM EST

You can tease but it only further demonstrates your immaturity, your belligerence, and arrogance. In my opinion you are a bully, a disgrace to TL and a joke . I agree with DEcon that if the Democratic party is run by people like you We are all in trouble.

Decon is not the only one who has criticized you, either. There have been many here who have been around a lot longer than you who have spoken up about your bullying tactics and how they reflect badly on this site. Many of these individuals have been valued contributers to TL and have learned to be respectful to their opponents, even when they disagree vehemently. You have a long way to go before you learn this essential art. In the meantime you remain stuck in adolescence, going around bullying and teasing.

Edger compared you to CHarlie. Charlie had wit. If you at least had some wit, instead of just sticking your tongue out, but your a dimwit.


: PRecisely (none / 0) (#74)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:35:07 AM EST

You are not the principal.

I concur (none / 0) (#72)
by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:12:20 AM EST

And am growing weary of the antics and lack of substance with BTD. I would just skip over his posts but there are too many and I am losing interest in the debates here, because I feel like they are Us against a Crappy Moderator.

PPJ and I fight frequently, and Peaches is one of the brightest minds on this site, not that this site is rife with intellectual beacons but his analysis is always well thought out and written.

BTD - You are the Rush Limbaugh of the left without the money, the show or the following.....


Well (none / 0) (#73)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:31:49 AM EST

PErsonally, on Iraq, i would feel no loss.

You really have added no substance - your argument is "we can't leave! Bad things will happen!" As if that is a real discussion.

It is not.

At this point, you and Decon and peaches really have a simple option - do not post in my diaries.

I really do recommend it if it pains the three of you so.

I promise I won't post in other diaries.


Big Tent (none / 0) (#75)
by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 10:50:14 AM EST

THis is public domain,

I have already made the offer to ignore you. YYou think it is appropriate to call me out despite my never commenting on the thread for the sake of teasing and remining that BTD is the big Dog here at TL and he shall not be lectured. THat is pathetic.

I have not made a comment on this thread about Iraq. Anyone who pays any attention and has been around knows my posiion on this and every war. I have always believed that the troops should come home. Not only in Iraq, but in every foreign base around the world. I'm anti-war to the extreme.

JLV, Sarc, Decon, and PPJ, to name a few of the people who are tired of your antics, have a wide variety of viewpoints that rarely ever all converge in agreement. The fact that we all think your a bully, offer limited substance to discussions, and should not be represented on the front page of a website such as TL, should give pause for Jeralyn to think about.

I hope she does.


Peaches (none / 0) (#76)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:42:27 AM EST

You and sarc and Decon and whoever are welcome to do and say as you please.

I will call out lies and hypocrisy always.

Your hypocritical sanctimony is not going to stop that. Indeed, I will continuing to poijtn out your hypocrisy on the civility issue.

To hold up Jim, Sarc and Decon as paragons proves the hypocrite that you are.

Your own behaviotr towards Aw shows that you can't even practice what you preach. Try this little charade on someone else.

I have seen what you are.


: Sticking your tongue out again! (none / 0) (#78)
by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 11:58:42 AM EST

Please, Who am I?
Pathetic

Peaches (none / 0) (#84)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:05:54 PM EST

I'm kinda at a loss.

I checked out this BLD thread, against my better instincts, because I saw comments from people who's conclusions I rarely agree with, but who's analysis is substantive (you, Jlv, Edger, Dadler, SD, Decon, among others) but I found it has devolved, once again, like so many other threads that BLD is a part of.

Is it plausible that everyone is out of step but him?

imo, it is clear BLD does not fit in on TL as a content provider.

Protestations to the contrary, he rarely provides anything relating to "the politics of crime"...except under the broad umbrella of "anything the current administration does is a crime."

And I wonder if his preferred personal style is being heavily constrained here.

He is so prolific I'm surprised he hasn't set up his own blog by now.


As you know, (none / 0) (#85)
by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:32:46 PM EST

I'm liberal and anti-war and all that. Its been difficult, because I'm usually admiring of liberals who take tough stances and don't back down. I have often thought it is necessary to have them to counteract the FOX news, Limbaughs, etc. So, at first I was reluctant to jump in and tell him he's out of line. You know, sometimes you get tired of going over the same thing with an opponent like Jim, BB or Slado, so you just shut up and think, "well, if anyone desrves it. its..."

But, then he starts going after very moderate positions and reasonable ones. He doesn't want to answer reasonable arguments. And, BTD is lacking in something. I think it is wit. He really does make liberals look bad. He's just all about shout and not a lot of smarts. I realize I am insulting him on a public board and I don't feel all that great about it, but I tried to give him some gentle prodding to tone it down and he went off in a case of "blog-rage." He seems beyond help.

It was as if no one had a right to challenge or criticize BTD. He demands fairness without realizing the high profile he inherently has as a front page presence on TL. He is very odd, to say the least. But, i've met many like them before. It is not necesarily a left vs. right thing. Or a liberal vs. conservative. I think it is more philosophical. He sees things in black and white and us vs. them mentality. "There is only one right answer, moron and either you see that or you must be my enemy."

I agree that he probably should have his own blog. I think the problem is that he won't nearly have as many readers on his own and few would follow him and stick with him if he had to stand on his own feet. It won't ever be as good as he has it here and he knows it. This is his stage and his moment and he'll milk it for all its worth.

But, I am holding out hope that he has some ability to learn. We'll see.


Peaches (none / 0) (#92)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:29:49 PM EST

It is not necesarily a left vs. right thing. Or a liberal vs. conservative. I think it is more philosophical. He sees things in black and white and us vs. them mentality. "There is only one right answer, moron and either you see that or you must be my enemy."

Hmmm. Sounds a lot like "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." Wonder who said that and where it got us?

The classic statement of someone defining the world from the position of a victim.

"The world is a simple. You either my savior, ie., you agree with me, or you are my oppressor."

"You're either with me or you're agin me."

A veeeery powerful position and one that has resulted in a lot of good, and a lot of not so good...

BLD may not get the traffic at first on his own blog compared to what he gets here, but I bet it would build over time, as did TL's.


btw (none / 0) (#93)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:37:39 PM EST

In case it wasn't clear, BLD's using the victim card, not you....


: Yeah, I got it (none / 0) (#96)
by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:45:25 PM EST

You wer clear.
Got to go home Sarc. See you tomorrow.

You aint seen nothing yet. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:37:02 AM EST

So we have another Big Tent personal attack by calling the comment "silly."

Way to go, Big Tent. But since you can't, or else don't want to, I'll take a shot at answering.

If we just up an leave now Iran will fill the vacuum and you can expect several things.

There will be a brief but violent civil war in Iraq in which the Shia extract terrible revenge on the Sunni.

The Kurds will be trapped between Turkey and the Iranian controlled Iraq. Hundreds of thousands will be killed.

Iran will lay claim to as the controller of the ME, and will dictate to all the small states plus Lebannon, Syria, SA, Iraq and, eventually, Egypt. They will control Europe through oil and will take prices past $150 a barrel.

They will ignore world opinion and will develop a nuke and bomb Israel.

To prevent that the US will be forced to enter, and probably attack Iran with small nukes and other tactical weapons designed to destroy infrastructure. Millions will die.

This will not set well with the large Moslem populations in the US, Europe, SE Asia and England, leading to some very difficult situations. You worry about civil rights? You aint seen nothing yet.

Now, BTD. You won, and you want to run. When the blood flows, don't whine.


If I make a silly comment (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:04:04 PM EST

I hope I am not offended if someone says so.

Attacks? Look, I attack you when you post lies.

THOSE are attacks.


: xx (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:27:12 PM EST

What you refer to was my comment re Murtha.
I totally and completely, along with others, proved you wrong.
You just want to try and bully.
Won't work BT. Why not stick to proving things?
That's what leaders do.

Nostradamus lives! Who's gonna win... (none / 0) (#34)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:08:20 PM EST

the Superbowl? The World Series? Wimbleton? The World Soccer Cup?

The only problem with prognosticating is that it is mostly BS.

NO ONE can say for sure what will happen when we leave Iraq, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET.

All these and other assertions were made regarding Vietnam. Now Vietnam trades with us and much of the world, they didn't go up in smoke, they didn't degenerate into the broken state that both Afghanistan and Iraq have and are.

(And I even remembered to check the spelling on this post!)


xx (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:47:02 PM EST

Bill, Vietnam didn't have the religious hatred that Iraq has and yet even it killed hundreds of thousands in re-education camps, etc.


: And just HOW, Jim, would it have... (none / 0) (#64)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:12:16 PM EST

...helped to continue fighting a war we could not win and sacrifice ANOTHER 54,000 troops before we suffered the inevitable COMBAT DEFEAT that surely would have caused many, many more American fatalities?
Vietnam was only one of the chemical wars we fought, with horrible birth defects, disfigurements, cancers, and untold suffering and illness from Agent Orange.
Iraq is another. WP, depleted uranium in ammo and bombs and god knows what else.
I, in good conscience, believe we are engaged in another war we cannot win, and one with the potential to be much, much worse than Vietnam.
And I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

We'll take the blame PPJ (none / 0) (#79)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:02:15 PM EST

If what you say happens happens.* Even though some of it is happening already, and your side set it in motion. We'll still take the blame if it means getting our people the hell outta the Debacle that has your fingerprints all over it.

*And like you give a crap if millions of brown skin people die. Judging from your previous posts you will be looking forward to that with glee.


Missing my point (2.00 / 1) (#19)
by jarober on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:34:13 AM EST

"Okinawa has nothing to do with this"

Actually, it does. In 1945, after the taking of Iwo Jima (bloody) and then Okinawa (an unparalleled bloodbath), large parts of the US military command started to question the feasibility of invading Japan. The stated goal was unconditional surrender, sure - but the military looked at Okinawa, saw what happened there, and started to balk.

My point was that TL, had it been around in 1945, would have been questioning the Pacific campaign no later than the Iwo Jima landings, and would have been demanding that we negotiate a settlement after the bloodbath of Okinawa.

As one of the commenters upstream mentioned, TL apparently thinks things cannot get worse. That's a failure of imagination, and I would only caveat the comment in question in terms of the comparsion. The model for what things would look like isn't Yugoslavia before the US went in - it would be central Europe (Germany in particular) in the 1618-1648 era - the 30 years war. We in the West forget how bloody sectarian violence can be - TL seems to think that the Irish troubles were the worst thing possible that way. We forget that in the runup to the 30 years war, the Pope declared the lives of the entire population of Holland forfeit for apostasy. We forget the rampaging Protestant and Catholic armies of that era.

The West lost that religious fervor, which is a good thing. The Islamic world has not, and the hatred between Shia and Sunni is as bad or worse than 16th and 17th century hatred in the West was. If we leave precipitously, there will be a Shia/Sunni battle, within Iraq and almost certainly spreading beyond its borders. It will be like the 30 years war, but with modern weapons - quite possibly including chemical and nuclear.

Things can get far, far worse than they are now. If TL gets its wish, things will get a lot worse.

Re: things will get a lot worse (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:46:04 AM EST

If Iraq, which was no threat and did not have the capacity to be a threat, had not been invaded, things would not be as bad as they are now there.

Yes, things will get a lot worse.

And considering how brutal and psychotic Saddam's regime was, exactly what does that say about bush and you chicken hawks?

Mirrors are awful things. It's no wonder you guys avoid them.


: More outrage (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:38:28 PM EST

BTW.... TL is not an it.

Aw, c'mon, WWII has nothing in common... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:31:59 PM EST

...with Iraq, no matter how many times bush repeats the mantra.

Forgive me if I'm a little off but in WWII:

We stood up 16,000,000 troops to fight on the two fronts.
A new Liberty ship was finished and launched every three days.
20,000 jeeps and heavy trucks were built every month.
Thousands of planes were manufactured replete with ordinance.
People walked everywhere because of fuel rationing.
Women carried the burden of the bulk of manufacturing as males of age enlisted in droves.

NONE of these things are happening now, and we no longer possess the steel mills and steel workers, textile workers, and manufacturing capability of America in WWII, so it sickens me to hear bush start trying to elevate Iraq to the same status of WWII.

There simply is no comparison and it is foolish to even try to conflate the two.

Also, American nationalism in defending our country in a genuine war was unsurpassed, making comparison of what people say or think about Iraq NOW with of what people did do THEN is comparing apples and aardvarks.


Even you. (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:23:12 PM EST

Bill, look. Even you have to understand the difference between WWII and the WOT. But just for kicks let's just note a few:

WWII
War against other nation states.
Enemy troops well defined.
Secular goals and ambitions.

WOT
War against terrorist groups, loosely organized.
Supported by various nation states and organizations.
Enemy troops not defined.
Religious goals and ambitions.

Now, the question becomes, should we responding in the same manner? Of course not. What would we use with all those ships and planes??

Wait, I know. Let''s bomb Iran!


: I am surprised to find you in... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:52:22 PM EST

...complete agreement with me, PPJ, with your list of differences.

Now, the question becomes, should we responding in the same manner? Of course not. What would we use with all those ships and planes??
My point exactly - no matter how many times bush or anyone else says it, this phony WOT is not WWII, will never rise to the level of conflict of WWII, and for people to exaggerate and say that this is the most grave peril we have ever faced as a nation is utter BS.
There are no barbarian hordes, or terrorists, at the gates; there is no array of state actors against which we can or should act; there are no armies and air forces wreaking destruction on America; there is no capability for any terrorist groups to invade America and have us fighting them on every corner of every street in every town as the rethugs try to make the public believe, there are no hugh terrorist corporate entities capable of taking over oil fields, much less operating them; so I appreciate that you see that and agree with me that comparisons between the WOT and WWII are ludicrous and just plain silly.
As an aside, my apologies for the post calling you a liar when you clearly, as former President Reagan used to say, "misspoke" the other day about dems cutting and running for the last six years. It was an intemperate remark I should have caught before posting it. (And there are MANY comments I have written, thought better of afterwards, and then made them vanish into the ether. That post was one of them and, again, I apologize for any insult given or perceived.)

Oh for crissakes (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:02:15 PM EST

This Okinawa thing is just as silly. It really does not merit a response.

As for whether things can get worse, I am sure they can. The point is our troops are not making things better.

That is the point here. And the unreality of the propsoals of Batiste.


And that is my point. (none / 0) (#23)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:41:56 AM EST

If TL gets its wish, things will get a lot worse.

Active and retired military officers should not be dismissed out of hand as "delusional" for suggesting ideas that will lessen the likelihood of violence on the scale that was seen in Yugoslavia, Darfur, and--per jarober-- the Thirty Years war.

BTD, you got what you wanted, we're withdrawing. Is it so much to ask that we withdraw in a manner designed to reduce the amount of death and destruction? Can we even give the idea some consideration?


: They ar enot advocating for withdrawal (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:02:58 PM EST

but rather escalation. Deal with the facts please.

Failure of imagination (2.00 / 1) (#45)
by jarober on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:03:37 PM EST

Edger says:

"Iraq is already a 'failed', or more accurately, a 'destroyed' state'. The country is in civil war and rapidly descending into a chaotic hell created by Bush's invasion that sadly probably nothing that can stop now, short of setting up the same kind of heavy handed brutal police state that Saddam ran."

You might look at historical examples of full civil wars for examples of what casualty rates look like. Hint: Lots higher than what we see now. And no, the Lancet numbers are BS, so don't even bother.

Then:

"Would a Democratic administration have unilaterally without the support of the UN and its member nations launched an illegal aggression against a county that had not and could not attack America?"

Can you say "Yugoslavia"? I guess that's not in Edger's vocabulary. Maybe he could try "Vietnam" on for size, too. Or any of a number of miltary adventures in South America (by both parties) over the last 150 years.

Then this:

"I think it is probable that Iraq will splinter. Perhaps the Kurds will form a small country of their own, which likely won't last long, and the rest of Iraq will become one of the world's and Bush's worst nightmares."

Not just Bush's worst nightmare; it's one we would all have to deal with. The Sunni powers in that region will not stand for a nuclear armed, hegemonic Shia Iran. If we leave, as Edger wants, things will get far, far worse. Literally millions will die, probably dwarfing the Cambodian death toll under the Khmer Rouge.

We don't get to jump back to 2002 and call "do over". We are where we are, and we have to accept the simple reality that leaving precipitously will generate a far worse result than what we see now - see my earlier comment for how bad I think it'll get.

Can you give the basis of your... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:27:16 PM EST

expertise in determining:

And no, the Lancet numbers are BS, so don't even bother.

Their figures were arrived at by actually going out into the countryside, interviewing a sample of over 18,000 people, and the data was then compiled and peer reviewed by one of the most respected medical journals in the world, and I for one, would like to know where you obtained the training and experience in statistical analysis that qualifies YOU to be more authoritative on this issue than the well-trained experts who spent a very long time compiling, analyzing, and using their years and years of combined experience and training of experts in statistical analysis to arrive at their figures.

It serves you ill to be so dismissive of what was the most in-depth study of casualty figures ever conducted in a war zone.

So why don't you regale us with the story of just why you are so well-educated, experienced, and how you are making your decision based upon the scientific analysis of the data that you not only reviewed, but subjected to a new analysis, the results of that analysis, and why, when peers of the Lancet crew say this is is most comprehensive study EVER in a war zone, THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND THE STUDY IS BS.


Failure of thought (none / 0) (#47)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:17:32 PM EST

If we leave, or if we stay, things will get far, far worse. Literally millions will die

leaving precipitously will generate a far worse result than what we see now

I'd like one of those self-justifying crystal balls too. Where'd you buy it?

On second thought, I'll take reality and deal with it, thanks. Never been big on denial, you know.


So, Edger... (none / 0) (#50)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:30:08 PM EST

If we leave, or if we stay, things will get far, far worse. Literally millions will die
leaving precipitously will generate a far worse result than what we see now

Edger

Several here have laid out their rather doomsday predictions of what would happen if we just up and left, and you apparently think their predictions are wrong, so, what do you foresee happening if we left?

Or is your position, "I don't know, but not that (doomsday, etc.)?"


Sarc... (none / 0) (#52)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:46:40 PM EST

what do you foresee happening if we left?

Really... I see just what I said here, Sarc. I think it's been a slow and steady progressions towards it since the invasion, and I think the presence of US troops may have slowed it somewhat, but I think that presence is also, unfortunately, the cause of that progression. As brutal as Saddam was, he had achieved some sort of calm and control between the factions there. By no means do I advocate his kind of regime, but I think the reality is that the Iraqi people suffer even more now than then.

Now Iraq's been handed to Iran on a silver platter.

I think Squeaky laid it out rather graphically and clearly as well.

It's broken. The Iraqi's will fix it if they can. The US can't, and I have my doubts that the Iraqi's can.

Sad. But more of the same that brought it to this point won't help it. Neither will abdicating responsibility and trying to shift blame as some commenters here do.


Now Iraq's been handed to Iran on a silver platter (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:15:16 PM EST

Which, I suspect, may have been the objective all along.

We may soon start seeing this situation being used as justification in a drawn out and all out Neocon propaganda campaign to convince people that since Iran wants to overrun Iraq and become the controlling power in the Middle East that an attack on Iran is now necessary.

Operation Comeback, or how the neocons plan to save themselves:

Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.

Fair enough Edger (none / 0) (#56)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:09:07 PM EST

Somehow I missed that comment.

btw, I agree with your assessment that Saddam-like force may well have been exactly what was necessary to keep the "peace" inside the borders of Iraq.

Personally, I doubt the different factions can/could live among each other in any semblance of peace w/o Saddam-like force.

So I think the only solution is that they each get their own territories and/or nations - iow, redefining Iraq the country.

A suggestion not without its own multitude of almost insurmountable problems of course...


It's ugly, and getting uglier (none / 0) (#58)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:23:09 PM EST

A suggestion not without its own multitude of almost insurmountable problems of course...

Yeah. Sigh.

There is no easy way out, and stay the friggin' course is not helping anything except egos.


: our young (none / 0) (#97)
by kdog on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 06:47:57 PM EST

Does the US have to be party to what happens in Iraq?
I say we give every man, woman, and child in Iraq ten grand and our sincerest apologies for 50 years of interference and do a complete pull out. Every troop, every tank, every base.
As ugly as it sounds, if the people of Iraq have to have a war and end up in 3 countries, so be it. We don't have to be party to so much death and destruction..in Iraq or anywhere else. It ain't right to send a kid from Brooklyn or Birmingham to play referee to "my religion/tribe is better than yours" killing.
Call me naive or idealistic or whatever if you will...

Math (none / 0) (#60)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:36:21 PM EST

OK. Ten billion is too little to repair the emotional and physical damage that we have delivered to Iraq. Population of, let's say, 20,000,000....if every Iraqi gets $1000. that equals 20 billion. Throw in another 20 billion for infrastructure, no US companies allowed, and I think that the Iraqis will have hope and feel that there is goodwill toward them from the US. That is as long as we apologize, admit defeat and our mistakes and, leave.

That kind of goodwill can be matched by other countries and philanthropists. It is true that you can not buy off a people that you have humiliated, tortured and oppressed, but $$$ can turn things around.


: But you're right. (none / 0) (#62)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:55:26 PM EST

And probably the only thing thats going to help let Iraqis ... hope and feel that there is goodwill toward them from the US in the long run is a change of course and at least start moving in the direction you suggest.

suggestions? (none / 0) (#55)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:57:42 PM EST

Dadler also described the current situation well here, Sarc.

We've been hearing the same old same old ever since "mission accomplished". A little more time, a lot more money, a lot more dead American soldiers and grieving families, two nations torn in half. A bill of a trillion dollars a year. Completely blown reputation around the world. Possible world war looming.

Any other suggestions? Other than more of the same old same old?


A simple question... (none / 0) (#80)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:06:12 PM EST

How is our being there making things any better?

We could barely protect the Green Zone.

All we are doing is offering more targets for the warring factions.


I'm confused (none / 0) (#3)
by soccerdad on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:42:46 AM EST

Since the US help set up the Death Squads, i.e. the Salvadoran Option, how is us leaving make a difference. The US has actually promoted the civil war. But in fact we are not leaving as long as the War party is in office. For those with no sense of history many neocons were Dems and are now looking for a home.

: there is THAT of course (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:55:54 AM EST

: many neocons... (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:05:22 AM EST

...were Dems...and gravitate to the party in power and try to corrupt it.
They're not going to roll over and give up, either.

Plans of mice, not men (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:19:07 AM EST

There WAS NO PLAN for Phase IV, at all:

Top Marine: No Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq, Nov. 13/06

There is no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff who has visited Iraq more often than Gen. Mike Hagee, whose term as Commandant of the United States Marine Corps ends Monday.
...
As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during the lead-up to the war, Hagee was in charge of planning for the Marines' original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion -- why there was no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell from power.
Unfortunately, Hagee's comments only deepen the mystery. He says he was deeply concerned about who would take charge of major Iraqi cities, like Najaf, as the Marines pushed through them on their way to Baghdad.
Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities. He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV -- military terminology for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations. Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after "mission accomplished." Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command, as they say in the military -- and never heard back.

So? (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:42:07 AM EST

So, what does this have to do with what needs to be done now??

Strawman, strawman edger is back
With comments a plenty, but the wrong subject
he attacks...


: Because now it's MORE bleak, not less. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Dadler on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:35:39 PM EST

And the General's logic must be questioned. It is likely there is NO military solution on our part, that we are only part of the problem. You cannot run violently roughshod and strategically bereft over a nation for three+ years and expect ANY amount of honorable feeling or pleasant resolution. When you f*ck up and people die, and societies are tossed into murderous chaos, you can't bring them back, you can't make it right, you can't heal the wound. Some damage cannot be undone. Ever. Not for all the hope and effort and money and military might in the world. Life is hard, there are no answers for some problems, and no amount of wounded American pride violently misplaced and perpetuated can change that.
We destroyed something that we cannot in any way militarily repair.
It's a hard thing to face, even in my liberal gut it strikes against a sense of national honor. But we f*cked up in a way that is irreparable. Iraqis must be allowed to make their own mistakes, we have left them no other choice or option. We had our chance early on, if it existed at all, to roll over Sadaam as we did (fully expected) and then, it would seem obvious, send in the money and jobs and reconstruction for IRAQIS TO DO FOR THEMSELVES. Instead, look at the looting, the profiteering by the corporatizing of this war, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the utter lack of strategy or humanity. We were in the wrong game in the first place, and were ill equipped for that wrong game in the second.
No amount of extra flags is going to change a thing, except to inflame and delay the inevitable.

Enough......no more (none / 0) (#22)
by avahome on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:40:58 AM EST

I miss the 60's........ Where is the outrage? Let's do a read....what do the soldiers say is REALLY happening on the ground.....screw the generals. Grown men with stars on their shoulders letting Rummy/Bushco push them around.

This is a good book/review.....made me cry.

The Stories They Tell: Iraq War Vets Bear Witness
here

RE: Outrage? (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:07:44 PM EST

I miss the 60's........ Where is the outrage?

A good part of the outrage, and a major driving force behind it, was the music. The songwriters expressed it, the record companies made sure everyone heard it, and it MOVED people.

Now the music industry is controlled by the same corporate shills that have supported the insanity in the WH, and all the music that is marketed is pablum and soma to quiet the peasants.

The outrage is here, in the blogosphere. Maybe it needs to move to Pennsylvania Avenue, with torches and pitchforks.


: Outrage (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:10:08 PM EST

You dont know me but Im your brother
I was raised here in this living hell
You dont know my kind in your world
Fairly soon the time will tell
You, telling me the things youre gonna do for me
I aint blind and I dont like what I think I see
Takin it to the streets

Reality, and insanity (none / 0) (#37)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:23:43 PM EST

Iraq is already a 'failed', or more accurately, a 'destroyed' state'. The country is in civil war and rapidly descending into a chaotic hell created by Bush's invasion that sadly probably nothing that can stop now, short of setting up the same kind of heavy handed brutal police state that Saddam ran.

There was complicity by the democrats who supported the invasion. There is plenty of blame to go around. The republicans, rove, and bush will try to shift the focus of the blame to the democrats, but their efforts will never wash the stink off themselves.

It is too easy a tactic to rebut, with only one question.

Would a Democratic administration have unilaterally without the support of the UN and its member nations launched an illegal aggression against a county that had not and could not attack America?

The answer is "No".

But so what. It's too late for blame. The only reason they try to shift blame to the Democrats is a simple one: to avoid responsibility and accountability. It will not help the people of Iraq.

I think it is probable that Iraq will splinter. Perhaps the Kurds will form a small country of their own, which likely won't last long, and the rest of Iraq will become one of the world's and Bush's worst nightmares.

A client state of Iran. The definition of "failed state" depends on whose definition you use. I doubt Iran will consider it a failure.

The insane foreign policies of Cheney, Bush and the neocons and the power balance of the world will either be changed and be accepted or, and I think this is more likely, we will fall into a cataclysmic world war.

Thanks, Mr. Bush.

Time to pack up and pay the bill. (none / 0) (#40)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:41:41 PM EST

Our soldiers cannot tell the difference between the resistance and the population at large, what does that tell you. That is a big problem and it is not going to change. Since the middle class and intelligencia have fled Iraq there is no one to 'liberate'. Not that we were able to distinguish them from the insurgents either. By now our motives are transparently clear to all Iraqi's: occupation, oil, Iran and Israel, not to mention the ringing cash registers for the US military industrial complex. Liberation was a smokescreen as is any argument to stay the course.

Pay the Iraqi's 10 billion dollars (minimum) reparation, as a token gesture for the destruction and havoc we have wreaked on their country, wish them well, and leave immediately. No more blood needs to be on our hands. Enough already.

Oh, and the war crimes trials should begin at once.

Hi Squeaky! (none / 0) (#41)
by Peaches on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:46:39 PM EST

Nice to see you, again.


Re: pack up and pay the bill. (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:48:18 PM EST

I agree completely, Squeaky.

Nice to see you back, or still around, btw. :-)


: still here (none / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:07:04 PM EST

thanks y'all. I have been hovering but needed a break, not to mention life taking over. BTW the site looks great.

rational (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:15:34 PM EST

Our motives......that is a funny one.

Glad to see you back, squeaky. The comments were becoming staid and rational.


: staid and rational: PPJ version (none / 0) (#81)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:17:14 PM EST

Iran will lay claim to as the controller of the ME, and will dictate to all the small states plus Lebannon, Syria, SA, Iraq and, eventually, Egypt. They will control Europe through oil and will take prices past $150 a barrel.
They will ignore world opinion and will develop a nuke and bomb Israel.
To prevent that the US will be forced to enter, and probably attack Iran with small nukes and other tactical weapons designed to destroy infrastructure. Millions will die.
Yep, welcome back Squeaky...to the staid and rational world.

Re: been hovering (none / 0) (#44)
by Edger on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 02:13:35 PM EST

That's a good thing to know... :-)

Truth and Reconciliation (none / 0) (#63)
by squeaky on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:12:13 PM EST

Along with the money, goodwill and leaving, the Iraqi's can set up a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission" Truth and Reconciliation Commission modelled after the one in South Africa.

Sorry I can't seem to get the link looking right with the new system.

more wisdom from a (hypocritical) minority (none / 0) (#66)
by Sailor on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:23:35 PM EST

Bill, look. Even you have to understand the difference between WWII and the WOT.

Yet this poster also said:
All through WWII we had reporters with the troops.
and he contradicted himself with:
Sorry it offends you, but if the medium won't tell an honest story, then the medium must be ignored.
So he makes a WWII analogy espousing the media lying, and then accusses the media of lying.
Sorry, I digress, to continue the WWII analogies:
Your comment reminds me of all the Tokyo Rose scenes in the WWII war movies
and
As for the SC, I am hopeful that they, as the SC did during WWII

and this commenter uses VN analogies

He even thinks the civil war applies:
Jondee - Mills' time? Ever heard of Grant?

Context SD!!! (none / 0) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:08:00 AM EST

SD - Welcome back. Are you well?

Shall I decon you a little bit this lovely AM?

If you open the first link, you will discover that I concluded with:

This current attitude from the press will, and must end. It will be sad that our freedom of the press will be impacted by those who are of the press. Plainer. If you are an Amerian, take sides.

I stand 100% behind that comment. Now why did I say it?

All through WWII we had reporters with the troops. They did some great things. But there was never any doubt about whose side that they were on. Why? Because we didn't have people saying:
"We're not in this to choose sides, we're to report what's going on from all sides."

Now, you make a partial quote, so let's read the whole paragraph.

et al - As I noted, we can leave "the other side to al-jazeera." And yes, being at war means we do things such as this. Sorry it offends you, but if the medium won't tell an honest story, then the medium must be ignored.

So dishonest of you to leave out the reference to al-jazeera, eh SD? See your time out hasn't changed you.

You do it again in your next statement,

edger - ...edger - Your comment reminds me of all the Tokyo Rose scenes in the WWII war movies.. You know..."You boys can't win. We are winning. You boys can't win.

Now why did you leave out edger?
Afraid someone would understand that I was noting's edger's constant drum beat that we can't win?

And why did I say?

As for the SC, I am hopeful that they, as the SC did during WWII, as pointed out by TL, avoid a conflict between them and the executive. That could be truly hurtfu. John Horse - Then you are proposing that all acts of terrorism, any place in the world, should be treated as if they were in Peoria? Fantastic..

Because I don't think terrorist deserve the same rights committed outside the US as they do inside.
Sorry if you can't figure that out.

You remain SD. Thanks for showing us again that your intellect leans heavily towards game playing.


It's Sailor. not SD!!!! (none / 0) (#70)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:11:30 AM EST

Oh good heavens!!! It is not SD, it is Sailor!!!

Sorry guys, but I really can't tell you apart..

I'll blame the nested format... I really dislike it, oh well


Heh. (none / 0) (#71)
by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 07:30:43 AM EST

It's pretty hard to tell anybody apart staggering thru life with your eyes closed, I guess.

I'll blame the nested format... I really dislike it, oh well

Then open your eyes, go to the setting controls at the top of the page, and change the forkin' format, FFS.

God, what a child.


Not. (none / 0) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:48:43 PM EST

edger - Nothing like a BS personal attack on someone who apologized for a mistake.

;-)

What a sweetheart you are.

Oh well, I think we know what we think of each other.


Jim and Edger (none / 0) (#91)
by Peaches on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:59:25 PM EST

I don't like to laugh at anyone's expense and I have problems with the nested format, too.

But, I had a good laugh out of the Jim realizing he'd mistaken sailor for SD. "Good Heavens...", I let out a good chuckle. I didn't think him a child, but an old man struggling with technology as I seem to be doing more and more of these days.

You know sometimes it is those human moments that are revealed by an opponent that lends some charm, even for someone like Jim. ;)


: Thanks Peaches... (none / 0) (#95)
by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:44:41 PM EST

Touché, and thanks for the jab. Next time I do it the hollow spot behind my left ear works really well - just give it a short sharp rabbit punch.
Charmed, I'm sure.
I needed that. ;-)

Heh heh. (none / 0) (#94)
by Edger on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 05:37:49 PM EST

Sure, sure. Blame it on the computer.

I only picks on ya cuz I loves you, Jim. ;-)

You know that?


As far as I know I am the only... (none / 0) (#83)
by Bill Arnett on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:08:13 PM EST

...Bill posting here and you attribute these statements to me:

Yet this poster also said:
All through WWII we had reporters with the troops.
and he contradicted himself with:
Sorry it offends you, but if the medium won't tell an honest story, then the medium must be ignored.
So he makes a WWII analogy espousing the media lying, and then accusses [sic] the media of lying.
Sorry, I digress, to continue the WWII analogies:
Your comment reminds me of all the Tokyo Rose scenes in the WWII war movies
and
As for the SC, I am hopeful that they, as the SC did during WWII

I am going to assume that you erred in good faith, but this a mistake, BECAUSE I NEVER wrote, stated, thought, hinted at, intimated, or any other manner, known or unknown to man, ever made any statements, arguments, comments either spoken, subliminally, or telepathically communicated any statements to anybody that that bears the faintest resemblance to these remarks.

Feel free to criticize me, I'm a big boy and can take it, but when stuff is made up from whole-cloth and pure fiction I am at a loss as to how I might learn anything from what you say, and I do try to learn from criticism, when the entire thing is fictional fantasy.

Is their another Bill here I might have missed?


Mistaker (none / 0) (#86)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:45:02 PM EST

Bill, I really shouldn't do this because Sailor and SD deserve everything they get... ;-)

But if you go back and read, Sailor was quoting my comment to you... in his comment to me...

He then went into a spasm of taking stuff out of context, but fortunately he survived...

So send him hugs. You be the mistaker, and he be the mistakeeeee.

On long threads the nested format does lead to problems...


Sorry for the confusion ... (none / 0) (#88)
by Sailor on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:48:27 PM EST

Sorry Bill, I wasn't clear enough in my antecedants. I was quoting ppj replying to you, he was the 'this poster' intended.


: ROTFLMAO! But thanks for clearing... (none / 0) (#99)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 04:48:21 PM EST

?that up! I, too, sometimes find the new format confusing.
No harm done or offense taken! LOL!

This is actually all very simple (none / 0) (#67)
by soccerdad on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:30:32 PM EST

The US is not leaving ( as Bush said Can't let the terrorist have the oil)
The Dems wont change #1; Murtha wants to take on Iran, the fact that some think he is not a hawk shows how much wishful thinking is going on.
The admin doesn't care how many Iraqis are killed, the more the better.
The US has promoted the civil war and will continue to do so.
Think Lebanon and Gaza strip if you want to know where this is all headed.
The admin doesn't care what happens to US troops other than there be enough bodies to kill Iraqis. BTW there is always the air force.
This is the American way, its the way its always been the way it will always be.

Want to end the war, institute a draft, it will be over in a month. The only ones willing to do anything about the war are the ones whos butts will be in harms way.

There are a lotta rethug staffers outa work (none / 0) (#68)
by Sailor on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:24:17 PM EST

so why aren't these true believers joining the military?
After all, republican congressmen tell usDC is more dangerous than Bahgdad.

The staffers... (none / 0) (#82)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 12:31:17 PM EST

The outta work beltway boys are waiting for the 82nd Chairborne Division to step to the front lines. Patriotism has its limits. To quote one of the robber barons of the Civil War era:

"a man may be a patriot without risking his own life or sacrificing his health. There are plenty of lives less valuable."


pot and kettle?? (none / 0) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:46:41 PM EST

Hey Ernesto, you've never told us about your service experiences... You did serve, didn't you??

I mean if you didn't, well pot and kettle and all that.


: What? (none / 0) (#98)
by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 08:13:29 PM EST

You did serve, didn't you??

I mean if you didn't, well pot and kettle and all that.
If Ernesto is not the one advocating war, why should he be subject to the same sacrifice as those who do?
Shouldn't the people who are most in favor of the war show their support by serving, and take the place of someone who does not care to spend years away from home and family, sacrifice any business interests, and kill people he has nothing against?

Cut and run brigade (none / 0) (#90)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 04:55:41 PM EST

You write:

We are in a pickle, a real catch 22. If we leave all hell breaks lose. If we don't we are caught in the middle and ever more of our troops will die or suffer permanent and debiliating injuries. It's just not worth it.

Oh really?

I guess you are a member of the cut and run brigade. I'm not.

[...]Consider these data: Between November 2004 and February 2005, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, the number of coalition soldiers in Iraq rose by 18,000. In that time, the number of Iraqi civilians killed fell by two-thirds, and the number of American troops wounded fell by three-fourths. The soldiers were soon pulled out; by the summer of 2005, American and Iraqi casualties rose again. Later that year, the same thing happened again. Between September and November of 2005, another 23,000 soldiers were deployed in Iraq; once again, both Iraqi and American casualties fell. In the early months of 2006, the number of soldiers fell again, and casualties spiraled up.
The picture is clear: More soldiers mean less violence, hence fewer casualties. The larger the manpower investment in the war, the smaller the war's cost, to Iraqis and Americans alike. Iraq is not an unwinnable war: Rather, as the data just cited show, it is a war we have chosen not to win