So we all know now that Harry Reid said the war is lost right? If you didn’t (GET OFF MY FUCKING PLANET) or read this and then join this disucssion
then he said this seconds later…
” My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically.”
But hey, more of that liberal media bias at work, I’m sure you heard that. So as the blurb made the rounds and the War mongers clawed onto that remark I used the magic tubes to see who else thinks the war is lost, besides like 60% of the country it was hard to find credible people to back Harry up.
“I don’t think that you can kill the insurgency,” said W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, the top expert on Iraq there. “If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power, it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation,” Terrill explained. “Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.”
Retired Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: “Bush hasn’t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it’s worse — he’s lost on that front. That he’s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It’s lost.” He added: “Right now, the course we’re on, we’re achieving [Osama] bin Laden’s ends.”
Retired Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former Marine commandant and head of the U.S. Central Command, told me: “The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We’re conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It’s so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong.”
“I see no ray of light on the horizon at all,” said Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College. “The worst case has become true. There’s no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after World War II in Germany and Japan.”
oh, did I mention this article was written September 2004? But hey, what do these guys know? 3 years since then, we proved those FUCKING TRAITORS WRONG!
DelawareLiberal.Net 
May 2, 2007 at 9:46 am
The war is not lost.
Not as long as I have breath, and can sit here in this corner, rocking slowly back and forth repeating “Freedom is on the march. Freedom is on the march, freedom is on the march….” quietly to myself. As long as I can do that – we are winning!
May 2, 2007 at 10:42 am
We are winning hearts and minds.
May 2, 2007 at 10:47 am
anon,
you are right, what was I thinking. A picture of 12 men next to some IED’s proves it all. Gosh, only 200,000 more insurgents to go.
do some more research on 3rd world countries that are occupied against their will please, and get back to me
May 2, 2007 at 10:50 am
Anon is one our side (I think).
May 2, 2007 at 10:50 am
DV… please take your sarcasm detector in for calibration.
May 2, 2007 at 10:54 am
dang, you anons are hard to keep track of you know. I can’t tell which is Jason ALL the time 🙂
May 2, 2007 at 11:04 am
zing!
May 2, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Let’s say for the sake of argument that you are correct. The war is lost. Now what?
What is our next step? Bring the troops home? Great. Then what? Are we done with terrorists? Are we then magically safe?
What do you recommend we do to protect ourselves? Or is that even necessary?
Everyone wants to make the easy choice to stop the war but I have not heard one liberal politician with any reasonable ideas of what to do next.
So lets hear what you all have got?
May 2, 2007 at 12:33 pm
chris,
first off thanks for commenting.
May 2, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Now I answer you.
Now what? Well we leave and go back to Afghanistan for one. We get that place back under control. I for one am in agreement also that we listen to Joe Biden’s plan. If you listen to several other scholars his is the best chance for success. YOu might need to do a little reading on the subject but I can tell you one thing, that area has been fighting with each other for 5000 years and the only thing that is going to work is seperating them. How do you do that? Back to Joe’s plan, start there.
Are we done with the terrorists? No, of course not, we will never be, but we can work towards an international goal instead of getting bogged down in Iraq. We have done nothing in our homeland for the past 6 years, we need to start there. We have wasted countless resources over in Iraq and our country is in bad shape. So we have to start HERE at home, not where the OIL is.
Yes it is a given we protect ourselves. We work with other nations, we use DIPLOMATIC tactics, not PREEMPTIVE ones. We don’t get to bomb the living shit out of the whole world you know, at some point we have to work with Syria, Iran, Turkey, and the other areas in the region.
it is not an EASY choice to stop the war, but 5 years into it, where do we go? Half a trillion dollars later what have we “accomplished” Imagine if we spent that money on a border fence? Imagine if we spent that money on Nuke detection in our ports. Imagine if we had better airport security? We don’t and we need to get better.
As far not hearing one liberal Politician, you have heard from them. Feingold, Kucinich, Pelosi, they have plans. They want timetables too you know, they just want the Iraqi’s to have to meet them. None of this “when Iraq stands up, we will stand down” bs.
Which is what that is.
so in the end it is not an easy choice to leave, but we are refereeing a civil war, where two different, correction 3 different religious sects are killing each other because of tribal differences 1500 years ago. One guy believes in 7 pillars of the Faith, the other believes something to do with Muhammed.
Who the hell are we to solve that problem? It was a mistake to go to baghdad, the 3rd holiest city to Muslims. Did you read the Professor from the war college? He said we are viewed as occupiers? How do we combat that?
We have to leave, we have no choice. Unfortunately, they are going to have kill themselves for a while before anything is done.
Are you aware that the Persian Shia’s (Iranian) fought the Iraqi Shia’s years ago? They killed each other to the tune of 1.3 million people. So tell me, what good are we doing there?
It is a horrible thing we are in, we started and can’t finish. It is a tough choice to leave, but war is hell and you don’t get to put the slipper on Cinderella all the time.
No matter how bad we want a storybook ending to this war, it ain’t going to happen and we have to realize that.
May 2, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Thank you! Finally what I have been looking for these last couples days. An honest, thoughtful response with salient points and not just wholesale dismissal of an opposite point of view.
You actually make some points we can both agree with. Not enough has been done domestically to protect us. This is the major bone of contention that conservatives have with the President. He has seemed to have an unwillingness to go through with some of the needed changes.
I don’t agree that spending for the war and spending on domestic defense are necessarily mutually exclusive. I still feel the War in Iraq was and still is quite necessary. It flushed a great number of terrorists from their hiding holes because they could not resist the opportunity. As a result, our military has eliminated thousands of these terrorists. Remember, it only took 19 to kill 3,000+ people on 9-11. Think of what the potential number of American and Allied lives have been saved by eliminating this number. Tens if not hundreds of thousands potentially.
We have also sewn the seeds of democracy in an area that desperately needs it. Yes, it might be quite fledgling right now, and there is great sectarian violence. But I believe ultimately it will take. Maybe not in our lifetime, but hopefully in that of our children.
The terrorists recognize how crucial the Iraq War is to their ultimate survival. They have poured so much of their time and effort into winning there. If they see how critical this battle is, why can’t America?
I must disagree with you respectfully on the idea of Diplomacy. It is a very Polyanna idea, which works well in the civilized world. But when dealing with terrorists who have no qualms about stepping onto a bus of innocent children and detonating themselves, what could we possibly have to offer them? Maybe offer to chop off our own heads and save them on blades? Some governments you can reasonably discuss things with. During the Cold War diplomacy could work because Russia cared whether or not we would nuke their homeland. We cannot be a threat to the terrorist because they have nothing to lose. Their only goal and obsession is our total destruction. They will not settle for less. So, how could diplomacy ever work?
May 2, 2007 at 2:08 pm
again thanks for commenting. I will have another reply for you in a little while, but one quick shot across your bow.
No war was ever solved only militarily. Diplomacy has to be used, so it may be “Polyanna” in your mind, but it is a necessary evil to all Wars. You can’t bomb the living shit out of someone and then shove your agenda down their throat.
and as far as the “seed of democracy” goes…it isn’t a seed in their eyes, it is a weed that needs to be taken care of.
Judeo Christian Law is not Arabic Law and you can’t install Democracy in the JC way when they wan’t in the Muhmammed way.
May 2, 2007 at 2:14 pm
>Judeo Christian Law is not Arabic Law and you can’t install Democracy in the JC way when they wan’t in the Muhmammed way.
I believe the same thing was said about Japan following WWII. Seems to have worked quite well there.
May 2, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The difference between Japan and Iraq is that the Japanese had some political infrastructure (ministerial level) to start with and they were not multiple clans and religions at each others throats.
In other words, the Japanese were at war with us and did not have to finish an internal civil war to get going on the work of peace.
The Iraqis will have democracy when they want it. And their government is currently non-functional and has no incentive to get functional as long as our guys are there. Their government is going to take a two month vacation while they are still miles away from meeting the commitments they made re: an oil deal, de-Baathification, etc. No one has yet made a good case for continuing to spend American blood and treasure on people who so very clearly will not even help themselves.
May 2, 2007 at 3:29 pm
you just compared Japan to Iraq? wow, maybe if we bombed them liked we did Japan you may have an arguement.
Japan’s government surrendered by the way. We created the Govt in Iraq, how do you supposed we get that govt to give in?
May 2, 2007 at 3:30 pm
There is actually some evidence that beginning our withdrawal would stabilize the country and the region. If Iran and Syria see that they cannot continue to fight a proxy war with us, and they fear waves of refugees streaming across their border, they will change their tunes.
Right now, Iran and Syria are pulling the trigger on violence in Iraq. If we pull out, the pain is moved from us to them. Neither one will want it and the rest of the world may be more willing to step in and assist.
Remember, as many of these terrorists as we’ve flushed out and killed, more are being created everytime we kill a brother, father, uncle, sister, mother or child. You believe that we are killing them, and I am telling you that we are feeding them.
Do you really think the reason that we have not had another 9/11 is because they are too busy in Iraq??? Please. These guys are savvy. They aren’t the ones taking pot-shots at HumVees, that dynamic is now self sustaining. They are planning the next attack, but it took them 8 years to plan the last attack (WTC bombing to 9/11). They are overjoyed that we are preoccupied with shooting at both sides in a civil war.
May 2, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Another huge difference in Japan is that they were the aggressors, not the victims. That relationship is reversed in this case. Wanna try another example?
How about the Spanish-American war? We were trying to free them from the Spanish. Then we occupied them and installed strongman after strongman in their Gov’t until Castro took over. The Cubans are still not free 100 years later. Perhaps that’s where “Adventure Wars” get us.
May 2, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Chris you said: “The terrorists recognize how crucial the Iraq War is to their ultimate survival. They have poured so much of their time and effort into winning there. If they see how critical this battle is, why can’t America?”
You say terrorists like that is all that is living in Iraq. You are wrong, while there are insurgents you are forgetting about the “sectarian violence” aKa Civil War. You have read about the tortured bodies they find in the streets of Baghdad every morning? The ones with drill holes in their heads? Well that isn’t the US killing them. That is Sunni v Shia fighting there.
You seem to have fallen under the spell that Iraq is teeming with Terrorists. As if the country of 25 million all of a sudden has hundreds of thousands of terrorist walking the streets.
It is hard to argue with your views when you don’t seem to have all the facts.
I appreciate you commenting and creating some great dialogue.
But honestly even Chris Matthews has turned the corner and understands what we are up against. You have to pick up a history book on the region. Maybe that will help you understand the powder keg we kicked off and the fighting that has occurred.
Think Catholic V. Protestant, maybe that will help you.
May 2, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“adventure wars” wheeeeeeeeeeeeee, sounds like a fun ride at Disney! yahoooooooooooo!
daddy, can I kill a muslim too?
Yes, sun, but only if you practice good gun safety.
here, use this 10 and under model. It is lite, has little kick back and you can carry it in your diaper
fire away son, the virgins are waiting!
May 2, 2007 at 4:34 pm
While you make an interesting point Liberalgeek about Iran and Syria being left the pain and mess if we pull out, I think you are giving a little too much credit to their respective governments. They will not be concerned with refugees, they will be more concerned about grabbing as much of Iraq as they can and increasing their territory.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I believe Iraq is full of terrorists. Just the opposite is true. Most of the terrorists our troops have encountered have been foreigners. Iranians, Syrians, Egpytians. In fact, what your precious media fails to tell Americans is that most Iraqis are GLAD we are there. Soldier after soldier returning from over there talk about how great and appreciative the Iraqis are. How in a majority of the country there is truly peace. These stories make local papers, but the national media is in no way interested in such stories because it does not advance the agenda (which they aren’t supposed to have anyway). Yes, there is sectarian violence, but in many areas Sunnis and Shias are making an effort to get along and take advantage of this great opportunity called Democracy being given to them.
Can the Iraqi government step up a little more? Sure. Unfortunately, they have fallen prey to the darker side of of politics: power hunger, graft, corruption. That unfortunately is going to happen. But pulling out now is the WRONG way to handle this situation.
Iran is not of all like mind. Truthfully, Ahmadinejad has a ruthless, but tenuous hold on the people. The older generation Iranians remember fondly when America was a friend (pre Ayatollah). The youth of the country are enamoured with the American culture. They would love to have our two countries be open and freely trading. There is a real possibility that Ahmadinejad’s regime could be brought down. But they need to know that America can and WILL stand with them when the time comes. If Iraq successfully becomes a full fledged Democracy, and begins to blossom, the Iranians will desire that as well and Ahmadinejad will find himself in a tailspin, or like Saddam, on the end of a rope.
May 2, 2007 at 5:05 pm
If we lost, who defeated us?
May 2, 2007 at 5:13 pm
If we don’t leave until we achieve victory, who have we defeated?
May 2, 2007 at 5:23 pm
OK, so let’s talk about my “precious media” and it’s ability to be objective v. returning soldiers’ ability to be objective. I remember in the early days of this war that the soldiers were gung-ho. I understand this. It is hard to fight and kill someone unless you psyche yourself up with thinking how much they have it coming to them.
That is no longer the case. These guys are exhausted and feeling abused. That said, they do not mingle with the population of Iraq unless it is in very structured ways. Sure Iraqis in the green zone love us there. But I would argue that my “precious media” has a better view of what is going on, as they are actually talking to people through an interpreter and not from the top of an armed HumVee. So please don’t come with this tired and wrong line of “the liberal media is making this out to be worse than it is.” That is pure unadulterated bullshit.
As for Ahmadinejad, you make my point very well. His rule is tenuous. That is why he would participate in a peaceful transition in Iraq. The influx of a million poor Iraqis would likely topple his rule and cause the dreaded regional conflict. But a stable Iraq would stave off that eventuality.
Much of the same could be said about Syria.
And here’s the worst part… We don’t want democracy in Iraq. If they selected their own leadership, they would be reactionary, just like we are here. They won’t elect Washington, they’ll elect Chavez. If we are not forcibly removed from Iraq, we will be there for decades.
May 2, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Willy is a defeat-ican.
May 2, 2007 at 6:03 pm
liberalgeed said >As for Ahmadinejad, you make my point very well. His rule is tenuous. That is why he would participate in a peaceful transition in Iraq. The influx of a million poor Iraqis would likely topple his rule and cause the dreaded regional conflict. But a stable Iraq would stave off that eventuality.
Sorry, took me a few minutes to catch my breath! Laughing too hard. Wow! Where did you get your view of Ahmadinejad from? The 60 minutes interview where he talked about peace and love? This is a guy who (and this is on tape) routinely leads his followers in chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. This is a guy who has sworn to “Wipe Israel off the face of the map!” This is a guy who believes he was put on this earth to bring about the Apocalypse that will once and for all wipe this planet clean of non-muslims. And you believe HE would be interested in a “peaceful” transition.
What’s that Mr. Chamberlin….well is Adolf promised….
(Amazing how history repeats itself and liberals are all to willing to help it along).
May 2, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Halliburton won Steam boat
May 2, 2007 at 9:45 pm
No, I believe that, like all crazed leaders, he is very self-interested. Please try to keep up. Like I said, millions of refugees would destabilize Iran and Syria (and quite possibly Turkey). So it is in their best interest to participate. Where do you get your “Ahmadinejad is Satan” ideas? The Heritage Foundation? The Project for a New American Century?
Please don’t try to pretend that you have a corner on the history repeats itself BS. If you want to talk about crazed leaders hell-bent of invading other countries against the will of the rest of the world, I have the perfect person to talk about.
Or how about a leader that called for the destruction of an “Axis of Evil.” Sounds suspiciously like Ahmadinejad. I know that it is hard for you to swallow that comparison, because we have a democracy here and we are the good guys. But we are not always the good guys. I can give dozens of examples of this, but I’ll spare you.
You seem to give W a pass on his “Crusade” but string up others for their passionate statements. The rest of the world thinks that W is a moron, a bully and a liar. I tend to agree. Your problem with Ahmadinejad is that he is only two out of three of those.
May 2, 2007 at 9:54 pm
BTW Chris,
We would not have Ahmadinejad if Bush did not give his “axis of evil” speech. That brilliant piece of PR crushed a Democratic movement that was building in Iran.
I know you are willing to learn more about the world otherwise you would not be here – so why not read this?
Caution: It may open your eyes.
May 2, 2007 at 10:50 pm
So you accuse me of getting anti-Ahmadinejad rhetoric from the Heritage Foundation, and then you send me to an article on Salon.com. Geez, why didn’t you send me to a site a little less biased like MoveOn.org.
But despite it being on such a propoganda website, I did read it. So I guess, according to this article, all the Iranians we are finding in Iraq (including regular Iranian soldiers) are only there as a result of Bush’s baseless charge. His statement drove them to support terrorists? It makes more sense to me that it really was the case all along and they did not appreciate that being exposed to the whole world. Like I said, I believe that the majority of Iranians are interested in Democracy, and somewhat pro-west. I will also concede that Bush’s statement may have got their back up for a little bit (Iran is a very proud country). But more than likely it confirmed what many of the Iranians didn’t want to think about. That there government was involved in terrorism. I think they hoped they were above is they are NOT an Arab country and are proud to be Non-Arab. But I do not feel the statement really caused the demise of Democracy, instead I believe it alerted them to what they really faced and they need more time to prepare for the inevitable revolution. We may have actually prevented a failed attempt.
But I refuse to buy that Bush’s words suddenly caused Iran to go terrorist. Doesn’t happen that way.
And there is worlds of difference between our President’s statement and theirs. Our President wants to crush the governments that support terrorism, theirs wants to eliminate every man, woman and child that is Jewish (sound familiar) or not a muslim. If you can’t see the difference then I can’t help you.
May 3, 2007 at 12:31 am
I will also concede that Bush’s statement may have got their back up for a little bit (Iran is a very proud country).
That’s nice. You start out well and then go iff the tracks.
Will you at least concede that the lesson Iran learned from our invasion of Iraq was that the US only bombs the shit out of and invades countries that are virtually defenseless?
If you can concede that, then I think we might be making progress.
May 3, 2007 at 9:26 am
It always amazes me how discussion of the state of play in Iraq becomes a new causus belli against Iran.
The Iranians support Hezbollah (not an issue in Iraq) and their Shiite counterparts in Iraq. The majority of the problem in Iraq are the Sunni insurgents. If the Shiite Iranians are providing material support to the Sunnis, then that is a spectacular new development in this business. But, of course, the military folks are pretty clear that it is Sunni insurgents, and Shiite militias (preying on Sunnis)that account for the majority of violence in Iraq. Foreign fighters make up something like 4 to 10% of the number. Sunnis are certainly stepping up their activity, largely because a political and economic solution is nowhere on the horizon. That is why they are called insurgents.
While the Iranians have not been helpful, they are a major player in supporting Shiite militias. If Iran stopped that today, that would slow up some of the arms flow, but not much else. The Iranians are not why we have lost this thing. We lost this thing because we could not manage the end game after shock and awe.
It is too bad that the media has swallowed the BushCo use of the word “terrorist” in this thing. It lets too many people ignore the real play of the board.
May 3, 2007 at 10:06 am
Ugh. Where to begin?
DV”
“so in the end it is not an easy choice to leave, but we are refereeing a civil war, where two different, correction 3 different religious sects are killing each other because of tribal differences 1500 years ago. One guy believes in 7 pillars of the Faith, the other believes something to do with Muhammed.”
Does Islam have two new pillars?
You decry the tribalism of Iraq yet somehow think Afghanistan is not gripped by that same tribalism. If anything, Iraq is a better place to start b/c it had a functioning society unlike Afghanistan for the last 30 years. The entire region is described as “tribes with flags” for good reasons.
“Yes it is a given we protect ourselves. We work with other nations, we use DIPLOMATIC tactics, not PREEMPTIVE ones. We don’t get to bomb the living shit out of the whole world you know, at some point we have to work with Syria, Iran, Turkey, and the other areas in the region.”
Diplomacy only works when a military option is available as credible plan B. Iran and Syria have contrary interests. Which is why we’re not working with them.
“Imagine if we spent that money on a border fence? Imagine if we spent that money on Nuke detection in our ports. Imagine if we had better airport security? We don’t and we need to get better.”
Strawman. The border fence is a non-starter. Democrats don’t want one and neither does Bush. Nuke detection in ports is a practical impossibility. Increases in airport security are met with howls of protest from left wingers everywhere. If we profile like the Israelis do, we’re racists. If we pester everybody, we’re not any more safe and everyone complains.
“He said we are viewed as occupiers? How do we combat that?”
Marshall Plan. Rebuild the infrastructure and create stable market mechanisms.
“No war was ever solved only militarily. Diplomacy has to be used, so it may be “Polyanna” in your mind, but it is a necessary evil to all Wars.”
That is patently false. Ask the Carthaginians about how much diplomacy was involved in the Punic wars. How much diplomacy ended WWII in the Pacific theater? Our two diplomats were Fat Man and Little Boy
“You say terrorists like that is all that is living in Iraq…Well that isn’t the US killing them. That is Sunni v Shia fighting there.”
Unlike the DU crowd, at least you realize it’s not the US. That said, is it moral to pull out and let the Shia slaughter the Sunni? Is that why nobody has done anything about Darfur?
LG”
“There is actually some evidence that beginning our withdrawal would stabilize the country and the region. If Iran and Syria see that they cannot continue to fight a proxy war with us, and they fear waves of refugees streaming across their border, they will change their tunes.”
This is completely wrong. If we leave, Iran will increase, not decrease it’s destabilization efforts in Iraq. They can easily prevent refugees streaming across the border with helicopter gunships and mines. They intend to make Iraq a proxy state like Syria did to Lebanon.
“If we pull out, the pain is moved from us to them. Neither one will want it and the rest of the world may be more willing to step in and assist.”
The “rest of the world” has done jack shit about anything. Europe couldn’t be bothered to stop attempted genocide in FYR and that’s in their backyard. France, Germany and Russia had fat contracts with Saddam’s regime and those were worth more than the lives of Iraqis.
“Remember, as many of these terrorists as we’ve flushed out and killed, more are being created everytime we kill… You believe that we are killing them, and I am telling you that we are feeding them.”
You seem to think they have an inexhaustible supply of terrorists. There isn’t. By that logic, we ought not to fight any wars. Every enemy soldier we kill has a brother, sister, uncle, father who will then pick up a rifle…
“Do you really think the reason that we have not had another 9/11 is because they are too busy in Iraq?”
Maybe not. Maybe we’re doing a better job here.
“They aren’t the ones taking pot-shots at HumVees, that dynamic is now self sustaining.”
Completely wrong. They are not self sustaining. They operate in Iraq based on fear, intimidation and murder. The locals hate them and most of the tribes are actively going after Al-Qaeda.
“They are planning the next attack, but it took them 8 years to plan the last attack (WTC bombing to 9/11).”
Wrong again. They bombed the Khobar towers in 96, our embassies in 98 and the USS Cole in 2000. Yet they haven’t had a successful attack against US interests (outside Iraq & Afghanistan) for 6 years.
“They are overjoyed that we are preoccupied with shooting at both sides in a civil war.”
You make it sound like we’re treating Iraq as an indiscriminate shooting gallery. There are sunni bad guys (former regime elements) and shia bad guys (Sadr’s thugs) so yes, we need to get both of them under control.
“But I would argue that my “precious media” has a better view of what is going on, as they are actually talking to people through an interpreter and not from the top of an armed HumVee.”
But you would be wrong. The reporters don’t venture outside the green zone and most don’t leave the hotel. If you think our troops are not interacting with the people you need to read some milblogs.
“So please don’t come with this tired and wrong line of “the liberal media is making this out to be worse than it is.” That is pure unadulterated bullshit.”
That view is completely contrary to everything I’m reading from the people who are actually there. You trust the word of the NYT reporter holed up in Hotel Palestine. I trust the word of the grunts building infrastructure and fighting bad guys.
“As for Ahmadinejad, you make my point very well. His rule is tenuous. That is why he would participate in a peaceful transition in Iraq. The influx of a million poor Iraqis would likely topple his rule and cause the dreaded regional conflict”
You’re positively deluded. His rule may be tenuous but that doesn’t matter. The Mullahs are secure and they’re running the show. If he goes, they’ll just appoint another just like him. Iran has no interest in a stable, prosperous Iraq.
Jason:
“We would not have Ahmadinejad if Bush did not give his “axis of evil” speech. That brilliant piece of PR crushed a Democratic movement that was building in Iran.”
Nonsense. Presidential candidates are hand picked by the mullahs. It’s like the Politbureau. They pick one of their own. Every time.
May 3, 2007 at 10:19 am
Literalist. I was saying that we would not have “Ahmadinejad the scary boogeyman” not “Ahmadinejad the less than scary goofball.”
Duffy, I hope you are not defending Bush’s axis of evil nonsense.
May 3, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Duffy,
Here is where we agree:
“Ugh. Where to begin?”
I’ll see if I can elucidate so that even you can understand.
“If we leave, Iran will increase, not decrease it’s destabilization efforts in Iraq. They can easily prevent refugees streaming across the border with helicopter gunships and mines. They intend to make Iraq a proxy state like Syria did to Lebanon.”
Ummm, no. The border between Iraq and Iran is porous, or haven’t you been following the news? That’s how fearless leader thinks those weapons are getting in to Iraq. Please decide which it is and let me know.
“The “rest of the world” has done jack shit about anything. Europe couldn’t be bothered to stop attempted genocide in FYR and that’s in their backyard. France, Germany and Russia had fat contracts with Saddam’s regime and those were worth more than the lives of Iraqis.”
This may be true, but we haven’t tried diplomacy for Jack Shit since we invaded Afghanistan. So perhaps we don’t have the skills. That problem may have to be solved by the next President. Democrats are much more skilled diplomats.
“You seem to think they have an inexhaustible supply of terrorists. There isn’t. By that logic, we ought not to fight any wars. Every enemy soldier we kill has a brother, sister, uncle, father who will then pick up a rifle…”
You seem to think this is a regular war. This is a war on a tactic. It is the most simple tactic that exists in warfare. It relies on anger, disenfranchisement, and hopelessness, all of which we are supplying in mass quantities in Iraq. This is also a proud couple of nations (Sunni and Shia) that don’t like being occupied in general. It is no different than if we were occupied by a foreign country for what an asshole our leader is. I don’t care how much of an asshole he is, I will continue to fight the invaders until I send them all home in body bags. I suspect you would do the same.
“Completely wrong. They are not self sustaining. They operate in Iraq based on fear, intimidation and murder. The locals hate them and most of the tribes are actively going after Al-Qaeda.”
They are self sustaining. Who are the suicide bombers? Are they foreign fighters or Iraqis? They are Iraqis. Who is killing Shias in their homes? Iraqis. Who is killing Sunnis in their homes? Iraqis. There is no doubt about that, even with this thick-headed admin. We are just trying to act as a cooling rod in the nuclear reaction that is Iraq. That is what “The Surge” is supposed to be.
“Wrong again. They bombed the Khobar towers in 96, our embassies in 98 and the USS Cole in 2000. Yet they haven’t had a successful attack against US interests (outside Iraq & Afghanistan) for 6 years.”
You misunderstood. I was referring to the we’ll fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here mentatity. There has not been an attack in the US since 2001, but there was an 8 year hiatus between WTC attacks. Al Qaeda has plans that span more than just a few weeks. I have no doubt that they are planning the next attack as I write this. But the best and the brightest are fighting a war that they didn’t have to fight, instead of finding and destroying the structure that is planning the next attack, or better, ameliorating the conditions that cause this hate.
“You make it sound like we’re treating Iraq as an indiscriminate shooting gallery. There are sunni bad guys (former regime elements) and shia bad guys (Sadr’s thugs) so yes, we need to get both of them under control.”
Again, misunderstood…I don’t believe that there is much of a link between Iraqi Sunni, Shia and Al Qaeda. Any relationships seem to be formed as a result of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Getting them under control uses up our precious resources; treasure, knowledge and blood. The point is that we are preoccupied in Iraq, and bin Laden is free to plan the next attack.
“But you would be wrong. The reporters don’t venture outside the green zone and most don’t leave the hotel. If you think our troops are not interacting with the people you need to read some milblogs.”
Actually, you would be dead wrong. Despite the danger, many reporters spend a huge amount of time outside the green zone. Probably not the Fox reporters, but the real reporters do. Some even do it without a military entourage like John McCain.
“That view is completely contrary to everything I’m reading from the people who are actually there. You trust the word of the NYT reporter holed up in Hotel Palestine. I trust the word of the grunts building infrastructure and fighting bad guys.”
You mean the guys that talk to Iraqis while armed. Yes, I’m sure that yields the most uninhibited answers. Good point.
“You’re positively deluded. His rule may be tenuous but that doesn’t matter. The Mullahs are secure and they’re running the show. If he goes, they’ll just appoint another just like him. Iran has no interest in a stable, prosperous Iraq.”
Actually, the Mullahs have been quite unhappy with the rantings of their President. They have clamped down on him several times in the past few months. The mullahs themselves are not even that secure. There is a nascent westernism movement in Iran. The Mullahs know this and they stand to be overthrown also if huge social ills befall the Iranians due to huge numbers of refugees.
Bottom line here is that the Bush administration has been so wrong about so much in this debacle that betting the opposite is a safe bet.
May 3, 2007 at 1:31 pm
IF we lost, who defeated us?
not Sadam, he’s dead.
not the Bathist regime, it was destroyed.
not Sadam’s Iraqi army, it was crushed in days.
Who won? who defeated us?
May 3, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Willy, you’re right! Let’s declare victory and get the hell out. You’re a genius!
May 3, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I like reading the short answers much better than the long ones.
willy is a genius, all along we had won years ago and he we are paying halliburton billions to build a shitter that can flush properly.
I just don’t understand why we need more time to spend more money to give to the private corporations that want to extend the contracts they are have overspent on…
ooops wait, you mean amongst all this discussion the only person to mention a corporation was the Donviti himself.
Ahhhh aint it great that us assholes sit here on our high horses and argue about the people and what we are doing, when in the end it takes money to keep the machine going and money is what George Bush wants Unconditionally….
but hey, I’m sure we are there for noble reasons…
After this I hear we are going to help out in Darfur, just as soon as coke and Kfc get a few contracts over there.
May 3, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Blah, blah, blah. Talk about a broken record. Haliburton this, Haliburton that. Better watch out…the BOOGIEMAN IS HALIBURTON. Get a life. In many of the areas that Haliburton has contracts, they are the only AMERICAN company that does what they do. If Uncle Sam passed up Haliburton in favor of foreign companies your damn unions would be moaning about that. And the ironic thing about all of this is that if Bill Clinton did all the same exact things George Bush did with regards to the war, you all would be singing his praises as the greatest president of all times. If a President has an R after his name, you can’t support him no matter what. If Bush follows all of your wise advice, first off we would probably be all dead, but second of all, when it all would fail miserably, you would then blame him….and of course Haliburton. I mean I heard that the Tornado on the Texas/Mexico border was actually caused by Halliburton. Katrina? Organized by Halliburton to get some more work. This whole Global warming thing…yep..you guessed it…Evil Halliburton is behind that too.
May 3, 2007 at 4:52 pm
he whipped out the Clinton Card!
please don’t pull out the Hitler one too….
you can laugh away halliburton all you want Chris, but they have considerable influence on decisions that were made to go to war….
Halliburton is just one example.
In case you forgot, I heard Iraq has oil, but that seems to have dropped out of peoples minds. I remember something about profits helping pay for Iraq’s reconstructions. GEEEEE where are those profits?
May 3, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hey Liberalgeek! Go back and read your last post. Maybe you can find your own misguidedness…..
….ok….I guess I have to help….
1. “Ummm, no. The border between Iraq and Iran is porous, or haven’t you been following the news? That’s how fearless leader thinks those weapons are getting in to Iraq. Please decide which it is and let me know.”
It is only porous because Iran WANTS those weapons to get in the country. If stuff, or people they don’t want start trying to come back the other way, the clapper valve will shut real fast. Bogus arguement.
2. “That problem may have to be solved by the next President. Democrats are much more skilled diplomats.”
Diplomacy? Ah…that must be the term you use for “talking out of both sides of their mouth”. In that case, you may be right.
Let me pose a hypothetical to you. You and your family are sitting on a bus at Disney World. A person gets on whom you think is a little heavily dressed for the day. You and a couple of other people notice wires sticking through their clothes with a wire running to a device in their hand. One look at them makes it clear their intent. Now you have two options:
1. You and couple strong folks could jump this individual in a surprise move hoping to get that detonator away from them and thus preventing the detonation.
or
2. You can try diplomacy and rationalize with the individual who is about to receive his long awaited 72 virgins at the cost of your, your families, and many others lives.
Which option has the remotest chance of working.
(Hint: If you say 2, I will never be riding a Mickey Bus with you)
3. Who are the suicide bombers? Are they foreign fighters or Iraqis? They are Iraqis. Who is killing Shias in their homes? Iraqis. Who is killing Sunnis in their homes? Iraqis.
Not sure what rags you have been reading, but most items I have run across are admitting that the majority of “terrorists” are non-Iraqi. Mostly Iranian, Syrian, and Egyptian, with a darn too many Saudis in the mix as well.
4. You mean the guys that talk to Iraqis while armed. Yes, I’m sure that yields the most uninhibited answers. Good point.
I guess our soldiers are holding guns to Iraqi children’s heads when they are handing out candy. There are whole charity drives around here collecting candy because the soldiers can’t give out enough to the HAPPY, friendly Iraq children and people. There have even been times when we have lost soliders and sadly children because those terrorists, you know, the ones you want to have dialougue with, run car bombs into those crowds.
5. There is a nascent westernism movement in Iran. The Mullahs know this and they stand to be overthrown also if huge social ills befall the Iranians due to huge numbers of refugees.
What the Mullahs KNOW is that if Democracy works in Iraq, and even Shia and Sunni start getting along, THAT is when the westernism movement will get them. That is why they are so involved in trying the make Iraq fail. They couldn’t care less about refugees. It is Democracy that scares them.
6. Bottom line here is that the Bush administration has been so wrong about so much in this debacle that betting the opposite is a safe bet.
Bottom line is that if the best the Democrats can offer is “retreat and talk”, then we are sunk. Pulling out of Somalia got us 9-11 (according to the mastermind bin Laden himself). What will pulling out of Iraq bring us? The downfall of America. The sad thing is there really are SOME in liberal camp that would react in glee if that happened.
May 3, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Not only that. Chris makes the point that they are the only American company that does what they do in some areas. Well, why do we only need American companies? And did you catch the tidbit about Halliburton moving to Dubai? Any guess why? No, it’s not because it’s cheaper. It’s so that they can continue doing business with Iran. Yes, Chris’ boogeyman is hiring Halliburton also. This means that Halliburton isn’t an American company. Shoots that little argument to shit, methinks.
Also, there are 120,000 contractors in Iraq. Compare that to 159,000 soldiers and we can see why these contractors and their companies have a vested interest in this war.
May 3, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“Also, there are 120,000 contractors in Iraq. Compare that to 159,000 soldiers and we can see why these contractors and their companies have a vested interest in this war.”
Ah yes. Infrastructure is such a horrible thing….
May 3, 2007 at 5:23 pm
The Disneyland reference actually makes a lot of sense. You really are from Fantasyland. The choice is stupid. the world ain’t a disneyland bus. It is a little freakin’ 3rd world bus with old people, kids, chickens, farmers and businessmen. You would like it to be homogenized and pasteurized, but it is messy and diverse.
How out of place is the guy in the heavy coat with wires sticking out when you have a dozen lunatics on the bus beating their kids, shouting slurs at each other, threatening to kick each others asses and outright brawling. That’s the freaking bus that Saddam was getting on. Can you really blame him for announcing to these people that he has a gun and he isn’t afraid to use it? Isn’t what Saddam was actually doing called deterrence when we do it?
You keep living in Disneyland, and I’ll keep living in the real world Chris. Good luck on the move to Delaware, you should try to find a nice gated community. It’ll make you feel safer.
May 3, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Why aren’t we hiring Iraqis to do the infrastructure work, Chris? Who rebuilt Germany and Japan? How about London after the blitz? No, this is quite different. these are security contractors and private citizens hired to fix tanks that they were fixing a year earlier as soldiers at 1/3 the pay. Please don’t pretend that this is some huge force of plumbers and electricians. they still can’t keep the freakin’ lights on in Baghdad.
May 3, 2007 at 5:34 pm
“How out of place is the guy in the heavy coat with wires sticking out when you have a dozen lunatics on the bus beating their kids, shouting slurs at each other, threatening to kick each others asses and outright brawling. That’s the freaking bus that Saddam was getting on. Can you really blame him for announcing to these people that he has a gun and he isn’t afraid to use it? Isn’t what Saddam was actually doing called deterrence when we do it?”
Last time I checked we wern’t collecting 8 year olds out of schools and making them “disappear” becaue they poked a little fun at the president. Saddam did. He sons and their minnions raped and killed wives in front of husbands to get them to talk (liberals don’t care about that, but God forbid we play the music a little too loud for a known terrorist in Gitmo).
Saddam gassed 10’s of thousands of Kurds with those WMD he never had. They were real enough to the Kurds. If that is your definition of “waving a gun”, then I really do need a gated community. I won’t be in one…but maybe I should look for one. Any room in yours.
“You keep living in Disneyland, and I’ll keep living in the real world Chris.”
The individual who believes in dialogue with blood thirsty terrorists accuses ME of living in Fantasyland. That’s rich…
May 3, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“Why aren’t we hiring Iraqis to do the infrastructure work, Chris?”
Whoa! You could lose your Pro-Union bumpersticker for that crack! Don’t we give enough jobs to foreign employees? Then when we do keep it American…you complain? Again. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Must be hell to espouse a political point of you with no particular logic.
May 3, 2007 at 6:17 pm
You have no idea what my views on unions are.
As for the gassing of the kurds and the rest of the things that Saddam did, I have no defense for him. I do not like him and I have never had a positive thing to say about him and his regime.
The Kurds were 15 years ago and he did it with weapons that we gave him when Rumsfeld loved him. So why didn’t GHWB bomb Saddam to kingdom come? Hmmm. Maybe bacuse diplomacy and the rest of our strategies were working.
Also, I never advocated for diplomacy with terrorists, as you would like to paint me. I am in favor of diplomacy with countries and with their citizens. Bin Laden should rot in a prison cell for 40 years.
Your arguments seem to be chock full of bullshit talking points. Do you have real opinions or are they all given to you?
May 3, 2007 at 8:08 pm
it’s not infrastructure chris, it is privatizing a military. a very bad thing
May 3, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“The Kurds were 15 years ago and he did it with weapons that we gave him when Rumsfeld loved him. So why didn’t GHWB bomb Saddam to kingdom come? Hmmm. Maybe bacuse diplomacy and the rest of our strategies were working.”
One thing most conservatives agree upon, at least ones that I know, is that GHWDB screwed up big time not taking the war right back at Saddam and dethroning him them. Would have spared us a heck of a lot of trouble down the road. It would have also made it clear that America could not and would not tolerate ANY aggression in the area. By stopping only a little way inside the border and then with drawing, we planted the “paper tiger” idea that Clinton sealed with the Somalia withdraw.
“Also, I never advocated for diplomacy with terrorists, as you would like to paint me. I am in favor of diplomacy with countries and with their citizens. Bin Laden should rot in a prison cell for 40 years.”
Sorry if I mischaracterized you. However, you advocate for diplomacy with countries and citizens and not terrorists, yet several of those “countries” are state supporters of terrorists. So you cannot have it both ways. You don’t deal with terrorists, then you have taken diplomacy with Iran and Syria off the table.
“Your arguments seem to be chock full of bullshit talking points. Do you have real opinions or are they all given to you?”
While occasionally I do get my emotions up, I hardly think the majority of my posts have been “talking points”. And if they are then I am doubly proud to be a conservative. It feels good to be with a group whose “talling points” also happen to be the truth. Be daring! Try it sometime.
May 3, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“it’s not infrastructure chris, it is privatizing a military. a very bad thing”
Boy, I must be hanging around here too much. I am starting to agree with you. Privatized military is a bad thing. However, MOST of the contractors are building civilian infrastructure, not really a function of the military, excepting the Corp of Engineers of course. However, I do think the private security contracts might be a bit much. It would be much better if all security fell under our military functions. Perhaps that is something Republicans can trim a bit.
And please! Can you try to make only one good point a week? I wouldn’t want so start the process of dedemonizing liberals. Then I would be no fun.
May 3, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I do work for the military.
Halliburton is not the only American company who can do much of what they were contracted for. Sole-sourced contracted to do. The USACE bundled a bunch of stuff together so that is looked that Halliburton or KBR were the only companies that could do this work, but that is by no means true. If the USACE was adequately managing Halliburton’s contracts, BushCo would not need an emergency appropriation for some months.
Most of the contractors in Iraq imported labor from the Phillipines, countries in Africa, Pakistan. (I know some of these contractors, so I know this is true). These workers may have been cheaper in the short run, but the most expensive choice in the long run (there are few American union workers in Iraq). Iraqis who had a reasonable chance of providing for themselves and their families would simply not have alot of time or energy for insurgent activity. People who have the hope of a better life for their families are not going to expend energy on IEDs, because they won’t risk the possibilities of better circumstances for their families.
Not requiring US contractors to hire locally was one of many fatal mistakes made by BushCo.
And most of the contractors in Iraq are working on 1) security and 2) facility support for soldiers and soldier infrastructure.
May 4, 2007 at 8:09 am
hell of a thread people and all great comments.
apparently this thing called war evokes quite a lot of emotions out of people!
great dialogue I love it!