I'M GLAD I WAS WRONG

James Baker may have stacked the deck against Murtha. Murtha had a great deal to do with the Dems winning this election. Baker helped pave the way for both Gulf Wars. Yet it's Baker'
s recommendations that are likely to become policy.

0 Replies

blueflame, I think you're right on Baker.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
At least the dems are talking some sense; stay the course is not an option.

But neither is cut and run.

"well, Ollie, another fine mess you've got us in..."

maybe it's helpful to jetison the the way we've been thinking about it. the black and white approach is how we got caught in the thing to start with. along with hysteria. bad combination.

i like the idea that some are making a priority of insisting/cajoling/forcing the iraqi government to quit screwing around and take responsibility for their country and safety. off with the training wheels.

that's an area where we must be firm. it's not in america's best interest to let the iraqi's "don't leave" followed by "we want you out" nonsense to continue. pick one and move on.

i like the murtha idea of getting u.s. military out of the front line on the streets. but rather, i'd be more in favor of removing to existing bases in iraq for the time being than leaving the country immediately. take a back seat to the iraqi police and national army; in the sense that it's up to them to secure the country with their elected government.

dunno... but it seems that to stay on and on would only get more dismal and to bail out immediately would do a lot of harm to how other countries and people respond to us in the future. no matter how long the u.s. keeps military there, be it 6 more months or 6 more years, the iraqis will wind up doing whatever they want with their country.

my only concern is limiting further wounded and dead americans and getting the hell out of this with some sort of credibility left in tact. i.e., it may be bushie's mess but it still needs to be cleaned up properly.

0 Replies

A reality which none of the proposal address is that the insurgency is Sunni, and represents those previously favored by the Ba'athist government, now out of power, and with nothing to lose; while the militias, and increasingly, the police and the army represent the Shi'ites, who are out for both revenge and political dominance.

There really is no way to protect the minority Sunnis from the consequences of more than eighty years of political dominance and the violent, murderous repression which they visited on the majority Shi'ites. There is no way to prevent the Shi'ites from taking power and moving into the orbit of the political influence of Iran. The Kurds likely will be able to take care of themselves--but the Sunnis can only maintain their insurgency with outside aid (probably through if not directly from Syria), and the Shi'ites will increasingly be moved to attack all Sunnis as representing the murderous opposition in what is already a civil war.

The neo-cons of PNAC got us into Iraq to get bases in the middle east. We are doing ourselves, or the Sunnis or the Shi'ites any favors by staying there, and whatever government emerges from the civil strige in Iraq, they won't want us there.

For my part, the sooner we got out, the better. If someone with a high school menality wants to call that cut and run, who gives a rat's ass?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

A reality which none of the proposal address is that the insurgency is Sunni, and represents those previously favored by the Ba'athist government, now out of power, and with nothing to lose; while the militias, and increasingly, the police and the army represent the Shi'ites, who are out for both revenge and political dominance.

There really is no way to protect the minority Sunnis from the consequences of more than eighty years of political dominance and the violent, murderous repression which they visited on the majority Shi'ites. There is no way to prevent the Shi'ites from taking power and moving into the orbit of the political influence of Iran. The Kurds likely will be able to take care of themselves--but the Sunnis can only maintain their insurgency with outside aid (probably through if not directly from Syria), and the Shi'ites will increasingly be moved to attack all Sunnis as representing the murderous opposition in what is already a civil war.

The neo-cons of PNAC got us into Iraq to get bases in the middle east. We are doing ourselves, or the Sunnis or the Shi'ites any favors by staying there, and whatever government emerges from the civil strige in Iraq, they won't want us there.

For my part, the sooner we got out, the better. If someone with a high school menality wants to call that cut and run, who gives a rat's ass?

I find it hard to argue with this post.

0 Replies

While we concentrate on Iraq there is a growing problem in Afghanistan. "Insurgent activity rising in Afghanistan" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

0 Replies

blueflame, The war in Afghanistan was lost some years ago. When Bush contrated his efforts into Iraq, and initiated his preemptive war, the war in Afghanistan was lost. The war lords took over the country as sson as we shifted our war effort from Afghanistan to Iraq.

0 Replies

cicerone, lost or not we still have people there and so does NATO. There may be trouble ahead.

0 Replies

There will be trouble ahead for certain. If the future portends from the past, it'll get worse.

0 Replies

Pelosi backs Murtha for majority leader
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/pelosi2.html

0 Replies

Too many people in power positions don't understand tribal societies any better than the Bush administration did. Their plan was a failure before it started due to their lack of understanding of how tribal societies function. All they had to learn was the history of Afghanistan as a modern example of tribal societies and apply it to most third world countries. In Iraq, the prime example is the conflict between Sunni and Shiia.

Why are we so dumb? Even Alexander The Great learned from his tribal society wars. We didn't learn our lesson in the tribal societies of Vietnam and are repeating the same mistakes in the Middle East, including the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Why are we so dumb? When will the western world learn from history?

BBB

0 Replies

We didn't cut and run in Nam, and what did we get for it. Nothing! Nixon took office saying he had a secret plan to get us out. We then stayed there for another five years and lost an additional 30,000 troops, countless wounded, and over a million Viets, all for nothing. We can expect similar in Iraq if we don't cut and run.

0 Replies

Shock & Awe was criminal. It defied International law. And it was built on lies. America can lie to herself if she chooses but not to the rest of the world. Coming clean and prosecuting Blair and Bush would go a long way towards a real victory over and diminishing the threat of terrorism. Throw in evidence against another architect of the war, Wolfie coupled with changes in World Bank policies and the threat of terrorism will further diminish. Start discussing Israeli atrocities in Gaza and we'll be cooking. Ahmadinejad's letter to Bushie should be openers on sincere international dialogue for change.

0 Replies

blueflame, Good point: shock and awe is a crime against humanity. That the Bush defenders would continue to support this war and the killing of innocents with "but we don't purposely kill the innocent" is a bunch of huey like everything else they say. They can't seem to grasph the reality even when conflicting statements are made by the same administration.

0 Replies

Blue, can't you save your antisemitic comments for a thread on point. No other country would be as restrained as is Israel.

0 Replies

Advocate

Advocate wrote:

Blue, can't you save your antisemitic comments for a thread on point. No other country would be as restrained as is Israel.

It is a cheap shot to call someone anti-semitic for commenting on Isreal's history military bullying of its neighbors.

BBB

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Blue, can't you save your antisemitic comments for a thread on point. No other country would be as restrained as is Israel.

He didn't say a single antisemitic word in his last post.

You throw that word around far too easily. Israel deserves a whole lot of criticism and it isn't antisemitic to point it out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate, Swift Boating aint kosher.

0 Replies

Blue's bringing in Israel to this unrelated thread is antisemitic. He has been consistently anti-Israel because it has the temerity of defending itself.

What country would stand by and do less than Israel in the face of Pal kidnappings, rocketing, bombing, etc.? Israel has decided to hit back hard for the first time in the correct assumption that nothing less will stop the attacks. Unfortunately, it looks as though even the hard hits are not stopping the rocketing and promise of suicide bombings.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Blue's bringing in Israel to this unrelated thread is antisemitic. He has been consistently anti-Israel because it has the temerity of defending itself.

What country would stand by and do less than Israel in the face of Pal kidnappings, rocketing, bombing, etc.? Israel has decided to hit back hard for the first time in the correct assumption that nothing less will stop the attacks. Unfortunately, it looks as though even the hard hits are not stopping the rocketing and promise of suicide bombings.

That's right, because you are using the Bush line of reasoning, which is ridiculous, you know better than that. It is funny, becuase on one hand you say it is the 'correct' assumption, and on the other you say it isn't working.

Israel created their own problem. They could have fixed the situation long ago with the creation of an independent, stable, and water-sufficient Palestine. They chose not to do so, and are reaping the consequences.

It isn't anti-semitic to bring up Israel in a negative light, ever, in any thread.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'M GLAD I WAS WRONG

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know