THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Is access time really determined by length of thread?

Also, the invasion of Iraq was wrong on several levels and a boneheaded mistake that we show no signs of fixing anytime soon. Just to be clear.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Talking Ourselves Into Defeat
January 25, 2007; Page A18 Wall Street Journal
By DANIEL HENNINGER

The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political
culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of
Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and
on Sunday morning talk shows -- all emit a Stygian gloom about
America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's
bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not
without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting
ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves
into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that
may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism
has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already
run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new
strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential
candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee
resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.)
Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's
getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his
tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another
"non-binding" resolution against more troops.

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the
Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union
speech that "Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- scoffed at his
policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule.
(The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well,
under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course
amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops."

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going
unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been
visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about
what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa
Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a
display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in
Iraq.

"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an
isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that
would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people
understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's
problems aren't theirs."

Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes
dressed now in the language of apocalypse. In his SOTU rebuttal,
Democratic Sen. Jim Webb ripped into the current economy, saying it
reminded him of the early 1900s: "The dispossessed workers at the
bottom were threatening revolt." Ah, we've fallen to the level of
czarist Russia.

You know the pessimism has turned manic when no one is allowed to
depart the asylum. Sen. John McCain's support for Iraq and the new
Bush plan is now being described in press reports as not only costing
him support in the polls (the asylum's inkblot of reality) but worse,
the support of campaign contributors.

It is a phenomenon fascinating to behold. Its causes are multiple, but
here are several:

Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to
the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have
run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is
now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president.
Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of
crushing this one guy.

The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled
the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was
re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their
bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for
defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG
propelled it.

The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation
behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently
returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at
how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how
constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so
much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying"
to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the
front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's
job.

The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so
disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is
nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman
announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden
says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to
make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval
for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its
ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still
occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting
that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

On the "Charlie Rose Show" this month, former Army vice chief of staff
Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being
undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: "My God, this
is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't
about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a
problem that is at its essence a human problem."

At our current juncture, Gen. Keane's words probably rub many the
wrong way. But there's a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The
mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic.
It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it
realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe,
overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American
tradition.

In 1966, Sen. George Aiken delivered a speech on Vietnam famously
translated for history as "declare victory and go home.'" On current
course, it looks like we may declare defeat and go home.

0 Replies

By the way, this is a link back to: THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

0 Replies

Quote:

former Army vice chief of staff
Gen. Jack Keane, said in exasperation: "My God, this
is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower.

anyone using words such as : "We are the world's No. 1 superpower " ,
should qualify for being entered in the thread "What are your pet peeves re English usage? " .
it's in the same class " accept this free gift ! but you must call now ! " .

there have been plenty of countries that were number one at one time in history , but where are they now ?
countries - just like individuals - can show their strength by action in good ways and bad ways .

scientists and people in general are recognized for their achievements and hardly ever trumpet : "i am number one ! " .

it's actually interesting that there is a website for a ...LIST OF COMIC BOOK SUPERPOWERS... .
i'm sure the united states would not want to be included in that list .
hbg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is access time really determined by length of thread?

Also, the invasion of Iraq was wrong on several levels and a boneheaded mistake that we show no signs of fixing anytime soon. Just to be clear.

Cycloptichorn

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (AUMF), October 2, 2002

Just to be clear...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is access time really determined by length of thread?

Also, the invasion of Iraq was wrong on several levels and a boneheaded mistake that we show no signs of fixing anytime soon. Just to be clear.

Cycloptichorn

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (AUMF), October 2, 2002

Just to be clear...

Just to be clear, the war was a mistake. Those who signed the AUMF made a mistake. While there is some evidence that they didn't have the correct information, it isn't an excuse.

Your reposting of the AUMF here is worthless. It is a meaningless document which in large part was predicated upon lies. It provides no justification for what is currently going on and certainly doesn't excuse nor correct any of the problems with the management of the war.

Bush supporters such as yourself McG were completely wrong, and have made a mistake. It would be better if you would go ahead and admit that out loud.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

IBC's Count of Civilians Killed in Iraq since 1/1/2003
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS BY MONTH

January 2006 .... = 1267; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1267 + 36,859 = 38126;
Feb 2006 .......... = 1287; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1287 + 38126 = 39413;
March 2006 ........ = 1538; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1538 + 39413 = 40951;
April 2006 .......... = 1287; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1287 + 40951 = 42238;
May 2006 .......... = 1417; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1417 + 42238 = 43655;
June 2006 .......... = 2089; Total since January 1st 2003 = 2089 + 43655 = 45744;
July 2006 ........... = 2336; Total since January 1st 2003 = 2336 + 45744 = 48080;
August 2006 ....... = 1195; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1195 + 48080 = 49275;
September 2006 . = 1407; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1407 + 49275 = 50682;
October 2006 ..... = 2546; Total since January 1st 2003 = 2546 + 50682 = 53228;
November 2006 . = 3894; Total since January 1st 2003 = 3894 + 53228 = 57122;
December 2006 . = 3219; Total since January 1st 2003 = 3219 + 57122 = 60341.

UPDATE OF VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS IN IRAQ PER MONTH AND TOTALS

4,738 per month; ... 625,424 in 132 months 01/01/1992 to 12/31/2002;
1,257 per month; ..... 60,341 in 48 months 01/01/2003 to 12/31/2006;
4,738 / 1,257 > 3.77;

1,024 per month; ..... 36,859 in 36 months 01/01/2003 to 12/31/2005;
1,957 per month; 60,341 - 36,859 = 23,482 in 12 months 01/01/2006 to 12/31/2006;
4,738 / 1,957 > 2.42.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

Quote:
former Army vice chief of staff
Gen. Jack Keane, said in exasperation: "My God, this
is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower.

anyone using words such as : "We are the world's No. 1 superpower " ,
should qualify for being entered in the thread "What are your pet peeves re English usage? " .
it's in the same class " accept this free gift ! but you must call now ! " .

there have been plenty of countries that were number one at one time in history , but where are they now ?
countries - just like individuals - can show their strength by action in good ways and bad ways .

scientists and people in general are recognized for their achievements and hardly ever trumpet : "i am number one ! " .

it's actually interesting that there is a website for a ...LIST OF COMIC BOOK SUPERPOWERS... .
i'm sure the united states would not want to be included in that list .
hbg

Spot on.

I saw a quote recently along the lines of

"We sent a bull to fix a problem in a china shop"

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Just to be clear, the war was a mistake. Those who signed the AUMF made a mistake. While there is some evidence that they didn't have the correct information, it isn't an excuse.

Your reposting of the AUMF here is worthless. It is a meaningless document which in large part was predicated upon lies. It provides no justification for what is currently going on and certainly doesn't excuse nor correct any of the problems with the management of the war.

Bush supporters such as yourself McG were completely wrong, and have made a mistake. It would be better if you would go ahead and admit that out loud.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (AUMF), October 2, 2002
...
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
...

MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE IRAQ WAR WAS NOT A MISTAKE.

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002 was definitely not a mistake.

The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from Iraq was not a mistake.

Replacing Saddam Hussein's regime with a democratic constitutional government was no mistake.

Significantly reducing the mass murder rate of non-murderers in Iraq was not a mistake.

The removal of the al-Qaeda sanctuary from northeast Iraq was not a mistake.

The extermination of "several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad" was not a mistake.

Absence of of terrorist attacks on the USA over the last 5 years 3 months was no mistake.

BUT THESE FAILURES WERE A MISTAKE

The failure of the USA to exterminate the al-Qaeda in Iraq was a mistake.

The failure of the USA to seal the borders of Iraq with its neighbors was a mistake.

The failure of the USA three years eight months ago to employ the tactics now being employed in Iraq was a mistake.

The failure until now of the USA to make the new Iraq government act responsibly in its people's own self-defense was a mistake.

IT WOULD BE BETTER IF ALL THOSE ROOTING AGAINST VICTORY IN IRAQ WENT AHEAD AND ADMITTED THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

0 Replies

What else can I say? The whole thing was a mistake. Arrogance of those like yourself ICan who think that we can shoot our way to peace and democracy lead to the mistake. Hubris compounds the mistake and paralyzes us from taking positive action.

We aren't going to see success from our current plan. Even those who originally proposed it are backing off -

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=75621

Quote:

KAGAN/KEANE NOT PLEASED WITH KAGAN/KEANE PLAN:

Over at Salon, Mark Benjamin lays out a problem some conservatives have with the surge. Benjamin:

The Baghdad surge plan, announced by the president on Jan. 10, calls for the new U.S. soldiers to be embedded with Iraqi forces, who will take the lead. But while the U.S. troops would report to American officers, their Iraqi counterparts, in an apparent sop to national sovereignty, would report to Iraqi officers. The potentially disastrous result: two separate and independent command structures within the same military operation.

"I know of no successful military operation where you have dual command," McCain told Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Tuesday. Petraeus, heralded by the Bush White House as the man who would make the surge work, signaled his agreement, telling McCain, "Sir, I share your concern."

Even the architects of the new plan, Frederick Kagan and Jack Keane, seem rather concerned:

These days, Kagan, in particular, has been careful to differentiate the AEI plan from what Bush actually proposed. The AEI blueprint advocated that American and Iraqi forces should work together -- with the more competent Americans in the lead and in control. The units would operate "within a single command structure," Kagan's written plan for a surge states. "Unity of effort is essential for success in this kind of endeavor." Small wonder that Kagan said about Bush's ideas in an interview, "This is not our plan. The White House is not briefing our plan."

Well, that didn't take long. At least the White House still has Fred Barnes in its corner.

--Isaac Chotiner

Nobody expects this to work.

Endeavors which are predicated upon lies and false pretenses cannot end well...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What else can I say? The whole thing was a mistake. Arrogance of those like yourself ICan who think that we can shoot our way to peace and democracy lead to the mistake. Hubris compounds the mistake and paralyzes us from taking positive action.
...Cycloptichorn

No, dumb tactics compound past mistakes.

Quote:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=75621

KAGAN/KEANE NOT PLEASED WITH KAGAN/KEANE PLAN:

Over at Salon, Mark Benjamin lays out a problem some conservatives have with the surge. Benjamin:

The Baghdad surge plan, announced by the president on Jan. 10, calls for the new U.S. soldiers to be embedded with Iraqi forces, who will take the lead. But while the U.S. troops would report to American officers, their Iraqi counterparts, in an apparent sop to national sovereignty, would report to Iraqi officers. The potentially disastrous result: two separate and independent command structures within the same military operation.
...
--Isaac Chotiner

I agree that if they persist with that command structure, they will probably fail.

0 Replies

When are you going to realize that with our command structure, we are likely going to fail?

No matter whether you think that attacking Iraq was the right decision or not - an attitude which is somewhat meaningless given your propensity for racism towards Arabs, as advanced in the Israel WW3 thread - you must realize that the group who have been running the war are incompetent. And I mean that fully: they are without competence in matters of either war or diplomacy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When are you going to realize that with our command structure, we are likely going to fail?

No matter whether you think that attacking Iraq was the right decision or not - an attitude which is somewhat meaningless given your propensity for racism towards Arabs, as advanced in the Israel WW3 thread - you must realize that the group who have been running the war are incompetent. And I mean that fully: they are without competence in matters of either war or diplomacy.

Cycloptichorn

In the "Israel WW3 thread":

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why Israel will not have peace until they realize military might is not the answer.

ican711nm wrote:

Malarkey! Every agreement the Israelies negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs is followed by the Palestinian Arabs committing more mass murder of Israelies. The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs negotiate with the Israelies for only one reason: to fool the Israelies into thinking the Palestinian Arabs do not really want Israel destroyed, and thereby to fool the Israelies into relaxing their defenses.

Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You may not be a bloodthirsty racist, Ican, but you write words as if you are. I find it to be despicable.

Then here in this thread you again illustrate your despicable propensity to malign me:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...given your propensity for racism towards Arabs, as advanced in the Israel WW3 thread...

1. The Palestinian Arabs are not a race of humans; they are a group of humans who celebrate those of their leaders who advocate and attempt the destruction of Israel.

2. So I theorized: Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs. In other words, Israel will not get some peace by successfully negotiating with the Palestinian Arabs, because the Palestinian Arabs have shown they will not keep their negotiated agreements with Israel.

3. So, the alternatives available to Israel to finally get some peace appear to me to be either Israel voluntarily exterminates itself (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Israeli humans), or Israel exterminates the Palestinian Arabs (which is obviously not an acceptable alternative to the Palestinian Arab humans).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... you must realize that the group who have been running the war are incompetent. And I mean that fully: they are without competence in matters of either war or diplomacy.

Yes, the group who have been running the war have been incompetent. I perceive competence and incompetence to be relative and not absolute attributes. In the absolute sense, all humans are incompetent; that is, all humans are fallible. So the question I seek to answer is: what group of humans do I think is probably more competent than the present group at learning from their mistakes and succeeding in Iraq? So far, I have not discovered such an alternative group. Until I do discover such an alternative group I will support the current group and try to get them to do what I think will allow them to learn from their mistakes and succeed in Iraq.

It would be an even greater display of incompetence than we have seen thus far, if the current group or any replacement group were to quit trying to succeed in Iraq.

0 Replies

It amazes me that one can call for genocide against a group of people as a plan for 'peace.'

If you honestly believe what you've written, then I feel sad and disappointed in you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If the war in Iraq was not a mistake, how come Bush changed the justification for the war from WMDs to get rid of Saddam to bring democracy to the Middle East? Was there something wrong with the first two justifications?

CLUE: There's no way to force democracy on any culture from the outside.

0 Replies

US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'

Quote:

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

0 Replies

And the other bad news about some US-soldiers

Inquest told of 'rogue' US attack on British convoy

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is access time really determined by length of thread?

Also, the invasion of Iraq was wrong on several levels and a boneheaded mistake that we show no signs of fixing anytime soon. Just to be clear.

Cycloptichorn

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (AUMF), October 2, 2002

Just to be clear...

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the U.N. Security Council

Just to be clear...

(Go do a search for the word "democracy".)

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
...given your propensity for racism towards Arabs, as advanced in the Israel WW3 thread...

1. The Palestinian Arabs are not a race of humans; they are a group of humans who celebrate those of their leaders who advocate and attempt the destruction of Israel.

If a call for a genocide on the Palestinian Arabs doesn't make someone a racist because "Palestinian Arabs are not a race of humans", would that mean that the Nazis who planned the extermination of the world's Jews were no racists either - as Judaism is not a race, but rather a religion?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know