Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?

There wasn't exactly a lot of transparency involved with these elections; and what more, there haven't been any local elections in the last 18 months or so, despite promises to have them every 6 months iirc. So there's a good argument to be made that many Iraqis have legitimate gripes about the 'freely elected' aspect of their government, or at least with the people they actually have to deal with.

Cycloptichorn

While that may be true; it alters the accuracy of my answer not at all.

I know. But it's important to remember that there are valid reasons for why people are upset over there; they aren't (all) mindless barbarians who are simply revolting against the Good Guys. Many of them see the government - run by the Shiites - as decidedly Bad Guys. And there's some justification for their doing so.

Cycloptichorn

Preaching to the choir. The Shiites are going to dominate the government, regardless, but opposition is a normal, healthy thing. Road side bombers on the other hand have no business breathing the same air. Sunnis who will prefer violence over peaceful negotiation are enemies of Iraq... and no justification can be made for their actions. Same goes for the Shia "death squads" that prefer revenge for oppression to peaceful settlement. The opportunity is there, though it's a long row to hoe, but I remain hopeful that something good can grow.

o'bill wrote earlier :



i don't want to put words into bill's mouth .
so i am wondering , when he talks about "generations of iranians" , does he mean the (iranian) shiites living in iraq ?
since they are obviously in the majority , one might infer that shiites will lead the next iraqi government - with a small representation by sunnis and kurds , if they are lucky .
i have some doubt that the united states wants a shiite controlled government in iraq - but will there be any choice ?
it is also prudent to remember that the shiites represent a minority in the total muslim population of the middle-east and the world .
saudi-arabia has already indicated that they would look unfavourably on an expansion of shiite led governments - paricularly in the neighbourhood .

it seems to me that the united states got into this mess without understanding the complexities of the various religious groups in the middle-east . it's somewhat like walking onto quicksand - it's difficult to get out of it once you start to sink .
hbg

You didn't need to work so hard to demonstrate, O'Bill, your newly-found love of hateful but essentially empty rhetoric.

The example of the Union men of eastern Tennessee and of the western counties of Virginia refers to "average" Americans, since you are bent on suggesting that freed slaves don't count. And the entrance of West Virginia into the Union in 1863, along with the bitter fight for Knoxville and eastern Tennessee culminating in the victory at the end of 1863--both represent improvements of the lives of white folks, your precious "average" Americans, in the middle of the conflict. The liberation of the Muslim subjects of the Turks in 1917 comes in the middle of that war, as well--these people were freed from the Turks, long before the government of the Young Turks collapsed. You miss, as always, the point of lessons of history--some examples can be found which will support your thesis, especially in terms of short wars, of a few years. But examples can also be found which contradict your thesis. In the final analysis, though, your thesis fails because of a lack of a clear definition which would tell us if the war has been "won," when it was "won," and if it has not yet been "won," upon what terms could we assume it has been "won."

As a life-long adept, i acknowledge your expertise in one making an assshole of oneself, while pointing out that deflating your simplistic and simple-minded appeals to a history of which you clearly know little to nothing does not qualify.



If this were the only criterion for "winning" in Iraq (and the administration's own rhetoric contradicts this), then clearly the war was "won," and we're screwing up the occupations, and failing of our "civilizing mission" of bringing democracy to the middle east. As for the efficiency with which the Iraqi forces were defeated, the debacle at the river crossing at An Nasiriya during the invasion, as well as the speed with which the Sunni insurgency armed itself and went over to the offensive after the invasion give the lie to that claim.



As with your lame appeals to history, this suffers from a lack of precision. Iraq had a Sunni-dominated, secular state before the invasion. It is not reasonable to claim that the Sunni insurgency is "Muslim fundamentalist" in character. The majority of the population of the nation are Shi'ite. Do you suggest that simply being a Shi'ite makes someone a Muslim fundamentalist? That would be a foolish assertion, although i'm not claiming that you are making tha assertion. It does leave you with the problem of who, among the Iraqis, would constitute Muslim fundamentalists, and what evidence you have the such fundamentalists constitute a significant part of insurgency in Iraq, or of any particular militia. Terrorist is a better term for you to fling around, since it is sufficiently imprecise, that it can be applied to anyone espousing a murderous policy--such as, say, G. W. Bush. The al Qaeda claim is entirely unwarranted. The Jordanian creep who first declared himself head of al Qaeda in Iraq was just looking for terrorist cachet, without actually having previously had any connection to al Qaeda. If there truly are al Qaeda in Iraq, which i doubt, their numbers will be necessarily small, as foreigners stand out like a sore thumb there. Most of those whom one could legitimately call terrorists or members of al Qaeda, apart from former Ba'athists among the Sunni insurgency, are going to be foreigners. They'll be as immediately noticeable as would be Australians who tried in infiltrate the small town Midwest of the United States--they'd betray themselves just as soon as they opened their mouths.



The representatives of the Iraqi people are, arguably freely elected. However, even the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad have not been stupid enough to simply let a minority government take charge, because that means that the Shi'ites immediately take control, and the Sunnis, who had little to lose before, now have nothing to lose. That's the primary reason why we have a tiger by the tail now, and can't let go. The evidence mounts that Shi'ite militias and the police and army of the Iraqi government are responsible for a great many, and perhaps a majority of the politically motivated murders taking place outside Baghdad, and quite a few within the city (although its concentration of Shi'ites continues to make it a popular target for Sunni insurgents).

It would be foolish to assume that Sunnis, especially former Ba'athists, have any reason to be loyal to a Shi'ite government, which will likely make reprisal its first order of business, even if only by proxy.

The mess we have in Iraq is clearly a failure in view of the consequences of having gone in there without a clear idea of the players and the dynamics, and without a plan for the occupation, which it is now clear was the case. As for blathering, you never fail to entertain with your own blather, and have little to nothing else to offer than blather. I've never yet seen you offer a coherent view of history, or of geopolitics, and you continue to show that you know nothing of Islam and the middle east.

Hamburger; the Iranians I was referring to are those living in Iran. I fully expect the shiite majority to rule Iraq and have little fear of that if the moderate Shiites of Iran can be assisted to power as well.

Set, you'll never learn that more wordsbetter. I can only assume that many of those you're striving to impress with your near-meaningless blather treat you as a read past poster, despite your sometimes fascinating historical perspectives.

Had you noticed the word "also" between "Muslim Fundi extremists, Terrorists, Al Qaeda etc" and Iraq you'd know that half of your latest mind-numbing screed was as unnecessary as it was condescending. Clearly you'd rather insult than be honest. As for history; I've never claimed to be able to match you in this regard, but your over the top criticisms only serve to further demonstrate your lack of integrity. Our takes on "the racist flag" threads were almost indecipherable; yet you've never seen me offer anything coherent. Whatever King Set.

It is really sick for you to say, O'Bill, that i'd rather insult than be honest. You lash out viciously whenever i post, whatever i post. I wrote exactly as much as was necessary to say what i had to say, and no more. I answered your silly remarks, in which you continue to attempt to defend an undefensable claim, despite having labeled me as dishonest.

I did not respond to the "also," because i know we are attempting to prevent a civil war there--and that is just one more piece of evidence of the failure administration policy.

You behave toward anything i post like a drunk in a bar looking for a fight, hysterically and over-the-top--and you're just about as effective as drunks are when they are stupid enough to get in a fist fight.

Who attacked who here, Set? I don't really care to suffer fools and I don't lay down for bullies. Those who can dish it out, but can't take it should probably seek amusement elsewhere. I do give passes to those I deem too intellectually inept, but you don't qualify for this exemption. Address me with at least a minimal amount of respect and I'll happily return the favor. Continue to talk out of you're a$$, and I'll happily continue to illuminate it. Choice is yours.

It's a matter of degree, which i don't expect you to understand, because you've reacted with hysteria to everything i've written for many months now. In my initial response to the ludicrous bullshit you posted about people's lives improving in the middle of a conflict, at the very end of that post, i made a remark about flannel-mouthed conservatives spouting pseudo-history. That was in the context of the incredibly stupid remark about American military policy in the 1940s as compared to today, as well as your silliness about the American Civil War. It was definitely a matter of wearing a shoe if it fits you. You have, all too typically of late, reacted with over-the-top viciousness, which you have of late frequently augmented by using rhetorical terms and demonstrating that you don't know how to apply them correctly in a debate--as long as you are mentioning fools.

I'm no fool, so i can only conclude that your inability to suffer fools means you are unable to look in a mirror. Your argument was specious, i've demonstrated as much, and you have responded by increasingly retreating from discussing the detail of the argument, or attempting to defend your stupid claims, and increasingly resorted to personal invective. You have illuminated nothing, and have shown that you can't defend the feeble thesis which you initially attempted. It's not surprising that you have been assiduously slinging as much mud as you can, as that's all you've got to go on.

Set, do you get a lot of rebound chicks?

There are other significant signs of the failure of the policy of the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad which haven't been mentioned here. One is that quite a few observers of the international scene have pointed out that the western world is less secure than it was four years ago. It is certain that the attacks in London and Madrid were direct responses to the fiasco in Iraq. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, as well, and has gone on an extended offensive against areas under NATO control, and has done so by targeting the villagers and the civilians employed on reconstruction projects. The Americans and the English, however, are less well able to respond, because they are mired in Iraq.

Perhaps the most significant result of the failure of the policies of the crew on Pennsylvania Avenue comes from oil. Petroleum is selling at $60/barrel or more on world markets. Absent the war, it very likely would not have exceeded $45/barrel. The $15 to $20 per barrel which has been tacked on to the price of petroleum by war jitters and a lack of confidence in the US dollar (now heavily in hock to the Chinese, another result of this war policy) has gone into the pockets of the Mullahs in Iran and the clown Hugo Chavez, as well as enriching the Russians. The American consumer not only suffers from a sluggish economy, but from the higher prices which result from the increased price of petroleum. Meanwhile, Halliburton stock has gone up more than 300% in the last four years--no surprise there, though, huh?

If you're so smart that you figured all that out, why didn't you buy Haliburton stock four years ago?

Your mind-numbingly boring screed only addressed precisely one sentence of my post and missed the point of it entirely. I had carelessly left out the word average, and subsequently admitted as much. The rest of your blathering is predictably, a reflection of what you'd like to respond to, rather than any point I was actually making. That is, after all, the standard Setanta M.O. For years I've watched your petty attacks and your predictable slides from reason to invective as it's pointed out to you, over and over, whenever you don't feel that you've been sufficiently deferred to. Know new gnews here. Only in your own mind does your rhetorical skill hold a candle to your frequently fascinating grasp of history. Pity that mindless insult seems to be your preference.


Interestingly, I'm probably one of your biggest fans when you're not endeavoring to make an a$$ of yourself. I've probably read 90 percent of your rational posts, and have literally spent hours on many occasions with that purpose in mind (I especially enjoy your debates with Asherman, who matches your skill from another perspective, though utterly devoid of your penchant for childish insult.)

If I've illuminated nothing; that is only because your penchant for childish rhetoric is a beacon unto itself. You are quite infamous around here as much for this foolishness as your frequently brilliant historical perspective.

As for lives being improved during the Civil War; get a grip. The average American life was better before and after the conflict than it was during, and only an arrogant fool with a desire to argue for the sake of argument would even attempt to prove otherwise. This too is reflective of your standard M.O. Once you've gone on the attack; you tend to refute anything, no matter how obvious, while refusing to acknowledge any aspect of an opponent's position. I've seen it 100 times and will probably see it 100 more.

As for your whining about invectives and personal attacks; you need look no further than the nearest mirror to locate the cause of virtually every nasty exchange you've ever had with me. YOU lowered the level of discourse here with YOUR insults, and then seek sympathy when your invective is returned in kind. You are the proverbial bully who can dish it out, but can't take it. Clearly, I find it amusing or I wouldn't bother taking your bait at all. <shrugs>

Review: Rumsfeld - His rise, fall, and catastrophic legacy http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/23/features/idbriefs24A.php

A very convenient misfortune too, if you ask me. Consider which industry in America benefits the most from high oil prices. Then compare it with the industry in America enjoying the chummiest political connections with the president the vice president. Do you notice a similarity between the two?

Only enemies of America, terrorists, an UnSerious Liberals make allegations like that, Thomas, which cannot possibly be anything but partisan mudslinging with no basis in truth.

The energy industry meetings with Cheney? The secret ones back in the beginning of the admin? Only terrorist supporters bring those up!

Cycloptichorn

It is all the more interesting--i just heard a few minutes ago on CBC radio that oil had jumped up again, to $62/bbl, as a result of the Iranian seizure of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines members, as well as turmoil in Nigeria. Now, turmoil in Nigeria cannot necessarily be directly linked to the Iraq war, but the Royal Navy would not have gone in harm's way within reach of Persian forces absent the war. But for that matter, the turmoil in Nigeria has a rather suspicious relationship to the war, in that the spiraling profits for oil companies doing business in Nigeria, while the tribal communities continue to suffer from unemployment and poverty, has lead to a good deal of the "terrorism" which has been directed at oil platforms in the last few years.

It also a truism that a rise of one dollar in the price of a barrel of crude translates immediately and directly into the deaths from malnourishment and starvation of tens of thousands of women in children in the "third world." The skyrocketing price for crude which was the result of the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq has been directly linked to the collapse of the government in Somalia, when it could no longer guarantee food prices and supply for the clans, who used their private militias to bring down Mohammed Said Barre's regime.

The effects of the war include destabilization of nations far, far from the cockpit of war, and which do not have either petroleum or Islam in common with Iraq.

Setanta,

You fall beneath your usual standard in your 'analysis' of the reasons for the rise in the price of oil. The exploding demand in China and South Asia for petroleum is almost certainly a larger factor in the recent price rise than any of the factors you listed. Moreover petroleum isn't easily stored in more than a miniscule fraction of the rate of consumption, As a result the market is violatile, immediately reflecting uncertainties in future supply, such as the political troubles in Nigeria (which trace back to the Ibo war of the 1960s and beyond).

While the major oil companies are certainly doing very well, based mostly on sustained high demand and consumer agnst which leads to to low price resistance, the fact is most of the price increases benefit the producing countries far more than the major oil firms.

I didn't grace my ruminations with the title "analysis." I did not claim that the war was the only reason for the rise in petroleum prices. I do consider it to be a crucial factor however, and "market jitters" about potential threats to the price of crude have the effect of making prices volatile. Witness the response of the markets today to the capture of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel, and to the continuing petroleum production "terrorism" in Nigeria. OPEC routinely can and routinely does increase production to meet increased demand, precisely because they don't wish to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Demand in India and China does not account entirely for crude prices from $15 to $20 and more above the price before the invasion--and it would be as facile to ignore the effect of the war, and the concomitant doubts in commodities markets--the "virgin at a smoker" behavior of brokers on commodities markets is notorious.

I made no comments about the potential profits to the energy sector, although the fact that producing countries benefit more than refiners and retailers does not alter the fact that refiners and retailers still realize an increased profit. If you want to carp about that, talk to Thomas, who i am certain is more than capable and willing to discuss the economics of petroleum from well-head to gas station pump with you.

My point was about the extent to which a war such as this--particularly as it is in the middle east--has significant effects which reach far beyond the immediate neighborhood of the conflict.