| Author | Post |
|---|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 08:12 pm |
|
Fred, the crux of the matter, IMO, isn't the violence that will ensue after we leave. I don't believe it will be that severe. I think the real issue is Iranian influence in Iraq.
The decision to invade only makes sense if we posit one of two motives on the part of the decision makers:
1. They wanted Iraq to be a satellite nation of Iran;
2. They expected that in some manner, Iran would be neutralized.
Hang in there, dude; I believe the ride has just started.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 01:58 pm |
|
I wouldn't say it would be genocide, but I think there probably would be a sharp rise in various groups killing each other.....but I am not sure that it is what you would call it.
We are damned if we do, damned if we don't....but I think we need to force the Iraqis to start taking responsibility, even if it means more initial deaths.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 261 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 01:45 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I would argue that it isn't genocide either, but a civil war...which the adminstration inititally refused to say it was, then said it wasn't sure, then sort of admited that it is exactly what we have there.
When Muslim blacks are offing non-Muslim blacks (same peoples - different religions), everyone, Dems and Repubs, are calling it genocide. No one said, as far as I read, that Iraq is a genocide ... now. But many, including some Dems, say it would be if we did a total withdrawl. Aren't they both technically civil wars? Or is this more political spin by both sides?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 02:17 am |
|
I would argue that it isn't genocide either, but a civil war...which the adminstration inititally refused to say it was, then said it wasn't sure, then sort of admited that it is exactly what we have there.
I'm in a military course right now (very little Internet, and even less free time), and we've spent a fair amount of time discussing Iraq, and what the strategy should have been. The course is about 80% Iraqi veterans, and the general consensus is that Rummy REALLY screwed it up, and that there really aren't any good options left, but that we will be there for a while....and we seem to expect some sort of partioning at some point.
We also are in full agreement that the military has done everything they could have done and have been asked to do, but that the political and economic areas are critical, and are still not being addressed...and that there really isn't much we in the US can do at this point. We are not very optomistic about the outcome, although most expect to return for another tour in the next couple of years.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 01:44 am |
|
| LSM talking points
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 5th, 2007 01:05 am |
|
We aren's seeing genocide in Iraq. We are in the middle of a civil war.
Big difference.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 11:10 pm |
|
“Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.” —Jonah Goldberg
In response to Barak Obama's reply that preventing a genocide in Iraq after an American withdrawl does not justify keeping US troops in Iraq.
Others of the left feel that is is justifiable to send troops to Darfur where genocide is taking place by Muslims.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 12:20 am |
|
| LSM talking points....................
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 09:29 pm |
|
The surge isn't going well. If it were we'd be seeing progress being made on the objective of political reconciliation between the factions. We aren't.
In fact, the political situation has deteriorated dramatically since the "surge" began. That means that the premise of the "surge" is as flawed as the original premise of the war itself.
This article looks at history for some much needed (by those like you) enlightenment.
Taos Eddy wrote: Déjà Vu
Posted August 2, 2007 | 02:56 PM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News, George W. Bush
A tsunami of déjà vu washed over me recently as administration officials and advocates argued that good things are happening in Iraq while they pressed for more time for success to play out. Haven't we heard since the Iraq War turned badly in late 2003 that the seeds of success were just beginning to sprout, that the military was now moving to the right counterinsurgency strategy, that Iraqi security forces were finally taking the lead, and that a political solution was within sight? And in the last go-round, weren't we promised that another increment of force would solve Iraq's woes and lead to political reconciliation? I feel like we have turned so many corners that we are back where we started.
I served as a Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam, and today's Iraq debate takes me back there. It sadly reminds me of the "light at the end of the tunnel" syndrome that affected policy makers and senior military seeking to defend their policies and argue for more troops and time. Bright, well-intentioned people can believe that they can rescue a failing strategy with a policy shift here and a tactical redirection there, but at some point someone has to ask whether the strategy is, in fact, retrievable. Someone has to be prepared to say "enough."
If we are battling an "insurgency" in order to help Iraqis achieve a political solution, then we do not have enough security forces by any standard. In classic fashion, the "insurgents" disappear where we are strong and attack where we are weak, and U.S. forces are insufficient in number to deny the enemy mobility. Success in Anbar leads to conflict in Diyala. Pacifying a few Baghdad neighborhoods means ignoring Basra's growing chaos. A political settlement is unattainable while the enemy believes military success is possible. And against an external opponent like the U.S., stalemate equals success.
If, on the other hand as President Bush argues, we are involved in an existential "struggle for civilization" and Iraq is the "central front" in the Global War on Terrorism, then we are even more woefully undermanned. Why hand the enemy any advantage? Where is the overwhelming force? Why half-measures?
In either case, if one believes military force begets success in Iraq, the Bush Administration has been unprepared to commit the forces needed to carry out the strategy it has articulated. An additional 100,000 troops might have made the surge successful. Mobilization of the Guard and Reserve and a draft might have prevented the chaos we are now facing. But evaporating popular support has made the domestic political consequences of a serious troop increase unacceptable.
If we cannot muster the necessary manpower and resources for this war, we are short-changing our troops. If we cannot retain the support of the American public, we are separating our soldiers from our citizens. If we have Iraqi partners unprepared to make the tough political decisions needed and Iraqi security forces with little commitment to the Iraqi nation, we cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to be more willing to defend Iraq's future than Iraqis themselves.
For some time ahead, Iraqi society will remain entangled in multiple sectarian and factional conflicts. The Iraqi military and police will remain similarly fractured. And the national government, a reflection of broader society, will likely remain dysfunctional. Competing patronage systems and differing agendas will make reconciliation distant. Externally imposed stability efforts will run counter to the calculations of the internal actors.
Unable in this environment to foresee what the United States and the international community will do next, Iraqis are choosing the proximate security of their faction over any broader vision. Unable to depend on the central government, the United States now aligns itself with local militias in hopes of achieving local success, but, in reality, merely reinforcing factionalism and undermining the national government we profess to defend.
As a young lieutenant, I was taught that a failing strategy demanded alternatives. Committing one's forces to costly frontal assaults in the Iraqi quagmire is better replaced by a strategy allowing flexibility and economy of force. The time for more time has passed. It's time for Iraq's neighbors to join the political reconciliation process in Iraq or, at minimum, to contain the violence to Iraq. It's time for serious U.S. involvement in the Middle East Peace Process. And it's time to focus on the real Al Qaeda along the Pak-Afghan border. But only beginning the U.S. disengagement from Iraq will allow such alternatives to prosper.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rand-beers/deja-vu_b_58907.html
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 931 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 09:18 pm |
|
Lorie Byrd: If Democrats are upset there must be good news
If congressional Democrats seem a little hysterical these days, it just might be due to news that the surge counteroffensive in Iraq is yielding some progress
Oliver North: Seize the Moment
For nearly two years, the potentates of the press have been slavishly following liberal dogma and telling us that the war in Iraq is all but lost.
http://www.townhall.com
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 08:27 pm |
|
“Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we’ve ever had in place in that wretched country. They’re doing damned near everything right—with austere resources, despite the surge. And they’re being abandoned by your elected leaders. Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad.”
(Ralph Peters)
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 04:47 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: What they are saying:
The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us—or at least our fault. There was no al-Qa’ida in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it’s entirely our own doing. Our presence causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, they say, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have.” — (Mona Charen)
The "Democrats have convinced themselves"...
Well, if you mean they, along with nearly all the independents and a good portion of republicans and our intellilgence services, have looked at the facts as they exist and and as they have developed; that's true.
If you mean they, along with nearly all the independents and a good portion of republicans and our intelligence services, have made an analysis of those facts; that too is true.
If you mean they, along with nearly all the independents and a good portion of republicans and our intelligence services, have concluded that the wrongmindedness of our invasion has fueled terrorist recruitment; yet again, that's true.
If you mean that the belief that our actions have been those of either a madman or an idiot (or god help us, both) and we are paying the price, that also would be true.
If you mean that none of the above are correct and that the unable-to-take-personal-responsibility, will-lie-when-the-truth-would-do-twice-as-good, Bushie die hard, let's invade Iran too and nuke 'em 'til they glow for peace crowd has it right; then you are very, very wrong.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 11:53 am |
|
What they are saying:
The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us—or at least our fault. There was no al-Qa’ida in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it’s entirely our own doing. Our presence causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, they say, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have.” — (Mona Charen)
Last edited on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 11:55 am by Bixby
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 10:38 am |
|
| spammer
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 02:20 am |
|
Taos Eddy wrote: Déjà Vu
Posted August 2, 2007
A tsunami of déjà vu washed over me recently as administration officials and advocates argued that good things are happening in Iraq while they pressed for more time for success to play out. Haven't we heard since the Iraq War turned badly in late 2003 that the seeds of success were just beginning to sprout, that the military was now moving to the right counterinsurgency strategy, that Iraqi security forces were finally taking the lead, and that a political solution was within sight? And in the last go-round, weren't we promised that another increment of force would solve Iraq's woes and lead to political reconciliation? I feel like we have turned so many corners that we are back where we started.
I served as a Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam, and today's Iraq debate takes me back there. It sadly reminds me of the "light at the end of the tunnel" syndrome that affected policy makers and senior military seeking to defend their policies and argue for more troops and time. Bright, well-intentioned people can believe that they can rescue a failing strategy with a policy shift here and a tactical redirection there, but at some point someone has to ask whether the strategy is, in fact, retrievable. Someone has to be prepared to say "enough."
If we are battling an "insurgency" in order to help Iraqis achieve a political solution, then we do not have enough security forces by any standard. In classic fashion, the "insurgents" disappear where we are strong and attack where we are weak, and U.S. forces are insufficient in number to deny the enemy mobility. Success in Anbar leads to conflict in Diyala. Pacifying a few Baghdad neighborhoods means ignoring Basra's growing chaos. A political settlement is unattainable while the enemy believes military success is possible. And against an external opponent like the U.S., stalemate equals success.
If, on the other hand as President Bush argues, we are involved in an existential "struggle for civilization" and Iraq is the "central front" in the Global War on Terrorism, then we are even more woefully undermanned. Why hand the enemy any advantage? Where is the overwhelming force? Why half-measures?
In either case, if one believes military force begets success in Iraq, the Bush Administration has been unprepared to commit the forces needed to carry out the strategy it has articulated. An additional 100,000 troops might have made the surge successful. Mobilization of the Guard and Reserve and a draft might have prevented the chaos we are now facing. But evaporating popular support has made the domestic political consequences of a serious troop increase unacceptable.
If we cannot muster the necessary manpower and resources for this war, we are short-changing our troops. If we cannot retain the support of the American public, we are separating our soldiers from our citizens. If we have Iraqi partners unprepared to make the tough political decisions needed and Iraqi security forces with little commitment to the Iraqi nation, we cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to be more willing to defend Iraq's future than Iraqis themselves.
For some time ahead, Iraqi society will remain entangled in multiple sectarian and factional conflicts. The Iraqi military and police will remain similarly fractured. And the national government, a reflection of broader society, will likely remain dysfunctional. Competing patronage systems and differing agendas will make reconciliation distant. Externally imposed stability efforts will run counter to the calculations of the internal actors.
Unable in this environment to foresee what the United States and the international community will do next, Iraqis are choosing the proximate security of their faction over any broader vision. Unable to depend on the central government, the United States now aligns itself with local militias in hopes of achieving local success, but, in reality, merely reinforcing factionalism and undermining the national government we profess to defend.
As a young lieutenant, I was taught that a failing strategy demanded alternatives. Committing one's forces to costly frontal assaults in the Iraqi quagmire is better replaced by a strategy allowing flexibility and economy of force. The time for more time has passed. It's time for Iraq's neighbors to join the political reconciliation process in Iraq or, at minimum, to contain the violence to Iraq. It's time for serious U.S. involvement in the Middle East Peace Process. And it's time to focus on the real Al Qaeda along the Pak-Afghan border. But only beginning the U.S. disengagement from Iraq will allow such alternatives to prosper.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rand-beers/deja-vu_b_58907.html
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2774 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 01:58 am |
|
| No the President of the United States put us in the mess we are in currently. Had he followed the advice of the military leaders, the war would certainly be playing out differently. He has absolutely no strategy or plan for the withdrawal of our troops, nor any plan for a definitive victory.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:22 am |
|
| The grads of the war college gave us the mess we are climbing out of. Now that the administration has cleaned house of the military GOB's we have a chance with new thinking.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:07 am |
|
My what an intelligent and deeply considered response. Thank you for the clear picture of your mind that you've allowed us to share in.
Perhaps you should put that deep insight into a more formal written piece that you can present to our high schools and colleges, showing them the error of their ways for thinking that lessons of the past are relevant to our lives today. I'm sure that the field of military tactics and strategy at the War College and in our military academies will benefit greatly from limiting their studies and view to only those events you define for them as "current".
Again, thank you for the clear insight into the workings of your mind.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 11:25 pm |
|
| Viet Nam is so forty years ago. Can't you argue your point in this new world with anything more current? Maybe we should review the errors made in the Crusdaes that took the Christians so long to defeat the Moslems. Last edited on Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 11:26 pm by
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 09:30 pm |
|
Déjà Vu
Posted August 2, 2007 | 02:56 PM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News, George W. Bush
A tsunami of déjà vu washed over me recently as administration officials and advocates argued that good things are happening in Iraq while they pressed for more time for success to play out. Haven't we heard since the Iraq War turned badly in late 2003 that the seeds of success were just beginning to sprout, that the military was now moving to the right counterinsurgency strategy, that Iraqi security forces were finally taking the lead, and that a political solution was within sight? And in the last go-round, weren't we promised that another increment of force would solve Iraq's woes and lead to political reconciliation? I feel like we have turned so many corners that we are back where we started.
Email
Print
Comment
I served as a Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam, and today's Iraq debate takes me back there. It sadly reminds me of the "light at the end of the tunnel" syndrome that affected policy makers and senior military seeking to defend their policies and argue for more troops and time. Bright, well-intentioned people can believe that they can rescue a failing strategy with a policy shift here and a tactical redirection there, but at some point someone has to ask whether the strategy is, in fact, retrievable. Someone has to be prepared to say "enough."
If we are battling an "insurgency" in order to help Iraqis achieve a political solution, then we do not have enough security forces by any standard. In classic fashion, the "insurgents" disappear where we are strong and attack where we are weak, and U.S. forces are insufficient in number to deny the enemy mobility. Success in Anbar leads to conflict in Diyala. Pacifying a few Baghdad neighborhoods means ignoring Basra's growing chaos. A political settlement is unattainable while the enemy believes military success is possible. And against an external opponent like the U.S., stalemate equals success.
If, on the other hand as President Bush argues, we are involved in an existential "struggle for civilization" and Iraq is the "central front" in the Global War on Terrorism, then we are even more woefully undermanned. Why hand the enemy any advantage? Where is the overwhelming force? Why half-measures?
In either case, if one believes military force begets success in Iraq, the Bush Administration has been unprepared to commit the forces needed to carry out the strategy it has articulated. An additional 100,000 troops might have made the surge successful. Mobilization of the Guard and Reserve and a draft might have prevented the chaos we are now facing. But evaporating popular support has made the domestic political consequences of a serious troop increase unacceptable.
If we cannot muster the necessary manpower and resources for this war, we are short-changing our troops. If we cannot retain the support of the American public, we are separating our soldiers from our citizens. If we have Iraqi partners unprepared to make the tough political decisions needed and Iraqi security forces with little commitment to the Iraqi nation, we cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to be more willing to defend Iraq's future than Iraqis themselves.
For some time ahead, Iraqi society will remain entangled in multiple sectarian and factional conflicts. The Iraqi military and police will remain similarly fractured. And the national government, a reflection of broader society, will likely remain dysfunctional. Competing patronage systems and differing agendas will make reconciliation distant. Externally imposed stability efforts will run counter to the calculations of the internal actors.
Unable in this environment to foresee what the United States and the international community will do next, Iraqis are choosing the proximate security of their faction over any broader vision. Unable to depend on the central government, the United States now aligns itself with local militias in hopes of achieving local success, but, in reality, merely reinforcing factionalism and undermining the national government we profess to defend.
As a young lieutenant, I was taught that a failing strategy demanded alternatives. Committing one's forces to costly frontal assaults in the Iraqi quagmire is better replaced by a strategy allowing flexibility and economy of force. The time for more time has passed. It's time for Iraq's neighbors to join the political reconciliation process in Iraq or, at minimum, to contain the violence to Iraq. It's time for serious U.S. involvement in the Middle East Peace Process. And it's time to focus on the real Al Qaeda along the Pak-Afghan border. But only beginning the U.S. disengagement from Iraq will allow such alternatives to prosper.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rand-beers/deja-vu_b_58907.html
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 05:20 pm |
|
Bix, every right wingnut out there has been touting that article, and it is nothing but propaganda. Those two were both strongly for the war, but eventually had to face the no longer deniable fact that we screwed the pooch with the invasion. Now they are for the war again, or at least the headline is.
The surge is PREDICATED on giving the political process there a chance to work. The political process is moving BACKWARDS. Therefore the surge is a failure as a strategy to enable the political process. This was nothing but the SOS wrapped up in a new ribbon - a game of whack-a-mole with the lives of our troops in the balance.
I sisncerely believe that anyone who still supports this war should run (not walk) down to their nearest Marine or Army recruiter and enlist to go fight. The authors of that article certainly look to be of prime military age to me.
So a note to the right. We're onto your selective use of facts and narrowly defined glimpses of "success". Take 'em and stuff 'em where the sun don't shine because you aren't fooling anyone anymore.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1323 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 04:11 pm |
|
“National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” —John Adams
That’s the spirit!: “When we broadcast teach-ins on the Vietnam War, and the Watergate hearings during the trial of Richard Nixon, it was a real public service—the reason PBS was created. We should keep Iraq in prime time every week—the fighting and dying, the suffering, the debate, the politics, the extraordinary costs. It’s months until September. This war is killing us now, body and soul.” —PBS’s Bill Moyers
Memo to the Left: “Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”
Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution and no fans of President Bush, recently returned from Iraq and writing in The New York Times
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 1st, 2007 12:10 am |
|
| Must be... I was working all day in the office and we don't pipe in radio. I actually read the NY Times on Sunday FrEddy, I didn't have to google it or listen to commentary. You should try that sometime. Unlike you, I read extensively all on my own, without needing someone to tell me what I should think.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 1st, 2007 12:02 am |
|
LCR wrote: The LEFT WING seems mighty quiet since the NY Times Op Ed piece on Sunday. Seems the ulta liberal Brookings folks see that the surge is showing positive gains.
There goes the Democrat "loser" philosophy'.
I feel a 'surge' of support for maintaining a steady course.
The political process there is moving backwards, dumba--.
Talk about grasping at straws. But that is the precise same message i heard on the 5 minutes of Limbaugh I listened to today. Isn't that a coincidence?
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2007 09:48 pm |
|
The LEFT WING seems mighty quiet since the NY Times Op Ed piece on Sunday. Seems the ulta liberal Brookings folks see that the surge is showing positive gains.
There goes the Democrat "loser" philosophy'.
I feel a 'surge' of support for maintaining a steady course.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2007 02:06 am |
|
| I probably have quoted more Republicans then Dems in my postings, CR...you know, the ones that every single time you claim are RINOs or are running scared for election....even if that election is 5 years away?
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2007 12:03 am |
|
Why FrEddy, I didn't know you had any heros to parrot.
Fred wrote:
I can see why you think we are the same person...we both actually take the time to read, research, and post our own opinions on issues, and don't simply parrot what our heros tell us to think.
However, if you can't tell the difference in our opinions, it wouldn't surprise me. Unlike some posters here, who seem to be the same because all they do is copy and paste others opinions as their own, we have slightly different outlooks on a lot of subjects. I'm probably a bit more moderate on most of these issues; it doesn't mean that I disagree with Taos, which probably annoys you because it goes against your belief that all Dems/Libs/non-Faux News fans think exactly the same, but it means we have a slightly different perspective.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 11:54 am |
|
I can see why you think we are the same person...we both actually take the time to read, research, and post our own opinions on issues, and don't simply parrot what our heros tell us to think.
However, if you can't tell the difference in our opinions, it wouldn't surprise me. Unlike some posters here, who seem to be the same because all they do is copy and paste others opinions as their own, we have slightly different outlooks on a lot of subjects. I'm probably a bit more moderate on most of these issues; it doesn't mean that I disagree with Taos, which probably annoys you because it goes against your belief that all Dems/Libs/non-Faux News fans think exactly the same, but it means we have a slightly different perspective.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 12:06 am |
|
FrEddy you guys are joined at the hip now. why don't you drop one of the monikers and save your self some effort..
Just curious.......which of your monikers is Herr Goebel and which is Herr Goehring?
Fred wrote:
And the phrase "support for initial invasion" really doesn't matter.....If you asked me, I would probably have to admit that I supported the invasion, although I had my doubts, but figured the administration had more information and data than they were sharing.
At issue is do they support it NOW. What I thought 5 years ago about it has been changed by a lot of factors, including the administration's fudging the reasons for going to war, and their conduct of the war.
Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 12:09 am by
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 06:19 pm |
|
Now if you want a story with some meat on the bones...
Iraqi lawmakers take their time
Even with U.S. pressure to pass key legislation, there is a distinct lack of urgency.
By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Times Staff Writer
July 27, 2007
BAGHDAD — Missing from Thursday's session of the Iraqi parliament were about half of the members, including the speaker, the former speaker and two former prime ministers.
Also missing: a sense of urgency.
American officials have been pressing Iraqi leaders to prove their commitment to ending sectarian strife by enacting landmark legislation before mid-September, when the Bush administration is to present its next report on Iraq to Congress.
But even as parliament's monthlong August break approaches, key issues aren't being discussed. Quorums are marginal, or fleeting.
Despite the high stakes here, the Iraqi parliament appears to be deliberating at a pace to rival plodding legislative bodies around the world....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-missing27jul27,0,4508518.story?coll=la-home-center
In 1970 both Nixon and Kissinger had privately acknowledged that there was no way to achieve the "victory" they sought in Vietnam because the population of that country simply did not support the effort to sustain the South Vietnamese Government we had installed. Kissinger is on record as saying that we should not pull out, however, because doing so would hurt the Republican's election prospects in '72.
So 23,000 more American troops died,tens of thousands more were wounded, as well as hundreds of thousands of civilians casualties were required before we faced the truth.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 05:03 pm |
|
And the phrase "support for initial invasion" really doesn't matter.....If you asked me, I would probably have to admit that I supported the invasion, although I had my doubts, but figured the administration had more information and data than they were sharing.
At issue is do they support it NOW. What I thought 5 years ago about it has been changed by a lot of factors, including the administration's fudging the reasons for going to war, and their conduct of the war.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 04:41 pm |
|
This is straining at gnats in an attempt to make a political statement.
I mean, there was a single question that showed a change where other related questions didn't. They went back and checked their work, as any good researcher would. I see no speculation about the roots of the change, only concern that their method was proper.
As to the reference to the failure to show concern when the number dropped, the most apparent explanation is that support was dropping across the board and there was nothing anomalous to explain. Now that may or may not be correct, but it is telling that your article failed to even check such an obvious possibility; or, maybe they did and they didn't like the answer.
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 04:02 pm |
|
Increase in Iraq War Support Baffles Times' Pollsters
In a web-only column on Wednesday, Janet Elder, who writes about polling for the Times, found the Times' most recent poll revealed a surprising uptick in support for the invasion of Iraq.
The Times quickly went to work to explain the increase in support for the war, something it apparently considered an unwelcome anomaly.
"The war in Iraq is the single most important ongoing news story right now. Public opinion about the war is a critical part of that story. That's why when we had a poll finding about the war that we could not explain, we went back and did another poll on the very same subject. We wanted to make sure we had gotten it right.
It turns out we had gotten it right. Support for the initial invasion of Iraq, as measured by a question The New York Times/CBS News poll has asked since December 2003, increased modestly compared to two months ago."
[.]
"In the poll, The Times and CBS News posed a standard question that asks respondents to think back to the initial invasion and then judge whether or not the United States military action in Iraq was the right thing to do. 'Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the United States have stayed out?'
"Forty-two percent of those polled said the United States did the right thing, and 54 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. The last time the question was asked, in May, 35 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.
"The July numbers represented a change. It was counterintuitive. None of the other war related questions showed change. Mr. Bush's approval rating had not changed. Nor had approval of his handling of Iraq. The level of support for Mr. Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq -- the so-called 'surge' -- was about the same as it had been in past polls. Support for the decision to go to war had risen modestly and nothing else in the poll could explain it."
When support for the invasion plummeted by nearly the same amount between April and May (the April figures were 44 percent and 51 percent, before falling off in May), there was evidently no effort by the Times to question the drop in support for the war.
And is it not overkill to not only introduce the word "surge" with the dismissive phrase "so-called," but to put quotation marks around it as well? We get it: The Times rejects the accuracy of the word "surge." No need to underline it twice.
James Taranto at Opinion Journal: "Well, two cheers for the paper's diligence, but this also seems to be about as close as we're going to get to an admission of bias: an acknowledgment that those at the Times are flummoxed that the public is not responding the way they expect to all the bad news they've been reporting."
http://www.timeswatch.org
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 11:39 pm |
|
The administration is getting waaaay too predictable if it is getting so easy that I am calling it for what it is worth before the MSM picks up on something...
Not sure if others have noted this yet, but the Pentagon official who strafed Hillary Clinton yesterday--Under Secretary Eric Edelman--is a former aide to Dick Cheney. I interviewed him in Ankara once when he was U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and his office was festooned with Cheney photos......
So, I doubt that he hurt his standing all that much in the administratio.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 07:42 pm |
|
What did I say that was an attack on the person? The blurb had a comment at the end that he was "putting his career on the line". I disagree with that statement, because I believe he is an appointed offical, and his "career" is over in 18 months...but he certainly gets street cred with the right wing crowd for the statement.
IF Congress is considering pulling the funding out, there HAS to be contigency plans for that, or their should be....just as their are plans for increasing the troop level if the President orders it. Her asking the question is a fair one, especially given her position in Congress.....
And I'd say it was grand-standing (on Hillary's part), but who had heard of it before the Under-Secretary went very public with it?
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 07:38 pm |
|
Fred I'm disappointed in you.
This is something TE would stoop to attacking the messenger not the message.
Notice how Hillary went right to his boss to shut him up. 
Fred wrote: Isn't he a Republican appointee? How, by attacking Hillary Clinton, is he doing anything but helping his career, assuming that there is another Republican president sometime? If not, there are plenty of right wing think tanks he can retire to that can invent reasons why everybody else but this adminstration lost the war.
Hillary's questions are legitimate.
|
Coogans Bluff
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 07:23 pm |
|
bbd wrote: "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Something in common with the major portions of these conflicts is that they fall under Democratic presidents who either pulled out or prohibited victory in some manner. We could have won each of these decisively but Iraq has to be tagged as Bush's failure simply because we, after accomplishing the mission of toppling Saddam Huessein, failed to have enough troops to hold the terrain that we won. As some say, "we won the war but lost the peace."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 05:34 pm |
|
Isn't he a Republican appointee? How, by attacking Hillary Clinton, is he doing anything but helping his career, assuming that there is another Republican president sometime? If not, there are plenty of right wing think tanks he can retire to that can invent reasons why everybody else but this adminstration lost the war.
Hillary's questions are legitimate.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 05:29 pm |
|
Some have been saying it now the Pentagon confirms it.
Democrats are helping our enemies.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07202007/news/nationalnews/pentagon__hill_is_helping_foe_nationalnews_ian_bishop____post_correspondent.htm
July 20, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The Pentagon yesterday launched a blistering attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for boosting "enemy propaganda" by demanding the U.S. military whip up plans for withdrawal from Iraq.
The forceful pummeling - in response to Clinton's request that the Defense Department "prepare plans for the phased redeployment" - came in a terse letter to the Democratic presidential front-runner from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote in the July 16 letter.
"Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks," he added.
Clinton, who voted in favor of the war in 2002, has been calling for the pullout of combat troops as she ratchets her anti-war rhetoric to woo liberal voters who make up the core of the Democratic Party.
In May, she called on Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace to design plans for an orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and their equipment to avoid "the failure to adequately plan for the conflict."
In addition to the formal request, Clinton urged Pace in a private meeting to make a blueprint for the complex withdrawal - a plan she insisted was necessary, given congressional Democrats' increasing efforts to end the war.
"Any military operation requires contingency planning so that the military and our troops are prepared if the current plan is unsuccessful. It would be irresponsible not to engage in similar planning in Iraq," she said.
Edelman's stinging rebuke is surprising, given that Clinton is a rising member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has oversight of the Pentagon.
Clinton's Senate spokesman Philippe Reines said Edelman's letter was "at once outrageous and dangerous," and added that Clinton planned to respond directly to his boss, Secretary of Defense Gate
---------------------------------------
The man is puting his career on the line to tell the truth.
Last edited on Fri Jul 20th, 2007 05:31 pm by bbd
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
| I think that his point is no point but only illustrating the frustration by the Democratic leadership over the failure, which would be obvious.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 11:29 am |
|
| And your point is?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 931 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20th, 2007 11:03 am |
|
Reid Feels 'Pride and Regret' After Iraq Withdrawal Failure
(CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was filled with both pride and regret after Republicans following an all-night session blocked an amendment that would have mandated a withdrawal of troops from Iraq...
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 09:12 pm |
|
| The NYT was as bad as anyone when during the runup to the Iraq invasion they acted as an unquestioning outlet for administration lies and disinformation. If they'd done their jobs this war might have been prevented.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 06:37 pm |
|
Maybe I overstated the case on the NY Times, but they have been supportive of the war, if not necessarily the tactics used.....or, as they put it....
....The paper has long been very critical of the conduct of the war and skeptical of the "surge" but has never backed a withdrawal. Or as the editorial puts it on Sunday: "Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward."
What about the Pittsburgh papers? They are owned by as much of a right winger (Richard Mellon Scaife) as you can get this side of Murdoch, and they have come out against it....probably a bit stronger, even, then you would get in the so-called liberal mainstream media....
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
Realize this was the guy who is a loyal funder of Repubs, and funded a lot of the "investigations" into the Clintons in the 90s...
Seems as if the righties can't get into the lifeboats fast enough.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 06:22 pm |
|
Whowee! Fred, I usually just glance at these threads about Iraq because we have a totally polarized set of bloggers on this issue just as we do in the rest of the country , but I just couldn't resist a snicker at one of your comments where you say the NY Times is or was Pro-Bush. You have truly jumped the shark on that one. If there is a more determined newspaper to cause Bush problems , it has to be the NY Times. I don't care about the stories their people generate out of whole cloth -that's just sloppy editing and phony journalism but the drumbeat has been constant with their editorial staff against anything Bush does and...
No point going on, -I'm sure you can find an article somewhere in that paper that was grudgingly supportive of something he did , but a 'supporter' -no way.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 04:43 pm |
|
Fred, we've given them the training and the resources. The numbers don't lie. In addition to all those we've trained, they had a large well trained standing army that looted the ammo dumps after the invasion.
Pure speculation, but I think they are just waiting for us to leave to commence real hostilities if a total pullout occurs. Our position as referee while we are there is keeping a lid of the all out commitment of each sides forces.
If we pulled out totally, the war would probably not go well for the Sunnis, Even though there is much talk of a wider regional war because the Sunni's would pull in the Saudi, and the Shi'ite would pull in Iran, (leave Turkey aside for a moment) I'm not sure that is the case. The control of the Saud's is very shaky and I don't think anyone could really predict whether they would risk strengthening Wahabiism in Saudi Arabia (the number one threat to their rule) while simultaneously courting a war with Iran. The upshot - I believe, would be that Sunni in Iraq would get the message that re-enforcements aren't coming for them, but that the Shi'ite, -if they need it (and they probably wouldn't) - will be aided by Iran.
Faced with that stick and the carrot of a regime willing to threat them like Iraqis first and Sunni second, I think peace would arrive quickly and with relatively little violence.
If the UN - most especially the regional players - become involved diplomatically, then there is a good chance this same scenario would play out under their watch.
Where the real danger lies is Bush and his desire to promote a wider conflict.
He wants the social order in the Islamic countries destroyed so it may be rebuilt and he is just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger. Congress gave him clear warning on this one, so he has to temper his impatience. But even though peace is possible, I fully expect the situation to escalate unless Congress takes drastic action.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6209 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19th, 2007 12:46 pm |
|
Coogans Bluff wrote: “The Islamists believe we can’t win; so does The New York Times. But it falls to the American people to decide the issue.” —Victor Davis Hanson
“We are seeking to create order in Iraq, while al-Qa’ida seeks to create disorder. It is orders of magnitude easier to create chaos than it is to create order. That doesn’t mean it is impossible. But it will require patience and above all, will.” —Mona Charen
“How the threat of a resurgent al-Qa’ida is ameliorated by a hasty U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, no Democrat, liberal Republican or member of the media has yet explained.” —Oliver North
On |