I wonder if it will even affect Bush that she called him out, right there in the open, about his own history of requiring a time table of Clinton (ha ha Mr. Hypocrite!)? I also wonder, if her strong words about how it was Bush disrespecting the troops by vetoing a bill, and not showing one ounce of a possibility of compromising on the need for an exit strategy? I certainly hope that more people listen to great people like Ms. Pelosi, and do the right fucking thing; get us out of Iraq, so that we can focus on the real issue, which is taking care of our country and our people. If we really want to rid the world of terrorists, we should stop putting ourselves in the position of creating them. It’s time to be a little more intelligent people!
If ONE person can substantially say that our presence in Iraq is doing more good than bad; I am challenging you to PROVE IT. It is obvious that our stay is no longer welcome, and we need an exit strategy, or this silly occupation will go on, and more people will unnecessarily die. Unfortunately, more than 3000 soldiers have already given their lives; when will enough be enough?
On a different, yet related note, I think that I have finally figured out the solution that Bush wants for Iraq. If we can’t leave, and we can’t announce a time for exit (because, by his claims, they will just “wait around until we are gone” and stir shit up again) it is obvious to me, that Mr. Bush has only two options: we occupy Iraq forever (in which, proves that he is a liar, saying that he wants democracy there), or, we kill everyone that lives in Iraq, effectively ending the presence of an insurgency. I would think that there have to be other options, and I am personally glad that I have people like Ms. Pelosi on my side. Bush wants this war to go on, even though the overwhelming majority of the people that HE REPRESENTS wants it to stop. What does that say about him? At a minimum, it makes he look like a hardheaded little brat, who just won’t give up until he gets his way; no matter the cost.
I am just happy that he isn’t the only one who gets to make decisions. I hope that the congress and the senate can get what we need; a real plan. A real PLAN!!!!!!!!!!! Rock out Pelosi!
“I wonder if it will even affect Bush that she called him out, right there in the open, about his own history of requiring a time table of Clinton”
For Pelosi to compare that to this war proves she has no idea how to run foreign policy. I find it frightening she is 3 in line.
“If ONE person can substantially say that our presence in Iraq is doing more good than bad; I am challenging you to PROVE IT.”
You don’t feel our pulling out will do more bad than good? You don’t think the humanitarian disaster will be enormous? The surge (and other changes by Bush recently) have provided a lot of positive effects, one of which is Sunni militants battling al Qaeda. This is fucking amazing, and notice how quite the news media is on this. Most of what we get is biased bullshit. At least Fox will report this.
Bugboy, she spoke of that to prove that Bush lacks standards and conviction. I think it was more than appropriate.
As for your response to my question, you didn’t answer it. I asked if our presence is doing more good than bad. It isn’t. You even spoke of the future. You spoke of what if. I am speaking of right now. If you talk about “if we pull out” the bad that it will do, you must consider the fact that we have no business being there in the first place. We should not have gone to war with Iraq! We cannot just forget that and move on. It is totally relevant, and more attention needs to paid to that fact.
I am not advocating a cut and run. But, an exit strategy is required. It is being demanded. And, it must be something that Bush starts to consider. It is inexcusable for him to continue this head in the sand bullshit.
Bush lacks conviction? I thought that was the major criticism of him was that he had too much conviction. That’s my major complaint of him–he has not been flexible enough in dealing with the war. However, there are some very good signs lately.
“I asked if our presence is doing more good than bad. It isn’t.”
If we pull out and there is a genocide (and I think there will be) then our presence would be doing more good.
There is one interesting theory that if we do pull out, there will be mayhem, and the Saudis will come in to protect the Sunnis and the Iranians for the Shiites, and those two will be at war. This MIGHT be one scenario that suits your policy, to a certain degree.
So, what we are doing right now isn’t killing anyone (since you call it genocide)? Obviously, the current situation is volatile. It has been for 4 years. It is getting worse. I don’t think riding it out is going to work unless we just kill everyone in the region (which is real genocide). What we need is a plan. Bush offers no plan, just more of the “stay the course”. If don’t want out of Iraq, then why not a real plan of action? What is wrong with an exit strategy and a REAL plan?
notice how quite the news media is on this
Uneasy Alliance Is Taming One Insurgent Bastion, New York Times
Al-Qaeda in Iraq May Not Be Threat Here, Washington Post
Insurgents report a split with Al Qaeda in Iraq, Los Angeles Times
Anger at Foreign Arabs Builds in Iraq , Associated Press
Etc…
Yeah, that mainstream media is covering this story up - BIG TIME
Bush has offered a plan–the surge–which the Dems have opposed in favor of defeat and a pullout. This pullout idea is really no plan at all.
The surge is a change in tactic and strategy and has had some positive effects, despite the media’s complaints.
Arming Sunnis to fight al Qaeda is huge. Don’t dismiss what this can represent. Helping Iraqis step up to fight against the insurgents. That is the sort of policy that can allow us to leave with the Iraqis in control of their country.
“So, what we are doing right now isn’t killing anyone (since you call it genocide).”
Dude, we aren’t the ones sending out car bombers, and that behavior will continue long after we’re gone.
Do you know why the Democrats opposed ANOTHER surge? Because exactly what they thought would happen (because it happened the other 4 or 5 surges), happened. The violence was displaced to somewhere else in Iraq. It has been said OVER AND OVER that there needs to be at least 1 soldier for every 50 Iraqis to successfully “hold” the region. We are about 400k short of that. If thinking that a surge of 15-20k was actually going to do something significant is what you want to rest on, it is not only naive, but plain denial.
Insurgents = Iraqis. How many times does this need to illustrated before people will get that?
And when will that be? Are you suggesting that we had nothing to do with the violence in Iraq? Do you really believe that our soldiers are over there playing hopscotch, and they aren’t killing anyone? Just our presence is fueling the car bombers. JUST OUR PRESENCE! Also, you seem to forget that the reason that Iraq is in a civil war, is because of us. We may not of been the ones that bombed the mosque that caused all hell to break loose, but by choosing a side, and fighting in a civil war that did not exist before we arrived, is continually adding fuel to the fire. That has got to stop. We can’t continue to bury our head in the sand and look to the future to solve this problem without acknowledging that we are the cause of the current situation.
I think the government underestimated the war and commitment it would take. I also believe the American public is not strong enough to sustain a prolonged war effort, aka, we’ve gotten soft. As Col. Mustard would say:
You can’t make an omlette without breaking some eggs. (But look what happened to the cook!)
Seriously though, I think an exit out of there is a great idea. However, I don’t think we can just be like…..ok let’s go. If we don’t stabilize it and get things at least semi-tolerable, everything will have been for nothing. Perhaps we shouldn’t have gone in there, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are and we need to do what’s right and fix the problem.
Duane,
I went coocoo bananas on the last thread. Bugboy and I had a fairly narrow discussion and I attacked it from several angles with a wide array of evidence to support my position. Bugboy, so far as I can tell, had nothing to counter with except for the same mostly uninformed opinions he walked in with - which were the same ones he left with. “I feel… I think…”
I’d bet this pattern has repeated itself here before. Which is really no surprise - the truth is that all of us, by virtue of being human, are remarkably good at ignoring evidence that refutes our preferred version of reality. The amazing thing about propaganda is that it’s vulgarity is matched by its effectiveness. In Bush’s case, he has done what every political hack working in a system that is nominally democratic has done - mouth grandiloquent speeches that have very little relationship to the policies he enacts. Some people, like Bugboy, are moved by these speeches. Once you have that emotional buy-in from some people, the facts stop mattering. People are far more faithful to their passions than the truth.
So I’ll leap once more into the breach, but mark how none of this will have any effect on Bugboy.
Arming Sunnis to fight al Qaeda is huge. Don’t dismiss what this can represent. Helping Iraqis step up to fight against the insurgents. That is the sort of policy that can allow us to leave with the Iraqis in control of their country.
Al Qaeda has very little presence in Iraq. There is an organization that we call Al Qaeda in Iraq, but it has very little relationship to Bin Laden’s group; both operationally and strategically. (See Ql-Qaeda in Iraq May Not Be Threat Here) It is a domestic group, i.e. Iraqis. So your statement is that we are helping Iraqis fight Iraqis, aka a civil war.
What Bugboy is saying here, without quite meaning to, is that the U.S. is pitting tribe against tribe in a civil war and waiting for them to run out of bodies. This is an old colonial trick the British put to use quite often in its days of empire. It belies the assertion that we are somehow stemming the violence by remaining in Iraq though.
Dude, we aren’t the ones sending out car bombers, and that behavior will continue long after we’re gone.
No, we don’t send car bombers out. We drop 1000 pound bombs on city blocks. But Bugboy, if you believe what you say here – that the awful violence roiling through Iraq will be there long after we leave – then ask yourself, how are we preventing a bloodbath by staying?
As Duane has said, we are making the violence worse - not better - by staying. Again, relying on what Iraqis have told us, most of them feel less safe in the presence of U.S. troops, they feel we are making the violence worse, they support violent attacks on our troops, and they want us to leave. I can go ahead and refer you to the polling data from a wide array of sources going back to the beginning of occupation if you don’t believe me. (That’s depth and breadth!) What’s your retort? “Bah, Iraqis lack the cognitive capacity to understand what effect U.S. troops, stationed in Iraq, have on the violence in Iraq affecting Iraqis as well as suburban Americans do.”
Here is an analogy; Iraq is like a wild fire. Is our presence like water or gasoline? Note: This is not a wishy-washy “I feel, I think” answer; it is empirical.
Justin, thanks for your continued and very patient input; it is much appreciated.
Your analogy is great; because we can be either. If the fire is too big, water works on a small portion of it, but the rest will continue to burn and consume. Although, I think in this case, we are much more like gasoline, unfortunately, because even under Saddam, they were not as bad off (as many Iraqis have been recorded as saying) as they are now.
The whole reason we won’t leave is because of what you said; we are waiting for them to run out of bodies. We are waiting for them to die, so we can have what lies beneath their feet… Operation Iraqi Liberation, y’all! The whole thing is just inhumane if you ask me.
Kelly,
I will warn you, I may sound like an ass here. That is just by polemical style, so don’t take offense.
First of all, the omelet thing is a quote attributed to Lenin. Its somewhat telling that that is where we are at now in Iraq; borrowing quotes from one of the fathers of the most brutal state killing machine of the 20th century. The Soviets needed cute little sayings like that - “when wood is chopped, chips fly” was another - to rationalize the mass destruction they perpetrated in the name of “progress.”
If we don’t stabilize it and get things at least semi-tolerable, everything will have been for nothing. Perhaps we shouldn’t have gone in there, but it doesn’t change the fact that we are and we need to do what’s right and fix the problem.
I am reminded of that scene in the Big Lewboski when Walter and The Dude are bowling after Walter screwed up the drop. The Dude is freaking out because he thinks the nihilists are going to kill Bunney, the hostage, and then kill him. Walter tries to console him by telling him, “Nothing is fucked here, Dude.” It was funny because everything was fucked at that point in the plot, and mostly because of Walter.
We are Walter. We can’t stabilize Iraq, because that isn’t within our power to do so, and our very presence is further destabilizing it. We are long past talking about what we need to do or should do. What we can actually accomplish, American can-do attitude notwithstanding, is not matched by what some think we should do. Capabilities, necessity, and desire are not the same things.
The fact that we shouldn’t have gone in there in the first place may not matter in your opinion, but for others history is an important context for the present. Imagine that you are walking down the street and a man brandishes a knife and flashes it at another, much smaller, man. Everyone yells at him to stop, but the bigger man goes ahead and plunges it into the chest of the little guy, who collapses with a sucking chest wound. As he lies on the ground, bleeding out, the crowd gathers around and begins wondering what to do. The attacker stands there too, though. And he tries to calm everyone down and tells them that he can figure out how to fix this mess. When someone reminds him that he stuck the knife in there and that he should just get the hell away, he responds that it doesn’t matter how the knife got in there, that he should be trusted to tend to the stricken man’s wounds. “Forget about whether or not I should have stabbed him, what’s done is done. Now what can I do?” Every time he bends down to mess with the wound, the bloody mess lying on the ground uses what strength he has left in him to fight off his attacker, obviously not trusting his intentions. His struggles only causes the blood poor out faster.
the buffer cut me off!
Continuing…
Everyone once in a while the little guy cries out through ragged breaths. “Get him off me! He is trying to kill me! Please, let me alone!” But before he can complete these sentences, the attacker puts his hand over his mouth, muffling his scream, and assures everyone that the little guy wants and needs his help, notwithstanding the original attack.
It’s quite the spectacle. The original stabber, standing over the victim and muffling his pleas, occasionally slapping or punching the bloody mess on the ground, and all the while sobbing and plaintively asking “why doesn’t anyone love me?”
Justin, that was like, the most amazing comment ever. Seriously.
“Insurgents = Iraqis”
Not always, and not according to the Iraqi gov’t; and especially so for the al Qaeda fighters.
“Yeah, that mainstream media is covering this story up - BIG TIME”
It’s not making many rounds on the network news programs.
“It has been said OVER AND OVER that there needs to be at least 1 soldier for every 50 Iraqis to successfully “hold” the region. We are about 400k short of that.”
Iraqi population: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)
Divide by 50: 549,992
Coalition solders: about ~200,000
Iraqi Army: ~300,000
Iraqi Police: ~100,000
Where are you getting your information?
“Just our presence is fueling the car bombers. JUST OUR PRESENCE!”
So your position is if we pulled out today they would stop murdering each other? All of that sectarian violence would cease?
Heh.
“Bugboy, so far as I can tell, had nothing to counter with except for the same mostly uninformed opinions he walked in with - which were the same ones he left with. “I feel… I think…””
This is not true. I did make many citations and you know it. And much to your dismay I am very informed and have proven so by refuting your positions. My policy is when I have a cite handy I’ll always post it, otherwise if you are curious and are willing to accept a challenge to your biased, unrelenting politics you can find them yourself. Sorry if I inadvertently spoiled your plans for creating additional tangents with words from my cites. Instead, you had to stay on the issue, and you didn’t fair as well as you expected.
“Some people, like Bugboy, are moved by these speeches. Once you have that emotional buy-in from some people, the facts stop mattering.”
Considering how ridiculous a pullout is, as the Dems are suggesting, one thing that has been very obvious is the inability of the left to recognize anything good about the war, believe it could work, or consider the ramifications of a pullout.
‘”So I’ll leap once more into the breach, but mark how none of this will have any effect on Bugboy.”
Shhhyeah…as if you even recognize your own “buy in” on the issue.
“We drop 1000 pound bombs …how are we preventing a bloodbath by staying”
And there you have it: your “non partisan” mindset comes full circle as you compare laser guided bombs targeted with every reasonable attempt to avoid civilian casualties with the actual intent of driving a car bomb into a market to kill as many civilians as possible. I was actually waiting for this one. At first I didn’t think you would be so inexperienced as to reveal yourself and try this on me, but, here it is, right before my eyes.
I’m sure you think such statements do our military favors instead of stabbing them in the back. I bet you can prove this with a cite from al jazeera.
But, way to go. You really showed me you understand politics, warfare, and morality, and also that you hold no hateful agenda that could possibly be clouding your judgment. I sure hope you lefties keep this stuff up loud and clear next year, too.
And for someone who preaches that people lie and shouldn’t always be believed, you sure to gobble bait from the most leftwing rags on the planet. You demonstrated zero critical thought of your own sources.
“but for others history is an important context for the present.”
To you, Pol Pot was simply misunderstood?
Justin: Did too
Bugboy: Did not
Justin: Did too
Bugboy: Did too
…
and so on.
“Just our presence is fueling the car bombers. JUST OUR PRESENCE!”
So your position is if we pulled out today they would stop murdering each other? All of that sectarian violence would cease?
No, the position is that our presence is doing nothing to stop that violence and is making it worse daily. The violence won’t stop if we leave immediately, but it won’t get any better with our continued presence. And crucially, it won’t get any better as long as we continue to stay.
And there you have it: your “non partisan” mindset comes full circle as you compare laser guided bombs targeted with every reasonable attempt to avoid civilian casualties with the actual intent of driving a car bomb into a market to kill as many civilians as possible.
Look, if you believe all that then I am not going to change your mind on a comment thread. War, especially U.S. style war, is big, ugly, and brutal. I was pointing out the absurdity of “smart” bombs, or our supposed moral superiority because we don’t intentionally kill civilians (except when we do in cases like Haditha.) I don’t accept the proposition that you can drop a 500 or 1000 pound bomb from a moving plane thousands of feet in the sky on a city block and say that any civilian deaths are unintentional. Or that you can invade a country and get away with honestly saying any civilian deaths are unintentional. That is my point. And I won’t bother to refute your framing of how we fight as “every reasonable attempt(s) to avoid civilian casualties.” In spite of how incorrect that is, I’ll just concede it for the sake of argument.
“but for others history is an important context for the present.”
To you, Pol Pot was simply misunderstood?
Is that really your counterpoint to my argument that history matters when understanding/considering plans of action for the future? You are joking, right? I can’t imagine why anyone would even want to refute that… it should be self-evident. Pol Pot… wtf did that come from?
This is not true. I did make many citations and you know it. And much to your dismay I am very informed and have proven so by refuting your positions… Sorry if I inadvertently spoiled your plans for creating additional tangents with words from my cites. Instead, you had to stay on the issue, and you didn’t fair as well as you expected.
I won’t regurgitate the whole thing, but here it is again: You asserted that Bush’s foreign policy is largely a democracy agenda. I maintained that he says that often enough, but his words are not matched by his deeds. That was the issue. To that end, you cited… his words.
I cited dictators he embraces, a democratic government he supported the overthrow of, his lack of support of democratic institution building funds for Iraq, his opposition to Iraqi elections, explicit statements from his own press aides that his rhetoric did not signal any changes in policy, his complete dismissal of what Iraqis want for their country vis-a-vis our involvement - as expressed in numerous polls and the 2005 elections, and so on. Those are all on point to the issue.
The links and discussion in question are here.
Maybe you made an awesome argument that totally refuted all my points in your imagination, but what you actually wrote was incoherent stuff like, “If every list had that platform then there is really no way you can logically conclude the predisposition in your preceding sentence.
In fact, your 2 statements above are self-refuting.”
What happened to my response?