Iraq is entering a murky interregnum period.
Comment: Hey here's the redirect you were asking for...
Q. Which president allowed Afghanistan to be taken over by Al-Qaeda, allowed the Cole to be bombed, allowed the inspectors to be forced out of Iraq (the very reason we invaded)?
clue: wasn't either Bush.....
Comment: Are any of you chicken hearted chicken hawk repug mccainites/bra burning clintonites ever gonna step up and answer or just do the ROVE thing avoid and redirect?
I ask a repug "why is the sky blue?" Repug says "well grass is green." I ask why is water wet?" repug says "dirt is brown and grass grows in dirt so Obama is a Muslim"...lol
Here lets ask a question and see if a repug can answer with out saying the words Democrats, Obama or Clinton:
Q: Which American President ignored intelligence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, then LEFT AFGHANISTAN for Iraq (a country that has never attacked the US) Says he NEVER even thinks about those who attacked us, "I don't even worry about bin laden"...he says
Sub question: which American Senator has supported nearly ALL of said Presidents policies on the WAR as proven by his record of voting with the "President" 90% of the time?
A: have at it
Comment: Are any of you chicken hearted chicken hawk repug mccainites/bra burning clintonites ever gopnna step up and answer or just do the ROVE thing avoid and redirect?
I ask a repug "why is the sky blue?" Repug says "well grass is green." I ask why is water wet?" repug says "dirt is brown and grass grows in dirt so Obama is a muslim"...lol
Comment: McCain adopts another Obama campaign slogan..."Are you better off now than you were 4yrs ago?"...Obama has been saying it since the primaries. Now, mccain DESPERATE to seperate himself form bush, though he has voted with bush 90% of the time, is using the EXACT same line...John, DESPERATION is a stinky perfume.
Comment: "Wasn't this going to be a campaign free of the usual partisan bickering?"...
That's what John Mccain SWORE and has never looked back, as he and rick dahmer daivs fling mud, and lies everywhere. While Obama, laughingly responds and mccain says Obama creid "race"
Funny how on the EXACT DAY Obama returns to asking the question to people "Are you better off then you were 4yrs ago, or 8yrs ago, do you think you can stand 4 more years of it?"...and gets a roar of "NOs!" from the crowd, John McCain, takes a piece of Obama'a speech which he has been saying for months now, and CRIES OUT about it...I will give RICK DAHMER DAIVS credit for his timing there ;)
Comment: John McCain could'nt attract a crowd of 200,000 if he covered himself in SH!T and counted the flies...ROFLMAO!!!! - My Mom wrote that one, way to go Mom ;) Gotta love it!
Comment: The problem for McCain is his "Judgment", if he really had superior military insight, he would have never agreed to go to Iraq until Afghanistan was "mission accopmlished". If mccain would have wanted to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where they make base and train, if he would have wanted to actually bring BIN LADEN to justice, if MCCAIN has TRUE judgment, he would have stood on the floor of the Senate and said "WRONG WAR< WRONG TIME!" We would have "WON" in Afghanistan, instead of "cutting" our ablility to supply more troops and "running" to Iraq, for a "WAR FOR OIL" and for the bush ego.
If McCain had done that, there would not have been a "SURGE" required, AT ALL. thousands of Iraqis and hundreds od Americans would have been saved...but NOPE! McCain and BUSH wanted to go to a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US, and star another war, and now MCCAIN AND BUSH want to go "bomb Iran, bomb bomb Iran". before AFGANISTAn or Iraq are clear...and you call that a "military mentality", you call that "Judgment"?
Comment: Just thought I'd mention this...as food for thought ;)
Comment: Watching the recent movement in the polls brings back memories of disbelief over the actual results in 2000 and 2004. Based on the reality of all that is going on, the status of all things and the performances of the candidates, it would seem only reasonable to see something different than a closing of the gap between Obama and McCain and experiencing other than the expected then creates questions. In his book WHAT HAPPENED, Scott McClellan describes a ???permanent campaign??? and a ???politics as war??? mentality that negatively impacts Washington???s governing ability and that has been negatively progressing for decades culminating in the pits with the Bush Administration. McClellan???s long running admiration and respect for George W. Bush is evident and seems to limit his ability to fully identify the additional negative impact of Bush???s strong sociopathic personality and the full impact of Dick Cheney???s and Karl Rove???s personalities, all being arrogantly self-indulgent and stubborn without conscience. Scott lays a lot of blame at Rove???s feet and describes the strong, even private and near secretive, strong influence of Cheney but sticks more with the non-personal pathology of the developing philosophy used. The reality of the specific results, the particular slant of the observed problems and who always benefited from the Bush Administration???s actions strongly suggest that the effect of the personalities contributed far more heavily than identified. However Scott does clearly identify the problems incurred with constantly concentrating all effort on winning the campaign, on totally controlling public opinion and on succeeding over any opposition even while failing to be forthright, or open or to answer to the people; that mentality coupled with the focused backing of the Republican Party, the strong support of influential, powerful and wealthy supporters and including dedicated conservative cable and talk show media enabled them to do all they did. Now the question mentioned before would be, are we apt to continue down this road or this time is the public capable of seeing through the overt and covert efforts to appeal to their biases, prejudices and emotions, aimed to manipulate their opinion and then instead be conscientiously objective in their voting decision? Looking around us at the status of everything should influence us far more than their efforts to justify more of the same.
Comment: Saying that dems don't appreciate American values of freedom and way of life and that they should move to another country is off base. , ,Dems DO respect and ARE aware of America placing freedom for it's citizens above all else.
And what could more demonistrate dem's awareness of America placing freedom above all else than their pointing to an American citizen with loving family about him on Thanksgiving Day carving up the old bird after having killed bunches of people, destroyed two countries, now working on his own giving thanks, effusive thanks, for were it not that he was a resident in the most powerful country on earth these precious freedoms
that he is now enjoying would be stripped away from him.
Comment: http://www.execulink.com/~sixgeraghtyz/Terrorism/weapons/DepletedUranium.html
???(The Pentagon???s) assertion that no Gulf War veterans could be ill from exposure to DU ... contradicts numerous pre- and postwar reports, some from the US Army itself.???
??? Sen. Russell Feingold
(D) Wisconsin
September, 1998
Depleted Uranium Watch ??? Stop NATO!
http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/
A comprehensive collection of articles and links covering every aspect of Depleted Uranium weapons ??? scientific, political, medical, environmental and social.
DEPLETED URANIUM EDUCATION PROJECT
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
Index page for an extensive collection of reports and news releases.
Comment: These are still active combat zones. How do you test radiation levels when the bullets are flying and bombs detonating? You don't, until it is safe. For now you just put radiation checks in the plans for reconstruction.
Comment: I would really love to see Newsweek address the depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq. How much has been left on the ground or oxidized? What will the ramifications be and for how long? I wonder why there isn't any media coverage of this very important issue? I wonder how much of the American public is aware of what our government has done to Iraq and other countries. An in depth investigative reporting piece would be very enlightening to most of us.
Comment: How at risk are our soldiers and the citizens of Iraq, Afganistan, etc? What does this mean for the whole region? How far has the contamination spread?
Comment: Giving piecemeal information regarding the messy situation in Baghdad cannot tell the full story, let alone the exact scenario.
The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are still suspicious of one another. The fear factor is all over the place. Yet politicians have the cheeks to claim the ever elusive peace.
The US generals and Maliki have diverse agenda; the future of the nation continues to be beyond prediction. No outsiders can help the torn nation to return to normalcy except the Iraqis themselves ??? yes , I repeat, except the Iraqis themselves. (Tan Boon Tee)
Comment: I definitely agree with the Iraqis helping themselves. A Business Week online story shows Germany is working to get rebuilding contracts. Foreign contractors would like to know that they won't be targets before coming in. Iraq has both lots of building to do and lots of oil to pay for it. Nice combination once the bullets and IEDs stop going off.
Comment: To berenger: if you want to build a ski resort in Florida then that is your choice, with your money. If you want the government to build one then write you Congressperson. If you want our troops out of the Middle East, then write your Congressperson. I'd rather have the ski resort closer to central New York if I have a choice. Our military prescence in the Middle East allows Gulf nations to concentrate their efforts on a peaceful economy and have international security without their own military buildup. I am in favor of ski resorts over guns and bombs in a politically unstable environment. If anyone is going to have their trigger on a gun, I'd rather it be me than the other guy. Given that some military force is needed for security, who do YOU want to have control of the guns, the US or the pot luck selection of the Middle East leaders?
I believe that the President and White House staff has the legal right to not testify before Congress to some extent under executive priveledge. It is recognized by the Supreme Court, though not explicit in the Constitution. Its part of the separaton of powers. I don't have the legal knowledge to go any further. Impeachment gets frequently bandied about, but seldom acted on. Impeachment is kind of pointless now, isn't it?
The EPA ruling I think you are referencing says the President has to turn over the documents after approval, it doesn't say which President. The President may be doing nothing more than allowing the next President to decide what to do. That's hardly uncommon in the final year of a Presidency. The people need to decide who they want for the next President before the office of the President complies with the order. The White House has the right to edit the report to some extent, possibly affecting EPA policy. This is something a lame duck shouldn't do. I'm on the President's side on this one. I don't want him setting a policy that will outlive his Presidency if he isn't comfortable with it.
On the other hand, Bush's choice to disband the army is a disaster he should have forseen. Putting half a million men with guns out of work is something less than brilliant.
Comment: I will concede you one point: I think you would rather have your finger on the gun. I think you have a fascination with militaristic violence. Everything else you said backs up my previous points. The ski resort argument is inane. I was trying to make that rather obvious point, but even that gets muddied. You beg the questions, then argue against them with a macabre absurdity.
Comment: The ski resort in the desert is real. No joke. Small countries with large amounts of disposable income can do things like that.
Comment: To NewsWkDickG: You have a degree in psychology and claim that you did not intentionally pick your screen name to represent youself as being associated with Newsweek? OK, if you say so. I'll consider that statement as accurate and believable as anything else you say.
Oh, have you ever considered that if the US can elect a sociopath to the office of President that there are other sociopathic leaders out there? What is your evaluation of Saddam, or Qusay or Uday? I remember Henry Kissinger saying, upon being confirmed as Secretary of State...'I'm not paraniod, now I know people are talking about me.' Abnormal Psychology? I'd say that anyone who voluntarily works to become the most powerful person in the world, and succeeds, is by definition abnormal. I fail to understand why any degreed psychologist would consider using conventional psychology evaluations on the people taking on the etraordinary jobs of the White House elite. We do not live in their world.
You also center on the White House staff. There is a check on the President's power you haven't mentioned, Congress. All Congress has to do is not pass the funding for the war and it stops dead in its tracks. That's why our founding fathers put three branches in the government, to prevent sociopathic Presidents from presecuting a war, among other things. But that's another story.
Comment: It's been impossible to get this administration to testify before Congress or follow Supreme Court Laws, such as those involving the EPA. That's why Impeachment is being bandied about. And, Holly, you do not support your points. You use other quasi-factual points, which are not related to the argument. There isn't even a parallel. It takes attention off the real topic. What if I want a ski resort in Florida instead of our troops going to the Middle East? Shouldn't I have that right? Very pragmatic. But now that you mention it...
Comment: HG, I'm sorry but you are really a waste of time.
Comment: To NewsWkDickG: your screen name indicates that you are associated with Newsweek. I find one key item interesting in this public discussion. That is YOU have NOT presented FACTS to back up your theories. I, as a member of the public, on the other hand, back MY conclusions based on VERIFIABLE FACTS. I recall that there was reliable information that a WMD program did exist, based on information from Iraqi expatriates. As the old saying goes, the first victim of war is the truth. And that may have been done before it ever reached Bush. I believe the key expatriate was Saddam's main opposition, someone who had far more incentive to get the US back in than President Bush. I see no factual evidence presented by you that shows President Bush knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the WMD program was either faked to ended after the expatriate obtained the documents, and knew before we were actually in Iraq. I see no factual evidence backing up your conclusions of the arrangement of Bush, Cheney and special interests. We now know that the Spanish American War was started by a boiler accident in the USS Maine, not sabotage. This isn't the first war we entered with faulty information. I am not going to blame the war on Bush if he, along with many others, was given faulty or outdated information.
Another item you mention is the US deaths. I see steady reports of Iraqi civilian deaths. Even the weapons caches we find are stemming the internal sectarian violence, not stopping it. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of other Iraqis is far more than the current US military deaths. That, along with the weapons caches and continuing operations by private violent groups, backs up my contention that we are reducing civilian deaths. It shows that if we had not acted then a major bloodbath would have ensued at the fall of Saddam's government. There has also been a steady, if not optimistic, stream of reports of improving co-operation between the three main factions. I don't expect centuries of sectarianism to disappear in a couple of years, based on the US history of racial relations.
I write long messages because the public doesn't know me, and by presenting verifiable information then I show that I can be trusted. And when I have been shown wrong, including one recent posting on a story a couple of days ago, I acknowledge the error. I like the public to know my thoughts, but also how I arrived at my conclusions. If my conclusions are not supportable by facts then I need to rethink them. Sometimes facts I don't have are brought out by other posters. In a recent story someone with firsthand experience brought out facts that were contradictory to another poster who was using sources that were probably not unbiased. I had to go with the person with firsthand experience.
In your case I see no fact to support your position or change mine.
Comment: You have to be kidding, The mere fact of this administrations attack on Ambassador Wilson and his wife is clear proof of just what Bush/Cheney Co thought of the truth.
Anyone who dared to confuse them with facts would be attacked.
This is an administration that has actively sought to suppress the news, because the facts do not support their position and never has.
Comment: Excellent synopsis. Indeed, those who most destest Bush,show an amazing disregard for historical and geo-political facts,which move on their own accord,and do not bow to ideological expediancies or allegiances,especially as these are playing out in Europe and the United States.
The grandstanding display put on by then-minority Democrats led by John Conyers[D-Mi] and Howard Dean of a mock impeachment displaying ''proof''that Bush deliberately ''fixed''the war in Iraq was quickly evaporated when the smoking guns turned into rubber knives. The press yawned,[as they were hot on the trail of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove at the time,while the two Wilsons provided entertainment on the covers of magazines in chic poses].
The future historian may be unkind to Bush in several regards,but it will not evidence ''The Surge''as anything other than a patent success,and the feat of arms by Iraqi forces in Basra[just visited by Obama],as anything other than competent.
The long-awaited political drama now unfolds,with Sunnis poised to participate in their largest ever numbers in the upcoming vote.Maliki openly talks of timetables,sabotage on oil lines and stations is now rare enough that Iraq is now exporting more and more oil,bringing more money into its coffers. [Typical corruption will ensue. This condition alone however, neither detracts from further successes or diminishes those already gained.This unsalutory condition exists in all places].
The architects of The Surge are to be commended. Not only has this tactical and strategic device lowered deaths among soldiers and civilians,but it has contributed to the conditions already addressed. Indeed,NEWSWEAK,as its its wont.uses blasted buildings and swimming in bomb craters as its ''All Is Not Well'' meme,which would get an argument from Iraqi kids playing in a clear,newly constructed pool no differant than one used in Vegas over at Zarwa Park in downtown Baghdad,where,according to Agence France -Presse reporters on July 05 ,children ''screamed with joy''and ''hundreds of Iraqi children and adults enjoyed their weekend break''.
Obama gets a break here. The worst of the fighting may well be over. Nothing is certain. However,either of the candidates will exploit this opening,one that the MSM and the left has been so rash to deny, yet is still a matter of fact.
Comment: I am not in anyway associated with Newsweek; just quickly choose the name while commenting on Newsweek articles. I get a kick out of many who say their presentations are factual and that those that differ with them lack that factual value. Anything I have said I assure you is totally based on what I consider to be factual information, some references I have already mentioned and everything else I am sure is easily verifiable or common knowledge. I don???t think your comments hold up as well but then that is consistent with what I just said. You are persistent and I really want to end this as I see it going nowhere, so this is really my last response to you. I have a hard time even knowing what your point is. It seems that you really just favor the war and its continuation; I neither buy that nor do I buy into the wars justification which I see as falsely presented to benefit a few while greatly costing the many. You call it a Civil War by 'proxy' which blows my mind; how can you have outsiders (by proxy) fight a civil war? When outside forces enter a civil conflict you can bet it is because it has become a bloodbath and they are trying to stop it and not fight it ??? ref Bosnia. What you offer might be nice ??? we could have had England fight the South for us in our Civil War and the South could have had France fight for them, maybe they could have then even done it in Europe. No, we are not a ???proxy??? or a surrogate or anything else for the Iraqi people; any benefit they may gain, over and above the drastic costs they are incurring, is strictly incidental to our political leaders??? real goals, and Iraqi freedom has never even been presented as a main justification. We were told that it was because of WMD and terrorist???s connection; then when that proved false they switched it to being part of the War on Terrorism even though it actually took away from that effort. They tried to rationalize that even though they were wrong, it was okay because we got rid of Saddam ??? imagine where that logic puts us. We have been belligerently lied to, arrogantly given apathy and subterfuge while irresponsibly stuck with the humongous costs only for the significant benefit of a few and while our President wallows in an egotistic image of himself being the one that brought Democracy to the Middle East. Check Scott McCelellan???s book, what Richard Clark has said, information from Ambassador Wilson and so on. It really isn???t that difficult to see unless you are blinded by your own biases. Call me a cynic or critical or whatever but don???t think that what I reference isn???t true.
Comment: To NewsWkDickG: your screen name gives the false allusion that you were associated with Newsweek magazine. Yo state you have facts but have not presented them. Why should anyone reading your postings trust you?
Comment: As I said, it was not intentional to represent myself as being connected with Newsweek and I hope no one else has taken it that way. I really don't think that anything I have said has not already been supported or isn't common knowledge. Read over the past postings and check things out for yourself, I'm sure you will find it all accurate. Then just understand that I have no need to convince anyone of anything but rather I just read something and have the urge to express myself. Besides that, if I cause anyone just to stop and think about something, that is fine. Take care HG.
Comment: We can talk all day wether the surge work or didn't work. Even if it has worked what will happen when we do leave? Will the low grade civil war blow up into a blood bath? The dug up arms cash can be restocked. What have we won, for Iraq is not a game. The suppressed division haven't gone away and it is very easy for Iraq to go the way of Checzs. Even the option of staying longer than 2010 has alot of problems it is too easy to become occupiers.
Comment: To NewsWkDickG: I see that you seem to center your opinion of the Iraq War on the US government and some mystery set of 'special interests,' whatever they are. I see virtually every interest a 'special interest.' You don't even understand that a proxy war IS a very real war. We are fighting for those who can't fight for themselves. I saw Saddam as a leader who had no trouble opressing his people with a very heavy military hand while raping Iraq of its resources and letting his people starve and die. I saw a country that was ready to rip itself to shreds as soon as Saddam lost power in a bloodbath of epic proportions. I have no problem with losing the 4,000 lives we have suffered to prevent the much larger suffering that was coming if we stood by and did nothing. We have an all volunteer millitary. I have the utmost respect for the service people who are willing to go in harm's way to bring down a tyrant like Saddam. We never had the choice of having no one die, the only choice was how many mothers and fathers would lose their sons and daughters. The arms caches we are digging up all over Iraq confirm beyond any doubt that if we were not there that many, many more mothers would lose their children in the end. I am satisfied that the price, as high as it seems to those not familiar with the history of war, is still the best that can be done.
I do not condone graft, corruption or dishonesty. I simply accept that it exists whether I condone it or not.
Why do you believe that Dubai and other Gulf nations would NOT have to counter Saddam;s military? We know for a fact, beyond any doubt, that he DID invade Kuwait. Or did you miss that story?
Why should an indoor ski resort in Dubai benefit anyone but Dubai? It's their ski resort, not ours. The world needs more indoor ski resorts and fewer armies.
Why should it only be a civil war if we leave? It sure looks like the biggest problem Iraqis have (the armed ones) is that we are stopping them from killing each other in greater and greater numbers. They are mostly angry at us for digging up their arms caches and getting in the way of their neighborhood feuds. If that's not a civil war I don't know what is.
I am sure the majority of Iraqis would be happy for the violence to end. I am sure the US, especially the military, would be just as happy. Unfortunately the minority is still big enough to override those wishes. If you had 99% of the people disarmed in a city of 1 million, you would still have 10,000 armed people. That's still a whole bunch of guns.
Comment: It's called anti-social or sociopathic behavior when one has no problem kililng thousands of people to reach a desired end. Hundreds of thousands of human beings,,,,
Comment: To berenger: I trust that you do not have active combat command experience, based on your previous posts. Probably the world's foremost expert on killing thousands of people publicly stated that he never had any regrets. He knew what he did was necessary. I have never heard of him referred to as a sociopath. His name is General Paul Tibbitts, the pilot of the Enola Gay. I'll go with his opinion over yours.
Comment: I personally, with a degree in psychology and having read many books on the subject, have no doubt that GWBush (and Karl Rove) are sociopathic. For me the main proof is that they demonstrate total self-indulgence with no conscience. I have no credentials that qualify me to make that determination but pull a book on Abnormal Psychology and you will find them described 'to a tee'. For me, no doubt!
Comment: Are there a million armed COMBATANTS in any one Iraqi city? That is the premise, right?
Comment: To berenger: incorrect. My premise is that in any large city that even a very small percentage of armed people provide a potent security problem. I am saying that if you have one million people and 99%, 990,000 people, are peaceful, non-violent civilians then the remaining 1% is still enough to pose a large security threat. I am trying to point out that given enough people that even very small percentage of armed people can pose a major security problem. I did NOT say combatants, I said people. I didn't even say that the people were engaged in combat, only that they had guns, a POTENTIAL security threat.
I probably have more armed people, as a percentage of the total population, in my local neighborhood than in Baghdad. I'm in deer hunting country. Yet there is NO ACTIVE security threat. The security threat does not become real until the gun owners are willing to point their guns at other people. That is the difference between where I am and Iraq, also I am not a deer.
Comment: As I said before, it is time for you and I to agree to disagree. You assume you know what others think and why they think it. You ramble on and on without, in my opinion, discipline to make sense, rather only to push your point. Those things, for me, make further debate senseless as it isn't an ego contest for me. As I see it the Iraq War was a huge mistake implemented based on lies to satisfy Bush's ego (wanting to be remembered as the president who brought democracy to the middle east) and to benefit Special Interests and a select few Cheney's buddies). Things like what Richard Clark, Ambassador Wilson, Scott McCelellan and others say substantiate it. And all the problems, not the least of being Iran who for decades was checked by Iraq, caused not only by it being done and why it was done but also in how it was done with little thought for what to do after you defeated the Iraq army. I'm done guy, have fun.
Comment: Holly Garfield: I think it is time for us to agree to disagree. I don't feel you take what I say into serious consideration and I accept you feel the same. Lets hope someone else can solve the problems, we know we can't (and they ain't asking us anyway).
Comment: Holly Garfield: What does what you ask have to do with anything? Are you inferring that if someone else is wrong or dishonest that makes it okay for us and others to be that way? Why are you rationalizing that if we didn't counter Iraq that Dubai would have had to; and what is wrong with us not always being the police force for the world? What good does an indoor ski resort do us when our economy has been given to China and the oil producing countries (with profits skimmed for Special Interests and a select few)? Proxy war? Hell we have lost 4000+ Americans and 100s of billions of dollars on a real war that was falsely justified and only benefited insiders.
The Iraq War was originally presented as being necessary against a rogue regime that had WMD and terrorist connection, all of which proved to be untrue. It was next rationalized as being part of the War on Terror, yet it never actually was and instead it took resources from that effort in Afghanistan and against the real al Qaeda (where now greater effort is still needed). Now it is offered that it is Iraq???s civil war when it never has been their war and really only our conflict for our leaders??? questionable reasons ??? in order to have it actually be a real civil war, the first thing necessary would be for us to get out. We have seen rationalizations offered as if the ???end justifies the means???, that we have gotten rid of Saddam and that makes it all worthwhile and now that it is a civil war that will result in a stable democratic country (which really remains to be seen) ??? if we accept that logic, it would simply justify a real Pandora???s Box and be against our principals. All of this has transpired with deceptive information and questionable reporting throughout while Special Interests and a select few have greatly benefited and America has paid dearly in thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of tax payers??? dollars spent. Something is drastically wrong with all of that and to ignore it is to condone it and is to encourage more of the same, which is what Nancy Pelosi and others should see instead of just what is politically expedient.
Comment: And let's not forget the dead in Iraq and those who will still die of injuries and sickness from the war. Who can accept that as human nature. Holly Garfield is a ringer and a schill. Can't you tell her arguments are illogical and an easy counter-argument is practically handed to you in her debate. It's too obvious.
Comment: I guess people just get their attention in all different ways.
Comment: To: NewsWkDickG: I agree with the rest, that's why I didn't pick on them. But I am taking a good guess that the Civil War and Reconstruction stories have been whitewashed by now, and even that is not terribly good. I'll have to check my carpet bag and snake oil supply before I do any more mudslinging down at Tammany Hall. The Civil War had two main factions, Iraq has three. All are well entrenched in their own opinions. Religion, especially within the same bigger framework, does not tend to be reasonable or logical. Neither does racial hatred. Both wars involve a major cash industry, cotton and oil. Both wars are trying to unite the warring factions into a single government. Both require major political and economic changes to rebuild. Both change the overall power structure to a major degree. 200 years later and Congress is still shows a big North/South divide. But we still manage to muddle along, which is the whole point of why what is happening in Iraq is not that big a deal on an individual basis. It'll work itself out sooner or later as we plug away at the problems. On the other hand, if we start realizing that Iraq is behaving pretty much like any other reconstruction then the news industry will have to find other stories. Now there is some self interest.
Comment: To NewsWkDickG: Golly gee, you mean that the Civil War wan't fought for special interests and political reasons???? You and I must be reading different textbooks. The South broke off to form its own country and the North wanted to get it back. If that's not invading a different country for political gain of special interests I don't know what is. Are you implying the Reconstruction wasn't a political and financial disaster preyed upon by ineptness, infighting, personal gains and corruption????? Shame on you!!!!!! As experienced businessmen often say about these things, its the cost of donig business.
Also to wrtr83: the FBI has several ongoing investigations into tour own current financial mess. We already have a number of high profile white collar indictments and convictions. Our Mr. Tycio, Dennis Koslowski, is a current resident of my local prison system. That along with Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom, Ms. homemaker Martha Stewart, Mr. junk bond Mike Miliken show that corruption is alive and well in the US. We are just better at routing it out, and a bit more public. As I have heard, don't steal, the government doesn't like the competition.
We still have managed to survive and thrive despite all of these problems. The Civil War ended up to the benefit of most. We are the industrial 600 lb gorilla even with orgainzed crime and political payoffs. Its not that we don't have these problems, its that we have learned to grow while they existed. This is one of the lessons that the hands on businessmen, the citizen soldiers, can bring to Iraq.
Comment: You have picked out one statement I made and concentrated on it neglecting the others and the overall message and then your comment goes on to support both sides of that position. I may have white-washed our Civil War a bit but to compare it to what has and is happening in Iraq seems, to me, to be a real stretch. Gross dishonesty, outside intervention, benefiting ONLY Special Interests and a select few, a false coalition with America paying 95+%, questionable reporting and political in-fighting are just a few things you can start with.
Comment: One additional thought. If this was a true Iraqi Civil War, it would have been their fight and not ours. Throughout this it has been our fight for our political leaders (questionable) reasons. It may have morphed into a Iraqi civil war here at the end but that was only after 4000+ American dead and $400+ billion Tax Payers dollars and all for false justification while benefiting only insiders. Something just isn't right there, something just doesn't ring true.
Comment: NewsWkDickG: what makes you think that the Gulf states leaders are not as capable of being as devious, petty, personal, private, politcal, underhanded backstabbers as our President. Sounds like you give someone who isn't going down in history next to Washington and Lincoln a bit too much credit. Especially since the Gulf states have much more to gain. If Dubai had to build a military force to counteract Saddam would they have the money to build an indoor ski resort in the middle of the desert? I'll take building an indoor ski resort in the Middle East to a massive military buildup any day. I smell a proxy war, and it's OK with me, given the alternative. At least this way when we pull out what remains will be more peaceful.
Comment: Holly Garfield again, who are you? "If Dubai had to build a military force to counteract Saddam, would they have the money to build an indoor ski resort in the middle of the desert?" You tried this silly loaded question on the Iran thread. And your point is, If I am capable of understanding it, the US should go fight wars (which is a questionable leap to begin with) so the people of Dubai can use their money builiding ski resorts instead of an army to defend their own alleged iterests? Do you need someone else to point this out? Give me a muffler, please.
Comment: You're right about no comparison to the US Civl War. 4,000 dead is 6 HOURS of the battle of Antietam or 3 1/2 DAYS of smoking deaths. And something else just isn't right. That is the US getting involved at all in a small Hitler wannabe half way around the globe. On the other hand, none of the friendly Gulf nations now has to raise an army to defend itself against an amibtious dictator with a massive army. But I am sure you don't want to look at the Gulf states self interest in getting rid of Saddam. It might make everything you want to believe go up in smoke. Also if what I think is true, that the Gulf states invited us in behind heavy closed and locked doors, that information would be one of the closest held, and most dangerous secrets, in the world today. But the war does start making more sense if it is true. And I would rather have the Gulf states keep their military where it is today. And it does fit the famous Occam's Razor a bit better.
Comment: Don't compare the number of dead, compare who fought and why the wars were fought and then if you don't see the contrast, well then I think you are not being honest with yourself. And don't think you know what I want or what I think, from what I can see you are simply too biased to figure that out. There were closed doors all right but not in the gulf states, rather right here and people like Richard Clark and Ambassador Wilson have given us a look at that.
Comment: To panhandle: The rebuilding process is the same, no matter when or where the rebuilding is done. Technology may have changed, but human beings have not. We still have to change minds and sociallly acceptable behavior. I did include modern rebuilding efforts to show something closer to today's timelines. While we now have technology to help we also have bigger cities to rebuild with construction materials that are more difficult to handle. The tend to counteract each other, so the total time may be about the same.
When it comes to corruption the problem is it exists, whether you believe there is a good reason or not. I am sure the corrupt people find good reasons for it to exist in their opinion.
Are you saying that it was wrong for France to invade the British territory of the 13 colonies? We were losing the Revolutionary War until France came in on our side. If you are right we should still be a British colony. We should never have invaded France and Germany in two world wars? We should never have invaded Japan, North Africa and Italy? Eurpoeans should never have invaded North America (OK, the Native Americans can agree to that)? Charlamagne, Alexander, Ghengis Khan, the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire and countless other invaders that expanded civillization should never have happened?
You state that invasion should never be done needlessly. Whit if there is a need, and you happen to disagree with it? EVERY invading army thinks there is a need, or there would be no invasion. So how do you define 'needlessly'?
You claim that things which have been done throughout history should never be done and have no good reason. You are politically correct. Unfortunately, reality is not.
I like the idea of the citizen soldier going where there is relative safety. Personal contact with business and government professionals can help get their local governments and businesses going again, perhaps with improvements.
Comment: Perhaps we do need to continue sending "citizen soldiers," who know how republics should work, bureaucracies should operate successfully, and standards of behavior common in a republic such as the United States. In the USA, we discourage corruption by exposing it, jailing and trying suspected perps, and announcing suspicions and subsequent convictions or acquittals in our news media and on the Internet. Because we do not have a culture of corruption, we generally are able to fight against its temptations. That is not to say we are ???holier than thou,??? but it does seem to indicate adherence to our republican principles has resulted in a somewhat extraordinary culture, especially because, in America, the ???public??????whatever that is???tends to distrust the ???government??? more than any other organization. Of course, the irony in the USA is that all Americans learn, as lesson No. 1, ???they??????the voters???are the real government and people who work for the government are only ???public servants.??? Our government seems to perform best when everyone remembers this.
Comment: Perhaps we do need to continue sending "citizen soldiers," who know how republics should work, bureaucracies should operate successfully, and the standards of behavior common in a republic such as the United States. In the US, we discourage corruption by exposing it, jailing and trying suspected perps, and announcing the suspicions and subsequent convictions or acquittal in our news media and on the Internet. Because we do not have a culture of corruption, we are able to fight against its temptations.
Comment: In Africa they have to dig wells as well, without any war; isn't it even worst!
Please check out http://www.drink1give10.com, and see how you can help...
Comment: The Surge seems to always get a lot of credit for the improved conditions in Iraq but I wonder how much would have been accomplished with just the turn around by the Iraqis themselves. We have recruited, paid for and extensively support local leaders and even warlords to stop fighting us and instead turn on the al Quaeda and foreign insurgents. This war has cost us considerably in American lives and dollars, in the process we have been lied to by our government, the Iraqi government has been irresponsible with their in-fighting and posturing for benefit and all while the real War on Terror has been significantly neglected. To compare this mess for political and Special Interests benefit to our civil war is ridiculous.
Comment: Given the technology and mechanization available now, I don't quite see this as a viable comparison to our revolutionary and civil wars. There is never really any good excuse for corruption. And there is never any excuse for needlessly invading another country and killing its citizens.
Comment: Or polluting their cities and countrysides with depleted urnaium. This can not be justified and is a crime against humanity.
Comment: We took 11 years from the 1776 Declaration of Independence to the 1787 Constitution. We won our Revolutionary War only when France joined our side, much like we did for the Iraqi people. The way our Colonialists treated the Loyalists was about how the Iraqi factions are treating each other, sans high explosives. We had our Civil War in the 1860s and race riots in the 1960s. We went from mudslinging election tactics to Tammany Hall to the KKK to Chicago Mayor Daley's machine tactics and back to more mudslinging (which really never stopped) in our campaigns. It took us over 100 years to allow women to vote and drafted 18 year olds for war 3 years before they could vote. That picture looks better than Sherman left Atlanta. My area had 800 men in the Revolutionary War and lost 600 in a single day at Oriskany. We lost close to 9,000 soldiers dead and close to 23,000 total wounded in a single 12 hour day at Antietam. We survived, we rebuilt, we grew. I don't see how we can expect the Iraqi people to do in a few years what took us centuries.
The bombs are still going off, the bullets are still flying. As a nation near, but not yet at, the end of war it is barely to the triage stage of healing. As a nation they are probably better, certainly no worse, than we were after the surrender of Cornwallis. Their cities are better than Atlanta after Sherman, and Dresden and Tokyo after our firebombing. These and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are all rebuilt. I've played in the trenches that the British dug at the siege of Fort Stanwix. Children play around Hiroshima's ground zero.
At this stage living one day at a time, taking any small victory you can get is not politics, its the reality of how any nation recovers from a war. The US precisioin guided munitions have drastically reduced the damage that needed to be done. Our weapons and armor have saved countless American lives compared to past wars. Oil is flowing again, and the money is flowing into the country, even if corruption and graft is sapping it. Contracts to rebuild the oil fields are being let out. That will give Iraq the money to rebuild the rest.
The war and rebuilding of Iraq is going about as good, maybe better, than history shows it should.
Comment: i wonder if the above bomb crater the children are swimming in is radioactive from depleted uranium. It may not be all fun and games these days in Iraq.
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm
The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated.
Comment: Only NEWSWEEK would look at Iraq being in its best shape since before Saddam and find something to bitch about.....
How about you take off the "hate Bush" goggles and just report facts? Novel concept, huh?
Comment: That's something Bush would say... "Look, things are improving!" Yes, but they are still abysmal! And certainly worse than they ever were under Saddam, as bad as that sounds. We have lowered the bar so low for this president that if things go from "horrible" to "awful" people want to sing him praises.
How far we have sunk.
Comment: Gee, sounds like what I remember of American history after our own revolution. Leaders are not used to having to answer to the people, and the people are not used to having a say in their government. 200 year after our freedom and we still have the NYC Police Knapp commission and Chicago machine politics. This is from a country founded by people looking for freedom. I see no reason why we should espect anything else from a society that has isolated the leaders from the people for centuries. As the military withdraws its time to do what we do best, let our economic system sink in. Vietnam is now a growing suucess because the Vietnamese came to the US, saw how to run businesses, build infrastructure, etc. then went home and did the same. The emerging nations without that economic contact with the US are not building as fast. They don't have the knowledge that the returning Vietnamese brought home from the US.
They'll catch on eventually.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others.
Comment: This,and ''The System','is always the problem,is it not?
''But until something better comes along,I'll stick with it''
Clint Eastwood,Inspector Harry Callahan,SFPD,''Magnum Force''.[1973],referring to the aforementioned,''system''.
Comment: Aw, conme on, Newsweek. haven't you been listening to President Bush and General Petraeus? They're telling us that the surge has "worked" and most violence is a thing of the past in Iraq. Who cares about the other little "problems" that the Iraqis have in their daily lives? That's not our concern.
Comment: The narrative of the Surge vests itself in the continuing assertion by the American media[NEWSWEAK,among those most guilty],as well as their fellow travelers among the Left,that the Surge was a ''failure''. This oft-quoted observation was made no no less than three major NEWSWEAK contributors including Alter,Hirsh,and Dickey. Further it adopted a ''stuck within a civil war''on the one side,''American Alamos''[such as Fallujah and Ramadi], and a ''resurgent al Qaeda'' position which culminated in the infamous ''BETRAYUS'' ad run full-page in the New York Times which was later found to offered MOVEON a sweetheart ad deal it did not afford other organizations leaving the bovine Bill Keller,and his Howdy Doody sidekick Pinch Sulzberger explaining themselves[lamely,as usual],in a op-ed at the height of the ad furor.
''Failure-creep'extended into positions of Washington power. Joe Biden,clinging to his federalization scheme as a drowning man to a lifering,utterly dismissed the Surge. So too,in an incredibly stupid moment ,whereby the ''war was lost'',by the Senate Majority Leader,Harry Reid[D-NV]. As did an upstart senator from Illinois,Barack Obama,who asserted in Jan.of 2007 that the Surge would create more problems than it solved.
The near entirety of the American press corps and the Washington liberal establishment were wrong. The Surge was a brilliant success where its fruits will be required readings at military colleges worldwide.Petreaus stands as Americas finest general since MacArthur,who,unlike Schwartzkoff,and Powell,is directing on-ground,inside-the-shingle political reconciliation which has caused nearly every single province[including one last week that the American MSM barely addressed], to be turned back over to Iraqi control while tandemly whipping hell out of al Qaedas last remnents in Mosul[expertly covered by Americas new Ernie Pyles in Iraq,journalists Mike Totten,Mike Yon,and Bill Roggio].
The tune,as most evidence by Obama,is most certainly changing. The Surge[as well as the Iraqi KNIGHTS ASSAULT success in Basra which was orginally held up as another ''failure''by the MSM], is now seen to be an at the least,qualified success. No props to a supine media which should have observed these successes to begin with.
Comment: I can tell you are a right-winger not because of your use of "the liberal media" but because right-wingers always like to say the opposite of what things are, or blame others for the stuff they themselves do.
The narrative of the surge is that since it has calm down Iraq, it has "worked". This is patent nonsense. The surge has worked to calm Iraq down, it's true, but the reason for the surge was to allow working room for the Iraqi parliament to finally get their stuff together, and this HAS NOT HAPPENED.
To continually assert, like McCain does that "Make no mistake, the surge is working" is an oversimplification of the truth that only simple-minded people buy into. Daddy always stops hitting mommy when the police arrive, but if there is not a fundamental change it's bound to happen again because the police cannot live at home! Let's not forget too that we are PAYING the same people who were killing our soldiers before, another reason why the violence is down.
The surge, like everything Bush has done, it's a mirage, it's a short-term fix which is not sustainable.
Comment: You are wrong on every single last front. THIS is the narrative of the liberal establishment of whom I have referenced. If Iraqs parliament was in such shambles,then why is one neighboring country after another[including Egypt,UAE,Jordan,and others],opening up direct diplomatic offices with the Maliki government? Why are the Sunnis not boycotting the upcoming vote as they did in 2005? Why are Iraqi oil exports,and the money this brings in,increasing? You have no idea what is and what is not ''sustainable'',especially as it was those of your ideological side that claimed that the Surge was a patent ''failure''to begin with. The Iraqi people,the US soldiers and generals,and the ''rightwing'',if you will,have corrected your and these others,nonsense.[ye gods,even the left is eating its own entrails over this. In a foreign policy conferance,former Obama adviser Samantha Power and the director of MOVEON got into a shouting match over the weekend,because Powers presentation did not fit MOVEONs preconcieved notions regarding Iraq]. Under the glaring light of historical event,which cannot be altered in its past form,it was the narrative of ''Surge as failure'' as presented by a liberal viewpoint, which proved to be the actual ''mirage''.[and make no mistake. Under an Obama presidency,indeed,as laid out by Joe Biden,US taxpayers will continue,as in the case of Pakistan,to pay people in order to stop them from killing other people]. As always,ever since the post-colonial and Cold War eras,money will grease the machinery of realpolitik. Thus it is of no use to maintain that it is a bad idea now,but suddenly becomes a good one because it was hatched by a Democrat.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
PROJECT GREENA startup is betting free coffees and groceries will encourage reluctant recyclers.
Sponsored by
|
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
