Alright, I'm sure that everyone is tired of this topic and nobody wants to see it's ugly mug again. That's nice, but it's my blog.
The political events surrounding Iraq this past week really got my steam up again. I simply cannot believe that the administration thinks the current "plan" is working. How many "historic votes" will Iraq have? Which one will be the great vote that will render the insurgancy politically hopeless and bring peace? How long will American troops be required to cling Iraq together?
The President says that we'll stay until "victory." What is victory in this situation anyway? Cheney says to "stay the course." What course? What progress is being made? There's no Jeffersonian democracy just around the corner in Iraq. The violence will not cease before we leave, or after. Some nations weren't really nations at all; some nations were artificially created decades ago and immediatly fly apart when the strongmen holding them together at the point of a gun are removed. That is Iraq right now--a failed state, where the common citizens just don't care about their supposed country.
It's time to get out. Perhaps stay in the north, to make sure the Kurds, who like us, don't get mauled in the upcoming civil Iraq war. It will be a religious war, with Sunnis on one side and Shia on the other. Anyone in the middle will just collect IEDs and fill body bags. Funny, that seems to be us now.
The people who believe we should stay the course should consider the following hypothetical: how long do you hold a stock you've bought that continues to fall in price? Two years? Three? Even when prospects don't envision getting back to where you bought? If your portfolio manager "stays the course" for that period of time, you would fire the guy. Why should the fact we're paying with blood, not money, make this situation any different?
When a House member who barely won election calls another member who collected two serious wounds in Vietnam with a Bronze star a coward, it's time to finish this. It's tearing this country apart and I don't see a good end. This can only lead to the kind of scism seen in the late 60s, and I don' t believe anyone wants that.
Categories: Politics
32 comments:
The series of elctions are ll part of the Democratic process and of course each one is historic.
Are you really that blind that you don't see the democracy that is being forged as progress and the course that Cheney was talking about was the plan that was established by the president that all the liberals and Democrats keep asking about.
Just because people don't agree with the war and the plan that wa setup doesn't mean that there wasn't a plan.
As far as calling Rep. Murtha a coward has to do with him demanding we cut a run from Iraq just because he feared another Vietnam. The only way that it would turn into another Vietnam is if we did cut and run before everything is completed in Iraq.
The Democrats refuse to accept that a time table was setup in Iraq and things are going on schedule and as soon as the Iraqi's are ready to take over the security of their own country we will leave as President Bush has stated over and over again.
Jon:
If each election is historic, what are the results? Why have these elections not resulted in the end of the insurgency?
If I am blind, is it because the administration has not seen fit to share this plan with the American people, or there is no plan?
What is going to be completed in Iraq? What is "victory"?
If things are going on schedule in Iraq, don't you think the President was off the schedule when "Mission Accomplished" was announced?
Jon, you're spewing boilerplate. I'll leave your comment up for awhile, but I'll take it down soon unless you show some thought and respond to the questions I've raised. I welcome debate and would love some views here other than my own, but not cut and paste talking points.
One other thing that I didn't include in the post.
Freedom for the Iraqi people is not worth the life of a single American soldier. They needed to free themselves, like millions did in the Eastern bloc.
Our soldiers are for our defense, not liberation for the entire world. That's a "world's cop" kind of argument and I agree with conservatives from the year 2000 on that point. Sorry to see they have "flip-flopped."
Ohhh, If only we would "fire" our portfolio manager. And yeah, I completely agree with you Jay. There's no end in sight and we aren't contributing to any form of success. We should cut our loses now and reapportion our forces to maintain our safety and the safety of our allies.
OK jon, time for my point by point analysis.
1) Like Jay said, there have been elections but no results. The administration clames, "These people wan't freedom; why do you think they show up to vote despite the risk of being killed at the ballot?" Jon, sure many Iraqis want to vote very badly, but I get the impressions that those waiting at the ballot stations with rocket launchers don't share that feeling. The country is not unified like we were in our revolution, like Poland, the Eastern Europeans, or even like North Vietnam was in the Vietnam war.
2) Its great that we had a "plan." I have a plan to one day win the powerball. That doesn't mean my plan is going through. What the administration isn't getting is that you have to stop being so damn stubborn and change the plan. And its not just that people don't agree with it. Somewhere around 70% of the country don't agree with this "plan." Perhaps its time it is scrapped.
3) Your comment about Rep. Murtha is so rediculous that i would most likely fill up too much space yakking about it, but I'll attempt to shorten it up. It is turning into a Vietnam. This conflict is not quite there yet in casualty level; but in popular distrust in the administration and in the war itself, and the growing view of "why the hell are we here?" We need to leave. There is no reason to be there.
4) It is not our damn problem whether or not the Iraqis are ready to govern themselves. If they weren't ready when we started, then why did we start. If they weren't a people who could handle democracy, why did we all the sudden throw them into it?
Perhaps Bush should have spent all of the money and all of the people-power he spent on this war instead on the development of more efficient fuels and energy sources. Isn't that what we're really there for anyway?
The Cold War has ended Mr. President. We do not need to fear the "Domino Theory" of alleged tyranical countries coming closer and closer to us. The middle east is a section of the world with lots of problems. It is really, really sad, and really none of our business.
Jon:
Whoa, there are few more things to be said which haven't already. I can see that you're one of those unconditional Bush lovers, and that's fine(I guess). But why are YOU so blind to the fact that the Americans have lost this war. Like Jay said, we tried to act as the world police, which was outside of our obligations, and from that we've lost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
That's my question, actually, why are we acting like the big brother to the third world? Why do we see it our business to control the actions of any non-democratic country. If their argument is that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, then why are we liberating the Iraqi people. These questions are not only directed at Jon, so someone please enlighten me to our continuing presence in Iraq.
Aaron, Jay ad Drew we haven't lost anything. It is obvious that you didn't agree with the decision to go into Iraq and that is obviously clouding your pereception of what is going on in Iraq.
When our founding fathers were establishing our fledgling Democracy do you really think everything went as planned? I'm sure glad they did have the same defeatest attitude that each one of you have right now. You have absolutely no idea what is going on over in Iraq besides what the Democrats havebeen feeding you and that with the help of the MSM has been cramming down our throats. The difference between you and me is that I don't buy a sing le bit of their crap and you are buying every bit of it. I chose to beleive accounts from people that were actually there and not just what the MSM is lying about by not reporting it.
Coach Jay,
Thanks for participating in the discussion on my blog and I am sure if you haven't guessed already I am very opinionated and not shy about expressing my views.
Jon-
I too have been talking to a person who has actually experienced the events in Iraq. He is a lt. major who has lost numerous soldiers. While I'm sure some facts are skewed by the media, I doubt the body counts are.
As for "the plan", I'm going to put this into rowing terms. The Coxswain coaches the boat during a race. He/She has complete control over what happens and must make changes to a loose race plan as different circumstances arise. Much like a race, war constantly has changing circumstances and, again, changes must be made. HOWEVER, a coxswain would never call a 2000 meter race over at 150 meters in. I agree that our support for the war is drastically different, but you can't ignore the fact that thousands of American lives are being lost for a cause not concerning us.
p.s. please proof read your messages before you post.
I'm just here to say (on a slightly different topic) that the Eastern bloc countries did not entirely free themselves. The leaders of the free world, like the late Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and (gasp!) Ronald Reagan worked hard to bring about the end of communism just like people in the Eastern bloc. Don't discredit the efforts of someone like Reagan just because you don't like them. The countries under Soviet rule could not have thrown off communism without the West. At the same time, the West could not have defeated communism without the support of so many under communist authority.
Jon, its very interesting that you are turning this whole thing into a Republican-Democrat thing. Let me ask you, if the Democrats are as full of shit as you say and are constantly lying to us, then why aren't they the ones being indicted Jon? I never said anything about us winning or losing this war. Really, I don't think that this has been a war at all in the traditional sense of it. Really, we are not losing this war if you want to call it that, but psychologically we are. Jon, why do you have such distrust of the "liberal" media, but you seem to have an undying loyalty to the president. If you're going to say that you don't buy the information you are being fed, then question all of it. Really, there is as much false information and lies coming out of the white house as there are coming out of the media. We've been shown in the past that presidents and their administrations lie. Regan, Nixon, Johnson; they all lied to the public about things going on. A president lying to us would not be unprecidented Jon.
Oh, and don't link the struggle in Iraq to the American Revolution. Just look at the name of it: the AMERICAN Revolution. There was not another country in there planning how we ran the war. We did it ourselves because we wanted it ourselves.
But Kirk, the basic message is that the Eastern Bloc countries started their revolutions themselves and then we gave them aid. The "Prague Spring" came well before U.S. support. We and other democratic countries did help out the Eastern Bloc countries, but not with troops like those in Iraq, and not until after it was established that the majority of the countries (which were basically Soviet colonies at the time, not an individual country like Iraq) wanted self-government and were ready to fight for it themselves.
I just want somebody on the right to answer these questions:
--What is "victory" in Iraq?
--What is the plan?
--Why hasn't the insurgency been defeated?
--Where did all that reconstruction money go that can't be accounted for?
--What is going on over in Iraq that justifies the 2000 US dead and 15,000+ wounded?
That last question is one that I really want answered. I don't care what the President, MSM or Rush Limbaugh are saying.
"Fighting the terrorists there so we don't fight them here" isn't a logical answer. See the bombings in London; just like us, these Islamist cockroaches can do more than one front at a time.
What's really funny is that, to my wife's everlasting horror, I was in favor of this war before it started. See, I thought that WMDs were a justification. If we had found anything suggesting the looming threat suggested by the adminstration, I would still say this conflict was justified.
But we didn't. The administration itself says we found nothing.
Finally, the initial planning for the invasion was terrible. You don't take a country the size of California with 4 divisions. It doesn't matter how great our military is, that just isn't enough boots.
And the result? We watch the troopers of the 1st Armored Division "Old Ironsides," the ass-kicking-ist formation on this planet, a single division that could take down entire enemy Corps, sitting in Baghdad being target practice for rag-heads. Those boys are trained and their equipment is designed to take out an opposing army, not garrison duty.
That isn't working. The whole thing isn't working. If there is a way to get to peace in Iraq without civil war between Sunnis and Shia, I'd love to hear it.
Hey Jay, in response to the previous post where you posed those questions.
First off, yes, I'm a liberal. No, that term is not derogatory, and I am not insulted when anyone calls me that. Secondly, I hate most acronyms. MSM for mainstream media? WMD for weapons of mass destruction? Should we really feel so comfortable in our arguments that we can issue such a simple response to questions. "Why did we go to Iraq?" WMD. "I think you are just buying into the MSM." Please. Develop a coherent argument, or what I will call a CA.
I agreed with going to war on the premise that Iraq proved a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. This was not true. I also agreed with going to Iraq to take down Saddam for reasons that I will get into later. (I swear I think it is a CA.)
Q1 (As if I should be in a position to answer anything, but I'll give it a go.) "Victory" in Iraq ocurred when we defeated the Republican Guard in Iraq. When we defeated their army, we achieved a military "victory". Of course, this means nothing. My only argument is that we can accurately call the war a military "victory". I don't know why this term is so important. It only matters to those who like to argue about the war. Simple words mean nothing to the soldiers fighting or the civilians being bombed. Just because I feel like we have achieved some sort of "victory" doesn't mean that I feel our obligations are over in Iraq, nor that should we withdraw, the country would retreat into chaos.
Q2: Oh, the plan. Crap, the plan. Ummmm... why don't we... um... bomb them? Honestly, I don't know the plan. I find it hard to believe that the military leaders are so stoic that the are still following the same "plan". I don't buy the "stay the course" crap that Cheney is selling, I think it is just political rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it as evidence that we don't have a dynamic plan. I am not making an argument either way here, just saying I don't think anyone has enough information to make a proper judgement on what the "plan" is. Hell, don't the Marines say "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die." I think it is not too out of the ordinary that the public and even the infantrymen do not know the "plan".
Q3: The insurgency has not been defeated because we are fighting a limited war. I would relate this to Korea. Truman fired MacArthur because he wanted to nuke China. Truman realized the importance of fighting a limited war. I think that we could probably level the entire country and minimize the insurgency. (You will always have freedom fighters, even in the US.)I agree with fighting a limited war, but the question is, is it worth the cost of American blood?
Q4: i don't think that a misapporpriation of funds is a proper reason to question the war unless your argument agains the war is that there were financial reasons behind it. I would agree that there are certain individuals cough*Cheney*cough who might profit from the war, but my argument doesn't have anything to do with money, so I'll pass on this one.
Q5: It seems like all the other questions come back to this one. Why are we here and why is it worth a drop of American blood? Place this quote: "...we must forge an unshakeable oath with all civilized people that never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world...fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide....we must harness the outrage of our own memories to stamp out oppression wherever it exists. We must understand that human rights and human dignity are indivisible." Saddam executed hundreds of thousands of Kurds during his so-called Anfal campaign. This mass execution is worth more than a single drop of HUMAN blood. It is not a question of the blood being American or Iraqi, only that it had a beating heart behind it.
I don't buy into the "terrorist" argument, the "WMD" argument, or any of this horrid administration's arguments for sending our boys off to war. I am arguing that this was was a necessary evil, and the Republicans missed the point just a much as the Democrats. They feed their contigency anything they want. Pictures of the American flag. "God bless our troops." The "war on terrorism." It is all bullsh*t. (I worked too hard on this post to have it taken down for profanity.) You can't declare war on a tactic. "I declare war on using air-to-ground missles." Yeah, idiot, way to go. This is not the Vietnam war, where North Vietnam was hardly touched(before the bombings) and the NVA was supplying the Viet Cong. We had an obligation that we failed to fulfill in 1991 when we let the rebellion in Iraq fail. We left those people to die in the hands of a murderer. We had a responsibility in the name of humanity to bring Saddam to justice.
Finally, don't forget that the American revolution was an unpopular war. Also, even if they need to free themselves, they can't do it alone. Take, for example, the 1956 Hungarian revolution. 50,000 dead when the Soviets suppressed the movement with indiscriminate force.
Let me reinterate that I hate Bush/Cheney. I hate the term "anti-American". I hate "freedom fries". I disagree with Rush on every topic, including the war. I hate the "war on terrorism". I love those arguing against the war. I agree with most of their points. We are fighting this war for the wrong reason, but I still believe it to be a just war, and that is the difference.
I'll end with a quote by Anne Frank. "I don't believe that the big men, the politicians and the capitalists alone, are guilty of the war. Oh no, the little man is just as guilty, otherwise the peoples of the world would have risen in revolt long ago. There's in people simply an urge to destroy, an urge to kill, to murder and rage..."
P.S. Yes, I have a paper due tomorrow, and yes, I am putting it off by writing this. I probably forgot to add many of my thoughts so, feel free to rip me apart.
Well said Steve R., I don't agree with 99% of but you explained yourself well. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I agree 100% with why we went into Iraq and I don't believe we needed the reaon of WMD's to go in and remove the treat of Saddam. I beleive that he violated every UN Resolution the was passed subsequent to the ending of the first Gulf War and now we know the Oil For Food program was making him money and not benefiting the people it was meant to benefit.
No one said the insurgancy (mainly foreign fighters and some Sunni Muslims) would stop as soon as the elections were held.
Steve R:
Nice Jimmy Carter quote. It's not that often that somebody digs one up that I have to look up.
I think that the point you and I disagree on is the justification. I don't believe atrocities are worth the involvement of America ALONE. Carter's quote speaks of an "..unshakable oath with all the civilized people of the world..." And make no mistake, except for the Poles and British, we are alone. Our armed forces take the brunt of the damage, there will be no re-imbursement from the Arab world as in 1991.
History, written by either the West or the Arab world, will not laud the sacrifice of the United States. There will be no great memorials in Iraq to America.
And if America is in Iraq for humanitarian reasons, then why are we not in Darfur? Though reasons to support the war can be myriad, from women's rights to human rights to "getting Saddam" to fighting terrorists, I do not believe the cost in American life is worth it. There has to be a better way.
And that is my basic point. I want this to end with Iraq free of violence and Islamic fundamentalism and outside influences. I want the boys home, with a few permanant bases to threaten those cockroaches in Iran and Syria. I want Zarkawi's head cut off like those he cut.
I want success. However, I don't believe the current course of action is leading in that direction. I don't care who comes up with a better approach, but a better approach is needed. The only idea I've got at this point is to withdraw to the North, where the Kurds love us and let the Shia and Sunnis fight it out until the Arab world decides to get involved.
Any better ideas? Throw down. Because, other than Jon, I don't believe many people in this country believe what is happening is working.
This post may not be very lucid. I've only had one cup of coffee this morning, after moving Emily's grandparents yesterday.
Steve R., you forgot to leave out the most significant part of that Anne Frank quote. After the bit about the evil in the world she says the following: "...and despite everything, I believe people are truly good at heart."
Right now I believe that we are still in Iraq for a reason similar to why Johnson didn't want to pull out of Vietnam completely and why there is still a trade embargo on Cuba. The answer, gentelmen, is pride. Johnson did not want to be remembered as the first American president to lose a war. No president now wants to lift the embargo from Cuba because they all just want to hang on a little bit and wait until Fidel Castro dies. No president now wants to lift an embargo off of a country and a dictator we portrayed to be terrible and inhumane (bullshit). And like these, I doubt George W. Bush wants to go off years from now and add chapter whatever to his memoir about how he couldn't do what he wanted to (whatever the hell that may be) in Iraq. We need to get out. I think our presidents need to be a bit more humble and allow themselves to make mistakes, but instead of pushing through them so that they snowball into even bigger piles of dung, they should admnit there mistakes and move on.
Drew-
If you feel like I missed something important by not completing the quote, then it is my fault for not making my previous point clear enough. I was focusing on the first couple sentences. I believe that it is the fault of a society that allows genocides like the Anfal campaign and the Darfur conflict. I agree almost 100% with Jay. It is not up to the US to be alone in this fight. We need to work with the international community to devote troops and support to defeat evil wherever it arises.
We are killing ourselves by trying to withdraw from organizations like the International Criminal Court. I think that this administration's largest failure has been the myopic action of withdrawing from the international community. Basically, they are saying that they want to get involved in how others run their lives, but we don't want anyone telling us how to do so. By not fostering international support for the Iraq war, we shot ourselves in the foot for future peacekeeping operations.
We could have proved ourselves by working with the African Union and neighboring African countries to bring the murderers in the Sudan to justice. We could have called the European nations to support us in what would clearly have been a humanitarian mission. It's not like we were looking to steal some of the Sudan's sand. It really pains me to think of how in just a few years we went from complete international support to fighting alone in our supposed "war on terror". Maybe Drew is right, maybe if we swallow our pride and ask for help, we might be surprised who responds.
Oh P.S. the sentence really ends like this..."There's in people simply an urge to destroy, an urge to kill, to murder and rage, and until all mankind, without exception, undergoes a great change, wars will be waged, everything that has been built up, cultivated, and grown will be destroyed and disfigured, after which mankind will have to begin all over again."
Also, I'm not trying to dig up obscure quotes, I remember that Jimmy Carter one from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. I think it is on the front of the building and it made quite an impression on me.
To me though, steve r., the quote "Despite everything, people are really good at heart," is the most moving quote and is usually chosen to end the different versions of her diary that have been published as well as several biographical novels on her. It is nearly impossible to imagine a girl in her situation writing something like that. It is truly a powerful statement. And yes you're right that Jimmy Carter quote is on the front of Holocaust Memorial building in Washington.
I'm going back a few posts here, but Steve R. said:
"We need to work with the international community to devote troops and support to defeat evil wherever it arises."
I believe that Saddam is and was an evil guy, however you want to define "evil." I think the rest of the world was wrong in not supporting us in taking out Saddam.
However, our agenda now is to be peacekeepers in Iraq, and a hell of a job we are doing (sarcasm, dolt).
If we actually wanted to defeat terrorism, we would probably bomb/attack their training centers, and then donate a shit-load of food to the kids, so they don't grow up hating the U.S. Right now, those kids will be influenced by their parents (some terrorists, US haters, etc.) and take on those same ideals.
Here's what we need to do:
1) Kill the terrorists.
2) Feed the kids.
A) we get rid of the terrorists
B) we defeat the future generations of terrorists by giving them a positive influence. ("kill them with kindness")
Steve R. -
I didn't write the latter of my posts, as it has been attributed to General Chong. (It's in quotes)
But I would like to hear what you have to say about my first post, however vague and incoherent it may be.
I'm sorry Drew, but in a few posts back, you said how bad off France is right now. Do you know why? No. You don't.
France is in tatters now because of two numb-minded youths that decided to hide in an electrical facility (and were electrocuted). The people in the area of this incident, the majority being ISLAMIC, backlashed and blamed the government for killing the two kids that had the bright (no pun intended) idea to hide in an electical shed that said "Danger: High Voltage" (but in French, of course). The Islamic Extremists have taken advantage of these people and their disadvantages and made them cause chaos in their streets.
Another reason these people are lashing out is the unfair treatment the Islamic minority receives in France. They don't have equal opportunity employers. The Islam minority doesn't get jobs. So instead of trying to make a change through democracy (like many of you suggest for every problem), they decide to torch cars and shoot at police.
"Europe isn't getting taken over by Muslims."
France is.
Yeah, I'm noticing about the quotations now. I was in a bit of a rush and didn't quite get it. About your first post, I agree with you. I don't think that we need to "kill the terrorists" though, or at least not in a traditional sense. Of course, we must bring those who have done harm to us to justice. We should do this with the help of the international community. But instead of focusing our energy on how to "kill the terrorists" maybe we should look at why they are so upset with us. I think it is lunacy to think that they are jealous of our position, and I think that should you individually take each member of one of those anti-US riots and ask them questions, they really wouldn't be as upset as they seem. They are probably acting under a mob mentality that is being influenced by a very few. I think if we devote more attention to why it is that this section of the world hates us, we can "kill terrorism". This in no way means that we shouldn't punish those who commit atrocities, it just means we need to look beyond violence as a means to an end. I think that this is basically what you meant by "feed the kids." and to give them a positive influence. So, to sum this long-winded response up, I totally agree with you.
By the way, do you seriously believe that Tommy Chong quote? Is it worth it to post a response to that?
Hehe, I said Tommy Chong.
A quick search will also reveal that this email was not written by General Chong, it was sent to him, and he fowarded it to many people. He says that he does not remember who authored it. However, it sounds like something that he would say...
Damn right I support Chirac '07 and McCain/Giuliani '08.
Chirac is running against a highly conservative competitor. If the other guy becomes President, all of the Muslims WILL be killed. Chirac is more likely to pass legislation such as "Equal opportunity employment." Isn't that what we want? Peace through diplomacy?
By the way, the patriot act helps me sleep at night (we already had this arguement), and torture wasn't forbidden until the Geneva Conference (we weren't founded upon it).
And again I will point out what ("") mean. I didn't say it. I'm quoting it from an outside source. Just because I quote someone or something doesn't mean that I believe in what was said.
So you are supporting the permission for torture to be used in special circumstances, but you also support McCain, the loudest voice against that?
Balancing powers at it's finest.
I'm sorry Drew, but I can't find where I said that I support torture. Can you show me?
Jay, please post that e-mail you sent out about the Gas Stations. It would be beneficial to us.
Post a Comment