The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

A bit of hyperbole never hurt anyone but the hyperbolist. Just give him rope.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Relativist bastard. Stay away from my moral compass.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I don't chalk it up to ineptness as much as, if you give a bunch of reasons, and one in particular seems to garner lots of agreement, you end up talking about that one. Remember, there was widespread agreement at that time that the WMD potential was worrisome enough to justify this. Kerry even said so.

Whole 'nuther debate, for another day, I guess.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Heh. Compass.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Interesting technique.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

You're putting the cart before the horse here. You say it's okay to kill insurgents in order to keep them from killing our troops. If we didn't have troops there, then we wouldn't need to kill the insurgents to protect the troops.

You also say that it's okay to kill insurgents to keep them from killing innocent people. But the insurgents are killing people because we attacked them. They didn't invade the US.

I agree that it's wrong to kill innocents. Especially when the killing is for no other purpose than to instill terror. But the insurgents aren't killing just to instill terror. They are killing because people are trying to kill them. That's what a war is. Both sides have to fight, otherwise it's just a massacre.

The question for me is, if they are prepared to fight until the last man standing, is it morally right to stay there until we kill them all? If it is, then how does that differ from a massacre, other than their getting a few good licks in before they die? If it isn't morally right to kill them all, then at what point do we say "enough?"

And by the way, how does what you have said in this post differ from "it's okay to kill them because they don't look at the situation the same way I do?" You can't say you're killing in self-defense, because we're the aggressors. You can't say that we're killing in defense of others, because we toppled Saddam and created the Iraqi Army and Police force that is trying to kill the insurgents, so, again, that killing is the result of our aggression.

Like you said, morality isn't simple. That's why you have to allow free debate.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You can recast it as you will. You are still arguing the administration allowed someone else to frame the debate, something the bush administration did not do in the debate on tax cuts, reforming Social Security (esp. privatization), the Kyoto Accord, the need to drill in ANWR, the torture debate, etc., etc., etc.

You have an unhealthy obsession with that man. Soon you will be spraying Photoshops of Kerry all over this board, and no one wants that. Seek help while there's still time.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I could never fill those shoes. I leave that to the absent master.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

He figures that it's payback for all of the snide remarks he heard about Alf Landon at the DFL/Grange meetings in 1937.

FYI
 

Which Party will win the Presidency in 2008?
Republicans -115
Democrats -115

Will former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann announce his intention to run for Governor of Pennsylvania? Swann must publicly announce his intention to run for Governor of PA for yes wagers to be graded as a win.
Yes -140
No EVEN

Will the United States relinquish its control of the Internet to the United Nations by December 31, 2006?
Yes +400

Will Tom DeLay be found guilty on money laundering charges?
Yes -130
No -110

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

What to do
 

Does anyone have any interest in talking about what to do in Iraq, without resort to issues of why we are in Iraq or what we should or shouldn't be talking about?

My view, still in formation, is this: disengagement in the short term is not an option, because we have set in motion a chain of events that heavily depends on our presence for a modicum of stability.

However, there are several dangers to continued engagement on the same terms, including most importantly being drawn into a potential civil war. The worst case scenario for me in Iraq is a three way war between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds with shifting alliances and us being perceived as taking sides. I believe that there is a significant danger that the new, ostensibly democratic regime will have many pressures on it to become more autocratic as it tries to fend off civil war.

I think we should be considering encouraging a plebiscite on separation with the idea being that Iraqis would make their own decision, and would either decide to stay together, steeling thunder from those advocating civil war, or decide to part, eliminating the necessity for a war to force a parting. Right now, the Sunnis will continue to have emotional appeal for the notion that they have been shut out and need to force their voice through military means if necessary.

I also think we should be looking for increased internationalization even if it means compromising control over what may go on militarily, politically and economically in the country - even if moving towards a fully Iraqi police force is a long shot, replacing some of our troops with forces from elsewhere in the region (Pakistan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?) is essential, and needs to be a first level diplomatic goal. The fact that other countries are pulling troops rather than replacing ours is not a good sign, and we need a renewed push in this area.

Finally, I'm not sure traditional military units are appropriate for this action in its current form; Iraq needs internal police structures more than military structures, and one of te great ongoing tragedies in developing countries historically has been the use of military rather than police to maintain order. I think we should be reviewing creative solutions for replacing traditional military units with police volunteers.

And I would judge our political leaders a year from now on success based on whether they are able to diversify the forces in Iraq, bringing home significant traditional military forces and shifting the burden in Iraq to other countries and to other types of forces. Not because I want our troops home (though I do), but because I believe this disengagement will lead to more long term stability. I would also judge them based on whether or not there is one or more governments in Iraq that are stable and have legitimacy, and on whether any remaining terrorist attacks are focused on us as occupiers or on other ethnic groups as virtually inevitable ethnic strife.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

The SSA is an inefficient expenditure of blood and treasure!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I was thinking more along the lines of "even Alf Landon agreed back then that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Of course, he also said [snicker] that the FDIC was creeping Bolshivism."

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Wasn't it you who accused Roosevelt of being in league with the radical Hollywood left led by Cecil B. DeMille and financed secretly by Meyer Lansky? I think I read that in my high school history textbook, but admittedly that was some time ago.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

They didn't cave, they just narrowed the debate. Look at the resolutions passed in the UN - WMD was just one of the reasons for war. Another was failure to abide by the terms of the cease fire in 1991.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Oh right - I forgot how hard the media held Clinton to task when he said the troops would be home by Xmas.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I cannot for the life of me figure out a) how this is responsive; or b) how it refutes what I said about the media. And then I thought, I'm wasting time with you. Come back when you're not so far off your game. You can be, and usually are, better than this.

http://sithoughts.mu.nu/archives/Strawman.jpg

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I think Democrats have come up with a new debate strategy.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Perhaps you can read club's post and explain it to me. Until then, I'll stick with my first thought, which is that I don't do strawmen.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

If our troops weren't there Saddam Hussein would still be torturing and killing innocent people. If we pulled out our troops the insurgents would still be killing Iraqis. They would continue to kill police, blow up wedding partys etc until Iraq became an Islamic state.

The insurgents are killing many more Iraqis than they are American soliders. In addition, they are specifically targeting innocent people. We need to kill the insurgents to protect the innocent Iraqis.

Boy your understanding of the situation is really screwed up. This is not a war, this is an occupation with an insurgency. If they put down their arms no one would kill them. In addition, the government that exists was put there by the Iraqis. After December 12 there will be no question that they will have a democratically elected government. So the insurgents are people that are trying to overthrow a democratically elected government. If they just joined the democratic process no one would have to kill anyone.

You make it sound like the entire Iraqi population is part of the insurgency. In fact the overwhelming majority are involved in the Democratic process. The insurgency is just a very small population of the Iraqi population.

We toppled an illegitimate government. Saddam was just a thug in control of a country. We took him out and now have installed a democratically elected government. Killing to get rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Killing to set up a democratic regime is the right thing to do, and defending that regime is the right thing to do.

I don't mind a free debate. What I mind is when people put their own personal interests above that of the nation. Toppling Saddam was the moral thing to do (do I need to explain why?), installing a democratically elected government was the right thingh to do, leaving immediately after toppling Saddam without stabilizing the country would have been the wrong thing to do, leaving now when the government is not ready to handle the insurgency would be the wrong thing to do. Up to this point, I think it is clear we have done the morally right thing. I don't think anyone can debate that.

I think there is some argument that what we have done may not have been in the US strategic interest. I disagree with that argument but can respect it.

But when someone says what we are doing is immoral, I don't know under what version of morality that can be argued. When someone says we can't win, they can't possibly know that, so why say it. When people say what we are doing is immoral, or say we can't win, but those statements are not true and can only serve to help the enemy. They have a right to say it but I can be disgusted with them when they do.

FYI
 

Where is this coming from?

What to do
 

Agreed.


I think there is more of a chance with a Sunni successionist movement. The Kurds and Shiites seem to agree on most everything. They both want a federated state and don't seem to conflict much. It is the Sunnis that are the problem and they are a small minority.

The problem is the Sunnis want their cake and eat it to. The want a centralized government and they want control. The reality is if they want control then the country will have to divide. The Sunnis and Kurds don't have a problem with that. The Sunnis do. They are upset with the constitution because it is not central enough. They also want control, but in a unifed democrat government they will not have control. They are just slowly have to come to terms with the fact that they do not have the divine right to run Iraq.

The problem is everyone wants us to fail. The other Arab states don't want a functioning demcracy because that will put on pressure for them to form a democracy. The rest of the world will not help because they don't want to be proven wrong in their opposition to the war.

It is my understanding that we have trained many police units and are training more.

I think that we should stay three more years and that is exactly what is going to happen. Until Bush leaves office (or the insurgency dies) we are going to be there. In three years we will be able to train the Iraqi military so they can handle the insurgency. Bush will pull out only when he thinks it is a good idea. We might as well argue what strategies the Giants will use next season. We have just about the same influence. And three years is plenty of time to get the Iraqis up to speed. What is going to happen is going to happen. We and the Senate and the Congress can debate it all we want, but in the end it is Bush's call I think we all know how he is going to handle it. The issue is what will his replacement do, but by then we will have trained anough Iraqis to pull out. So it is a moot point.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

But it would help with their morale if they knew we were going to finish the job and were behind them.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I don't think what I think because Dean says so. I think it because of what I read and hear about Iraq.

I wish that you were correct, that things in Iraq were going swimmingly.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

I know you explained this later to Taxwonk and he now understands it, but I am a little slower. I still don't get what you were trying to say here. The sarcasm is going way over my head.

What to do
 

The Kurds and Shiites will get along as long as it is in their interests to do so. We need a longer view if Iraq is to succeed. For instance, what will be the effect of the Kurdish desire for an independent Kurdistan? That is far more important to them than to be part of Iraq, and I think everyone here knows that makes the Turks nervous. What will be the US position on an independent Kurdistan? Don't tell me the Turks will behave because they want into the EU; while that is true, the rest of the EU is growing increasingly disenchanted with the idea of Turkey in the EU and is likely to insist on a second-class status for Turkey. If Turkey agrees, will they have enough of a stake in EU membership to toe the line, especially in light of the increasing influence within Turkey of non-secular elements?

What will be the effect of Iran on the Shiites of Iraq? I don't have any read on that at all, but my gut says it won't be good for us. Between Iraq and a sympathetic Iran, what will be the amount of oil reserves controlled by those two? Will the Shiites of Iraq turn their backs on Iran to maintain the union with the Sunnis and Kurds imposed by a whim of the British after WWI ? Will the Kurds do the same to their brothers in Turkey?


I think they want to survive. You have way more faith in the restraint of the Shiites and the Kurds than I do. Paybacks are a bitch, and nowhere more so than that little corner of the world.


Whine, whine, whine. bush broke Iraq, now we have to fix it. Let's stop feeling sorry for ourselves and start putting a plan together. A real plan, not this "Plan for Victory" gelatinous vomit that is code for "we don't have a fucking clue what to do next".


I have no confidence bush is going to handle it. The Iraqis apparently don't either.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Nice try. I'll take those paragraphs as a tacit admission that you had a brain seizure.

Setting aside media markets for a moment, do you accept the proposition that there are some things (say, primary education, or national defense) that a "free" market will not produce in sufficient quantities, such that some sort of government action is appropriate?

I was just trying to have a conversation, and forgot that tossing out new ideas might be strange and threatening to you Republicans. Sorry.

If a free market doesn't produce adequate investment in the national defense, do you conclude that the market is giving people what they want, and that it isn't our place to tell the American people how much national defense they need? Of course not.

If Congress adopted this, it wouldn't be forcing taxpayers to do anything. It would be citizens deciding to come together to use government to ensure that they get the news they need.

What to do
 

That doesn't matter. You guys control nothing and won't be trusted to control anything again. You're like when Ty was 3rd string on the b-ball team and he'd dog the starters after a loss. You can criticize all you want but Coach (the american public) ain't giving you any more court time.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Unless he's actually right. Or unless the process of having this conversation is a fundamental part of what living in a democracy is actually about, in which we should be thankful that we have a system of government in which these differences of opinion are aired, rather than fearful of such differences.[/QUOTE]

The one in about a year? We're not supposed to criticize the ruling party's policies for half the time? I missed that part of the framers' grand design.

Or maybe they just think that Bush's policies have been a colossal fuck-up and are wasting American lives while endangering our national security.

What to do
 

First, the idea that we shouldn't debate it because Bush is going to do what Bush is going to do is simply silly. We are Americans. We debate. And, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, leaders listen to shifting winds in public opinion that come from debates.

Admit it, you didn't really mean that.

Secondly, I think you prescribe a "stay the same course", which means continuing to do it all ourselves with only token assistance and continuing to assume that if we do the same things but with increasing aid from Iraqis trained by us, the insurgency will ultimately die. The best historical precedents I can think of here are Latin American countries like Peru and El Salvador, but note that El Salvador's insurrection whithered after we essentially withdrew. So, it is possible, but, I think, unlikely. You also assume the Kurds and Shiites will continue to get along, but I think the only thing that unifies them is beating up on the Sunnies.

Most importantly, staying the same course means getting entangled in the Iraqi government as it develops, which strikes me as likely tangling us up in a Civil War. If we stay the same course, I fear we will turn around one day and be in still deeper, and Iraq will be a ball and chain around our country's ankle for a protracted period.

So, if Bush has to eat crow with the UN or has to negotiate hard to involve Egypt or the like involved, I think he should do it.

What to do
 

I think the Coach is getting pretty frustrated with the starters' inability to put points on the board. Sure, the slam dunks are oh-so-pret-tay, but all the chest-thumping in the world won't make up for the bricks and missed free throws.

What to do
 

YOu are getting sidetracked. So far we have no reason to believe that the Shiites and the Kurds won't be able to cooperate in a federal state.

Whatever happens the Iraq people will be better off than they were under Saddam. Who knows what will happen but a Democratic government will be a positive step. If that democratic government splits up and we have a shiite arab democracy that cozy up to a Iran. That sucks, but it is still better.




Democracy sometimes ain't pretty. But it is better than the alternatives.



I am not whining, I am just stating facts. It would be irresponsible for us to turn Iraq over to other countrys because everyone else wants us to fail. Bush fixed Iraq. He got rid of Saddam. Now he is just improving it by making it a democracy.



It doesn't matter if you have confidence in him or not. Bush is going to do what he is going to do and there is nothing anyone can do about. All debate, in no matter what forum, is just hot air.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

????. Don't you agree that government rarely do better controlling a market than letting it operate to natural forces.


Those are not markets. Those are not consumer items. Those are things the government has to buy for society as a whole. When it comes to consumer products the government does not need to get involved. News and media are individual consumer products that the market takes care of.



By calling National Defense an "investment" shows that you have learned your economics from Clinton talking points and not in an economics course. National Defense is not an investment it is an expenditure. You might be able to call education and infrastructure investments because the money you spend on them creates enough growth that produce enough new tax enough to more than cover the money spent on them. That is a possible argument but still a stretch. But there is no way to argue that Defense expenditures produce enough tax revenue to pay for them selves. Defense expenditures may push some growth but not enough to produce enough revenue to recoup that tax money spent on them. Therefore it is no where close to being an investment.

Defense has to be purchased collectively so the collective has to decide how much to spend. Individuals can't make the call, the amount has to be agreed upon. News, baseballs, oranges etc are purchased by the individual so the government does not need to decide how much the market needs or how much people need.



Would pennies fall from heaven? Someone is going to have to pay for the production of news. It is going to be the taxpayers. You are going to force the taxpayers to pay for a good they don't want. If they wanted this type of news they would pay for it.

What to do
 

You sure about that? More faith-based foreign policy. Wouldn't it be prudent to think about these things a teeny bit in advance, like what really happens if the Shiites and Kurds don't do what we think they should? If the Iranians and Iraqi Shiites jointly come out with a nuke, are we going to reinvade? I'd prefer not to have to go back there in a few years all over again.

Might as well save tax dollars by dissolving Congress and the Senate. Oh, and the courts too.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

He or anyone else can't possibly know this. That is why the statement is irresponsible and unnesseary.


No the election in Iraq on the fifteenth. The US election is irrelevent.



No. Then they would not be saying that they know we can't win. There is no way anyone could know that, so the only reason to say it is to try and make sure the US will fail.

What to do
 

Open debate where the leader of a party and US Senators are saying we are fucked in a miltary action- Please find me a cite of when this has happened before. No one is saying it is illegal- it is horribly irresponsible. Again, one cite where this happened in WW II Korea, or even, I bet Vietnam.

You've got to be fucking kidding here. The UN? Quick question- the 3 countries that vetoed any Iraq action- which one had its Islamic immigrants go on a 3 week riot and which one just sold 1 Billion dollars worth of rocket technology to Iran. you think the vetoes were for what's best for the world? France is fucking afrain and Russia is broke. Oh, and how many general assembly resolution were passed this week like 160-10 condeming Israel. The UN?

What to do
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You sure about that? More faith-based foreign policy. Wouldn't it be prudent to think about these things a teeny bit in advance, like what really happens if the Shiites and Kurds don't do what we think they should? If the Iranians and Iraqi Shiites jointly come out with a nuke, are we going to reinvade? I'd prefer not to have to go back there in a few years all over again.

I think installing a democracy is a fair risk. It could go wrong but at least we tried to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. They are no longer controlled by an evil dictator and they have a popularly elected government. Everything in foreign policy is a risk, but this one seems like a pretty good risk to me.

Are you saying I am wrong? If Bush decides the US will stay what can the Congress, the Senate or the Courts do?

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Apart from FX markets, very few are unregulated.

We do not leave the production of national security and primary education to the free market because we know that it will not produce the right outcome. A few posts ago, we were agreeing that the free market produces not enough news and too much cheap opinion. Now you've changed your tune and have decided that the market is taking care of us. So, never mind the rest of the discussion.

I'm not forcing the taxpayers to do it if their democratically elected representatives vote for it. Taxpayers -- or citizens, as the Greeks called them before Howard Jarvis came along -- decide to purchase things through the government all the time. Is it beyond your comprehension that people might decide to purchase some goods and services (think: national defense) as citizens, through their government, rather than as individual consumers?

Apparently it is.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Nor can Bush know that we'll win. Dean's statement is no more irresponsible and unnecessary than anything Bush has said recently, and probably is more grounded in reality, bilmore's reality notwithstanding.

I find it hard to believe that you really think that Americans should refrain from criticizing Mr. Bush's foreign policy because Iraq is going to hold an election.

Please consult Occam's Razor. The likelier explanation is that he believes that what he is saying is true, though he may turn out to be wrong. See, e.g., all the stuff you guys are saying lately about Bush and WMD. (The difference being that Dean may turn out to be right.)