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.