"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[bling trade]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well, even in that scenario, there is moderate Islamic law and then there is extremism. Afghanistan is governed under Islamic law and where the state can claim to have control, it is not an extremist system. Iraq could be governed under a code informed by Islam. But if we walk away, that is not what will happen. It will plunge into tribal infighting, split into three pieces and become the capitol of terrorism and rabid fundamentalism in the world.

I think we are actually safer if we pull out. The terrorists don't want us supporting Israel, the Arab monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc), and the Arab dictatorships (Egypt, etc). Oil will be more expensive with the mullahs in charge, but we'll be safer.

High oil prices aren't all bad either. It will encourage us to develop the technology to tap the oil sands under the rockies and in Canada, to conserve energy more, and to develop better bio fuels.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
9/11 made so explicitly clear what can happen when we (and the rest of the world) decide to leave a place like Afghanistan to descend into chaos.

To be fair to the Afghans, the billions we spend arming the populace, while well-intentioned at the time, probably didn't do a lot for law and order and the stability of the central government.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bling trade
I think we are actually safer if we pull out. The terrorists don't want us supporting Israel, the Arab monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc), and the Arab dictatorships (Egypt, etc). Oil will be more expensive with the mullahs in charge, but we'll be safer.

High oil prices aren't all bad either. It will encourage us to develop the technology to tap the oil sands under the rockies and in Canada, to conserve energy more, and to develop better bio fuels.

I agree on the oil thing, but Radical Islam is cancerous. The thing has to be stopped. Mullahs can't be reasoned with the way dictators or royal families can. They're not thinking regional caliphate. They're thinking global. The swine are already making inroads all over Europe.

I also don't think letting a sector of the world fall to such a disgusting way of life is a bargain any decent society can stand by and watch, no matter how sensible the approach sounds. These people, well, they're not really people. They're not properly educated or assimilated to modern life. I'm a relativist in most things, but Islam is idiocy the way these people practice it, and it would be fine to allow them to live like cavemen, but they're just developed enough that they can and will make trouble far beyond any negotiated borders. It's written in that silly book they follow, like a divine charge. I can't see ssitting back and watching crusaders take over the Middle East.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bling trade
I believe it is an abuse of power send american troops abroad to advance an idealistic agenda of "helping" foreign countries, or to use free trade agreements of "helping" foreign countries. The US electorate does not support subsidizing the non-US poor at its own expense. That is why the US has never spent much in foreign aid, and will never spend much in foreign aid. A backlash has been building against these things. McCain's support of things like this is a major reason why he will lose the election. The public simply does not support it.

You seem to be part of the "only in US strategic interest crowd" foreign policy crowd which is usually a conservative bunch but you also seem to be an Obama supporter. Of course I dsiagree with the only in US strategic interests just as much as I disagree with the pacifists. But if you think the American's public distaste for foreign aid is going to hurt McCain more than Obama, I think you are wrong. Obama has said that we should have gone into Rwanda, I think he has said we should do more about Darfur and he has talked about and introduced bilsl which would significantly increase our foreign aid budget. Although I agree with him on all these points they are going to hurt him greatly in the election.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I agree on the oil thing, but Radical Islam is cancerous.

Maybe it would help if we stopped the military occupation of an Islamic Arab country over the wishes of its population. Maybe that would take some of the wind out of the sails of this whole Radical Islam thing.

Oh, sorry -- I forgot that we don't think about that sort of thing when we talk about the endless military operations you have in mind.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe it would help if we stopped the military occupation of an Islamic Arab country over the wishes of its population. Maybe that would take some of the wind out of the sails of this whole Radical Islam thing.

Oh, sorry -- I forgot that we don't think about that sort of thing when we talk about the endless military operations you have in mind.

You know what would fill in the power vacuum? Radical Islam.

Yes, the war was a massive mistake. But the answer to one stupid move is not another which makes a bad situation even worse.

You think if we leave Iraq things will just sort of "work themselves out." You really do. How utterly amazing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe it would help if we stopped the military occupation of an Islamic Arab country over the wishes of its population. Maybe that would take some of the wind out of the sails of this whole Radical Islam thing.

Oh, sorry -- I forgot that we don't think about that sort of thing when we talk about the endless military operations you have in mind.

2. without our invasion of Iraq I doubt 9/11 would have happened. w/o Iraq I doubt "osama" would be the most popular name for boys being born in Pakistan, etc..

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This article is pretty good is describing the basic situation. In my book, bottom-up reconciliation is a pipe dream, and the article shows that the surge has been a failure. Spanky can now tell me that the Financial Times is every bit as much a biased lefty tool as the GAO.

• ANALYSIS: Iraq surge brings a lull in violence but no reconciliation
  
  By Steve Negus, Iraq correspondent, Financial Times
  Published: Jan 07, 2008
  
  Already, the "surge" of US troops into Baghdad is beginning to recede, leaving behind a country where, by most accounts, levels of political violence are much reduced.
  
  But the surge has not accomplished the goal that the administration of US President George W. Bush set when it announced the policy at the beginning of last year - to buy time for Iraqi politicians to reach compromises on the country's future that would reconcile its feuding ethnic and sectarian factions.
  
  US officers say that such a grand compromise may not be so important. They have achieved "bottom-up" reconciliation by cementing local alliances and arranging for the amnesty of prisoners, the pensioning off of former regime officials and other measures to win Sunni acceptance for the Shia-led government.
  
  Over the next year, as neighbourhoods, towns and districts lose the US garrisons that helped suppress sectarian militias and insurgent groups and maintain the balance of power, the ability of these improvised measures to withstand the centrifugal forces of Iraqi sectarian politics will be put to the test.
  
  US forces numbered approximately 160,000 at the end of December, down from a high of over 170,000 in October. Robert Gates, US defence secretary, said last month that the military should be able to withdraw five brigades, or around 20,000 soldiers, by mid-2008, and hoped to take out another five by the end of this year.
  
  British troops will also be winding down their deployment in Iraq, with numbers expected to fall from 5,000 to 2,500 in the middle of next year.
  
  In terms of reducing violence, the strategy orchestrated by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, appears to have succeeded beyond its planners' expectations. Both US military casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties have fallen dramatically since the summer.
  
  But many Iraqi politicians and Iraq analysts fear that unless the government can reach agreement with its political opponents, the lull in violence may not last. "If this improvement in security is not matched by improvements in political life, economy, unemployment and the services for the standard of living, [or] if there is no reconciliation, nobody can guarantee that this security would not deteriorate again," says Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish politician.
  
  "What Petraeus has accomplished is a lull that is sustainable through the American elections [in November 2008]," says Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank. "It's not indefinitely sustainable without political accommodation at the top . . . This is conventional wisdom and it makes sense."
  
  Gen Petraeus himself said last month that, although the violence that had brought Iraq to the "brink of civil war" had receded, the progress had been "tenuous in many areas and could be reversed".
  
  According to American officers, the surge worked by allowing the US and Iraqi governments to blanket strategic districts, in some cases placing troops in positions where they could overlook virtually every main road junction.
  
  This allowed US forces to intercept guerrillas moving in and out - and, more importantly, to break the hold that insurgents had gained on neighbourhoods via intimidation. Fatalities suffered by the US-led coalition fell to 40 a month in October and November, and 23 in December, from well over 100 a month in each of April, May and June. Figures for civilian dead also suggest a drop of more than 50 per cent since the summer.
  
  In addition, both Sunni and Shia armed groups appear to have suffered a significant loss of legitimacy among their support bases. Members of both sects say that the gunmen alienated the civilian population by imposing a puritan version of Islamic law or by killing locals suspected of being informants.
  
  Iraq's al-Qaeda network, in particular, sparked a massive backlash. Over 70,000 paramilitaries, or "concerned local citizens", enlisted in neighbourhood patrols targeted mainly at the radical Sunni movement.
  
  Shia militants also appear to have lost legitimacy. Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, continues to enforce a ban on all armed activity in areas controlled by his movement, and his deputies say that that they have formed a special "Golden Unit" to purge members suspected of criminal violence or sectarian killing.
  
  However, the retreat of the armed movements does not appear to have been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the authority and legitimacy of the Iraqi state. Gen Petraeus has said that as al-Qaeda activity lessens in Sunni areas, "mafia-like" criminal organisations practising kidnapping and extortion expand to fill the gap. Meanwhile, the British military's recent withdrawal from Basra city stems from the realisation that it could do little to stop feuding among Islamist militia groups.
  
  Some analysts have suggested Basra is a glimpse into Iraq's medium-term future. The violence there, which probably results in several dozen dead a month, is hardly a serious threat to the Iraqi state. But the climate of lawlessness ensures that investors steer clear of an oil-rich port city that could be Iraq's economic and commercial capital - and that the middle class, which fled en masse to neighbouring countries, does not return.
  
  Meanwhile, Iraqi politicians have failed to deliver the hoped-for "national reconciliation" package of legislation. Parliament adjourned at the end of the year without having approved important legislation on the distribution of oil revenues and the fate of members of the former ruling Ba'ath party. Given the heated rhetoric that continues to fly between Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia, it appears that the much-vaunted "consensus" may not in fact exist.
  
  It could be the US troop presence, rather than low-profile trust-building measures, that is the crucial factor in keeping the feuding factions apart. "The Americans can [prevent local conflicts] now because they have leverage through the military," says Mr Hiltermann.
  
  The US surge does appear to have interrupted the cycle of violence that a year ago seemed to be pushing Iraq inexorably into all-out sectarian war. But it has not bought Iraqis enough time to resolve their differences and it is unclear whether local ceasefires can last without US troops to help resolve disagreements and prevent groups from settling their disputes by force.

Yes the GAO report was biased, but this one seems pretty erudite. However, it seems weird to me that you think this article supports your position that the surge has completely failed. As Sebby has pointed out you have completely put yourself in a corner because you predicted that the surge would not work at all, and now you have said it has completely failed. Anyone with an IQ above ten can see that both of those assertions are obviously and blatantly wrong, but some weird aspect of your ego just won't admit that.

You have defined failure as anything but a passage of all the laws which the Bush administration wanted the Iraqi parliament to pass. Following this definition you are right. The surge is a failure. But no one with a straight face could make the argument that this should be the criteria used to define whether the surge has succeeded or failed. You make that argument because you are simply incapable of admitting you were wrong when you said that nothing positive could come from the surge and that there is absolutely no reason at all to support McCain’s idea of staying in Iraq to take advantage of the opportunities the surge has presented over Obama's immediate withdrawal position.

According to your article up above, the surge has greatly reduced violence, more than the GAO report admits - fifty percent - in fact it states:

"In terms of reducing violence, the strategy orchestrated by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, appears to have succeeded beyond its planners' expectations. Both US military casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties have fallen dramatically since the summer."

It has allowed a great deal of political reconciliation at the local level, and brought a little legislative movement from the Iraqi Parliament. Again to quote from your article:

"In addition, both Sunni and Shia armed groups appear to have suffered a significant loss of legitimacy among their support bases. Members of both sects say that the gunmen alienated the civilian population by imposing a puritan version of Islamic law or by killing locals suspected of being informants.

Iraq's al-Qaeda network, in particular, sparked a massive backlash. Over 70,000 paramilitaries, or "concerned local citizens", enlisted in neighbourhood patrols targeted mainly at the radical Sunni movement.

Shia militants also appear to have lost legitimacy. Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, continues to enforce a ban on all armed activity in areas controlled by his movement, and his deputies say that that they have formed a special "Golden Unit" to purge members suspected of criminal violence or sectarian killing."


Yet even with the above successes delineated in the article you posted you insist on describing the surge as a total failure. This position would come as a surprise to all the peoples whose lives have been spared by the surge, or who have been able to move back to their homes, or have been able to get their businesses thriving again because of the surge.

Your position is that the surge is a failure because the government has not passed and will never pass those bills. Your position actually depends on the ridiculous idea that the Iraq parliament has completely disappeared off the map never to return. However, that is a "Tinker Bell" view of reality. The Iraqi parliament still exists and it still has a chance to pass the bills that would lead to reconciliation.

But you assert until all those bills are passed the surge is a failure, and like before you have predicted that those bills will never pass. There is no chance of that ever happening. Again, another stupid absolutist statement about the future. You have no idea whether the parliament will or will not pass such laws. You don't think they will, but to say you are sure there is no chance it will happen just shows how irrational you are. No one can make that kind of prediction with the utmost certainty, let alone a lawyer in Washington D.C. who does not speak Arabic, has never been to Iraq and gets all his information from second hand to third hand sources.

According to the article above the surge has produced many positive results. It also has succeeded in creating a more secure environment which was thought was needed for those bills to pass, and contrary to your belief that you can absolutely know what will happen in the future, there is still a chance that the parliament will pass all the bills laid out in the bench marks especially since the peaceful environment thought to be necessary for the passage of such bills still exists. In fact, the environment seems to be getting better all the time thereby increasing the chance that the legislation will get passed.

But to you the surge is a total failure because all those bills have not been passed, and you want to pull out now because you are sure they never will be passed. And you have to take this absurd position, because to admit to anything else, would be to admit that staying in Iraqi longer is the right call because any idiot would have to recognize that utter stupidity of not taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the successes of the surge delineated in the article you posted. All I can say is thank God you will never have any sort of influence over US foreign policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You know what would fill in the power vacuum? Radical Islam.

Yes, the war was a massive mistake. But the answer to one stupid move is not another which makes a bad situation even worse.

You think if we leave Iraq things will just sort of "work themselves out." You really do. How utterly amazing.

The radicals who give us trouble are Sunnis, not Shiites, except for Hezbollah, which gives Israel more trouble than it gives us. The bigger problem with an Iraq run by Shiites is that it would lean toward Iran, not bin Laden.

Apparently you plan an indefinite military occupation. That should work well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You have defined failure as anything but a passage of all the laws which the Bush administration wanted the Iraqi parliament to pass.

You're confusing what I said with the words Sebby tries to put in my mouth. If you look at what people like Kagan and President Bush said when they proposed the surge, you will see that what they said needed to happen hasn't happened. It would be silly to suggest that absolutely nothing good has come of the surge, so I won't. But by the benchmarks proposed by its supporters at the outset, it has been a failure.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The radicals who give us trouble are Sunnis, not Shiites, except for Hezbollah, which gives Israel more trouble than it gives us. The bigger problem with an Iraq run by Shiites is that it would lean toward Iran, not bin Laden.

Apparently you plan an indefinite military occupation. That should work well.

Putting aside that you're incorrect, and that we are having trouble with both Shiite and Sunni elements, are you really suggesting we up and leave and hand the world's second largest oil reserve to Iran? What about Iran gives you comfort? And worse, what on earth makes you think Al Queda would allow Shiites to run Iraq? The place would be in an endless civil war.

We fucked up. We destabilized an area that could only be controlled by a dictator and now we're stuck with it. Yes, the only option is to keep a large presence there indefinitely. I don't like it either, but that's the shitty mess we're in, and I don't here any serious Plan B from you. Your plan sounds more like a spin of a roullette wheel, or some faith-based conjecture that things would just magically coalesce into a happy stasis in our absence. Isn;t that a lot like Cheney's "faith" we'd be greeted with flowers?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're confusing what I said with the words Sebby tries to put in my mouth. If you look at what people like Kagan and President Bush said when they proposed the surge, you will see that what they said needed to happen hasn't happened. It would be silly to suggest that absolutely nothing good has come of the surge, so I won't. But by the benchmarks proposed by its supporters at the outset, it has been a failure.

I didn't stick any words in your mouth. You're the one clinging to an amusing hypertechnical standard to justify your earlier post that McCain's judgment is compromised because he believes the surge is not a failure.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you should have made the joke about Bush being afraid to leave Chincoteague.

Hating on Bush is so 2004. 2008 is all about smiling at the thought of McCain telling hundreds of Assateague mares that their foals are gone and aren't coming back.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're confusing what I said with the words Sebby tries to put in my mouth. If you look at what people like Kagan and President Bush said when they proposed the surge, you will see that what they said needed to happen hasn't happened. It would be silly to suggest that absolutely nothing good has come of the surge, so I won't. But by the benchmarks proposed by its supporters at the outset, it has been a failure.

say when you were in high school, you finally get a date with Polly cheerleader. You borrow a rubber from your older bro. then, on the date, she gives you a hand job, but no fucking. Failure?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say when you were in high school, you finally get a date with Polly cheerleader. You borrow a rubber from your older bro. then, on the date, she gives you a hand job, but no fucking. Failure?

Not only is it failure, it's also proof you'll never be able to fuck her.