A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Somehow, the discussion about Iraqi history and what we might learn from it has morphed into why the Democrats shouldn't criticize the war effort.

I don't think it was morphing. To my recollection, there were two threads, and one about Iraqi history and Afghanistan has been lost.

Originally posted by Spanky
Do we live on the same planet?

I'm not sure. On my planet talk is cheap, but on yours it decides the outcome of vast military operations being run by people who ignored talk they didn't like for years and years.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Once again, you have a strange focus on the sort of message a President sends, and a complete disinterest in his policies. Which has been Bush's problem with Iraq, in a nutshell.

Without taking a position on the merits of your statement about Spanky, Ty, I have to point out to you that:

"This is a Politics Board not a Policy Board." Spanky and the Presient are both experts in politics -- where message is almost everything.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
That movie has been a major inspiration to my life and it should be to yours. There were many good moral lessons gleaned from that movie that most of us should respect.

"Fuck her! Fuck her! Squeeze her tits! You know she wants it!"

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Without taking a position on the merits of your statement about Spanky, Ty, I have to point out to you that:

"This is a Politics Board not a Policy Board." Spanky and the Presient are both experts in politics -- where message is almost everything.

I just learned that the war will be over in a few weeks, so we can go back to talking politics.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Somehow, the discussion about Iraqi history and what we might learn from it has morphed into why the Democrats shouldn't criticize the war effort.

Ah, well.

Aren't I responding to everything? Looking at the history why don't you tell us what you think is going to happen in Iraq when the US pulls out? I find that idea fascinating. Do you think it will split up, another strong man willl emerge, forty years of civil war, a Turkish or Persian invasion?

What is your best educated guess?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand. When I refer to your "John Blutarsky foreign policy," you will understand what I am talking about and we will appreciate the source of your inspiration.

Absolutely. I think we should change it from necon to Blutarskianism.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm not sure. On my planet talk is cheap,

Yet we spend a lot of time blathering on this board, don't we?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think it was morphing. To my recollection, there were two threads, and one about Iraqi history and Afghanistan has been lost.

What is going to happen to Afghanistan?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is going to happen to Afghanistan?

Most likely, we will continue to prop up a weak "national" government in Kabul which will exert little authority in the provinces, where conflict will continue. There have been warnings about the Taliban militias, and I don't know whether they post a real threat of changing things dramatically, assuming our troops stay there. But they're not going away, either.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Aren't I responding to everything? Looking at the history why don't you tell us what you think is going to happen in Iraq when the US pulls out? I find that idea fascinating. Do you think it will split up, another strong man willl emerge, forty years of civil war, a Turkish or Persian invasion?

What is your best educated guess?

My best guess, if we pull out completely:

The Kurds would get their own state within a decade.

The remainder of Iraq would end up with a fundamentalist Islamic regime; it is possible it will be two fundamentalist regimes, one Sunni, one Shi'a, but I think Baghdad is too big a prize for the Shi'as not to claim it. That state would be unstable for years to come.

The key to US policy ought to be either preventing the second from happening or finding a way to come to terms with fundamentalist Islamic regimes and coopt them enough so they do not become terrorist havens.

Tall order in either case.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
Aren't I responding to everything? Looking at the history why don't you tell us what you think is going to happen in Iraq when the US pulls out? I find that idea fascinating. Do you think it will split up, another strong man willl emerge, forty years of civil war, a Turkish or Persian invasion?

What is your best educated guess?

When I consider the inplications of this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112801277.html

I'd speculate that, if the US pulls out before some semblance of sustainable order is established, then:

1. There will be a genuine civil war b/t sunnis supported by the Saudis and shias supported by Iran.

2. The kurds will assert their independence in some fashion.

3. Turkey will take (a) whatever the Kurds do and (b) the "threat" (real or not) to their turkmen brothers in Iraq and Kurdistan as a provactive action and take steps to protect their interests, which may or may not include boots on the ground.

4. The threat from the turks plus the importance of Kirkuk to the Kurds, both historically and b/c of the oil fields, draw the Kurds into the conflict.

5. All hell really breaks loose, especially if Iran continues to be lead by apocolypse-seeking nutjobs.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
When I consider the inplications of this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112801277.html

I'd speculate that, if the US pulls out before some semblance of sustainable order is established, then:

1. There will be a genuine civil war b/t sunnis supported by the Saudis and shias supported by Iran.

2. The kurds will assert their independence in some fashion.

3. Turkey will take (a) whatever the Kurds do and (b) the "threat" (real or not) to their turkmen brothers in Iraq and Kurdistan as a provactive action and take steps to protect their interests, which may or may not include boots on the ground.

4. The threat from the turks plus the importance of Kirkuk to the Kurds, both historically and b/c of the oil fields, draw the Kurds into the conflict.

5. All hell really breaks loose, especially if Iran continues to be lead by apocolypse-seeking nutjobs.

Or they can find some way to work together and attack Israel.

Originally posted by Spanky
Yet we spend a lot of time blathering on this board, don't we?

Talk is cheap, but bandwith costs money.

FYI, you should bet on the outcome of a soccer game with Flower sometime if you want to give a little something back to the boards.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So the mission was accomplished?

In that the war is over yes?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sri Lanka is more like a civil war, except that they're separatists. So it seems worse. But Iraq is definitely worse off than Peru ever was. The survival of the central government there was never in question.

Lot more deaths in Peru.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So your problem is not the talking heads, but Democratic politicians. Just so we're clear. And do you think Democratic politicians were leading public opinion, or following it? The antiwar folks think the latter.

I don't think that matters. What matters is what the political leadership is saying, what the major papers are saying etc. and whether what they say inspires the the opposition and demoralizes our troops.

Propganda is important in any war, but many politicians, newspapers and pundits seem very irresponsible to me.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Many people have principled and heartfelt objections to the war, and you have dismissed their views as motivated only by craven self-interest. So I don't think your account of what Democrats are thinking is particularly persuasive, FWIW.

It is the politicians that use the over the top hyperbole. Bush is a war criminal, this war is immoral etc. they over the top rhetoric has scored political points but has helped demoralize our troops and embolden the enemy. Some are responsible and low key like HC, others like Kerry and Rangel give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What gives you hope?

The high turnout of the elections. That these desperate and unexperienced politicians were actually able to form a governnment, that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis supported the expulsio of Saddam Hussesin, that most Iraqis expect the country to stay intact, the fact that the electorate has gotten a taste of democracy and are always going to want to have it now etc. We are training their soldiers now and when they are ready to fill the void we should let them in. But my guess is that get a large army up and running is least a decade proposition.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• "Rival Shi'ite and Sunni groups are massing their militias in expectation of major confrontations, Iraqis say, even as President Bush prepares to meet today with the nation's embattled prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Mr. Bush's meeting in Jordan is part of a wider attempt to involve Iraq's neighbors in efforts to end Iraq's vicious sectarian violence before it spills over into a larger regional conflict. But Iraqis on both sides of their nation's sectarian divide report worrisome signs that the conflict will soon evolve into pitched battles between large armed groups."

Sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you saying that many Republicans would happily undermine the country during wartime for political gain, or is it possible that dissent is patriotic? I take the latter view.

Their objection to Clinton's war was purely partisan. If it wasn't they would have done it behind closed doors. Some were responsible and said that they disagree with the strategy but now that it is a go we all have to stay united and make sure it is a success. Those were the ones I respected.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It has been Democrats who have been complaining the Administration did not go in with enough troops, which undermines your theory about Democratic complaining undermining the President.

What Democrats before the invasion pushed for more troops? What Democrats have been actively pushing for more troops? And the ones that are talking about it, of them how many have introducing legislation to increase the size of our military and increase spending.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop



This was your response to my question about whether our failures in Iraq reflect a lack of willpower by Bush et al. Suppose that the antiwar effort was critical in the way you describe. (I don't believe this for a second.) Wasn't it entirely predictable? When the war started, Bush had massive support. The antiwar movement was a fringe, not withstanding their few successes at s clogging traffic in San Francisco. If this tiny opposition crippled the war, wasn't it a bad idea to start with? Or did Bush fail as a leader by failing to persuade people to stick with him?

Your memory what happened and mine are totally different. Bush did not have unanimous support when the war started.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop



Well, since you seem to think there are facts here and I think there are none, I'm not going to be able to get you a cite. Before the election, I saw a single news story on the web from a news service (I used that term loosely) I'd never heard of which purported to provide quotes from various terrorists (e.g., Hamas) about how they would take a Democratic victory as a good thing. I saw no such reporting from any reputable news service. I have never seen anyone within the American military pointing to insurgent awareness of the comments of Democratic politicians as something of any significance. Now, maybe these stories aren't being reported because it's too dangerous for American reporters to travel in Iraq. But, still, if you have some facts that you are relying on here, please share them.

I remember them being posted on this board. If I get the time I will look them up.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It has already been falsified. And I ask you to name one American who is doing everything in his power to ensure that bin Laden's prediction comes true. OK: Jose Padilla (allegedly). Name another.

[

Any American, including Charles Rangel and Howard Dean that have been pushing for us to pull out.

This may have been part of the problem. The issue is not your subject understanding of our strategy. It was a strategy, it was the status quo, and it was an option. It was not perfect, but it looks better and better.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, you may disagree with it as a strategy -- I'm not persuaded myself -- but at least you know at admit that Democrats are offering alternative strategies. So we've seen the last of that talking point, right?

A few. But most are just bitching about the war. And there definitely is not a coherent alternate Democrat strategy. They are all over the place. The only thing they do is complain, and the party leadership has not come up with an alternative. If the Democrat party united on one alternative strategy that would be one thing, but they don't have one. Just many, many, different opinions.

Everyone says that it is clear Bush screwed up. But they can't agree on how he screwed up. So then how can it be clear?