Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I will take my payment in booze. I have no problem with being bought.

I am starting to think I should refer you to AA. You are booze-obsessed.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am starting to think I should refer you to AA. You are booze-obsessed.

I'm just doing my part to bring the country back to the barter system. And booze has a very long shelf life (unless it is shown to my bf). So much better value than, say, filet mignon.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tain_expats_dc

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tain_expats_dc

Articles about Brazilians belong on the FB where they can be properly appreciated.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Articles about Brazilians belong on the FB where they can be properly appreciated.

?Huh?

how about this, Saddam was bothered Chirac didn't do more to help his personal friend:

Majid told Fox that he [Saddam] considered French President Jacques Chirac (search) a personal friend, saying he believes he and Chirac understand each other. He said Saddam was disappointed that Chirac didn't defend him to a greater extent in the days before the war and the Iraqi dictator felt caught in the middle of a conflict between two superpowers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102908,00.html

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Articles about Brazilians belong on the FB where they can be properly appreciated.

Apparently Bush is NOT making a comeback in the UK...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Roy Moore is a justice no more.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Recent news items:

Faced with growing public uneasiness over Iraq, Republican Party officials intend to change the terms of the political debate heading into next year's election by focusing on the "doctrine of preemption," portraying President Bush as a visionary acting to prevent future terrorist attacks on US soil despite the costs and casualties involved overseas.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...tion_doctrine/

The CIA analysis suggests U.S. policy in Iraq has reached a turning point, as the Bush administration moves to escalate the war against the guerrillas and accelerate the transfer of political power to Iraqis.

Both options are potentially risky.

An escalation of the military campaign could cause more civilian casualties and drive more Iraqis to the insurgents' side.

At the same time, the CIA assessment warns that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders have shown an ability to govern the country or even preside over drafting a constitution or holding an election.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...nt/7239049.htm

In the context of the current "difficulties" with the Iraqi guerrillas, our quick force withdrawal/no more body bags focus appears to me to be wishful thinking.

This reelection strategy is reminiscent of a person building a giant house of cards ("we succeeded in Iraq and made America safer") and then tiptoeing slowly away so as not to let the house come crashing down before he gets out of the room.

Curious as to what others think...

[Edited to reduce my curiosity level.]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Recent news items:



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...tion_doctrine/

more editorial and spin than news, isn't it? (other than some memo)

In the context of the current "difficulties" with the Iraqi guerrillas, our quick force withdrawal/no more body bags focus appears to me to be wishful thinking.

the day before we invaded, how many GI's did you think would die? less than 1000? you're lying. Every death is fucked up, but this really hasn't been that bloody. The news focuses on the 1 or 2 killed every day or other day, meanwhile more people are shot on the California freeways. We aren't pulling all US out of the 405 are we.

This reelection strategy is reminiscent of a person building a giant house of cards ("we succeeded in Iraq and made America safer") and then tiptoeing slowly away so as not to let the house come crashing down before he gets out of the room.

this is the "wishful thinking" part of your post. the American public believes we needed to be preemptive. While I feel its a bit unfair to blame Clinton for not doing more (until 9/11 it would have been hard to get support for invading Afghanistan), a huge percentage of the public does blame Clinton. Certainly, it would be quite fair to blame Bush or future presidents for not taking out terrorists states.
What you have are Democratic presidential candidates trying to create a political issue out of clear choices made for national security. Why do they do this? not because they believe what thet are saying needs to happen*, but simply because they want to be president and they don't know what else to do to achieve the only thing that matters to them. the Dems are believed and supported by the 30% of the public that was against the war to begin with. The republicans aren't the ones with the house of cards, bub. You guys lost the senate a year ago, just lost 2 governorships, your presidentials candidates just alienated the entire south, etc...
in the end, the only meaningful question is, did it made sense to go in. If the answer is yes, it still makes to be there. servicemen die. they die in training and they die when we are in war. its screwed up that it happens, but its not surprising.

*note most have no contrary plan, just complaints about current stance

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Stuff

I know I often come across as a broken record on these boards, but I'd suggest its sometimes because an answer can be stated in only a few words.

The answers to Iraq are as follows:

First: hold elections at:
1.) the block level;
2.) the neighborhood level;
3.) the city/town level;
4.) the regional level;
5.) the national level.

Second: Deal with whoever the Iraqis elect. You elect Saddam? Here come the tanks again. You elect someone who doesn't like us, but who will sit down with us? You got it. Let them elect whoever the fuck they want, but let them understand that if they elect people to fight us, then they are all gonna die.

Meantime: As soon as things are under control in some area, get the fuck out. Tell them we'll return if we ever think they are encouraging the populace of the evacuated area to engage in violence against us. Otherwise, tell them hasta, and we hope we can all be friends... give us a call if you ever need a hand with something.

On the other hand, Fallujah? Shades of my Pinochet posts, but they need to have a shoot-to-kill order in that region for every-fucking-thing. Demonstrations? Dead. Openly carrying weapons on the street? Dead. Throwing rocks? Dead. The towns that don't buckle (and it seems like we keep hearing the same 2 or 3 names most of the time) need to feel the heel.

And yeah, I'd ban the media from the area while I was doing it.

But I said a "few words", right? Going back 6 months,

1.) Pacify
2.) Elections
3.) Get the fuck out.

Simple as that. And Bremer, or Rice, or Rumsfeld or somebody has dragged their heels on the "election" part for about 4 months longer than reasonable. They should have elected at least neighborhood councils in every Iraqi neighborhood by the end of the summer. And they never should have withdrawn from the first street after a roadside bombing. We've seen it like 100 or 200 times, when the answer to something like that is to go in swinging.

Arghhh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Roy Moore is a justice no more.

But he will be the governor in a few years, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But he will be the governor in a few years, right?

Roy would answer "God willing."

[sgtclub]

New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."

New York Times editorial, today.

"The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But he will be the governor in a few years, right?

When's their next election?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank C.
the day before we invaded, how many GI's did you think would die? less than 1000? you're lying.

I wonder, if I had had an opportunity to answer this question, and had said "the British have learned that there would be less than 1000 GI's dead", would Bilmore still have a problem with you calling me a liar?

in the end, the only meaningful question is, did it made sense to go in. If the answer is yes, it still makes to be there. servicemen die. they die in training and they die when we are in war. its screwed up that it happens, but its not surprising.

I could be wrong here, but I am pretty sure you are missing my point. The question was not whether we should have invaded (or, insert less prickly euphemism here) in the first place. You'd like to simplify it to that, and I suppose based on the possibility that Saddam could have developed some nasty weapons programs and delivered the fruits of those programs to the US, most americans would agree with you. However, the point I was really getting at was, now that the preemption die has been cast, should we really be picking now as the time to leave based on the fact that body bags are messy things during a presidential campaign.

You can crow all you want about how Americans want Bush-style preemption, but the problem is that if we get out without pacifying/eliminating the guerrillas, and without ensuring that any sort of governing institutions are in place, then the Bush-style preemption that we Americans want would be creating the same greenhouse of terrorism in Iraq that the "huge percentage of Americans" blame Clinton for allowing to emerge in Afghanistan.

The "house of cards" to me was the possibility that this could become all too clear even before the election if the seemingly benign government we put in place either gives way or morphs into some "evil" regime that we'd want to preemptively invade, all other things being equal. But perhaps the huge percentage of Americans would still blame Clinton, so maybe there isn't a risk here. You've convinced me.

note most have no contrary plan, just complaints about current stance

I do note that most don't but at least one does, and I happen to agree with him (at least on this point).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGO12SD961.DTL
"Every American should understand: Early exit means retreat or defeat. We can have neither."