Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
:td:

I'm with you, and I like the Seligman kid. He seemed real nice and sincere and adult about the mess.

But that Finnerty kid - he's got date rape in his future (if not in has past). He's got those eyes...

[Diane_Keaton]

So what's the deal with changes to laws (or maybe regs?) about letting (requiring?) pet owners to bring their pets during an evacuation. I saw this incredible PBS show (veg-out weekend at the Keaton compound) showing rescuers going back more than 2 weeks later for pets and I spent the whole show in tears. The aquarium situation was crazy. The dog stories were the saddest (poor, wimpering skinny dogs waiting for their owners), except for the 78 year old man who kept trying to sneak back into the City, sobbing, for his cat named "Concat". Maybe I'm just premenstrual right now but OMG, I've been teary-eyed the rest of the day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR, THIS WEEK AT WAR: Nir, let me start with you. Who is running the show in Baghdad? Or is anyone?
  
  NIR ROSEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Well it depends where you are. As it has been since April 9, 2003, when Baghdad fell to the Americans, militias have been running the show. Whoever has power in the given neighborhoods, whatever local warlord, he's the one running the show. The government is basically a theater. Whatever happens in the green zone doesn't matter. It's always been militia leaders, political leaders at the party level who control the various militias and the ministers, not the prime minister and not the Americans, certainly. it is various militias.
  
  FOREMAN: Nir, based on what you are saying though the problem is there is no credible alternative is there?
  
  ROSEN: There is no government to begin with. It's a collection of militias. And indeed, there is no alternative. The whole focus on the government in Baghdad is the -- problem is that -- in everybody's approach. In Iraq it used to be you could have a coup replace the government and the whole country followed. But now Iraqi is a collection of city states, Baghdad, Tikrit, Kirkuk, Mosul, Basra, Erbil, each one with its own warlords. They don't answer to Baghdad. Baghdad has no control over them. When we overthrew Saddam, we imposed one dictator after another. We didn't like Prime Minister Jaafari so we got rid of him and we put in his close ally, Maliki. And now the occupier is once again upset that the occupied people are not being sufficiently obedient. But it doesn't matter. We are past that stage. Iraq doesn't exist as a state anymore. The government has never existed. It has never brought in any services. Even the most fundamental service the government can provide, a monopoly over the use of violence, it doesn't provide that because it has never controlled the militias and militias are the ones that control the police and the army.
  
  FOREMAN: So Nir, we keep hearing reports, though, nonetheless out of Baghdad. People saying that give us time, we are trying to get this government worked out. We are going to make some progress. Do you see any way that can happen?
  
  ROSEN: No. This has been the case for the past would two years at least. There is no hope. There is no government. Neither side is interested in compromise and why should they? The Shias control Baghdad. They have removed the Sunnis from Baghdad, from Iraq's political future.
  
  FOREMAN: What's going to change that if anything?
  
  ROSEN: Nothing is going to change that. The Shias have actually expelled most of the Sunnis from Baghdad. It went from being a majority Sunni city. Now it is a majority Shia city. The last few pockets of Sunnis are slowly being purged by the police and the Mehdi army. It's now irrevocably a Shia city and Sunnis are just out. Unfortunately, Iraq has been completely remade and it is time to be honest. It is time for the American leaders to be honest and American military to be honest with their people.
  
  There can be no reconciliation. This does -- the latest show we had a few days ago where they brought a few leaders together and pretended like they were going to reconcile, the Sunnis are still out of the government and they remain so and why should they be? They have been expelled from Iraq. The majority of the three million refugees that we have from the region, from Iraq are Sunni. The majority being internally displaced are Sunni. Of course, whatever agreement were to be reached, parliament would never ratify it anyway.

link

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR, THIS WEEK AT WAR: Nir, let me start with you. Who is running the show in Baghdad? Or is anyone?
  
  NIR ROSEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Well it depends where you are. As it has been since April 9, 2003, when Baghdad fell to the Americans, militias have been running the show. Whoever has power in the given neighborhoods, whatever local warlord, he's the one running the show. The government is basically a theater. Whatever happens in the green zone doesn't matter. It's always been militia leaders, political leaders at the party level who control the various militias and the ministers, not the prime minister and not the Americans, certainly. it is various militias.
  
  FOREMAN: Nir, based on what you are saying though the problem is there is no credible alternative is there?
  
  ROSEN: There is no government to begin with. It's a collection of militias. And indeed, there is no alternative. The whole focus on the government in Baghdad is the -- problem is that -- in everybody's approach. In Iraq it used to be you could have a coup replace the government and the whole country followed. But now Iraqi is a collection of city states, Baghdad, Tikrit, Kirkuk, Mosul, Basra, Erbil, each one with its own warlords. They don't answer to Baghdad. Baghdad has no control over them. When we overthrew Saddam, we imposed one dictator after another. We didn't like Prime Minister Jaafari so we got rid of him and we put in his close ally, Maliki. And now the occupier is once again upset that the occupied people are not being sufficiently obedient. But it doesn't matter. We are past that stage. Iraq doesn't exist as a state anymore. The government has never existed. It has never brought in any services. Even the most fundamental service the government can provide, a monopoly over the use of violence, it doesn't provide that because it has never controlled the militias and militias are the ones that control the police and the army.
  
  FOREMAN: So Nir, we keep hearing reports, though, nonetheless out of Baghdad. People saying that give us time, we are trying to get this government worked out. We are going to make some progress. Do you see any way that can happen?
  
  ROSEN: No. This has been the case for the past would two years at least. There is no hope. There is no government. Neither side is interested in compromise and why should they? The Shias control Baghdad. They have removed the Sunnis from Baghdad, from Iraq's political future.
  
  FOREMAN: What's going to change that if anything?
  
  ROSEN: Nothing is going to change that. The Shias have actually expelled most of the Sunnis from Baghdad. It went from being a majority Sunni city. Now it is a majority Shia city. The last few pockets of Sunnis are slowly being purged by the police and the Mehdi army. It's now irrevocably a Shia city and Sunnis are just out. Unfortunately, Iraq has been completely remade and it is time to be honest. It is time for the American leaders to be honest and American military to be honest with their people.
  
  There can be no reconciliation. This does -- the latest show we had a few days ago where they brought a few leaders together and pretended like they were going to reconcile, the Sunnis are still out of the government and they remain so and why should they be? They have been expelled from Iraq. The majority of the three million refugees that we have from the region, from Iraq are Sunni. The majority being internally displaced are Sunni. Of course, whatever agreement were to be reached, parliament would never ratify it anyway.

link

you need to get happier. i've heard there is really good corn available out there right now. Why not pick some up on the drive home tonight and Bar B Que?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• TOM FOREMAN, CNN ANCHOR, THIS WEEK AT WAR: Nir, let me start with you. Who is running the show in Baghdad? Or is anyone?
  
  NIR ROSEN, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: Well it depends where you are. As it has been since April 9, 2003, when Baghdad fell to the Americans, militias have been running the show. Whoever has power in the given neighborhoods, whatever local warlord, he's the one running the show. The government is basically a theater. Whatever happens in the green zone doesn't matter. It's always been militia leaders, political leaders at the party level who control the various militias and the ministers, not the prime minister and not the Americans, certainly. it is various militias.
  
  FOREMAN: Nir, based on what you are saying though the problem is there is no credible alternative is there?
  
  ROSEN: There is no government to begin with. It's a collection of militias. And indeed, there is no alternative. The whole focus on the government in Baghdad is the -- problem is that -- in everybody's approach. In Iraq it used to be you could have a coup replace the government and the whole country followed. But now Iraqi is a collection of city states, Baghdad, Tikrit, Kirkuk, Mosul, Basra, Erbil, each one with its own warlords. They don't answer to Baghdad. Baghdad has no control over them. When we overthrew Saddam, we imposed one dictator after another. We didn't like Prime Minister Jaafari so we got rid of him and we put in his close ally, Maliki. And now the occupier is once again upset that the occupied people are not being sufficiently obedient. But it doesn't matter. We are past that stage. Iraq doesn't exist as a state anymore. The government has never existed. It has never brought in any services. Even the most fundamental service the government can provide, a monopoly over the use of violence, it doesn't provide that because it has never controlled the militias and militias are the ones that control the police and the army.
  
  FOREMAN: So Nir, we keep hearing reports, though, nonetheless out of Baghdad. People saying that give us time, we are trying to get this government worked out. We are going to make some progress. Do you see any way that can happen?
  
  ROSEN: No. This has been the case for the past would two years at least. There is no hope. There is no government. Neither side is interested in compromise and why should they? The Shias control Baghdad. They have removed the Sunnis from Baghdad, from Iraq's political future.
  
  FOREMAN: What's going to change that if anything?
  
  ROSEN: Nothing is going to change that. The Shias have actually expelled most of the Sunnis from Baghdad. It went from being a majority Sunni city. Now it is a majority Shia city. The last few pockets of Sunnis are slowly being purged by the police and the Mehdi army. It's now irrevocably a Shia city and Sunnis are just out. Unfortunately, Iraq has been completely remade and it is time to be honest. It is time for the American leaders to be honest and American military to be honest with their people.
  
  There can be no reconciliation. This does -- the latest show we had a few days ago where they brought a few leaders together and pretended like they were going to reconcile, the Sunnis are still out of the government and they remain so and why should they be? They have been expelled from Iraq. The majority of the three million refugees that we have from the region, from Iraq are Sunni. The majority being internally displaced are Sunni. Of course, whatever agreement were to be reached, parliament would never ratify it anyway.

link

Hmmmm....

Thousands have been killed in or around Baghdad in the past two years, right? And that violence according to Mr. Rosen has been almost entirely Shia on Sunni, right?

So then it would seem that, as the last pockets of Sunni leave, then the violence in Baghdad has a very short remaining shelf life. Once the Shia have the city, which Rosen warns they imminently will, the violence would end there. It will be a Shia city, but it will be non-violent. That would be cause for optimism, wouldn't it?

Any future violence there would likely be Sunni on Shia, since the Shia would have no need to attack themselves or purge their own kind from the city. And since we're working with the Sunnis right now, wouldn't that mean we are the ones supporting the violence which undermines the very "Government" we're trying to build? If that's the case, I'd say we have a shadow agenda over there, which never involved an early withdrawal, and was actually intended to ensure we'd have a Middle East presence forever. That's insanely cynical, isn't it? That would mean Cheney knew the place was a quagmire going in. I mean, you'd almost have to have videotape of the guy admitting it's a quagmire years earlier to believe something like that...

I don't know the answer, but Rosen sounds like he's riffing aimlessly and a bit more strident than one ought to be giving the commentary he is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you need to get happier. i've heard there is really good corn available out there right now. Why not pick some up on the drive home tonight and Bar B Que?

We picked up some fresh corn this weekend and tonight's dinner will be pasta with sweet corn, pancetta, sage and butter. Not sure what wine to pair that with, though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hmmmm....

Thousands have been killed in or around Baghdad in the past two years, right? And that violence according to Mr. Rosen has been almost entirely Shia on Sunni, right?

So then it would seem that, as the last pockets of Sunni leave, then the violence in Baghdad has a very short remaining shelf life. Once the Shia have the city, which Rosen warns they imminently will, the violence would end there. It will be a Shia city, but it will be non-violent. That would be cause for optimism, wouldn't it?

Any future violence there would likely be Sunni on Shia, since the Shia would have no need to attack themselves or purge their own kind from the city. And since we're working with the Sunnis right now, wouldn't that mean we are the ones supporting the violence which undermines the very "Government" we're trying to build? If that's the case, I'd say we have a shadow agenda over there, which never involved an early withdrawal, and was actually intended to ensure we'd have a Middle East presence forever. That's insanely cynical, isn't it? That would mean Cheney knew the place was a quagmire going in. I mean, you'd almost have to have videotape of the guy admitting it's a quagmire years earlier to believe something like that...

I don't know the answer, but Rosen sounds like he's riffing aimlessly and a bit more strident than one ought to be giving the commentary he is.

I generally would ascribe what you see over there to incompetence and good intentions, rather than insanely cynical conspiracy theories born of the worst of intentions. YMMV.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We picked up some fresh corn this weekend and tonight's dinner will be pasta with sweet corn, pancetta, sage and butter. Not sure what wine to pair that with, though.

Tokai.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I generally would ascribe what you see over there to incompetence and good intentions, rather than insanely cynical conspiracy theories born of the worst of intentions. YMMV.

"Worst" is subjective. Viewed long term, the goal of keeping control of the world's second largest oil reserves (save those the Russians just claimed under a polar ice cap) is a not a bad intention at all.

If the goal is creating something that can never be undone, and a situation where any Democrat pulling troops out en masse would make the mess multiples worse, guaranteeing a quick reversal of public opinion and a Republican political resurgence, Cheney's been more than competent.

The "flypaper" concept works on many levels and angles.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I generally would ascribe what you see over there to incompetence and good intentions, rather than insanely cynical conspiracy theories born of the worst of intentions. YMMV.

By the way, my intetnions weren't bad.

You're usually grammatically perfect. WTF? Hung over?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
By the way, my intetnions weren't bad.

Not yours -- theirs.

You're usually grammatically perfect. WTF? Hung over?

Just tryign to get by.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Worst" is subjective. Viewed long term, the goal of keeping control of the world's second largest oil reserves (save those the Russians just claimed under a polar ice cap) is a not a bad intention at all.

I don't get the idea of trying to "control" foreign oil reserves. Oil is a commodity. Its price is dictated by supply and demand. If you own it, you make some money, but it's not like we expropriated Iraq's oil reserves to pay for the costs of liberating them. Now, that would have been some genius.

[eta: It's a different sort of problem if a country can hold the world economy hostage by threatening to disrupt oil supplies -- for example, if somehow other Persian Gulf countries were to become weaker or subject to Iranian influence, leaving Iran in a dominant position in the region (but fortunately Iraq has also been the counter-balance to Iran).]

If the goal is creating something that can never be undone, and a situation where any Democrat pulling troops out en masse would make the mess multiples worse, guaranteeing a quick reversal of public opinion and a Republican political resurgence, Cheney's been more than competent.

Cheney is incredibly gifted as a Washington player, perhaps unrivalled. He knows how to make things happen and get his way in a city where everything is a zero-sum game. It's really remarkable.

OTOH, he has a reverse Midas touch when you take a public policy perspective. In the real world, his initiatives turn to shit. Fortunately for him, inside the Beltway that doesn't really matter. The Washington press respects power and clout, and is fairly indifferent to how government policy effects the world. Even a hurricane flooding a major city, say, penetrates their little world for only so long.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Gattigap]

In a recently unearthed Atlantic Monthly article, James Fallows explains that it's not nature, it's nurture.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In a recently unearthed Atlantic Monthly article, James Fallows explains that it's not nature, it's nurture.

Not all of us are wealthy BIGLAW partners who can afford to subscribe to classy magazines like Atlantic Monthly.

Snob.