Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
More bad news from Iraq (Update)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Well, depending on your politics, of course:
[Rep. Keith] Ellison [D-Minn]said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."

There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials.

"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Ellison said he was particularly impressed watching Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin, U.S. commander in the Anbar province, greeting people with "as-salama aleikum," meaning peace be upon you.

"And they would respond back with smiles and waves," Ellison said. "I don't want to overplay it. There were no flowers. There was no clapping. There was no parade. But there was a general level of respect and calm that I thought was good."
Gasp! You mean, the 'p' word? "Progress" is being made?

Oh no. Ellison is obviously another of a growing number of hacks parroting the BushCo line.

And not to be outdone, Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif, saw progress too:
McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.

McNerney said he still favors a timeline to get troops out of Iraq — something House leaders may bring to the floor again this week as part of a defense spending bill — but is open to crafting it in a way more favorable to generals' wishes.

"As long as we start at a certain date I'd be willing to be a little more flexible in terms of when it might end," McNerney said.
Flexible in terms of when it might end? Heresy.

Heh ... I wish I could be a fly on the wall in John Murtha's office right now. I've always wondered how red-faced he could really get. Maybe he'll redeploy to Okinawa and become their congressman.

UPDATE: Of course success in Iraq would be warmly embraced by Democrats:
[House Majority Whip James] Clyburn (D-S.C.)noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Perhaps you underestimate Murtha. Not only is he a highly decorated veteran with a strong record in veterans affairs issues, which you should appreciate it, but he has very close ties in the Pentagon. I think there are a lot of reasons why we shouldn’t get too optimistic about recent tactical successes, but they definitely can’t be dismissed. I would hope (and expect) that Rep. Murtha and Rep. Pelosi talk to these Congressmen and take seriously their report, and consider the call for flexibility, which makes sense. Though, to be sure, given their record on earmarks I guess I can see why you’re cynical.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
From a previous post, Erb, you made the following comment:
Now if some real critics of the action reported similarly, that would be something.
And given that Ellison is the lone Muslim in either house of Congress, I would say that would definitely qualify. But your response from this thread was to continue and defend "SEMPER ONE" Murtha?

Shall we review Murtha’s contribution to veterans affairs? Why don’t you ask the Haditha Marines? The Iraqi veterans of an alleged massacre - another My Lai that is not standing up to the light of day.

Very close ties to the Pentagon? So close that, with a straight face, he proposed a redeplyment to Okinawa!
I think there are a lot of reasons why we shouldn’t get too optimistic about recent tactical successes, but they definitely can’t be dismissed.
Where I come from that is called talking out of both sides of your mouth!
I would hope (and expect) that Rep. Murtha and Rep. Pelosi talk to these Congressmen and take seriously their report, and consider the call for flexibility, which makes sense.
What kind of tobacco are you buying up there in Maine. Don’t you realize that stuff is illegal in lower 47? Seriously - we are talking about Murtha and Pelosi!
Though, to be sure, given their record on earmarks I guess I can see why you’re cynical.
And cynicism could only come from their record on earmarks? Are you even reading the same post as the rest of us are? What on God’s green earth does earmarks have to do with it?


 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Hope those two guys didn’t plan on running for re-election. The nutroots folks are going to have their hide...

And Erb, I have to ask...

Do you have a mustache?

I only ask because if you do, it sure must tickle the back or Murtha’s throat...

The reason we can’t get optimistic about success in Iraq is because regardless of what is ACTUALLY going on, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha et al will cry that we’ve failed.

I doubt a whole lot of vets appreciate Murtha’s "strong record", ever since he slandered those Marines, and declared us losers before halftime... I don’t think the military likes that much...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"You can’t hide the signal, Mal."

You’re witnessing the beginning of the liberal walkback. They can’t get caught on the wrong side again, and the smart ones know it...
 
Written By: Warrior Needs Food Badly
URL: http://
Just Erbs normal BS. Wasting 1 and 0’s. Changing his view point post by post. Always finding away to spew narrative. I actually come away feeling I have lost a moment of my life every time I read his posts. He is an unfortunate side effect of a good blog.
 
Written By: coater
URL: http://
I wonder how long till Ellison is called an islamophobe and a lapdog to Bushilter...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
All I need to know about Jack Murtha, is that he hasn’t apologized over his comments about Hadditha.

All I need to know about Erb, is that he still defends Murtha.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’m feeling a little thick right now. You know, it never occured to me that Murtha and some of his friends might own property on Okinawa that would make a nice military base. Imagine that degree of naivete at my ripe age!
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
I think we may be starting to get to the bottom of this wind change in liberal pronouncements on Iraq:
”Democratic Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina admitted that he is worried that the Surge may work in Iraq and ruin Democratic Party plans to impose a timetable for a surrender. Clyburn is the Majority Whip — No. 3 man in the House — and he said that if Gen. Petraeus has a positive report in September that would be “a real big problem for us” (Democrats).
Yes folks, that is how vested in the defeat of the American Army the Democratic Party has become. One of its major bowers said good news in Iraq would be “a real big problem for us” (Democrats).
In ... the Washington Post, Clyburn said a U.S. victory in this military campaign would cause the 47 Blue Dog Democrats to hold off on raising the White Flag:
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us. We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”
Wait a second here: Who is the enemy to Clyburn? The Republican Party or al-Qaeda?
Yes, this blog post contains spin, but more importantly, is the article in the WaPo the confirmation (it is, after all, the WaPo, traditional confirmer of changes in the LN) of the announcement in the NYT that all LN purveyors are to switch immediately to urging the sheeple to back a “wait and see” attitude?

We’ll have to watch the usual purveyor pundits in order to confirm the change.
Pundit pretender Professor Erb is already on board:
"I would hope (and expect) that Rep. Murtha and Rep. Pelosi talk to these Congressmen and take seriously their report, and consider the call for flexibility, which makes sense."
Compare that comment to his prior "Get Out Now" pronouncements. He, as might be expected in his shameless efforts to curry favor, disingenuously credits McQ for his miraculous conversion. If he does have that mustache, he is currently twirling it.
 
Written By: &lt
URL: http://
You can’t stop the signal, Mal.
And all these bloggers are Mr. Universe.

That’s why McCain_Feingold, the "Fairness" Doctrine—these attempts by the leftists to control what we hear, think, and say—they must be defeated.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

PS. Dale, still got that hat?
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
No, I am not sock puppeting, just trying to italicize my online name. It worked at first, but... guess I’ll give it up. It can be done, but vanity only deserves so much effort.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
PS. Dale, still got that hat?
I just assumed Dale might be reading, and would get the Firefly reference.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Gee, everyone notice my statement about Murtha (that McQ may be underestimating him) and didn’t notice that I wrote:
I would hope (and expect) that Rep. Murtha and Rep. Pelosi talk to these Congressmen and take seriously their report, and consider the call for flexibility, which makes sense. Though, to be sure, given their record on earmarks I guess I can see why you’re cynical.
Note SSHiell: I am clearly taking Ellison seriously. That gives the kind of confirmation I was asking about yesterday, and I am starting to feel more optimistic that the current tactics can lead to the ability to leave Iraq relatively stable. But I think just as being unable to acknowledge good news is often a problem on the left, I think those supporting the war need to be able to acknowledge the real political problems and think about what we do after the surge, how do we draw down forces, what kind of strategy will we have in 2008-09.

But yes, the signs are starting to look much better, and your optimism may indeed have been more accurate than my pessimism. We’ll see.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The folks at ThinkProgress are unhappy:
”Mainstream Media Catapult O’Hanlon And Pollack’s Pro-Escalation Propaganda

Pollack and O’Hanlon have lept into the open arms of the mainstream media and have been given a forum to present their views largely without opposition. Together, they appeared on at least nine major mainstream media outlets in the past 24 hours.
A list of their media appearances:
Network Program
Pollack CBS Evening News
CNN Newsroom
CNN Situation Room
MSNBC Tucker
NPR Talk of the Nation

O’Hanlon CBS Early Show
CBS Evening News
Fox News Special Report
MSNBC Hardball

Of the stations mentioned above, only MSNBC’s Hardball forced the analysts to debate an opposing viewpoint. On Hardball, Center for American Progress fellow Brian Katulis called out O’Hanlon for writing a “propaganda piece” and “cherry-picking the facts on Iraq.”
Confirmed! The NYT article was the official directive all right. Pundit confirmation soon to follow. Sheeple, get ready for another sudden change in the LN, ‘cause here it comes.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
. . . and your optimism may indeed have been more accurate than my pessimism. We’ll see.
Erb, it is not a case of optimism. It is a case of reality. I was and still am an advocate for this war. But I have also been a critic of the handling of this war. As advocate and critic, it has been a realistic view of events on the ground in the sandbox. I think I understand some of the risks associated with conflict in this part of the world, having served considerable time in the region.

I hope events will continue to progress in a positive manner. But that is a hope that has yet to be fulfilled. Progress does not translate into success and victory. But it is on the right road to both.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Oh no. Ellison is obviously another of a growing number of hacks parroting the BushCo line.
I can’t help but laugh.

People that have been parroting the Bush line for 4 years have been parroting LIES, and now that there IS progress, and the old lies have become new truth, yet the same people who have been wrong for 4 years have the unmitigated gall to cast aspersions on those who aren’t buying it yet?

It’s not the fault of Americans that they don’t believe the administration. What’s it going to take for you to understand this?

October 2003 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
December 2003 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
February 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
April 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
July 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
September 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
January 2005 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
June 2005 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
September 2005- progress, we’re winning = Lie
March 2006 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
October 2006 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
July 2007 - progress, we’re winning = truth

If you been parroting the lies for 4 years and today your are basking in the glory of now being right, and acting all smug in the face of people who don’t believe it yet, by all means continue, but know that some of us appreciate the wonderful irony of your position and are laughing at you.

Speaking of Firefly...
The war was devastating, but the Alliance’s victory over the Independents ensured a safer universe. And now everyone can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of our civilization.
Sound familiar?


Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The war was devastating, but the Alliance’s victory over the Independents ensured a safer universe. And now everyone can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of our civilization.
Sound familiar?
*chuckles*

Considering the Alliance forced it’s "citizens" into near lock-step thought and speech, I think you might want to pick a different example...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
”I can’t help but laugh.”
Oh, you’re helping well enough. In war progress sometimes looks like defeat (strategic retreats, prolonged stalemates, etc.) and now you surrender monkeys are attempting to spin this – in the face of all the facts and history – into “We are the ones who were right all along”.

Get serious
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
Guess I have a new online name. Deleting cookies has not cured the problem.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
October 2003 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
December 2003 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
February 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
April 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
July 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
September 2004 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
January 2005 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
June 2005 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
September 2005- progress, we’re winning = Lie
March 2006 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
October 2006 - progress, we’re winning = Lie
July 2007 - progress, we’re winning = truth
Huh ... you have to wonder how you get from October 2003 to July 2007 with everything being a lie.

But nice try, Cap. Seems you’re as versed in spin as anyone.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Speaking of Firefly...
The war was devastating, but the Alliance’s victory over the Independents ensured a safer universe. And now everyone can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of our civilization.

Sound familiar?
Hey, um, Cap, you do realize which side you represent don’t you? On a libertarian website?

Wow. My irony meter just pegged out...
 
Written By: Warrior Needs Food Badly
URL: http://
SShiell: I’m absolutely convinced that this war was a big mistake (my blog today discusses that), but while we can debate that until the cows come home, we seem to be at the same spot in the present: hope that the current tactical success in Sunni areas can translate into a stable Iraq. This rests on either reconciliation or a partition of Iraq (which would bring a lot of obstacles as well). I was very critical of (and genuinely frustrated by)the pro-war side as being in denial of reality in 2005 and into 2006 when the ’slow progress’ claim was being made and the unraveling of Iraq into sectaraian violence was downplayed. I don’t want to fall victim to the same thing and be in denial of a shift towards progress when that happens. It does seem to be happening, and that’s good.

McQ: You do have to understand the cynicism we critics of the war have about claims of progress after such claims were proven wrong the last four years. It’s like the boy who called wolf too often — when progress really is there, people don’t believe it. If it continues, reality will convince others that the new approach is working, just as reality convinced many pro-war folk to switch with the failures in past years.

Cap: I think tactically the surge is accomplishing something that previous strategies failed at, and by isolating al qaeda and creating partnerships with Sunni tribes (albeit not an enthusiastic embrace by the Sunnis) this does create a potential for a withdrawal by 2009 that can leave Iraq relatively stable. The key is what the surge does not address: Sunni-Shi’ite relations and reconciliation, Iranian support of Shi’ite militias, and the potential that arming Sunnis could make war more rather than less likely.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
For those who didn’t see the movie, when Cap wrote:
Speaking of Firefly...
The war was devastating, but the Alliance’s victory over the Independents ensured a safer universe. And now everyone can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of our civilization.
Sound familiar?
I anticipate he’s thinking of the US as the evil, victorious Alliance, and that leaves AlQaeda as the more noble, but defeated Independents.

Which does imply his vision is obscured by that dangly thing, what’s it called, the uvula.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
Can you imagine?

What would it be like to be so partisan that good news for our country makes your butt pucker?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I’m absolutely convinced that this war was a big mistake (my blog - which does not allow comments because I fear debate and would likely get textually beat up by students who could spot the glaring flaws in most every bit of logic I use - today discusses that)
Fixed that for you, professor...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to claim supporters ignored or downplayed setbacks in Iraq. What happens is that supporters tend to believe there may be many routes to success and if we are on the wrong one we’ll find the right one. I’m pretty sure that’s the history of warfare, one side figures out how to win and follows through on that strategy.

So when a lefty says we’re downplaying setbacks, we can only assume you guys mean we should have been with you, calling for retreat. Since we don’t see setbacks that way, we’re never going to treat bad news in a manner you would not consider "downplaying".

 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to claim supporters ignored or downplayed setbacks in Iraq. What happens is that supporters tend to believe there may be many routes to success and if we are on the wrong one we’ll find the right one. I’m pretty sure that’s the history of warfare, one side figures out how to win and follows through on that strategy.
We also often understand that for every reported setback there’s at least one bit of progress.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
So when a lefty says we’re downplaying setbacks, we can only assume you guys mean we should have been with you, calling for retreat. Since we don’t see setbacks that way, we’re never going to treat bad news in a manner you would not consider "downplaying".
Well stated.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://qando.net
Hey, um, Cap, you do realize which side you represent don’t you? On a libertarian website?
Seeing how libertarians can now support pre-emptive wars of aggression by telling themselves it is self defense, I guess I am on the side of the people that think that’s the real irony.

Do I think that Saddam Hussein was comparable to the Independents? No. But I think the Iraqi people have the right of self determination, be that allowing themselves to be held under an iron fisted dictator, or rising up and overthrowing that regime. And if and when they rise up, I would be all for sending lawyers, guns, and money (and maybe a few Rangers) to help them out.

Anyone can play this, how about this... "I’m a libertarian because I think people’s rights should be protected, and I feel like maybe atheists are going to violate people’s rights, so in true libertatian spirit of self defense, I think we need to lock up these atheist bastages."

Libertarian either means something, or it means whatever you convince yourself of, in the case of most people around here, it seems that anything people want can be rationalized and painfully fit into the definition of libertarianism.

You all know my position on healthcare, a decidely un-libertarian position. I know this, and have explained why I hold the opinions I do on healthcare, but at least I am not claiming that it is somehow a libertarian position. I just claim that it is the most practical solution considering the current state of affairs.

I may not be perfectly libertarian, but I try to be honest, to myself, and others. I prefer this to having a non-libertarian position and then applying a dizzying twist of logic to allow myself to pretend I am not violating libertarian principals.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Seeing how libertarians can now support pre-emptive wars of aggression by telling themselves it is self defense, I guess I am on the side of the people that think that’s the real irony.
Cap, when you’re defining the terms as you please, you can also line up the sides any way you wish, huh?

Enjoy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But I think the Iraqi people have the right of self determination, be that allowing themselves to be held under an iron fisted dictator, or rising up and overthrowing that regime.
One more reason I’m not a libertarian. Yeah those Iraqi’s were exercising self-determination when they were being ruled by Saddam, even though they had tried to oust him in 1991, but D@mn he had nerve gas and they didn’t!? That is the craziest and saddest explanation I have read recently. The Iraqi’s are to blame for not overthrowing their dictator! And "she" had it coming because she didn’t fight off her rapist either, right? It was REALLY consensual sex because "she" chose to not fight the rapist, I mean let’s carry this line of "logic" along, shall we?
Captin if this is the best you’ve got, please go home.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, given the cost and consequences of four years of war for both Iraqis and Americans, do you think that the libertarian principle of non-aggression really should be violated to overthrow dictators? I think, in fact, that this experience reinforces the libertarian argument against intervention and "pre-emptive" wars.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
One more reason I’m not a libertarian.
Well if you think Cap is, you need to refigure.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Joe, given the cost and consequences of four years of war for both Iraqis and Americans, do you think that the libertarian principle of non-aggression really should be violated to overthrow dictators? I think, in fact, that this experience reinforces the libertarian argument against intervention and "pre-emptive" wars.
Not the way he argued it doesn’t? Review, the Iraqi’s were exercising self-determination by CHOOSING to live under Saddam....If that’s libertarianism, give me Nanny-Statism.

So were we wrong to replace that Hitler feller? He was elected, too. I guess we could have liberated France and the Low Countries and left him in charge of Germany, after all the Germans were just exercising their right of self-determination? Or the Confederacy? Self-determination and as the slaves were NOT rebelling I can assume they were at least tolerant to the idea of being slaves, right?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So were we wrong to replace that Hitler feller? He was elected, too. I guess we could have liberated France and the Low Countries and left him in charge of Germany, after all the Germans were just exercising their right of self-determination? Or the Confederacy? Self-determination and as the slaves were NOT rebelling I can assume they were at least tolerant to the idea of being slaves, right?
Nope. france chose to be under German rule. If they wanted the Nazis gone, they should have done something...

Same with the slaves. If they didn’t want to be there, they should have done something...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Fixed that for you, professor...
Damn, Scott J, another monitor trashed by coffee spew!
Captin if this is the best you’ve got, please go home.
That’s gonna leave a mark!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Damn, Scott J, another monitor trashed by coffee spew!
*bows*
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
The Iraqi’s are to blame for not overthrowing their dictator!
What part of live free or die don’t you understand?

I am sure glad you people of your ilk didn’t get to make the call when American Revolutionaries put their necks on the line. "We can’t beat the English, so we better just remain a colony of the realm, and it’s not our fault because they have big ships and a whole big army, and they have drums and stuff"

The Iraqi’s ARE to blame for not overthowing their dictator.

That you see this as ridiculous shows me how far from understanding the responsibilities of liberty you actually are.
Captin if this is the best you’ve got, please go home.
Is pointing out people’s right to cowardice as an excuse to endure servitude the best you’ve got?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"The Iraqi’s ARE to blame for not overthowing their dictator.
Don’t I remember Iraqis working with the Bush Administration to overthrow Saddam? Guess that doesn’t count. Once one has bought into the "civil war" concept, with home-grown militias and all, I suppose one cannot see a need for help from a foreign army to overthrow a dictator. ’Course, maybe the militias would be having a tougher time if Saddam and the Iraqi Army were still around.

Still, no need to get into all these "facts". Once one has decided that genocide is OK just so we can get elected, no, I mean get out of Iraq, then blaming them for stuff like this is no problem at all, is it?
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
So were we wrong to replace that Hitler feller? He was elected, too.
No. He wasn’t.

Three separate national elections were held between 1932 and 1933. The Nazi party held a plurality of Reichstag seats after those elections, but in an attempt to prevent Hitler from becoming Chancellor, President von Hindenbeurg appointed Franz von Papen and, later, Gen. Kurt Schliecher to create coalition governments. When those governments were unable to hold a majority, and were forced to dissolve, a third national election in January, 1933, was called. The Nazis returned with a smaller number of seats after that election, but were still the largest party represented in the Reichstag.

At that point, at v. Papen’s urging, President v. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, with v. Papen as Vice Chancellor, under the misapprehension that—with a majority of cabinet posts held by delegates from the Democratic or Catholic Center parties, and v. Papen as Vice Chancellor—Hitler could be controlled.

Adolf Hitler was never elected to anything. He was appointed.

Nor, for that matter, did the Nazi party ever capture a majority in the Reichstag, until Hitler called an election after the Reichstag fire in 1933—an election in which he used the power of the government, as well as his private gange of uniformed thugs—which in many cases included the police, since a Nazi controlled the Interior Ministry—to supress the electoral efforts of all other parties with impunity.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Dale sadly you are incorrect or only technically correct...Hindenburg appointed Hitler because the NASDAP and its Conservative allies mustered a MAJORITY in the Reichstag, the first majority government in several years. And that is how ANYONE would have become Reichkranz. So Hitler WAS elected to his post. He achieved teh post later than he ought to have in fact.

So yes Adolf was the legitimate leader of Germany, duly elected with a majority in the Parliament?.

So Captin those Iraqi’s DESERVED Saddam, having never voted for him in anything like a free election, and having tried to overthrow him in 1991? They were "cowards" because he had tanks and poison gas, eh?

Well oooh-boy don’t you ever talk about domestic poitcs in here...after all if you’re not opposing the government no matter what YOU’RE A COWARD!? Right, I mean even though the government has police and jails and the tools of coercion if you are not in opposition, when the government is wrong, you are a coward, right? I mean by your own theory? And back tot he rape, so she IS responsible, becasue she didn’t fight off the rapist right? Or how does that theory of power relations work?

Just own up to it, you had a poor, ill-thought out theory...try again, it’s OK. Because otherwise you have a very very poor intellectual leg to stand on with this rot.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
With regards to ’live free or die’...
Never mind that there was a distinct difference between the government of KG III, which did adhere to a restrained rule of law, and Saddam, the two of course acted exactly the same if you were rebelling against them.

I recall fondly the stories told to me as a child of British troops shelling Charleston Mass with poison gas shells before they landed to assault Breeds hill, and their indescriminate mass murders of the citizenry of New Jersey after they lost at Trenton.

Yeah, way to go Cap, you’re talking all same same here.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Don’t I remember Iraqis working with the Bush Administration to overthrow Saddam?
What you SHOULD remember is the Bush administration encouraging the Iraqi’s to overthrow Saddam, and promising that if they initiated a popular uprising, the United States would assist them, and then of course when their was a popular uprising, with Shiite rebels in the South, and Kurdish rebels in the North essentially taking over all but the center of Iraq for a brief period, while begging us for the promised support, the support never came. The reason was that we never wanted a new government, we just wanted rid of Saddam.
The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one GHW Bush National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."
It’s no wonder you placed quotation marks around the word "facts", since you omitted so many.

There is nothing wrong with other countries supporting a popular uprising, to a point, but that’s a whole different thing than invading a country and replacing the government in the absence of a popular uprising. The name for this is occupation, and though it may surprise you, many people get more irate about having their government replaced by an invading army than they do about being ruled by a vicious dictator.

The reason why we, or any country, should not precipitate regime change, unless in FACT based self-defense, is that we, or any other country, would invariable attempt to determine the nature of the new government, by definition violating the precepts of self determination.

In any case, a failed revolution is often part of the process of working towards a successful revolution. But what do you when you successful remove a regime, but fail to install a successful new government? The invading country owns that failure, like we own Iraq today. Whereas if we just supported a popular uprising, we can try to influence the outcome by providing assistance, but we don’t own the outcome.

But with your "facts", I am sure you can rationalize this all away and even make the whole affair a responsible libertarian exercise... at least in your mind.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
So Captin those Iraqi’s DESERVED Saddam, having never voted for him in anything like a free election, and having tried to overthrow him in 1991? They were "cowards" because he had tanks and poison gas, eh?
If a nation’s people are not willing to risk death to liberate themselves in a popular uprising, why should another nation’s people do it for them?
Well oooh-boy don’t you ever talk about domestic poitcs in here...after all if you’re not opposing the government no matter what YOU’RE A COWARD!?


Since we have already fought our major battles for freedom and independence, I grant you that it is easy, from our cushy vantage point, to say that others must do the same, but the question is, if the United States were to be taken over by a totalitarian dictator, would you capitulate or fight? I would bet you that there would be such an uprising in this country that the American wouldn’t need an ounce of help from any other country and we would earn our freedom back. I think this is in our national psyche as a result of how we came to exist as a nation. We would not be responsible stewards of our freedom if France had come over and liberated us from English rule and then set us whatever path they could guide us on.
Right, I mean even though the government has police and jails and the tools of coercion if you are not in opposition, when the government is wrong, you are a coward, right? I mean by your own theory? And back tot he rape, so she IS responsible, becasue she didn’t fight off the rapist right? Or how does that theory of power relations work?
So you think that government actually wields the power in a nation? You think the government is power in the power relations scenario? I think you are wrong, and in fact, in the rapist scenario, I would argue that your analogy is backwards, in the scenario of governments vs people, it would be the small and weak raping the large and powerful because the large and powerful failed to stand up.
Just own up to it, you had a poor, ill-thought out theory...try again, it’s OK. Because otherwise you have a very very poor intellectual leg to stand on with this rot.
If I am wrong, then the Founder of this Nation were wrong, and it’s not worth risking your life in the face of tyranny, it’s better to remain under the yoke of oppression. If I am wrong, than this is wrong...
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace— but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I recall fondly the stories told to me as a child of British troops shelling Charleston Mass with poison gas shells before they landed to assault Breeds hill, and their indescriminate mass murders of the citizenry of New Jersey after they lost at Trenton.
Would this make you more, or less likely to join a revolution?

You think our revolution was easy and Iraq’s would have been harder? Do you think the 25,000 dead in nation of 2.5 million was insignificant? Do you think that freedom wasn’t worth fighting Saddam for, but it was worth fighting King George for because Saddam had chemical weapons?

Live free or die doesn’t mean that you always win, it simply means that it is better to die fighting tyranny than it is to live under tyranny. Do you think a nation can learn the value and responsibilities of freedom by having another nation come in and liberate them without them asking?

Do you know why the Iraqi people are not going to be good stewards of their freedom? Because they did not earn their liberty. They would have eventually, and it would have been bloody, but what they gained for that blood, they would never have given up again.

And you people are supposed to be the libertarians???




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Captin, simply put you’re an idiot...

Please note that the US suffered less than 5,000 KIA in the Revolution. Saddam killed several hundred THOUSAND to stay in power. Because 1) Saddam’s differential in power was much greater than the difference between the Colonists and the British and 2) as someone pointed out that the "Tyrant" KG III was an absolute softie as compared to even Mugabe, much less Saddam.

You prate on about standing up to the power, without the slightest grasp of the power whereof you speak...
OH and it just hit me, you silly twit!

Did the US liberate itself? No you moron...First it was Lafayette and his French troops that provided the backbone for the victory at Yorktown AND it was the combined efforts of the French and Spanish fleets that drew off the Royal Navy allowing our victory at Yorktown.

So, I guess we DON’T deserve our liberty do we? We didn’t liberate ourselves, the French and the Spanish materially aided our efforts, in fact had it not been for them we might have lost!

So Captin let’s turn in our citizenship(s) and return to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth because we don’t deserve what we’ve got! And you call yourself a LIBERTARIAN!

ANOTHER reason I’m not a libertarian, you folks know about zilch history....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Dale sadly you are incorrect or only technically correct...Hindenburg appointed Hitler because the NASDAP and its Conservative allies mustered a MAJORITY in the Reichstag, the first majority government in several years.
Incorrect. I suggest you read The rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Hitler ould not muster a majority government until von Papen and von Hindeburg worked out the deal I referred to above.

Hindenburg, prior to that, adamantly refused to appoint "that Bohemian coporal" to the chancellorship.

And the position is called Reichskanzler. "Reichkranz" is "national ring".
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Did the US liberate itself?

No you moron...First it was Lafayette and his French troops that provided the backbone for the victory at Yorktown AND it was the combined efforts of the French and Spanish fleets that drew off the Royal Navy allowing our victory at Yorktown.
Wow, I’m hurt, I’ve been called a moron by a man that can’t read....


"There is nothing wrong with other countries supporting a popular uprising, to a point, but that’s a whole different thing than invading a country and replacing the government in the absence of a popular uprising."

and...

"If a nation’s people are not willing to risk death to liberate themselves in a popular uprising, why should another nation’s people do it for them?"



I never said that getting helps means you didn’t earn your freedomn, I said that not standing up in the first place and having someone DO IT FOR YOU excludes you from having earned it.

Oh,and the US lost 25,000 troops in the revolutionary war, feel free to refer to those that were not killed directly by enemy fire victims of God’s WMD’s.

But thanks for playing.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Hitler’s party was split by January 1933; it had an electoral decline and the left wing of the party was angered by Hitler’s (who represented the ’right wing’) refusal to participate in government unless he were Chancellor. He never had close to a majority in a fair election, and conservative parties refused to ally with the National Socialists because, well, the Strasser/left wing was pretty socialist in its rhetoric. (Goebbels originally was with Strasser and the "left" in the Berlin chapter of the party, but Hitler seduced him over to his side). Van Papen figured he could control Hitler and convinced Hindenburg to put a "conservative majority government" in power so that for the first time since the depression began the parliament could operate with a functioning majority (Hindenburg had been ruling by emergency Presidential decrees). Conservative and business leaders were skeptical of Hitler’s "erratic" behavior and radical ideology, and Hindenburg hated him...but Van Papen convinced them that Hitler would be easy to control, especially with his party starting to splinter. Of course, a month later the Reichstag would burn, Hitler would use that to garner short term emergency powers "to protect Germany from its enemies" with the Enabling act (SA forces were present, with guns, to intimidate). The Communists were kicked out of the parliament, and after the Enabling Act was passed (all but the Socialists voted for it) Hitler had control. Elections after that point were neither free nor fair.

Of course we would not have "replaced" Hitler if he hadn’t started a war of aggression, and joined Japan who attacked us at Pearl Harbour.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Sadly Captin here is the US KIA count:
4,435

Link:
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

So what’s the difference between the French and the Spanish REGULARS helping the US and the US helping the Iraqi’s, especially as the Iraqi’s were far more powerless than the US colonists were.

So no Captin you don’t know your history and I think your theory stinks...Just own up to the fact that your "theory" is goofy and simply a rationalization designed to support your opposition, not really a morally defensible position.

Unless of course, you think the powerless "deserve" what happens to them? I guess the German Jews deserved what happened to them, right?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So what’s the difference between the French and the Spanish REGULARS helping the US and the US helping the Iraqi’s,
The difference is that Americans stood up, and some friends helped out.

As I said previously...

"We would not be responsible stewards of our freedom if France had come over and liberated us from English rule and then set us on whatever path they could guide us on."
Sadly Captin here is the US KIA count:
4,435
You really have a difficult time with reading, don’t you?

Let me quote myself...

"Do you think the 25,000 dead in nation of 2.5 million was insignificant?"

Did you see the phrase "killed in action" above?

"...the US lost 25,000 troops in the revolutionary war, feel free to refer to those that were not killed directly by enemy fire victims of God’s WMD’s."

Did you see the phrase "killed in action" above?

And for your further edification...
An estimated 25,000 American Revolutionaries died during active military service. About 8,000 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 deaths were from disease, including about 8,000 who died while prisoners of war. The number of Revolutionaries seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000. The total American military casualty figure was therefore as high as 50,000.
So, which part of this would you like to claim is inaccurate....

"Do you think the 25,000 dead in nation of 2.5 million was insignificant?"

"...the US lost 25,000 troops in the revolutionary war, feel free to refer to those that were not killed directly by enemy fire victims of God’s WMD’s."

I am not calling you names, but I am proving that if I did, I could support the assertions with facts.

By the way, on the arguments about the oppression of MINORITIES, examples being the Jews in Germany, slaves anywhere, and other oppressed minorities, the dynamic is obviously different. I am discussing governments that oppress universally, or oppress majorities. I do favor intervention where minorities are oppressed, though rarely would that intervention include the invasion, occupation, and overthrow of a government.

Cap



Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Unless of course, you think the powerless "deserve" what happens to them? I guess the German Jews deserved what happened to them, right?
An entire population is NEVER powerless, that’s the flaw in your argument. Minorities can be powerless, but that’s not what we are talking about, except of course in this strawman you erected.

I point to one picture that shows how the majority inspired by the individual can change their world. (no, the Chinese government was not overthrown, but they clearly saw the potential and made changes to reduce the Chinese people’s desire for revolution)



Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Live free or die doesn’t mean that you always win, it simply means that it is better to die fighting tyranny than it is to live under tyranny
Captain, I’m going to assume you have a family. For the purpose of this example, it’ll be a wife whom you actually love, and a 3 year old daughter.

Now, I’m staning in your house. I have a gun, hammer back, pointed at your daughter’s head. Your wife is already dead. I tell you to sit down, like a good boy, or I shoot your daughter, and then I shoot you.

Do you sit down, or do you act. Pretend you know with absolute certainty that I will kill your daughetr, and have a 99% chance of killing you.

What do you do?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Captain, I’m going to...
An entire population is NEVER powerless, that’s the flaw in your argument.

Here’s one for you.

Pretend you are a slave, your family are slaves, and children’s children will be slaves, unless the slavemaster is stopped.

Do you leave it for your children, or their children, or someone else’s children to risk their lives stopping attempting, perhaps failing to stop the slavemaster, or do you act, even if it means you may very well die in any attempt to stop the slavemaster?

Here’s Patrick Henry’s answer, if you’d like to compare notes...
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace— but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Why do you people come to me with lame, irrelevant analogies?

Why don’t you try some relevent analogies... you know, like examples of entire populations of repressed people’s that never managed to take it into their own hands to change their governments?

Surely you would have to agree that the Soviet Union was more powerful and as capable of viciousness as Saddam Hussein? Russians stood up and tore down that government, without firing a shot. We encouraged them, but we didn’t invade Moscow for them.

To backtrack a little, the Iraqi people are not cowards, they have the capacity for a popular uprising, they have shown this to be true in the past, and they would have again in the future. My point is that for the Iraqi’s to become proper stewards of freedom, they must initiate the winning of that freedom. For us to start the revolution without them, leaves them without knowing the passion of making their country their own. So instead of a Continental Congress, they get a Keystone Congress caught up in sectarian bickering with large segments of the population convinced that their government is a puppet government.

Think about it, we tried to set up Ahmed Chalabi as Iraq’s George Washington!!!

We have a good military strategy in place now, finally, after 4 years, and maybe, just maybe, public opinion in the US will shift enough to give this strategy enough time to work. Unfortunately, if the US military strategy works perfectly, as difficult as that part may be, it’s the easy part. Having the Iraqi’s choose to be a stable country is th hard part, and since they did not fight for their freedom, their passion seems to be somewhere other than focusing on keeping it.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Jesus you’re a f*cking idiot...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Jesus you’re a f*cking idiot...
Wow, clever, you must be the starter on the debating team.

By the way, as omnisicient as you may think I am, I’m not Jesus.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
If I was implying that you were Jesus, I would have typed either
Jesus, you’re a f*cking idiot...
or
You’re a f*cking idiot, Jesus...
However, I didn’t. I was merely profane out of astonishment that you can be so God Damn Stupid.

I don’t even know how you can think that people living in an utterly totalitarian state where thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people were diappeader, tortured, or just plain shot where they stood should be able to all stand up at once and over throw someone who has demonstarted absolute williness to gas his own people.

There’s "live free of die" and there’s "get yourself killed, get everyone you know killed, and change nothing but the body count".

You missed the point of my hypothetical entirely. Way to go, Capt Obvious...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
You missed the point of my hypothetical entirely.
No, you’re hypothetical missed the point of acts to initiate a popular uprising.

In your hypothetical, it starts and ends with limited outcomes, I die, my wife dies, my daughter dies, game over.

In a popular uprising, I might die, but that’s NOT game over, it may in fact start the game.

Consider Tianenmen Square, when that lone man stood in front of the tank. If that tank had hit him, he would have been 100% dead, but would it have been game over? No, the end of him would have been the beginning of something else.

Do you think that on March 5th, 1770, when an unarmed Crispus Atticus stood up to British soldiers, he had any chance of winning? When he was shot by British soldiers and became the first casualty of the revolutionary war, was it over?

Some Iraqi’s are willing to die in suicide bombings to kill OUR soldiers and members of other sects. And you think that dying for the cause of freedom from oppression is less worthy than that?

Seriously, I think your argument that Iraqi was a hopeless cause for Iraqi’s therefore they should not have risked their lives for it is totally backwards, Most revolutions start as hopeless causes.

What’s even more unfortunate is not that you disagree, but you seem unable to even consider my position as anything other than idiotic, showing how far from understanding it you really are.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
What’s even more unfortunate is not that you disagree, but you seem unable to even consider my position as anything other than idiotic, showing how far from understanding it you really are.
Quite to the contrary, I understand your position quite well.

That is why I think it is completely idiotic...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Quite to the contrary, I understand your position quite well.
Clearly you do not, otherwise you would not be analogizing risking all for liberty with facing certain death for no purpose at all.

Are there suicide bombers in Iraq?

These people are willing not only to risk death, but to face CERTAIN DEATH, and for what cause?

When a people are prepared to die for tribal differences but not for liberty, do you really think they have the passion needed to be responsible stewards of liberty?

Or do you think that the tribal battles are winnable, therefore worth dying for?

It’s funny, I’ll bet you would normally (in the grand scheme, not Iraq) be arguing my side of this debate and now find yourself wondering how you came to be on the side of the debate that argues against standing up to a government because it’s too dangerous.


Patrick Henry didn’t say, "Give me liberty or give me death, unless it’s really dangerous to ask for liberty, then I’ll settle for slavery"

I’m just glad you’re not my wingman.




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Captain Sarcastic.

As I read both sides, I have a question. So what do we do now? We are involved in a war, just or not, we are there. What do you suggest for the next course of action? Do we say "oops, sorry, we shouldn’t have done this" and then what? If we were wrong to take out Saddam Hussein, who should be in power now that we can’t put him back? Should we pay war reparations to the Iraqi people? How do you propose we get out of the situation? Think carefully because the answer is not so easy.

We cannot just withdraw the troops. If we do, the same people that are blowing up innocent civilians will not stop. If they were truly against our presence, they would limit bombing to military targets. What is gained by killing innocent civilians? That certainly doesn’t endear them to your side. Suicide bombers have been fed a load of Bull!@#$ from imams because the average person is uneducated and told to believe these people because they are "holy men". I recently read an article written by a man who was trained as a terrorist. He was told to drive a truck from point A to point B where someone else would take it and use it in a suicide mission. 1000 yards from where he was to leave the vehicle, the men in it with him bailed and shortly after it was detonated. He sustained burns over his entire body. The point is, he didn’t volunteer for the suicide mission. He was duped. Do you believe that everyone with a bomb strapped to them is doing it willingly? Can you accept that some are coerced either by threats to them or their families? If we declare defeat, the foreign fighters will find someone among them to prop up as a new dictator and in 10 years or less, we will be back because the war will follow us home. The population will not be any safer. Women and children will once again be at the mercy of thugs as they were with Saddam in power. Please enlighten me on what you believe will occur if we just leave.

Do we leave the troops there? If so, for how long? Bosnia was to be a quick war and home by Christmas. We are still there. I also support the war, but critize the handling.

As for them fighting for liberty versus tribal loyalties, these people have been oppressed for a long time. They have never known liberty. They have, for an entire generation, been ruled either by a brutal dictator, or someone appointed over them. They have been ingrained with "step out of line and we will kill your family in front of you". They need time to figure things out. In the meantime, we need to give them the same help given to us and encourage them to do something foreign to them - fight for their freedom. Liberty is not an easy concept. You don’t just one day say "okay, everyone is free. Have fun we are leaving". People don’t understand that. It took us many years after signing the Declaration of Independance to truly obtain freedom. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independance died broken men having lost everything they had. Many Iraqis are uneducated and tribal loyalties are akin to being in a gang. Not in a bad sense, just that they are the one thing these people can count on.

So for all the bickering back and forth, I only have one request from each of you, tell me what you would do and what you think the consequences would be of your actions?

Thanks for reading. Hope you found it as it was meant to be - thought provoking.



 
Written By: mrbill
URL: http://
So for all the bickering back and forth, I only have one request from each of you, tell me what you would do and what you think the consequences would be of your actions?
My comment about self determination that we have been arguing about are philosphical arguments making the point that those who do not earn their freedom are in a poor position to maintain their freedom. In other words, I think Iraq is doomed to failure, regardless of how well position them for success. However, in the real world, aside from the philosophical, my answer to your question is exactly what I had written in another post...
I think it is a bit early to say that opponents of this war, or even people who say it can’t be won, are wrong. I agree that (the strategy behind the surge) is the best military strategy we have put in place, and it almost certainly will provide the best environment for the political changes needed, but as I said before, it is akin to mowing the lawn before a football game. There is still a legitimate argument that regardless of the environment, the Iraqi people will not be able to arrive at a political agreement that provides for long term stability, or possibly even short term stability.

I don’t recall many people arguing that the US military was incapable of executing a military strategy that could provide the best environment, though many have argued that the Bush administration consistently failed to put such a strategy in place (until 4 years later).

For people who honestly believe that Iraq cannot create a stable political environment, then this successful strategy IS bad news, since it may mean more time in Iraq and more American soldiers dead, all for a goal that opponents believe cannot be attained.

I have my doubts, but being that I believe that the vast majority of the military would volunteer to continue (if given the choice), I would err on the side of giving more time. But I can’t help but note that if I am wrong, and Iraq cannot be stabilized, then I would have to look back at the present situation and acknowledge that the success of the surge bought nothing but more opportunities for our soldiers to die.
Though we may have different opinions of the odds of success, I doubt there is significant difference in what we would actually do.
They have never known liberty.
Do you really believe you liberate someone who doesn’t want it, who hasn’t asked for it, who hasn’t fought for it? This is my point about why we should waited for a popular uprising and been friends of freedom fighters, but not foreign invaders.

To your point, this is all moot now, we are where we are, but if we fail to learn that Scott is wrong, that you cannot have a revolution by proxy, then we can fall into this quagmire again.

If Iraq ends up as a stable democracy, I will admit that I was wrong, but if it continues to be embroiled in petty tribal warfare for the forseeable future, maybe we can understand the nature of self-determination, and avoid this mistake in the future.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider