And I was hoping I was just being cynical when I was thinking "new Iraq strategy" might include increased troop presence.

and to disarm Iran and Syria and Hezbollah.

Man I am with you that the whole Iraq situation is a cluster fuck but the above quote has me a bit puzzled.

Surely you are not saying that these three should be allowed to do whatever they please....

nihil wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:I thought this war was stupid from day one, but if we don't emply some sort of Marshall Plan, which would probably involve sending more troops (and should have been done 2 years ago) then what do we do?
Really, I'm just asking.

I think that we should ask the Iraqi people what they want. This is the only rational solution.

Sure, in theory, but how many different answers are you going to get?

"Iraq" is at least three territories that we and the Brits crammed into a big oval that we drew.
My guess is that if you ask Kurds what they want, they will say "lock up the Sunnis."

The problem with using the excuse that "Saddam gassed his own people" as a way to pull our heartstrings to get us into war, is that he didn't. He gassed Kurds. Kurds are not his own people, they are his sworn enemy. There is no excuse for using chemical weapons, but he might as well have been gassing Iranians (which he also did, but that wouldn't have been enough to lead us to war).

And that's the problem - for 60 years we've been treating tribal land like it was a sovereign nation. Didn't anybody take notes during Lawrence of Arabia?

So, if we divide it in three, the Turks are going to go nuts, and of course, who gets the oil fileds. since they are not in all parts of the "country?"
That makes division a less than elegant solution. I look at that as turning one problem into three through some sort of nation mitosis.

Mess.

-A

yut wrote:Dems and Reps are the same on most issues. It always cracks me up when people get excited about the Dems and how great they are. They are great -- great liars!

I'm a registered Independent, mainly because I don't feel like the Dems are progressive enough for me.

Yut, I've heard this old saw for years now.
It was the sound of 1999.
Yes, the Dems appease big business. Yes, many voted for the war, if you count getting duped into it as voting for it.
But for me, it comes down to two things:
If Al Gore had become President is 2000, do you think we would be at war in Iraq right now? Do you think the rich would have received a massive tax cut in a time of crisis?
Hell no.

Saying these men were the same and that there are no differences in the parties fuels apathy. It's what made people vote for Nader, who had no chance - I mean not even close - instead of a guy who's been talking about global warming longer than any other politician who could actually do something about it.
Thus giving the Whithouse to a man who cares dick-all about global warming.

Get the Dems in office and the demand that they do what they promised. Life is often a series of choices based on the lesser of evils.
Please stop convincing yourself that these parties actually want the same things.
Clinton was far from perfect, but I honestly think if he got back into office tomorrow, he might just be able to save our asses. He's the only one I can think of that might actually be able to pull it off.

-A

whiskerando wrote:

I always hear people say "America is the greatest democracy in the world". No. America is not a democracy, but a republic. We elect people who represent us.

congratulations, you've expressed the political acumen of a stoned pop-punk fan.

Yes, but this time he managed to do it in less than nine pages, so don't complain.

hogrot wrote:I don't know how they find 40,000 people who want to fight. Sacrifice yourself for someone else's greed and elitism. Kill and die so they don't have to.

I did a gig up here over a year ago where a battalion of reserves (I forget which one) was assembled in the Tacomadome, given a speech, and sent off to the front.

The sound company involved lost the audio feed during some (apparently well-known in some circles, but a mystery to me) woman's glorious battle hymn.

These people consisted mostly of 19-year-olds, many with kids. I don't think I've ever smelled that much fear in one place.




I don't think they will have a problem finding more meat for the mills.

alex maiolo wrote:

yut wrote:Dems and Reps are the same on most issues. It always cracks me up when people get excited about the Dems and how great they are. They are great -- great liars!

I'm a registered Independent, mainly because I don't feel like the Dems are progressive enough for me.

Yut, I've heard this old saw for years now.
It was the sound of 1999.
Yes, the Dems appease big business. Yes, many voted for the war, if you count getting duped into it as voting for it.
But for me, it comes down to two things:
If Al Gore had become President is 2000, do you think we would be at war in Iraq right now? Do you think the rich would have received a massive tax cut in a time of crisis?
Hell no.

Saying these men were the same and that there are no differences in the parties fuels apathy. It's what made people vote for Nader, who had no chance - I mean not even close - instead of a guy who's been talking about global warming longer than any other politician who could actually do something about it.
Thus giving the Whithouse to a man who cares dick-all about global warming.

Get the Dems in office and the demand that they do what they promised. Life is often a series of choices based on the lesser of evils.
Please stop convincing yourself that these parties actually want the same things.
Clinton was far from perfect, but I honestly think if he got back into office tomorrow, he might just be able to save our asses. He's the only one I can think of that might actually be able to pull it off.

-A

I understand your position, and I sympathize. However, I feel I have to point out a couple of issues here.

Here's an old one: voting for the lesser of two evils is always a vote in the wrong direction. The parties are definitely not the same, but they obviously have convergent interests - especially in the control over capital, resources, and the general population. Clinton put a nice face on it, but I feel that was more a combination of political charisma, riding the wave of seemingly innocuous and growing 'big business' clout, and happy circumstance. He crested the helm of a wave of criminal business deregulation that contributed to what is now an out-of-control, predatory economic climate.

Another: I'm not convinced Gore wouldn't have led us into war. The business interests fueling war in the Mideast own him and his party as well. It may not have gone to the extremes it has come to, but that is still mere conjecture that holds little weight.

Yet another, attached to the above: There was a popular, overpowering clamor among most people for revenge after 9-11. The majority of our population supported the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. That many of them are now realizing this is a mistake doesn't nullify this.


I'm very much with you on your feelings here, but I'm not convinced that the Democrats are the answer. That reads like a 'two steps back, one step forward' sort of raw deal. Something more drastic has to be done. If it is, it will be a painful process indeed. If it isn't, well, I expect more of the same. This isn't the society I was raised to participate in. It isn't a society I'm always proud of. It is, perhaps, a natural progression of all-too-human behavior. If we are to evolve, we need to take steps to do so. Now would be a wonderful time to make it happen.

ant man bee wrote:

and to disarm Iran and Syria and Hezbollah.

Man I am with you that the whole Iraq situation is a cluster fuck but the above quote has me a bit puzzled.

Surely you are not saying that these three should be allowed to do whatever they please....

Well, there's doing what they please, and then there's doing what they please. If all they're doing is building militaries and defending their territories, then they're doing what the US does. If Iran, Syria or Hezbollah takes a serious shot at Israel, they'll get pounded. I don't get caught up in all the hype about Ahmadinejad and his sworn ambition to wipe Israel off the map ( consistently mistranslated as 'kill all the Israelis', when what he really means is delegitimize the State of Israel, which is quite different ). There's no strategic reason for any of the Arab states mentioned to attack Israel. The risk is astronomical, however. They are much better off leaving Israel around as a recruitment tool for the radicals, and they all know that.

So what's the next threat? They go after someone's oil? Also totally unlikely, because America is ready to stomp whoever tries it, and we don't need to be standing watch from Iraq to do so.

The only reasons not to withdraw troops are,

A: You own stock in defense contractors.

B: You do whatever Israel tells you.

C: You really believe that there is a War On Terror, and that not fighting radical Islam over there means they will be storming the beachs of New Jersey next year.

Our military is the most awesome defensive force on the planet, and Israel is armed to the teeth as well. Let them Defend US. What they're doing now is installing crony capitalism by force, and they're banking on ( and stoking ) our fear to permit their escapades.

I have never feared radical Islam or terrorism in America. I will not change one iota of my daily routine if there is a repeat of 9/11 every five years for the rest of my life, and I will never support using our military as a global police force, because *that* breeds terrorism.

rayj wrote:I'm very much with you on your feelings here, but I'm not convinced that the Democrats are the answer. That reads like a 'two steps back, one step forward' sort of raw deal. Something more drastic has to be done.

These aren't mutally exclusive actions.

You're more likely to get the Dems to step up.
"You said x, now fucking DO X"
The Republicans can always say "what did you expect, we don't belive in that hogwash," but the Dems say they are for the little man. Hold them to it.
Again, that's why I'm an Indepedent. I don't like these people, but they are my best shot.

And no, never in a million years will anyone convince me that Gore would have taken us into Iraq. PNAC wanted this war, and the Bushies are all PNAC people. There would have been no talk of an Axis of Evil, and hence no expectations regarding that.
We might now be in the middle of a quagmire in Afghanistan - I'll give you that - but that, I'm sure, would have been the extent of our "revenge" outside of strategic strikes at cells.

-A

alex maiolo wrote:These aren't mutally exclusive actions.

You're more likely to get the Dems to step up.
"You said x, now fucking DO X"
The Republicans can always say "what did you expect, we don't belive in that hogwash," but the Dems say they are for the little man. Hold them to it.
Again, that's why I'm an Indepedent. I don't like these people, but they are my best shot.

And no, never in a million years will anyone convince me that Gore would have taken us into Iraq. PNAC wanted this war, and the Bushies are all PNAC people. There would have been no talk of an Axis of Evil, and hence no expectations regarding that.
We might now be in the middle of a quagmire in Afghanistan - I'll give you that - but that, I'm sure, would have been the extent of our "revenge" outside of strategic strikes at cells.

-A

I hope you are right, Mr. Maiolo. I truly do. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats...who I am assuming will win the next bouts of politicking...answer the Iraq debacle. I guess one way to look at it is that the Republicans (more like the current cabal, which is rather unique) are pushing for popular support and an open ticket for all-out aggression, while the Democrats favor the 'surgical strike' and 'police action'.

Anyway, when it comes down to it, I guess we ultimately get what we deserve. Unfortunate.