Blackwater

[joblo7]

"Churches, orders, theologies, philosophies have failed to save mankind because they have busied themselves with intellectual creeds, dogmas, rights and institutions, with acara, suddhi and darsana, as if these could save mankind, and have neglected the one thing needful, the power and purification of the soul." sri auribindo

 

the world is in the state its in because we are governed by traders.oil. banks.diamonds. gold ....we follow the un-evolved .suffering is assured.

 

Christ, if Neo from the Matrix and Yoda somehow spawned a retarded love child, I suspect it would sound a lot like V7.

 

you need to educate yourself...........

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

 

This post hits the nail on the head, kind of. It's easy to criticize without offering pragmatic solutions, and I haven't heard any good proposals from the Left on how to withdraw without conflagrating the chaos that is contemporary Iraq. On the otherhand, the Right has left me unconvinced that the current approach will result in a favorable outcome and avoid the worst-case results KK identifies above. As I see it, the lack of good options from either side of the debate brings one word to mind - quagmire.

 

I thought we were supposed to train the Iraqi police force to keep order in their own country and we could provide support and step in when necessary. As they took over their own defense and stabilized the country, we'd need a smaller force there. Apparently that isn't working, and I'm afraid it will not work. If the Iraqis don't have the will to fight for themselves, then I don't know why we are. We could withdraw to bases and stand by on the sidelines while the factions slaughter eachother. Or we could leave entirely, and let the wolves have their pick of the sheep. Those options would go over real well in the US and world opinion.

 

The UN isn't going to do shit. Even if they moved in, as soon as they suffered a month of casualties at the level we suffer them, they'd be out. No option there.

 

We could encourage Iraq to become a dictatorship. That might work. So much for democratization though.

 

Which leaves us with what we have. A forced semi-stable country, and a slow bleed of lives and a fairly large bleed in terms of deficit spending with no end in sight.

 

One thing I have never understood, BTW, is why we don't look down the damn borders. I know the borders are long with difficult terrain, but... if Iran and Syria are importing weapons and people to help the insurgency, it seems this would be critical.

 

 

[JosephH]

You don't criticize the war you want us to LOSE, and always have. Because losing means YOUR side (politically) wins. THAT is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American.

 

This administration LOST the war before a single American ever set foot inside Iraq. Their hubris and incompetence at every turn in this war makes our involvement in Vietnam look well-planned and brilliantly executed by comparison - especially so in light of the lessons it offered which were completely ignored.

 

I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

 

There is no solution - that's exactly the point. Which part of Bush-Sr.-didn't-push-on-to-Baghdad-for-good-reasons don't you get? This administration handed OBL, Iran, and China the whole deck of cards the day the W., Cheney, and Rumsfeld decided to invade Iraq. Support the war? The war was grevious neocon mistake foisted on the American people in a blatant and deliberate act of treason. Nothing could be more anti-American than this particular war - just ask the Iran and China who are loving it.

[ClimbingPanther]

v, my man, where have all the grab-bag thought fragment posts gone, that in times past have defined you??? I want you back!

[dt_3pin]

you need to educate yourself...........

 

Uh, okay

[joblo7]

v, my man, where have all the grab-bag thought fragment posts gone, that in times past have defined you??? I want you back!

 

you cannot defines omething you cantf athom. openness is lacking.

[mattp]

You don't criticize the war you want us to LOSE, and always have. Because losing means YOUR side (politically) wins. THAT is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American.

 

That is exactly the kind of "politically correct KK-style support the troops" B.S. that, in the National debate, has prevented rational consideration of anything to do with this war. I don't remember anybody here or anywhere else stating that they want us to LOSE.

 

What is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American is your vile spew directed at those you disagree with, and the statement that you'd be happy to see them twisting in the wind or, as you put it, "fucked over by the terrorists" simply because of their political opinions.

[joblo7]

simple yet unfathomable to some.....

[ClimbingPanther]

you cannot defines omething you cantf athom. openness is lacking.

can I have a poster of that for my wall?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You don't criticize the war you want us to LOSE, and always have. Because losing means YOUR side (politically) wins. THAT is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American.

 

That is exactly the kind of "politically correct KK-style support the troops" B.S. that, in the National debate, has prevented rational consideration of anything to do with this war. I don't remember anybody here or anywhere else stating that they want us to LOSE.

 

What is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American is your vile spew directed at those you disagree with, and the statement that you'd be happy to see them twisting in the wind or, as you put it, "fucked over by the terrorists" simply because of their political opinions.

 

Blame yourself, buddy. The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat", and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe". So, let's get out, and drop the charade. But if the threat actually turns out to be real, and we are attacked, let it be you and not me that feels the brunt because you asked for it.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat"

 

Surely you jest. "The prevailing opinion"? I guess Limbaugh skews more than I realized. Or is this the propaganda the Russian papers feed you?

 

I've never met a "lefty" who has said there isn't a terrorist threat.

 

As a matter of fact, it was your conservative Bush administration that completely ignored the terrorist threat until 9/11.

 

 

and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe".

 

Care to argue otherwise? I'd like to hear one salient point contrasting the above with what I assume is your assumption, that indeed "our involvement" is making us MORE safe. Please.

Edited October 3, 2007 by sexual_chocolate

[JosephH]

Blame yourself, buddy. The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat", and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe". So, let's get out, and drop the charade. But if the threat actually turns out to be real, and we are attacked, let it be you and not me that feels the brunt because you asked for it.

 

There is a clear threat - from Islamic terrorists, various parties in the Middle East, Iran, and China - and the administration has done just about everything humanly possible to put us more at risk by the day. Their complete inability to wield the world's most powerful military and economy to our strategic advantage and for our security is the reason they will end up known as the worst presidency in US history.

 

P.S. And your question about securing the borders in Iraq - they didn't because they didn't and don't have the force levels to do it. My advice on Iraq from a couple of years ago

[chucK]

I thought we were supposed to train the Iraqi police force to keep order in their own country and we could provide support and step in when necessary. As they took over their own defense and stabilized the country, we'd need a smaller force there. Apparently that isn't working, and I'm afraid it will not work. If the Iraqis don't have the will to fight for themselves, then I don't know why we are. We could withdraw to bases and stand by on the sidelines while the factions slaughter eachother. Or we could leave entirely, and let the wolves have their pick of the sheep. Those options would go over real well in the US and world opinion.

 

Why hasn't anybody consider the "Federalism" plan proposed to the Senate and recently passed with like 75 votes? Actually why has there not even been any press on this? Is it an inherently shitty idea? I don't think so. Sounds like the best possible plan now, split up those warring clans, but try to give them enough unity so that none of the three parts ends up being a failed state.

 

The UN isn't going to do shit. Even if they moved in, as soon as they suffered a month of casualties at the level we suffer them, they'd be out. No option there.

You are right. The UN isn't going to do shit. Even if there was any chance they could, why would they. Bush ignored and belittled them continually on his rush to war. They're probably saying some variation of the KkkKkK creed of "fuck those guys let them rot".

 

Which leaves us with what we have. A forced semi-stable country, and a slow bleed of lives and a fairly large bleed in terms of deficit spending with no end in sight.

Which will ultimately collapse and we'll have the exact worse case scenario that people are warning against now if we pull out. Only with the slow bleed option we just get MORE American lives wasted as well as $300,000,000 per day.

 

One thing I have never understood, BTW, is why we don't look down the damn borders. I know the borders are long with difficult terrain, but... if Iran and Syria are importing weapons and people to help the insurgency, it seems this would be critical.

The military people over there are smart, know what's going on better than us, and seem to be actually getting more latitude from the administration in terms of working on solutions. I think if they (the brass in Iraq) thought that a border lockdown would do any good, they would do it. The fact that they don't leads me to believe that the threat of arms and militants being supplied by Iran and Syria is being greatly exaggerated by GW Bush and company in order to beat the drum for expanding the war to Iran.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat"

 

Surely you jest. "The prevailing opinion"? I guess Limbaugh skews more than I realized. Or is this the propaganda the Russian papers feed you?

 

I've never met a "lefty" who has said there isn't a terrorist threat.

 

no terrorist threat FROM IRAQ. Jesus Christ, that's what we're talking about!

 

 

 

and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe".

 

Care to argue otherwise? I'd like to hear one salient point contrasting the above with what I assume is your assumption, that indeed "our involvement" is making us MORE safe. Please.

 

The left argues it makes us less safe, so if we leave, then, by their argument we are more safe, right? So, let's leave and we'll just see if that holds up.

 

[mattp]

Blame yourself, buddy. The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat", and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe". So, let's get out, and drop the charade. But if the threat actually turns out to be real, and we are attacked, let it be you and not me that feels the brunt because you asked for it.

 

More B.S. from KK.

 

First of all: I have not heard anybody in any seriousness say "there is no terrorist threat." Not here, not in the liberal New York Times, at PBS, or anywhere else.

 

Second: our involvement in Iraq DOES has made us less safe and this opinion is not just that of "the left," but it has been voiced by many military and terrorism experts, as well as some heavy hitters on the right as well.

 

Lastly: "let it be you who bears the brunt because you asked for it?" You are clueless, aren't you.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[Why hasn't anybody consider the "Federalism" plan proposed to the Senate and recently passed with like 75 votes? Actually why has there not even been any press on this? Is it an inherently shitty idea? I don't think so. Sounds like the best possible plan now, split up those warring clans, but try to give them enough unity so that none of the three parts ends up being a failed state.

 

I like it. Why isn't it supported? Probably because it conflicts with someone's personal or ideological interest in this.

 

 

 

I think the military people over there are doing the best job they can with what they have to work with. The brass are smart guys who probably would use your border lockdown if they thought it was worth it. This just leads me to believe the reason they don't, is they figure it isn't worth it.

 

I'm not so sure. You give too much faith in how wars are run and priorities set in the modern era.

 

[JosephH]

I think if they (the brass in Iraq) thought that a border lockdown would do any good, they would do it. The fact that they don't leads me to believe that the threat of arms and militants being supplied by Iran and Syria is being greatly exaggerated by GW Bush and company in order to beat the drum for expanding the war to Iran.

 

Again, they don't have the force levels to lock down the border of Baghdad, let alone the country. That's because Rumsfeld decided to test the neocon's fast-and-light-ME-dominos theory and because now the American public won't pony up those troops for a venture gone south so badly. They particularly don't understand why we are nation-building in Iraq when we can't seem to rebuild New Orleans or even our bridges at home.

[chucK]

I wonder if they are excited about the possibility of attacking Iran too?

[JayB]

Contrary opinion from "Prospect Magazine"*

 

"The question of what to do in Iraq today must be separated from the decision to topple Saddam Hussein four and a half years ago. That decision is a matter for historians. By any normal ethical standard, the coalition's current project in Iraq is a just one. Britain, America and Iraq's other allies are there as the guests of an elected government given a huge mandate by Iraqi voters under a legitimate constitution. The UN approved the coalition's role in May 2003, and the mandate has been renewed annually since then, most recently this August. Meanwhile, the other side in this war are among the worst people in global politics: Baathists, the Nazis of the middle east; Sunni fundamentalists, the chief opponents of progress in Islam's struggle with modernity; and the government of Iran. Ethically, causes do not come much clearer than this one.

 

Some just wars, however, are not worth fighting. There are countries that do not matter very much to the rest of the world. Rwanda is one tragic example; and its case illustrates the immorality of a completely pragmatic foreign policy. But Iraq, the world's axial country since the beginning of history and all the more important in the current era for probably possessing the world's largest reserves of oil, is no Rwanda. Nor do two or three improvised explosive devices a day, for all the personal tragedy involved in each casualty, make a Vietnam.

 

The great question in deciding whether to keep fighting in Iraq is not about the morality and self-interest of supporting a struggling democracy that is also one of the most important countries in the world. The question is whether the war is winnable and whether we can help the winning of it. The answer is made much easier by the fact that three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. Moreover, they have been resolved in ways that are mostly towards the positive end of the range of outcomes imagined at the start of the project. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July, Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region. The only neighbours threatened by its status today are the leaders in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran....."

 

Rest of article here:

 

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804

 

*"Britain's intelligent conversation

Prospect was launched in October 1995 by its present editor David Goodhart, a senior correspondent for the Financial Times, and chairman Derek Coombs. The aim was to launch a monthly that was "more readable than the Economist, more relevant than the Spectator, more romantic than the New Statesman," as Sir Jeremy Isaacs subsequently described Prospect.

 

Prospect has acquired a reputation as the most intelligent magazine of current affairs and cultural debate in Britain. Both challenging and entertaining, the magazine seeks to make complex ideas accessible and enjoyable by commissioning the best writers, editing them vigorously and packaging their work in a well designed and illustrated monthly."

 

[sexual_chocolate]

 

no terrorist threat FROM IRAQ. Jesus Christ, that's what we're talking about!

 

Remember before the war discussing this subject, and how the argument was made that there was no "terrorist threat" or connection to terrorism with Iraq? And that after an invasion, there surely would develop a connection? I clearly remember you arguing otherwise....

 

But I digress: What is this terrorist threat "from Iraq"? Can you clearly define it? What specifically does it threaten now, and what would the natural evolution of this threat be, if the US was to leave? Would you see it growing, shrinking, expanding its influence. etc etc....

 

 

The left argues it makes us less safe, so if we leave, then, by their argument we are more safe, right? So, let's leave and we'll just see if that holds up.

 

"By their argument"? Don't be so tendentious here. You are the one filling in the blanks with your magna cum laude deductive reasoning skills here, and frankly, they suck.

 

The position isn't: x makes us unsafe, -x makes us safe;

the position is: x makes us unsafe.

 

It's not as if x FORCES a reaction for the sake of logical consistency; no, x maintains its validity (which you seem to agree with) without referencing any necessitated acts beyond its own reference of an accountability to sound evaluation. It's all that is needed.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

no terrorist threat FROM IRAQ. Jesus Christ, that's what we're talking about!

 

Remember before the war discussing this subject, and how the argument was made that there was no "terrorist threat" or connection to terrorism with Iraq? And that after an invasion, there surely would develop a connection? I clearly remember you arguing otherwise....

 

But I digress: What is this terrorist threat "from Iraq"? Can you clearly define it? What specifically does it threaten now, and what would the natural evolution of this threat be, if the US was to leave? Would you see it growing, shrinking, expanding its influence. etc etc....

 

 

The left argues it makes us less safe, so if we leave, then, by their argument we are more safe, right? So, let's leave and we'll just see if that holds up.

 

"By their argument"? Don't be so tendentious here. You are the one filling in the blanks with your magna cum laude deductive reasoning skills here, and frankly, they suck.

 

The position isn't: x makes us unsafe, -x makes us safe;

the position is: x makes us unsafe.

 

It's not as if x FORCES a reaction for the sake of logical consistency; no, x maintains its validity (which you seem to agree with) without referencing any necessitated acts beyond its own reference of an accountability to sound evaluation. It's all that is needed.

 

 

nice attempt at subterfuge and obfuscation. your side has made the claims that I have stated, and now you avoid them, and their concomitant implications.

 

and your logic is the one in need of remedial education, sir. if our presence in Iraq makes us "less safe" as you and your ilk periodically vomit in some anti-war thread, then clearly the effect of our leaving would be to make us more safe.

 

 

[JosephH]

I wonder if they are excited about the possibility of attacking Iran too?

 

The military is completely against attacking Iran - that's what we pay Israel for if push came to shove (and it hasn't yet).

[Jim]

Contrary opinion from "Prospect Magazine"*

 

 

 

Moreover, they have been resolved in ways that are mostly towards the positive end of the range of outcomes imagined at the start of the project. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July,

 

What fantsy land does this guy inhabit? Has he been reading the newspaper? I also like the "leave it to the historians" remark. Let bygones be bygones. So every assumption that the Bushies had were wrong - and because everyone got a purple ink mark on their finger then democracy is ruling - what a joke.

I think the question is how much longer do we remain in the quagmire. According to the Bushies their role model is South Korea. Given that we're building the world's largest embassy compound and quite a few permanant looking air bases - I'd say 30 yrs or so.

 

There is no elegant solution to this mess Bush and Cheney made. There is little sign that things are stable enough to hold together if we pull out, Iran is ingrained in the political process, and there is no sign of a strong colalition government. So how long can we afford to be pouring 200 billion a year into this rathole? Likely the foreign policy blunder of the century.

[JosephH]

if our presence in Iraq makes us "less safe" as you and your ilk periodically vomit in some anti-war thread, then clearly the effect of our leaving would be to make us more safe.

 

You seem utterly dense on how this all works. Staying makes us less safe by showing China we don't have the will to succeed. Leaving makes us less safe because we will have simply helped out Iran, stirred up a hornet's nest, and then walked away. That's why it was completely ignorant to invade Iraq in the first place.

 

As much as many of us aren't used to the idea anymore - sometimes huge f#ckups have bad consequences and leave one with no good options to pursue.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You seem utterly dense on how this all works. Staying makes us less safe by showing China we don't have the will to succeed. Leaving makes us less safe because we will have simply helped out Iran, stirred up a hornet's nest, and then walked away. That's why it was completely ignorant to invade Iraq in the first place.

 

This is fucking rich! The same semantic, parsing bullshit brought to us by Bubba! I'm gonna frame your comment, and whenever I need a good laugh, pull it out.