[subego]

After a seeming eternity of frustrations owing to an administration that refuses to take responsibility for its failures, why should the Democrats ape their "success" and deny all responsibility? If the situation in Iraq is as dire as it appears, extricating ourselves from it in the foreseeable future would prove nothing less than an appalling denial of responsibility.

America has laid waste to an entire country. Not the Republicans, America. That we are the minority Party does not free us of our responsibility. That we didn't cause it or support it in the first place is irrelevant. It is our duty as Americans to fix this problem. The more egregious the crime you believe has been committed, the more responsibility that falls to you to insure justice is served for the victims. As Democrats, isn't this what we are supposed to stand for?

It was a mistake for us to demand a timetable. Our intentions were true, yet misguided. We aimed to force responsibility on those who insist they will have none.

How tragic if we retaliate against the frustration of our misguided aims by surrendering our values.

Ironic as well, for we will have been beaten with the very instrument in which the administration hides their own failures.

[BRussell]

There is a very good argument that our presence in Iraq is causing more trouble than it is helping. If we get out, there may be less reason for the turmoil in that country, and things may calm down. Or, if the civil war does continue and even worsens, if we're out, at least it won't be an international war. It seems to me that the burden is on the "stay-the-course" crowd to show how our presence is a calming rather than an exacerbating influence, and how our presence prevents rather than increases the chances of a civil war.

I believe we should have a security arrangement with Iraq, so that if they need help, we can get back in quickly. But otherwise, we should pull most of the troops out on a timetable, say, a year, so Iraqis know when they have to get things together.

Let me turn it back on you: What good is it doing for us to be there? Are we really stopping violence, or are we causing more? How is the occupation of another country holding to our values? Show me that you haven't bought the vacuous Republican talking points hook line and sinker, because that's what it sounds like from your post.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Let me turn it back on you: What good is it doing for us to be there? Are we really stopping violence, or are we causing more? How is the occupation of another country holding to our values? Show me that you haven't bought the vacuous Republican talking points hook line and sinker, because that's what it sounds like from your post.

This highlights one of the issues I was (obliquely) trying to throw some light upon. At the moment there is no separation between our presence in Iraq and the knuckleheads who put us there.

What good is it doing for us to be there? It's doing worse than jack-****, because of the knuckleheads.

Are we really stopping violence, or are we causing more? Likely causing more. Cue knuckleheads.

How is the occupation of another country holding to our values? It isn't, until we decide to do it anyway and **** everything up. Fixing our own mess is what is holding to our values.

Show me that you haven't bought the vacuous Republican talking points hook line and sinker, because that's what it sounds like from your post.

Trust me, talk like this is a Republican's worst nightmare. **** like this wins elections.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Or, if the civil war does continue and even worsens, if we're out, at least it won't be an international war.

How do you justify this to an Iraqi?

Hey, sorry man, I didn't vote for Bush. Blowing up your house and your family was his idea.

Originally Posted by BRussell

It seems to me that the burden is on the "stay-the-course" crowd to show how our presence is a calming rather than an exacerbating influence, and how our presence prevents rather than increases the chances of a civil war.

I'm saying the stay-the-course crowd has clearly failed on both counts, perhaps to the point of losing the next round of elections. Is our (by no means assured) victory dance going to be to tell Iraq "too bad you couldn't get your ass in order after we wrecked your country, fix it yourself sucka"?

Edit: this is meant to illustrate what I mean by the separation of being there from the people who put us there. You can easily justify leaving based on the actions of the people who put us there. I find it much harder (nay impossible) to justify leaving the mess those people caused. How do you justify abandoning the Iraqis that we ourselves victimized?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by subego

This highlights one of the issues I was (obliquely) trying to throw some light upon. At the moment there is no separation between our presence in Iraq and the knuckleheads who put us there.

What good is it doing for us to be there? It's doing worse than jack-****, because of the knuckleheads.

Are we really stopping violence, or are we causing more? Likely causing more. Cue knuckleheads.

How is the occupation of another country holding to our values? It isn't, until we decide to do it anyway and **** everything up. Fixing our own mess is what is holding to our values.

Show me that you haven't bought the vacuous Republican talking points hook line and sinker, because that's what it sounds like from your post.

Trust me, talk like this is a Republican's worst nightmare. **** like this wins elections.

I think the original poster was trying to set this thread up to not be the polarized boredom that other threads of this nature tend to be. The warhawk Republicans believe we should stay and pacifist Democrats believe we should leave. They each have the canned responses that make these threads dull reading.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I think the original poster was trying to set this thread up to not be the polarized boredom that other threads of this nature tend to be. The warhawk Republicans believe we should stay and pacifist Democrats believe we should leave. They each have the canned responses that make these threads dull reading.

Who are you responding to? I am the original poster.

Have I already polarizedly boarded this thread?

[olePigeon]

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ush-predition/

And props to Krusty.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

How do you justify this to an Iraqi?

Hey, sorry man, I didn't vote for Bush. Blowing up your house and your family was his idea.

I didn't say anything at all about Bush. We are there now, we have to do what's best.

Setting a short (~ a year) withdrawal timetable and having rapid deployment forces stationed in Kuwait to deter a coup is not equal to "cut and run." That is what I meant by Republican talking points. If we were really providing security, as opposed to fomenting insecurity, I'd agree with you.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I think the original poster was trying to set this thread up to not be the polarized boredom that other threads of this nature tend to be. The warhawk Republicans believe we should stay and pacifist Democrats believe we should leave. They each have the canned responses that make these threads dull reading.

Warhawk Republicans, pacifist Democrats? Who's the one with dull, "canned responses" now?

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I didn't say anything at all about Bush. We are there now, we have to do what's best.

Setting a short (~ a year) withdrawal timetable and having rapid deployment forces stationed in Kuwait to deter a coup is not equal to "cut and run." That is what I meant by Republican talking points.

I understand feeling this way. A few days ago I felt exactly this way. The "cut and run" argument is an emotional appeal that deliberately rejects any nuance in one's reply.

I started writing this thread specifically because I was irritated by its disingenuous approach.

The more I thought about it though, the more I realized that despite its odious presentation, the description is accurate, unless you believe a mere deadline will accomplish what the greatest military in the world has failed to do.

The irony is that you could find me complaining years ago that our withdrawal in light of our incompetence will shatter Iraq. Despite this, somewhere along the line I started to agree with the idea of a deadline. I had to ask myself, considering the devastation I knew it would cause, why I had been behind the idea of a deadline in the first place. After the literal hell that we've put that country through, when did it become okay with me to leave Iraq with a high, hard one just because our leaders are incompetent?

After much thought, I realized it was out of frustration. Other than directly support the continuing debacle, the deadline is the only other option we've been given. Likewise, I think the Democrats felt it was the only option in the face of continuing disaster.

In our desperation to end our frustrations, we've lost sight of one of the prime reasons we were compelled to ask for a deadline in the first place. We have ****ed-up an entire country.

Originally Posted by BRussell

If we were really providing security, as opposed to fomenting insecurity, I'd agree with you.

Who's responsibility is it to fix the insecurity that's been fomented? You state yourself (and I agree) that we caused it. You still haven't explained how the administration's propensity to do nothing but fail in this regard somehow absolves the rest of us of the responsibility to fix those failures.

I find it hard to believe that would you consider the splendid state we would no doubt leave the country in as having made good on our failures.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego

After a seeming eternity of frustrations owing to an administration that refuses to take responsibility for its failures, why should the Democrats ape their "success" and deny all responsibility? If the situation in Iraq is as dire as it appears, extricating ourselves from it in the foreseeable future would prove nothing less than an appalling denial of responsibility.

America has laid waste to an entire country. Not the Republicans, America. That we are the minority Party does not free us of our responsibility. That we didn't cause it or support it in the first place is irrelevant. It is our duty as Americans to fix this problem. The more egregious the crime you believe has been committed, the more responsibility that falls to you to insure justice is served for the victims. As Democrats, isn't this what we are supposed to stand for?

It was a mistake for us to demand a timetable. Our intentions were true, yet misguided. We aimed to force responsibility on those who insist they will have none.

How tragic if we retaliate against the frustration of our misguided aims by surrendering our values.

Ironic as well, for we will have been beaten with the very instrument in which the administration hides their own failures.

For the last time, the longer we've stayed in Iraq, the worse it has gotten. Our presence is not helping things, it is making them worse. The longer we stay, the worse and worse it will get. Will things be perfect if we leave? No. Will things get better? Maybe.

Our presence isn't helping. If the Iraqi's want to kill each other, we can't stop that. Nothing can stop that. We'll just end up sitting in the middle, taking blame for issues, and attracting the attention of more terrorists. If the right has decided they are going to stop a country from fighting itself, they need to take a reality check. Time and time again in history we've run into this problem of trying to stop a civil war. It's never worked.

What the right doesn't realize, or doesn't want to think about, is that most of the fighting is Iraqi vs. Iraqi. We're not protecting them from outside terrorists. We're not protecting them from foreign governments. Hell, if anything we're painting a big target on Iraq for terrorists to hit American troops. What is really going on is we are trying to stop Iraq from fighting itself in the void left by Saddam. It's obvious Iraq is going to have to decide for itself what it wants to be, or split up, without the question of US involvement in their destiny. They don't trust us. We're making them a target for outside terrorists. It's just not working. It's time to remove ourselves from the crossfire. Our troops are just paper shields.

I swear, the next time some right wing guy whines about how we'd be abandoning the Iraqi people I'm going to link to this post...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego

Who's responsibility is it to fix the insecurity that's been fomented? You state yourself (and I agree) that we caused it. You still haven't explained how the administration's propensity to do nothing but fail in this regard somehow absolves the rest of us of the responsibility to fix those failures.

I find it hard to believe that would you consider the splendid state we would no doubt leave the country in as having made good on our failures.

Again, we (Democrats) believe the best way to fix the problem is to set a timeline for withdrawal and to retain a security agreement to deter. It is the proper strategy to improve the situation in Iraq, it is not about absolving us of responsibility. We're not fixing the failure by staying, we're worsening it. Do you see what I'm saying? Please tell me I'm wrong if you think so, but it doesn't seem like you understand my point on this. You keep going back to "we can't absolve ourselves of responsibility." That's not what leaving Iraq is about. It's about improving Iraq by getting that big fat target called the US military out of there.

[Face Ache]

I'm starting to think maybe the US should send in the military to fix it.

[hyteckit]

Putting all your men into a sinking ship? Or regroup and focus your men for another battle?

Pres. Bush wants to put all our military into the sinking ship Iraq. What we need to do regroup and put where are military they are needed.

Pres. Bush big on talk, weak on terrorism.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Putting all your men into a sinking ship? Or regroup and focus your men for another battle?

Pres. Bush wants to put all our military into the shipping ship Iraq. What we need to do regroup and put where are military they are needed.

Pres. Bush big on talk, weak on terrorism.

Exactly. We won't be able to combat the real problem of Iran while our troops are stuck on the Iraq snipe hunt.

We've done damage in Iraq. Let's not do more. This whole thing got started by Americans trying to fix Iraq. Now they want to fix it again. Has the right learned nothing?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by goMac

We won't be able to combat the real problem of Iran while our troops are stuck on the Iraq snipe hunt.

Iran isn't a real problem.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I think the original poster was trying to set this thread up to not be the polarized boredom that other threads of this nature tend to be. The warhawk Republicans believe we should stay and pacifist Democrats believe we should leave. They each have the canned responses that make these threads dull reading.

You mean like calling Republicans "warhawks"

I agree.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Iran isn't a real problem.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You mean like calling Republicans "warhawks"

Calling Republicans manipulated is more like it. I don't have a problem with taking out terrorist countries, but that doesn't change Iraq wasn't a terrorist country. The "We're doing it for the democracies guys!" argument doesn't cut it either. So far Democracy in Iraq has produced a screwed up country because the belief is when your neighbor in Iraq has a different viewpoint, you shoot them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Do you see what I'm saying? Please tell me I'm wrong if you think so, but it doesn't seem like you understand my point on this.

Funny how I could say the same of you.

Let's check though.

Seems to me that you're saying the military situation is inherently untenable, and therefore a withdrawal over the short term is by far the most practical solution.

If you were to qualify that with an "especially considering an administration that would rather fall on its sword than take blame for failures, an obsequious kiss-ass majority Party, and an uncoordinated spew of a minority Party" I would be in complete agreement.

How'd I do?

Now you can spit my argument back at me, and we can get to the correctin'!

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac

I swear, the next time some right wing guy whines about how we'd be abandoning the Iraqi people I'm going to link to this post...

You did catch that I was a Democrat, right?

Apart from the fact that I stated as much in the first post, there are subtle differences in my argument that seem to be irrelevant to you.

A "right-winger" would produce (often as a canard) "we needed to save the Iraqi people from Saddam".

I'm saying "we need to save the Iraqi people from us".

Leaving is certainly one way to accomplish that goal. Apparently you see no problem in ****ing a country over and then leaving.

Note that I didn't say the "terrorists" ****ed over the country. I'm not saying Saddam ****ed over the country. I'm saying we ****ed over the country. Feel free to show me that huge list of right-wingers" who are saying the same.

Maybe the issue is I'm not being explicit enough about how the magnitude of our incompetence in Iraq is informing my opinion.

I'm pretty assured in the truth of the allegation that the administration "prepared for the war and not the peace". We've never had enough people on the ground to do anything beyond (barely) hold on to we captured. In addition, it should be obvious to anyone with a few functioning brain cells that this administration is highly resistant to changing it's plans once set in motion.

I'm saying we owe the Iraqi's something for this.

Note also I didn't explicitly state that this debt must be re-payed by staying, though I'll admit that was the option I had in mind when I made the OP. Maybe staying with the intent of actually giving it a try is a sucky solution, but at least it's acknowledging our ****-ups. The Democratic plan is to not only leave them with nothing, we add insult to injury by making the galling accusation that they didn't get their ass in gear quickly enough.

Everybody has gotten so ****ing binary about this.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego

I'm saying "we need to save the Iraqi people from us".

We're not fixing Iraq. Our attempts to save the Iraqi people are making things worse.

You're just changing the justification for the same thing we have been doing this entire time. Just changing the justification isn't going to change the end result.

[subego]

Here's a boiled down, and hopefully far less ambiguous version of my main point:



We owe the Iraqi people for our administration's incompetence in the execution of its postwar plan.

The current Democratic plan is tantamount to fully reneging on this debt. Some even add the insult of blaming the Iraqis for not solving problems caused by the administration's incompetence.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego

We owe the Iraqi people for our administration's incompetence in the execution of its postwar plan.

The current Democratic plan is tantamount to fully reneging on this debt. Some even add the insult of blaming the Iraqis for not solving problems caused by the administration's incompetence.

Ok. How do you plan to pay back the Iraqi people for what we've done? So far, keeping our troops in the country has painted a big red X for terrorists to come in and get their chance to kill Americans.

[BRussell]

I don't think Democrats are being as clear as they could be about the idea that Bush's plan of staying indefinitely is hurting Iraq, and that setting a timetable for redeployment of most troops to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia is designed to improve the situation there. Hell, it's what the Iraqi government and people want.

And probably many Democrats do think the way you're thinking about them subego - that this is FUBAR, and we simply need to cut our losses. But I don't think most Democrats think that way, and in any case it's not the message that should be sent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ok. How do you plan to pay back the Iraqi people for what we've done? So far, keeping our troops in the country has painted a big red X for terrorists to come in and get their chance to kill Americans.

What's practical for our crippled Party to force on the administration before mid-term elections?

Two Ideas. Jack and ****. Especially (as I have been trying to point out) everyone who means anything in the Party seems just fine with telling the Iraqis to go **** themselves.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by subego

What's practical for our crippled Party to force on the administration before mid-term elections?

Two Ideas. Jack and ****. Especially (as I have been trying to point out) everyone who means anything in the Party seems just fine with telling the Iraqis to go **** themselves.

Ok. Let's say you're president. Please tell us your plan on how keeping troops in Iraq will make things better, because as it is, their presence is agitating local politics and violence, and making Iraq a target for terrorism.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ok. Let's say you're president. Please tell us your plan on how keeping troops in Iraq will make things better, because as it is, their presence is agitating local politics and violence, and making Iraq a target for terrorism.

Well it's lucky you're at war with terror and have an army in the vicinity then.

Or are you suggesting Operation Run From Terror?

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't think Democrats are being as clear as they could be about the idea that Bush's plan of staying indefinitely is hurting Iraq, and that setting a timetable for redeployment of most troops to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia is designed to improve the situation there.

This argument falsely implies that the issue is replacing "Bush's plan" with a "different plan". An indefinite timetable isn't a plan, it's the failure or absence of a plan. Rather than admit they are swapping "no plan" for "a deadline with no plan", they attempt to make it more palatable by reversing cause and effect. The arguers claim the situation is ****ed up because there is no timetable. The reality (of which they are no doubt aware) is there is no timetable because the situation is ****ed up.

Trust me. Staying indefinitely was absolutely, positively, not Bush's plan. Why do you think we have an indefinite timetable? Planeloads of coffins give him a stiffy?

Did Bush go to Rumsfeld and say:

"See if you can whip up the worst political hemorrhage you can imagine. Wait... make that a double. Oh, and since you'll need to go to the cupboard anyways, falsify the justification while you're there."

"Heh, heh, heh. Nixon was a pussy."

The reason we have no timetable is that Bush knows down to the decimal point how ****ed up things are in Iraq. He also knows that because of his ****-ups, when we leave the **** will really hit the fan.

If there was a chance leaving could somehow improve the situation, why on God's green earth would he insist upon staying? Because he's a masochist? Because he's an obstinate asshole? Though the latter is likely true, neither are likely reasons he's been commiting an agonizing political suicide.

Knowing what side of the bread the political butter is on has forced the Republicans into making some pretty insane rationalizations. Do not mistake this for actually being insane. Despite his call to "stay the course" I am thoroughly convinced there is not a single person on this planet more desperate to "cut and run" than George Bush.

The beauty of it is that even while caving in to the Democrats, Bush just needs to keep saying "please don't throw me in that there briar patch" "We should stay the course".

Before the Democrats are even finished patting themselves on the back for "improving the situation" and "saving our boys", all hell breaks loose in the Middle East for reals.

You get one guess as to who ends up as the patsy.





And Iraq is still the ass end of a **** job.

[subego]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ok. Let's say you're president...

Oh gawd I was so hoping someone would ask me this. I feel it's way too self indulgent to just whip it out in casual conversation.

Twice as many troops.
Increase troop pay.
Sack some Generals.
Get the UN involved. Bribe Support other UN programs to make amends.
Get the Russians involved. Bribe Give them grain subsidies.

You have no idea how cheap a date the Russians are.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Why? What makes you so certain Iran is a problem? I say it isn't, and I'm prepared to refute any argument you can make to the contrary.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.
Calling Republicans manipulated is more like it. I don't have a problem with taking out terrorist countries, but that doesn't change Iraq wasn't a terrorist country.

I doesn't change it because Iraq was indeed harboring and training terrorists within it's borders.

No amount of denying it, and posting misleading threads will change that.

The "We're doing it for the democracies guys!" argument doesn't cut it either.

That was part of it, and it certainly does cut it.

So far Democracy in Iraq has produced a screwed up country because the belief is when your neighbor in Iraq has a different viewpoint, you shoot them.

The country was screwed up well before we got there.

Sorry your little post didn't work out the way you wanted it to.

I suggest you do a bit more research on the matter.