[besson3c]

Let's look at the facts...

Iraq is engaged in a civil war that has been going on for a long time, and where tensions have existed for 1300 years (although actual battle has not existed for 1300 years). Much of this is a tribal based war, which we have no comprehension of since our country is not controlled by tribes.

By not being able to treat the root cause, all we can do is treat symptoms. In other words, there is no number of tanks, planes, and troops that will be able to solve this problem. Troop escalation is not going to accomplish much. What might accomplish a little, if any, is diplomatic efforts, but this should be an opportunity for the rest of the world to get in on, and they can't so long as we are there controlling everything. This current administration has proven to not be particularly adept at diplomacy anyway.

There is nothing good that will come out of our continued presence. In the past, I was of the mind to advocate leaving when it is responsible to do so, but I now realize that there will not be some magical time when this happens, as this civil war is out of our control and ability to predict. So, no better time than the present.

The problem with having this discussion in here is that the outcome will be inevitable - it will be attacked with a cloud of the usual B.S.

1) This is not about battling terrorists, this isn't about us "winning" or the terrorists "winning". This is about a civil war of the Iraqi people, not about fighting terrorism.

2) As far as our leaving inviting back the Taliban and Al Queda, this may very well happen, but this also provides the U.N. and the rest of the world an opportunity to address this problem. More to the point, we can't just hang out there forever and play the role of bug repellent indefinitely. We cannot control the inevitable, and sadly, this might be inevitable. Every bad decision has its ramifications, it's time to face the music.

3) It's fun to pound our chests and go on about how the left wants to lose and turn this into a partisan gang-bang, but there is no winners and losers here. This isn't football. This is no longer us versus the terrorists, for the time being it is Shia vs. Sunni.


If you care to refute what I've said, I would appreciate it if you can clarify what good you hope to accomplish by us staying in Iraq at this point, and how this would take place.

As much as I'd like to see some sort of solution, there aren't any that involve our military.

[vmarks]

And then, there's the alternative opinion.

TCS Daily - By the Way: We're Not Losing

Credit the Iraqi people with taking the opportunity by conducting three honest, open, democratic elections. In May 2006, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki formed a democratically elected, consensus-seeking government not simply in Mesopotamia but in the heart of the politically dysfunctional Middle East.


That's an astonishing achievement.


Al-Qaida's now-deceased emir in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, understood the stakes. In a message to al-Qaida (intercepted by the Coalition in February 2004), Zarqawi wrote that after Iraqis run their own government, U.S. troops will remain, "but the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts." Iraq's new army and police will link with the people "by lineage, blood and appearance."

The terrorists and tyrants understand. It's a shame America's chatterers don't.

Unable to defeat coalition soldiers or dim liberty's appeal, Zarqawi and his terror clique chose Iraqi civilians as their target. They concluded that an Islamic sectarian war between Shia and Sunni was the only way al-Qaida would avoid defeat. That might entail temporarily placing a secular Saddam-type tyrant in power -- hence the short-term cooperation with thugs from the former regime. Al-Qaida and the Saddamists bet their bombs would break the Iraqi people. That has not happened. They know their resiliency is a stinging rebuke of terror and tyranny.

------

And that is why Al-Qaeda will lose, why Iraq will be a free democracy, and why we stay.

[Nicko]

Well, its a success for Iran. The two ruling parties in Iraq are both backed by Iran.

Not to forget all that $$$ sweet oil money $$$, never mind that 1,000,000 civilians have died so far, a small price to pay for access to cheap oil.

Frankly, I think establishing a real democracy in Iraq is somewhere near the bottom of everyone's list.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

And then, there's the alternative opinion.

TCS Daily - By the Way: We're Not Losing

Credit the Iraqi people with taking the opportunity by conducting three honest, open, democratic elections. In May 2006, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki formed a democratically elected, consensus-seeking government not simply in Mesopotamia but in the heart of the politically dysfunctional Middle East.


That's an astonishing achievement.


Al-Qaida's now-deceased emir in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, understood the stakes. In a message to al-Qaida (intercepted by the Coalition in February 2004), Zarqawi wrote that after Iraqis run their own government, U.S. troops will remain, "but the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts." Iraq's new army and police will link with the people "by lineage, blood and appearance."

The terrorists and tyrants understand. It's a shame America's chatterers don't.

Unable to defeat coalition soldiers or dim liberty's appeal, Zarqawi and his terror clique chose Iraqi civilians as their target. They concluded that an Islamic sectarian war between Shia and Sunni was the only way al-Qaida would avoid defeat. That might entail temporarily placing a secular Saddam-type tyrant in power -- hence the short-term cooperation with thugs from the former regime. Al-Qaida and the Saddamists bet their bombs would break the Iraqi people. That has not happened. They know their resiliency is a stinging rebuke of terror and tyranny.

------

And that is why Al-Qaeda will lose, why Iraq will be a free democracy, and why we stay.

This is such utter, tiresome crap... Look at the country... It is an unstable mess. You can look for the silver lining and say "yes, but they're democratic now", and that is nice, but that does not deal with the 5-ton gorilla that is this civil war.

Bringing Al Queda into the mix does not deal with the civil war, now, here... today. Reality.

[BRussell]

We have to get out of Iraq. How else can we invade Iran?

[besson3c]

It's funny to me how the Left always seems to be pigeon-holed as the impractical idealists, while right now we seem to have many staunch Republicans with their heads drifting around in the clouds hoping that a country will just undo decades of tribal control for delicious democracy, a concept that likely alludes them as much as tribal control does to us.

[vmarks]

The civil war was fomented by Al-Qaeda so that they could avoid defeat. How can you not bring them into it?

HizbAllah and Iran are the greater threats, greater than Al-Qaeda. Still, having a free Iraq as an ally will be useful when the time comes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The civil war was fomented by Al-Qaeda so that they could avoid defeat. How can you not bring them into it?

HizbAllah and Iran are the greater threats, greater than Al-Qaeda. Still, having a free Iraq as an ally will be useful when the time comes.

bullshit.... The Shia and Sunni tensions have been brewing for centuries - nothing new here. Now that Saddam is no longer in control, the Shia are fighting to control Iraq after years of being oppressed under Saddam's oppressive regime.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This current administration has proven to not be particularly adept at diplomacy anyway.

Or war for that matter.

To me, it seems the issue here is that you are trying to use a historical proof when the aforementioned incompetence is also responsible.

If we should pull out because Bush is a ninny, I can accept that argument. It is likely impossible to stop him from being a ninny in a practical amount of time.

The accuracy of the rest of your arguments seems wholly dependent on the ninny factor, and the fact that even though we can't stop him, the clock is counting until we get the next... uh... ninny.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The civil war was fomented by Al-Qaeda so that they could avoid defeat. How can you not bring them into it?

HizbAllah and Iran are the greater threats, greater than Al-Qaeda. Still, having a free Iraq as an ally will be useful when the time comes.

Time!...What TIME is that my Jewish friend?

LOL

[tie]

Al Qaeda has little to do with it now. It certainly was their goal to start a civil war, but it isn't clear to me whether there would have been a civil war anyway.

[hyteckit]

Yes, but you forgot.

We have Jesus on our side.

[besson3c]

Wow... this thread seems to have come and gone without much fanfare. A little surprising

[ink]

YouTube - Donald Trump

Donald Trump on the war, and what to do about it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wow... this thread seems to have come and gone without much fanfare. A little surprising

I think everyone agrees with the OP. You gotta throw in some Bush-bashing if you want to draw in the usual suspects.

[ink]

Or some gay; that'll guarantee 4 pages.

[besson3c]

If everybody agreed with my original post, I'm wondering why they would support the Bush administration at all, like many here do (with exception to Marden)?

[subego]

I don't agree with your OP, nor do I support the administration.

Did I just BLOW YOUR MIND?

[besson3c]

Care to elaborate subego?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Care to elaborate subego?

Sure. Right here:

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This current administration has proven to not be particularly adept at diplomacy anyway.

Originally Posted by subego 

Or war for that matter.

To me, it seems the issue here is that you are trying to use a historical proof when the aforementioned incompetence is also responsible.

If we should pull out because Bush is a ninny, I can accept that argument. It is likely impossible to stop him from being a ninny in a practical amount of time.

The accuracy of the rest of your arguments seems wholly dependent on the ninny factor, and the fact that even though we can't stop him, the clock is counting until we get the next... uh... ninny.

[besson3c]

Oh yeah, forgot that was you that said that...

Now that we have some more checks and balances and the *possibility* that some of the Democrats might not be ninnies (along with some of the Republicans), I'm hoping that Bush won't be able to stick to his guns for the remainder of his term.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

bullshit.... The Shia and Sunni tensions have been brewing for centuries - nothing new here. Now that Saddam is no longer in control, the Shia are fighting to control Iraq after years of being oppressed under Saddam's oppressive regime.

This is probably why your thread has not received as much fanfare as you would've thought. For one thing, the problem with having this discussion in here is that the outcome will be inevitable - it will be attacked with a cloud of the usual B.S.

- $$$ oil $$$
- some snide reference to Jesus
- a gay reference
- "staunch" Republicans (code-word for one who doesn't entirely oppose action in Iraq or use words like "Bushie")

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Oh yeah, forgot that was you that said that...

Now that we have some more checks and balances and the *possibility* that some of the Democrats might not be ninnies (along with some of the Republicans), I'm hoping that Bush won't be able to stick to his guns for the remainder of his term.

No, the Democrats aren't going to stop acting like ninnies, they're just going to be ninnies with a gavel.

I'm going to shoot this to you straight. No beating around the bush for me.

It seems really convenient for you to be saying the reason we should back out is because of the Iraqis.

Conspicuously absent in your assessment "there is no number of tanks, planes, and troops that will be able to solve this problem" is any mention of our country's massive string of incompetence. You also happen to omit the considerable responsibility our country bears for creating this situation in the first place.

That being said, I note the amount of sacrifice you call for to remedy our unabated incompetence is precisely zero. Apparently, the results of our incompetence up to this point is sacrifice enough.

There will likely come a time in the near future when I agree with that sentiment. When that time comes, should I make a call for people to follow me, it would be the true pinnacle of hubris to propose anything the Iraqis have done holds a candle to the searing heat of abject failure on our part. As we have already laid waste to their country, there is no way to make our failure more absolute than to sacrifice exactly nothing in order to remedy our incompetence.

This being the case, frankly, your OP has much in common with the argument "the bitch had it coming". As this argument in any other context would make you vomit as if there was something alive struggling to get out, the fact you are entirely insensitive to it here should be a distinct cause for alarm.

[besson3c]

Subego,

Unfortunately, it seems like we have to work with what we have... for now, as a change in our own regime from head to toe does not seem to be an option. My entire post is based off of this premise, and what to do now that we have arrived where we are.

[Orion27]

Let's look at the facts...

Your Opinions to start with

Iraq is engaged in a civil war that has been going on for a long time, and where tensions have existed for 1300 years (although actual battle has not existed for 1300 years). Much of this is a tribal based war, which we have no comprehension of since our country is not controlled by tribes.

You apppear to have a grasp of the cultural issues, so lets assume the State Department has an inkling too.

By not being able to treat the root cause, all we can do is treat symptoms. In other words, there is no number of tanks, planes, and troops that will be able to solve this problem.

The idea is to use minimum force while our greater efforts are on the humanitarian front, mostly unreported by the press, who focus their reporting though the narrow lens of each car bombing.

Troop escalation is not going to accomplish much.

Troop escalation deposed Saddam

What might accomplish a little, if any, is diplomatic efforts, but this should be an opportunity for the rest of the world to get in on,

Point me to a recent diplomatic solution that the rest of the world has negotiated ( Why not Darfur ? )

This current administration has proven to not be particularly adept at diplomacy anyway.

Korea has agreed to stop it's weapons program. Diplomacy?

There is nothing good that will come out of our continued presence.

Your facts are starting to overwhelm me. I think we have a lot to offer. Democracy, religious tolerance, freedom from oppression, a future;

The problem with having this discussion in here is that the outcome will be inevitable - it will be attacked with a cloud of the usual B.S

No the problem with this discussion is it started with the usual opinions offered as facts

1) This is not about battling terrorists, this isn't about us "winning" or the terrorists "winning". This is about a civil war of the Iraqi people, not about fighting terrorism

.

It's about fighting terrorism with the goal of creating a stable democracy
which might prove to be a model for the rest of Middle East.

2) As far as our leaving inviting back the Taliban and Al Queda, this may very well happen, but this also provides the U.N. and the rest of the world an opportunity to address this problem.

You're Joking. Where has the UN been effective anywhere?

If you care to refute what I've said, I would appreciate it if you can clarify what good you hope to accomplish by us staying in Iraq at this point, and how this would take place.

The war most certainly would have had a better chance to succeed if we presented a united front. But politics is politics and there are a lot of politicians who are invested in defeat. And for whatever reasons people like you follow them

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Your Opinions to start with

The paragraph I cited as factual was about historical Sunni/Shia relations, which was indeed factual AFAIK...

You apppear to have a grasp of the cultural issues, so lets assume the State Department has an inkling too.

Why should we? Have you read "Religious Literacy"? Did you see the interview between Stephen Colbert and some congressman who wanted the 10 Commandments plastered everywhere, but couldn't even cite more than 3 or 4? How many politicians do you think know that Al Queda is a Sunni based organization?

Definitely not something we can take for granted.

The idea is to use minimum force while our greater efforts are on the humanitarian front, mostly unreported by the press, who focus their reporting though the narrow lens of each car bombing.

It is naive to think that we are spending all of this money and risking lives over a humanitarian effort. No, we had our interests at heart and were pursuing them.

Troop escalation deposed Saddam

Assuming this was a legitimate misinterpretation and not such rhetoric designed to distract, I was talking about *now*. Troop escalation will not depose of Saddam now, will it?

Point me to a recent diplomatic solution that the rest of the world has negotiated ( Why not Darfur ? )

Do you really think that more global solutions have been made at gunpoint than diplomatically? Comon Orion, think a little bit...

Korea has agreed to stop it's weapons program. Diplomacy?

Have you actually been following this issue?

Your facts are starting to overwhelm me. I think we have a lot to offer. Democracy, religious tolerance, freedom from oppression, a future;

Perhaps, but for now it seems like the Sunni and Shia are more interested in their own revolution in the making. What do we do about the present situation?

It's about fighting terrorism with the goal of creating a stable democracy
which might prove to be a model for the rest of Middle East.

How is this civil war about fighting terrorism?

You're Joking. Where has the UN been effective anywhere?

A little restraint Orion.. I know that the second you saw the letters "U.N." you jumped at the opportunity to respond, but I did say "the U.N. and the rest of the world", which, by "the rest of the world", means any other country or countries in the world... I'm not sure how this was misinterpreted.

The war most certainly would have had a better chance to succeed if we presented a united front. But politics is politics and there are a lot of politicians who are invested in defeat. And for whatever reasons people like you follow them

This completely unfounded emotional and brainless sort of way of speaking intended to disarm while not furthering conversation in any meaningful way is tiresome...

[Orion27]

]The paragraph I cited as factual was about historical Sunni/Shia relations, which was indeed factual AFAIK...

......which we have no comprehension of since our country is not controlled by tribes.

strictly your opinion

Why should we? Have you read "Religious Literacy"? Did you see the interview between Stephen Colbert and some congressman who wanted the 10 Commandments plastered everywhere, but couldn't even cite more than 3 or 4? How many politicians do you think know that Al Queda is a Sunni based organization?

Definitely not something we can take for granted.

Is that the basis of your argument? One obscure congressman on the Colbert show whom you can not even name?

It is naive to think that we are spending all of this money and risking lives over a humanitarian effort. No, we had our interests at heart and were pursuing them.

If we were not concernced, we would complete the desertification of Iraq and then walk away.

Assuming this was a legitimate misinterpretation and not such rhetoric designed to distract, I was talking about *now*. Troop escalation will not depose of Saddam now, will it?

I wasn't trying to distract, just pointing out the judicial use of force can be persuasive.
We are trying to stop a bloodbath: NPR : How Honest Is the Debate over Iraq?

Do you really think that more global solutions have been made at gunpoint than diplomatically? Comon Orion, think a little bit...

The great battles have mostly been won with force or the threat of force. That's just the way it is.

Have you actually been following this issue?

Have you?NPR : How Honest Is the Debate over Iraq?
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | N Korea agrees disarmament steps
CNN.com - Special Reports - North Korea: Nuclear Tension
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

A little restraint Orion.. I know that the second you saw the letters "U.N." you jumped at the opportunity to respond, but I did say "the U.N. and the rest of the world", which, by "the rest of the world", means any other country or countries in the world... I'm not sure how this was misinterpreted.

Please point to some UN successs. They were chased out of Lebanon, the United States had to save muslims from annihilation in Bosnia, they couldn't handle Saddam, the innvasion of Kuwait, or the threats to Saudi Arabia and they're sitting on their hands in Darfur. Why? I'll give you hint. In order ot be persuasive in "diplomacy", one has to be credible, an honest broker, and when ones interests, or the groups ( world ) interests are threatened someone will have to step to plate with deal the other side can't refuse. That usually means the judicial use of force The United Nations posesses none of the qualities required to be effective.

This completely unfounded emotional and brainless sort of way of speaking intended to disarm while not furthering conversation in any meaningful way is tiresome.

There is no doubt there is a constuency in this country which can not afford success in Iraq. You are one of them. Your credibility depends on it.

[besson3c]

I'm not getting much out of this argument Orion... sorry, enjoy it with somebody else.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not getting much out of this argument Orion... sorry, enjoy it with somebody else.

The usual tactic of one either too lazy to respond or thoroughly outpointed. You have a habit of not responding in kind in your own threads.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The usual tactic of one either too lazy to respond or thoroughly outpointed. You have a habit of not responding in kind in your own threads.

You are right Orion, you are smarter and better than me.

But even if this weren't the case it wouldn't matter anyway, so long as you are only interested in winning the argument and not actually having an honest debate.

[RIRedinPA]

The problem with pulling out now (or in the foreseeable future) is that you give a green light for the Mahdi Army and others to finish the bloodletting they started. Think Srebrenica on a larger scale. If that occurs then, as promised, the Saudis get into it more than they already are, they can't let Iranian backed Shia go around with impunity slaughtering Sunnis. If the Saudis are in the Jordanians probably follow and then you have a really weird situation of a back door alliance between SA and Israel against Iran.

If you have Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting a proxy war in Iraq what guarantees do you have to keep the lid on the powder keg? You have Iranian backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, a repressed Sunni majority in Syria, lots of Iranians working in the Gulf States. The potential for this to spiral further out of control than it already has is high.

The surge, unless it is infinite, will do little. The death squads just slink back into their holes and wait it out. If the tensions have been there for 1300 years a few months will not matter much. There is no military solution in Iraq right now and pumping more troops in there just guarantees more body bags coming home.

The obvious solution is diplomatic. As much as I think Bush is the worst President ever and has done irreperable harm to this country and obviously to others I have developed in the past few months some respect for Sec. of State Rice. Her fingerprints are all over the current diplomatic efforts that have gotten us close to getting back to the 1994 agreement with North Korea and getting Russia and the UN to paint Iran into a corner vis-a-vis their uranimum production. I also think she is behind the new agreement for revenue sharing of oil in Iraq, which is now the best hope for easing the tensions there and bringing about some sort of peaceful resolution to this conflict.

The agreement seems to have been acceptable to the Sunni tribal leaders. And it has played into our hands better than could be expected. With their acceptance of the agreement or at least an indication they would the Sunni leaders and their people are now the target of al Queda attacks. Look back over the past two weeks or so and track where the car bombs are going off - Anbar, Falujah, Ramadi, these are Sunni strongholds, places that have hosted al Queda and provided them havens, not out of ideological, religious or political affiliations but because al Queda was the counter balance to the Shia militias and the Shia controlled police and army, which is redundant as they are all the same, the militias and the government forces.

Anyway, al Queda provided the protection in return for a place to run their jihadist war against the West and the Shia. But now with this agreement the Sunni sheiks can break with al Queda and this has the al Queda forces turning their tactics on the same people they were most recently allied with. They have assassinated a few Sunni sheiks in the past couple weeks, just let off a couple of chlorine truck bombs (in Anbar) and other attacks. Their worst fear is a unification in Iraq.

But all this comes about through diplomacy, not military force. The best our military can do now is keep a lid on things until diplomacy can turn the fire off. The sooner that can happen (and the oil revenue agreement is a huge step in the right direction) the sooner we can then pull our forces out of Iraq (taking the air out of the Sunni insurgency) and give them an over the horizon mission in hunting down remaining al Queda forces in Iraq and the region.

Then maybe we can finally focus on Afghanistan and tracking down bin Laden (you know, the guy who did attack us). Like I said, I don't give Bush credit for this, he's an idiot through and through but Rice is now in charge and she has made some brilliant chess moves as of late. Hopefully she can fend Cheney off from whispering more stupidity in the President's ear and we'll continue to move forward in this direction.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You are right Orion, you are smarter and better than me.

But even if this weren't the case it wouldn't matter anyway, so long as you are only interested in winning the argument and not actually having an honest debate.

Well jeez Besson3c, at least show me where the UN has been successfull when push comes to shove, show me how we have failed diplomatically in Korea ( we have a long way to go, and force my be necessary) and just one good reason a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would benefit anybody beyond saying we do no good just evil? Are there no good intentions applied here? Do we have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator in your eyes? Are you that invested in defeat there is not the slightest glimmer of hope here?

[besson3c]

Orion, you are going off half-cocked about things I haven't really said. I'm not interested in engaging in emotionally charged diatribes with you.

[ink]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA 

The problem with pulling out now (or in the foreseeable future) is that you give a green light for the Mahdi Army and others to finish the bloodletting they started.

...

Thanks, that was very well put, and I agree with your assessment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Subego,

Unfortunately, it seems like we have to work with what we have... for now, as a change in our own regime from head to toe does not seem to be an option. My entire post is based off of this premise, and what to do now that we have arrived where we are.

Hence me pointing out that what you say above is not even implied in your OP. In fact, the way you structure the post you are actively arguing against that fact. As I said, that seems really convenient.

Through our incompetence, we raped an entire country. Though you may not have phrased it that way, I imagine you have made this point before.

We raped them so hard that at this point you are claiming the best option for "what to do now that we have arrived where we are" is to rape them again.

As I said, I will probably soon be in agreement myself.

Not that it's a common thing in my experience, when I have to call for a raping, I don't see myself blaming the people I'm calling to be raped.

That you would unabashedly do so shows you have a real low opinion of something, I'd surmise it's a low opinion of the people you are trying to convince. Your "list" of expected responses and the obvious contempt you show for them certainly falls in that category. However, it isn't outside the realm of possibility you are in denial of the massive abdication of responsibility you are calling for.

Maybe it's both. Neither help.

[ebuddy]

"The Iraqi barbarians are not capable of democracy, law and civility. They are brutes who've always been violent and always will be. All 22,000,000 of 'em. "

"Let's bail now so the next time we go back in (maybe following another bombing launched by a (D) so we can pretend we forgot everything that President said less than a decade ago), the Iraqi people will be even more reluctant to help us out."

"Bush is an idiot."

"The Shia and Sunni tensions have been brewing for centuries"

"We created the problems in Iraq. I mean, after centuries of brewing hostility of course."

"I disagree with you, but I may agree with you soon."

Have I somehow ended up in the Progressives thread again?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"The Iraqi barbarians are not capable of democracy, law and civility. They are brutes who've always been violent and always will be. All 22,000,000 of 'em. "

"Let's bail now so the next time we go back in (maybe following another bombing launched by a (D) so we can pretend we forgot everything that President said less than a decade ago), the Iraqi people will be even more reluctant to help us out."

"Bush is an idiot."

"The Shia and Sunni tensions have been brewing for centuries"

"We created the problems in Iraq. I mean, after centuries of brewing hostility of course."

"I disagree with you, but I may agree with you soon."

Have I somehow ended up in the Progressives thread again?

Let's keep a cogent dialog here: Besson3c is incapable of debate. He must be a young student so I'll give him a pass. This entire forum is a "progressives" lair. Which is ok because occaisionally I get smacked, for not paying due diliigence, and because I demand respect for an alternative viewpoint. They cry, they whine and accuse me of racism, and political incorrectness, but the truth is the ultimate arbitar. I wish to God Obama would grab the brass ring but sadly, he's just another Democrat. What a waste.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"I disagree with you, but I may agree with you soon."

I'm not sure, but you seem to be referring to me here.

I'm curious as to the issue you have with what I said.

Sharing a sentiment (which I have stated comes from a completely different point of view) is not the same as agreeing.

[besson3c]

Orion: if your bravado is your definition of debate, perhaps you're right that I'm not so hot at it. Oh well, nobody's perfect!

[Taliesin]

Strange, that noone has mentioned it here yet: The US-House of representatives has voted majorly for a bill calling for the complete withdrawal of all US-forces till August, the 31th in 2008, and threatening to cut funds then:

The House bill calls for the withdrawal of troops to begin as early as July 2007 if there is no evidence progress is being made in bringing order to Iraq.

Source: BBC NEWS | Americas | US pullout 'would undermine Iraq'

It's possible though that president Bush vetoes the bill.

The Senate prepares by the way a similar bill.

My opinion: As bad as the invasion was, and as even worse the management of the aftermath was, a withdrawal, without a political/diplomatic success to stabilise Iraq, would only worsen the situation in Iraq.

Taliesin

[Orion27]

Strange, that noone has mentioned it here yet: The US-House of representatives has voted majorly for a bill calling for the complete withdrawal of all US-forces till August, the 31th in 2008, and threatening to cut funds then:

It was a slim majority of Democrats many of who were bribed at the pig trough,.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Well jeez Besson3c, at least show me where the UN has been successfull when push comes to shove, show me how we have failed diplomatically in Korea ( we have a long way to go, and force my be necessary) and just one good reason a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would benefit anybody beyond saying we do no good just evil? Are there no good intentions applied here? Do we have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator in your eyes? Are you that invested in defeat there is not the slightest glimmer of hope here?

Actually, there is no hope of US success in Iraq. Maybe a few years ago there might have been, but that was a long time ago. I was chatting with some colleagues the other day who have been working in Iraq on several development projects and the news is bad. The truth is, it’s too dangerous to get anything done. Hundreds of millions are being wasted. IMO, I'm not convinced the US has the stomach to stay in Iraq beyond 2008 in a significant way, it will simply be too expensive. .... How long did it take the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan in failure?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Actually, there is no hope of US success in Iraq. Maybe a few years ago there might have been, but that was a long time ago. I was chatting with some colleagues the other day who have been working in Iraq on several development projects and the news is bad. The truth is, it’s too dangerous to get anything done. Hundreds of millions are being wasted. IMO, I'm not convinced the US has the stomach to stay in Iraq beyond 2008 in a significant way, it will simply be too expensive. .... How long did it take the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan in failure?

Interesting Profile in the Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/wo...=1&oref=slogin

The leap from tribalism to democracy is a big one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sharing a sentiment (which I have stated comes from a completely different point of view) is not the same as agreeing.

Originally Posted by subego

Through our incompetence, we raped an entire country. Though you may not have phrased it that way, I imagine you have made this point before.

We raped them so hard that at this point you are claiming the best option for "what to do now that we have arrived where we are" is to rape them again.

As I said, I will probably soon be in agreement myself.

Here, you seem to be framing Besson's point of view and expressing some agreement while taking the comfortable stance of offering potential full agreement at some arbitrary time in the future.

However, it isn't outside the realm of possibility you are in denial of the massive abdication of responsibility you are calling for.

Then you nail him on calling for in your words; a massive abdication of responsibility. Either he's calling for a massive abdication of responsibility or he's not. Two problems here;

1) Your "shared sentiment" seems to be the raping of Iraq. (while I disagree with this analogy, we're not going to change one another's minds here) With specific regard to this topic, IMO shared sentiment and agreement are one in the same. There are few who would frame the situation in Iraq in this manner, least of which the Iraqis.

2) If what we're doing in Iraq is essentially "raping" them, it would not be an abdication of responsibility to stop raping them. This would not be "raping them again", it would simply be "not raping them any more."

You offered disagreement, but with potential full agreement at some undetermined point of time, then finished with disagreement. It seemed to boil down to nothing less than an elegant egg-shell dance with another who believes Iraq has been raped by the US. A sentiment very few share.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Let's keep a cogent dialog here: They cry, they whine and accuse me of racism, and political incorrectness, but the truth is the ultimate arbitar. I wish to God Obama would grab the brass ring but sadly, he's just another Democrat. What a waste.

I don't understand the Obama/brass ring thing, but you make a point above that nails my take on this issue.

Hostilities between the Sunni and Shia are centuries old. Our "occupation" has not caused these tensions, they've always existed. Time and again we found ourselves having to deal with Iraq. Not the Sunni, not the Shia, but Iraq. 13 UN Resolutions w/ final call for "serious consequences". 12 years of non compliance, weapons programs and proliferation and several US presidents calling for action against Saddam. Why? Because the status quo policy of economic sanctions was only serving to starve the Iraqi poor to death through a dictator who would build several more elaborate palaces, torture chambers, and weapons programs. We forget what the (D) said. After all, it is not politically expedient to highlight similarities.

They indict the Bush Administration for lying while failing to qualify their notion of what dishonesty is. After all, Bush was not alone in calling for action against Saddam Hussein. Granted many are apologizing for it now, but weighing popular opinion is the political way. In light of how they're playing the political cards against the CIC, apology not accepted.

With over 22 million people in Iraq; we would not be arguing whether or not they were "mired in civil war". Sunni and Shia while comprising 95% of the Iraqi population, are not all violent or even predominantly violent. They are like you and I. People quick to call you racist show a degree of xenophobia on this issue that is frankly astonishing.

They are quick to indict you for "American nationalist chest-pounding" while expecting us to have built a new democracy in less than 5 years. They expect the US to be the alpha and omega of intel. In their wildest dreams they could not imagine a dictator capable of duping the US and most of the International Community on WMD. If Saddam had them while Clinton was in office, where did they go? Personally, I'm thankful we stopped the programs themselves from ending up in the wrong hands, but that's another issue entirely. I've cited David Kay's testimony on several occasions here and have been met by silence each time.

At the end of the day, there is no party nor person in leadership in the US or abroad, that is above reproach in this. Not one.

From now on when you see the blanket indictments of stupidity, incompetence, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, nationalism, fascism, etc. Know they are coming to you from racists, xenophobes, homophobes, nationalists, fascists, the stupid, and the incompetent.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't understand the Obama/brass ring thing, but you make a point above that nails my take on this issue.

Hostilities between the Sunni and Shia are centuries old. Our "occupation" has not caused these tensions, they've always existed. Time and again we found ourselves having to deal with Iraq. Not the Sunni, not the Shia, but Iraq. 13 UN Resolutions w/ final call for "serious consequences". 12 years of non compliance, weapons programs and proliferation and several US presidents calling for action against Saddam. Why? Because the status quo policy of economic sanctions was only serving to starve the Iraqi poor to death through a dictator who would build several more elaborate palaces, torture chambers, and weapons programs. We forget what the (D) said. After all, it is not politically expedient to highlight similarities.

They indict the Bush Administration for lying while failing to qualify their notion of what dishonesty is. After all, Bush was not alone in calling for action against Saddam Hussein. Granted many are apologizing for it now, but weighing popular opinion is the political way. In light of how they're playing the political cards against the CIC, apology not accepted.

With over 22 million people in Iraq; we would not be arguing whether or not they were "mired in civil war". Sunni and Shia while comprising 95% of the Iraqi population, are not all violent or even predominantly violent. They are like you and I. People quick to call you racist show a degree of xenophobia on this issue that is frankly astonishing.

They are quick to indict you for "American nationalist chest-pounding" while expecting us to have built a new democracy in less than 5 years. They expect the US to be the alpha and omega of intel. In their wildest dreams they could not imagine a dictator capable of duping the US and most of the International Community on WMD. If Saddam had them while Clinton was in office, where did they go? Personally, I'm thankful we stopped the programs themselves from ending up in the wrong hands, but that's another issue entirely. I've cited David Kay's testimony on several occasions here and have been met by silence each time.

At the end of the day, there is no party nor person in leadership in the US or abroad, that is above reproach in this. Not one.

From now on when you see the blanket indictments of stupidity, incompetence, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, nationalism, fascism, etc. Know they are coming to you from racists, xenophobes, homophobes, nationalists, fascists, the stupid, and the incompetent.

Well said:

My point about Obama is he must transcend the Democrat party to be elected. He met the fork in the road and chose a dead end by supporting the anti war fringe of the party. Clinton has made the same mistake. Who ever is nominated is going to look foolish trying to come back to the center.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Strange, that noone has mentioned it here yet: The US-House of representatives has voted majorly for a bill calling for the complete withdrawal of all US-forces till August, the 31th in 2008, and threatening to cut funds then:



Source: BBC NEWS | Americas | US pullout 'would undermine Iraq'

It's possible though that president Bush vetoes the bill.

The Senate prepares by the way a similar bill.

My opinion: As bad as the invasion was, and as even worse the management of the aftermath was, a withdrawal, without a political/diplomatic success to stabilise Iraq, would only worsen the situation in Iraq.

Taliesin

There is a civil war going on. What kind of political or diplomatic success would you expect?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a civil war going on. What kind of political or diplomatic success would you expect?

The kind only facilitated by Civil War.

Are we not asking the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down? What does that mean? Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Civil War by definition. Yes, it is a civil war and you'd expect the kind of diplomatic and political success that would typically come of it.

In ten years, we'll call it a Revolution.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Here, you seem to be framing Besson's point of view and expressing some agreement while taking the comfortable stance of offering potential full agreement at some arbitrary time in the future.

Too nuanced, eh?

First, I made clear that we have raped the Iraqis through our incompetence. The way we would stop that is to stop being incompetent. If after raping someone through incompetence, your solution is to leave without redressing your incompetence, the net effect is raping them again.

The Democrats have made it clear that their plan is to withdraw. That's what this thread is about, Besson3c gave an argument for withdrawal.

I expressed complete disagreement with his arguments for withdrawal, and noted that his call for withdrawal shows a willingness to sacrifice exactly zero in order to remedy our incompetence.

I stated that in the future that I may agree with his call (not his arguments, his call), I made the point that such a call (no matter who it comes from) as I said above shows a willingness to sacrifice exactly zero in order to remedy our incompetence.

With all that said, Let me make it doubly clear I'm not calling for a withdrawal, Besson3c is. The name of this thread isn't "why subego says we should withdraw at some point in the future", it's about whether we should start our withdraw now. We shouldn't. Period. This would be why I didn't go into absolute specifics of what my argument will be in the future.

My argument here states very simply, that considering the massive abdication of responsibility calling for a withdrawal entails, Besson3c's argument we should withdraw because of the Iraqis is very convenient considering the lack of responsibility he is advocating.

The point of me stating that I may agree with his call for a withdrawal in the future, hence agreeing with the sentiment that our only solution is a massive abdication of responsibility, is to point out that when that time comes for me to agree with that, you won't hear me blaming the Iraqis, you'll hear me blaming the person calling for the massive abdication of responsibility... myself.

Neither Besson3c or other Democrats have expressed the simple understanding that if they are to demand a withdrawal, not despite, but because of our incompetence, they have no one to blame for the consequences of this but themselves.

Clearer?

[besson3c]

Subego,

What I'm saying is that we've tried for years now to not be incompetent, and we have proven that we can't. What gives you any hope of sudden enlightenment?

I don't think that us leaving is a punishment to the Iraqis at all, I think it provides an opportunity for a badly needed change. How long do you think we should wait around hoping for the competence you desire?