Whitehouse gives up pretense that they aren't Hitler plus Stalin
New enabling act:
Most of the Soviets that were sentenced to the gulags were officially sentenced for sabotage and "undermining efforts."
The new-jews are anyone who doesn't think that the wargasm in Iraq can succeed. So when the little hitlers claim that you aren't supporting their wargasm, you're aiding the enemy instead. So it looks like this is going to be used to take out Hillary.
You voted for this terrorist.
July 20th, 2007 10:26am
Nope, I was going to vote for the other guy, registered and everything, but then I was hospitalized during the entire week of the election with pancreatitis.
July 20th, 2007 10:31am
I don't really care about all the Bush stuff, but it makes for great conversation. He has to stay the course in Iraq for the rest of his term, make the best of that situation.
I get a little more disturbed when the dems talk about pulling out. I think, dude another year and a half, wait your chance. If you really want to win, make sure the voting machines aren't able to be rigged or something like that.
"I get a little more disturbed when the dems talk about pulling out. I think, dude another year and a half, wait your chance."
Tell that to the soldiers who are going to die in the next year and a half. Tell it to their families.
This isn't a political game. People are dying.
July 20th, 2007 10:50am
There are no non-'people are dying' solutions for Iraq.
July 20th, 2007 10:53am
True, but we don't have to contribute to the problem. I think we've done quite enough there already, thank you.
July 20th, 2007 10:54am
True. If America pulled out tomorrow, the Suni militias and Shiite militias would have at each other. The resulting bloodbath might be impressive.
And if we're REALLY unlucky, Iran will come in from the East to support the Shiite's, Turkey will invade to prevent their PKK from having a 'safe haven', and Syria might come in from the West.
"You broke it, you bought it" really applies here. That doesn't mean there are NO good 'exit strategies', and "the surge" is more of the Gambler's Fallacy.
But it's true, there's no current scenario that doesn't wind up with more people dead. The only question is which scenario reduces that number the most.
"Wait until September and re-evaluate then" may be the most do-able and realistic approach. Even though people will die in the meantime.
July 20th, 2007 10:57am
The US forces there don't want to be there anymore. They're not accomplishing anything except holding back a surging tide on either side. It will inevitably wash over them eventually. There's no winning. Staying there is just creating psychotic, PTSD suffering lunatics. It'll be worse than Vietnam. The guys over there who have been locked in by the stop-loss bullshit will never be able to rejoin society. They're all fucked, and more are fucked every day.
Get 'em out. Period.
July 20th, 2007 11:00am
When America and Britain withdraw, there will be civil war, possibly with outside interventions. That seems to be inevitable.
American and British withdrawl seems to be inevitable. It might be 1 year, it might 2, or perhaps even 3. Most of us it would be surprised if it's 5 or more. In any case, that also seems to be inevitable.
Stretching out the period before withdrawl, is NOT changing anything. It is simply delaying what will happen anyway.
The best strategy would be to focus on the methodology for the inevitable withdrawl, and try to withdraw in whatever way minimizes the cost in lives, treasure and political-position for the West.
July 20th, 2007 11:38am
a proper withdrawl is the RTTD.
you broke it, now pay the price to minimise the damage.
July 20th, 2007 11:41am
On NPR yesterday I heard an interesting idea ... pulling out of Iraq could be a good way to squelch the Iraqi Al-Qaeda. Basically there would be a lot of sectarian violence and Al Qaeda isn't more beloved than anyone else. So the chances are that one of the native Sunni groups, or more likely a Shi'ite one wouldn't let Al Qaeda hang on to any territory. I guess it's possible Al Qaeda gets control in one corner of the country but unlikely (much more likely that Iran or Saudi backed forces squeeze them out).
I heard a different NPR story last night that the surge is working. Ie, "where applied in Baghdad, the additional troops have ebbed violence somewhat."
It's nice to get balanced news.
July 20th, 2007 11:54am
"where applied in Baghdad, the additional troops have ebbed violence somewhat."
But it's whack-a-mole. Suppress violence in one place, it pops up in another.
Our very presence there is exacerbating the violence. They don't want us there. We leave, there's a temporary bloodbath as the various factions sort things out, then equilibrium will eventually happen or a strong Saddam-substitute will rise to power.
Still think it's better than if we stay.
July 20th, 2007 11:58am
> equilibrium will eventually happen
just like Rwanda!
(that's the cynical response.)
July 20th, 2007 12:08pm
Fair enough. Except apparently the Dems still need to fight the neo-con Reality Distortion Field. And the neo-cons say they can fix it by September. So let them fix it by September -- the Dems can't really do anything else except make a lot of noise between now and then.
And if the neo-Cons DON'T fix it by September, then the Dems may FINALLY get enough Republicans to wake up and smell the coffee.
It's a little sad that what is REALLY needed is some closure on the oil revenues -- but the Iraqi "Congress" is taking August off. Not really clear what's going to happen between now and September to make such a HUGE difference, when the Iraqi Congress isn't going to be signing much between now and then.
July 20th, 2007 12:10pm
> just like Rwanda!
Even if that is what will happen, that's not a reason to stay.
Option 1: We stay for 5 years of civil war, lose our people and cause more suffering in Iraq, and then a Rwanda style event happens when we leave.
Option 2: We laave tomorrow, and then a Rwanda style event happens when we leave.
Neither option is pretty. Neither option is a good or desirable outcome. But option 2 is clearly the better of the two.
Never reinforce failure.
July 20th, 2007 12:15pm
Option 3 -- Iran, Syria, and Turkey all come in, and kick off a much wider middle-east war, with Shiites and Suni's in all Islamic countries choosing up sides.
Just because you haven't thought of it, doesn't mean it can't get worse.
July 20th, 2007 12:19pm
> Option 3 -- Iran, Syria, and Turkey all come in, and kick off a much wider middle-east war, with Shiites and Suni's in all Islamic countries choosing up sides.
Who is to say that won't happen in 1, 2, 3 or 5 years time, if we delay withdrawl? Who is to say that scenario isn't more likely after a few more years of civil war in Iraq, and lessened Western political influence, after an eventual but delayed withdrawl?
Or to put it another way: That's not really a separate scenario at all. It's possibility under both option 1 or 2, and there's a reasonable argument, that it may be more of a possibility if we delay before withdrawing.
July 20th, 2007 12:24pm
We rolled into Afghanistan under the premise of dismantling taliban rule and capturing OBL. Remnants of the taliban still linger, OBL is still at large.
We then rolled into Iraq because Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda and had WMDs. There has been little or no proof of any such support on his part, nor any evidence of WMDs.
When I think of myself being a younger, less-educated, arab male, I have to think that I would see us as the imperialist conquerors that we're painted as in the eyes of all those potential terrorists.
This was plain as day to me shortly after we started rolling over Afghanistan and rather abundantly clear when the machine headed for Iraq.
That this wasn't clear to our leaders beforehand is simply impossible.
July 23rd, 2007 5:59pm