DescentBB

So wonder our esteemed democratic leadership. Does one remember back when the even the libs gave high marks to General Petraeus and thought the \"surge\" was required to win the Iraq war? Well they got both and now listen how, before the report is even out, that Petraeus is a Bush pet and the surge is not working. Why, Harry Reid goes so far as to say the war is lost, while dick-head Durbin states the Petraeus report is meaningless.
So if you ever doubted the liberal democrats are more than willing to sell this country to the knacker man for three pence just to gain power, listen in tommorrow for the actual report and then the comments afterward.

uh Woody, we learned that with Clinton. it's just not that cool anymore.

It's so painfully transparent. Next week:

- Petraeus' new report will be a glowing assessment of Iraq, at least from the military perspective.

- Bush will invoke the argument that everyone voted for Petraeus, a.k.a. \"The General on the Ground,\" and that he is thus infallible and unquestionable.

- Critics will point out that the Iraq government has made virtually none of the benchmarks set forth as part of the surge and then helped themselves to a month-long vacation.

- Bush will dismiss these arguments, yet simultaneously claim that Maliki has to work harder to unite the Shia and Sunni because progress has been \"Slower Than Anticipated.\"

- Petraeus will claim that we need to maintain current troop levels at least until April 2008. April 2008 therefore becomes the new September 2007 (a.k.a. \"The Day We Will Know Surge is Working,\" ergo anything sooner is \"Too Early\" or \"Not Giving the Surge a Chance to Work\").

- For their part, Democrats will invariably argue back, continuing to walk the fine line of feigning outrage while hoping the war continues as it bodes well for their 2008 prospects.

- Senator Larry Craig will wipe the sweat from his brow as his whole scandal is overwritten by the ensuing report.

Curious but in juxaposition this poll shows the american population view on politico's/military:

\"Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.\"

http://tinyurl.com/2rg4uv

so let's use him as a mouthpiece for whatever congress writes.

I wish someone in Congress would just ask what progress is actually being made. Where is it being made? How is it being applied? They just always say progress is being made and people are supposed to quit asking questions.

To those that ask if the surge was working...what the hell was it supposed to do? I mean, OF COURSE security will improve when you add 30k more U.S. troops. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out...but what where they doing? The Iraqi political system absolutely refuses to do anything and could care less.

I would just like to ask what you people (those in favor of this big mess) actually think is going to happen over there. Do you really think the centuries old conflict is going to go away?

Saddam was the staple that held that country together...it sucks to say it because he was certainly not going to be up for the dictator of the year award...but he kept the Shites and Sunnis from going at each other.

woodchip wrote:"Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end..."

The "General on the Ground" is one voice in the whole war, albeit an important voice. Our system is also built on a series of checks and balances, much to the chagrin of the party in control. Simple common sense suggests it is generally dangerous to put all of your faith in the hands of one man. This concern can only be multiplied by the perennial incompetence of the individuals the Administration employs. Brown. Gonzales. Rumsfeld. Multiple opinions must be solicited. This President has repeatedly outsourced his responsibility and decision making to underlings, fall guys, and sycophants that can be severed at the slightest defection.

In the history of the U.S. Military, how often has a General in command cast negative light on the ability to win a given war? The military's job is to win wars. They will invariably attempt to do the best they can with the resources they have. It is our responsibility to ensure that we deploy these incredibly brave people wisely.

Wood, you still trying to convince me that getting screwed by Republicans is better than getting screwed by Democrats?

I feel bad for you that the Iron Curtain had to crumble. Maybe if the Commies again vowed to bury us your purpose in life could be restored.

What bothers me is that for the last few months Bush has refused any questions, deferring of course to what Petraeus was going to say. Nothing new there.

Obvious that Bush has no intention of doing anything until he can pass the football to the next president. He can't give in because it will give Democrats ammo to say they were right and they will win the '08 presidency. So, to save the party's power, more American lives will be wasted. And that's all that is going on over there, wasted American lives.

Zuruck wrote:...And that's all that is going on over there, wasted American lives.

It's worse than that. If we pull out there will be horrific bloodbath. Like it or not, we will be partly responsible for that. I recommend conscription of young Republicans who elected this retard so they can clean up the mess.

In case you haven't noticed, the surge is working so well that Bush can only visit Iraq unannounced, for a mere six hours, to a secure US military base, in a secure area of the country. But the surge is working.

There's no clean way out of this. Bush walked us right into a terrorist trap. This fk'ng quagmire is what 9-11 was supposed to accomplish. Think about that.

Palzon wrote:There's no clean way out of this. Bush walked us right into a terrorist trap. This ***** quagmire is what 9-11 was supposed to accomplish. Think about that.

Sadly, I think that analysis is spot on.
What Osama probably wanted was for us to invade Afghanistan, and then the invasion would infuriate the arab world and strengthen al qaeda as they gather new recruits for the kind of war Osama KNEW he could win.

And in Afghanistan, his plan failed. Turns out, most of the Moslem world was sick of the Taliban. And it was quite obvious our attack was justified, so "crusader" rhetoric was at a minimum.

THEN, Bush jumped in and HANDED him exactly the kind of war he wanted. Taking out one of Osama's enemies (Sadam) in the process. Now it looks like Iraq is going to go from an evil but largely secular dictatorship to an evil radical Islamic stronghold. And al qaeda is stronger every day. <sigh>

BUT, I don't see any clean way OUT. Withdrawing not only makes things worse for Iraq (much worse) it will also make things worse for the U.S. It's a VERY bad thing for the Islamic Extremist to learn that if they just cause enough disorder and send home enough body bags, the U.S. will retreat. That is a lesson that will add up to uncountable costs in the future.

Palzon wrote:In case you haven't noticed, the surge is working so well that Bush can only visit Iraq unannounced, for a mere six hours, to a secure US military base, in a secure area of the country. But the surge is working.

Now you know why I hate that little ★■◆● Lindsay Graham so much. You spend all of an hour on the ground with your enormous Army entourage on a dog and pony show, then you come back and try to convince everyone that all is well. I think it is tragic that there are actually people that believe in these stunts.

If you honestly want to support the war, that's your opinion. But don't go with your private entourage and personal Army battalion and then claim that everything is milk and honey. After all, hours after they left, those markets and villages were bombed.

What really sucks about this is that Bush turned a career military man, someone with exceptional credentials, no doubt regarding his dedication to this country, and turned him into the de facto spokesman.

He knows Petraeus would never go before Congress and say it's not going well. He's the friggin' commander of the forces in the field...when's the last time a general gave up even under the most dire of circumstances.

I caught a little bit of his address last night and watched some of Fox (fair and balanced huh?) News' commentary. It's so laughable...they all talk about how the surge is working...with respect to what? The surge has done nothing, the govt is still in shambles, they can't get anything accomplished. Yeah security will improve because you're adding more troops. I'm willing to state right now that if they drafted every military aged male in America and shipped them over immediately, deaths would go down even more. What's better to keep the peace, 5 police officers or 200?

I just want woodchip or one of the other pro-war advocates to say what it is exactly we are fighting over there. What is the goal now? What the hell are we doing ?

Well lets see, for one we are fighting AQ over there and not here. Secondly, if I remember correctly it was the liberal demoscammers crying for more troops to be sent to Iraq. When they were and some success was being seen, the same liberal pie mouths now want the troops pulled back. Bombing and killing of american troops is declining, former hot spots of AQ activity such as in Anbar provence, is being cleansed. More and more Iraqi's are passing info to american troops pointing to where insurgents are working out of.

What I find laughable with you Zuruck, is you go to great lengths denigrating Bush as a supremely evil man. Yet, when we hear of children being beheaded by AQ rank and file just to intimidate their parents, were you blaming Bin Laden? The angst ridden liberals want us out of Iraq because it is a \"civil war\", yet they say we should go to Darfor because it is a \"humanitarian \"crisis. Forgetting of course that a civil war is going on in Darfor.

So we should pull out of Iraq like we did in Vietnam and then watch a million innocent souls perish? Yes, lets let the politicians on the left create another bloodbath all in the hopes they can gain political power. I tell you right now what they fear most is we still have troops in Iraq if they get elected and gain the presidency. Because then the decision to stay or go will be on their shoulders, as will the aftermath.

woodchip wrote:Well lets see, for one we are fighting AQ over there and not here. Secondly, if I remember correctly it was the liberal demoscammers crying for more troops to be sent to Iraq. When they were and some success was being seen, the same liberal pie mouths now want the troops pulled back. Bombing and killing of american troops is declining, former hot spots of AQ activity such as in Anbar provence, is being cleansed. More and more Iraqi's are passing info to american troops pointing to where insurgents are working out of.

Is this from a blog?

So we should pull out of Iraq like we did in Vietnam and then watch a million innocent souls perish? Yes, lets let the politicians on the left create another bloodbath all in the hopes they can gain political power. I tell you right now what they fear most is we still have troops in Iraq if they get elected and gain the presidency. Because then the decision to stay or go will be on their shoulders, as will the aftermath.

You need to explain that one to me Woodchip. How many million Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotians etc. were killed in that war before it ended? How many of those deaths would have occurred if the U.S. had never gone in in the first place? Where do you get the figure of one million dead in the aftermath?
The U.S. has taken the relatively prosperous and stable country (although oppressive and combative) country of Iraq and for it's own political and economic ends has driven it's economy into the stone age, destroyed it's infrastructure and placed it in a state of civil war. Now it is the Democrat's fault if people die after the troops leave? Give me a break.

Ferno...no.

Ford, I'm using the same logic your buddies at \"Move On. Org\" do. Do you find that troubling?

woodchip wrote:Ford, I'm using the same logic your buddies at "Move On. Org" do. Do you find that troubling?

Faced with the slightest of criticism, attack the person asking the questions. Unfortunately for you, in this day and age of skepticism, the neocon talking point game just doesn't cut it anymore. An overwhelming population demands answers to tough questions. The more the Administration responds with "clever" little catchphrases, the more they are exposed for the shallow, incompetent draft dodgers they are.

On second thought... keep talking.

woodchip wrote:Well lets see, for one we are fighting AQ over there and not here.

Psst, you guys need to get your story straight.

heh coulda fooled me, because it reads almost exactly like the conservative blogs I read here and there.

Ford, I'm using the same logic your buddies at \"Move On. Org\" do. Do you find that troubling?

Actually I don't have any buddies at Move On. I have never visited their site. I get my news here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
I get my liberal fix at:
http://www.truthout.org/
And when I'm ready for a walk on the left wing wild side I check out:
http://thinkprogress.org/
But then I don't suppose that makes any difference to you nor do I suppose they are much different from Move On.
Back to the question. If a Republican administration creates a situation that will result in civil war and destruction no matter what action is taken by following administrations how is that the fault of the following administration? I'm thinking, like a lot of people, that the Republicans are not going to try real hard to win the next election so they don't have to face the music when the whole Iraq situation comes to it's inevitable end.


Reminds me of a couple of situations we had in Canada. The Brian Mulroney administration was so unpopular it was bound to lead to the defeat of his Conservative Party in the next election. He resigned and so at the party convention was replaced with Kim Campbell who in the Parliamentary system became the first female Prime Minister of Canada. Of course this lasted for a couple of months, she was forced to call an election that Mulroney was avoiding by resigning and the Conservative Party was decimated.
It wasn't Kim Campbell's fault but she had to carry the can for Mulroney. The same story was repeated in British Columbia giving us for a brief moment our first female Premier and our first Indo-Canadian Premier. Both were in office for a few weeks and then fell on their sword for the party.

You know I thought about it and there is one big difference between the U.S. and Canadian situations. In the Canadian ones the following administration was set up to fail by their own party instead of being trapped by clever political manoeuvring by the opposition. How very Canadian.

Ford Prefect wrote:You need to explain that one to me Woodchip. ... Where do you get the figure of one million dead in the aftermath? (re:Vietnam)

I have spent only a very small amount of time on this, and it would be interesting to cross-check this information, but I have found all of these to be interesting reading

http://phanchautrinhdanang.com/30thang4 ... ietnam.htm

NR, 1977
http://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we ... ietnam.htm

Cambodia
http://jim.com/canon.htm

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html

http://www.ichiban1.org/html/history/19 ... 5_1978.htm

The U.S. has taken the relatively prosperous and stable country (although oppressive and combative) country of Iraq and for it's own political and economic ends has driven it's economy into the stone age, destroyed it's infrastructure and placed it in a state of civil war.

It seems all too common on the left to completely ignore the substantial contributions to the situation in Iraq of actors other than the United States. Are you going to seriously disagree that others groups have also been involved in the stone aging and destroying and placing of the 'civil war'.

Okay dissent both of your Vietnam links indicate that Vietnam under the communists became oppressive to human rights, disastrous to private economy and drove a million people to leave the country. Fair enough but no word on a million deaths.
Vietnamese killed during the Vietnam war
North Vietnamese military 1.1 million dead or missing
South Vietnamese military 250,000 dead
Vietnamese civilian deaths between 1 and 4 million
Deaths in Cambodia
Civilians 700,000
Deaths in Laos
Civilians 50,000
Total: 2 to 6 million
The usual relationship of wounded to dead is 2:1
Wikipedia and other web sources used for estimates

And as for Iraq I don't get your point. Saddam had suppressed the conflicts between Sunni and Shiite and completely oppressed the Kurds. After his overthrow they started fighting since no plans or mechanism had been put in place to replace Saddam's suppression. Since the previous regime had managed to keep the country stable and if not for the damage done in the first and second Gulf wars would have a population served by a reasonably effective infrastructure we can reasonably blame the sorry state of the Iraqi power, water and health care systems on the military actions of the U.S. even if they did not actually tear down every power line themselves.
The U.S. pulled the plug without any plans on how to get the genie back in the bottle. It is therefore their fault for being woefully unprepared and uninformed before taking an ill advised action.
If you believe that there was good reason to wage war on the Iraqi people then you think the destruction was warranted.
If you think this was a war waged for strictly U.S. domestic political and economic reasons then the Iraqi people seem a bit hard done by.

dissent wrote:It seems all too common on the left to completely ignore the substantial contributions to the situation in Iraq of actors other than the United States. Are you going to seriously disagree that others groups have also been involved in the stone aging and destroying and placing of the 'civil war'.

What, now you want to blame the "Coalition of the Willing" for your problems?

I kid, I kid.

Of course other actors are involved. The bombing of that Samarra mosque was the tipping point. It was a brilliantly executed attack on the part of our enemy since it reignited the centuries old hatred between Muslim groups. It takes the slightest of actions to get these people going, and when they do, a bloodbath unfortunately ensues in their blind hatred, one generation corrupting the next.

But that came long after we started occupying Iraq. The insurgency grew out of control thanks to the absolute incompetence of our politicians and "Generals on the Ground" who underestimated the threat they posed and played deadly politics with the lives of our soldiers and the civilians of Iraq. Hussein, like it or not, kept these insurgents under control, mostly by vicious, brute force. Many years before this war, critics of his removal included Bush Sr. under his Administration and even Rumsfeld in an earlier time of reason. We could have disposed of him in Desert Storm. I'd like to think we didn't because Bush Sr. and others were wise enough to realize that the keystone of the arch, no matter how rotten, keeps the tunnel intact.

Everything that has transpired since his removal has happened on our watch. I'm afraid neoconservatives will have no luck attempting to shift the blame for their fiasco to someone else.

Ford Prefect wrote:And as for Iraq I don't get your point. ... we can reasonably blame the sorry state of the Iraqi power, water and health care systems on the military actions of the U.S. even if they did not actually tear down every power line themselves.

I'm not saying that the US did not go into Iraq stupid. I'm simply saying that everybody should get credit for pulling their own triggers. And it seems like a lot of the Iraqi infrastructure was already hobbled prior to the war. And attempts to rebuild that infrastructure have not been held back by American's use of force, but by other's use of force in their own political calculations. (see Kyouryuu's post)

The U.S. pulled the plug without any plans on how to get the genie back in the bottle. It is therefore their fault for being woefully unprepared and uninformed before taking an ill advised action.

Don't necessarily disagree with this. Lots of mistakes were made.

If you believe that there was good reason to wage war on the Iraqi people then you think the destruction was warranted.
If you think this was a war waged for strictly U.S. domestic political and economic reasons then the Iraqi people seem a bit hard done by.

I don't think either of those things.

Hey, these are interesting
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701f ... rise.htmll

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101f ... iites.html

Dissent, Iraq was one of the most progressive Middle Eastern countries up until our sanctions crippled the place. Granted, Saddam bilked the money and blamed the U.S...causing much of the hatred that the people know feel towards us but don't think for a second that it was a ragged place, Baghdad used to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Iraq used to be the jewel of the world, Mesopotamia..think of that.

Given that we are all agreed that all Bush is going to do is pass the buck, I sure hope a Dem gets elected and pulls everybody out.

Think of this, every single thing that we have been told by this administration has turned out to be wrong, dead simply wrong. So, why do we believe them when they say that pulling out with have even greater consequences. After 7 years of everything being completely wrong, I think it's time to say that maybe their \"guess\" as to what will happen will also be incorrect.

Could it get any worse? I don't think so...

Zuruck wrote:Could it get any worse? I don't think so...

Oh, I certainly agree with you that Bush has been incredibly bad. But I'll have to disagree violently on this particular point. One of the main things I'm worried about is that bush has set things up so that they could easily get MUCH worse under the next administration.

I'm not saying that the US did not go into Iraq stupid.

Stupid? What did I do to deserve that? I'm hurt, cut to the quick even. I thought the internet was a kinder gentler place than that. I make a point that the U.S. should accept responsibility for damage done under their sloppy watch and suddenly I'm stupid?
I'm going off to sulk now.

Sorry, Ford; you've misunderstood my statement. I did not mean \"I'm not saying that the US did not go into Iraq, stupid.\", where the \"stupid\" referred to you. Stupid was supposed to refer back to the US, as in stupidly. Sorry if that was unclear.

Kilarin, what exactly do you think would get worse?

Let's see:

1. Civil war (already happening)
2. Looking like fools to the \"terrorists\" (already happening)
3. Iraqi govt will fail (already happening)
4. Model democracy in Middle East (not a chance)

If America wants Iraq to work, leaving is the best option. Make Maliki actually employ security, he wants a whole country to run, then he needs to step up to the plate and prove it. I understand that this war wasn't to take 6 months, but it's going on 4 years now and THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT FROM THE DAY SADDAM'S STATUE FELL! When can we expect any kind of actual progress? 4 years from now? 10? How many more American lives have to be wasted for everyone to get that.

Zuruck wrote:Dissent, Iraq was one of the most progressive Middle Eastern countries ...

Zuruck,

Start at http://tinyurl.com/2n2mvs , then

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110005081

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_6-eng

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/en ... NTRIESIRAQ

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... N=77439905

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100906.htm

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

http://elephantsinacademia.blogspot.com ... addam.html

oh, is this the paragon of refined civilization you were referring to in your post? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

btw, the "our sanctions" were UN sanctions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions If you'd like to make a case that Kofi Annan's UN was a running dog lackey of the United States, I'm sure it would be a hilarious read.

But thanks for playing anyway.

Zuruch wrote:If America wants Iraq to work, leaving is the best option.

I do wish we had never gotten into this stupid and wrong war.
And I wish that after we HAD gotten into it, we had executed it better.

BUT, now that we are stuck there, some REALLY bad things are going to happen when we withdraw,

1: The civilian death toll is going to sky rocket. And I mean REALLY sky rocket. The Iraqi people have already paid very heavily, it's going to get a LOT heavier. Heavy enough to make Saddam's atrocities look very minor. There will be innocent (and not so innocent) people dying in enormous numbers. And since we set this whole thing into motion, we WILL be responsible for it.

2: When the war finally settles down, what will be left behind will be a battered and bruised country with a very big grudge against America. That grudge will not be entirely justified, they will have done the vast majority of damage to themselves, but it wont be entirely unjustified either, since we pushed over the first domino. Whatever the justification, they WILL blame us. And the new country that emerges will finally be exactly what the president wanted us to believe Iraq was in the first place. A HOTBED of trained terrorist who want to attack the west, and in particular the United States. Only this time, they WILL be backed by the power of a government, and they WILL be well armed and well trained, and they WILL exist in large numbers. Iraq will have become a terrorist hotbed that will HAVE to be dealt with, and this time it will be a LOT harder than before. Especially since the people we are fighting will already have experience in how to fight US troops.

3: If we withdraw, it is HIGHLY likely that Iran will end up in charge of the territory formerly known as Iraq. This is NOT GOOD. We have known this was NOT GOOD for a long time. This is the main reason that Iraq will be able to beat itself silly fighting a civil war, and then come out of it well armed and well prepared to make life miserable for us, because they will have the support of Iran.

4: By withdrawing, we send a very important message to those who are fighting us. The message is: If you send enough body bags home, and draw out the conflict for long enough, the American people will loose heart and quit. Now remember, we think that the primary reason Osama thought that the 911 strategy would work was that he had watched Clinton run from somalia after they dragged some soldiers bodies through the street. That lesson convinced him that it would be easy to make the U.S. run. Teaching that lesson to our enemies only ENCOURAGES them to attack us. It's a very difficult lesson to un-teach.

And so, yes, I hate this war, and yes, I think we never should have gotten in to this war in the first place, and yes, I agree that Bush has made things much worse than they were before he invaded Iraq. But much as I hate it, if we just tuck our tail between our legs and run, I believe that things WILL get much worse, for EVERYONE.

Well thought out Kilarin and I really can't dispute any of your scenarios. I do have a question though.
How will staying prevent any of this?
I don't see that there is anything the U.S. can do short of re-establishing the kind of torture state that
Saddam ran and I just don't see that being accepted back at home. I don't even think the U.S. has the resources and local contacts to re-create a stable Iraq. You guys are screwed no matter what you do. IMHO

Ford Prefect wrote:How will staying prevent any of this?

Sorry, I didn't mean to abandon this thread. It's just that I set the thread aside because I thought your post required some thought, and then got really busy and didn't get back to it.

The problem is, I STILL don't have a good answer. I'm certain that withdrawing is going to make things worse, but your point is entirely valid, I'm not certain how staying is going to FIX anything. Is there a strategy that could get us out of this awful mess? I hope so, but I don't know what it is. <sigh>

The deaths have slowed down in the most recent report, so perhaps we ARE making progress, but I'm not convinced yet.

I think the real question is, which presidential candidate, if elected, will lead us out of this quagmire best?