Comments Posted By paul
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 52 Comments
DEMOCRATS CAN'T FIND ANYONE TO HELP THEM SURRENDER
I do agree with most of what you say. Buy you sound angry, and altough God knows you have every right to be angry after the kind of criminal “Leadership†we have had on Iraq—It’s time for focusing on the task of getting our fellow Americans out of Iraq with the honor they deserve.
Agreed on all counts. Yes, I am angry, just as anyone would be when a completely preventable, foreseeable disaster occurs. What makes me angry is that the very culprits of this disaster continue to preen on their abysmal failure as if it were success, and cast their opponents as childish and rash (a claim that requires a complete inability to detect irony).
If the 25%ers in this country can let go of this self-defeating strategy, we can get down to the serious business of cutting our losses and doing what's right by our military, which has been horribly abused. Not to mention the American and Iraqi people at large.
If our new leader combines these words with deeds, and with a 100 % political commitment so horrible lacking from this administration, there might be a chance yet to salvage some sence of accomplishment from the sad mess Bush made of Iraq.
Yes! And I agree with the direction of your stated solution. It makes me sick that we're left to squabble over such a collection of bad outcomes, but as a result of 6+ years of republican rule, that's where we are. Let's hope our country doesn't feel the need to repeat this disastrous chapter in our history.
There’s work to be done, and the work will not be done by extremist any more.
That depends on how you look at it. A solution where the US pulls out of Iraq without accomplishing any of the objectives sought by the war's neoconservative architects (permanent military bases for staging further Middle East conquest, etc) might be considered very extreme by some people. This is not for the timid and will certainly require a fight, to peel the neocon fingers off their coveted prize for which our military has sacrificed so much on their behalf.
However, I agree that extreme, polarizing views need to give way to facts on the ground. For that very reason, the republicans (who have never had much time for the facts when it comes to Iraq) need to be completely marginalized in formulating a new policy.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 19:28
I think ultimately, the improvement in security will come from political progress – we all know that.
We do? I must have missed a memo. Last I'd heard, a successful political process was meant to come from an improvement in security, not the other way around. Anyhow, it didn't happen, did it? I can see how moving the goalposts is an irresistible temptation at this point, but it doesn't do much for your credibility. Just sayin'.
It would be “ok to leave†once the Iraqis are responsible for their own security.
And how would that be determined? I know! How about if we just ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave, and if they say yes, then we're outta there?
Oh...wait...
btw- I think it more than likely that two years from now, we will have less than 50,000 men in Iraq anyway.
Wait, I know how this song goes. It starts with that line about "greeted as liberators," goes through a stanza about finding WMDs, mentions something about Iraq paying for the war with oil revenue, and includes a chorus where the insurgents are in their last throes.
In a nutshell, what a republican predicts will happen in Iraq in the future is about the most worthless piece of information available.
As far as numbers of dead, who knows? As few as possible obviously.
Spoken as someone who is certain that none of the dead will be anyone he cares about. Ah, compassionate conservatism, you gotta love it.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 17:58
All you can do is say nothing is possible. Jesus what an asset you would have been at Normandy.
Except for this small distinction: Normandy was not impossible. It required commitment of resources, and an excellent strategy, but once those were in place, it was a very sound (and successful) approach.
Iraq is an entirely different kettle of fish, something I see you don't understand, due to your misuse of the Normandy comparison. Iraq is an occupation/insurgency situation. Unlike the Germans in Normandy, the Iraqis simply need to wait for us to leave (which will happen eventually) and they win.
And I see no point in engaging someone who continues to spout talking points rather than policy options.
Ah, I remember that line! Back in 8th grade, if another kid wouldn't give me my way on the playground, I'd simply say I wouldn't talk to them because they were "thtoopid". Ah, memories. I hope you understand now why I consider you a child.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 17:52
If you are talking about withdrawing 160,000 troops in 6 months you are an idiot. That is not a policy option. It is surrender.
I think Obama's plan to withdraw all combat brigades by 2009 is a good direction to pursue. Granted, it's still thin on details, as all such proposals are during a campaign. However, given that Obama correctly understands that our 160k troops are doing nothing to promote the long-term peace, and that therefore it makes no sense to keep them in the country. Keep in mind that the Iraqi people (remember them, those people we liberated?) overwhelmingly want us out. Just like we Americans would want a foreign occupier out as well. Either Iraq is a sovereign country or it's not.
The only thing I see is get out now as quickly as possible. Is that it? Is that the best you’ve got?
Unfortunately, that's the best there is. Because your republican heroes have painted us into a corner by the utterly tragic Iraq debacle, no pretty options exist any longer. I'm so sorry if this offends your tender sensibilities. In the future, I strongly suggest you keep out of foreign policy discussions. You don't have the stomach or the mentality for it.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 17:47
Unless we can at least effect a handover to a barely competent security force, there will be no chance – zero – for Iraq to avoid catastrophe.
I agree. Unfortunately, there will not be even a barely competent security force in Iraq in the foreseeable future. Therefore, per your claim, the chance of Iraq avoiding catastrophe is zero.
I remember when conservatives prided themselves on their ability to take a realistic look at the unvarnished truth. Those were the days!
We owe our own dead the tens of thousands dead Iraqis at least that much.
I agree we owe all the dead quite a lot. Unfortunately, we can't achieve the impossible. Failing that, what we owe the dead is what is owed to any victims: justice. In this case, that means the main players from the Bush Cabal need to answer for what they've done. Indict. Impeach. Imprison. Execute. That's all we can do at this point. I so wish it weren't so.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 17:15
Surely people must see that leaving Iraq a bloody disaster would be, in its purest and simplest formulation, a huge blow to our national interests and with untold consequences for the Middle east.
Shouldn’t we do everything we can to avoid it?
We did.
In 2002 and 2003, an unprecedented number of people protested the war before even a shot was fired. We all foresaw the situation in which we are now, and did everything we could to prevent it. We were marginalized and ignored, but in the long run our predictions turned out to be on the money.
Unfortunately, it's too late to turn back the clock. All we can do is learn from our mistakes.
So, you guys failed, tragically, abysmally, failed. I'd say that means you've lost your turn at dictating the direction of the country, and must wait for the adults to clean up your mess. And what a mess it is!! And like a 2-year-old who spilled his milk all over the floor, you'll sit there and cry while mom and dad get out the mop and do what needs to be done.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 17:09
In two years, there will be 15-20 competently trained Iraqi brigades that would be able to take over almost all the security functions we are perfoming now.
Damn, talk about tilting at windmills!
In the same way, we're going to be greeted as liberators with flowers in the streets. Iraq will pay for the invasion and occupation out of oil money. Those WMDs will certainly be found! The invasion certainly will not throw the region into chaos, cause an overwhelming humanitarian/refugee crisis, and benefit Iran. And those insurgents? A bunch of dead-enders in their last throes!
Rick, I don't know whether you really believe this stuff (in which case you're sadly deluded) or whether you know it's a load of crap but find it useful to spin because it temporarily makes your viewpoint appear to be valid (which would be far worse than delusion). C'mon, full disclosure time: which is it?
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 17:03
It's too bad the Dems can't find any Republicans to show some backbone and end this disastrous war. What's really regrettable is how the Republicans are completely unable to enact the will of the American people, who are firmly behind withdrawal. (In other words, withdrawal from Iraq is not a Democratic thing; it's an American thing.)
As for "handing Iraq over to the forces of death and destruction," here's a newsflash for you, buddy, that actually happened in March 2003. However, we need a courageous set of politicians (rare, I admit) to call a spade a spade and cut our losses. This is the opinion of any serious observer of recent world events. The fact that Republican politicians at you 25%-ers are not on board with this idea is a precursor to the Republicans declining as a serious political party. Which, given the past 6 years, can only be seen as a good thing.
Comment Posted By Paul On 19.09.2007 @ 13:51
the posts/comments in said echo chambers confirm that quite a lot of people are allowing themselves to be played like a fiddle by the movement or mindset they’ve ascribed to.
This is true, even (and often most grievously) when the "movement" is a rogue outgrowth of the US government known as the Bush Administration.
Comment Posted By Paul On 12.09.2007 @ 11:57
One can accuse the Bush Administration of incompetence in many areas but you would think if they were going to run a fake video, they might have done a better job of manufacturing it so that some guy in pajamas sitting in his mother’s basement couldn’t expose them.
Sure, you would think. In the same way, you would think that if "protecting the US public in the event of emergency" was your party's strong suit, you wouldn't allow a predictable disaster like Katrina to take out a US city.
In the same way you would think that if you were offering proof that Saddam had nukes, you wouldn't base your intel on something that college students could prove was a forgery.
In the same way you would think that, if you have years to plan out an invasion, and have the luxury to choose the start date, and if that invasion were "the essential struggle of the generation," then you might think of some basic "what if's" such as regards basic security, the region's history, and the extreme likelihood of sectarian insurgency (as just a few examples).
In other words, Bush has failed at every single attempt to show that his administration is effective in any way, other than as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. If BushCo did fake the Osama video (and I'm by no means convinced one way or the other), I wouldn't see it as out of character in terms of BushCo's effectiveness or intent.
I don't think this is a wise avenue of questioning for a Bush supporter. It may well expose something you'd rather were hidden.
Comment Posted By Paul On 10.09.2007 @ 19:08
