Iraqis are standing up

[ElHombre]

Rather, they're telling (http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061031/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061031165513) the US what to do.

Exploiting GOP vulnerability in the Nov. 7 elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flexed his political muscle Tuesday and won U.S. agreement to lift military blockades on Sadr City and another Shiite enclave where an American soldier was abducted.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea...

Their departure set off celebrations among civilians and armed men in Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite district controlled by the Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Small groups of men and children danced in circles chanting slogans praising and declaring victory for al-Sadr, whose political support is crucial to the prime minister's governing coalition.

The WH didn't raise any objections because of the elections.

Al-Maliki's move Tuesday came three days after his closest aide, Hassan al-Suneid, said unabashedly that the prime minister was trying to capitalize on American voter discontent with the war and White House reluctance to open a public fight with the Iraqi leader just before the midterm election.

[Ezekiel25:17]

Celebration to US leaving Sadr City? Like that's news.

[CPL Trevoga]

We shouldn't have played "democrazy" in Iraq. Occupational governmet just like in Germany in 1945 should have been established in Iraq and ruled for with an iron fist.

[Noble713]

We shouldn't have played "democrazy" in Iraq. Occupational governmet just like in Germany in 1945 should have been established in Iraq and ruled for with an iron fist.

It's all Donald Rumsfeld and L. Paul Bremer's fault. * If Jay Garner had been running the show for more than a few days/weeks, the ex-Baathists would still be keeping the day-to-day business of running the country going (being the only Iraqis with any experience in such matters), and the (non-disbanded) Iraqi Army would still exist to provide the bulk of the security forces. There would still be sectarian violence of course, but by keeping law, order, electricity, and water functioning we would have avoided alienating damn near the entire Iraqi population like we have now. The tens of billions we've spent playing whack-a-mole with the insurgents could instead be spent laying the foundations of democratic institutions (something resembling free press, honest courts, improved law enforcement, respect for private property, free flow of information, etc. )and ramping up their quality of living.


Mmmmmm, gotta love that hindsight.

* Just watch the PBS Frontline episode about the "Lost Year" in Iraq; its on their website (and linked in the Photos/Videos forum).

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Al-Maliki's move Tuesday came three days after his closest aide, Hassan al-Suneid, said unabashedly that the prime minister was trying to capitalize on American voter discontent with the war and White House reluctance to open a public fight with the Iraqi leader just before the midterm election.

This loss of American credibility and authority must please US leftists. They've worked hard to undermine Bush - calling him a criminal, the war illegal, his policies flawed, his motives unethical - themes that have actually been repeated verbatim by Saddam's defense lawyers. It can hardly come as a surprise, or even be unpleasant, when their actions reap rewards such as these. And of course, as we see, they then use this loss of credibility and authority as just one more illustration of why the Republicans must go. It all works out nicely - power at any price.

[Lt. James Anderson]

We shouldn't have played "democrazy" in Iraq. Occupational governmet just like in Germany in 1945 should have been established in Iraq and ruled for with an iron fist.

Arabs are not Germans. And the Germans were tired of war, plus most of them that could've/would've fought the occupation died in the period 1939-1945. Werewolf teenagers and granpas weren't up to the task ...

[Pandy]

Arabs are not Germans. And the Germans were tired of war, plus most of them that could've/would've fought the occupation died in the period 1939-1945. Werewolf teenagers and granpas weren't up to the task ...

Well, we can't kill all the 18-35 year old males in country... so that's out.

[eugenlitwin]

Well, we can't kill all the 18-35 year old males in country... so that's out.
l
let s say 14-65

[ElHombre]

This loss of American credibility and authority must please US leftists.

Quite the opposite. There are plenty of people all over the political spectrum who are tired of having their predictions about the consequences of the Bush admin's incompetence keep coming true.

They've worked hard to undermine Bush - calling him a criminal, the war illegal, his policies flawed, his motives unethical - themes that have actually been repeated verbatim by Saddam's defense lawyers. It can hardly come as a surprise, or even be unpleasant, when their actions reap rewards such as these.

You've never bothered to explain the logic of how the consequences of the decisions taken by the Bush admin are everybody else's fault. How exactly does pointing out their stupidity hurt us more than the stupidity itself?

And of course, as we see, they then use this loss of credibility and authority as just one more illustration of why the Republicans must go.

You'd rather keep let people with a record of incompetence in charge? Again, how bad do things have to get before you change your opinion of the Bush admin? How many have to die just so they don't have to face accountability?

It all works out nicely - power at any price.

You've driven a bus off a cliff. Pardon those of us in the reality-based community if we don't want to let you continue driving, especially if you announce your intention to drive off another cliff.

Come to think of it, you know what explains the rationale behind this war? Bragging rights. They wanted bragging rights about winning a war their way. Everything else was secondary. It helps to explain why conservatives acted like a bunch of juvenile high-school boys after the big game. Going around thumping their chests like a gorilla. Strutting around in flightsuits.

And then reality intervened (which it does when you ignore it). Now the goal is avoiding accountability for their errors. Guess what folks? This story is nothing more than the latest example of how the Bush admin's approach to the world is just plain wrong and thousands are now paying for these mistakes with their life.

[Hunterhr]

Pardon those of us in the reality-based community

You sound like a walking talking point for DU.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You've never bothered to explain the logic of how the consequences of the decisions taken by the Bush admin are everybody else's fault. How exactly does pointing out their stupidity hurt us more than the stupidity itself?

I've never claimed they were, nor been asked to explain it. There is a difference between honest, reality-based assessment of the situation, and tinfoil-hat the sky is falling Bush is a criminal this was all for his oil buddies he stole the election Bush is a king and led us to war by himself idiocy that the far left (and you BTW) have been puking up for 4 years. The democratic process got us here, and the soldiers in the field deserve to be supported as such,not thrown under the bus as part of an illegal scheme. When you do that - you provide support for the enemy, and as we see here, it does have an effect.


You'd rather keep let people with a record of incompetence in charge? Again, how bad do things have to get before you change your opinion of the Bush admin? How many have to die just so they don't have to face accountability?

Again - the sky is falling. It's necessary for you to maintain your various parallel illusions in order for you to sustain your argument. Bush's war record in Iraq has led to a lower casualty rate than in any other similarly sized conflict we've ever fought. Put it up against Korea, WWII, Vietnam etc. - look at the tens of thousands killed in a single year - and suddenly your fictional catastrophe melts away. Are things perfect - no. We have made mistakes, as mistakes are made in every war. And we have an enemy who's being sustained by a portion of our own people, who's gaining traction as part of our political process - and so our effectiveness is further limited.


Come to think of it, you know what explains the rationale behind this war? Bragging rights. They wanted bragging rights about winning a war their way. Everything else was secondary. It helps to explain why conservatives acted like a bunch of juvenile high-school boys after the big game. Going around thumping their chests like a gorilla. Strutting around in flightsuits.

If that's what you actually believe (and it wouldn't surprise me in your Bush-centric world), well it would explain your mania. However, I can't help but notice that in a world full of complainers and finger pointers - where have the alternate plans been? If not Bush's way - then what other way? And even if we did try things another way, who's to say it wouldn't have been similarly difficult or even worse?

Your notion of a pre-ordained American victory, of immutable American superiority is quaint and comforting, but it is possible for us to be beaten. You seem to think that in war if you just do things a certain way, connect the dots right, that victory is assured. We are not over there trying to accomplish a goal all by ourselves. There is an adaptive, creative, determined, clever and brave enemy who changes as we change. You've simply constructed an alternate reality which you propagate where war is clean and quick, neat and inexpensive - and then you criticize the administration for failing to live up to your construct..as if it's completely up to them (i.e. there is no enemy).

I listen to anti-war arguments every day, and many of them are very good. Rational, reasonable, coherent - but your endless mantra with Bush as the gravitational barycenter of everything wrong with the world is just silly.

[annihilation]

Arabs are not Germans. And the Germans were tired of war, plus most of them that could've/would've fought the occupation died in the period 1939-1945. Werewolf teenagers and granpas weren't up to the task ...


Thats for sure, I would rather deal and build a germany 1000x times than ever touch iraq or the middle east.

[ElHombre]

I've never claimed they were, nor been asked to explain it.

ahem...

It can hardly come as a surprise, or even be unpleasant, when [leftists] actions reap rewards such as these.

That is called blaming leftists for the abandonment of the hunt for the missing US soldier.

There is a difference between honest, reality-based assessment of the situation, and tinfoil-hat the sky is falling Bush is a criminal this was all for his oil buddies he stole the election Bush is a king and led us to war by himself idiocy that the far left (and you BTW) have been puking up for 4 years.

Can anyone bring up the litany of promises and premises the Bush admin foisted on us before the war? 'flowers in the streets', 'only 50k troops', '6 months' and all that... It's apparantly not as bad as noting that all those predicitons were hare-brained idiocy.

The democratic process got us here and the soldiers in the field deserve to be supported as such,

Do you even want to bring up all the things the Bush admin has done for the troops, given the record? Lack of numbers, equipment, a plan, etc?

...not thrown under the bus as part of an illegal scheme.

Illegal scheme? Check the fit on your tin-foil.

When you do that - you provide support for the enemy, and as we see here, it does have an effect.

It does have an effect. Just not nearlyas big as denying the reality that is Iraq does.

Again - the sky is falling. It's necessary for you to maintain your various parallel illusions in order for you to sustain your argument. Bush's war record in Iraq has led to a lower casualty rate than in any other similarly sized conflict we've ever fought.

It's a good thing medical advances and armor effectiveness have gone on since Vietnam, huh?

Put it up against Korea, WWII, Vietnam etc. - look at the tens of thousands killed in a single year - and suddenly your fictional catastrophe melts away. Are things perfect - no. We have made mistakes, as mistakes are made in every war. And we have an enemy who's being sustained by a portion of our own people, who's gaining traction as part of our political process - and so our effectiveness is further limited.

Which enemy are you talking about? There are several in Iraq alone. Al-Qaeda wants us in Iraq because it serves as a great recruiting tool. The insurgents fight us for a large number of reasons, be it fighting a foreign occupier, revenge for allowing their country to turn into a giant cesspool, or just for money (since unemplyment is sky-high). In any case, it's already noted that one of the biggest factors preventing Iraqi security is the lack of trained troops. That was a concern noted before the war and was belittled by war supporters.

If that's what you actually believe (and it wouldn't surprise me in your Bush-centric world), well it would explain your mania. However, I can't help but notice that in a world full of complainers and finger pointers - where have the alternate plans been? If not Bush's way - then what other way? And even if we did try things another way, who's to say it wouldn't have been similarly difficult or even worse?

There have been plenty of plans out there (one example: the one put out by John Murtha, the same one adopted by Jim Baker and his group). They all have one thing in common: they don't have a chance of working while the folks responsible place avoiding their own personal accountability for their errors over getting us out of this mess. And this story shows that Bush now places keeping the bad news in Iraq from causing any further harm to Republican chances in the lelctions over any other consideration.

Your notion of a pre-ordained American victory, of immutable American superiority is quaint and comforting, but it is possible for us to be beaten.

I 'pre-ordained' a victory? :lol: When the hell did that happen? I've been but one of the folks who noted that 'hope is not a plan'. The only ones 'pre-ordaining a victory' were the ones marching around stating how easy it would be to deal with Iraq, then Syria, then Iran, then North Korea,...

You seem to think that in war if you just do things a certain way, connect the dots right, that victory is assured.

No, I'm one of the folks who noted that the way we went to war all but guaranteed failure.

We are not over there trying to accomplish a goal all by ourselves. There is an adaptive, creative, determined, clever and brave enemy who changes as we change. You've simply constructed an alternate reality which you propagate where war is clean and quick, neat and inexpensive - and then you criticize the administration for failing to live up to your construct..as if it's completely up to them (i.e. there is no enemy).

Oh, Lord, that tin-foil hat must have melted with all the steam coming out of your ears. 'war is clean and quick'? Go back to 'greet us with flowers', '6 months', '$50 billion, tops'.

I listen to anti-war arguments every day, and many of them are very good. Rational, reasonable, coherent - but your endless mantra with Bush as the gravitational barycenter of everything wrong with the world is just silly.

Bush the center of everything? No, but he is the one in charge. He is but one who has to be held accountable for this clusterf***. This has been asked before, but it apparantly needs repeating:

If Bush is not in charge, please let us know who is because whoever it is is making the situation worse and people are dying as a result.