Obama's STILL wrong about the war

[BeAChooser]

I'm rambling, but not as much as America in general.

No, under Bush this country hasn't rambled. It's had a sense of purpose. Now if Obama wins, we may return to rambling ... like we did under Carter and Clinton.

 

[quarky]

Iraq wants us out. The American people want us out. I'm not sure what your news services are, but you are quite out of touch.
Not that it matters, but, are you a soldier?
Have you ever been to war?

 

[BeAChooser]

Iraq wants us out. The American people want us out. I'm not sure what your news services are, but you are quite out of touch.

The majority of Iraqis want us out when and only if it's safe to pull them out without endangering all the progress that has been made. That's what the polls in Iraq say. Back in March, for instance, just as things in Iraq were turning the corner, the Iraqis were polled and responded this way when asked how long should US and other Coalition forces remain in Iraq. Thirty-five (35) percent said remain until security is restored, 14% said remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, 10% said remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently, 3% said remain longer but leave eventually and 1% said never leave. That's by far a majority. And that's what most Iraqi leaders also say. Likewise, polls show the majority of Americans don't want a pullout to endanger the progress that has been made in Iraq. They don't want the military to have sacrificed so many lives for nothing. They don't want it to become a sanctionary for al-Qaeda. They don't a civil war to break out if we leave. If you don't know that then you are the one who is "quite out of touch".

 

[D'rok]

No, under Bush this country hasn't rambled. It's had a sense of purpose.

IMO, this comment has great insight and explanatory power. To a certain mindset - one that hates ambiguity, nuance, compromise and shades other than black or white - there is indeed a sense of "purpose" to Bush's America. It began when he picked up that bullhorn on Sept 12 (or thereabouts). It's a comforting place to be for those who need clarity, structure and authority in an otherwise murky, confusing and rudderless world.

I don't think it's a liberal/conservative or left/right issue either - that's mostly a false distinction in my view. I think it boils down to the ability or lack thereof to cope with the raging river of fortuna and the very fact that it sometimes just rages out of control no matter we do.

But it can be a very comforting sense of purpose when an authority figure rallies the troops against that raging torrent - dams are built, sandbags are stacked, streams are diverted and filled in...lots of explosions and fire; lots of sweat; lots of toil and probably lots of blood. Fortuna is cowed, mastered and tamed. Glorious. Ultimately the levies likely just break anyways. At the very least, consequences will be unexpected.

Better management of the river of fortuna requires prudence, not daring (sorry Machiavelli). Maybe houses shouldn't be built on flood plains. Maybe the consequences of damming, diverting, etc should be considered beforehand. Maybe fortuna isn't as chimerical and unpredicatable as it appears to be when the floods come. Maybe what is required is not purpose, but wisdom - the wisdom to recognize nuance; the wisdom to compromise when necessary; the wisdom to manage fortuna instead of trying to war with it and defeat it.

Obama may or may not have it, but he is trying to project this sort of wisdom to the electorate. A wise and prudent America is much better than a purposeful America.

/ramble

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

A strawman is a claim one makes that they know is false so they can knock it down to (bogusly) prove some point. But nothing I said is untrue. Obama did propose we give up in early 2007 and again just before the surge. And he's still saying we need to withdraw in a very tight timetable regardless of what the military and intelligence staff now say we should do ... despite the fact that our military commanders are saying we've turned the corner and the signs are that Iraq is stabilizing. So what I smell is someone trying to defend Obama's very poor decisions because they want Obama to be President regardless of his competency.

Well if that's your position I'd point out that what you're saying is blatantly innaccurate. The Iraqi government has been pushing for a timetable of withdrawal. Government and military officials have been saying that the insurgents and the war in Iraq has been "in its last throes" for sometime now. After being consistently lied to and given utterly poor opinions of the state of Iraq; why exactly are we expected to believe it this time? And why now if the Iraqi government and US military officials are agreeing that timetables for withdrawal is the best move are Obama and those dirty anti-war, anti-American liberals wrong again?

Well, the Iraqi's have a new Constitution that guarantees it's people freedom and they have successfully had several elections.

That really hasn't protected it's women from honor killings has it? And how many of those elections do you reckon were not defended by US troops?

As for prosperity, Iraq's economy is showing every sign of life. Oil production has surpassed the pre-invasion amounts and are growing rapidly. And since Iraq is sitting on what may be the largest oil fields in the world, it would seem likely that prosperity is coming. And it most certainly has been decades since things looked this good.

I'm not arguing whether or not their economy is recovering; I'm arguing on whether or not continued presence in a nation that doesn't want us will do any good.

And they seem to view America in a much more friendly fashion than Saddam's regime.

That's not saying much considering they hanged him. But you'll notice in a link I provided below, providing you read them, that a poll taken in 2006 shows that the Iraqi people view US withdrawal as a positive and necessary thing.

We may even be invited to have a long term presence in their country, both business and militarily.

I'm sure John "We need to stay in Iraq for 100 years" McCain would be delighted by that statement. But as I've said before, the Iraqi government wants US troops out. And their people want us out as well. So we can cross that little delusion off your list.

That too is a big change from the last few decades. Finally, a successful, free, anti-terrorism and prosperous Iraq will most certainly cause big problems for the islamofanatics of the region. Isn't that just obvious?

Or maybe continued US presence in the Middle East will frighten many fence-sittering into the full-blown terrorist side.

Actually, it's premature to dismiss the domino effect.

From http://www.januarymagazine.com/features/triumphexc.htm

I do dismiss it, actually.

And let's not forget the consequences of walking away from victory in Vietnam. You want an example of a domino? http://www.jfednepa.org/mark silverberg/papertiger.html "Al Qaeda and its global Islamic terrorist affiliates came to the conclusion that America's weakness stemmed from a post-Vietnam conviction that required future wars to be short, antiseptic and casualty free."

I'd be willing to call them a load of bs if I've ever seen it. The effects of pulling out of Vietnam were minimal compared to pulling out of Somalia after the Battle of Mogadishu. Of course, no conservative or Republican would be willing to acknowledge that error; mostly because they were the ones who pushed for withdrawal. Of course; there is some evidence that al-Qaeda was involved in the Battle of Mogadishu. Where is your evidence that they were involved in Vietnam?

And it's not just democracy that the US is *selling* in Iraq. It's also a western style legal system, a free market and a free press. They are very powerful ideas. And guess what? Those ideas have taken hold in Iraq ... something the naysayers said couldn't happen because Iraqis weren't *ready* for them. The notion of democracy in other Middle Eastern countries has clearly been spurred by Iraq's success in building democracy there. Just read the news. And when they see the economic success that our market system will bring to Iraq ... is bringing to Iraq ... some may be prompted to try it.

The Baath party also brought about alot of good for Iraq (schools, hospitals, nationalizing the oil fields, modernizing Iraq) but I don't recall the whole of the Middle East laying down their arms and joining with Saddam.

Why even China is becoming a free market society. Didn't you hear?

You're an outright idiot if you think the invasion of Iraq coerced China into becoming a free market.

And your fallacy is thinking poor, uneducated and dictator dominated people "want" to remain that way.As for superiority, the proof is in the historical success of the modern western world relative to nations that haven't enjoyed our system of government, law and economic principles. One would have thought liberals might have learned that lesson by watching what happened to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and numerous other controlled economies and dictatorial regimes over the last 60 years or so. But I guess that's just asking too much.

You're an extremely biased individual. How is it that you came to quantify that all peoples want to be just like the US? Have you ever even been outside of the US?

This is absolutely false and easily provable as such. And you'd know this by now if you'd taken your head out of the sand the last 5 years. The dozen terrorists that were caught in Jordan in a plot that would have killed tens of thousands if successful, publically admitted they were members of al-Qaeda and testified that they were funded by al-Zarqawi, and even met with him IN BAGHDAD BEFORE THE INVASION to plan the operation. al-Zarqawi was clearly al-Qaeda (keep in mind that al-Qaeda is just an association of terrorist organizations). That's why he had camps in Afghanistan at the time of our invasion there. And he went to Iraq after being driven from Afghanistan. And many of his fellow terrorists went there with him. We even captured documents that prove Saddam's regime knew he was there and had released at least one member of his group under orders from Saddam before the invasion ... despite the belief of the arresting Iraqi police that he was guilty of certain crimes.

Thank you for proving my point; there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US started interfering in the Middle East. There are al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia; why haven't we invaded yet? Heck, many of the people involved in 9/11 were Saudi nationals. Why haven't we invaded yet?

Just look at what's happening in Iraq at this very moment. Why look at what has happened in the Kurdish regions of Iraq even before the latest good news. The evidence is there if you'll only take off the liberal, anti-war blinders.

What's happening in Kurdish Iraq? You mean this? The Kurds have always had their own system of government and behaved independantly of Iraq; so why are you trumpeting their actions as a victory?

 

[BeAChooser]

Maybe what is required is not purpose, but wisdom - the wisdom to recognize nuance; the wisdom to compromise when necessary; the wisdom to manage fortuna instead of trying to war with it and defeat it.

So you and Obama are going to rely on fortuna (luck) to handle America's foes? Maybe he should have added that to his ObamaSeal. Right below the Possumus inscription.

Obama may or may not have it, but he is trying to project this sort of wisdom to the electorate. A wise and prudent America is much better than a purposeful America.

Where was Obama's wisdom in January of 2007 when he authored the bill that would have pulled all American troops out of Iraq by March 2008? If it had passed, Iraq would now be in utter chaos.

You know, sometimes good fortune comes to those who seize opportunities. Back in 2003, we had a narrow window of opportunity to deal with Saddam once and for all. Bush took it. Obama criticized him. And now, regardless of anything else, we don't have to worry about Saddam or his sons, or the other criminals in his regime. We don't have to worry about Iraqi WMD or long range missiles. Had Obama been President, we still be facing all those problems ... with al-Qaeda actively attacking us from Iraq in the mix too.

Then in mid 2007, our best military experts said we had an opportunity to defeat the insurgency and al-Qaeda if we surged. Bush took that opportunity. Obama criticized him. And here we are in mid 2008, with the violence down dramatically, the Iraqi government and military finally finally up to and defeating the Iranian backed militias (that once seemed an intractable problem), with al-Qaeda's organization in Iraq in ruins and literally on the ropes, with oil production higher than before the war, and with Iraqis from all sects starting to work effectively together in the government. Yet even now, Obama has indicated that he would begin pulling out immediately under a set timetable even though the top military and intelligence experts say that would be unwise ... because he still doesn't think Iraq is winnable. Does that show wisdom?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Obama did propose we give up in early 2007 and again just before the surge. And he's still saying we need to withdraw in a very tight timetable regardless of what the military and intelligence staff now say we should do ... despite the fact that our military commanders are saying we've turned the corner and the signs are that Iraq is stabilizing. ... snip ...

Well if that's your position I'd point out that what you're saying is blatantly innaccurate. The Iraqi government has been pushing for a timetable of withdrawal.

That's not what that July 7, 2008 article you linked says.

It says "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington. It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq."

Now al-Maliki is a supremely able politician ... someone who is really good walking a tight rope. He has to be because he's trying to keep a coalition of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds together. Not to mention dealing with those who freed his country from Saddam. Can't you see the political postering going on here by him? This is a negotiating tactic. Of course the Iraqis want us out. But the fact is that polls of the Iraq people show a clear majority do not want us to withdraw until the security situation is settled. Likewise, neither do most Iraqi politicians. And I suspect you'd find that a clear majority of Iraqis would prefer McCain as the next President over Obama. That should perhaps tell you something.

Government and military officials have been saying that the insurgents and the war in Iraq has been "in its last throes" for sometime now.

Again, you link a web page from 2006 that does not say what you indicated it said. The title of the article (which is not from the most reputable source, by the way) is "Cheney Repeats Baseless Claim That Insurgents Are Timing Attacks to Influence U.S. Elections". It doesn't say anything about insurgents and the war being "in its last throes for sometime now."

After being consistently lied to and given utterly poor opinions of the state of Iraq; why exactly are we expected to believe it this time?

Well nothing stops you from being foolish. Afterall, most of the liberals in the anti-war community had no problem with Bill Clinton lying to them year after year. And I find it surprising that they call our military leaders (like General Petraeus) liars and yet still claim to support the military.

And why now if the Iraqi government and US military officials are agreeing that timetables for withdrawal is the best move

Sorry, but your linked sources don't support that claim either. The administration and US military officials continue to be against set timetables for withdrawal. And no agreement has been made with the Iraqi government for what is the "best move" either.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well, the Iraqi's have a new Constitution that guarantees it's people freedom and they have successfully had several elections.

That really hasn't protected it's women from honor killings has it? And how many of those elections do you reckon were not defended by US troops?

Are you really trying to claim that conditions were better for Iraqi women and children under Saddam than now? That they had more freedom and better lives? Keep in mind that the UN was saying pre-war that children were dying at the rate of thousands a month from lack of food, medicine, water, etc.

At least this constitution guarantees women a role in the government and certain basic freedoms. Change in culture (you Obama supporters like that word, right?) may not take place over night but change can at least come with this Constitution and the protection it offers. Keep in mind that it has been those trying to destabilize Iraq who have been responsible for most of the harm coming to women. As those forces dissipate, things will improve.

And what about men? Do you think there's more freedom now than before for them? I hate to tell you this, but recent Iraqi polls show overwhelmingly that the Iraqi people are glad Saddam's regime is gone and they feel, in general, very hopeful about their country's prospects. And many of them are grateful for America sending it's finest to make that possible. Yet, a little more than a year ago, Obama offered a bill that would have thrown all of that away. We'd now have all American soldiers out of Iraq and Iraq would be in utter chaos.

I'm not arguing whether or not their economy is recovering; I'm arguing on whether or not continued presence in a nation that doesn't want us will do any good.

Again, you are misrepresenting what the Iraqi people want. In polls, a clear majority only want us to leave when their country can stand on it's own against those who want to destabilize it. And most of those who want us to leave immediately are in the group(s) that had their thumb on everyone else under Saddam or who owe allegiance to destabilizing forces like Iran. And the fact that the economy is recovering is just another sign that we have indeed turned the corner and those destabilizing forces can be defeated.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And they seem to view America in a much more friendly fashion than Saddam's regime.

That's not saying much considering they hanged him.

Cute.

But you'll notice in a link I provided below, providing you read them, that a poll taken in 2006 shows that the Iraqi people view US withdrawal as a positive and necessary thing.

Sure, but as I'll show later, they want withdrawal ONLY when the security situation allows it ... not under a set timetable that won't be altered regardless of the situation (like Obama proposed in early 2007).

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
We may even be invited to have a long term presence in their country, both business and militarily.

I'm sure John "We need to stay in Iraq for 100 years" McCain would be delighted by that statement.

Oh another great source of information.

What's wrong with our having a presence? It's been helpful to countries like Japan and Germany for over half a century. Why should it be any less helpful to Iraq in these troubled times given they are surrounded by so many potential enemies.

But as I've said before, the Iraqi government wants US troops out.

Well at least this link sort of says what you claim. Now if you go to the Yahoo link to the AP article in what you linked, you see this:

But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

That is quite different than what Obama proposed in 2007 and is still proposing.

And notice this:

With the latest moves, Iraq's government appeared to be trying to blunt opposition in parliament to any deal.

In fact, I'll bet you that once the agreement is hammered out, Iraq will still allow US forces to remain in their country for an indefinite period.

And their people want us out as well.

No one has argued otherwise. But there are several problems with what you linked. First of all, you linked a poll from 2006. Things are quite different now, as I'll show below. Second, that poll was dominated by Sunnis, who I might remind you were the prime supporters of Saddam's regime. At the time, the Sunnis were not working with the government but against it. Things have changed dramatically since then. Good thing we stuck around.

Now in post #83 I listed results from a newer poll (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=4444000&page=1 and http:// www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2008/0308opinion.pdf ) conducted for ABC News, the BBC, ARD and NHK by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul, Turkey in February of THIS year and reported in March ... just as conditions were starting to improveas a direct result of the surge that Obama opposed. Iraqis "were asked how long should US and other Coalition forces remain in Iraq." Thirty-five (35) percent said remain until security is restored, 14% said remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, 10% said remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently, 3% said remain longer but leave eventually and 1% said never leave. That's by far a majority who want us not to leave until Iraq can stand on its own against the militias, terrorists and other threats.

And as I noted in the earlier post, polls also show the majority of Americans don't want a pullout to endanger the progress that has been made in Iraq. They don't want the military to have sacrificed so many lives for nothing. They don't want Iraq to become a sanctionary for al-Qaeda or see a civil war to break out as a result of our leaving.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That too is a big change from the last few decades. Finally, a successful, free, anti-terrorism and prosperous Iraq will most certainly cause big problems for the islamofanatics of the region. Isn't that just obvious?

Or maybe continued US presence in the Middle East will frighten many fence-sittering into the full-blown terrorist side.

Oh ... so now you want us to get out of the Middle East entirely? Are you going to be happy with Obama, because even he hasn't gone so far as to suggest THAT.

I do dismiss it, actually.

So be it. But at least I supplied a link to my reasons why I don't dismiss the domino effect.

The effects of pulling out of Vietnam were minimal compared to pulling out of Somalia after the Battle of Mogadishu.

You really believe that? Vietnam divided and traumatized America for decades and influenced our foreign policy and military in numerous detrimental ways. How many people even remember Somalia and what happened there? You claim the consequences are severe, so why don't you spell them out for us and show everyone how they are affecting America.

Of course, no conservative or Republican would be willing to acknowledge that error; mostly because they were the ones who pushed for withdrawal.

Another fine unbiased source. And maybe you should try to understand why we withdrew in that case.

Of course; there is some evidence that al-Qaeda was involved in the Battle of Mogadishu.

Isn't hindsight wonderful? And so unproductive.

Where is your evidence that they were involved in Vietnam?

Sorry, but I'm really not following your train of thought. What makes you think I ever suggested al-Qaeda was involved in Vietnam?

The Baath party also brought about a lot of good for Iraq (schools, hospitals, nationalizing the oil fields, modernizing Iraq) but I don't recall the whole of the Middle East laying down their arms and joining with Saddam.

Perhaps because Saddam never tried to bring all those things to everyone in his country (as we are now trying to do). He seems to have left the Kurds and Shiites out of his largess.

You're an outright idiot if you think the invasion of Iraq coerced China into becoming a free market.

Do you have trouble reading? I never suggested any such thing. I was merely demonstrating the power of the free market idea.

You're an extremely biased individual.

An opinion from someone whose sources are almost exclusively extremely liberally biased blogs or *news* media? ROTFLOL!

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And your fallacy is thinking poor, uneducated and dictator dominated people "want" to remain that way. ... snip ...

How is it that you came to quantify that all peoples want to be just like the US?

Again, do you have a reading problem? I never suggested any such thing. Iraq isn't going to be "exactly" like the US. But do you honestly think people don't aspire to have more wealth, better education, and greater freedom?

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn
I hate to burst the red state bubble you've formed around yourself to block out reality but there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
This is absolutely false and easily provable as such. And you'd know this by now if you'd taken your head out of the sand the last 5 years. The dozen terrorists that were caught in Jordan in a plot that would have killed tens of thousands if successful, publically admitted they were members of al-Qaeda and testified that they were funded by al-Zarqawi, and even met with him IN BAGHDAD BEFORE THE INVASION to plan the operation. al-Zarqawi was clearly al-Qaeda (keep in mind that al-Qaeda is just an association of terrorist organizations). That's why he had camps in Afghanistan at the time of our invasion there. And he went to Iraq after being driven from Afghanistan. And many of his fellow terrorists went there with him. We even captured documents that prove Saddam's regime knew he was there and had released at least one member of his group under orders from Saddam before the invasion ... despite the belief of the arresting Iraqi police that he was guilty of certain crimes.

Thank you for proving my point; there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US started interfering in the Middle East.

So now it's not our invasion of Iraq that's the problem but our presence in the Middle East as a whole? Are you asking Obama to pull our military out of all Middle East locations? And our diplomats? And our business interests (since Osama bin Laden specifically mentioned them as a problem)? Will you set a timetable for all that?

There are al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia; why haven't we invaded yet?

Yes, there are, and Saudi Arabia has been very good about cracking down on them. In fact, I suspect you liberals should complain about how brutal the Saudis treated suspected al-Qaeda ... far more brutal than at Gitmo.

But your under a false impression. We didn't invade Iraq just because it had al-Qaeda within it's borders. We invaded because Iraq violated agreements related to WMD and delivery systems, AND because it refused to cooperate in suppressing the terrorists inside its borders. We invaded Iraq because its government was openly supporting terrorists. There's no evidence that the Saudi GOVERNMENT was doing that. Or do you have some?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Just look at what's happening in Iraq at this very moment. Why look at what has happened in the Kurdish regions of Iraq even before the latest good news. The evidence is there if you'll only take off the liberal, anti-war blinders.

What's happening in Kurdish Iraq? You mean this?

No, this: http://www.theotheriraq.com/

You really have a thing about honor killings, don't you?

Tell me, are you a one issue voter too?

 

[D'rok]

So you and Obama are going to rely on fortuna (luck) to handle America's foes? Maybe he should have added that to his ObamaSeal. Right below the Possumus inscription.

I didn't really expect you to understand my post or the terminology. That's OK. Here's a crash course on the Machiavellian usage of the term fortuna if you're interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#3

You know, sometimes good fortune comes to those who seize opportunities.

Machiavelli agrees with you. In fact, bitch-smacking fortuna is the best way to go for old Niccolo. You should read The Prince. You'd love it. (Stay away from The Discourses though - that's the how-to-manual for Republics - you'll be much more comfortable reading the how-to-manual for Tyrants)

 

[BeAChooser]

I didn't really expect you to understand my post or the terminology. That's OK. Here's a crash course on the Machiavellian usage of the term fortuna if you're interested:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#3

Oh my, that puts a whole new take on the topic.

From your link:

Machiavelli's fortune is a malevolent and uncompromising fount of human misery, affliction, and disaster. While human Fortuna may be responsible for such success as human beings achieve, no man can act effectively when directly opposed by the goddess (Machiavelli 1965, 407-408).

Democrats always do have a glass half empty way of looking at things ... so perhaps the Machiavellian word "fortuna" is appropriate underneath Obamaseal's Possumus inscription.

That viewpoint almost suggests we shouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Because no good can come of it.

Fortuna may be resisted by human beings, but only in those circumstances where “virtù and wisdom” have already prepared for her inevitable arrival.

Somehow I doubt Obama has any better lock on doing this than anyone else.

The wanton behavior of Fortuna demands an aggressive, even violent response, lest she take advantage of those men who are too retiring or “effeminate” to dominate her.

Now I wonder how Machiavelli would have categorized Bush's approach to the problem of Saddam compared to ... say ... Obama's?

And here's a question for you. How does Obama's obvious love with "change" fit into Machiavelli's views? I don't know the answer ... just curious.

(Stay away from The Discourses though - that's the how-to-manual for Republics - you'll be much more comfortable reading the how-to-manual for Tyrants)

Now that was down right ... Machiavellian.

 

[D'rok]

Oh my, that puts a whole new take on the topic.

From your link:



Democrats always do have a glass half empty way of looking at things ... so perhaps the Machiavellian word "fortuna" is appropriate underneath Obamaseal's Possumus inscription.

That viewpoint almost suggests we shouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Because no good can come of it.

Ah, but being directly opposed by the goddess is not the usual state of affairs. In the normal course of things, she can be managed with a softer touch than Machiavelli allows.

Somehow I doubt Obama has any better lock on doing this than anyone else.

Could be.

Now I wonder how Machiavelli would have categorized Bush's approach to the problem of Saddam compared to ... say ... Obama's?

That's a great question. Machiavelli was a practical fellow. He would not object to Bush Tyrannus, therefore he would probably categorize Bush's approach to the problem of Saddam as virtù (skill) in action. In other words, Bush manhandled fortuna like you should* a willful woman.

But Obama wants to be the President of a Republic in the usual non-tyrannical sense, therefore the advice in The Prince doesn't apply. The advice in The Discourses does, and Machiavelli would likely consider Obama's approach as republican virtù in action.

And here's a question for you. How does Obama's obvious love with "change" fit into Machiavelli's views? I don't know the answer ... just curious.

Quite well, I would think. Machiavelli noted that appearance is more important than reality in politics, and that the appearance of virtue (morality) is more important the reality of virtue. Obama's love of change is not so obvious; it's a campaign slogan as much as anything. But as long as he appears to be virtous in his desire for change, he's actually displaying Machiavellian virtù (skill).

Now that was down right ... Machiavellian.

*Machiavelli, not me!

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

That's not what that July 7, 2008 article you linked says.

It says "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington. It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq."

Now al-Maliki is a supremely able politician ... someone who is really good walking a tight rope. He has to be because he's trying to keep a coalition of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds together. Not to mention dealing with those who freed his country from Saddam. Can't you see the political postering going on here by him? This is a negotiating tactic. Of course the Iraqis want us out. But the fact is that polls of the Iraq people show a clear majority do not want us to withdraw until the security situation is settled. Likewise, neither do most Iraqi politicians. And I suspect you'd find that a clear majority of Iraqis would prefer McCain as the next President over Obama. That should perhaps tell you something.

You suspect the majority fo Iraqis would prefer McCain to Obama? Do you have any sources to support that claim or are you simply making a half-arsed bare assertion? Well if you refuse to believe that the Iraqis actually want the US out of their perfect democratic paradise maybe you should read this news article as well. Of course I suspect that you'll simply state that the article comes from a Chinese source and therefore cannot be trusted because they aren't true-blue Bush supporting Americans.

I'm curious chooser; why exactly do you think a sovereign nation should have to negotiate with its foreign liberators to get them off their own land?

Again, you link a web page from 2006 that does not say what you indicated it said. The title of the article (which is not from the most reputable source, by the way) is "Cheney Repeats Baseless Claim That Insurgents Are Timing Attacks to Influence U.S. Elections". It doesn't say anything about insurgents and the war being "in its last throes for sometime now."

Hmm; I must have screwed up and grabbed the wrong link then; read this one instead.

Well nothing stops you from being foolish. Afterall, most of the liberals in the anti-war community had no problem with Bill Clinton lying to them year after year. And I find it surprising that they call our military leaders (like General Petraeus) liars and yet still claim to support the military.

Which lie exactly are you talking about?

At the risk of invoking certain laws; what exactly do you consider military support? Goose-stepping our way into hell? I'm actually quite serious, what do you consider support? I don't think a rational individual would say supporting someone automatically absolves them of all criticism.

Sorry, but your linked sources don't support that claim either. The administration and US military officials continue to be against set timetables for withdrawal. And no agreement has been made with the Iraqi government for what is the "best move" either.

And if the Iraqi government did vote by two-thirds to withdraw would you support withdrawal?

Are you really trying to claim that conditions were better for Iraqi women and children under Saddam than now?

I didn't claim anything; merely pointed out that Iraq isn't the democratic land of milk and honey its being made out to be.

That they had more freedom and better lives?

Not claiming that either.

Keep in mind that the UN was saying pre-war that children were dying at the rate of thousands a month from lack of food, medicine, water, etc.

Where did I say they didn't? I'm pointing out a fact here; the Iraqis don't have freedom if their treating entire portions of their population as second class citizens.

At least this constitution guarantees women a role in the government and certain basic freedoms.

Blacks were guaranteed a role in the government and certain basic freedoms for years before they were enforced. What's your point here?

Change in culture (you Obama supporters like that word, right?) may not take place over night but change can at least come with this Constitution and the protection it offers.

What chance in culture? I wasn't aware culture was a freakin' constitutional issue! What protection? The constitution isn't offering any protection! The guns of US soldiers are doing that and they can't do that forever. I'd like to ask you McCain supporters exactly at one point in time during the projected one-hundred year stay that McCain is proposing should we start reffering to Iraq as a territory of the United States.

Keep in mind that it has been those trying to destabilize Iraq who have been responsible for most of the harm coming to women. As those forces dissipate, things will improve.

I recall one particularly brutal case in which an Iraqi man and his sons beat to death his teenage daughter for speaking to a British soldier. He was arrested, congratulated by the police, then set free. I believe PZ Myers talked about the case; I'll link you when I find a source.

And what about men?

What about them?

Do you think there's more freedom now than before for them?

Probablly; but the freedoms of men compared to women in the Middle East hasn't been too much of an issue.

I hate to tell you this, but recent Iraqi polls show overwhelmingly that the Iraqi people are glad Saddam's regime is gone and they feel, in general, very hopeful about their country's prospects.

I don't doubt that.

And many of them are grateful for America sending it's finest to make that possible.

Source?

Yet, a little more than a year ago, Obama offered a bill that would have thrown all of that away. We'd now have all American soldiers out of Iraq and Iraq would be in utter chaos.

My understanding is that Obama has been calling for a phased withdrawal. His exact words on the subject I believe were "We must remove troops from Iraq as carefully as they were carelessly put in". So why is it that any mentions of withdrawing from Iraq are instantly demonized along the lines of images of evacuating troops from the top of an embassy?

Again, you are misrepresenting what the Iraqi people want. In polls, a clear majority only want us to leave when their country can stand on it's own against those who want to destabilize it. And most of those who want us to leave immediately are in the group(s) that had their thumb on everyone else under Saddam or who owe allegiance to destabilizing forces like Iran.

Then please link me to the polls that show what the Iraqi people want.

I'm not certain that it matters if the US is there are not. Iranian backed Shi'a militias may be coming across regardless of when we leave.

And the fact that the economy is recovering is just another sign that we have indeed turned the corner and those destabilizing forces can be defeated.

Explain that statement.

Cute.

I thought so too.

What's wrong with our having a presence? It's been helpful to countries like Japan and Germany for over half a century. Why should it be any less helpful to Iraq in these troubled times given they are surrounded by so many potential enemies.

What's wrong with it? We're wasting money and manpower keeping troops in nations that live in relatively peaceful areas and are capable of defending themselves. So you agree with McCain then? Keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years is a'ok?

That's sort of the problem with Iraq; we've invested money and manpower in a nation that didn't need it while we slowly started losing ground in Afghanistan.

That is quite different than what Obama proposed in 2007 and is still proposing.

What is it that you think Obama is proposing? Just pick up and run off without giving the Iraqi government so much as a two-weeks notice? Ok, show me a source that this is what he's proposing.

In fact, I'll bet you that once the agreement is hammered out, Iraq will still allow US forces to remain in their country for an indefinite period.

I don't doubt it, but a deadline using benchmarks needs to be written out so we can determine what can be counted as progress and what cannot. Eventually troops need to be withdrawn entirely, anything else is simply a waste.

No one has argued otherwise. But there are several problems with what you linked. First of all, you linked a poll from 2006. Things are quite different now, as I'll show below.

I'm willing to concede that point.

Second, that poll was dominated by Sunnis, who I might remind you were the prime supporters of Saddam's regime. At the time, the Sunnis were not working with the government but against it. Things have changed dramatically since then. Good thing we stuck around.

So suddenly now Sunnis have become the minority? If you show one poll that measures the opinion of the entire Iraqi population it will undoubtedly be dominated by Sunnis. Pretty much any Islamic nation that is not Iran is dominated by Sunnis. I'm not entirely convinced that the Sunni population is not simply sitting back and licking its wounds. It'd be great if that wasn't the case but I'm not convinced. I'm not a fan of majority only rights but I don't want an Ethno-Religious Apartheid either.

Now in post #83 I listed results from a newer poll (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=4444000&page=1 and http:// www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2008/0308opinion.pdf ) conducted for ABC News, the BBC, ARD and NHK by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul, Turkey in February of THIS year and reported in March ... just as conditions were starting to improveas a direct result of the surge that Obama opposed. Iraqis "were asked how long should US and other Coalition forces remain in Iraq." Thirty-five (35) percent said remain until security is restored, 14% said remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, 10% said remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently, 3% said remain longer but leave eventually and 1% said never leave. That's by far a majority who want us not to leave until Iraq can stand on its own against the militias, terrorists and other threats.

Well that's fantastic news then; now what qualifies as able to stand on its own two-feet? As I said above, if the Iraqi government votes 2-3 to withdraw US troops from Iraq do you think we should withdraw those troops?

And as I noted in the earlier post, polls also show the majority of Americans don't want a pullout to endanger the progress that has been made in Iraq. They don't want the military to have sacrificed so many lives for nothing. They don't want Iraq to become a sanctionary for al-Qaeda or see a civil war to break out as a result of our leaving.

I don't disagree with them; I don't think it's irrational to want to withdraw at the best moment not a moment beforehand and not a moment after we're no longer needed. Nor I do I think it's irrational to want to maximize the benefits and minimize the pains of withdrawal.

Oh ... so now you want us to get out of the Middle East entirely? Are you going to be happy with Obama, because even he hasn't gone so far as to suggest THAT.

Where did I suggest total withdrawal? The US needs to support Israel and needs to finish the job in Afghanistan at the very least.

You really believe that? Vietnam divided and traumatized America for decades and influenced our foreign policy and military in numerous detrimental ways. How many people even remember Somalia and what happened there? You claim the consequences are severe, so why don't you spell them out for us and show everyone how they are affecting America.

Sort of like, I don't know...Iraq? Perhaps not as long and not as horrific but it has done just that in a limited scope.

I do seem to recall that bin Laden took partial credit for the way the Battle of Mogadishu turned out, and that he reffered to the US as a "paper tiger". So I would argue that as far as "emboldening" terrorists went I certainly think that bin Laden and his ilk are thinking "Mogadishu" and not "Tet Offensive".

Another fine unbiased source. And maybe you should try to understand why we withdrew in that case.

Then please explain.

Sorry, but I'm really not following your train of thought. What makes you think I ever suggested al-Qaeda was involved in Vietnam?

Sarcasm; look up the definitions.

Perhaps because Saddam never tried to bring all those things to everyone in his country (as we are now trying to do). He seems to have left the Kurds and Shiites out of his largess.

I don't think the larger part of the Middle East has given too much of a damn about the Kurds and the Shiites.

Do you have trouble reading? I never suggested any such thing. I was merely demonstrating the power of the free market idea.

An opinion from someone whose sources are almost exclusively extremely liberally biased blogs or *news* media? ROTFLOL!

The sources I've linked to are just a demonstration of what I stated regarding to statements made by Cheney and McCain were factually accurate. If you want me to spend time trolling through World Nut Daily to find quotes about how the Iraqi insurgents were defeated entirely in 2006 and why staying in Iraq for 100 years is a good idea just to win BeAChooser's "most politically moderate JREF poster of '08" award then you're out of luck.

Again, do you have a reading problem? I never suggested any such thing. Iraq isn't going to be "exactly" like the US. But do you honestly think people don't aspire to have more wealth, better education, and greater freedom?

I'd say people mostly care about being safe. That's why governments tend to go to hell, as a general thing. So no, I don't think that all people aspire to have more wealth, better education, and great freedom necessarily. They may do it, but only after they feel safe. It's perfectly natural to want to feel warm in the first of a Caesar.

So now it's not our invasion of Iraq that's the problem but our presence in the Middle East as a whole? Are you asking Obama to pull our military out of all Middle East locations? And our diplomats? And our business interests (since Osama bin Laden specifically mentioned them as a problem)? Will you set a timetable for all that?

In a word? No.

Yes, there are, and Saudi Arabia has been very good about cracking down on them. In fact, I suspect you liberals should complain about how brutal the Saudis treated suspected al-Qaeda ... far more brutal than at Gitmo.

I'd complain about any human rights violations; being the bleeding-heart liberal that I am.

But your under a false impression. We didn't invade Iraq just because it had al-Qaeda within it's borders. We invaded because Iraq violated agreements related to WMD and delivery systems, AND because it refused to cooperate in suppressing the terrorists inside its borders. We invaded Iraq because its government was openly supporting terrorists.

So are alot of governments; we haven't invaded them yet. And as it turns out there were no WMDs.

No, this: http://www.theotheriraq.com/

That's nothing new.

You really have a thing about honor killings, don't you?

I find them particularly disgusting. Why? Don't you?

Tell me, are you a one issue voter too?

No.

 

[quarky]

Sigh. I'm losing my love of argument. I think that the war is wrong. Obama, if he's wrong about the war, is wrong about wrongness...and that's too confusing. Also, he's moderating his earlier statements; flip-flopping, even.

crap. I may have to vote for Ralph.

 

[BeAChooser]

You suspect the majority fo Iraqis would prefer McCain to Obama? Do you have any sources to support that claim or are you simply making a half-arsed bare assertion?

See the link here: http://www.macpac08.com/2008/06/bret-stevens-at-wall-street-journal.html. From it:

"June 17, 2008
Iraqi Leaders Prefer John McCain!

Bret Stevens at the Wall Street Journal discusses some conversations he had with four Iraqi leaders, both Sunni and Shi'a, on whom they prefer for President of the United States. The results are clear -- they believe John McCain is the best President to bring our efforts in Iraq to a successful conclusion."

At the Wall Street Journal link in that you will find this by Bret Stevens of the Wall Street Journal:

Constraints of time and money being what they are, I have not gotten round to phoning 1,000 Iraqis to get their views on Obama-McCain. But I did sit down last week with four key provincial Iraqi leaders, Sunnis and Shiites, who -- without actually endorsing Mr. McCain -- made their views abundantly clear.

"The Iraqis are really fearful about some of the positions the Democratic Party has adopted," says Sheik Ahmed Abu Rishah. "If the Democrats win, they will be withdrawing their forces in a very rapid manner."

Mamoun Sami Rashid al-Awani, the governor of Anbar province, agrees. "We have over a million casualties, thousands of houses destroyed," he says. "Are we going to tell [Iraqis] that the game is over? That the Americans are pulling out?"

... snip ...

A sense of incredulity hangs over the way Iraqis see the U.S. political debate taking shape. The governor tells a moving story about their visit to Walter Reed hospital, where they were surprised to find smiles on the faces of GIs who had lost limbs. "The smile is because they feel they have accomplished something for the American people."

But the Iraqis came away with a different impression in Chicago, where they had hoped to meet with Mr. Obama but ended up talking to a staff aide. "We noticed there was a concentration on the negatives," the governor recalls. "The Democrat kept saying that Americans have committed a lot of mistakes. Yes, that's true, but why don't you concentrate on what the Americans have achieved in Iraq?"

... snip ...

The administration and the Iraqi government are now wrangling over a status-of-forces agreement -- evidence that Iraq has reached a point where it can once again act like a sovereign nation. But the Iraqis leave no doubt that they want a deal, not least "so Iraq would be able to protect U.S. interests in the region," as Sheik Abu Rishah puts it.

So yes, I believe the majority of Iraqis would prefer McCain as President. And so would the majority of those in our military. Curious that.

I'm curious chooser; why exactly do you think a sovereign nation should have to negotiate with its foreign liberators to get them off their own land?

Maybe it has something to do with the costs of liberation? Actually, Iraqis are getting a bargain. We pretty much wrote the Japanese Constitution ... and we are still there after 60 years.

Hmm; I must have screwed up and grabbed the wrong link then; read this one instead.

Ok, this one does have Cheney saying (in 2005) that he thinks the war is in its last throes. The source it links (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/ ) has this statement:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office. ... snip ... Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Well I don't know if you noticed, but recently CNN reported that violence in Iraq is at its lowest level since 2004. Aren't we lucky that Cheney advised we tough it out ... just like McCain. In contrast with Obama.

BeAChooser wrote - And I find it surprising that they call our military leaders (like General Petraeus) liars and yet still claim to support the military.

Which lie exactly are you talking about?

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/04/25/reid-calls-general-petraeus-a.php "Watch the video of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaiming Iraq a lost cause, and directly calling General Petraeus a liar for saying progress is being made"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV4DIURvbwY

http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-spars-with-petraeus-on-credibility/62426/ "Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief."

So yes, democrats are calling our military leaders liars. And Petraeus has clearly been proven right about progress so he wasn't a liar.

And if the Iraqi government did vote by two-thirds to withdraw would you support withdrawal?

Of course. Have they?

I didn't claim anything; merely pointed out that Iraq isn't the democratic land of milk and honey its being made out to be.

Tell you what ... let's talk about women's rights under Saddam.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

Until the 1990s, Iraqi women played an active role in the political and economic development of Iraq. A robust civil society had existed prior to the coup d'etat in 1968, including a number of women's organizations.3 The Ba'ath Party dismantled most of these civil society groups after its seizure of power. Shortly thereafter it established the General Federation of Iraqi Women (GFIW) ... snip ... some Iraqi women have argued that as a political arm of the Ba'ath party, the GFIW was destructive to women's issues in Iraq and "did not reflect or represent the struggle of millions of oppressed Iraqi women."

... snip ...

In the years following the 1991 Gulf War, many of the positive steps that had been taken to advance women's and girls' status in Iraqi society were reversed due to a combination of legal, economic, and political factors.22 The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein's decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power. ... snip ... According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as a result of the national literacy campaign, as of 1987 approximately 75 percent of Iraqi women were literate; however, by year-end 2000, Iraq had the lowest regional adult literacy levels, with the percentage of literate women at less than 25 percent.25

Women and girls have also suffered from increasing restrictions on their freedom of mobility and protections under the law.26 In collusion with conservative religious groups and tribal leaders, the government issued numerous decrees and introduced legislation negatively impacting women's legal status in the labor code, criminal justice system, and personal status laws.27 In 2001, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Violence against Women reported that since the passage of the reforms in 1991, an estimated 4,000 women and girls had been victims of "honor killings."

Looks like things may have improved since the invasion.

Where did I say they didn't? I'm pointing out a fact here; the Iraqis don't have freedom if their treating entire portions of their population as second class citizens.

Oh is this another one of those arguments from the left that we shouldn't have made any changes in Iraq if we couldn't get all the way to the desired goal (a land of milk and honey) in one step? The truth is that the lot of women in Iraq has been improved measurably by the invasion. Just give it time. More change will come. But changes like this aren't going to happen overnight and it's pie in the sky liberalism to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
At least this constitution guarantees women a role in the government and certain basic freedoms.

Blacks were guaranteed a role in the government and certain basic freedoms for years before they were enforced. What's your point here?

I think I just made it.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Change in culture (you Obama supporters like that word, right?) may not take place over night but change can at least come with this Constitution and the protection it offers.

What chance in culture?

Sheesh! Are we speaking the same language?

The constitution isn't offering any protection! The guns of US soldiers are doing that and they can't do that forever.

This is untrue. It's a complete mischaracterization of the situation in Iraq. Iraqis are stepping up to the plate now. It's their guns that are going into areas like Sadr City. Of course since Obama won't go to Iraq maybe there is a reason why his supporters are so clueless about this.

I'd like to ask you McCain supporters exactly at one point in time during the projected one-hundred year stay that McCain is proposing should we start reffering to Iraq as a territory of the United States.

Do we refer to Japan or Germany as US territory?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Keep in mind that it has been those trying to destabilize Iraq who have been responsible for most of the harm coming to women. As those forces dissipate, things will improve.

I recall one particularly brutal case in which an Iraqi man and his sons beat to death his teenage daughter for speaking to a British soldier. He was arrested, congratulated by the police, then set free. I believe PZ Myers talked about the case; I'll link you when I find a source.

Notice I said MOST of the harm? I'm sure you may be able to find exceptions. There are rotten eggs in every basket. But you go ahead and find your source and we'll see what it actually says.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And what about men?

What about them?

Sheesh! Are we speaking the same language?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Do you think there's more freedom now than before for them?

Probablly

Probably? Are you serious? If you can't even acknowledge something as obviously true as this, what's the point of debating you?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And many of them are grateful for America sending it's finest to make that possible.

Source?

How about your favorite source?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/iraqis-thanking-america/

And some others:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39202

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133279,00.html

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2006/081906.asp

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/02/iraqi_mayor_thanks_american_tr.html

And I'll end with this one:

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/03/iraqi-governmen.html

ASHINGTON, D.C. - On Thursday, March 6, 2008, at 4pm Iraqi Military Attaché Staff Brigadier General Ismael Alsodani will present a plaque to Mr. Dan Carlson on behalf of Defense Minister Abdul al Qadir al Mufriji. Mr. Carlson is the brother of SGT. Michael Curtis Carlson, a U.S. Army engineer that was killed in action in Iraq on January 24, 2005. Mr. Dan Carlson will accept the plaque on behalf of America’s Iraq Fallen and their families.

A Sergeant with the Army’s 82nd Engineers, SGT. Carlson’s platoon was ordered to demobilize two bomb-making factories. Along with four comrades, he sacrificed his life for his country and freedom during that mission in January of 2005.

“As Iraqis, we are eternally grateful to America’s fighting sons and daughters for restoring to us the dignity of a free people. America’s fallen heroes, such as U.S. Army Sergeant Michael Curtis Carlson, along with their fallen Iraqi comrades, may have been robbed of their future, but in laying down their lives they have handed us ours,” said Minister al Mufriji. “We shall remember them, their names forever inked in the history books of the new and democratic Iraq.”

Notice that one was from April of this year.

So why is it that any mentions of withdrawing from Iraq are instantly demonized along the lines of images of evacuating troops from the top of an embassy?

First, because Obama, showing poor judgement, tried to remove them on a strict timeline with no consideration for current conditions. He authored a bill early 2007 that would have forced ALL American soldiers out of Iraq by March 2008. Which would have resulted in disaster. Second, even after the surge was clearly working, he still advocated an immediate and quick withdrawal (because he insisted the surge wasn't really working) and when asked if he'd listen to the advice from our generals said he would withdraw our forces at the rate he's been recommending REGARDLESS of what they told him. Look it up.

Then please link me to the polls that show what the Iraqi people want.

I did link you to one in March of this year (post #87). Pay attention.

I'm not certain that it matters if the US is there are not. Iranian backed Shi'a militias may be coming across regardless of when we leave.

Oh ... you mean the Iranians that Obama is going to sit down and chat with?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And the fact that the economy is recovering is just another sign that we have indeed turned the corner and those destabilizing forces can be defeated.

Explain that statement.

Sheesh! Are we speaking the same language? If attacks on oil and other economic installations are down and people feel safe enough to go out and shop, isn't that a sign that destabilizing forces are losing their grip on the country?

So you agree with McCain then? Keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years is a'ok?

Do you think he was serious? Did you actually listen to the whole exchange where he said that? Here's his complete statement:

"Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea. We been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me."

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. I'm surprised you do. What is happening is that democrats are taking an offhand remark out of context. Just like they are doing with the Graham statement about whining.

That's sort of the problem with Iraq; we've invested money and manpower in a nation that didn't need it while we slowly started losing ground in Afghanistan.

You don't think Iraq needed help? Really?

What is it that you think Obama is proposing? Just pick up and run off without giving the Iraqi government so much as a two-weeks notice?

Well, that's pretty much what he proposed in early 2007 and then later on in 2007 when the surge was introduced. It's only been very recently that he's begun to back away from that.

Ok, show me a source that this is what he's proposing.

Nah. Why don't you provide a source that show EXACTLY what he's proposing. Let's see if you can pin him down on anything.

I don't doubt it, but a deadline using benchmarks needs to be written out so we can determine what can be counted as progress and what cannot.

Oh, you mean like the last time democrats insisted on benchmarks and then no matter how well they were met insisted there was no progress and no way to progress (See the comments by Reid, Clinton and Obama after the surge).

Eventually troops need to be withdrawn entirely, anything else is simply a waste.

What if there's a strategic reason to maintain some troops in Iraq ... say to fight terrorists or counter Iran? By the way, are you not aware that Obama has backed down and now says troops will be there for years to come?

So suddenly now Sunnis have become the minority?

As a matter of fact. YES. Under Saddam they weren't. They dominated the government and the distribution of wealth. Which is why the Shiite and Kurd populations were in such dire straights.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Oh ... so now you want us to get out of the Middle East entirely? Are you going to be happy with Obama, because even he hasn't gone so far as to suggest THAT.

Where did I suggest total withdrawal?

You said "Or maybe continued US presence in the Middle East will frighten many fence-sittering into the full-blown terrorist side.

I do seem to recall that bin Laden took partial credit for the way the Battle of Mogadishu turned out, and that he reffered to the US as a "paper tiger".

Remember, Clinton was President at the time and he could have "surged". He was the CIC. The buck stops there.

So I would argue that as far as "emboldening" terrorists went I certainly think that bin Laden and his ilk are thinking "Mogadishu" and not "Tet Offensive".

http://www.jfednepa.org/mark silverberg/papertiger.html "Al Qaeda and its global Islamic terrorist affiliates came to the conclusion that America's weakness stemmed from a post-Vietnam conviction that required future wars to be short, antiseptic and casualty free."

And I guess bin Laden miscalculated, didn't he. Of course, if a democrat had been President ... like say Gore or Obama ...

So no, I don't think that all people aspire to have more wealth, better education, and great freedom necessarily.

I guess you can rationalize anything. I'm curious. Do you aspire to have more wealth, better education and more freedom? And you say others don't? Why are you are sooooooo special?

So are alot of governments; we haven't invaded them yet.

You say there are a lot of them? Hmmmm? Well which governments have violated agreements not to even look cross-eyed at WMD and have openly supported terrorists? Please be specific.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/13/afghan.bomber/index.html

Nine U.S. troops have been killed in an attack on a base in a remote province of eastern Afghanistan, a Western official said. It was the deadliest attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan in three years. Fifteen other International Security Assistance Force troops and four Afghan troops were wounded, NATO said. full story

 

[pgwenthold]

A couple of months ago, I sent a note to Russ Feingold and suggested that he introduce legislation that said, if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, that the US troops would leave. He could lay out the time-table for leaving, all contingent on the Iraqi government asking us to leave. It's too bad that never got done. I would have loved to have heard the arguments why we can't leave even though the Iraqi government wants us to.

 

[Puppycow]

Link

An opinion poll for the BBC, ABC and two other TV networks in March showed that Iraqis overwhelmingly (72%-26%) oppose the presence of U.S. forces.

Al-Maliki calls for withdrawal timetable

 

[boloboffin]

Barack Obama: My Plan for Iraq

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

 

[BeAChooser]

Puppycow, your link to the opinion poll quote doesn't work. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it.

 

[BeAChooser]

... snip ...
(BAC From Obama) - the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

All of which Obama deemed impossible at the beginning of 2007 and again when the surge was announce. Good thing he wasn't President at the time.

(BAC From Obama) - But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true.

Well those factors must not have been as urgent as Obama wanted everyone to believe when in January of 2007 he put forth a bill that would have required all American troops be out of Iraq as of March 2008 had it passed. Let's examine them.

(BAC From Obama) - The strain on our military has grown

Has it? How can less violence in Iraq be putting more strain on our troops? Now Bush recently announced that they would be cutting Army combat tours in Iraq from 15 to 12 months. How can that be possible if the strain has grown? And will withdrawing under Obama's timetable ... if it leads to chaos and a resurgence of al-Qaeda and Iran's influence in Iraq ... reduce the strain on our military force? Wouldn't that just make our military's problem bigger?

And interestingly enough, Obama has stated that he wants to expand the military (I'm sure that will please all the democrats voting for him.) Now why would he need a larger military if when he becomes President he's going to pull out of Iraq in rather short order? Any of you liberals ever think about that? Or can Obama do no wrong in your minds?

(BAC From Obama) - the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated

It's hard to reconcile that claim with this from the commanders in Afghanistan.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/media_spins_success_in_afghani.html "February 08, 2008, Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure, American and Coalition forces have taken the initiative in Afghanistan, and have the Taliban on the run. Yet major American media outlets, to the extent they cover fighting in Afghanistan, are portraying the Taliban as "resurgent". Going on the offense and succeeding at it always increases violence. But is being spun onto bad news. The increase in fighting in Afghanistan is not a sign of a stronger Taliban, but rather a more desperate one. Despite all the media reports to the contrary it is we who are surging in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. ... snip ... No American media, except for the AP, not even the media that carries AP content, ran the story that NATO officially reported that the Taliban was not resurgent in Afghanistan. Most of the American media buried General McNeill's statement as well while continuing to use the "resurgent Taliban" characterization. Why? It should be painfully clear. To acknowledge that the Taliban is losing instead of winning is to validate the war policy of President Bush in the war against terror. When combined with a surge success in Iraq, the implications are dark for any Democrat nominee for the White House."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/427330 "Taliban 'losing momentum', Canadian UN official says most militants are looking for a way out of war they cannot win, May 19, 2008"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'... snip ... June 2, 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said. ... snip ... In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the "very effective targeted decapitation operations" that have removed "several echelons of commanders"."

Perhaps the problem is that Obama is out of touch.

(BAC From Obama) - and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted.

If as a result of the surge, Iraq is now headed the right direction (which is what our military leaders and even some in the mainstream media seem to think), that $200 billion will have been worth every penny. Obama, apparently, would rather pull out haphazardly without consideration for the current promising situation, and throw all the funds that have been invested in Iraq so far away. As well as the lives of the men and women who have died with a specific objective in mind.

(BAC From Obama) - Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country,

And how does yanking our troops out make that more likely to happen? Especially if the result of pulling them is an increase in chaos and violence? I don't think Obama is being very logical here.

(BAC From Obama) - and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Despite what Reid, Clinton and Obama have been saying, Iraq's government most certainly has made progress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html "U.S. Embassy Cites Progress in Iraq, Most Congressionally Set Benchmarks Met, Report Finds, By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer, July 2, 2008 ... snip ... Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. ... snip ... The embassy judged that the only remaining shortfalls were the Baghdad government's failure to enact and implement laws governing the oil industry and the disarmament of militia and insurgent groups, and continuing problems with the professionalism of the Iraqi police. All other goals -- including preparations for upcoming elections, reform of de-Baathification and disarmament laws, progress on enacting and spending Iraq's budget, and the capabilities of the Iraqi army -- were rated "satisfactory." ... snip ... In congressional testimony last September, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told lawmakers that about half the goals had been met."

And maybe Obama missed this too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...07/01/AR2008070101283.html?hpid=moreheadlines "Sunni Bloc to Rejoin Government ... snip ... July 2, 2008 ... snip ... BAGHDAD, July 1 -- Iraq's main Sunni Muslim political bloc is on the verge of rejoining the Shiite-led government after a nearly year-long boycott, a step widely seen as vital to reconciliation after years of sectarian conflict. Sunni leaders said Tuesday they had submitted the names of candidates to fill at least five cabinet posts as well as the position of deputy prime minister to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Maliki plans to put the six names to a parliamentary vote as early as next week. ... snip ... The bloc, known as the Tawafaq Front, withdrew from the government last August over demands for constitutional changes and the release of Sunni detainees from Iraq's prisons. Sunni leaders now say the government has done enough to address their core conditions, including passing an amnesty law that has freed thousands of Sunni detainees this year."

To claim that no progress has been made is false. All the details may not have been hammered out yet but that's not sufficient reason to just throw in the towel and give up like Obama wants to do. Maybe instead of sitting down with Iran's dictator, Obama should visit Iraq and try to help them solve their differences? If he thinks he's so skilled he can negotiate with Iran, then negotiating with the various Iraqi factions ought to be a snap for him.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/07/080707taco_talk_packer/?yrail "Obama’s Iraq Problem by George Packer July 7, 2008 ... snip ... Obama’s plan, which was formally laid out last September, called for the remaining combat brigades to be pulled out at a brisk pace of about one per month, along with a strategic shift of resources and attention away from Iraq and toward Afghanistan. At that rate, all combat troops would be withdrawn in sixteen months. ... snip ... He doubtless realizes that his original plan, if implemented now, could revive the badly wounded Al Qaeda in Iraq, reënergize the Sunni insurgency, embolden Moqtada al-Sadr to recoup his militia’s recent losses to the Iraqi Army, and return the central government to a state of collapse. The question is whether Obama will publicly change course before November. So far, he has offered nothing more concrete than this: “We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.” ... snip ... If Obama truly wants to be seen as a figure of change, he needs to talk less about the past and more about the future: not the war that should never have been fought but the war that he, alone of the two candidates, can find an honorable way to end." Although I don't mind talking about his poor past decisions where the war is concerned.

 

[Puppycow]

BeAChooser: Did you notice that Obama is considering keeping Gates on as Defense Secretary?

I think you and I both know that's nothing but political rhetoric on his part. His backers will NEVER allow that. And the rest of what Obama has said makes it very clear that he does not intend to listen to what the generals and intelligence experts have been saying ... that the war is won and that the worst thing we could do is pull out in the haphazard fashion he's STILL insisting on.

Boy, you sure can call 'em.

Don't worry, we still love you.