About Those Residuals

I'm not necessarily against the US projecting power in the ME in some circumstances (e.g. Iraq invades Kuwait sort of circumstances), but I am in favour of keeping US troops out of Iraq and the US being as likely to put them back in as the UK was to put troops back into Egypt post-Suez. Given the pressures in Washington DC for US to aggressively militarily dominate the Arab world for Oil'n'Israel reasons, "if circumstances warrant" is practically a guarantee of permanent intervention.

Thanks, Kilgore, for telling me I have no one to vote for. Ar you telling the truth on this one? Get back to me, OK?

This is angels dancing on the head of a pin time. Once we start withdrawing forces from Iraq, the momentum to get out will be overwhelming, driven by our desires or by the conditions on the ground in Iraq. I don't recall the Hanoi government graciously inviting small units of American forces to remain on the ground, nor were we clamoring to do so in Lebanon or Somalia. Let's take this for what it is: politicians saying we're gonna be out of there, but putting some icing on the lousy cake to make Americans think this isn't a complete defeat and black eye. And you can hardly blame Democratic politicians for not harping on the total defeat theme now, can you?

You might want to ask for clarification, but the Edwards plan does not seem to leave troops in Iraq.

Campaigns make for spectacularly bad places to discuss all of the potential contingencies of foreign policy. It is the least predictable aspect of policy the President will have to deal with, Kennedy and Nixon spent hours debating the fate of Quemoy and Matsui (sp?), how useful was that? Statements about principles and philosophy are more valuable than any of these specific contingencies.

Anyone of the above mentioned would be back in Iraq in a New York minute if an Al Qaeda lead state took root in Anbar province.

Yeah, take that, lot-of-people-that-I-read-on-the-Internet. Kucinich off and die!

Ed Kilgore's argument just sounds dumb. Isn't a blurred view of distinctions that everyone else sees what being dumb is all about?

It seems like almost all the foreign policy debate here is coming down to style over substance.

Both MY and most commenters here seem to vastly prefer Obama over Clinton on foreign policy issues, probably because Clinton voted for the Iraq war while Obama wasn't there to vote for or against it (and probably because Obama seems a little to the left of Clinton on economic issues).

But where's the beef? What are the substantive differences?

There will never be another chance for the US to get such a large and well supplied ground force on the ground in the Middle East. That was one of the reasons we went there in the first place after all. There is simply no way we are going to cut that force way down.

We might pull back to those gigantic bases and maybe half the number of troops but that is as far as it goes. Clinton knows this. I can't say how such things work but if you don't feel in your bones that no person can be elected President who intends to virtually eliminate our beachead in Iraq then your missing something.

By accepting the reality that we won't leave Hillary has taken a gigantic step towards the Presidency. The invisible hand, the powers that be, the oil men or the money boys, crips the Trilateral Commision or the Illuminati, whoever it is that decides such things and annoints our candidates will now approve of Clinton.

If it looked like the GOP was going to win then it wouldn't mean a thing what the Dem candidate thought on this. Now it means everything because as it stands now no Republican would win the White House.

I realize this is all tin foil hat stuff but just you watch. The Hillary jokes are going on the back burner in the MSM. Mark my words.

I think if Kilgore is going to raise this question, he needs to put his own cards on the table. Is he for permanent bases? A permanent force?

It seems to me he is trying to claim that everyone in the Democratic Party is in favor of a continued occupation of Iraq and adventurism in the middle east. But does he say this because he thinks it is a bad idea and wants people to demand candidates who don't advocate this, or (more likely) does he say this because he thinks it is a great idea and wants to convince people who don't agree with him that they are not going to get a better bargain with a more liberal candidate than they will with Hillary Clinton's neoconservativism?

If it is the second one, why should anti-war voters pay any attention to him when he is just as wrong and morally bankrupt as Hillary?

Oh, I forgot the Clinton campaign has been pushing this same approach, that Obama wasn't really so against the war. So I'll take back that Kilgore sounds dumb. He's playing dumb.

It's pretty amusing. Hillary hopes to get through the antiwar primaries without backing off her general election Churchill impersonation by smearing her Democratic opponents as just like her.

Mr. Noah, if you went to the web site you would find alot of beef. And if you check the bills obama has done in the State Senate and the US you would be pretty impressed.
don't buy into the msm line. I find all the candidates a bit vauge and I know they are not going to have alot of policy stuff out right away as they have jobs and have to address issues of the moment as well.
I want to have something good and wait abit than have something awful but, put out to satisfy people who are impatient. There is plenty of time for them to roll out policies.
John Edwards may have more out but, he also had the time to do things earlier (I not trashing him, just stating fact).
But, most plans, including Obama calls for them to be in countries away from Iraq. Hillary wants to keep troops in Iraq. that is the difference. Hillary is also more apt to start wars just to show she's tough enough. I don't trust her. I do think Obama would be much better. And I have read that alot of highly respected pros in Foreign Policy are looking to Obama as the candidate who can repair the messes.
anthony lake and Richard Clark, ect.
There is a great article on this at Washington Monthly right now.

Tisk. Tisk.

With Professor Yglesias acknowledging that maybe Barack "fresh face" Obama and Johnny "bitchen populist" Edwards may not be so different from lib Hitler Hillary on the issue the Deaniacs themselves regard as the Most Important Matter of Our Time (and maybe all time) you have to wonder what might be next: school vouchers are a pretty kewl idea(?), Sullyman isn't such a conservative after all(?), there are actually some good bands that perform in stadiums and it's okay to like them not ironically(?). The possibilities are almost infinite.

Mr. Noah, if you went to the web site you would find alot of beef.

Not on Iraq policy. Their approaches seem hardly different at all. As MY points out, they both want to keep some troops in the country.

I'm really just very skeptical of claims that Obama is significantly more anti-war than Clinton. He may be slightly more so, but there does not seem to be a huge difference there.

To expand a little bit from the presidential candidates, you know how a large contingent of the netroots were splooging their pants over Al Franken running for the Senate, and anyone who expressed skepticism about this endeavor was a concern troll who was afraid of Franken's awesome progressivism!

Read it and weep, from a radio interview the day after he announced:

Eichten: Uh, Iraq. If you were in the Senate right now –

Franken: Mm-hm.

Eichten: What would you be urging on the Senate in terms of Iraq policy? Immediate withdrawal?

Franken: No. Not an immediate withdrawal at all.

Eichten: Support the president’s –

Franken: No.

Eichten: - policy to increase troops in, in, in Iraq?

Franken: No. Uh, I would, um, I’m for sort of the Biden plan, which is a partition of the country, a soft partition, and now, people like, uh, even David Brooks and Tom [sic] O’Hanlon from Brookings are for it. This is something that actually, we, we discussed on the show, on our radio show, which ended yesterday, probably more than any other issue throughout the three years of my show. And we’d have Tom Ricks on, the author of Fiasco, many, many times. George Packer, General Zinni, uh, T.X. Hammes, uh, uh, Juan Cole, Peter Galbraith.

[...]

Eichten: Online question from Nate, who says, “Will you apologize for your pre-invasion support of the Iraq War?”

Franken: Uh, yeah, it was a mistake, and, uh, this is something – I believed the president when he said that he was going to, um, when he, he was going to – wanted the resolution to use force, uh, as a tool to go to the U.N. to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. So, I thought – now, I thought it was a close call on this, ‘cause, while I believed the president on that, I, I, I was a little wary. But he said that was a vote for peace, and he said he was going to war as – he would go to war as a last resort.

Matt Stoller asks:

Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate. So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is. Why aren't there PACs lined up against her stance on the war? Why are donors rushing in to support her? Why are her supporters going along with the fiction that opposition to her candidacy comes from some blind hatred of Clinton instead of a real disagreement with her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party? Why aren't local bloggers demanding she answer questions at events?…What is going on with us Democrats? Are we really that stupid?

[...]

What Hillary Clinton said that set him off:

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.
So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest — if the Iraqis ever get their act together — to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don’t know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

[...]

What mydd.com idol Howard Dean says:

So, here we are now with 135,000 troops on the ground. We’ve had an election. It was modestly successful, I think. But we’re gonna stay there for a while, because if we leave, here’s what happens. First of all, we’d probably wind up with a Shiite theocracy that’s allied with Iran, which was always a much more dangerous nation for America than Iraq. Iraq never posed a danger to the United States. That was a crock, and everybody who read the 9/11 Commission now knows that. Saddam Hussein was a horrible person, but he wasn’t a danger to the United States. Iran is a serious threat to the United States. If they develop an atomic weapon, that’s a serious problem. To create an additional country that’s now sympathetic with Iran, which I think is likely to happen, is foolish.

The second thing is, if we leave, the Kurds may become independent. If that happens – even though I’m very much a fan of national self-determination – if it happens, you’re gonna see turmoil in the entire region, because Kurdistan, of course, is not just the Kurdish portion of Iraq, it also goes into Turkey, Syria, and Iran, which would also destabilize those areas. Then, there would be an additional war, and the Turks would be involved, therefore NATO will be peripherally involved. That’s a huge problem for us.

The third, and even worst problem if we withdraw immediately, is the Sunni Triangle will become the next Afghanistan prior to when we invaded, and that is where Al Qaeda will set up, independently, to begin to attack America again.

(April 20, 2005, ACLU fundraiser)

[...]

As fafblog put it:

If only there was some kinda way to bridge this vast an terrible ideological gap!

If Stoller wants to know why Democratic primary voters aren't repelled by these kinds of arguments, perhaps it's because Stoller never bothers to answer them. He doesn't actually address any of the points he quoted from HRC. Perhaps voters listen to the Dean/Clinton arguments and think they sound reasonable. Perhaps if he tried to engage the Dean/Clinton arguments on the merits, more Democratic primary voters would come to his conclusion.

But Stoller completely ignores the arguments for leaving a residual force, merely repeats a mantra of "total withdrawal = progressive = good," and then rips his hair out at those Democratic voters who, for some inexplicable reason, don't take his hard-line anti-Hillary stance. As usual with Stoller, he concludes that the only possible reason for people disagreeing with him is that they're stupid or craven.

rjl:

I can't speak for Stoller. For me, the so-called residual force has at least three problems.

First, it will foul up all efforts to attain a decent government in Iraq. As long as we keep our troops there, there will be an insurgency trying to get us out, there will be pressure on the government to try and kick us out, and there will be electoral pressure to elect an anti-American regime that will force us out. None of that is good for the long-term stability of the Iraqi government.

Second, it will be a recruiting tool for terrorists. Osama Bin Laden was able to recruit thousands by pointing to US troops in Saudi Arabia. Granted, troops in Iraq does not contain the same religious significance, but still, we will be sitting there on "Arab land" atop a bunch of oil (awarded on overly favorable terms to American corporations under the new Oil Law). One of the most uncomfortable facts about 9/11 is that it probably wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been so imperialistic after the first Gulf War as to demand basing in Saudi Arabia. Force projection is far from costless-- it's the reason terrorists attack us and not Norway. Meanwhile, Spain got out of Iraq after 3/11 and is now being left alone.

Third, any troops in Iraq will present a huge temptation for any President to use them in an offensive operation. And since wars against Iran and/or Syria would be disastrous, that's reason enough to keep our troops away from there. Indeed, I see no reason to think that a desire to eventually confront Iran and Syria is part of the calculus for having the bases, including the calculus of Hillary Clinton.

rjl and MY are pretty much right on this, there isn't that much of a divide here. As I alluded to earlier, any statements by candidates on the either "residual" or "over the horizon," will probably be taken over by events one way or the other by the time any chance for implementation. One would be much better served to look at the totality of a candidate's positions and philosophy.

I would be more interested to here the lessons each of the candidates have learned from the Iraqi debacle, as one can be right and learn entirely the wrong lessons from that as much as one can be wrong and come out with better judgement, than to dissect the intricacies of their redeployment proposals.

Either on their own, or by direction, Hillary advocates on every single blog seem to be making the exact same arguments. There is no difference between Hillary and Obama. They both want to leave troops in the ME (ignoring that Hillary wants 75K in Iraq, while the others want fewer troops stationed in "the region", not Iraq specifically). I know we're not supposed to accuse people of being paid shills, but come on. This is far too organized a push-back to be coincidence. This isn't one guy one a few blogs, this is dozens of people on every major blog. In either case, Hillary supporters clearly don't want an honest airing of Hillary's position on Iraq. Instead, they want to pretend everyone has the same position when they clearly don't.
Hell, look at a few posts above mine and see some guy using 2 year old quotes to make his argument. Does he really expect us to believe Dean hasn't said anything else about the war since April of 2005?

Edwards does not seem to want troops in Iraq at all. Obama makes no specific mention of troops in Iraq. Hillary has declared her support for a plan that merely cuts current troop levels in half and keeps them in Iraq until the end of time. Theres a big difference between those positions. People want to wonder why we think they are craven for making the opposite argument? It's fairly simple really, rather than debate the merits of these differing positions, they repeatedly try and claim there are no differences in these positions and we should all just shut up and stop unfairly attacking Hillary or we're sexist scum.

This is all political mud-slinging by the always mud-slinging Clintons. Barack Obama and John Edwards would take us out of Iraq immediately. Hillary Clinton will keep us in Iraq. I am tired of Americans dying and being wounded and of the fearful waste, all for nothing. Get us out of Iraq, anyone but Clinton.

If you read all these comments, you relize hou lost we realy are when it comes to alternitive feuls. I think there might be some conspiracy from our goverments and there is a lot of con artists in this for money. But one thing is for sure - you can not buy a car that uses water as feul. I think we must start using wind and sun energy to safe money at home and spent it on fuel untill hybrid cars become the norm

thank you.

thanks your article ready

Love a you blog

Love me do

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanks you wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo

sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
hikaye
sex
mirc
mirc
sex
hikayeler
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
sex

porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

Even had the latest drivers and all and still nothing so I had to poop can it once again

Thanks for you sites..

Thanks for you sites..

Thanks for you sites..

Thanks for you sites..

Thanks for you sites..

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

thanks