Arguing in Circles

So when did briefing papers and Powerpoint presentations become the sign of great leadership? Communicating with others still does not resolve what will be done.

The proposals sounds like nothing more than a method of stick the Pentagon with responsbilility for getting out of Iraq.

As always the problem is that we have a President who has deservedly lost all credibility. It is obviously not optimal to have congress forced into a situation where they have to set withdrawal deadlines, but it is less optimal to have the President live inside a fantasy world. Or, what you said.

I don't hesitate to give a resounding yes. Our colonial adventure is hurting our position in the world in every way, and the sooner we liquidate it the better.

Does Gerecht expect anyone to take him seriously except fellow Neo-Cons? I just wonder when any of these asshats will offer a solution other than to try and pin blame elsewhere, because in essence he's saying that the Dems are to blame for losing.

Regarding the Sadrists, I have two questions:

1. Could Maliki survive a no-confidence vote if the Sadrist MPs voted against him?

2. If not, why aren't the Sadrists pushing for such a vote?

The military are likely to be doing their own planning for withdrawal sotto voce.

what constitutes "withdrawal from Mesopotamia" - moving everyone to bases in Kuwait and Kurdistan? How many soldiers would we leave in the Green Zone to protect the largest embassy ever built? Has Congress ever addressed the idea of our permanent bases there? I can't quite see Bush giving up on those. There's "withdrawal" and there's "withdrawal"...

The horns of a dilemma. The manner in which we invaded, won, and then did not instantly switch over to the enormously greater number of administrators we had standing waiting, has rendered our colonial occupation an utter failure. Well, we all know that.

Sadly I do not think reason can enter the calculation. We created the mess and it will continue unabated until we kill pretty well every Iraqi or just leave.

Unless the US can find a more acceptable Occupier, acceptable to the Iraqis, that is, fighting the invading Occupier will continue until we do leave.

Therefore the sooner we leave the sooner the Iraqis will settle the matter. Unless...........

As has been said, the Paranoid Thieves-in-Charge have no plan, so that it behooves the Congress to force the issue and insist upon a leaving date that POTUS cannot ignore.

The DoD will then have to be given the task of working out what to do on instruction from POTUS, who just may have listened by then to people in the State Department who are first, not last year's graduates from Regent University, but second, also not fully paid-up card-carrying members of AIPAC.

If POTUS cannot bring himself to divide Mesopotamia into three separate identities --- advised by TE Lawrence (ignored), and then by Sir Arnold Wilson after some years of administering the new "Iraq", perhaps he could offer the whole lot to Turkey as a Federal States of Turkey (The total would be about the same size as Iran and also as Sa'udi Arabia, a nice balance), and if that is too much for his feeble brain, talk lots with Iran, Syria, Iran, Sa'udi and Turkey, to persuade them both not to interfere -- too much -- and to guarantee the three new states.

We have to do something, and IMO our only route is to insist to POTUS that he leaves by a set date to get his attention.

Nothing else will make the delusional WH focus. This POTUS has not had real policy, real international, expertise, around him from the beginning, but only narrowly local political manipulators, not even competent political advisors. He has thus never had in his 6 years competent advice, and because it has been 6 years he thinks he knows it all.

Holding his feet to the fire is the only thing that will cause a future for us in world affairs. We might get some focus on what the hell we are going to do about a resurgent Russia with 60% of the world's known oil: next, what we are going to do to restore some faith in the US amongst the owners and their friends of most of the other 40%: next, what we are going to do to join the fight against global warming before the rest of the world forces us to by closing doors on us!

We have to willing to face the consequences of doing the right thing. Ending this war is the right thing to do.

The dead enders who still support the war on Iraq do so only because they are unwilling to face the consequences of a loss.

But pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do. The American people will not support a war based upon lies and without the support of the people the war is lost. So essentially it is the Bush administration that lost the war on Iraq. They lost it when they started it. The rest is just detail.

So whatever the consequence of pulling out, and no one knows what they will be, we will just have to face them. We have to face them honorably and without shirking from our responsibility for being in large part a cause of them.

"Do thoughtful Democrats really believe that the Middle East, America's long fight against Sunni jihadism..."

"America's long fight against Sunni jihadism"?

Do thoughtful Republicans really believe that "America's long fight against Sunni jihadism" is anything other than overblown bullshit?

"America's long fight against Sunni jihadism"

That will come as a big surprise to the Saudis, our best pals in the Middle East and the main source of funds, troops and ideology for the Sunni Jihad.

That poor guy, Reuel Marc Gerecht, is trying to live up to his name, which by rights should be that of a philosophic German Bauhaus-style commentator, a sort of Teutonic Sartre, if you will, so he's pulled on the weighty boots of "our obligation to the world" and he's clomping around on the stage.

Matt should have just gone with his gut and spat it out- Yes! Hell Yes!

Now, as for the question-

a) no doubt at all that the Middle East would be improved by our departure.

b) yes, when we leave Iraq the Iraqis will settle the Sunni jihad hash in short order. Our departure will reduce by one the number of countries where we have to worry about Sunni jihad.

c) having the Iraqis tie down our entire army and grind off the cutting edge is not making the bullies of the world nervous about what we might do.

So the answer is, yes, a precipitous withdrawal will improve so many things that it's worth a great deal to anyone who really wants the US to be a strong global actor.

My suggestion is that we replace the present soldiers in Iraq with the dead-enders, tell the dead enders that they will have to pay for any continuation of the war, and quit.

The poor guy can't even bring himself to say "Iraq."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/19/the_risks_of_staying_vs_leaving_iraq/

The risks of withdrawing are substantially less than those of staying.

Matt, you're being too nice about this. Let another Thoughtful Democrat respond:

"Do thoughtful Democrats really believe that a) the Middle East, b) America's long fight against Sunni jihadism, and c) our standing in the world against potential aggressors and bullies will be improved by a precipitous and mandated departure from Mesopotamia?"

a) Yes: we're pissing off Saudi Arabia by supporting the fledgling Shiite government, pissing off Israel by supporting Iran's allies in Iraq, and pissing off everyone else by our ineptitude in Afghanistan. A Shiite governed Iraq precipitously tips the balance of power in the region against 'The Middle East', but we can't back the Sunni because they are the 'enemy'. Even worse, our continued presence in this mess will only solidify the China/Iran/Russia trade pacts and partnerships, with the consequent shift in global power they entail.
b) what long fight against Sunni jihadism? Our President said that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq in 2003, and only showed up after we got there. (I believe him.) I thought the fight was against Sunni INSURGENTS.
C) what potential bullies and aggressors? (THis sounds like projection.) Do you mean Iran? Supporting the Shia in Iraq emboldens them, but you know, you can't have a DEMOCRACY which is governed by the Sunni's. That's called a catch-22 (Matt's point). Or do you mean Syria? Lebanon? CHina? Israel? Who do you mean? What are you saying? YOU'RE TALKING NONSENSE.

Balancer, I didn't see a single risk in Posen's article that isn't still very much there despite the presence of American troops throughout Iraq.

I am not happy with Democratic proposals, but given what Bush/Cheney might do, whatever second or third best policy the Democrats can propose is OK. I think we face very bad and very risky choices no matter what we do. The only hope for better is for Bush/Cheney to follow a wide variety or smart peoples’ advice to begin comprehensive regional negotiations. Can Congress make Bush/Cheney do that? If not, quick withdrawal may be best choice. Staying the current failed course feels so much safer since many of the costs and risks are hidden (for example, what is happening to US military and national guard readiness?)

Gerecht is farting out of his mouth in this piece of drivel, full of assertions with not a morsel of backup of documentation. Here my favorite excerpt:

“The Sunni insurgency will likely cease when the Sunnis, who have been addicted to power and the perception of the Shiites as a God-ordained underclass, know in their hearts that they cannot win against the Shiites, that continued fighting will only make their situation worse. Thanks in part to the ferocity of vengeful Shiite militias, we are getting there.”
--Really, what gives him that idea, the big coordinated demonstration bombings this week? The pathetic wall project to protect a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad? I’d like to know what evidence he has for this assertion. Sounds like he is regurgitateing Cheney's 'last throes' jape.

“And the growing realization in Iraq, and among Western oil companies, that substantial oil deposits exist in the Sunni Arab zone could prove helpful in assuaging Sunni fears about starving in the new Iraq. Even for Iraqi Sunnis, the signs for a better future are increasing.”
--I did an internet search and failed to find any mention of this new source of wealth in Sunni Iraq areas. A report by the Soros foundation project, Iraq Revenue Watch says all prospective new fields straddle regions and will require national level cooperation to develop.
'Geographical Distribution of Iraqi Oil Fields and Its Relation with the New Constitution'
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/052706.pdf

“A livable democratic arrangement is there if Sunni Arabs choose to take it. One thing ought to be clear: Without President Bush's surge, the only thing Iraq's Sunnis can look forward to is war, death, and exile. If there are potentially influential moderates among Iraq's Sunni Arabs, the "surge" is their last chance to change the rejectionist temperament and tactics of the community.”
--and there is a powerful moderate faction in power among the Iraqi Shia? Look at the fate of the recent proposal for any reversal of the draconian de-Baathification policy: a flat no. Gerecht discusses de-Baathification, but it is a passage of incomprehensible gibberish, so I don’t see he has any ideas on that. He claimns there are two meanings to de-Baathification, one is that ordinatry Sunni professionals (who mostly were only nominally Baath) get their jobs back, the other is that Sunni bigshots run things again, and that the latter desire is fueling the insurgency. But of course, even the poor-mans Baathification was declared a no-go by the Shia. But, hey, maybe the Sunni are getting tired and will just give up. That happens in these ethnic/culturally based insurgencies. Look at the IRA, look at the Basqe separatists, look at the Moros in the Philippines. Heck, give it two or three decades... that's all. How the US will provide the resources for that effort isn't mentioned. I didn't see the word 'draft' in his stupid article.

The game is given away by the garbage quoted in the post:
“Do thoughtful Democrats really believe that the Middle East, America's long fight against Sunni jihadism”
--as other commenters have pointed out, that is damn lie. There were no Sunni jihadists in Iraq prior to the criminal, idiot, invasion, and very few there now compared to Iraq insurgents mainly concerned about Iraq.
“standing in the world against potential aggressors and bullies will be improved by a precipitous and mandated departure from Mesopotamia?”
--as compared to what? Our standing and security in the world after Bush/Cheney destroy US ground military readiness, produce more regional instability by pursuing a failed policy? Demonstrate conclusively US stupidity? Radicalize more Muslims.

“The Democratic party is beginning to sound like an echo chamber for Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser for the most inept and calamitous Democratic administration of modern times.”
--and a little rabid neocon smear job thrown in for kicks.

Do you achieve victory by retreating? Do you automatically gain some advantage leaving the battlefield for the enemy? No of course not. Does that mean that once you commit forces for any purpose whatsover and find out that achieving that purpose given your current level of committed forces is impossible do you just leave them there to fight and die?

Gerecht would say yes. Anyone with a glimmer of understanding of strategy or tactics would understand that bogging down your main force at a time and a place where they cannot gain victory as opposed to a controlled retreat to a defensible position while you regroup and rearm may not make for great war movies but is the best you can achieve under the circumstances.

We can argue whether such terms as "Sunni jihadism" and "GWOT" even make sense in context, but what is clear and has been clear from before day one is that the level of US forces available to us were not sufficient to carry out the stated war aims however defined. You can grant Gerecht every premise, every bit of rhetoric but in the end you don't get to "there" from "here".

Let me try a little metaphor for the video game generation. Let a democratic middle east be represented by a magical meadow with plenty of plenty for everyone, blocking the path to it is a man-eating dragon in the middle of a swamp of quicksand, if by some chance your hardy band of heros ends up slaying the dragon and end up stuck neck deep in the quicksand with no way to get to the Powerup are you really winning?

IF Iraq was a video game the various warmongers of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists would have hit "New Game" long ago. As it is they know that once they give up on this particular game it will be a long, long time before we let them play again, moreover it is unlikely that we will let their friends run the controller, because frankly they suck at the game. All we are left with is the kids whining that just because they are bogged down in the quagmire is no reason to give up and go to bed.

Well too bad, it is a schoolnight and you have wasted too much time playing that game already.

OT but your link to Lindsey B has been broken for several weeks. This one is never going to resolve:

http://http//majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/

Gerecht's question puts so many conditions on any serious "discussion" that it becomes too fucking precious to bother to answer; he expended a lot of his limited brain power in figuring out his optimal framing of the question to put a squeeze on war opponents; probably he found it too challenging to realize that any question to the war proponents has one answer: escalation. Complicated issues really upset simple minds.

"maung" had an interesting idea that's new to me: give the whole thing to Turkey for a (very) federal new Turkey. Turkey could join their fractious Kurds with Iraqi Kurdistan, make it semi-autonomous, and be rid of a festering sore. The rest of Iraq could be a highly Shiia state and a nominally Sunni secular state. This could also save the lives of the million Christians and other minority religious adherents.

Why wouldn't this work (other than Bush)?

"POTUS shares his thinking with key partners in the British and Iraqi governments"

That should really read POTUS shares his thinking with Karl Rove who determines the date most likely to help Republicans in the next upcoming election.

It has nothing to do with Iraq or terrorism, it's about making Repubs look good.

"maung" had an interesting idea that's new to me: give the whole thing to Turkey for a (very) federal new Turkey. Turkey could join their fractious Kurds with Iraqi Kurdistan, make it semi-autonomous, and be rid of a festering sore. . . . Why wouldn't this work (other than Bush)?/i>

The Iraqi Kurds have tasted de-facto independence. They won't settle for autonomy under the rule of Turks whom they have every reason to distrust.

Nor would the Turks accept such a radical restructuring of their own polity. Even if their political culture is moving in that direction, it won't reach the prescribed destination in time to be a solution for the present crisis.

The rest of Iraq could be a highly Shiia state and a nominally Sunni secular state.

Partition is not a panacea for Arab Iraq. There would just be two failed states in place of one, and plenty of occasion for conflict between the two.

David Tomlin:

"Regarding the Sadrists, I have two questions:

1. Could Maliki survive a no-confidence vote if the Sadrist MPs voted against him?

2. If not, why aren't the Sadrists pushing for such a vote?"

My guess is "no" to the first question. I'd bet Sadr's movement has lost credibility among other MPs due to the way they've run the health and transportation ministries; if a no-confidence vote is pushed for by the Sadrist MPs and it fails by a wide margin, Sadr will be significantly weakened. He's too risk-averse to try that. In a way, that's too bad. If Sadr could somehow climb the greasy pole and become PM, that would be a gift to America.

In that case, Sadr would be forced to demand an American withdrawal, and we would withdraw. Then, if we're lucky, Iraq could expand into a broader Sunni-Shiite war, and we could watch terrorists from the Religion of Peace kill each other for another decade.

If the Dems were smart, they'd approach this from a blank sheet of paper, and take another look at Iraq as well as the larger war on terror (which they are still bought into). They would also dust off Rumsfeld's original proposals for modernizing the military and scaling back ground forces. To reflexively bail on Iraq, where Al Queda is most active, and re-commit to fighting an endless war in Afghanistan, where Al Queda is less active, makes no sense. Why not be consistent, and put a time-limit on stability operations in support of the nascent democracies in both countries, while reserving the right to strike Al Queda elements in both countries in the future?

A long, twilight war against Al Queda in the middle east and Central Asia would be more sustainable (and cheaper, in blood as well as money) if it were fought by special forces backed by targeted air power and UAVs like the Predator -- the sort of things Rumsfeld wanted to emphasize before the invasion of Iraq. Dems should advocate that now. Once the wars transition to that sort of conflict, the Army and Marine Corps could be shrunk by at least 25% each. Use some of the savings to advance military technology in air power, UAVs, armored vehicles, etc., and you'll still have billions left over to subsidize late-term abortions, close the academic achievement gap, etc.

sohbet, chat, arkadaş

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
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

greatyy tikky

realed treed grabbed !

goodie post thanks

Sex Shop,Sex,Erotic Shop,Erotik Market,Seks Shop,Sexshop,Erotic Shop,Azdırıcı damla, Cinsel Ürünler,Cinsel Sağlık,erotik magaza,erotik

Sex Shop,Sex,Erotic Shop,Erotik Market,Seks Shop,Sexshop,Erotic Shop,Azdırıcı damla, Cinsel Ürünler,Cinsel Sağlık,erotik magaza,erotik

thanks ..

seks shop

perde-perde-perde-mefruşat-nakliyat-temizlik-rüya perde-mermer-hilal perde-seo-webmaster-forum-hot forum- ataturk-bilimteknoloji-ceptelefonlari-dinimizislam-komediblog-kultursanat-msn messenger-oyun-ucuzperde-webmasterblog-yasam

sex shop

penis buyutucu

seks shop

sexshop

sex shop

seks shop

erotik shop

thanks.

erotik shop

thanks.
erotik shop

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum

Üstün kalitemiz ve personelimizle hizmetinizdeyiz..
EKS CAM BALKON SİSTEMLERİ
0216 517 22 16
thanks..

Thanks