NationStates Jolt Archive

...couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

All the King's Horses… (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15717408/site/newsweek/)

It's too late for Jim Baker, Nancy Pelosi or anyone else to put this Humpty Dumpty back together again. But if Iraq is hopeless, there’s still time for Afghanistan.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 1 hour, 53 minutes ago

Nov. 14, 2006 - This is a tale of two headlines. One comes from the marble hallways of self-satisfied Washington, where a newly humbled George W. Bush is recommending drapes to a newly cocky Nancy Pelosi, and the town anxiously waits for the sage Jim Baker to fix the mess made by the Bush family’s black sheep, who also happens to be president of the United States. The headline is: "Will Bush Talk to Iran and Syria about Iraq?" Apparently that's a big part of the Baker plan, judging from the long, convivial dinner he had the other week with Iran's ambassador to the U.N., Javad Zarif, which according to an informed source was all about Iraq.

The other headline is from Baghdad, where at least 100 people are dying each day from out-of-control sectarian hatred. "National Catastrophe," the headline reads. That's the description given today by the head of the Iraqi parliament's education committee to the latest outrage in downtown Baghdad, which is coming to resemble Mogadishu. Masked gunman wearing Iraqi police commando uniforms abducted up to 150 staff members of a government research institute, deepening the reign of terror that has led a good part of Iraq's educated elite to flee the country. This is when states fail of course: when everyone with a brain runs away.

The U.S. response to Iraq reminds me of those TV ads about the comically slow suitor who, after his girlfriend asks him if he loves her, waits long minutes until she has stalked out of the restaurant before answering "yes" to the empty chair across the table. Bush and Tony Blair are now arguing about whether to talk to Iran and Syria? Two or three years ago it might have made a difference, before the Sunni insurgency that was supplied and supported from outside the country spiraled into sectarian warfare. Back then, had you engaged Syria fully, you might have stopped the cross-border depots and training centers that kept a flow of jihadis and weapons to Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, one of the chief authors of the sectarian hatred, and the other original insurgent leaders. Back then, had you dealt with Iran as it must be—as a major regional power—you might have been able to curb the Shiite militias and their death squads, which were just getting started. But now? The sectarian killing has its own dynamic. What's happening is an internal Iraqi affair, and Iran and Syria have become, for the most part, bystanders.

It is the story of this administration, of course: the inability to adjust prefixed ideas to reality, embodied in an incurious president who is unable to get on top of a problem because he doesn’t follow up on details. Four years ago U.S. officials disbanded the Iraqi army, then sat stunned in their Green Zone bubble while the looting raged and the incipient insurgents began to poke their heads out of the rubble. Slowly the Bush administration began to rebuild the army. Too late, it came to realize it needed Iraqi police as well. Indeed, as army training faltered, U.S. officials labeled 2006 "the year of the police." But again, it was a year or two too late. And now that the police have become tools of the empowered sectarian militias, the Bush team is talking about relying on the Iraqi army again.

It’s easy enough to blame the departing Donald Rumsfeld for this, as he leaves town like the biblical goat cast into the wilderness. But let's not forget that Rummy, for all his sins, wanted to pull out of Iraq quickly after the spring 2003 invasion and leave things to the Iraqi Army. It was Bush, with his vague ideas of a deeper transformation communicated just as vaguely to civil administrator Paul L. (Jerry) Bremer III, who opted to dismantle the Iraqi Army and Baath Party. That committed Bush to a long occupation, but he never bothered to check whether his Defense secretary was following through with the troops and resources that were needed (Rummy wasn't). If Barbara Tuchman were alive, she'd be adding another chapter to "The March of Folly."

Sorry folks. Iraq is broken, and all the Jim Bakers and all the Bob Gateses can't put Humpty Dumpty together again. But it is a measure of this black sheep's astonishing ineptitude—which seems to keep finding new depths—that we can't leave Iraq either, even though it is tipping over into failed statehood. While, as we know, Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda, the Iraq quagmire is now fitting neatly into Osama bin Laden's and Ayman al-Zarqawi's millenialist rhetoric. Since the late 1990s, bin Laden has been aching to establish his bona fides in the Muslim world by pledging that he would do to the Americans in the Mideast what he did to the Soviets in Afghanistan: force them to leave. An early departure would secure his legend for generations of Islamists. People keep saying Iraq is another Vietnam. Wrong. Iraq is a worse problem than Vietnam, at least in a strategic sense (fortunately, far fewer Americans have died in the current conflict). At least we could leave Vietnam because it was never a central front in the Cold War. Sen. Carl Levin, the incoming chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is a very smart, able man, but his 4-to-6 month phased withdrawal plan is a ludicrous attempt to map order onto chaos. We are riding a tiger, and simply have to hang on.

America will be decades cleaning up the mess that Bush has made in the Arab and Muslim world. Some of these disasters will simply have to play themselves out, like Iraq. But there are a few things that are still fixable now: possibly even the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, thanks to the mutual weakness of Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Hamas leadership (the Palestinians need money, and the Israelis need a partner). Is the new power-sharing arrangement in Washington between Republicans and Democrats, with an increasingly lame-duck president, up to the task? We’ll see. Gridlock will almost certainly be the outcome in the House—does anyone think it’s not going to be payback time against Bush for Nancy Pelosi, after years in which Karl Rove and other Republican strategists have painted her as a loony lefty and a traitor? (I mean, the woman can’t even forgive poor Rep. Steny Hoyer, who once ran against Pelosi for House minority leader, and who she then passed over in endorsing Rep. John Murtha as majority leader.) But the House doesn’t have much to do with foreign policy anyway, and the Senate is still populated by adults, as the Founders intended.

Let’s hope the Senate appropriators pay special attention to Afghanistan, where large parts of the country have become a new Jihadistan, a fresh haven for the next 9/11 plotters, whoever they might be. We now have a new Defense secretary who can address this: Bob Gates, the former CIA chief and Rummy replacement. Gates seems like a guy who can learn from his mistakes. In his 1996 memoirs, Gates proudly noted that the mujahadeen war financed by the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1980s was the agency’s “greatest” operational success of the Cold War. What he didn’t note is that the Taliban first emerged in 1992, after four years of total neglect of post-Soviet Afghanistan by the first Bush administration, and Afghanistan later became the launch base for the 9/11 attacks. It was a mistake so huge that even George W. Bush noticed it. On Oct. 11, 2001, a month after the 9/11 terror attacks, Bush indirectly criticized his father over his handling of Afghanistan; saying, America “should learn a lesson from the previous engagement in the Afghan area: that we should not simply leave after a military objective has been achieved.” The younger Bush didn’t follow through on this very well, putting scant resources into Afghanistan, and Rumsfeld wanted out in the worst way.

Most people don’t get second chances on big strategic errors. Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, two other veterans of Bush I, thought they had a chance to fix their mistakes from the 1991 Gulf War by invading Iraq again and taking out Saddam. We know how that turned out. Now Gates and Baker will get a chance, perhaps, to fix some of their own mistakes from that era, in Afghanistan. Let's hope they get it right this time.

So that's it, eh? We're reduced to finding the best possible way to allow Iraq to completely implode? Make no mistake about it. George Bush and his team of neocons have commited what will go down in history as the worst national security and foreign policy disaster ever... and all because they are so very stupid and incompetent. They have destroyed my country and will take the world down with them.

But... but... the Democrats... taxes... Clinton... uh....Errr... ah!

I'm a Democrat, and only dispute one point: Bush as the worst president of security.

It's either we suck at stopping things or they're not trying. Because while the British have stopped large attacks, I think we either havent done a thing or are not telling anyone.

As much as I would like to think that he is inept, I cant give hime full credit.

I'm a Democrat, and only dispute one point: Bush as the worst president of security.

It's either we suck at stopping things or they're not trying. Because while the British have stopped large attacks, I think we either havent done a thing or are not telling anyone.

As much as I would like to think that he is inept, I cant give hime full credit.

My point was that the war in Iraq was the worst national security blunder in history. We're going to leave there and it will become a gigantic terrorist training ground for people to launch terrorist attacks in Europe and North America. That's right. The Europeans, even teh ones who did not participate in this war, and the Canadians, who also didn't participate, will pay the price for this disaster as well.

My point was that the war in Iraq was the worst national security blunder in history. We're going to leave there and it will become a gigantic terrorist training ground for people to launch terrorist attacks in Europe and North America. That's right. The Europeans, even teh ones who did not participate in this war, and the Canadians, who also didn't participate, will pay the price for this disaster as well.
I refuse to pay for it! It's... damnit. I demand a refund on my down payment! This place was supposed to be a smouldering crater and it's still standing! DAMNIT! :D

My point was that the war in Iraq was the worst national security blunder in history.

Really? Please remind me: how many terrorist attacks have their been on American soil since we embarked upon our campaign to weed out terror? In fact, I can answer that for you: none. We have significantly reduced the number of terrorists by luring them into an attractive battle-ground (Iraq) and then proceeding to decimate them. If you want to speak in purely selfish terms, the US has benefited greatly from the attack as it has reduced the danger posed by international terrorism, and that's not to mention the freedom and liberty given to the Iraqi people. It's not a complex proposition: if we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we won't have to fight them here. Simple, yet effective.

My point was that the war in Iraq was the worst national security blunder in history.
For America, probably. Hitler's invasion of Russia tops the list though.

Really? Please remind me: how many terrorist attacks have their been on American soil since we embarked upon our campaign to weed out terror? In fact, I can answer that for you: none.
Britain, Spain, Indonesia, and hundreds more.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Not technically America, but members of the coalition, and the west in general. This war has been an aid to those who recruit terrorists, thus it is unjustifiable. I credit America's national security services for the lack of attacks within America, not the Iraq war.

We have significantly reduced the number of terrorists by luring them into an attractive battle-ground (Iraq) and then proceeding to decimate them.
The rate of killing has been increasing since the invasion. There are more terrorists now than ever. More are being created than decimated.

If you want to speak in purely selfish terms, the US has benefited greatly from the attack as it has reduced the danger posed by international terrorism
With hundreds dead in Britain, Spain and Turkey?

and that's not to mention the freedom and liberty given to the Iraqi people.

Surely the most vomitous and mendacious myth of them all.

Iraqis can't even leave their damn houses without hearing gunfire; without fearing for their lives. Women can't even survive without a burqua.

It's not a complex proposition: if we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we won't have to fight them here. Simple, yet effective.
You never would have had to fight them on the US mainland. Few terrorists have any means of amassing their legions on US soil.

The rate of killing has been increasing since the invasion. There are more terrorists now than ever. More are being created than decimated.

That's because the terrorists realize that the Democrats are weak on national security and foreign policy. They wish to exploit this by stepping up attacks, despite their severely depleted numbers, in the (well-founded) hope that the American army will withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, unfortunately; that does not mean that we are losing, however. On the contrary, the guerrilla warfare is in its last throes, and Iran is willing to risk all for one last, desperate gamble -- if sufficient casualties can be incurred, maybe we will disengage prior to completely routing the terrorist. At least, that is the hope of those who are funding the terrorists, and it is being justified after the Democratic usurpation of Congress.

That's because the terrorists realize that the Democrats are weak on national security and foreign policy. They wish to exploit this by stepping up attacks, despite their severely depleted numbers, in the (well-founded) hope that the American army will withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, unfortunately; that does not mean that we are losing, however. On the contrary, the guerrilla warfare is in its last throes, and Iran is willing to risk all for one last, desperate gamble -- if sufficient casualties can be incurred, maybe we will disengage prior to completely routing the terrorist. At least, that is the hope of those who are funding the terrorists, and it is being justified after the Democratic usurpation of Congress.
If that was the best you could come up with you really are hopeless. This shit has been going on for months before last week's election. Also note that the Democrats will not take power until January.

Britain, Spain, Indonesia, and hundreds more.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Not technically America, but members of the coalition, and the west in general. This war has been an aid to those who recruit terrorists, thus it is unjustifiable. I credit America's national security services for the lack of attacks within America, not the Iraq war.
While I agree with you, I thought I should mention that your link is too inaccurate to be useful.


You never would have had to fight them on the US mainland. Few terrorists have any means of amassing their legions on US soil.
Don't mistake terrorists for insurgents. The terrorists need only few men, not legions. If there hasn't been any terrorist attacks in the US it's been largely due to the terrorists themselves, lacking the will, resources, reason or what have you.

Really? Please remind me: how many terrorist attacks have their been on American soil since we embarked upon our campaign to weed out terror? In fact, I can answer that for you: none. We have significantly reduced the number of terrorists by luring them into an attractive battle-ground (Iraq) and then proceeding to decimate them. If you want to speak in purely selfish terms, the US has benefited greatly from the attack as it has reduced the danger posed by international terrorism, and that's not to mention the freedom and liberty given to the Iraqi people. It's not a complex proposition: if we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we won't have to fight them here. Simple, yet effective.
I'll just post this:

Charlotte, NC: Why has no newsperson yet asked the Bush Administration to explain how making war in Iraq keeps terrorists from car bombing in the US? Mr. Zakaria aptly makes the point, for the first time in any print. And ask the Bush Admin what kept the terrorists from car bombing us before the Iraq invasion? If more newspeople would ask for specifics, either we would all understand the rational for the war or else the nonsensical justifications for that war might be clearly exposed. Bill Acton Jr.

Fareed Zakaria: Thanks for bringing this up. What I wrote in my piece was a repsonse to President Bush saying, "If we leave, the terrorists will follow us home." My point was that this is frankly, illogical. Because Americans are in Iraq, terrorists have not forgotten that Americans are also in the United States. If they wwant to come from Iraq to the US, it's easier now than an any previous time. Iraq's borders are totally porous.

That's because the terrorists realize that the Democrats are weak on national security and foreign policy. They wish to exploit this by stepping up attacks, despite their severely depleted numbers, in the (well-founded) hope that the American army will withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, unfortunately; that does not mean that we are losing, however. On the contrary, the guerrilla warfare is in its last throes, and Iran is willing to risk all for one last, desperate gamble -- if sufficient casualties can be incurred, maybe we will disengage prior to completely routing the terrorist. At least, that is the hope of those who are funding the terrorists, and it is being justified after the Democratic usurpation of Congress.
Complete and utter BS.

I'd go into more detail, but I know who I'm talking to here so I can't be bothered. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/paperbag.gif

If that was the best you could come up with you really are hopeless. This shit has been going on for months before last week's election. Also note that the Democrats will not take power until January.

MTAE used to be fun, but after a while you realize you're debating with a cartoon. There are more educated consertvatives around here who are a lot more fun to debate with. :) MTAE is just a charicature of a conservative. It's like debating with a series of slogans rather than a human with reasoning skills and an education beyond the Republican talking points weekly.

While I agree with you, I thought I should mention that your link is too inaccurate to be useful.


Don't mistake terrorists for insurgents. The terrorists need only few men, not legions. If there hasn't been any terrorist attacks in the US it's been largely due to the terrorists themselves, lacking the will, resources, reason or what have you.


I'll just post this:


Complete and utter BS.

I'd go into more detail, but I know who I'm talking to here so I can't be bothered. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/paperbag.gif


Wow, I knew that "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" soundbite was bullshit, but I couldn't point my finger on it till you pointed it out for me. I feel stupid, now.

While I agree with you, I thought I should mention that your link is too inaccurate to be useful.
I disagree with a lot on that site, but it's the only comprehensive list of Islamist terrorist attacks I know of.

Don't mistake terrorists for insurgents. The terrorists need only few men, not legions. If there hasn't been any terrorist attacks in the US it's been largely due to the terrorists themselves, lacking the will, resources, reason or what have you.
I consider all of the people who are killing civilians for religious/political reasons to be terrorists.

I'll just post this:
pwn3d

If that was the best you could come up with you really are hopeless. This shit has been going on for months before last week's election. Also note that the Democrats will not take power until January.

That's because American forces had withdrawn to their bases in the period before the election because the Republicans knew that a multitude of American casualties would bring down the fury of anti-war sentiment upon them. Thus, they chose to minimize the risk to American soldiers so that they could better save Iraq (in the future, after the elections). Unfortunately, they lost and Iraq is doomed. Mark my words.

It's like debating with a series of slogans rather than a human with reasoning skills and an education beyond the Republican talking points weekly.

I am debating intelligently while you are simply tossing insults. Arguing with you is an exercise in futility -- it's like debating with a flamethrower.

I am debating intelligently while you are simply tossing insults. Arguing with you is an exercise in futility -- it's like debating with a flamethrower.

Water can debate with flamethrowers quite well.

That's because the terrorists realize that the Democrats are weak on national security and foreign policy. They wish to exploit this by stepping up attacks, despite their severely depleted numbers, in the (well-founded) hope that the American army will withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, unfortunately; that does not mean that we are losing, however. On the contrary, the guerrilla warfare is in its last throes, and Iran is willing to risk all for one last, desperate gamble -- if sufficient casualties can be incurred, maybe we will disengage prior to completely routing the terrorist. At least, that is the hope of those who are funding the terrorists, and it is being justified after the Democratic usurpation of Congress.

ROFLMAO.

Do they even know who the Dems are? Or the Republicans? It's not like they know. They're ignorant. Rememer that, MTAE. Although I don't expect you to, considering the fact that you are a total dumb shit.

I am debating intelligently while you are simply tossing insults. Arguing with you is an exercise in futility -- it's like debating with a flamethrower.
You're tossing bloody illogical, refuted-to-death government talking points.

You're tossing bloody illogical, refuted-to-death government talking points.

He's a ditto head who's been Hannitized! :)

...couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.



So that's it, eh? We're reduced to finding the best possible way to allow Iraq to completely implode? Make no mistake about it. George Bush and his team of neocons have commited what will go down in history as the worst national security and foreign policy disaster ever... and all because they are so very stupid and incompetent. They have destroyed my country and will take the world down with them.

I don't know. I think the first attempt by the Romans to attack the Celts was pretty bad. They got their asses kicked all the way home and had to pay their would-be victims off with gold to get them to go home. But yeah, the worst foreign policy disaster in Western history since the Sacking of Rome also sounds pretty bad.

I don't know. I think the first attempt by the Romans to attack the Celts was pretty bad. They got their asses kicked all the way home and had to pay their would-be victims off with gold to get them to go home. But yeah, the worst foreign policy disaster in Western history since the Sacking of Rome also sounds pretty bad.
'Nam was pretty bad too...

I don't know. I think the first attempt by the Romans to attack the Celts was pretty bad. They got their asses kicked all the way home and had to pay their would-be victims off with gold to get them to go home. But yeah, the worst foreign policy disaster in Western history since the Sacking of Rome also sounds pretty bad.

I actually meant in US history.

'Nam was pretty bad too...

The consequences of screwing up Vietnam will be dwarfed by the consequences of this blunder. Like comparing a candle to a forrest fire. This screw up will endanger the energy security of the entire world, will breed generations of new terrorists and may challenge our ability to maintain this experiment in civilization in the context of democracy.

MTAE used to be fun, but after a while you realize you're debating with a cartoon. There are more educated consertvatives around here who are a lot more fun to debate with. :) MTAE is just a charicature of a conservative. It's like debating with a series of slogans rather than a human with reasoning skills and an education beyond the Republican talking points weekly.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one, Dan. It's really hard to ding someone for trolling when they're nothing more than a parrot.

Rememer that, MTAE. Although I don't expect you to, considering the fact that you are a total dumb shit.
Johnny B Goode, responding to trolls with flames is unacceptable. Knock it off, NOW.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one, Dan. It's really hard to ding someone for trolling when they're nothing more than a parrot.


Johnny B Goode, responding to trolls with flames is unacceptable. Knock it off, NOW.

Your avatar makes me think of panthers.

You know, you are all missing a really big point here. If Iraq implodes, who will emerge as the leader of this little catastrophe? When Saddam Hussein was leading the country, there was no sectarian violence, because he had enough arm strength to kill everyone he didn't trust. Or just didn't like. Or maybe even for a little fun. Genocidal Sunday, that sort of thing. He stomped out terrorist activity, although he did fund a little.


What makes you think the next tyrant won't do the same? It seems to work well in the Middle East, looking at the average leadership. And I'll tip my hat to al Sadr, since he's my best bet.

You know, you are all missing a really big point here. If Iraq implodes, who will emerge as the leader of this little catastrophe? When Saddam Hussein was leading the country, there was no sectarian violence, because he had enough arm strength to kill everyone he didn't trust. Or just didn't like. Or maybe even for a little fun. Genocidal Sunday, that sort of thing. He stomped out terrorist activity, although he did fund a little.


What makes you think the next tyrant won't do the same? It seems to work well in the Middle East, looking at the average leadership. And I'll tip my hat to al Sadr, since he's my best bet.

I'm not aware of any terrorism he funded. Certainly not any Al-Quedic-related terrorism.

You're tossing bloody illogical, refuted-to-death government talking points.

And you have been unable to refute them.

And you have been unable to refute them.

Note: Refuted-to-death.

And you have been unable to refute them.
There is a difference between "unable" and "not worth the effort". Even the best of debators would abandon an argument with your "I know you are, but what am I?" grade school talking points.

You're a joke here, MtaE, and not a funny one anymore.

You know, you are all missing a really big point here. If Iraq implodes, who will emerge as the leader of this little catastrophe? When Saddam Hussein was leading the country, there was no sectarian violence, because he had enough arm strength to kill everyone he didn't trust. Or just didn't like. Or maybe even for a little fun. Genocidal Sunday, that sort of thing. He stomped out terrorist activity, although he did fund a little.


What makes you think the next tyrant won't do the same? It seems to work well in the Middle East, looking at the average leadership. And I'll tip my hat to al Sadr, since he's my best bet.

But saddam was secular. Al Sadr is not and he is Shi'a and will owe his allegience to Iran. Here's a glimpse of how that might turn out.

The other day I called an Arab security official in the Gulf and joked with him about how well things are going in Iraq. He wasn't in the mood for irony. "The Iranians and the Shi'a are coming to get us," he said, "and you Americans don't have a clue how to stop them."

I heard the same thing from a half dozen other Gulf Arab contacts I talked to the same day. Sure, they're all unhappy about Iraq. But what really concerns them is what happens when the U.S. packs up and leaves. The most likely scenario is an out-and-out civil war, Sunni against Shi'a, with Iran and Saudi Arabia eventually sucked in. And, by the way, can the United States stop Iran from occupying Iraq?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1558886,00.html

You're a joke here, MtaE, and not a funny one anymore.

I consider many of the extreme liberals who peruse these forums a "joke," yet I still debate them. Can they not afford me the same common courtesy?

I consider many of the extreme liberals who peruse these forums a "joke," yet I still debate them. Can they not afford me the same common courtesy?

You earn my respect through your actions. You have done the contrary, and earned my disrespect.

Since I have no respect for you, I have no need to offer you any courtesy.

Simply put, i don't give a shit about you.

I consider many of the extreme liberals who peruse these forums a "joke," yet I still debate them. Can they not afford me the same common courtesy?

What you do isn't debate.

I consider many of the extreme liberals who peruse these forums a "joke," yet I still debate them. Can they not afford me the same common courtesy?

You don't debate you tell. When people attempt to debate with you, you either ignopre them ore spout stuff which is impossuble to back up, then when caught out again you either retire to a safe distance or just repaet what you've already said ad nauseum. I've attempted to debate with you and your sheer intransigence to concede even the smallest of points so you can provoke anothr response confirms your troll status.

When even a moderator is telling you your a joke, I'd take a long hard think about what your doing here, pal.

My point was that the war in Iraq was the worst national security blunder in history. We're going to leave there and it will become a gigantic terrorist training ground for people to launch terrorist attacks in Europe and North America. That's right. The Europeans, even teh ones who did not participate in this war, and the Canadians, who also didn't participate, will pay the price for this disaster as well.

I don't know about Iraq becoming a "gigantic terrorist training ground," but there can be no question that invading and occupying Mid East nations more or less randomly, for no real reason (WMDs? 9/11? pfft), will help engender an animosity towards the invaders (us). Such animosity breeds terrorism, and general chaos.

What neo-cons will tell you is that the actual goal of invading Iraq was specifically in order TO attract terrorists there, supposedly so we can kill them off. That's horseshit and an insult to anyone who supported getting rid of Saddam. "Oh, we didn't want to liberate you after all, just using you as bait so we could fight our War On Terror by proxy!"

Even many pro-US Iraqis object to our continued presence. We 'helped' them form a new government, a new military, to make Iraq a sovereign 'democratic' nation - and now we won't go, because too many people buy Bush's stupid "cut and run" macho excuse for staying.

"Well, yeah, we fucked up, we shouldn't have done it... but now that we have, we have to stand by ourselves and stay the course!"

As Einstein said, and I'm paraphrasing, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Proven by the US in Iraq and, to a general degree, our role in all Middle East politics.

Really? Please remind me: how many terrorist attacks have their been on American soil since we embarked upon our campaign to weed out terror? In fact, I can answer that for you: none.
And exactly how many acts of international terrorism were there on U.S. soil before 9/11?
I can only recall one, the bombing of the WTC.
And the perpetrators were caught and jailed without invading another country and wasting billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of human beings!

We have significantly reduced the number of terrorists by luring them into an attractive battle-ground (Iraq) and then proceeding to decimate them.

Every indicator, every intelligence report and even the Pentagons own reports disagree with you on this.
It is a fact that terrorism, and the number of terrorists, has increased since the invasion of Iraq.

If you want to speak in purely selfish terms, the US has benefited greatly from the attack as it has reduced the danger posed by international terrorism, and that's not to mention the freedom and liberty given to the Iraqi people. It's not a complex proposition: if we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we won't have to fight them here. Simple, yet effective.

I am sure that the Iraqi people will be forever grateful that we decided to destroy their country by luring terrorists there so that we could kill them.
It is just too bad that so many innocent Iraqi citizens had to die, collateral damage as they say :rolleyes:

I propose that we fight violent crime by luring murderers to your home and then blow it up with them, and you, inside.
I am sure that you, as a patriotic citizen, would be all for this idea as it serves the greater good of you adopted nation.

That's because the terrorists realize that the Democrats are weak on national security and foreign policy. They wish to exploit this by stepping up attacks, despite their severely depleted numbers, in the (well-founded) hope that the American army will withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, unfortunately; that does not mean that we are losing, however. On the contrary, the guerrilla warfare is in its last throes, and Iran is willing to risk all for one last, desperate gamble -- if sufficient casualties can be incurred, maybe we will disengage prior to completely routing the terrorist. At least, that is the hope of those who are funding the terrorists, and it is being justified after the Democratic usurpation of Congress.

Even Cheney has backed off the "last throes" statement!
Can't you come up with your own idiotic statements instead of using idiotic Republican talking points?

That's because American forces had withdrawn to their bases in the period before the election because the Republicans knew that a multitude of American casualties would bring down the fury of anti-war sentiment upon them. Thus, they chose to minimize the risk to American soldiers so that they could better save Iraq (in the future, after the elections). Unfortunately, they lost and Iraq is doomed. Mark my words.

Where do you come up with this stuff?
Do you make up these fantasies entirely in your own mind?
You do realize that in reality the period leading up to the election was one of the deadliest months for U.S. forces in Iraq?
U.S. military deaths in Iraq in October reached 100 Monday, making this the deadliest month for American troops in a year. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.ustoll.reut/index.html)


Face the facts MTAE Iraq is not going to become some Utopian society!
It does not matter who is in power in the U.S.
There is widespread sectarian violence on a daily basis!
Gunmen walked into the Higher Education Ministry (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gunmen-snatch-150-iraq-ministry-staff/2006/11/14/1163266554481.html) and kidnapped up to 150 men in broad daylight!
There is no Iraqi government outside the "Green Zone".
People are fleeing the country in droves.
There was no post invasion plan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/national/main2177031.shtml) for the country.

You are completely wrong on so many levels regarding the war in Iraq that it is literally painful to read the idiocy that you post!

...couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again.



So that's it, eh? We're reduced to finding the best possible way to allow Iraq to completely implode? Make no mistake about it. George Bush and his team of neocons have commited what will go down in history as the worst national security and foreign policy disaster ever... and all because they are so very stupid and incompetent. They have destroyed my country and will take the world down with them.
Yep, that just about sums it up. A total cluster-fuck from word go, and no end in sight.

You know, you are all missing a really big point here. If Iraq implodes, who will emerge as the leader of this little catastrophe? When Saddam Hussein was leading the country, there was no sectarian violence, because he had enough arm strength to kill everyone he didn't trust. Or just didn't like. Or maybe even for a little fun. Genocidal Sunday, that sort of thing. He stomped out terrorist activity, although he did fund a little.


What makes you think the next tyrant won't do the same? It seems to work well in the Middle East, looking at the average leadership. And I'll tip my hat to al Sadr, since he's my best bet.
Who will come out the winner? Why, the Iranians, of course. Iraq is almost certainly destined to become their puppet, assuming it doesn't break up altogether. In any event, they will remain the strongest and most stable government in the region. We couldn't have guaranteed their hegemony better if they'd paid us to.

Really? Please remind me: how many terrorist attacks have their been on American soil since we embarked upon our campaign to weed out terror? In fact, I can answer that for you: none.

Wrong. There have been at least three successful terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11: the 2001 anthrax attacks, Hesham Mohamed Hadaye's LAX attack in 2002, and Mohammed Reza Taheri-aza's attack at Chapel Hill this year.

And exactly how many acts of international terrorism were there on U.S. soil before 9/11?
I can only recall one, the bombing of the WTC.

You're way off there. I can think of at least 10 acts of terrorism between 1970 and 2000 carried out by purely international groups.

Oh, and since I went looking for numbers, here're the numners the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Intelligence and Security:
In fact, there were 11 incidents of international terrorism in the U.S. (in 1997), compared to none in the previous two years.
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1998/4798sp.htm

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/StayTheCourse/images/bagley.gif

That's because the terrorists realize that the Democrats are weak on national security and foreign policy. They wish to exploit this by stepping up attacks, despite their severely depleted numbers, in the (well-founded) hope that the American army will withdraw from Iraq. The Democrats are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, unfortunately; that does not mean that we are losing, however. On the contrary, the guerrilla warfare is in its last throes, and Iran is willing to risk all for one last, desperate gamble -- if sufficient casualties can be incurred, maybe we will disengage prior to completely routing the terrorist. At least, that is the hope of those who are funding the terrorists, and it is being justified after the Democratic usurpation of Congress.

Are you saying that if we were to be attacked tomorrow, you'd blame the Democrats?

cartoon

Awesome