And now Buckley has come around

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Make the region more volatile, you say? Odd way of stating 'let the Iranians take over a much larger area of the Middle East and larger portion of the world's oil supply.' Do you think the extra land will satiate the mullahs' desire to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations who don't like the US, perhaps?

Iran needs to be watched, there is no question about that. But don't you think it's time the western world distances itself from these unstable Islamic regimes instead of trying to convert them into good Americans which is obviously never going to happen. There is enough oil in Alberta to power the entire world for about 50 years. The issue with Alberta is that the oil is mixed with sand and was never cheap to extract. But now that price of a barrell of oil is high and technology has made extracting this oil easier, the option of using this oil resource becomes viable (it won't be a cheap source of oil, but it is a source of oil). I believe the western governments have planned to use Alberta's oil in reserve and planned on sucking the middle east's oil dry first. But since GWB has already stated that it's time that alternative energy source be developed. Wouldn't this be a good time reduce the western world's dependency on the volatile middle east? We'd be on a finite time line, but you've got to think that 50 years is enough time to come up with alternative energy plans.

I say the US needs to pull out of Iraq very very soon. They've got enough naval power to still have a military presence in the region if Iran was to do something stupid. But this Iraq war has been a huge mistake from the onset and it's only getting worse.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[ViperPilot 0]

***raq war has failed miserably and has turned into a quagmire of epic proportions/quote]

A quagmire of epic proportions would be 58,000 dead in Vietnam. This is not a quagmire of epic proportions. It has also not failed miserably; we have accomplished a lot. However, before you blast me for diasgreeing w/ you on that, do note that it is obvious that these people are uncontrollable for the most part, and are diving into the beginning of a massive civil war. Yes, it is time to start pulling out slowly and just let the fuckers kill each other off. But in the end, we need to be careful not to just let a playground of unruly kids become completely unprotected from some street gang thugs (i.e. Iran). That's something to think about.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I bet all you would do is hurl insults!

I'm not the one who just hurled a very offending insult at one of your biggest and most important trading partners in the world. In case you hadn't noticed, some of us Ice-backs are trying to improve relations between our two countries. I saw in another thread where you criticized a Norweigen fellow stating that he's obviously needs to grow up and might I suggest you do the same despite the fact that I know (based on another thread) that you're no kid.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[TheAnvil 0]

I've heard of those sands dude. Very interesting stuff there.

My thoughts on Iran are many as of late, but i do not think it plausible that Iran would not attack Iraq in the wake of a US pullout. An attack that would succeed, I do believe. Having such a nation in control of that large a portion of the world's oil supply is a huge mistake, regardless of where the US and the West get our oil.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,079]

>Make the region more volatile, you say? Odd way of stating 'let the
> Iranians take over a much larger area of the Middle East and larger
>portion of the world's oil supply.'

Ah, good to see you know exactly what will happen in an area that stumps even Middle Eastern scholars. Heck, that stumps people who have been living there all their lives. I don't have that illusion - but if it makes you sleep better, then believe what you choose.

>Basically, you don't have any ideas or options different than the
>administration does, but people more to your liking would undoubtedly
>do a better job.

If you had cancer, and your doctor didn't know what to do, would you start treating yourself - or perhaps get yourself a better oncologist? (Rhetorical question, I know you won't answer it.)

> The same people that talk about ship manifolds being inspected
>when discussing the UAE port controversy today?

The changing-the-topic thing often works here in Speaker's Corner! But I think I will stick to the original topic if you don't mind. (And yes, I know that Clinton got a blowjob, so let's skip that one too if you don't mind.)

>The arguments against the Bush administration pre-war positions
>were pathetic and it's small wonder they were ignored.

Thank you for proving my point. Many people (including me) argued that we should wait for inspections to complete; we were called pathetic. I thought a civil war was likely; I was called a nut. Bush didn't even know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni before the war started - and he's the smart guy, the guy who will bring our troops home safely. A White House budget analyst predicted the war could run as high as 150 billion - and he was fired. Rumsfeld and Cheney said the idea of hundreds of thousands of troops there for several years was nonsense - and their opinions are the ones you respect.

If I started getting everything wrong, would you start to take me more seriously? How dumb will the next republican presidential candidate have to be before you will respect him?

>Iraq right now is not going well. Any solution leaving Iran in control
> is a non-solution.

As is any solution that involves us staying. The pooch is well and truly screwed. Time to stop blindly defending the people who screwed it, and start looking for someone with the brains to get us out of this quagmire. It's not Bush, and it for damn sure isn't you or I.

[billvon 3,079]

>A quagmire of epic proportions would be 58,000 dead in Vietnam.

The first three years of the war in Vietnam saw less than 2000 dead. We're on track. And I know most people don't care about Iraqis, but even conservative counts put their dead at 20,000 or so. Seven 9/11's. A 9/11 every few months, now. I think that's pretty epic when you consider what 9/11 did to us. You may disagree.

>Yes, it is time to start pulling out slowly and just let the fuckers kill each
>other off. But in the end, we need to be careful not to just let a
>playground of unruly kids become completely unprotected from
>some street gang thugs (i.e. Iran). That's something to think about.

I agree there; we have some very hard decisions to make, and we have to move very carefully, taking every factor into account, just to minimize the disaster we see before us. Which is something this administration has yet to do. Heck, just before we invaded Bush didn't know that Shi'a and Sunni were separate denominations and that there might be friction. I think we need someone smarter making decisions. (Doesn't mean Bush has to go, but it does mean he has to find someone besides a yes-man, someone shit hot at Middle Eastern politics - and listen to him.)

[Muenkel 0]

I will be the first one from the conservative right to admit a lot of what Bill predicted pre-war has definitely come true.

I was torn over the idea of invasion. On one hand we had a brutal dictator who thumbed his nose at the world community, violating 17 UN resolutions and even more heinous, his viscious treatment of his own people. On the other hand, I knew Pope JPII told GWB not to invade. I know the pope's opinion doesn't mean much to many here, but it meant a lot to me. I also feared us losing our focus on the war on terror and the instability in the region. Through my rose colored glasses, I honestly believed the war in Iraq would not have been as difficult as it has turned out to be.

With that said, the problem in the Middle East is all of our problem. If ever there was a time for Americans to come together and flush partisan politics down the toilet, it is now. Losing in Iraq is not an option. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is not an option. Allowing the elimination of Israel is not an option.

GWB is our President until Jan. '09, like it or not. Right now there is a lot of finger pointing from both sides of the aisle which is accomplishing nothing. Unfortunately the finger pointing is not going to stop due to the mid-term elections.

If ever there was a time to put the emphasis on 'United' in the United States of America, it is now.

I guess I'm hoping for a miracle.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

That is elementary discourse, not nefarious partisanship

who said anything about nefarious partisanship? i think that buckley is wrong, bill is wrong, and you are almost always wrong; not based on partisanship, based on experience and my own opinion. we all differ on a fundamental level on how reality works. plain and simple.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>A quagmire of epic proportions would be 58,000 dead in Vietnam.

The first three years of the war in Vietnam saw less than 2000 dead. We're on track.

uh, let's be clear, which 3 years are you using? I believe you've tried this approach before, and it was just as dishonest then.

year troops deaths
1961 3205 16
1962 11300 53
1963 16300 118
1964 23300 206
1965 184300 1863
1966 385300 6144
1967 485600 11153
1968 536100 16589

There's no reason to use a start date early than 1965, even if we had 760 troops there in 1959. By that measure the Iraqi war is in year 16. The war didn't begin in earnest until after the Tonkin Gulf Incident in Aug '64. And even if you correct for the smaller troop count, it's pretty far off.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

who said anything about nefarious partisanship?

You have an extraordinary talent for attacking positions that you only imagine others are defending.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[TheAnvil 0]

Bill, ignoring Iran is akin to lunacy. The Persians were at war with Iraq for years - 8 or 10 if memory serves prior to SH's invasion of Kuwait. They now have a much stronger military than anything the Iraqis could field without US assistance (ie US presence), a very industrial infrastructure which is currently expanding, and a very distinct memory of their previous conflict with Iraq.

Iran also has a President that is also, to all outward appearances, a madman. The Iranian President has denied the Holocaust, called for the destruction of Israel, and is whiskey bent and hell bound on acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran and its ruling mullahs also have a long history of supporting terrorism.

If you think for a second that Iran would hesitate to strike at Iraq in the wake of a U.S. withdrawal then you have not at all studied the situation thoroughly. Invading and holding Iraq would be tactically and strategically advantageous for the Iranians for far too many reasons. Should the US withdraw from Iraq in its current state, I give it 70/30 odds in favor of the Iranians invading within one year.

For the record, I support blow jobs but not perjury or marital infidelity, but that's another matter as you stated.

The manner of manifolds vice manifests, however, is most salient I believe. The left, while criticizing the right on every single move it's made with regards to Iraq and GWOT, has neither offered plan of its own nor EVEN REVIEWED THE INTELLIGENCE OR BACKGROUND ISSUES in more than a cursory manner, if at all. Such people have zero credibility when discussing said issues.

Now, when I say the left, I obviously mean its leaders and not 100% of the left leaning folks here in the US. Its leaders have done this with pre-war intelligence, documents they requested from judicial nominees (20,000 pages + received on one day and more requested even one day later because the docs were not comprehensive? Not reviewed and everyone with a three digit IQ knows it), and briefings on port security. Lord knows what else. "I didn't review the background data, but I know what I'm talking about!" should be their motto.

As I've stated before, Bush was the better of two bad choices in both '00 and '04. I feel he made a good case for going to war but that its execution, with benefit of hindsight, has been flawed somewhat. Note the 'with benefit of hindsight' portion of the preceding statement. The post 9/11 Iraqi-centric foreign policy was odd and misguided, I do believe. The left's opposing arguments were simply insane and undefendable in many cases - much like their arguments elsewhere.

Basically your entire point is that you're of the opinion that GWB and his team don't have a clue as to how to proceed. Neither do you or more left leaning political leaders that you like better, but someone else needs to be making the decisions. Perhaps someone else does, and perhaps not. However, I don't believe that anyone who has a history of spouting off at the mouth on subjects they haven't even bothered to study has any business leading our country in any position.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Nice post Vinny, but I think you go way too light on the Dem. leadership. Let's not forget that most supported the war until they saw it going askew and then they turned on Bush and tried to hang him out to dry once he commited troops. I could respect those leaders who opposed the war from the beginning, but find the attempts by those supported it initially to now try to make Bush look bad for political gain almost treasonous.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Basically your entire point is that you're of the opinion that GWB and his team don't have a clue as to how to proceed. Neither do you or more left leaning political leaders that you like better, but someone else needs to be making the decisions. Perhaps someone else does, and perhaps not. However, I don't believe that anyone who has a history of spouting off at the mouth on subjects they haven't even bothered to study has any business leading our country in any position.

Try going back 3 years in the archives and reading SC threads on Iraq.

Its seems there were several of us who accurately predicted what has subsequently come to pass. Not one of the accurate predictions was from the political "right". The righties who commented back in early 2003 have been proven wrong by events on just about every count. IIRC, that includes you.

At least Buckley is smart enough to recognize facts when they stare him in the face.

Events have proven conclusively that Bush and his crew don't have a clue.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I bet all you would do is hurl insults!

I'm not the one who just hurled a very offending insult at one of your biggest and most important trading partners in the world. In case you hadn't noticed, some of us Ice-backs are trying to improve relations between our two countries. I saw in another thread where you criticized a Norweigen fellow stating that he's obviously needs to grow up and might I suggest you do the same despite the fact that I know (based on another thread) that you're no kid.

OK I will concede that you would resort to more deadly means...Snowballs, Iceballs, Hockey Pucks, Cans of Frozen Beer, Frozen Fish etc.

[Richards 0]

At this stage right vs wrong is moot. The key question now is how to make the best of a bad situation. At this stage the west needs to realize that a unilateral pullout would leave Iraq in a state of anarchy that would have horrific human consequences for the Iraqi people and set the stage for a Taliban style government to set up shop there with future consequences for America and the west in general.

The American leadership seems to implicitly acknowledge that staying in Iraq under the status quo is not viable in the long term. That said the situation is still salvageable.

Unfortunately there are many elements in western democracies (including the US) who for whatever reason are drooling at the prospect of seeing the US fall on it's face in this matter. For example, nothing would make the western media happier than to see Iraq turn into a Vietnam type fiasco as that would be more newsworthy than a successful mission (Michael Moorers career depends on the US failing). As a result the US is forced to carry more than their fair share of the burden as countries that could be helping out are standing on the sidelines hoping it will fail, so they can smugly reasure themselve of their moral superiority. It is rather like a surgeon watching another surgeon who is his competitor fail during a real operation and refusing to help (even if it would save the patients life) just because watching his colleague fail is more important than saving a life.

Most western countries will eventually bear the shame of knowing that they could have helped in Iraq but chose not to because of some ludicrous anti-US sentiment manifesting itself in a desire to see the US retreat with it's tail between it's legs that took priority over moral obligations.

Again it is too late to debate the right or wrong of it. The question now is how to resolve it without further harm to Iraqi people and without creating a larger long term problem (ie pullout is not an option). The rest of the western world needs to get off their high horse and stop mocking from the sidelines and start offering to help in whatever capacity they can.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Basically your entire point is that you're of the opinion that GWB and his team don't have a clue as to how to proceed. Neither do you or more left leaning political leaders that you like better, but someone else needs to be making the decisions. Perhaps someone else does, and perhaps not. However, I don't believe that anyone who has a history of spouting off at the mouth on subjects they haven't even bothered to study has any business leading our country in any position.

Try going back 3 years in the archives and reading SC threads on Iraq.

Its seems there were several of us who accurately predicted what has subsequently come to pass. Not one of the accurate predictions was from the political "right". The righties who commented back in early 2003 have been proven wrong by events on just about every count. IIRC, that includes you.

At least Buckley is smart enough to recognize facts when they stare him in the face.

Events have proven conclusively that Bush and his crew don't have a clue.

What you did was encourage insurgents along with the back-stabbing politicians on the left. It is said people can think the worst into being. Start thinking too much about a parachute malfunction and guess what.....it's bound to happen. Get too focused on avoiding the runway... guess what?

So congratulations to the efforts of those of the fifth column. All the media hype and hysteria about early withdrawl, berating our troops etc once again you have suceeded. I truely hope you are proud of yourselves. Here's a big pat on the back!!!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

It is said people can think the worst into being.

So the war in Iraq is going badly NOT because it was horribly conceived and executed by the right but INSTEAD because of psychic sabotage on the left?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Lindsey 0]

What you did was encourage insurgents along with the back-stabbing politicians on the left. It is said people can think the worst into being. Start thinking too much about a parachute malfunction and guess what.....it's bound to happen. Get too focused on avoiding the runway... guess what?

So congratulations to the efforts of those of the fifth column. All the media hype and hysteria about early withdrawl, berating our troops etc once again you have suceeded. I truely hope you are proud of yourselves. Here's a big pat on the back!!!

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe what you're saying???? What about the mental energy put into this by all the people like YOU? When a much larger percentage of our population was behind our invading Iraq....why wasn't all of their wishful thinking more succesful in accomplishing our goals? I wish it had gone better, myself...even though I did think it was a fool thing to do in the first place. But maybe that kind of "riding the fence" confuses the gods....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[TheAnvil 0]

You predicted a civil war? I don't recall that. I do recall the term quagmire being used in predictions and to describe the U.S. onslaught against the regime of Saddam Hussein, however. Don't recall much about leftists predicting a subsequent civil war, mosques being bombed in efforts to incite fighting between religious sects, and Iran back then. Perhaps you could provide me a link or two.

I do recall several leftists predicting 10,000 U.S. casualties to topple Saddam Hussein, though I do not recall anyone on the left apologizing for or admitting that they were incorrect.

I know this might surprise you, but there has been a lot that HAS gone right in Iraq. The massive turnouts for elections being one of them. The fact that Al Quaeda intercepts consider Iraq the primary location of jihad and not Afghanistan. The fact that bin Laden offered a truce if we would withdraw from Iraq tells me that we should not do so. I do think, given benefit of hindsight, that we could have done somethings better and that we have a lot of tough decisions to make. I don't want those making them to be people that don't even read data or information prior to making decisions or pontificating about them - do you?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

So congratulations to the efforts of those of the fifth column. All the media hype and hysteria about early withdrawl, berating our troops etc once again you have suceeded. I truely hope you are proud of yourselves. Here's a big pat on the back!!!

And then the ironic signature Don't believe everything you think.



This thread is beginning to vaguely remind me of Michael Shermer's explanation of "Why Smart people believe weird things?"

Quote

why do smart people believe weird things? My Easy Answer will seem somewhat paradoxical at first:

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[shropshire 0]

<>
That's totally unfair! or haven't you every heard of the U.K?

Plus.. the US/UK caused the problem in the first place so why on earth should anyone else even consider sholdering your burden?

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

It is said people can think the worst into being.

So the war in Iraq is going badly NOT because it was horribly conceived and executed by the right but INSTEAD because of psychic sabotage on the left?

Like Alice, he can believe several impossible things before breakfast.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

At this stage right vs wrong is moot.

......



Again it is too late to debate the right or wrong of it.
Richards

ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

"Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

This quagmire, voluntarily entered into by Bush and Blair, is a lesson of history.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Richards 0]

Quote

<>
That's totally unfair! or haven't you every heard of the U.K?

Plus.. the US/UK caused the problem in the first place so why on earth should anyone else even consider sholdering your burden?

.

Oops sorry about ommitting the UK. Again though the US is carrying a larger burden.

I never denied that the US/UK were the ones that went in and created it but that does not change the fact that we have a moral obligation to try to help as it is the Iraqi people who stand to pay the highest price. I fail to see how standing by and not helping is justified because "we did not start it". We did not create the tsunami that leveled parts of Asia, so based on your argument we have no obligation to help. We did not create drought in East Africa, so are we then not morally obliged to help. Again you reduce this to finger pointing at the US. That is like my refuseing to render first aid to someone that you ran over with your car and justifying my lack of action by saying "I was not the one who did it". If the Iraq mission fails the Iraqui people will suffer hideously and while the left will have the smug satisfaction of pointing the finger at the US, they will also have to carry the guilt of realizing that they could have helped but stood by and said "it's not my problem because I did not start it". Incedentally since the West did not start the holocaust could we be morally justified in letting Hitler do what he wanted because we felt that Britain and France created this problem by capitalizing on Germany's defeat in WW1 and destroying their economy with the conditions set down by the Treaty of Versailles, thus humiliating all German people and inflicting needless poverty just because they were the victors.

Again it's time for mature debate about solutions, not finger pointing.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[shropshire 0]

Good post.....
Whilst I agree that we should do less finger pointing (I just cannt help it...)
Comparing the mess that is Iraq to the natural disasters of the Tsunami, droughts etc is Non sequitur, in as much as they were not directly created by man and so ther can be no logical connection.

So, what should the rest of the world do to assist Iraq... how about sending in more troops so that the Iraqies feel more threatened and the cycle of violence continues (or escalates).....

Or remove the US/UK forces and send in the UN?

I cannt see a good answer to this mess as yet.

What would you suggest?
.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome