National Review Editor: ‘People Would React Favorably’ To Escalating Troop Levels In Iraq
National Review Editor: ‘People Would React Favorably’ To Escalating Troop Levels In Iraq
In a Washington Post editorial today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and National Review editor Rich Lowry call for an escalation in Iraq. Appearing on Fox News to reinforce the argument, Lowry claimed that if Bush were to say, “we’re going to send two more divisions into the city [Baghdad] and lock it down and secure it… people would actually react favorably to that.” Watch it.
Kristol and Lowry state, “The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.” Their argument is wrong on many levels.
First, there is no indication from public polling that there is any U.S. support for increasing troop levels in Iraq. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 17 percent of Americans supported increasing force levels, while 53 percent favored decreasing them.
Second, the argument wrongly suggests that violence in Iraq is constricted to Baghdad. In fact, as the senior Marine intelligence officer in charge of Western Iraq reported, the political and economic security situation there is — like Baghdad — rapidly destabilizing.
Third, escalation is the wrong remedy to the problem because it fails to understand the root cause of the problem. Increasing troop levels feeds the perception that the U.S. is in Iraq to stay, thereby fueling the insurgency. Moreover, the numerous increases in troop levels throughout the occupation have not improved security on the ground.
More from Glenn Greenwald and Matthew Yglesias.
Full transcript:
HOST: And you and Bill Kristol wrote a piece suggesting we need more troops in iraq. If the president were to call for that right now, what do you think the reaction would be?
LOWRY: Well, I have a view that’s counter to the conventional wisdom on that. I think what is dragging Bush down on Iraq is that the people are not convinced that he has a plan for victory there. And I think if he frankly acknowledged the crisis situation on the ground in Baghdad as he has begun to, he has used the word crisis in the speech recently, and said look this is how we will deal with it, we’re going to send two more divisions into the city and lock it down and secure it, and I think people would actually react favorably to that.
And the one encouraging thing in Iraq despite all the distressing news is in those neighbors in Baghdad that are intensely patrolled by Americans, they are more secure and we are able to make progress when we have the guys on the ground to do it. And I just believe we need more guys on the ground.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Is it just me, or does it seem these neo-con freaks are becoming the fringe?
The neo-con revolution is winding down, the 9-11 fear is dissapating, only the wack job base is for this crap anymore.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pm“a decisive battle at a decisive moment”
That alone underscores how little they understand the situation in Iraq.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pmLOWRY: Well, I have a view that’s counter to the conventional wisdom on that.
Yeah, its called insanity.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pmTHEY HAVE LOST THEIR MINDS!
THEY ARE OFFICIALLY CRIMINALLY INSANE!
.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pmThe GOP wingnuts are becoming even more delusional as they see their grandioise dreams go awry. Similar to Fall of the Third Reich !
September 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pmThe “insurgency” (hard to call it that when so many of the fighters are imports from Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc) isn’t there because of US “occupation”. The insurgents are Sunni muslims who were in power (though being a vast minority) during Saddams reign and now they see their power being eradicated by the vast Shi-ite majority. They believe the only way to get power back is incite civil war, which would basically force US troop withdrawl, then they could (with the aide of the flood of foreign “insurgents”) trounce the Shi-ites and force them back into a life similar to when Saddam was in power. Your insistance of calling the insurgents being fueled by US “occupation” is just another Dem talking point that just ignore the reality on the ground there.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:49 pmWhy, sure … the 30% or so who still support th’ Bushwhacker will be quick to volunteer for service … so, it’s a win-win situation.
Right?
September 12th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhere are these extra troops supposed to come from? I don’t see people rushing down to my local recruiting office.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:51 pmWhere the hell are we going to get more troops? There are no troops left, and the ones who are there are in their second and third deployments. We can’t argue this without talking about the draft.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:51 pmI have no problem with sending more troops, as long as their last name is Bush, Cheney or Rove.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pmOh, yeah, and they are drafted, and taxes are raised for the wealthy and the oil companies to pay for their war.
Oh, yeah, and GW Bush is in an unarmored Hummer, driving up and down Sadr city every day.
the 9-11 fear is dissapating
Really? I thought that (according to this very blog) we were less safe.
Which is it??
September 12th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWell, thanks for the enlightenment. I never would have considered that adding MORE troops to the occupation would make it LESS of an occupation and, therefore, more acceptable to the insurgents who would drop their weapons, paint their fingers purple, and give the soldiers the flowers and chocolates they have been keeping for just the right occasion. My bad.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:55 pmI will bet my usual odds, $20 to a glass of warm pee, that the “people” assigned to the two divisions would not “react favorably.” I suspect most of them would momentarily change their political alignment to the Replugican Party just long enough to emulate out esteemed VEEP with a resounding chorus of “engage in an act of autofornication.”
September 12th, 2006 at 1:56 pmHey, Marvin from Mars, how about a little, um, factual support for your argument?
Seems to me that “foreign interlopers” account for only a small percentage of the fighting in Iraq these days; most of the fighting is carried out by Sunnis and Shi’ites fighting each other, and Iraqis of various traditions (though, likely mostly Sunnis) targeting the U.S. and Iraqi security forces. If I’m wrong, please enlighten me … with facts, not opinion.
And, on what do you base the statement that there is a “flood” of Sunni warriors just waiting to pour into Iraq as soon as the U.S. leaves?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that I’m not gonna just take your word for it …
September 12th, 2006 at 1:57 pmdont laugh, they only have to say such ridiculouse things, then it spreads like a disease through the MSM, then -bam- more troops are off to Iraq. Whether or not people agree, they do what ever they want , this may just be how they are going to let us know thats their next step.
They ARE the fringe, their biggest tool against the gen-pop is pretending we (and our opinions) dont exist.
we live in a dictatorship, not a democracy, whatever they say “the enemy” is doing, America is actually doing. ask an Iraqi what a terrorist looks like?
they are insane and they
CONTROL every aspect of our lives!
seek the truth, Question Authority,
September 12th, 2006 at 1:58 pmno one has to die tomorroW.
FOX lies so much about Iraq, that I am not surprised about anything they claim anymore > shame on them!
September 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pmWhere are they getting their polling data, Tracy Costin??
September 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pmmust use force, must use force, must use force… repeat this mantra for two more days and call back if not comprehending the necessity.
If you are someone committed to the “might makes everything all right” proposition, that amoral decisions are based on the necessary and appropriate use of coercive power, then one could, i suppose, argue that more troops would be justified. From this perspective (and some dare call it crazy) the US, and its corporate 1% ownership society, desperately need unfettered access to the oil reserves of the region, as well as maintaining the flow of capital from the taxpayers, through the asian banks, to the military-security-service complex. Fear mongering begets spending begets coercive force services begets media attention begets sales of products begets profits for big oil begets maintenance of a failing economy. In a very unfortunate and real sense, troops and equipment in Iraq create profits ($1.4 trillion so far) for corporations at home. But like some above pointed out, this is a wee bit insane.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWell of course there’ll be a troop increase in Iraq. It’s called, “Iran.”
September 12th, 2006 at 2:07 pmRich Lowry?
” But to think that higher troop levels would have been a magic bullet is to indulge a very American faith in the power of mass to overcome anything.”
He’s an idiot.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:08 pm“The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.â€
This observation is very true . . . . or was four years ago.
Can these peple be in the “decisive” paid employ of some “decisive” sinister group that wants to continue a decisive loosing battle?
HHmmm?
Because they sure do not reflect the sensabiltities of the American citizenry
September 12th, 2006 at 2:08 pmTalk about right-wing spin!
“Lowry claimed that if Bush were to say, “we’re going to send two more divisions into the city [Baghdad] and lock it down and secure it… people would actually react favorably to that.”"
People WOULD react favorably “IF” we were to actually secure Baghdad. We’ve been there for three years and then some! Why haven’t we actually DONE the “securing”?
Could it be that Pres. Bush never included “securing” as part of his “invade Iraq” strategy? Most probably.
Could it be that Pres. Bush was more interested in “securing” the oil fields? Almost definitely.
Could it be that Pres. Bush wants to keep the US at war so he can “beat the terrorism drums to raise his approval ratings?
When you start a war and REFUSE to consider any kind of “exit strategy”, then you’re either criminally incompetent or actively incompetent.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:09 pmThe war on Karma is declining get the troops out of Iraq and the only thing to fear is relatives of the 216,000 dead and 370,000 wounded getting revenge for Bushes Karmas
September 12th, 2006 at 2:09 pmWell, Mr. Lowry sure looks young enough to go fight in Iraq. He should get his air-conditioned butt over there right away, instead of wasting his breath over here carrying on about the inadequate number of troops.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:12 pmThe troop increases probably will be more mercenaries. Paid guns for American vengence. Can anyone tell me when it our armed forces started to outsource all the things it used to do on its own. Like cooking, hauling, building construction, fighting, etc.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:14 pm“The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.â€
This is true . . . or was four years ago.
It is very “Bush League” to think more poor people need to fight and die in more ” decisive – ly” lost battles to win a war that is a money maker.
If the US “wins”, profits drop
September 12th, 2006 at 2:14 pmThe only reason to send more troops to Iraq would be to assist in the evacuation of the surviving troops already on the ground from an illegal war.
From the beginning of this war US Military leaders on the ground have been asking for more troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. They received talking points, speeches and photo ops instead.
Now that things are spiraling out of control it’s time to take action. Why? Because it’s an election year.
The lies and hubris of George Bush have brought us into Iraq which has been turned into an indescriminate meat grinder. Now, as the blades spin faster and faster all he can think to do is add more meat.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pm“we’re going to send two more divisions into the city [Baghdad] and lock it down and secure it… people would actually react favorably to that.â€
Right until actual results continued to *not* be delivered. Then the president’s ratings (which he doesn’t pay attention to because you can’t make good decisions by, oh say, following the will of the people) would sink even lower as people realized that they’d been hoodwinked again by a simple message of hope that failed to account for the human possibility of failure.
Never mind the message it sends to the citizens of Iraq who see three years of freedom as three years of living in an occupied territory where heavily armored, masked men tell them to go out and vote because its their duty.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pmKristol/Lowry logic: Escalating number of troops in Iraq will escalate the number of “hearts and minds” we will win. Will also help in picking up flowers still left over when we first “liberated” them. Their logic never ceases to amaze. Why even dignify these neocriminals an audience?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pmRich Lowry says, “We need a lot of guys on the ground” in Baghdad.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pmJust what is the proportion of soldiers to civilians needed to keep things secure?
Irans Battle plans
1/ Stop uranium enrichment for two months But get it Acknowledged that Iran Has the right under the NNPT to its own enrichment for energy
2/ Help to Bog Down as many American troops in Iraq as possible
3/ Change the petroDollar for the PetroEuro
4/ Ask Chavez to join in and Saudi
Then America has lost big time, U.S. trade deficit hits all-time high ,
The drop in exports in July was led by a $1.2 billion decline in sales of U.S. capital goods, reflecting declines in shipments of civilian aircraft, computers and computer accessories and industrial machinery.
America’s trade deficit with Japan rose by 8.1 percent in July to $7.6 billion while the deficit with the 25-nation European Union jumped by 48 percent to $13.4 billion.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pmHere’s the best plan yet.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:22 pmPut enough troops in Badgag so that every household would have three US troops assigned to it. The guys can work in 8 hour shifts, holding a gun on all members of the household, herding them about whilst locked and loaded.
Only then will freedom be on the march.
I’m sure that there are at least 2 people in the world that would respond positively to adding more troops in Iraq. Of course, the majority of the American People don’t support having the number of troops we have in Iraq now.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:23 pmSeems to me that “foreign interlopers†account for only a small percentage of the fighting in Iraq these days; most of the fighting is carried out by Sunnis and Shi’ites fighting each other, and Iraqis of various traditions (though, likely mostly Sunnis) targeting the U.S. and Iraqi security forces. If I’m wrong, please enlighten me … with facts, not opinion.
And, on what do you base the statement that there is a “flood†of Sunni warriors just waiting to pour into Iraq as soon as the U.S. leaves?
Dave,
In doing a little research, it does appear that foreigners do account for about only 10% of the current insurgency. But like you say, the fighting is being instigated by mostly Sunni’s. Who most likely don’t want to see the power they have grown accustomed to for decades be wiped away by the electing of a Shi-ite majority government. I think it is wrong to say that the insurgency is being fueled by US occupation.
Answer me this. Do you think the violence level would increase or decrease if America withdrew right now? Would the insurgents pack up their guns and submit to the elected government? I highly doubt it. They would continue to target civilians hoping to incite civil war. And since the Shia’s vastly outnumber the Sunni’s, I don’t think they could win an out right civil war without help from foreign fighters. I can’t source “that there is a “flood†of Sunni warriors just waiting to pour into Iraq as soon as the U.S. leaves” but it is a logical conclusion, yes?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThis administration won’t even mention increased troops in Iraq until the polls close on election day in November. After that, look out.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:24 pmfrom the thinkfast thread… works here too, laura…
Guess who IS “winning the hearts and minds†of Iraq citizens? That’s right kids, it’s Iran! Oops, I guess we’re not doing that great of a job over there in the middle east. It seems Iran leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is smarter than we thought. If only our president was as smart, we might not be in this terrible mess. Anyway, here is the article on just how well we’re doing over there in Iraq. Sad, isn’t it?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ 2006/ WORLD/ meast/ 09/ 12/ iraq.iran/ index.html
Comment by Laura — September 12, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
…
Lowery is a moron !
September 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pmMaybe this exchange on CNN between Michael Ware and Miles O’Brian will help explain things:
Video: Commanders privately express needing 3X more troops
September 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pm(via RawStory)
Fear has nothing to do with safety.
A dumbass red neck once tied the middle of a ladder to the top of his fence. He climbed to the top of the ladder and was going to jump off into his pool. When he pushed off, the top of the ladder went backwards because he didn’t secure the bottom of the ladder. He ended up doing a face plant on the cement next to his pool
This red neck had no fear what so ever, but there was nothing safe about what he did.
Fear and safety are mutually exclusive.
It would take a logical mind to figure that out, so we forgive you.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pmI wonder if Rich and BIll have some plan for getting all the terrorists in one spot, you know, for that decisive battle?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pmThese republofascist liars are FOS! In April 2006 Mr Lowery wrote a piece that said:
You hardly qualify as a retired general these days unless you have written an op-ed piece demanding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. One of Rummy’s alleged sins was not providing enough troops to secure postwar Iraq. The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is both characteristically American and somewhat beside the point.
But to think that higher troop levels would have been a magic bullet is to indulge a very American faith in the power of mass to overcome anything. In Iraq, we have faced a delicate political and cultural problem that requires finesse above all — finesse dependent on a fine-tuned understanding of an alien society.
So lying crap for brains said the exact opposite of what he says now as recently as 5 months ago. How frickin Orwellian do you want to get!
September 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pmAnswer me this. Do you think the violence level would increase or decrease if America withdrew right now? Would the insurgents pack up their guns and submit to the elected government? I highly doubt it. They would continue to target civilians hoping to incite civil war. And since the Shia’s vastly outnumber the Sunni’s, I don’t think they could win an out right civil war without help from foreign fighters. I can’t source “that there is a “flood†of Sunni warriors just waiting to pour into Iraq as soon as the U.S. leaves†but it is a logical conclusion, yes?
Comment by Marvin the Martian — September 12, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
This is exactly the same kind of argument that Americans were given about Vietnam. The result was 58,000 dead Americans and god only knows how many Vietnamese non-combatants. It was wrong, stupid, immoral then. Those of us who lived through those times remember the “Domino theory” crap that justified that war, and the same domino theory is being used today…just with a different name. But in reality it has only ONE name: BULLSHIT!!!
September 12th, 2006 at 2:37 pmConservatism = Insanity.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:37 pmSomeone give this Alex P Keaton wannabe a wedgie STAT!
September 12th, 2006 at 2:37 pmMarvin the Martian
September 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pmIf we stay in Iraq to keep a lid on the civil war, whose side are we on – there can not be any real neutrality because decisions will be made by someone and our soldiers would have to react to something. Our continued presence there is not stopping the killing and will not unless we take over the governing of the country, meaning none of the Iraqis have power and would all be against us. If democracy is to operate in Iraq, the Iraqis are going to have to figure out their Shiite-Sunni-Kurd problems without outside interference or taking sides. Otherwise, where is the self-government? So from a practical and a philosophical stand point, there is no reason for the U.S. to continue its presence.
Neither, the US doesn’t matter. You also might want to stop cheering fo rthe Shiites so much. You do realize who the Shiites are right?
Just take a gander at who is really winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. They are Shiite also.
http://www.cnn.com/ 2006/ WORLD/ meast/ 09/ 12/ iraq.iran/ index.html
September 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pmWhat he meant to say, was delusional, cowardly Republicans who aren’t in uniform would react favorably.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pmThese chickenhawks want to be on record as favoring more troops now. They will refer back to this column in coming years to show their bonafides in courage.
Why does Fred Hiatt favor these idiots?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pmThe 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers
No. 1 and No. 2: CACI and Titan
No. 3: Bechtel: precast profits
No. 4: Aegis Defense Services
No. 5: Custer Battles
No. 6: General Dynamics
No. 7: Nour USA Ltd.
No. 8, No. 9 and No. 10: Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Petro-imperialists
Three years into the occupation, after an evolving series of deft legal maneuvers and manipulative political appointments, the oil giants’ takeover of Iraq’s oil is nearly complete.
“If misjudged — either by denying a fair share to the regions in which oil is located, or by giving regions too much autonomy at the expense of national cohesion — these oil decisions could fracture, and ultimately break apart, the country,” Muttitt suggests.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pmAnswer me this. Do you think the violence level would increase or decrease if America withdrew right now? Would the insurgents pack up their guns and submit to the elected government? I highly doubt it. They would continue to target civilians hoping to incite civil war. And since the Shia’s vastly outnumber the Sunni’s, I don’t think they could win an out right civil war without help from foreign fighters. I can’t source “that there is a “flood†of Sunni warriors just waiting to pour into Iraq as soon as the U.S. leaves†but it is a logical conclusion, yes?
Comment by Marvin the Martian
Just change Sunni and Shia to North and South Vietnamese and there you are. Back about 30 years. The fear of Vietnam collapsing and destroying everything in that part of the world kept us there. Where are we now with Vietnam. Despite our baseless assumptions and idiotic foreign policy Vietnam has survived and now as one country and we have diplomatic ties with them, trade with them, vacation there, etc. But here we are in fear of what will happen in Iraq if we leave them to there own devices. How superior in our ways we must be to think we know better for them. Granted there will be a civil war, no thanks to our illegal invasion. Sad indeed. But worse is the hubris of bush and his henchmen to believe that the US is the dictator there now.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pmStupid link breaking blog software.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/12/iraq.iran/index.html
September 12th, 2006 at 2:44 pmBush’s legacy look like? Like any other bullshit in history…
September 12th, 2006 at 2:44 pm“Answer me this. Do you think the violence level would increase or decrease if America withdrew right now?”
-Marvin (No. 34).
I wish I knew the answer to that question. I understand your point, but it does seem like our continued presence in Iraq hasn’t helped to stabilize the situation over the past months/years. I think the trigger for U.S. troop withdrawal has to be whether we make the situation better or worse by staying in – and, I think that measurement has to be taken frequently. In my view, the only way to know is to start making concrete plans for withdrawal – not precipitously, but according to a set of clear cut benchmarks, with the flexibility to go back in if the situation requires, or to accelerate the withdrawal if appropriate. What is not acceptable, to me, is maintaining the status quo indefinitely without any sign of bringing this war to an end.
Sorry for the non-answer, but, honestly, it’s the best I’ve got right now.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pmI would support more troops to Iraq if it meant people like the Bush twins and the Young Republicans went.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:47 pmFALLUJAH, Sep 11 (IPS) – After enduring two major assaults, Fallujah is under threat from U.S. forces again, residents say.
“They destroyed our city twice and they are threatening us a third time,” 52-year-old Ahmed Dhahy told IPS in Fallujah, the Sunni-dominated city 50km west of Baghdad.
“They want us to do their job for them and turn in those who target them,” he said.
Dhahy, who lost 32 relatives when his father’s house was bombed by a U.S. aircraft during the April 2004 attack on the city, said the U.S. military had threatened it would destroy the city if resistance fighters were not handed over to them.
“Last week the Americans used loudspeakers on the backs of their tanks and Humvees to threaten us,” Dhahy said. Residents said the U.S. forces warned of a “large military operation” if fighters were not handed over.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:48 pmA dumbass red neck once tied the middle of a ladder to the top of his fence. He climbed to the top of the ladder and was going to jump off into his pool. When he pushed off, the top of the ladder went backwards because he didn’t secure the bottom of the ladder. He ended up doing a face plant on the cement next to his pool
This red neck had no fear what so ever, but there was nothing safe about what he did.
Fear and safety are mutually exclusive.
It would take a logical mind to figure that out, so we forgive you.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Your dumbass “example” is noted. However, it seems clear to anyone with a logical mind that the person who said this:
The neo-con revolution is winding down, the 9-11 fear is dissapating, only the wack job base is for this crap anymore
is referring to a feeling that the majority of americans (which I am sure in your collective minds, by extension means liberals) no longer has a salient fear of another 9/11 style attack happening on US soil. So it seemed logical to point out to this person that there were a whole bunch of folks on this blog who disagreed with him and were in fact quite fearful. So if you really have an issue with the logic, I suggest you take it up with “For Truth”.
But as you say, it takes a logical mind to figure all this out, so I forgive you.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:50 pmWe’ve heard this before, remember?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
More troops????….sure….I’ll go right AFTER you, kristol,murdock and o’liely….and rust limpdong.
“There is nothing easier the something you DON’T have to do yourself”……Grandmaw Wisedup.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pmthe only “safe” way out is to build concentration camps, herd all Sunni into them, and leave.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pmTrolls, please comment.
Sounds like the old “they would view us a liberaters” horse shit.
Bill Kristo is such a dweeb. Send him to Iraq but don’t bring him back – ever.
Walt
September 12th, 2006 at 2:54 pmI don’t know anybody, including my republican parents and neighbors that are scared of another 9/11 style attack. The only people I know that are scare of terrorists are right wingers that come to this site. The NeoCons in the WHite aren’t scared either, they just pretendd to be.
So, once again, I forgive you. I also pitty you for being scared all the time.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pmTHE REAL REASON FOR TROOP INCREASES ABOUT NOW FROM BASRA OIL UNION LINK BELOW
‘Organising Against Oil Privatisation’ – Iraqi Union Holds Second Strategy Conference
Hundreds of trade unionists, political and community leaders, experts and academics, will gather in the Basra Institute of Petroleum tomorrow (Monday August 7th) to discuss the future of Iraq’s oil.
One of the aims of the conference is to develop a consensus and articulate a strategy to counter attempts to privatize Iraq’s oil industry. New Oil Minister Dr Hussein Shahrastani recently announced that Iraq’s new Energy Law will be passed by the end of the year. It is widely predicted to advocate for controversial Production Sharing Agreements to be signed with foreign oil majors. Until now, there has been no public consultation involving trade unions or other civil society groups on the country’s energy policy and economic future.
The Union believes that Iraq’s oil industry is the sovereign property of the Iraqi people and that revenue from the sale of oil should be used to rebuild Iraq on terms and conditions democratically agreed by the Iraqi people.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:58 pmHey Kristol!, hows that Project for a New American Century working out for ya?
You Fascist POS.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:01 pmSorry for the non-answer, but, honestly, it’s the best I’ve got right now.
Comment by Dave von Ebers
No need to apologize. You seem a reasonable enough fellow and I respect that. I don’t necessarily disagree with the notion of setting some benchmarks either. It has always been a concern of mine that the interim government would become too reliant on US troops, thus taking away the incentive to get their own butts in gear and getting their own troops on the front lines. There are no clear cut answers. I do believe that withdrawl would lead to far more bloodshed than what is currently going on.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pmMartian,
September 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pmI guess it all depends on the type of fear you are talking about. I don’t think people are at the “red or orange fear” level anymore. Maybe “yellow” is where most people are. I am more “blue” level myself.
So, once again, I forgive you. I also pitty you for being scared all the time.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
The only thing that scares me is the thought of Democrats being in charge of national security.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:08 pmThe only thing that scares me is the thought of Democrats being in charge of national security.
Comment by Marvin the Martian
yea, like in the 90’s, when not a damn thing was done about terrorism.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pm/sarcasm off
We don’t have the stomach, the plan, the money, the desire or the soldiers for this. Our golden opportunities for a better Iraq were squandered a long time ago. We’ve uncorked 2,000 years of resentment between the factions in this area and nothing we do will stop it. Does anyone really believe “Democracy” will take hold in this country. It’s not something you buy off the shelf next to the Mars Bars. Afghanistan and Lebenon are “democracies” and they aren’t making sweeping changes to become pro western.
As far as being more scared or safe I’ve learned to open my eyes, not to take the panic monkey’s words as truth and to continue to live my life.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pmMarvin the Martian
September 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pmWhy would you be scared of Democrats, who are also Americans, being in charge of national security? Do you honestly believe that they could not do AT LEAST as well as BushCo? Can you honestly say that under BushCo the world stage is more stable with less likelihood of violence directed at our citizens?
Yeah, because the republicans are doing such a good job.
If that is the only thing that scares you then you admit that you aren’t scared of another 9/11 style attack. Welcome to the club.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#65
“Maybe “yellow†is where most people are.”
diet,
I don’t know where most people are but I have a good feeling that you have just described most , if not all, neocons: “YELLOW”
Not one of the Neocons has volunteered to go for any one of the true Americans in the two divisions the Neocons intend to send.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:22 pmThis is a neverending war because there is no official surrender and no treaty to sign. No wonder Bush is leaving it up to the next president to figure out what to do.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:24 pmThe fear of Vietnam collapsing and destroying everything in that part of the world kept us there.
Comment by dlet
How many Vietnamese were slaughtered for “political descent” after we withdrew? Upto 3 million. Since you brought up Viet Nam, why don’t you read an interview of Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army for some perspective on how the enemy, then and today, counts on people like you to win their wars for them.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThe caption under the picture:
“What Will the President’s Legacy Look Like?”
I’m thinking GWB’s legacy pretty much is gonna look like our boy Richie.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pmHow many more escalations before a draft is brought up? We can ‘t keep crying wolf and we can’t keep expecting the current military to maintain it’s level of readiness and manpower. The stop loss order will only go on for so long.
It’s the republicans who continually throw up the panic flags. Aren’t we supposed to be in WW3 or 4 occording to these same ass hats?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:28 pmMarvin the Martian
Why would you be scared of Democrats, who are also Americans, being in charge of national security? Do you honestly believe that they could not do AT LEAST as well as BushCo? Can you honestly say that under BushCo the world stage is more stable with less likelihood of violence directed at our citizens?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
I never said that they weren’t americans. It boils down to philosophy. I haven’t heard anything from the Democrats about what they would do to make me safer, except secure the ports, which is laughable. Most of the Democrat “plans” for pretecting the citizenry are plans that require us being perfect in our security. The enemy only has to get it right once. I prefer the Republican approach to it, take the fight to the enemy. Knock them back on their heels. Make them worry about whether or not today will be the last day they breathe air. As for you last statement of has Bush incited more hatred, that seems to ignore the fact that Islamic radicals have had a grudge against us since the Carter administration. It just took the 9/11 attacks to wake the regular american up to that fact.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:37 pmWe need a “No Soldier Left Behind Act” whereby the military/political intervention in a foreign country can only be initiated with an “Individual Intervention Plan” (school teachers will recognize the parallel to the “Individual Eductation Plan”). This written plan should include 1) a rationale for intervention, 2) description of intervention to include resources to be required (both manpower and material), 3) description of efforts to engage world community in cooperative action in the intervention, description of relationship between nations participating, and continuing efforts to be used to bring other nations into cooperative action, 4) specific goals of the intervention with measurable outcomes defining success and ending of the intervention, 5) description of risks of intervention and results which would indicate that the intervention should be terminated, and 6) description of alternative, least intrusive interventions and rationale for choosing the more intrusive military action.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:39 pmMarvin is afraid of Democrats being in charge because the last Democrat’s Ass Smile deluded us into thinking the world loved us an that everything was “Aw Schucks”, mean while bombs were going off around the globe at american interests and 9/11 was in the making. Thanks but no thanks. We want leaders not poll watchers and people that seek only to win office to get hot chicks (none of them were that hot either)
September 12th, 2006 at 3:40 pmMarvin,
I assume you’re busy packing for your trip from Mars to Iraq. If not, why not? You seem to know exactly how to make us all safer, so you must be heading out. I wish you luck, I really do.
Oh, and we’ll be expecting you to offer up any children and/or grandchildren as cannon fodder — you understand.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:44 pmI haven’t heard anything from the Democrats about what they would do to make me safer, except secure the ports, which is laughable. Most of the Democrat “plans†for pretecting the citizenry are plans that require us being perfect in our security. The enemy only has to get it right once. I prefer the Republican approach to it, take the fight to the enemy. Knock them back on their heels. Make them worry about whether or not today will be the last day they breathe air. As for you last statement of has Bush incited more hatred, that seems to ignore the fact that Islamic radicals have had a grudge against us since the Carter administration. It just took the 9/11 attacks to wake the regular american up to that fact.
Comment by Marvin the Martian
Well for starters, getting Bush out of the White House . . .
The Carter Administration was responsible for putting the Shah in power?
Or is that as far back as your history texts went?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:46 pmShorter Huh: “But … Clenis!”
September 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pm#77
September 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pmYou would think the Lebonese people whose lives were destroyed would be begging Hamas for such an Act…unfortunately they don’t have a voice because they aren’t afforded the luxuries that we take for granted. Thanks PLC :-)
I meant Hezbollah. I always get those terrorist groups mixxed up.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:51 pmMarvin the Martian
September 12th, 2006 at 3:51 pmOnce you “Knock them back on their heels” and “Make them worry about whether or not today will be the last day they breathe air”, do you really think they are going to just stop? These guys are so committed to their cause that they don’t wait for US to stop them from breathing, they do it to themselves and take a bunch of people with them. What is being ignored is the cause, the root causes, the “grudge against us” that drive these people and to deal with that directly. Is any Bush supporter listening to Democrats and any plans, partial plans, nuggets of truth or perspective, or opinion that they have? Or are they, instead, labeling them as “against America”, unpatriotic, unhinged, or laughable?
As for you last statement of has Bush incited more hatred, that seems to ignore the fact that Islamic radicals have had a grudge against us since the Carter administration.
And to combat them, Reagan sold them weapons!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:52 pmMarvin,
I assume you’re busy packing for your trip from Mars to Iraq. If not, why not? You seem to know exactly how to make us all safer, so you must be heading out. I wish you luck, I really do.
Oh, and we’ll be expecting you to offer up any children and/or grandchildren as cannon fodder — you understand.
Comment by Zooey
It’s hilarious that you think this a “refutation” of my points.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:55 pmMarvin,
September 12th, 2006 at 3:56 pmI bet it’s a matter of time before the US stops trying to painstakinly discriminate between friend and foe in the ME. They obviously aren’t motivated enough to eradicate the “militants in their midst”. It doesn’t help too that certain portions of our own populace are misleading them into thinking that Bush is acting in accordance with America’s interests abroad. Sadam made the mistake of listing to and believing in the effectiveness of “Peace Protests”.
Of course, you know Kristol’s rag denigrated Gen. Shinseki when he truthfully told the Senate that “several hundreds of thousands of troops” would be needed to win the PEACE. What a hypocrite assmuncher!
September 12th, 2006 at 3:56 pmAnd to combat them, Reagan sold them weapons!
Comment by Barfly
I guess the fact that Reagan was busy fighting the Cold War means nothing to you. For the record, I don’t blame Carter for the birth of Islamic radicals. I was just pointing out that hatred for the US predates Bush, a point that seems to be lost on some here.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pmunfortunately they don’t have a voice because they aren’t afforded the luxuries that we take for granted. Thanks PLC :-)
Comment by Huh? — S
Take for granted? This is illogical pablum for the hungry idiots of the Right. We’ve been USING our rights to free speech, and being called traitors, you nit.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:59 pmWhat is being ignored is the cause, the root causes, the “grudge against us†that drive these people and to deal with that directly.
PLC, I personally don’t care what drives them. The fact that they choose to express their discontent with us by strapping a bomb on and blowing up civilians is all I need to know. But since you brought it up, how would you plan on dealing with their religious ideology, which is what drives them to commit murder and mayhem. You say you are Chrisitan, do you plan on doing some evangelism? Convert the Islamic radicals to Christianity?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pmHuh?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI would like to see some form of this “No Soldier Left Behind Act” in every country. But even if no one else operates this way, the good ol’ U.S. of A. should be the leader and do so. And, BTW, I don’t take my luxuries (or rights) for granted.
It’s hilarious that you think this a “refutation†of my points.
Comment by Marvin the Martian
Your talking “points” are laughable; I offered a suggestion, and you ignored it. So much for your style of “debate.”
Lets discuss the pros and cons of impeachment, shall we? Or are you chicken?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:02 pmre: #88
Article related to The Weekly Standard and Shinseki here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/vest
September 12th, 2006 at 4:03 pmSADAM made the mistake of LISTING to and believing in the effectiveness of “Peace Protestsâ€.
Comment by Huh? — September 12, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
First of, whose Sadam? Secondly, why did he have a list of all those peace lovers?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI guess the fact that Reagan was busy fighting the Cold War means nothing to you.
The fact that he did this, why assuring the American public that “we don’t make deals with terrorists,” show how hypocritical he was – and a liar to boot.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:05 pmWe would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!!!
Except the ruling authorities there are pro-US, as much as they can be given that the general populace of those nations are not pro-US.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pmI was just pointing out that hatred for the US predates Bush, a point that seems to be lost on some here.
Comment by Marvin the Martian
But your memory only extends to the actions of past Democratic presidents – or you would have brought up Reagan yourself, to acknowledge that while democrats’ mistakes were made, like the failed mission to rescue the hostages, DEMS NEVER LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT “NOT NEGOTIATING WITH TERRORISTS,” LIKE REAGAN!
September 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pmand a liar to boot.
Comment by barfly
I am sure that a sitting president telling a lie is just a shock to you. Did Clinton’s lies bother you?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pmMarvin the Martian
September 12th, 2006 at 4:16 pmYour assumptions are showing – no, I would not try to convert the Muslims since it is obvious that attempts to “convert” them into Western thinking and politics is counterproductive and since I am not an evangelist. I think the answer to the radical Muslim ideology could be found in the West engaging the Muslim community in first recognizing the social and economic issues that lead young Muslims to enlist in the terrorist cause and then in finding solutions. Right now, like you, BushCo does not care about the reasons, just wants to return fire with fire. Anyone who has had to deal with violent people (and I have) knows that de-escalation of violence is not possible by threatening posturing or engaging in violence in return. We are trying to solve a problem by making it “fit” our solution – military only – rather than trying to fit a solution to the problem.
I offered a suggestion, and you ignored it.
Barfly,
Your comment about me going to Iraq to fight is totally irrelevant.
For the record, I have health issues that bar me from serving in the armed forces. My children (all girls) are too young to serve. Furthermore, our military is all volunteer. They know when they enlist that they could get shipped off somewhere if war occurs. It’s part of the job.
Does the fact that I can’t serve preclude me from having opinions on the subject? Clinton never served. He got to be the commander of the whole damn armed forces.
Please explain how my inability to serve is relevant to the present discussion.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#73
How many Vietnamese were slaughtered for “political descent†after we withdrew? Upto 3 million. Since you brought up Viet Nam, why don’t you read an interview of Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army for some perspective on how the enemy, then and today, counts on people like you to win their wars for them.
Comment by Marvin the Martian
So I am guessing that you think that we should have stayed in Viet Nam? Anyway, you missed the point I was going at. It is that the fear of the world ending should not be used to make decisions in leaving Viet Nam or Iraq. It is an overblown fear excuse that is used by the people in power. Yes many people died in the civil war in Viet am and many died in the US civil war and many will die in the Iraqi civil war. But to stay there on the fear driven excuses of bush is the wrong answer. Since you talked about winning wars. How and what criteria would you put for a win in Iraq for the US? Please don’t say when they have their freedom. Something more definitive would be nice.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:21 pmBarfly
September 12th, 2006 at 4:21 pmYou are a traitor if what you do in effect is support the enemy. However, I prefer to call you all Arnold’s.
Anyone who has had to deal with violent people (and I have) knows that de-escalation of violence is not possible by threatening posturing or engaging in violence in return.
Is that why Japan surrendered unconditionally? The only reason they did surrender is we threatened them with even more atomic bombs. Otherwise that conflict would have gone on God only knows how long.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:23 pmYet, you think we should attack Iraq,
Because Saddam aided and abetted terrorists!! Right after 9/11, Bush said that he would not make a distinction between terrorists and the states who sponsor/support them. Iraq was a state sponsor. As was Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan do not officially sanction terror like Iran, Syria do and Iraq did.
PS,
You are not my dad.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:32 pmMarvin the Martian
September 12th, 2006 at 4:36 pmOK, I concede that my “not possible” phrase was too sweeping. However, it is debatable that the atomic bomb was necessary to force Japan to surrender. Nonetheless, Japanese aggression as a nation is not the same as terrorists aggression as a movement. The causes are different and will require different sets of interventions, which, I acknowledge may include some military. But can you not also acknowledge that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East can be perceived by some Muslims as an act of imperialism to which they respond with violence which they increase as we take military (violent) action against them? The cycle will not stop until someone decides to veer off the escalation path.
But can you not also acknowledge that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East can be perceived by some Muslims as an act of imperialism to which they respond with violence which they increase as we take military (violent) action against them?
I can acknowledge this yes.
I think we agree that extremist muslims are the problem. I don’t believe that they can be negotiated with though. They don’t have the desire to be diplomatic. This takes back to democracy building. I have yet to be convinced that this isn’t the best way to go. Freedom is a powerful thing. It can build the economic structures to make more poeple properous in the region, which I think we seem to agree would help stem the tide of radicals.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:52 pmBush said that he would not make a distinction between terrorists and the states who sponsor/support them. Iraq was a state sponsor. As was Syria and Iran.
Comment by Marvin the Martian
Then US should bomb Rumsfeld´s place. Or Reagan´s tomb, or the White House for that matter. NO one has ever contributed so much to terror than US. But Im guessing you cant read.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pmThey don’t have the desire to be diplomatic. Comment by Marvin the Martian
Sending a letter to Bush by Iran´s president must be seen in your eyes like a savage act. You must be talking about Bolton and company.
This takes back to democracy building.
Something Florida and Ohio cant be proud of.
I have yet to be convinced that this isn’t the best way to go.
Meanwhile people die. Yeah, your convincement is a priority.
Freedom is a powerful thing. It can build the economic structures to make more poeple properous in the region, which I think we seem to agree would help stem the tide of radicals.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:03 pmI agree with this one. Too bad US didnt let that happen in Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, East Timor, Guatemala, El Salvador…
Yes, I agree I would react favorably to them sending Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Goldberg, Coulter, Hannity and Colmes, BORe[ O'reilly], Tammy Bruce, Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, AEI, Standard Weakly staff, the whole Faux Media to Iraq.
Great Idea Mr Kristol send the pro-war cheerleaders to the front lines!
September 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pmOtherwise that conflict would have gone on God only knows how long.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pmComment by Marvin the Martian
Good thinking. We should bomb black ghettos, abortion clinics, traffic jams, muslims, arabs, poor people asking for money, and all sources of conflict.
Bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan has made a lot to control terrorism. Yeah. Keep it up.
The bottom line is this: More U.S. GOP Chicken Hawks and hate-baiting media pundits in Iraq would improve our chances of losing a decisive battle at a decisive moment.â€
Their argument is correct on many levels.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pmYou think terrorists are bad, unless they’re you’re terrorists.
Hilarious. When we were supporting afghan “terrorists” fighting Russia, how many innocent women and children did they target?
You think killing is bad, unless you’re behind the killing.
For the ideology of “nuance”, you sure are dense. Of course in your world, intentional target of civilians by the enemy vs. the precision strikes our military employs which are intended to only take out the enemy while keeping collateral damage at an absolute minimum are the same thing.
PS
ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!!
That adds so much doesn’t it?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pmWe must kill all these muslims even in Democratic and Sovereign Nations [except Saudi of course] and bomb the crap out of them so we can kill a small band of Saudi Wahabi Extremists that belong to none of the countries that we have blown the crap out of!
We must lie about WMD,and we must LIE about yellowcake to do that!!
What don’t you guys understand about peace thru death of innocent civilians!! It is for civilisation that we kill tens of thouands of innocent people!!
September 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pm/sarcon
Hilarious. When we were supporting afghan “terrorists†fighting Russia, how many innocent women and children did they target? –Marvin the Moonbat Martian
Probably about as many as Saddam gassed when Rummy and Sr looked the other way and shook Saddams hand..
But wasn’t this operation supposed to free the muslims in Iraq, so they could have a parade and throw flowers? And so democracy could prevail?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:23 pmWe must lie about WMD,and we must LIE about yellowcake to do that!!
You are either an ill-informed ignorant, or a liar.
Which is it?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:28 pmDon’t you see?
Since they didn’t throw flowers and have a parade we must bomb the crap outta more innocent people to make them love and appreciate democracy thru the end of a gun!
It’s how we grow Democracy!
Forget that old saying about Sowing the seeds of democracy.
We must first till the fields with blood!
So what if they hate democracy because we bombed the crap outta them, that’ll learn them love democracy!!
/sarcon
September 12th, 2006 at 5:29 pmIs that why Japan surrendered unconditionally? The only reason they did surrender is we threatened them with even more atomic bombs.
Hey Mars, are you approving dropping nukes?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pmWe must lie about WMD,and we must LIE about yellowcake to do that!!
You are either an ill-informed ignorant, or a liar.
Which is it? -Marty Martian
Your to blind to see the /sarcon?
I’m a Blind Martian!!
But really we know there was no WMD or Yellowcake,
September 12th, 2006 at 5:33 pm[that was indeed a lie]
But I’m not the Liar..am I now?
Marvin, you’re space ship is ready, time for you to leave…
September 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pmIs that why Japan surrendered unconditionally? The only reason they did surrender is we threatened them with even more atomic bombs.
Japan declared war and attacked Pearl Harobor.
Iraq nor Saddam attacked America, and as I last remember the Iraq regime change was for peace and democracy and not to make them surrender unconditionally. I also remeber something about an Iraqi National Congress and Bush’s friend Ahmed Chalabi. You want to nuke Bush’s friend Martian?
Why thats not nice to kill the friends of the GOP Marty Martian!!
Besides if your gonna take that approach, since the extremist terrorists were predominantly Saudi should we just nuke Saud Arabia and make that terrorist nation surrender uncondtionally?
Huh Marty Martian?
September 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWe must lie about WMD,and we must LIE about yellowcake to do that!!
You are either an ill-informed ignorant, or a liar.
Which is it? -Marty Martian
Marty aint laughing no more, gee do you think I made him mad? He is a mean Martian, he went to calling me names and stuff and almost made me cry because I told the truth. Mean old Martians hate Americans.
Why do Martians get mad when you tell them the truth??
“Beam me up there is intelligent life down here” -Marty Moonat Martian
September 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pmI would be in favor of sending in a couple of more divisions, as long as these were manned by Kristol and company, their draft age children and grandchildren, the Bush and Chaney children and grandchildren, Pat Robertson and his ilk of zionist christians, that macho man Bill Reilley and other angry radio talk show hosts (they can head a couple of batallions), and also those “minutemen” who are standing by the US-Mexico border ready to kill…..I say, open volunteer stations down by the hole at the so-called Ground Zero so all those crying patriots can sign up and ship out immediately…..You get the picture. OH, and put a uniform on the brave Commander in Chief and let him swagger down the streets of Bagdag so he can be the first to go meet his maker and jesus in lalaland…..May they all die as true patriots.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:59 pmBut really we know there was no WMD or Yellowcake,
[that was indeed a lie]
But I’m not the Liar..am I now?
Comment by Jason Henbadoach
So I assume all these Democrats were lying as well?
I will let George Tenet answer that ludicrous charge.
These are facts that you all must ignore to make the silly claim that Bush lied about WMD’s. You can keep screaming Bush lied all you want, it doesn’t make it any less false. As I said, you are either willfully ignorant or liars. There is no middle ground.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:01 pmMy suggestion was impeachment – read a little closer next time.
I offered a suggestion, and you ignored it.
Does the fact that I can’t serve preclude me from having opinions on the subject? Clinton never served. He got to be the commander of the whole damn armed forces.
Please explain how my inability to serve is relevant to the present discussion.
Comment by Marvin the Martian —
It’s simple: a chickenhawk (which you are) is little more than a pimp – you try to convince others with your rhetoric to do a job you personally find too hard, too repugnant, to do. Is it necessary for a pimp to be healthy? No. Does it matter if a pimp has children?No. Does it matter if a pimp is old? Does it matter if a pimp previously served as a ho? No. All that matters is that YOU don’t muss yourself while others do the dirty work.
Is that clear enough?
September 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pmTest.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pmDoes the fact that I can’t serve preclude me from having opinions on the subject?
No, but when people call you on your “opinions,” don’t act so offended; ’cause last time I looked, you were still posting on a progressive board, and no-one has tried to censor you.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:23 pmbarfly, if my country hadn’t put medical restrictions on serving, I would already be in the military doing the dirty work, but that is beside the point.
Using your il-logic, hardly anyone (Dem or Repub) would be able to make any decisions regarding the military as very few have actually served. Do you want your government to made up entirely of retired/ex military?
Given your general distrust of all things military, I hardly think you would want that.
Is that clear enough? Can you now see how irrelevant your comment was?
September 12th, 2006 at 6:25 pmSeptember 12th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
I know the link doesn’t work. When I tried to fix it, the system told me the comment was blocked as spam.
This is the Tenet speech
September 12th, 2006 at 6:29 pmNo, but when people call you on your “opinions,†don’t act so offended; ’cause last time I looked, you were still posting on a progressive board, and no-one has tried to censor you.
Comment by barfly
I am not offended. Please don’t confuse defending my positions as being offended. This is healthy debate right? I can honestly say I have learned some things today.
And I should hope no one censor’s me. That certianly wouldn’t be progressive. :)
September 12th, 2006 at 6:33 pmSorry, but considering how generally dishonest you’ve been about other topics.
Dishonest?? Please back up this claim. Tell me where I have lied please.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:34 pmLet’s see, the army and marines are strained to the limit now-calling people from the IRR back, raising the enlistment age, taking those with criminal records and low IQ types. The ONLY way to put more troops into Iraq is to bring back the draft. A draft may well be just the spark needed to ignite full-scale rebellion in the USA.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
But I assume you think that a Democrat that was fed propaganda is a liar?
I would say they were gullible, but not liars.
That CIA intell “propoganda” was the same propoganda Bush saw. Please read the Tenet speech.
For crying out loud, Bill Clinton said Sddam was a threat and was constantly trying to enhance his WMD program. Did he lie? Was he doctoring intell? I doubt that is your assertion.
But when Bush goes on record saying the same things Clinton did, which are also said by democrats (even John Edwards, who was on the Senate Intelligence committee), then you say Bush lied, but the Dems are gullible.
I am sorry, but you are either blinded by your partisanship or lying yourself.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:46 pmif my country hadn’t put medical restrictions on serving, I would already be in the military doing the dirty work, but that is beside the point.
This a forum where anyone can make any claim, and we both know that. Prove to me this is not just “chickenhawk squawk;”
Post your medical files to prove your assertion – or admit that your entire reason for not joining is specious, because it can’t (won”t) be proved by you when called on it. And this is not “beside the point – it goes to the heart of your argument, and what a chickenhawk is.
Given your general distrust of all things military . . .
Comment by Marvin the Martian
It’s broadbrush statements like this that causes the “chickenhawk” name to be thrown around – in response. Point to where you think I asserted “my general distrust for all things military.” I just don’t trust our weaselly “commander-in-chief.”
As far as your logic goes (which ain’t far):
Using your il-logic, hardly anyone (Dem or Repub) would be able to make any decisions regarding the military as very few have actually served. Do you want your government to made up entirely of retired/ex military?
Who said: “a chickenhawk is a war pimp, and as such, they cannot make decisions regarding the military?” Is that what you’re claiming I typed?
Me? Or are you swatting at strawmen? No, my observation had to do with opinions, and not being someone who advocates something they would never do themselves – or those who think previous service give them a free pass to make sweeping statements when someone else’s butt is on the line. Seems perfectly logical to me.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:10 pmPost your medical files to prove your assertion
So unless I can post a copy of my medical files that show I have epilepsy (which is why the military wouldn’t let me enlist), then I am a chickenhawk?
Lovely logic chief.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pmMartian is not here to debate, but to puke back Republican talking points as if they were fact. Stalin, Saddam, and Martian share the same philosophy for achieving peace: kill all who oppose you.
Man-unkind has tried that route to peace for thousands of years, Martian. What makes you think it will succeed now? How many must die to achieve your Utopian world of lasting peace through slaughter?
September 12th, 2006 at 7:45 pmMarvin, your claim of medical reasons may or may NOT be real. Soooo many chickenhawks claimed medical deferments that are as phoney as a $3.00 bill. e.g.: Rush Limpdick-cyst( a malady that did NOT prevent others from serving- as I personally changed the bandages of other GIs with the same affliction), Patrick Buchanan-bad knee kept him out of Vietnam, but not from jogging. Ted Nugent-did not bath for weeks prior to his induction physical-just to name a few.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Actually, this is exactly what needs to happen in Iraq. I was a dove on the first half of the war. We did not need to go in there in the first place. Saddam had the place on lock down.
Today it is a completely different situation. We DID go in there without enough troops, and remove Saddam, and now there is a civil war. If US troops leave Iraq, Iran and Syria will swoop in from either side, and we will have a Shiite band of insanity accross the Middle East. Gas prices will go up. Our economy will get screwed. Sorry folks, this is the reality of the situation.
I am in full support of a massive troop escalation in Iraq. Before the UN screwed everything up in Mogadishu in the early 90’s and before Black Hawk Down, we had a massive Marine presense there working as beat cops. They knew their districts and the people who lived there. Security was good, and the locals were mostly happy. Unfortunately we turned the city over to the UN and they retreated to their bases, similar to what we have done in Baghdad, and all hell broke loose. Then we sent in our Rangers to fix the problem, and well, you all know what happened then.
I am not just being an armchair QB on this one. So I don’t want to hear it. My sister is in the Army, and I am in the Delayed Entry Program – I’m going in when I’m done with school in March.
Quit your bitching. This is a new fight. Iraq War 3, here we go… :(
September 12th, 2006 at 8:10 pmAnd 9/11 has what to do with Iraq?
Did you not see the republican report that came out on Friday that said there were no ties between al Qaeda and Saddam?
Or did you not see it like your master Cheney?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:30 pmAnd didn’t you see the report that Bush, immediately after 9-11, told the CIA to take another look at Saddam. he was told there was NO link between Saddam and 9-11, and Bush’s reply was to take another look anyway, he wanted to know even the most insignificant links. So even after being told there was no link between the two, immediately after 9-11 he was already pushing for a war with Iraq.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:37 pm#154 john; as you are joining the army, I can only say this- a fool and his life are soon parted.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Don’t be shocked to hear the word “draft” discussed alot once the elections are over in November. Bush Co. will try any crazy idea before they admit that they screwed up by attacking Iraq and making us all less safe.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:51 pmso typical of neocons. lets play war and make everyone bleed. Won’t be happy until it’s WWIII.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:53 pmNeocons should be brought before the American people and answer for thier warmongering.
Krystal even told Shrub that his presidency will be a failure if he doesn’t bomb Iran. Please. His presidency is a failure no matter what.
GET YOUR SHOVELS OUT BECAUSE THIS IS PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLCRAP! FAUX NEWS IS DESPERATE AND IS NOW TOTALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF ‘FANTASY NEWS….HAHAHAHAH! WHO IN AMERICAN IS WATCHING THEM AT THIS POINT ANYWAY?
Like the piece of pedestrian propaganda put out by ABC in an attempt, albeit futile, to rewrite history, FAUX News is a fictionalized version of propaganda….that’s really a stretch.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:05 pmYou are either an ill-informed ignorant -Martian Moonbat
Yo Martian dude you ever seen a well informed ignoramus?
I mean WTF?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:09 pmBut I know if I was in the Presidents shoes, and the CIA director told me that it was a “slam dunkâ€, I probably would have done the same thing, meaning I would have gone into Iraq as well, given that 9/11 had just occured. It can be reasonably argued that the President should have told the citizenry that there were doubts by some in the Agency about whether Saddam was a threat. But that doesn’t mean he lied
Sure it does Cheney and crew cherry picked the intelligence. Even some of the sattelite photos were known to out of service on the date they said they were taken.
That is why Colin Powell made them sit behind him in his speech. The OSP and WHIG group knew this was false, and if the OSP knew Cheney Knew. Hellooo?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:14 pmThese are facts that you all must ignore
If they are lies then they cannot be facts can they?
They NEVER were facts so they can never be truth, right?
And since they were not ‘facts’ of course we ignored them as we knew them to be non-factual, time has proved us correct and you my little green friend, wrong. You and bush accepted them as fact, not I.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:19 pmKristol and Lowry state, “The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.â€
Then by all means, Mr. Kristol and Mr. Lowry need to immediately leave their jobs and sign up to go to Iraq.
As do all neocons who believe as they do.
I think it’s time to cut off the overpriced, privatized funding of this war, cut off the Halliburton, Brown & Root gravy train, and reinstate the draft for all Americans.
We make it a hell of a lot easier for these neocons to take the country to war when we allow them to borrow money and hire professional mercenaries (at 10 times the cost of what we pay U.S. military) to fight the neocons’ and corporations’ battles instead of the people of the U.S. fighting battles that really do mean our life or death. That’s only going to happen when our own asses are on the line.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:19 pmMarvin:
You are drawing the wrong conclusion with regard to intelligence about WMDs prior to our invasion. The intelligence was wrong. There is also excellent evidence from various quarters that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., chose to believe the worst possible constructions placed upon very uncertain evidence, and that they “sexed up” what was available.
In any case, THEY WERE WRONG. Clinton was WRONG. Kerry was WRONG. Any pols who claimed that there were significant numbers of WMDs in Iraq were WRONG. So the questions to ask are: why did we invade on such flimsy evidence? Why was such evidence as there was for WMDs so completely wrong? Were we had? By whom? Why did Bush and crew believe Chalabi, who had not been in Iraq since 1956 for Gawd’s sake, who was known to have a very shady history, and who had an agenda which couldn’t have been clearer if Chalabi had posted it in bright neon lights? Why did Bush and crew choose to believe “Curveball” when they were warned that he was extremely untrustworthy?
And the 64,000 dollar question: what can we do in the future to avoid acting so disastrously on such flimsy evidence?
It doesn’t MATTER which politicians said before the war that there were WMDs. What MATTERS is how the information went wrong and how to avoid future wrong actions based upon wrong information.
Also, Clinton and other pols didn’t act upon this poor intelligence. HUGE difference there.
Finally, WE invaded Iraq, dammit, and all comparisons to WWII are rendered invalid by that very fact. We are the wrongdoers here.
We Americans are just as fallible as all other human beings. American exceptionalism is a myth and everytime we act upon that assumption, we run into disaster.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:21 amThere is one argument that absolutely settles this matter finally and completely. It doesn’t matter whether more troops would make a difference or not.
WE DON’T HAVE THE TROOPS AVAILABLE!
It’s that simple, argument settled. Sit down, please and shut up.
Unless, of course, the neocons are willing to take there second amendment rights and go to Baghdad themselves.
Haven’t seen much of that, have you?
September 13th, 2006 at 1:36 am#73
Marvin, where on Earth do you get your wild numbers?! The 3 million (old pre-1995 figure) Vietnamese died during the war due the mass murder commited on them by the US and mostly the South Vietnamese troops. Most of the rural population of Vietnam were Viet-Cong sympathisers (which is the main reason the war was lost). Based on the current, more reliable data a figure of 5.4 million covers the entire conflict. While various “scholars” are busy desperately pulling various numbers out of their asses by means of “extrapolated data” to conjure images of vast post-war purges, the well documented reconciliatory policies of the North Vietnamese government confirmed by eye-witness accounts of people you can now talk to while basking in one of those new Vietnamese tourist resorts put a lie to that spin. Were there political persecutions? Sure. But their numbers were but a tiny fraction of the war casualties.
I find this revisionist history of yours to be truly disturbing,
September 13th, 2006 at 1:39 am#154-Good for you…the only chickenhawk I have seen say they will join their lovely war for oil. As a Vietnam Veteran, I would love to hear from you once you join the fray. Please be honest with us when you find out that your were duped by a lying drunken AWOL coward and his cabal, all for the military industrial complex, oil company executives, and Karl Rove and the PNAC.
Good luck my friend, you are going to need it.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:55 am#170,
kasinca,
A minor technicality: if he has indeed put his butt where his mouth is, he is no longer a “chickenhawk” but an old-fashioned “hawk”. We gotta be consistent on these things.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:05 amPool Accessories
Still, I believe some people (like me) think in different way regarding this topic
March 14th, 2008 at 6:53 amKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 7:18 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 2:54 amWestern Home Accessories
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pmBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:31 amCash Loan Advance
Cash advances help online customers while removing hassles from the steps brisk and smooth.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:49 amAsian Asian Schoolgirl Asian Porn Stars
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pmAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pmChanel Ryan Nude
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:06 amRyan Channel
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:06 amRyan Designer
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:06 amModel Ryan
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:06 amChanel Ryan
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:06 amVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:49 pmEric
The term is used colloquially for any kind of Linkback. (Blogger now has backlinks – very similar to the trackback feature in Movable
March 24th, 2008 at 5:58 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 10:55 pmCash Advance
Same day cash advance are found to be groovy and admirable outcome to budgeting endorser on the world wide web.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:13 amAsian Asian Hotties Asian School Girl
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pmcycle accessories
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:16 am