Harman On Iraq: We Should Take ‘Success’ Out Of Our Lexicon; ‘Survival’ Is More Logical
Harman On Iraq: We Should Take ‘Success’ Out Of Our Lexicon; ‘Survival’ Is More Logical
ThinkProgress recently sat down with Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee. Asked about her prognosis for the future of Iraq, Harman said, “I don’t think that the surge will succeed because I think our combat mission cannot succeed. And putting more good lives after good lives, as I put it, doesn’t make any sense to me.” She recommended, “we should take the word ’success’ out of our lexicon. ‘Stability’ and ’survival’ are more logical.”
Harman noted she “does not want us to leave Iraq.” Rather, she explained, “I’m someone who supports an ongoing mission in Iraq. But I don’t think a combat mission is the right mission.” Watch it:
The House and Senate will soon begin debate on an Iraq supplemental bill. Their respective bills currently contain provisions for the withdrawal from Iraq in one year. Bush has said he will veto the bill because of that provision. “My advice to this President would be think carefully before you veto this bill,” Harman said, offering that she is a member who could be swayed to compromise.
“There’s a recess going on. There’s time right now for the White House to reach out and engage in helping to craft a final bill that perhaps could show enormous presidential leadership. I would commend the President if he did that,” adding however, “I don’t think the chances are great.”
Transcript:
HARMAN: I don’t think that the surge will succeed because I think our combat mission cannot succeed. And putting more good lives after good lives, as I put it, doesn’t make any sense to me. Changing the mission permits at least a chance for stabilizing Iraq and the government in place, the democratically-elected government to survive. I think succeed — we should take the word “success” out of our lexicon. “Stability” and “survival” are more logical.
And I think many Democrats in Congress — I’m certainly one of them — don’t want us to leave Iraq. We want to change the mission in Iraq. Change the combat mission to a training mission and a counter-insurgency mission.
[...]
I think President Bush is wrong on Iraq. And I think among his other legacies, he may end up having destroyed the Republican Party because people are bailing in record numbers and becoming independents and maybe even some of them Democrats.
So my advice to this President would be think carefully before you veto this bill. See whether there might be something you could negotiate with Congress that could be an outcome that would be in your interest, in the country’s interest, and in the military’s interest. There is no final version of the bill on his desk. The House and Senate bills are different.
There’s a recess going on. There’s time right now for the White House to reach out and engage in helping to craft a final bill that perhaps could show enormous presidential leadership. I would commend the President if he did that. I don’t think the chances are great. But I would certainly urge him to consider it.
[...]
It’s important that we change the mission. The combat mission has failed. There is room — I just said I’m someone who supports an ongoing mission in Iraq. But I don’t think a combat mission is the right mission. Maybe there’s some room for agreement there. And if there is, I would certainly urge the White House to look for it. Because, in addition to the fact that the U.S. is isolated in the world, the White House is isolated in the U.S.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Great…one more call to make Iraq a bipartisan disaster.
Harman needs to go!
April 8th, 2007 at 6:58 pmG. Dubious has demonstrated over and over that he is incapable of leadership, period.
April 8th, 2007 at 6:58 pmMuch less enormous presidential leadership.
WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU, Jane Harman???? GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF Iraq NOW!!!!!! NO WONDER SPEAKER PELOSI DOESN’T TRUST YOU!!!!!
April 8th, 2007 at 6:58 pmHarman noted she “does not want us to leave Iraq.†Rather, she explained, “I’m someone who supports an ongoing mission in Iraq. But I don’t think a combat mission is the right mission.†– -Jane, wanna expound on that thought, juuuuust a bit?
April 8th, 2007 at 7:01 pmJane Harmon’s mantra should be “Hindsight is always 20/20″. Obviously, the mission is doomed to failure because the mission has never been adequately defined. What mission? How? When?? Etc.
As for having a presence in Iraq, perhaps that is an important aspect in maintaining some degree of power in the middle east; again, it’s been botched and will never happen since Bush has created such a quagmire there.
I’m sick and tired of hearing politicos spout off empty rhetoric of what could have been/should have been….and how they support it…but don’t quite support it….but maybe they would if…if…if only – Hey! Crap or get off the pot!
It’s botched by Bush….end of story. Now we need to begin attempting to “right the wrong” and “cut our losses”. Throwing good money after bad never nets positive results, as we all well know.
Jane Harmon simply is a conflicted woman, I’d say. I don’t believe she is grounded enough to live her own life authentically and, therefore, could not possible think things through logically. What we definitely do not need right now is someone who is up one day and down the next….This woman simply hasn’t a clue about who she is or what she believes. In a nutshell: Jane is lost.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pm“Little Wishy-Washy Jane Lost” – that’s apparent.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pmJane Harman is a Bush poodle. She has been supporting this war from the beginning and that is why Nancy Pelosi didn’t want her to have the #2 slot. I certainly hope that she is not re-elected. She definitely needs to go. We have no business occupying Iraq. They don’t want us there and the US public doesn’t want us there. I guess Jane is one of those who think we need to stay so we can steal Iraq’s oil. Shame on you Jane. Actually, Bye Bye Jane…you are soon to be history.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:04 pmJane just wants the permanent bases to remain in place next to all of Iraq’s largest oil supplies, don’t you know!
She doesn’t want us to engage in combat, just to reap the benefits of the Oil Law in Iraq that gives more than 3/4 of the oil revenues to Big Oil.
The longer we stay, the worse it’s going to be for us. If we try to stay permanently, when it gets real ugly here in the U.S., some of us will know why. We are radicalizing more and more with each passing day. Understandably so.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:06 pmArf, arf, and adios, Jane. You’ve just handily made a royal pitoot out of yourself – now be off with you!
April 8th, 2007 at 7:07 pmOK, my fellow war opponents:
Do you really think we should abandon the Kurds and their democracy? What do you think would happen to them if the peshmerga was the only military force defending their kinda-sorta-country?
Do you really think that we should stop working with the locals in Anbar Province who are fighting the foreign jihadists we let into their country, and who keep slaughtering their people?
If we could just pull out and leave these little adventures when they went bad, I wouldn’t be so opposed to them, but we can’t. Bush got us stuck but good, and while “bring the troops home” is the right answer to the big question, once you get down to the specifics, the answer become a little more nuanced.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pmKate,
You are absolutely right about Pelosi and Harman, and I thank God that she didn’t succumb to the pressure to place her as Chairperson of the Intelligence Committee.
Pelosi has impressed me much more than I ever thought she would.
Keep it up Madame Speaker!
Don’t EVER let them get away with defaming your character unjustly.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pmJane Harman,
You simply cannot please every single person, every single time. You know what’s right, just say it.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pmIt’s called commitment — try it some time.
The fact is I think Joe Biden actually has the best plan at this point, and probably the one we’ll end up with in the end.
That is to divide up the country into 3 sectarian provinces.
It may not be perfect but I think its all we have left.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:17 pmI know how much that must have hurt, WORFEUS. I’ve been there myself.
Egad, Biden. I hope I don’t have to vote for that tool. Or Clinton, but they’re the only ones who seem to be ruling out the abandonment of the Kurds.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:22 pmThe fact is I think Joe Biden actually has the best plan at this point, and probably the one we’ll end up with in the end.
That is to divide up the country into 3 sectarian provinces.
It may not be perfect but I think its all we have left.
Comment by WORFEUS — April 8, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
YOU ARE ON POINT…CORRECT…NO DOUBT…
April 8th, 2007 at 7:25 pmJoe,
I can understand your sentiment, to some extent. But now, even top Kurdish elected officials are deriding U.S. actions. It seems we have now lost a good deal of the Kurdish respect and support that we had.
If ALL 3 factions are not satisfied with what we’ve done to their country (and I can’t imagine why they would be satisfied), then why should we stay?
Regardless of when we leave (3 months, 3 years, 30 years), there will be a blood bath. WE cannot smooth over centuries and centuries of hostilities between these factions. There will be continued civil war when we leave, and it probably will get worse before it gets better, but why should we continue to drain OUR resources (militarily, financially, etc.) to a point that it could ultimately lead to our OWN collapse.
It’s horrifying that Bushco got away with what they did, but there is no logic in staying for much longer. We must broker an alternative diplomatically (don’t laugh now) and bring in other countries to help heal this region of the world. We’ve started a blaze, and we could make it an inferno with our continued actions if we’re not EXTREMELY careful.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pmDo you really think we should abandon the Kurds and their democracy? What do you think would happen to them if the peshmerga was the only military force defending their kinda-sorta-country?
I think the Kurds are pretty well off, they decided after Bush Sr abandoned them not to put too much trust in foreigners. The Kurds also stand to control the oil capital of Kirkuk which the Saudis have offered 2 billion dollars for [which they have denied so far]
April 8th, 2007 at 7:28 pmcomment deleted
April 8th, 2007 at 7:34 pmjoe
The issue here is not Iraq.
It’s America. America, right now, cannot afford to maintain itself in Iraq as it has done for the last few years. While the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis are all in for a possible three-way genocide, America’s economy is at risk and the prime duty of America’s government is not to Iraq, not to the rest of the world, but to America.
And from the rest of the world’s point of view, we are watching America’s stockmarket with growing unease, we don’t like that big looming debt, and we all kind of suspect that if America were to go broke, if it were to lose its line of credit, which is a distinct possibility should America be stupid enough to deny China its markets, then the world economy may well collapse. This is not due to the world really needing America’s money, but due to a possible run on the markets.
Iraq cannot be won, and chances are that the longer America remains there, the worse it will become. If it was a question of pure morality, I would say stay, because Bush committed America to that action, but as this is not a matter of pure morality, but rather a matter of practical need, cut your losses.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pmcomment deleted
April 8th, 2007 at 7:43 pmHey Joe! Do you really think the Kurds asked for our help and wanted our so-called “democracy” (our so-called “democracy” is actually fascism and is definitely tanking before our very eyes so who would want what we have anyway? ) If they want hypocrisy, then we can show them how to do it.
As for anyone in Iraq really wanting the US to be there, I believe you need to do your homework. They don’t want us there either – perhaps because they realize, as we do, that our motives are definitely not humanitarian to any degree….simply fascist/imperialistic greed!
April 8th, 2007 at 7:44 pmShe [Harman] recommended, “we should take the word ’success’ out of our lexicon. ‘Stability’ and ’survival’ are more logical.â€
Stability. And this is what Scowcroft, And Bush Sr, stated as to why they didn’t go into Baghdad during the first Gulf War because it would destabilize the region. I didn’t much care for Bush Sr. but he was in this case quite correct.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:45 pmHey, Zooey.
It was just screaming in my brain….
How are you?
April 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pmJoe = sympathetic troll – Do not be deceived by his false sense of humanity or humility. A troll is a troll is a troll….the only distinction between them is whether they are “paid trolls” or simply “pedestrian trolls”; that is, trolls who are inherently stupid and not whoring themselves for a paycheck. Troll outsourcing, that’s what the GOP is doing.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pm“Jane Harmon simply is a conflicted woman, I’d say. I don’t believe she is grounded enough to live her own life authentically and, therefore, could not possible think things through logically.” –veritas
STUNNINGLY WRONG.
• For those who don’t live in SoCal, let me point out that Rep. Harmon REPRESENTS EL SEGUNDO/TORRANCE, home of most of the aerospace/military industrial complex in the United States.
“Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and The Aerospace Corporation, which is headquartered there. It is also home to the Los Angeles Air Force Base and the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), which is responsible for space-related acquisition for the military. In addition to the Chevron oil refinery…Los Angeles International Airport is located immediately to the north of El Segundo…” — wikipedia
April 8th, 2007 at 7:46 pmIraq is tanking GDubious’s legacy right before our very eyes…..and tanking any Republican’s chances of ever being elected into the presidency for a very long, long time.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pmStay out the Bushes,
I can certainly understand your sentiments as well – they are, to a large extent, my own. But I don’t think the facts you mention lead to the conclusion that we should wish the Kurds good luck and bail on them.
You talk about the Kurds “deriding U.S. actions.” I think you need to be a little more specfic. Of course they consider much of what we’ve done foolish – it has been objectively foolish – but that doesn’t mean they are opposed to having our help keeping the people who want to invade and subject them from doing so.
Regardless of when we leave (3 months, 3 years, 30 years), there will be a blood bath.
It’s horrifying that Bushco got away with what they did, but there is no logic in staying for much longer. We must broker an alternative diplomatically (don’t laugh now) and bring in other countries to help heal this region of the world. We’ve started a blaze, and we could make it an inferno with our continued actions if we’re not EXTREMELY careful.
I agree with both of these statements, but I don’t think they are arguments against leaving a force to defend the Kurds. Unlike the rest of Iraq, there is no civil war going on in Kurdistan. For that section of Iraq, the negotiated political solution already exists – a democratic republic, power sharing among the two major powers, a local security force, and no ambitions for the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq. Basically, the status quo before the war, which includes our guarantee of their security. We do need a diplomatic solution to keep Iraq from becoming a regional inferno, but a secure Kurdistan that renounces its ambitions in surrounding countries and does not support Kurdish militant groups elsewhere – which would be their end of the bargain – has to be a part of that solution. And those things will not exist without our security guarantee.
Zep Tepi,
After the First Gulf War, Papa Bush (and later Clinton) defended the Kurds’ security by using our military to make Kurdish territory a “No Fly/No Drive” zone for the Iraqi military. They didn’t blow off foreign assistance, they eagerly made themselves an American ally.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:48 pm“I agree with both of these statements, but I don’t think they are arguments against leaving a force to defend the Kurds.”
The Kurds DO NOT NEED and DO NOT WANT ‘protection.’
When Buschco invaded, they demanded that the Kurds disband their mountain warriors. The Kurds politely declined. No one screws with the Kurds — they have paid in blood to be one of the most proactively self-defensive societies on the earth.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:52 pmBruce Gorton,
You’ve just laid out an excellent argument for stopping the war we’re fighting in Iraq, and I agree with it. However, we maintained a defensive mission in Kurdistan for a decade before Bush began this war, without the slightest strain on our military capacity. I’m not talking about continuing to keep 150,000 troops on constant combat duty. I’m talking about a force of somewhere between a brigade and a corps – maybe 5000-20,000 troops – doing garrison, border security, and counter-terror duty in an area far, far less dangerous than Baghdad, Ramadi, or Kabul.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pmDo you really think we should abandon the Kurds and their democracy? What do you think would happen to them if the peshmerga was the only military force defending their kinda-sorta-country?
This is simplistic thinking; the Turks will never allow the Kurds a seperate autonomous area, no matter how long we stay. They know that the Kurds will use this area to launch attacks against Turkish border areas, in fact, they are massing at the borders now, to prevent Kurdist terrorists from infiltrating after the snow melts, and the passes clear. This isn’t our fight, but we will be forced to intercede, to keep the “country” cohesive. Will we interfere if there is a shooting war between the Kurds and Turks? The big thinkers of the Right haven’t yet come up with an answer to this, yet it is the one thing that will doom this exercise in nation-building. The Kurds won’t be satisfied with the northern part of Iraq, as they are tribal, and envision an area that encompasses parts of Turkey and other countries as well.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pmFor some rich Americans, with multibillion dollar Iraq contracts, SUCCESS is in their LEXICON.
In fact, LEXUS IS IN THEIR LEXICON. If a couple has kids, all of the kids are driving a $75,000 LEXUS to high school and parking their LEXUS in the garage of their $4000 a month apartment, while attending college.
During the real estate boom these couples were probably buying $600,000 condos for their kids. These SUCCESSFUL couples don’t blink an eye with tuition costs of $45,000 a year. So what if it costs $200,000, $300,000, or $400,000 to put each kid through college.
I think the WP had an article today about the limited time frame for a successful outcome of this war. Military commanders say this war will take years.
John
April 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pmHey, Zooey.
It was just screaming in my brain….
How are you?
Comment by trueblue
Eh, ok. How about you?
April 8th, 2007 at 7:59 pmI agree with both of these statements, but I don’t think they are arguments against leaving a force to defend the Kurds. Unlike the rest of Iraq, there is no civil war going on in Kurdistan. For that section of Iraq, the negotiated political solution already exists – a democratic republic, power sharing among the two major powers, a local security force, and no ambitions for the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq. Basically, the status quo before the war, which includes our guarantee of their security. We do need a diplomatic solution to keep Iraq from becoming a regional inferno, but a secure Kurdistan that renounces its ambitions in surrounding countries and does not support Kurdish militant groups elsewhere – which would be their end of the bargain – has to be a part of that solution. And those things will not exist without our security guarantee. joe
The Kurds haven’t renounced anything; they still envision a Kurdistan taken from multi-state terrorist activities.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:59 pm“This is simplistic thinking; the Turks will never allow the Kurds a seperate autonomous area, no matter how long we stay.” — barfly
You are wrong, barfly. According to Peter Galbraith, an expert on and close-cohort off the Kurds (and the man who documented Hussein’s genocide), the Turkish gov’t has recognized that Iraqi Kurdistan is a buffer from Islamist extremism to the south, and has been investing heavily in I. Kurdistan for five years now.
However, the Kurds have no intention of tolerating U.S. bases in their territory, period.
• It doesn’t matter anyhow. You’re all kidding yourselves about the removal of the four major airbases (and 60-acre Citadel) from FORMER Iraq.
We have FOUR carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf.
A LARGER WAR IS IMMINENT.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:59 pm#31 – John
I guess that really depends on your definition of “success.” :)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pmveritas,
Hey Joe! Do you really think the Kurds asked for our help and wanted our so-called “democracyâ€
Yes. You should read up on our recent history there, and try not to lump everyone within the current borders of Iraq into a monolithic block. After their uprising in 1992, it was our defense that stopped the Iraqi military from going all Mai Lai on the place. They’ve beenour ally ever since. Polls done in Iraq – the same ones that show massive popular support for our exit – show high levels of Kurdish support for us remaining.
BTW, veritas, I was arguing against this war in hostile territory since before it began. If you want to check the “Tech Central Station” archives from 2002, or the Reason Online archives from 2003-present, you’ll find a whole of anti-war commentary from me in the Iraq threads, using the same name and email address.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pmZep Tepi,
After the First Gulf War, Papa Bush (and later Clinton) defended the Kurds’ security by using our military to make Kurdish territory a “No Fly/No Drive†zone for the Iraqi military.
In the 1991 repression of the Kurds and Shiites at the end of the Persian Gulf War, it was George Bush Sr. who encouraged their populations to rise up against Saddam and then allowed them to be slaughtered.
He abandoned them.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pm“They know that the Kurds will use this area to launch attacks against Turkish border areas, in fact, they are massing at the borders now, to prevent Kurdist terrorists from infiltrating after the snow melts, and the passes clear.” — barfly
That is also UNTRUE. The I. Kurds are not ‘terrorists,’ nor do they harbor terrorists. There are Kurdish groups IN TURKEY that are involved in separatist terrorism. But the Iraqi Kurds have been uniform in rejecting the action of those Kurds, and, again according to Galbraith, the Turks view I. Kurdistan as a stabilizing force within the larger Kurdish population.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:03 pmJohn Gilpins,
I have seen some of that greed.
It’s pathetic. These kids are the “Gimmee” generation.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:03 pmIt was just screaming in my brain….
Comment by trueblue
When I do that I get alot of echos =)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:03 pm“Eh”, Zooey?
What’s up?
Write me.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pmYou are wrong, barfly.
And my point about Turkey is wrong as well? They are massing at the border, according to recent reports; is that because Kurdish terrorists aren’t coming this year?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pmPaul in LA,
The Kurds DO NOT NEED and DO NOT WANT ‘protection.’
Um, did you not notice that the Iraqi state kept them subjected for decades before the 1992 war? Or that the Iraqi military tried to put down their rebellion after the war, as they did in the South, and were only stopped by us?
When Buschco invaded, they demanded that the Kurds disband their mountain warriors. The Kurds politely declined.
Yes, Bushco are a bunch of freaking morons.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhen I do that I get alot of echos =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
Awwwww….
April 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pmThat is also UNTRUE.
Baloney.
Why are Turkish troops massing at the border?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pmI’M
JUST
SO
TIRED
OF ALL THE
POLITICAL
LEECHES +
PARASITES
REGARDING
IRAQ
WHICH HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH TERRORIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WHETHER IT’S LOBBYISTS, OIL COMPANIES WANTING TO STEAL THE OIL OR
WEAKENING OF THE US DOLLAR THREAT FROM THE EURO
THE WAY WE GOT IN THIS MESS HAS TO DO WITH A BUNCH OF LEECHES/PARASITES/POLITICAL HOODLUMS
ALL THE WONDERFUL SERVICES WE ALL DESPERATELY NEED TOO BAD YOU DOG GONE CAN’T GET THEM
AND EVERYONE IS SO GRATEFUL THE GOVERNMENT IS KEEPING US NICE AND SAFE FROM THE BIG BAD TERRORISTS…. IS THAT ALL BUSH/CHENEY
+ CONGRESS TALK ABOUT WHILE THEY’RE SCRATCHING ONE ANOTHER +
PASSING FAVORS/CHECKS
NO….!!! THEY CAN TALK ALL ABOUT HOMO’S
THERE AIN’T NO FRIGGIN WAR ON TERROR!!!!!!!!!!!
April 8th, 2007 at 8:07 pmbarfly,
1. Screw the Turks. They have no right to dictate what goes in Kurdistan, and they are one of the forces that would occupy and subject Kurdish territory if given the chance.
2. You are right, the Kurds haven’t renounced anything – I didn’t say they did. In fact, I said just the opposite: we should make the renunciation of these claims (or at least the military pursuit of these claims) and the cessation of aid to those terror groups conditions for our continued support of their independence. If the Kurds don’t agree to these condtions, we should not support them.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pmI think the headline should have been:
Senior House Democrat supports an ongoing mission in Iraq
She says the conduct of the occupation is the problem, not the occupation itself. And if you look at what she wants the mission to be changed to
you see there’s no recognition of the situation in the country and how unprepared we are to manage to bring stability to their “democratically elected government”. A training and counter-insurgency mission would require tens of thousands of military troops in Iraq for many years to come.
Harman ignores the situation in Iraq and holds out hope where none is warranted. She clings to the pipedream of leaving Iraq better than we found it even after her self-pronounced criteria to be met within a Friedman Unit show Iraq has only gone backwards.
She will never give up on Iraq, despite her anti-war sounding rhetoric.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pmC’mon Paul in LA, if you can prove I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. But it will take more than Galbraith to convince me.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pmLISTEN,…
FOR
5
FRIGGIN
YEARS
THAT’S THE ONLY THING I’VE HEARD BUSH/CHENEY BABBLE ABOUT AND
LATELY IT’S THEIR 100 BILLION DOLLAR APPETITE EACH OF THE QUARTERS
= FOUR OF THEM X 4 = 1/2 TRILLIONS… YOURS/MINE, YA KNOW
OH… AND THEY TALK ALOT ABOUT PORK AND DRACULA ARMTWISTING AND COMPLAIN ABOUT WORK 2 1/2 DAYS A WEEK
5 FRIGGIN YEARS TERRORISTS, THAT’S ALL THE WONDERFUL SERVICES WE
GET, A TOTALLY CORRUPTED DEPT OF DEFENSE
CORRUPT
DEPT OF JUSTICE
CORRUPT
EPA
CORRUPT
ALL OF THOSE THINGS DUDE THINGS………..
JIMBO DUDE HAS SPOKEN THE TRUTH :)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pmI’ve said it before.
1. Get rid of the current administration.
2. Go to the U.N. and admit to the world that the U.S. f#cked up big-time in Iraq.
3. Tell the U.N. that the U.S. is pulling out at the end of 30 days.
4. Request a MASSIVE U.N. peacekeeping force to take our place.
5. Offer to pay for the peacekeeping force for up to 10 years.
This gets the U.S. out of Iraq while putting in place the mechanisms to prevent genocide and rebuild the country, and accepting our responsiblilty to pay for our f#ckup. And it will be cheaper in the long run.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pm“After their uprising in 1992, it was our defense that stopped the Iraqi military from going all Mai Lai on the place.”
That is not correct. IT WAS SCHWARZKOPF WHO GAVE HUSSEIN USE OF HIS ATTACK HELICOPTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
• It was the US which gave Hussein SATTEL targeting info on the Iranian troops to deploy their poison gas effectively. This action, by the Reagan/Bush administration, was itself a major U.S. warcrime. Helping Hussein deploy poison gas, such as it did in Hallabja, is NOT helping the Kurds. It is major warcrime.
The U.S. is not the saviour of anybody. The Iraqi Kurds have 100,000 seasoned peshmerga IN ARMS able to put off anything but a major — U.S.– invasion. They have been actively securing their position, and while they are positioned as U.S. allies in the region, they are not fooled by the predation of Bush — but are rather waiting him out.
Bushco has committed genocide. The U.S. itself will have to face those facts — no amount of happy talk about protecting the Kurds is going to cover over the MILLION dead in Iraq, and the clusterfk which is Bushco.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pmZep Tepi,
C’mon, cut that out.
(It was funny, though.)
:)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pm1. Screw the Turks. They have no right to dictate what goes in Kurdistan, and they are one of the forces that would occupy and subject Kurdish territory if given the chance.
Funny you should say that; a certain president set a precedent for invading another country when under “imminent threat;” and if they invade what do we tell them? “Do as I say, not as I do?”
2. You are right, the Kurds haven’t renounced anything – I didn’t say they did. In fact, I said just the opposite:
I didn’t say you did; just saying that it hasn’t happened yet.
Lets leave the strawmen out of it, shall we?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pmOne word:
E-M-B-O-L-D-E-N-E-R LOL
April 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pmHi Zooey,
For lots of Americans success mean dollar bills.
Divorce means nothing; extramarital affairs mean nothing; losing your shirt in the company of a prostitute means nothing, but losing your financial shirt in the company of family and friends is really, really, really humiliating.
Too many folks have misplaced priorities.
John
April 8th, 2007 at 8:15 pmZep Tepi,
He abandoned them.
Yes, he did, disgracefully. But then he reversed himself – God, can you imagine his son doing that? – and enforced a No Fly/No Drive zone.
barfly,
The Turks are massing on the border for exactly the reason you describe. One of the advantages to our continuing and expanding the pre-Dubya policy of defending their territory and democracy is that it will put us in a position to insist that the Kurdish government sit on the cross-border support for the PKK, thus reassuring the Turks and removing the cause of their buildup.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:15 pmAwwwww….
Comment by Zooey
I was Awed as well. =)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:15 pmSuccess vs. Survival?
Here’s the White House on Surge vs Escalation vs Augmentation…
April 8th, 2007 at 8:15 pmDo you really think that we should stop working with the locals in Anbar Province who are fighting the foreign jihadists we let into their country, and who keep slaughtering their people?
Comment by joe
STFU, just STFU. Im tired of reading this humanist nonesense and hypocresy from war supporters.
Oh, we have to help those poor ignorant Iraqis, cuz they dont know how to solve their own problems, theyre 5,000 y/o idiots, so we have to embargo them, starve them and bomb them so we can go in there and give them democracy. It doesnt matter that 2 millions undemocratic Iraqis already left the country and 600,000 civilians have been punished for freedom.
Oh, we have to help those myskitos indians that Sandinistas are killing (like some dozens). Thats why we have to kill thousands of farmers and peasants in El Salvador and Guatemala, those we dont give a damn, but those Myskytos, why sandinistas are so barbarians?
Oh, we have to help those vietnamese against the Communist Menaze (with Z so it sounds more horrifying). Thats why helping them means throwing napalm all over them and slaughtering millions of them, because they dont know how to defend themselves, poor people.
Oh, we have to help our students and the continent against the Communist Threat in Granada against 40 railworkers from Cuba. Oh, please, we have to free the world from that menace!!! So we have to kill hundreds of civilians in order to do that.
Oh, Noriega is so evil (it doesnt matter he was a CIA, friend of Bush I) and a drug dealer, we have to free panamanians from that fraudulent government. thats why we have to kill hundreds of civilians in the process, so they know what freedom means.
Oh, democracy is a menace against humanity. Thats why we have to support Pinochet to overthrow the rutheless tyranny of Allende´s democratic elected government. It doesnt matter that people in Chile voted him freely, we have to depose Allende and put a dictator in the Presidency, cuz thats what democracy means.
Oh, Wolfowitz is against corruption. Such a standup guy now in the WorldBank. He is against corruption but supported every time the most corrupted government in the world for years: Suharto´s murderous regime in Indonesia. Oh, but we are against corruption.
STFU.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pm“how unprepared we are to manage to bring stability to their “democratically elected governmentâ€.” — PeterB
That has NEVER been the policy. The policy is genocide, the destruction of Iraq.
“There IS NO MORE IRAQ. There WILL BE three territories.” — Kissinger, early 2004, overheard briefing his Saudi allies.
The policy is four major permanent airbases (already fully-installed) and a 60-acre impregnable Citadel (own water, power, sewage), and a pending attack on Iran.
Absent a major collapse in Bushco’s legal footing (in real terms), there will be a major ME war in the next six months, quite possibly involving US use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS, in line with the changes to the U.S. nuke posture in 2005, which made it “legal” to deploy nuclear weapons if they will “ensure success.”
Snap out of the easy political solutions bit. We are in deep shit, still, and it is getting WORSE, not better, before it gets better (if it does).
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/publicservice.html
April 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm(Read the 2005 U.S. nuclear posture documents here)
AS I HAVE SPOKEN THE TRUTH BEFORE
JIMBO
DUDE
SHOULD
BE
UNITED
STATES
PRESIDENT :)
FULL OF
HONESTY
ROCK SOLID INTEGRITY
TRUTH
AND ON TOP OF THAT, I’M HEAVENLY AWESOME
DUDES
+
DUDDETTES
I SHOULD BE A PUBLIC SERVANT DUDE ;)
jimbo dude has spoken the truth (once again)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pmZep Tepi,C’mon, cut that out.
(It was funny, though.) :)
Otay. 8)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:18 pmYou are wrong, barfly.
Paul in LA
Still waiting, Paul.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:18 pmI was Awed as well. =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
Because you’re just that awesome. :D
April 8th, 2007 at 8:19 pmDamn, Juan!
I’ve never seen you so angry.
It’s hot…..
;)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:21 pm#60 – Juan
It’s hard to convince people you’re killing them for their own good.
Disgusting, actually…..
April 8th, 2007 at 8:22 pmPaul in LA,
It was the US which gave Hussein SATTEL targeting info on the Iranian troops to deploy their poison gas effectively. This action, by the Reagan/Bush administration, was itself a major U.S. warcrime. Helping Hussein deploy poison gas, such as it did in Hallabja, is NOT helping the Kurds. It is major warcrime.
Yes. It was also during the 1980s, before the First Gulf War. As I’ve written about half a dozen times now, I’m talking about AFTER that war.
The Iraqi Kurds have 100,000 seasoned peshmerga IN ARMS able to put off anything but a major — U.S.– invasion.
And the Shiites/Iraqi government have, what?, 300,000 men in the Interior Ministry and Army, plus a couple times that number in Shiite militias? Plus, when we leave, the backing of Iran. Maybe the Kurds can hold such a force off, maybe they can’t, but such a war would put how many hundreds of thousands in graves? I say a nice, big, green deterrent and no invasion of Kurdistan would be a better idea.
The U.S. itself will have to face those facts — no amount of happy talk about protecting the Kurds is going to cover over the MILLION dead in Iraq, and the clusterfk which is Bushco.
Quite right (except maybe that casualty figure). Coming up with a post-Bush plan IS facing those facts.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:23 pm#56
Too many folks have misplaced priorities.
John
Absolutely. It’s sad…..especially for the vapid children those people raise.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pmGrow up, Juan C. If I wanted vulgar, ideological idiocy and accusations that disagreement made me a racist, I’d be on LGF. Whattsamatter, you can’t handle anything more challenging than a mutual admiration society?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:26 pmLatin America? Paul Wolfowitz? What the hell are you babbling about?
Zep Tepi, He abandoned them.
Yes, he did, disgracefully -Joe
Okay then. We agree.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pmHi y’all. Back from the hospital yesterday.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pmjust saying hi right now, more later.
“And my point about Turkey is wrong as well? They are massing at the border, according to recent reports; is that because Kurdish terrorists aren’t coming this year?” –barfly
Sorry, I didn’t see your reply in the midst of the tomfoolery.
They are ‘massing,’ I presume, in order to prevent massive flow of REFUGEES from Former Iraq.
“A Turkish military intervention in northern Iraq would derail its chances of joining the European Union…Turkey also has growing economic interests in Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkish companies are the biggest foreign investors in the region, and Turkish oil companies have secured potentially lucrative concessions from the Kurdistan Regional Government to develop new fields.” Galbraith, “The End of Iraq,” pgs. 217-218
April 8th, 2007 at 8:28 pmBecause you’re just that awesome. :D
Comment by Zooey
Naw, that would be Jimbo =P
Me, I’m just a greasy bearing in the big wheel of life. =)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:30 pmHi y’all. Back from the hospital yesterday.
just saying hi right now, more later.
Comment by RUCerious
Glad to have you back, RUC. We’ve been missing you. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pmJoe = sympathetic troll – Do not be deceived by his false sense of humanity or humility. A troll is a troll is a troll….the only distinction between them is whether they are “paid trolls†or simply “pedestrian trollsâ€; that is, trolls who are inherently stupid and not whoring themselves for a paycheck. Troll outsourcing, that’s what the GOP is doing.
Comment by veritas
You were saying, Joe?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pmI’ve never seen you so angry.
It’s hot…..
;)
Comment by trueblue
Ok, try to keep that thought even when I post something stupid. Please? ;)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pmRUCerious,
Whaaaa?
Are you OK?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pmHi y’all. Back from the hospital yesterday.
just saying hi right now, more later.
Comment by RUCerious
Allrighty then! Glad to see you made it out of the hospital with your health…and your wallet intact.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pmGreetings RUCerious, our thoughts and prayers have been and will be with you:)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pmTHE Taliban, Afghanistan’s Islamic fundamentalist army, is about to sign a £2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. -1977
So what has changed since 1977?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pmNaw, that would be Jimbo =P
Me, I’m just a greasy bearing in the big wheel of life. =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
Which means you move through life smoothly. :P
April 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pmYou – say something stupid?
Never.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pm“It was the US which gave Hussein SATTEL targeting info…”
“Yes. It was also during the 1980s, before the First Gulf War. As I’ve written about half a dozen times now, I’m talking about AFTER that war.”
After the war, when Gen. Swartzkopf provided Hussein with his attack helicopters, as I noted. Given the presence of GHWB in both pre-Gulf war and post-Gulf war relations with the Kurds, the U.S. is NOT seen as the great saviour you pretend it to be.
The Kurds are pragmatic — they have extended their hold during the illegal occupation, celebrated Hussein’s removal and dispatch, and now await the departure of the U.S. with as much relish as any in Iraq.
“The Iraqi Kurds have 100,000 seasoned peshmerga IN ARMS able to put off anything but a major — U.S.– invasion.”
“And the Shiites/Iraqi government have, what?,”
They have NOTHING they can trust, and no way to use it against Kurdistan under the obvious scrutiny.
“Plus, when we leave, the backing of Iran.”
You are dreaming about the U.S. leaving, which is bullshit. Don’t you grasp Bushco’s plans? But the idea that Iran will attack or support an attack on I. Kurdistan ignores the significant numbers of Kurds who live in Iran. Iran is NOT on the warpath, even with the rightwing former-mayor of Tehran in power as a direct result of the Bushco invasion.
“Coming up with a post-Bush plan IS facing those facts.” — joe
Yeah, well obviously you consider a tiger dead when it is only wounded.
The U.S. will not be welcome leaving any sort of troop or base presence in I. Kurdistan. WILL NOT HAPPEN.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pm#70………..joe………
April 8th, 2007 at 8:36 pmYou might want to read a little deeper than the National Enquiror before you come on here.
Juan C. (for one) has a big picture of world history and current events.
Hi y’all. Back from the hospital yesterday.
just saying hi right now, more later.
Comment by RUCerious
Good to see you!!
April 8th, 2007 at 8:36 pmWas this the Unocal deal, Zep Tepi?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:39 pmLatin America? Paul Wolfowitz? What the hell are you babbling about?
Comment by joe
American Hypocresy. Get used to that.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:39 pmOk, try to keep that thought even when I post something stupid. Please? ;)
Comment by Juan C
We always think you’re hot, Juan.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:39 pmZep Tepi,
Okay then. We agree.
Dude, only reading the first sentence and ignoring the details is so George W. Bush. You should stop that.
trueblue,
You were saying, Joe?
That I’ve been against this war, publicly, with a paper trail, for almost six years now; that people like you can’t handle an argument more complicated than a mutual admiration society; and that you argue like LGFers. Is there anything else I can clear up for you?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:40 pm“THE Taliban, Afghanistan’s Islamic fundamentalist army, is about to sign a £2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. -1977 So what has changed since 1977?” Zep Tepi
• Former UNOCAL officer now President of Afghanistan.
• Former UNOCAL planner now U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
• Bushco U.S. airbases across Afghanistan route of pipeline.
• Fawning U.S. support of Pakistan (access to Arabian Sea).
• Pending attack on Iran to reduce the main obstacle to U.S. domination of those pipelines.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:41 pmTrue. Thanks. Back at ya. ;)
Juan C. (for one) has a big picture of world history and current events.
Comment by Raven
Oh, thank you very much. But no. I have to disagree with you. However, Im learning every day. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pmThey are ‘massing,’ I presume, in order to prevent massive flow of REFUGEES from Former Iraq.
You are wrong, Paul in LA.
Google it. Learn something useful. Quoting Galbraith is the last act of a desperate man. If there are no terrorist entities in Kurdish Iraq, why are the Turkish military gearing up to fight them?
Try the BBC.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:43 pmIs there anything else I can clear up for you?
Comment by joe
Um, are you this big an assh*le in your everyday life, or just here?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:43 pmThank you, Paul in LA.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:44 pmWhich means you move through life smoothly. :P
Comment by Zooey
Why thank you Zooey =)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:45 pmAnd I return the compliment.
RUCerious,
I hope you’re feeling better.
John
April 8th, 2007 at 8:46 pmDude, only reading the first sentence and ignoring the details is so George W. Bush. You should stop that.
Please, I read what you wrote there was no sense in repeating the whole screed.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:46 pmUm, are you this big an assh*le in your everyday life, or just here?
Comment by Zooey
Ka-CHING!
Zooey, that was great!
April 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pmAfter the war, when Gen. Swartzkopf provided Hussein with his attack helicopters, as I noted.
You mean, allowed Hussein to use the Iraqi military’s attack helicopters, right?
Anyway, as I noted, yes, that’s what happened. And then the White House reversed itself. I’m not arguing that the first Bush regime were decent people, just stating the facts; they committed to defending the Kurds, enforced a No Fly/No Drive zone, and allowed the Kurds to establish an autonomous government. You know, when you see an inaccurate fact I’ve written, go ahead and point it out.
“You are dreaming about the U.S. leaving, which is bullshit. Don’t you grasp Bushco’s plans?” Of course I grasp Bush’s plans. I’m talking about what to do once we dump him. A Democratic president and a Reid/Pelosi Congress aren’t going to be loyal to Bush’s plans. They’re going to implement an alternative to Bush’s policies, and I’m talking about what they should be.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pmThat I’ve been against this war, publicly, with a paper trail, for almost six years now; that people like you can’t handle an argument more complicated than a mutual admiration society; and that you argue like LGFers. Is there anything else I can clear up for you? -Joe
I am glad that you have been publicly against it. But really you have cleared nothing up in my understanding of events that have transpired.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm“That I’ve been against this war, publicly, with a paper trail, for almost six years now;”
A papertrail no one can check, given the ubiquity of the name ‘joe.’
What I want to know is why you are so concerned about leaving U.S. troops in I. Kurdistan? Why that issue, instead, for instance, in what can be done to reduce the refugee problem, the humanitarian crisis, the proliferation of high-explosives and other war materiel, or the current nuclear threat of a U.S. first strike under Bushco?
If you are so against the illegal Iraq incursion and occupation, then why just the focus on Kurdistan, as if making nice in that one corner will obviate the MASSIVE criminality, and the destruction of our National Guard by those who would like to take over this country as well?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pmWhy thank you Zooey =)
And I return the compliment.
Comment by Zep Tepi
:-)
April 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pmHowdy RU; glad you’re back, hoping all is well.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pmKa-CHING!
Zooey, that was great!
Comment by trueblue
Heh.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pmOkay Joe, you have a six year old paper trail of your anti-war sentiments, and as I’m not terribly interested in arguments, what do you propose as a solution?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pmOh, no, the Heathers don’t like me!
Paul in LA, barfly, I’m still interested in hearing your ideas.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pmThanks to all.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pmCan email me at saggitareanjupiter@hotmail.com
Tired out now, gotsto go.
Comment by Juan+C
****blush****
April 8th, 2007 at 8:54 pm“That I’ve been against this war, publicly, with a paper trail, for almost six years now;†— Joe
That’s really interesting, Joe, since the war has been going only four years, and it’s only 5 1/2 years since 9/11.
What gives, Joe Joe?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pmWhattsamatter, you can’t handle anything more challenging than a mutual admiration society?
Comment by joe
Perhaps, I was too quick to come down on you. I apologize if thats the case. However, the Kurdish argument seems so… stupid, sorry, after the carnage we have seen these past 4 years. I dont have anything against Kurdistan, those people were the target of Saddam´s chemical weapons provided by US. They were slaughtered. But to think that what the american forces are doing in Iraq is to give protection to a group of people is naive, at best. They cant even protect the Green Zone. US has to get out of there, they never had to go in, in the first place. I just put some examples of how right wingers hypocrisy works. They seem so concerned about a selected group of people, but forget that more than a million have perished by an illegal occupation. Now, do you really think Kurdish people likes to have US troops in their land? Do you remember where the 5 iranian diplomats were kidnapped? Do you think that was amusing for the Kurdish?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pmSorry, gotta go for an hour.
The Sopranos is starting its last run.
Talk to you @ 10:00pm
April 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pmjoe, you are just the most erudite and accomplished poster I have ever read!
April 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pmYour vocabulary, syntax, and timing are simply exquisite.
You are so exceptional, I believe your talents would recieve even greater appreciation elsewhere in cyberspace.
Admiringly yours,
Raven
“After the war, when Gen. Swartzkopf provided Hussein with his attack helicopters, as I noted.
“You mean, allowed Hussein to use the Iraqi military’s attack helicopters, right?”–joe
PROVIDED. Do you REALLY think that Schwartzkopf was stupid enough not to know why Hussein wanted his attack helicopters? Do you REALLY think that GHWB ‘reversed’ himself?
GHWB greenlighted the sharing of that SATTEL with Hussein. He blocked UN sanctions of Hussein’s poison gas usage. His CIA covered up Hussein’s genocide of Hallabja (and elsewhere).
This ridiculous bs that GHWB, the “White House,” or warcriminal Gen. Schwartzkopf ‘didn’t know’ what attack helicopters are used for, or that the U.S. military ‘mysteriously’ stood by while Hussein bulldozed and strafed the Marsh Arabs into the dust — all of that bs has to be seen in the full light of what his son has done to Iraq, the U.S., and our military.
You may or may not have honorable intentions — I do not know, or so much care. But I wonder why you accept several absurdities as if they were errors, when in fact they all point to a CONCERTED U.S. EFFORT TO DESTROY IRAQ in service to oil interests and rightwing power.
April 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pmWe always think you’re hot, Juan.
Comment by Zooey
:}
April 8th, 2007 at 9:01 pmOh, no, the Heathers don’t like me!
Comment by joe
Joe’s got issues with women, too.
I’m too mellow this fine Sunday afternoon for the emasculation of Joe.
**yawn**
April 8th, 2007 at 9:02 pm“They are ‘massing,’ I presume, in order to prevent massive flow of REFUGEES from Former Iraq.”
“You are wrong, Paul in LA.”
Hilarious. Do you think that handles it? The refugee crisis is beneath your notice?
“Google it. Learn something useful. Quoting Galbraith is the last act of a desperate man.”
Quoting the MAIN U.S. EXPERT on Kurdistan, who is intimate with the Kurdish leadership, who personally received 18 TONS of Hussein’s gov’t paperwork after the 1992 uprising from the Kurds for safekeeping, who has traveled extensively over thirty years in Turkey-Kurdistan region, often under wartime conditions is “the last act of a desperate man”?
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
“If there are no terrorist entities in Kurdish Iraq, why are the Turkish military gearing up to fight them?”
That’s a circular argument. The Turkish army has been fighting the TURKISH PKK for DECADES. That fight continues. Iraqi Kurdistan has joined Turkey in opposing the PKK terrorism.
“Try the BBC.” –barfly
The BBC, is it? Try the propaganda wing of the British military? What for?
April 8th, 2007 at 9:02 pm“I dont have anything against Kurdistan, those people were the target of Saddam´s chemical weapons provided by US.” –Juan C
That hoary charge is untrue. The dual-use materials sold to Iraq by the U.S. were also purchased from Germany, Russia, France, and a number of other countries.
What WAS targeted with U.S. illegal help was the poison gassing of Iranian fixed trenches, using SATTEL shared with Hussein (in violation of U.S. law, and as complicity in warcrimes).
Anyhow, with a posting alias of ‘Juan C.’ you may be expected to clarify that you are NOT Professor Juan Cole, unless you are.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pmPaul in LA,
If you are actually interested in checking my background, I’ve been using this same email address ever since then. You can also look for the uncapitalized “j” at the beginning of joe. I’m actually pretty well knows as the hated liberal who argues with the libertoids on the Reason Hit & Run blog. Same guy, big opponent of the war.
BTW, if this was a thread on Hit & Run, somebody would have pointed out that what you’ve written is called an “ad homenim” attack, and is completely irrelevant to the truth of any of my arguments.
What I want to know is why you are so concerned about leaving U.S. troops in I. Kurdistan? Because this thread, starting with the Harmon interview, is about the future of our military’s presence in Iraq.
If you are so against the illegal Iraq incursion and occupation, then why just the focus on Kurdistan, as if making nice in that one corner will obviate the MASSIVE criminality, and the destruction of our National Guard by those who would like to take over this country as well?
I don’t think keeping faith with the Kurds is going to obviate those things at all. I don’t see protecting the Kurds’ as an effort to find a pony in this manure pile – after all, it’s what we were doing before – just as what we’ve got to do.
Did you ever see the “Kurd Sellout Watch” that used to run on Slate? There were a lot of entries in 2003. The possibility of this war ending with the destruction of the Kurds was one of the biggest reasons I opposed it, and I’m trying to minimize the damage caused by this war.
I can understand your suspicion – I’ve only recently become a semi-regular here, and God knows new excuses to keep fighting this war have been coming out every few months for years now, but that’s not where I’m coming from. I think we need to change the course in Iraq, stop refereeing the civil war, and use our withdrawal as a tool to bring about the political and diplomatic solutions we need in order to keep this fiasco from turning into a full-fledged disaster (or at least try). I think that securing the Kurds’ democracy is part of that.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pmWe always think you’re hot, Juan.
Comment by Zooey
This caused me to recall a girlfriend I had when younger, she was a little hottie and I didn’t much respect me (she pretty much used guys) until I got angry one day (being a mellow person) and I pretty much laid it on the line and let er rip.
Oddly she was attracted to moreso after that explosion.
Ggetting a little ticked off aint a bad thing Juan. =)
April 8th, 2007 at 9:13 pmZep Tepi,
My idea is pretty close to what Murtha is saying – announce our withdrawal and start it ASAP, push for political and diplomatic solutions to stop the civil war and keep the surrounding countries from stoking it, and leave a residual force in the region to take care of necessary business. I think that keeping the Kurds from falling under the boot of some fundie dictator, and heading off the conflict between the Turks and Kurds, is both moral and strategically important.
Zooey,
*blush* I’m better at politics than I am at math, I guess. Five years, not six, is how long I’ve been opposed to this war.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pmJuan C,
I don’t think that protecting people is what the U.S. is doing in Iraq right now. I’m talking about changing the mission. Less like “the surge,” more like what we should be doing in Darfur.
You ask if I think the Kurds like what we’re doing with stunts like the capture of the Iranians in Irbil – no, they’ve complained quite loudly about that. However, what we were doing there before Bush’s war – what we did throughout the 90s – is a different type of mission altogether.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm“BTW, if this was a thread on Hit & Run, somebody would have pointed out that what you’ve written is called an “ad homenim†attack, and is completely irrelevant to the truth of any of my arguments.”
The childishness of others aside, I have not ad hominem’d anything. I want to know ‘who’ you are as an adjunct to understanding why you post what you do, in this abbreviated medium. That’s not ad hominem, that’s CONTEXT.
“What I want to know is why you are so concerned about leaving U.S. troops in I. Kurdistan?”
“Because this thread, starting with the Harmon interview, is about the future of our military’s presence in Iraq.”
Quite obviously, that future is to be in former Iraq for DECADES (if not ‘forever,’ in the WWIII that Cheney wants).
If I. Kurdistan needs protecting, it would seem obvious that it could not be a withdrawn U.S. force doing it. If we pull out, eventually, we are not going to be staying in I. Kurdistan. I refer you to Vietnam for a clarification of how it works.
“The possibility of this war ending with the destruction of the Kurds was one of the biggest reasons I opposed it,” –joe
That never seemed like a significant possibility. The obvious destruction of Arab life and culture doesn’t matter to you?
“I think that securing the Kurds’ democracy”
Is a job for the Kurds, who ask no help — certainly not any kind of U.S. military emplacement.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:18 pmthink we need to change the course in Iraq, stop refereeing the civil war, and use our withdrawal as a tool to bring about the political and diplomatic solutions we need in order to keep this fiasco from turning into a full-fledged disaster (or at least try). I think that securing the Kurds’ democracy is part of that.
Comment by joe
I agree, but surely you have taken note of the Fukuyamas and the other neo-cons who see this as prelude to the Clash of the Civilizations? This, I think, is not so much about Iraq as it is between China, Russia and the US. The prize after all is the Middle Easts resources.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:18 pmPaul in LA:
Despite opposition from the Pentagon, the U.S. approved the sale of 100 helicopters to the Iraqis who claimed they would be used as agricultural sprayers. Dr. Bryen says many were transferred to the military, perhaps to be used in chemical attacks.
“You know, we don’t like that, that’s a very dangerous thing, and of course Halabja is a perfect example of what you do with helicopters filled with chemicals.”
Then Iraq requested 1.5 million vials of atropine – the antidote for nerve gas – to protect Iraqi soldiers from chemical weapons. The State Department supported the sale even through nobody had nerve gas except the Iraqi army.
Come on. So US didnt know what they were going to do with the choppers and the chemicals?
No, Im not Juan Cole. Who is he? Im Juan Cristóbal. NIce meeting you.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:20 pm#Zep Tepi,
My idea is pretty close to what Murtha is saying – announce our withdrawal and start it ASAP, push for political and diplomatic solutions to stop the civil war and keep the surrounding countries from stoking it,
I am for redeployment as well so as not to create a huge vacuum in the area.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:20 pmPaul in LA,
Do you REALLY think that Schwartzkopf was stupid enough not to know why Hussein wanted his attack helicopters?
I don’t know, Schwartzkopf is pretty freaking stupid. I’m sure it became obvious pretty quickly what the deal war, regardless.
Do you REALLY think that GHWB ‘reversed’ himself?
Yes, didn’t you notice that we spent almost a decade using our air power to keep Hussein’s planes, helicopters, and tanks out of Kurdish territory? For about a year under Bush 41, throughout the Clinton years, and for about two years under Shrub. Are you saying there was no No Fly/No Drive zone in Kurdistan?
April 8th, 2007 at 9:22 pmNo, Im not Juan Cole. Who is he? Im Juan Cristóbal. NIce meeting you.
Comment by Juan C
Juan Cole is an expert on the middle east and is a professor at Michigan State University.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:22 pmGgetting a little ticked off aint a bad thing Juan. =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
I should be working on my “dont piss me off” face. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 9:24 pmJuan Cole is an expert on the middle east and is a professor at Michigan State University.
Comment by Zep Tepi
No, Im not a professor at MSU. Heh.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:25 pmSo, Jane, you imagine the US military will occupy Iraq and do exactly what? Stop shooting back? Move out into oilfield country and do some wildcatting? Maybe set up ice cream shops in Sadr City?
Or are you upset at the loss of a line of revenue contract military ops like Blackwater stand to lose when they can no longer sell American arms to Iraqi insurgents? Hit the wrong pocketbook perhaps? Just asking.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:26 pmQuoting without a link, Juan, is not helpful. In any case, helicopters are not sale of chemical weapons, nor is the sale of atropine, so you haven’t made the case.
• Was the U.S. complicit in the use of chemical weapons. Yes, through sharing SATTEL in violation of U.S. law, and as complicity in warcrimes.
Dual-use materials like fertilizers are not illegal sale of chemical weapons, even though they can modified to become such.
Prof. Juan Cole is a major scholar in ME affairs. I think he is in Ohio.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:27 pmJuan Cole is a history professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on the Arab world.
http://www.juancole.com/2003_11_01_juancole_archive.htm
April 8th, 2007 at 9:31 pmPaul in LA,
Quite obviously, that future is to be in former Iraq for DECADES (if not ‘forever,’ in the WWIII that Cheney wants).
Yes, it appears so, which is an unappealing prospect. We’re looking at a combination of South Korea, Taiwan, and West Berlin. On the other hand, the alternative would seem to be the Turks invading, the Shiites/new Iraqi government eventually invading, and a regional war breaking out – plus, the elimination of an existing, fairly democratic, self-governing nation that’s been our ally for a decade. It would have been better never to have started this war, to keep Hussein in his box, and to not have to put troops on the ground in order to guarantee the Kurds’ security, but that’s not an option right now.
If I. Kurdistan needs protecting, it would seem obvious that it could not be a withdrawn U.S. force doing it. If we pull out, eventually, we are not going to be staying in I. Kurdistan.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about a partial withdrawal, while something between a brigade and a corp in Kurdistan to carry out two residual missions.
That never seemed like a significant possibility. Maybe not to you, but it was one of my biggest concerns prior to and throughout this war.
The obvious destruction of Arab life and culture doesn’t matter to you? Of course it does, but stopping the al Qaeda-inspired civil war doesn’t seem to be something we can accomplish. Keeping the Kurdish democracy safe, on the other hand, seems quite a bit more achievable. After all, we helped do it for a decade before this war.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pm“I don’t know, Schwartzkopf is pretty freaking stupid.”
That would be surprising, given his station. He doesn’t APPEAR stupid. What makes you think he was stupid?
“I’m sure it became obvious pretty quickly what the deal war, regardless.”
More than a little. How is it that CENTCOM stood by while he destroyed the Marsh Arabs with the materiel the General gave him? Didn’t they know that ‘Hussein was a danger to the whole world’? No, the record shows an anomaly, one which will never be answered by the claim of negligence or stupidity.
“Do you REALLY think that GHWB ‘reversed’ himself?
Yes, didn’t you notice that we spent almost a decade using our air power to keep Hussein’s planes, helicopters, and tanks out of Kurdish territory?”
His reversal obviously affected the SOUTH as well, and there the U.S. did nothing until AFTER Hussein finished. How mysterious!
The Kurds took over the North singlehandedly. Only afterward did the U.S. change policy and defend N and S. Had Hussein attacked the Kurds with his main force instead of the Shiites, the U.S. would likely have done nothing to stop him either.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:34 pmDual-use materials like fertilizers are not illegal sale of chemical weapons, even though they can modified to become such.
Comment by Paul in LA
Ok, then, Paul. I guess US military had no idea what those things were for, choppers were really for agriculture and the anti-nerve dose was a lab thing, which is really curious noting that US is biggest weapon seller and gangster state in the world. In any case, I guess we are arguing details. Link
April 8th, 2007 at 9:35 pmI should be working on my “dont piss me off†face. :)
Comment by Juan C
Heres mine
(X^B
Heh.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:36 pmZep Tepi,
I agree, but surely you have taken note of the Fukuyamas and the other neo-cons who see this as prelude to the Clash of the Civilizations?
Yeah. Screw them. We’ve taken Congress, and in two years, we’re going to take the White House and enlarge our majority in Congress. We’re the big boys on the block now, and it’s time to figure out what we want, not just beat up on the Republicans. We already won that battle.
Oh, and Juan Cole rulez.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:38 pm“On the other hand, the alternative would seem to be the Turks invading,”
Not going to happen. Turkey wants to join the EU, and does NOT want to have to go on wartime footing against the entire eastern third of their country, I. Kurdistan, and Iran. There is no payoff.
Turkey DOES want to stop millions of refugees from flowing into that same territory, and that is clearly why they are massed on the border.
“It would have been better never to have started this war, to keep Hussein in his box, and to not have to put troops on the ground in order to guarantee the Kurds’ security, but that’s not an option right now.”
The Kurds are NOT why Bushco invaded, nor have U.S. ground troops protected I. Kurdistan.
“The obvious destruction of Arab life and culture doesn’t matter to you? Of course it does, but stopping the al Qaeda-inspired civil war doesn’t seem to be something we can accomplish.” –joe
That civil war was FOMENTED BY BUSHCO! ‘Trying to stop’ what you are trying to START will never work, for obvious reasons.
“Keeping the Kurdish democracy safe, on the other hand, seems quite a bit more achievable.”
They don’t need — or want — our help in that way.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:41 pmHeh.
Comment by Zep Tepi
That was great.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pmYeah. Screw them. -Joe
Well Joe, I think your an allright guy. Glad to have you aboard.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to pour another stiff drink.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pmThe BBC, is it? Try the propaganda wing of the British military? What for?
Comment by Paul in LA
Well how about someone closer to the situation?
http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/CHR/ING2007/01/07×01x19.HTM
CHP’S OYMEN: “SINCE OTHERS WON’T, IT’S UP TO TURKEY TO STOP TERRORIST INFILTRATIONâ€
Speaking at discussions leading to next week’s special Parliament session on Iraq, main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) deputy group leader Onur Oymen said that the demographic makeup of the Iraqi city of Kirkuk was being changed and that holding a referendum under these circumstances would be the harbinger of grave conflicts. Stating that developments in Kirkuk shouldn’t be considered a domestic issue, Oymen said, “The issue in Kirkuk is a human rights issue, isn’t it? Since when are human rights a domestic issue?†Oymen cited UN Security Council Resolution 1723 stressing all countries’ responsibility to prevent the infiltration of terrorists from neighboring countries to Iraq, or from Iraq to other countries. Saying that Iraq and the US haven’t fulfilled this responsibility and that it was now Turkey’s responsibility to do this, Oymen added that Turkey should send soldiers to its southern border. /Cumhuriyet/
So, I’m still wrong, Paul? Because it looks from here as if they believe the threat to be real. And did you notice the wording? “Stressing all countries’ responsibility to prevent the infiltration of terrorists from neighboring countries to Iraq, or from Iraq to other countries.” Care to admit you were wrong?
April 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pmPaul,
Don’t assume the intelligence of people just because they occupy high positions in the government. Norman Swartakopf, Douglas Feith, George W. Bush – none of these people could beat a typical cockatoo in a Scrabble game.
How is it that CENTCOM stood by while he destroyed the Marsh Arabs with the materiel the General gave him? Didn’t they know that ‘Hussein was a danger to the whole world’?
First of all, Bush did eventually establish a no-fly zone over the south. But as to why he let the Shiites be slaughtered, but took stronger action to defend the Kurds, I suspect that in Papa Bush’s Kissingerian little mind, the Shia in the south were too friendly to Iran, and suppressing their rebellion was necessary to maintain the “balance of power,” while the Kurds were too weak and isolated to be of use to any power that opposed us. Also, Saddam sent his forces south first, in greater numbers, so by the time Bush had to decided whether to protect the Kurds, he was already taking a beating in the press for allowing Saddam to slaughter the Shiites (from both liberals and the “on to Baghdad!” brigade), and felt like he had to stop it from happening again. That’s my guess, anyway.
Had Hussein attacked the Kurds with his main force instead of the Shiites, the U.S. would likely have done nothing to stop him either.
That’s not true. We got the UN to endorse a No Fly/No Drive zone in the north, but only a No Fly zone in the south.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:46 pmZooey,
*blush* I’m better at politics than I am at math, I guess. Five years, not six, is how long I’ve been opposed to this war.
Comment by joe
Just call me Heather, babes.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:50 pmJuan,
Juan Cole’s blog is here:
http://www.juancole.com/
I think you’d like him.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:51 pmThe U.S. bombing campaign and the enforcement of no-fly zones are implemented without authorization from the United Nations.
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n01iraq.html
Are you sure Joe? I’m not saying your wrong but there seems to be some misunderstandings in the media or elsewhere.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pmHeres mine
(X^B
Heh.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Sorry, but I’d be laughing like crazy at that face, Zep. :D
April 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pmBarfly, you are quoting an opposition figure in Turkey.
No doubt there are hardliners in Turkey that want to go to war. That isn’t the same as saying what Turkey will do. The actual in power party is busily investing in I. Kurdistan — they do not want to blow up their oil cash cow.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:53 pmI think you’d like him.
Comment by Zooey
Yes I have been checking, periodically, on his site Informed Comment for some time now =)
April 8th, 2007 at 9:54 pmNorman Swartakopf, Douglas Feith, George W. Bush – none of these people could beat a typical cockatoo in a Scrabble game.
*snort*
April 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pmSorry, but I’d be laughing like crazy at that face, Zep. :D
Comment by Zooey
Aww, cmon I only got so many ASCII characters to use =)
April 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pmTurkey wants to join the EU, and does NOT want to have to go on wartime footing against the entire eastern third of their country, I. Kurdistan, and Iran.
Yes, but they consider the PKK – especially a PKK with state (or even statelet) support to be a threat to their homeland, a top-tier security issue. You say they don’t WANT to, but we’re looking at a 1914-type situation. None of the European countries WANTED to end up at war, but the conditions and their own stupidity made it happen anway.
The Kurds are NOT why Bushco invaded, I haven’t claimed they were.
nor have U.S. ground troops protected I. Kurdistan. Well, US ground troops helped train the peshmerga, who provided the ground defense against Saddam’s forces, and our air force was working in conjunction with them, but on the narrow question, you are right, American ground forces did not take up positions in Kurdistan prior to 2003. So?
“The obvious destruction of Arab life and culture doesn’t matter to you? Of course it does, but stopping the al Qaeda-inspired civil war doesn’t seem to be something we can accomplish.†–joe
That civil war was FOMENTED BY BUSHCO! ‘Trying to stop’ what you are trying to START will never work, for obvious reasons.
I think it’s more a case of “bumbling into it and “letting it happen” than “trying to start,” but yes, we can’t stop the civil war. That’s why I think we should stop trying, and focus on what we can achieve.
They don’t need — or want — our help in that way. I think you’re letting your preconceived policy preference – complete withdrawal – interfere with your perception of both Kurdish public opinion, and Kurdish military capacity.
Let’s find some common ground here – we should help defend Kurdistan with whatever the Kurds themselves need and want. They are our democratic ally, they have a militia that pales beside the state militaries arrayed against them, and we do not want to see them back under the boot of their hostile neighbors.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:59 pmAww, cmon I only got so many ASCII characters to use =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
Uh huh…. :D
April 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pmJoe,
A favor, please? Attribute who you’re responding to somewhere in your comment, so we don’t have to try to scroll up and figure it out.
Thanks.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:05 pmZep Tepi,
That’s a complicated question. The UN authorized the invasion in 1991. We took the Iraqis’ surrender, which under international law, gives us the authority to enforce its conditions. We set up the No Fly/No Drive zones under that authority. You’re going to have to find a better-informed international legal mind than mine to say if that amounts to a UN authorization for the Zones.
Look, on the question of whether the Turks are planning to invade or just stop refugees, let’s just admit we don’t know for sure. What we do know is that the Turks are very opposed to a Kurdish state; the Kurds have an independent statelet; and those forces along the border don’t appear to be setting up to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:05 pm“Yes, but they consider the PKK – especially a PKK with state (or even statelet) support to be a threat to their homeland, a top-tier security issue.”
The PKK is NOT supported by the current leadership of I. Kurdistan. The PKK exists in Turkey directly because of former Turk military dictator Evren’s pogrom on Turkish Kurds. To suggest that modern democratic Turkey wants to go back to those days when their own democratic system was overthrown by a powerful military is incorrect.
In 1990, Evren was replaced by Turgut Ozal, who boasted of having a Kurdish grandmother. Times have changed, and as the ONLY stable region to Turkey’s south (once the refugee crisis reaches its peak), they look to I. Kurdistan lovingly, as a source of INCOME.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:06 pmI think you’d like him.
Comment by Zooey
Thank you for the link, Zoo. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pmthat people like you
Is there anything else I can clear up for you?
Comment by joe — April 8, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Let me clear up something for you. Progressives generally aren’t people who like the term “people like you.”
Maybe you should go to your other site where you relate better.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:10 pmuh huh :D -Zooey
April 8th, 2007 at 10:10 pm“American ground forces did not take up positions in Kurdistan prior to 2003. So?”
You keep implying they did. The U.S. military is NOT welcome in I. Kurdistan in the form of ANY kind of permanent or temporary installation.
That civil war was FOMENTED BY BUSHCO! ‘Trying to stop’ what you are trying to START will never work, for obvious reasons.
I think it’s more a case of “bumbling into it and “letting it happen†than “trying to start,†— joe
Then you are delusional. You cannot name something they missed, short of mass rape in the streets. Bremer’s first order deBaathifying the gov’t to four levels and his second order firing all of Iraq’s security forces set off the civil war VERY reliably. The burning down of the National Library, and the torching of the Koran-Torah Repository, the rape of the National Museum, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, the failure to guard anything other than the oil ministry, the disinterest in Hussein’s gov’t records (which would provide a basis for a measured deBaathification), the total failure to (re)install water, power, or sewage services (because the ‘reconstruction’ money went to new construction of the airbases and Citadel), etc. It goes on and on. You have to be an IDIOT to think that this civil war was not fomented very intentionally, by experts.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:12 pmI understand, I just wanted to try and clarify as I was confused on that point as well.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:13 pmThank you for the link, Zoo. :)
Comment by Juan C
Anytime, sweets. :)
April 8th, 2007 at 10:16 pm# 159 didn’t post correctly, &*&^%$ WordPress.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:18 pm“What we do know is that the Turks are very opposed to a Kurdish state” — joe
They are opposed to an INDEPENDENT Kurdish state.
“Turkish attitudes toward Iraqi Kurdistan have evolved significantly since 2003. Before the war, Turkey repeatedly stated its opposition to federalism in Iraq and tried, even after the war began, to get U.S. authorization to send troops into northern Iraq. More recently, however, the Turkish Government has embraced federalism in Iraq and has even toned down its public opposition to the incorporation of Kirkuk into Kurdistan. (Prior to the war, Turkey had said that a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk was a “red line” that, if crossed, would force Turkey to intervene militarily.)”
Galbraith, “The End of Iraq,” pgs. 216-17
joe, since you show such interest, you should surely read Galbraith’s book.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:18 pmAnyhow, I shall leave it there for now. I hate Wordpress, and posting to long threads on this site is very unpleasant as you all know. If I’m not careful, long replies are just tossed out by the server, and in most cases the replies appear several minutes after clicking submit, making it hard to monitor whether the post has actually been posted. Sheesh, there has to be a better way, ThinkProgress.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:21 pm# 159 didn’t post correctly, &*&^%$ WordPress.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Now that’s a scary face! :}
April 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmReading assignment for ThinkProgressers and others you may know:
Please read and spread the following link, which links to the current U.S. nuclear policy, which is so dangerous that it buggers belief:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/publicservice.html
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, 2005 …”Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons… To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD…Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies… ”
Conditions under which nuclear weapons may be used …”For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.”
National Security Strategy, 2006 “…the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively… using all elements of national power…Safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role…”
National Military Strategy to Combat WMD, 2006 …”Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear)…to deter or defeat a WMD threat…”
New DOD website on Nuclear Matters, 2006 “…there is no conventional or customary international law that prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict”.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmTurkey had said that a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk was a “red line†that, if crossed, would force Turkey to intervene militarily.)â€
Okay this is interesting as I posted earlier that Saudi wanted to buy Kirkuk for 2 billion.
Now, what would the Turks think of this? How would this change the scenario?
April 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmSheesh, there has to be a better way, ThinkProgress.
Yah, and I thought Haloscan was buggy.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:29 pmNow that’s a scary face! :}
Comment by Zooey
And so are Cannibal Clowns!!
Heh =)
April 8th, 2007 at 10:30 pmAnd so are Cannibal Clowns!!
Heh =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
I know. **shudder**
Can’t. Stand. Clowns.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:35 pmKirkuk is obviously not for sale, Zep.
Kirkuk is a diverse city, with populations from all over Iraq (as a result of Hussein’s policy). It is outside Iraqi Kurdistan, but it is certainly in the sphere of influence, if there is such a thing.
Bushco may nuke Iran. As evidence of that, consider that Boy Wonder is clearly insane, and the nuclear policy now allows it, even seems to encourage it.
IF Bushco doesn’t use nuclear weapons, and IF the Dems can somehow wiggle us out of PNAC (preferably with a BIG crowbar and a hammer), then the Turks will settle down to the existence of I. Kurdistan, and Iraq will be a federal state with two major regions (instead of the three-part partitioned state/territory which Bushco is trying to set up).
IF Bushco does use nukes, all bets are off, and we are not going to be worrying about ‘helping’ the Kurds — we are going to be in hell along with the Turks.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:35 pmShe is a clueless Democrat who should retire so a new decent Democrat can take her place.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm2-billion-dollar offer from the Saudis in return for giving up demands to have oil-rich Kirkuk as the capital of Kurdistan. Al-Bianh al-Jadidah newspaper …
rawstory.com/news/dpa/Saudi_Arabia_offers_Kurds_2_billion_04032007.html
Kirkuk is obviously not for sale Zep – PILA
I was not making that up Paul….I wish I was.
Why can’t we all just get along and share what resources we have?
April 8th, 2007 at 10:41 pmWhy is man, on this lonely little planet, so engrained with hate and greed?
What have we done to anger the universe?
Why cannot we see the larger picture?
What is the purpose of this absurd carousel?
God help us for we know not what we do or why…..
Can’t. Stand. Clowns.
Comment by Zooey
Okay, I’m sorry, I wont talk about clowns anymore.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pmOkay, I’m sorry, I wont talk about clowns anymore.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Whew, thanks.
**wiping away cold sweat**
April 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm“She is a clueless Democrat who should retire so a new decent Democrat can take her place.” –Jay Randal
She is NOT clueless, she is powerful and knowledgeable.
She represents the MIC.
We tried to remove her last time, got 1/3 of her vote. But the gerrymandered district (33?) cannot be taken away anytime soon.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:00 pmI don’t relate very well there, either, shane. Sorry, but you may be stuck with me.
Paul in LA, the Turks look towards the Kurds lovingly? Did history end, too? That’s pretty, er, optimistic.
As far as the status of the Kurdish state, that’s probably going to end up as muddled as Taiwan. The Turks, Kurds, Iranians, and what’s left of the rest are Iraq are all going to want to hear different things – OR WAR! Real federalism with the rest of Iraq probably isn’t on the table for years, maybe a lot of them, if ever. Is that where you think our diplomatic efforts should go, towards a federalist Iraqi state?
And the “deliberate civil war” thing – do you think Bush and Cheney screwed up the Katrina response on purpose, too? This adminstration fixed their political fortunes to the success of the Iraq project, and the civil war has destroyed not on their hopes for Iraq, but their presidency, their party, and the future of neoconservative ideology. One segment of the Sunni insurgency, led by religious fanatics, deliberately provoked a civil war by attacking the Shiites, in order to make Bush’s effort to install a goverment fail. Bush couldn’t stop it, the Shiites took the bait, and the civil war broke out. I don’t think what we’ve seen in Iraq was how they intended it to play out.
Maybe I’ll check out that Galbraith book. Any relation to John Kenneth, or is that a coincidence?
April 8th, 2007 at 11:13 pmPaul from LA,
You keep implying they did. (US troops taking up positions in Kurdistan prior to the war).
No, I don’t. I’m talking about the security guarantee and the air support.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:18 pmThe UN authorized the invasion in 1991. We took the Iraqis’ surrender, which under international law, gives us the authority to enforce its conditions.
Comment by joe — April 8, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Not to nitpick, but…
Iraq never surrendered. Saddam’s regime agreed to a cease-fire, after a peace conference.
The conditions for the cease-fire did not include an Iraqi agreement to no-fly zones.
We set up the No Fly/No Drive zones under that authority.
These no-fly zones were unilaterally imposed by the US and the UK. They really didn’t have the authority to establish them. The UN certainly never had a vote, and the UN resolution that the US and the UK argued gave them the legal basis for establishing them, doesn’t mention the no-fly zones either.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:26 pmSo TP doesn’t wanna gossip about Imus?
April 8th, 2007 at 11:45 pmFor the United States of America, Iraq can only ever be a ‘combat mission’. George Bush and 20 years of sanctions have seen to that Senator. Why don’t you spend a few months working from the Green Zone. Modern communications are incredible…
April 9th, 2007 at 12:45 am“Paul in LA, the Turks look towards the Kurds lovingly? Did history end, too? That’s pretty, er, optimistic.” –joe
I was being sardonic.
“As far as the status of the Kurdish state, that’s probably going to end up as muddled as Taiwan.”
Not similar cases at all. The Kurds have been through fire. Read Galbraith, and see it from their standpoint. When I read the book last year, it changed much of my view. Previously I was very angry about the coming partition — now I see it as a net gain for the Kurds, who after all are surely better off now than they were in the 1980s, when GHW Bush was helping Hussein slaughter them.
“And the “deliberate civil war†thing – do you think Bush and Cheney screwed up the Katrina response on purpose, too?”
Isn’t that obvious?
Bush to Pelosi, oval office, after Pelosi has asked what can be done to fix the disastrous Bushco response: “What didn’t go right?”
Bush and his pal Haley Barbour in MS are RACISTS and classists (*Barbour himself is something like a Grand Wizard). They get a kick out of dispossessing those beneath them.
“This adminstration fixed their political fortunes to the success of the Iraq project,”
“What hasn’t gone right?”
“and the civil war has destroyed not on their hopes for Iraq, but their presidency, their party, and the future of neoconservative ideology.”
That’s because you buy that tripe. The civil war which they fomented is going well — THEY DIDN’T EXPECT TO LOSE THE 2006 ELECTION. It is the election, not the civil war, which is threatening their plans in former Iraq, Iran, New Orleans, and the formerly more-free United States.
“One segment of the Sunni insurgency, led by religious fanatics, deliberately provoked a civil war by attacking the Shiites,”
How do you know that? What do you think the 30,000+ mercenary squads are busy doing? Sitting in rockers and knitting? When the UN office in Basra was bombed, the U.S. did very suspicious things. For instance, CENTCOM annnounced it had captured NINETEEN bombers at the border, and they confessed to being Al Qaeda.
Two weeks later, media light off, and CENTCOM reveals that they never had anyone in custody for the bombing, except an Iraqi teenager they admitted wasn’t involved.
Who bombed that building? Why would Iraqis bomb the UN?
FOR SURE, Iraqis, muslims, did not burn the Koran-Torah Repository to the ground. That singular act of genocide has the rightwing Christofascist handwriting all over it.
Try Googling the name Stryber and the word Iraq. You’ll find out that a British merc outfit hired deathsquad mercenaries from S. Africa. Do you think racist white supremacists like Stryber care(d) about burning down or bombing mosques?
• Bushco and CENTCOM failed to guard Al-Qaqaa, Hussein’s main ammo dump, previously under lockdown from the UN.
That is either an act of criminal negligence OR treason (and both). When you want to start a civil war, fire the security forces (create massive unemployment)(send the soldiers home with their AKs), fire the gov’t (ruthlessly unemploying thousands of upper middle-class Sunnis) by a one-day, no process deBaathification, and then go around raping the country and allowing rape of the country, until the people have lost all sense of community and shared needs. Shut off the water supply and the power, and blow up all the sewage plants so the children can die from dysentery along with their grandparents, and turn the power on and off, so that no one can keep milk or meat to feed their families.
Then drop hundreds of TONS of half-strength uranium into a country with killer sandstorms and hardpan soil, and induce generations of childhood leukemia and cancer cases, because children’s bodies preferentially take up uranium over calcium, taking the radioactive toxin into their bones, probably for the rest of their short lives. That method of killing violates the Hague Conventions, and in fact is a standalone defining case of genocide:
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Preventing births, forceable transfer — both are examples of what so-called ‘depleted uranium’ will do to those innocents, for a thousand years or more.”
THIS IS GENOCIDE, BY CIVIL WAR, AFTER VIOLENT INVASION. It is in every way a major warcrime, and under our existing year 1999 laws, is a capital offense under the 1997 War Crimes Act.
Such acts are NOT mistakes, not goofs, not botching, not failures of intelligence. They are evil, itself.
“Maybe I’ll check out that Galbraith book. Any relation to John Kenneth, or is that a coincidence?”
His son.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:30 amCorrection: War Crimes Act of 1996, not 7.
“…the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ( 000 U.S. 05-184 ) that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention applied to the War on Terrorism” –wikipedia
To wit, in this conflict, US forces have commonly failed to uphold their Common Article 3 duties:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
[There hasn't been any cruel treatment, has there?]
(b) Taking of hostages;
[Several reports of US soldiers taking hostages to force confessions during interrogations have surfaced.]
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
[Shooting whole famililes to death is a bit more than humiliation.]
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
The repeated pogroms on Al-Fallujah is certainly ‘the carrying out of executions without previous judgment.’ The four Blackwater employees were killed not by Falluja en masse, but by Blackwater via (a probably intentional) negligence, and a handful of Fallujan street persons.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
US forces commonly fail to care for their victims. Indeed, CENTCOM has stated that it has no duty to count or track the dead and wounded civilians. Why should they? Genocide isn’t a Geneva Convention behavior. Deploying mercs in a legal occupation is a warcrime. Deploying mercs in a genocide is just good common sense.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:52 am“2-billion-dollar offer from the Saudis in return for giving up demands to have oil-rich Kirkuk as the capital of Kurdistan. Al-Bianh al-Jadidah newspaper.” –Zep Tepi
You are misinterpreting what SA is offering. They are NOT offering to buy Kirkuk. They are offering to pay I. Kurdistan to give up its claim to including Kirkuk in I. Kurdistan. Kirkuk is an integrated city of all three factions. If it became part of I. Kurdistan, that relationship might/would change that status. Because of Sunni income from oil in Kirkuk, SA is offering to pay the Kurds not to threaten that income.
That said, the German source of that Rawstory article gave a misleading title: “Saudi Arabia offers Kurds 2 billion dollars to give up Kirkuk”
In any case, SA was NOT trying to get the Kurds to give up their community share of Kirkuk, but rather the demand for Kirkuk to become officially I. Kurdish.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:16 amCan we trade Hagel for Harman please.Big deal.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:45 amI would have more respect for Harman and her GOP counterparts if they just told the truth about WHY they want to stay: they want to make sure big oil reaps the profits from Iraq’s oil on the terms big oil dictates.
Harman is essentially saying she wants to hold the victim down for a rapist, but doesn’t think it’s necessary to slap her around as much as the other gang members do.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:08 amThe military is building forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and The Persian Gulf since it intends to invade Iran next after a nice long bombing run. Those huge bases in Iraq indicate to me several things. First we are not going to leave Iraq and in fact can’t since we must retain control over the resources there. Secondly, we have been training Iraqis for combat. They will be the ones that invade Iran.
Odds are this will not be pretty, but we will not pull out no matter who is in charge here in the USA.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:24 amGregor Samsor,
Right you are – I should have referenced an “armistice” or “cease fire,” not a “surrender.” Now, on the question of whether the No Fly/No Drive zones amounted to legal means to enforce the conditions of the armistice, let’s just say we’re in a grey area. I realize the UN never explicitly authorized them, but on the other hand, authrozing a force to go to war includes authorization to negotiate the conditions of the enemy’s cessation of hostilities upon their defeat.
Paul in LA,
I was being sardonic. Oh, that goodness. I thought you’d gone around the bend!
Not similar cases at all. (in reference to the Kurds vs Taiwan). Well, obviously, in many ways they are, although the RoC went through fire as well during the Chinese civil war. My only point here is that the Kurdish entity is going to end up in a sort of legal limbo, comparable to that of Taiwan, at least for a while.
It is the election, not the civil war, which is threatening their plans in former Iraq, Iran, New Orleans, and the formerly more-free United States.
It is the civil war, and the collapse of their mission in Iraq, that caused them to lose the elections in 2006, and the rest of their political fortunes. Had the Iraq War established the stable, America-allied government they wanted, the Busy administration would be on top of the political world. These people actually believed in the idea of a western-oriented Iraq setting off democratic revolutions throughout the Middle East, and banked their future on it. I find your conspratorial view unconvincing.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am[...] to say the left is not particularly happy about these statements as shown here, here and [...]
April 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm“they want to make sure big oil reaps the profits from Iraq’s oil on the terms big oil dictates.” –Professor Smartass
That’s not necessarily true of Harmon. She mainly represents the aerospace wing of the MIC, as I posted above.
“the RoC went through fire as well during the Chinese civil war.”
No, nothing like it. The Japanese genocide in coastal China they went through, along with the rest of the Chinese. Their flight to Taiwan was at the cost of the PEOPLE ALREADY LIVING THERE, not so much for poor, poor Jiang and his fellow elites.
“My only point here is that the Kurdish entity is going to end up in a sort of legal limbo, comparable to that of Taiwan, at least for a while.”
That does not follow. Iraqi Kurdistan will only be in limbo if Iraq the state collapses. Is that what you’re referring to?
“It is the election, not the civil war, which is threatening their plans”
“It is the civil war, and the collapse of their mission in Iraq, that caused them to lose the elections in 2006″
No, that’s not correct. They’ve been stealing our elections since 1999. Their machine broke, after massive activist intervention in the vote-fraud. And Republicans gave up on Bush in droves, because of Katrina, the failure to find WMD, and the failure to capture or kill Bin Laden.
In 2006 at the elections, the issue of a ‘civil war’ was still greatly disputed in the press and in the public.
“Had the Iraq War established the stable, America-allied government they wanted,”
They NEVER WANTED STABILITY!!! If you are so ignorant as to be able to ignore a planned genocide, then that’s more than an IQ test, it’s a test of your morality, and you are getting a FAILING GRADE.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:29 pmIf they wanted stability, then Ronald Dumbsfeld would not have argued for a deployment of as few as 25,000 troops. The Pentagon originally pointed out that 500,000 plus would be needed to STABILIZE the country. They ignored that. Dumbsfeld is on record as saying “We’ll do it on the cheap!”
• Writing NO ORDERS, supplying NO TROOPS to guard Al-Qaqaa’s 280 metric tons of high-explosives — even though they were warned in person by the head of the IAEA — was not a move that would ensure stability.
• Disbanding the security services that the Pentagon was depending on to fill out their tiny numbers was another fatal blow to stability.
Underdeployment, nonguarding of munitions, canning the entire security force and the gov’t in one day — these are not actions by an invading power seeking stability.
You’re either a liar or a fool if you think otherwise.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pmFree Legal Advice Divorce
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:58 amjoint custody divorce
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pmAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pmUs Bankruptcy Court Northern District Of Ohio
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:52 ambankruptcy book debt elimination without
March 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm