random off-topic thread

[Newman]

TheIncredibleRox;146944]There's certainly an end in sight. The last 8 months have drawn us a lot closer to it. The end occurs when Iraq has enough of a military/police force to sustain their own security. They're getting quite close. And the relative peace in Iraq right now facilitates that to happen. The other side of the coin is political reconciliation. Conditions are fertile for that right now as well.

Please. This "war" cannot be won militarily. For it to have a conclusion there has to be a political settlement. We are no closer to that than we were in 2003. Have you been watching the news at all? Turkey is now starting to get involved in the north, with the formerly stable Kurds.






As I've said before, I'll keep your son in my prayers and wish him the best. I hope he returns safely. Quick question, out of curiousity... does he support the cause? Its unrelated, I'd just want to know...

I've learned not to ask him questions. We had one minor blowup on the internet since he's been over there. I see no point in provoking another.

And what exactly do you mean, Adam, by "does he support the cause?" What's the cause? Record oil profits for Exxon? Record war profiteering for Halliburton? What is the cause? Hunting down Osama bin laden, wanted dead or alive? That's not the cause. So, what is the cause?

Anyway, the notion that we're in this war for oil is ludicrous. You can't make the argument that it's been in our interests on a national economic level; the economic impact of securing that oil couldn't pay for 1/20th of what we've spent. And did anybody truly think that invading Iraq would make the oil flow more stable in the near term?

Alan Greenspan said it was for oil.

The price of oil before the war was $1.29/gallon. Check your local gas station for what it is now.

Wolfowitz said that the oil would pay for the war. Yeah, right.

The American taxpayer is being forced to pay $2B/week in Iraq, for what? It's all going down the toilet. I would think that Con$ervative$ would be outraged at such fi$cal irre$pon$ibiltiy. Because as soon as we leave the civil war will explode and the power struggle will ensue.

And if we stay for the next 50 years it will be a slow bleed. And again. For what? We can't force "democracy" on a people who never asked for it, have no history of it, and don't seem to want it.

But that's not the case you're making; you're advocating the notion that Bush/Cheney dragged us into the more for the benefit of Halliburton and crony companies. Okay. Let's run with that for a second. Bush started a war with a nation who he knew posed no threat to American interests, knowing full well it would cost enormous amounts of American taxpayer capital, hundreds to thousands of American lives, at least tens of thousands of lives of Iraqi civilians, and quite possibly tarnish our world image, all so his insanely rich friends could get a little bit insanely richer? Thats just an incredibly deranged belief; you'd have to believe Bush makes Satan look like a lap dog. If you believe that, thats okay, you're entitled to. But it's such a fantastical belief that it's ridiculous.

Is it that far off? He sold it to you, Adam! And to his base of followers, the 24% who still support him.

He had political capitol to spend. You've heard him make that phrase before. After September 11 he wanted to appear strong. He wanted to be a war president. Why not pick on a country that has no air force, not much of an army, like Iraq, a country we would be sure to beat (militarily).

WE were attacked by Osama bin laden. His response was to attack Saddam Hussein. That didn't make sense then. It makes less sense now.

[Roxpert]

Disabusing right-wing war supporters of the notion that this "war" (occupation) is nearing a successful conclusion is never easy, Newman. We can hit them over the head with facts, such as this can only be won politically, not militarily, and there has been no movement toward Shia and Sunni reconciliation in the "unity" government even though the surge gave them the "space" and security to come together.

So, all I can do is provide a couple more links to show how this remains a fruitless situation.....

Iraq still beset by violence, says MoD - Telegraph

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Despite Surge, Iraq No Closer to Political Stability

(I had dinner recently with the author of the second article. Bremmer, author of The J-Curve, is an expert on geopolitics and works on behalf of Citigroup. My hedge fund is a client of Citigroup.)

Now, objectively, how do people such as TIR and other pro-war conservatives stay hopeful? I really just fail to understand that sort of thought process. And it's not because I'm "defeatist" - It's because I'm realistic, and am being hit over the head with facts everytime I research this debacle. If we ever do leave, that place will explode in blood. This is why I think Gary Hart's original prediction that we would have bases in Iraq in 20 years (he said so in 2003) will prove to be accurate. Sad. Really sad.

[Jack Dobb]

Newman, I've never met your son, so I'm not sure exactly what he thinks about the war. However, I've spoken second-hand with a brother and a mother whose brother and son were in Iraq. The brother said that his brother thought we were doing a good job over there but that the Iraqi people who wanted to be security guards were especially difficult to train because a lot of them stole our (U.S.) supplies. They were almost like little kids in that regard. Other than that, he said that our defense measures were working, he was glad to have served, and he believed in our "cause" (probably using the same meaning as TIR intended). The mother said that she receives phone calls and E-mails and photographs from her son (in Baghdad) all the time, that he emphatically believes that what they are doing is right, and that they are making a lot of progress that goes unreported in the media.

I've also read these quotes from a veteran from Alaska who served in Iraq from 2005 to 2006 (i.e., pre-Surge) is now playing Division I football. I can give you the link if you like, but he said:

"The big thing that hit me in Iraq was how difficult it was to really get an accurate picture to people, both in the country and here at home, just what it was that we were doing. There was, and still is, great stuff going on and progress being made. But the terrorists there had really learned how to use the media to their advantage, and as a result things constantly were being portrayed as worse than they really were. I know I was constantly trying to convince my wife and parents back home that we were doing much, much better than was being reported. I left truly feeling that the only way we could lose there was if the American people gave up, but that that is a very real threat and one we need to be careful of."

Two things stand out -- one, his choice of words: "terrorist." Two, he was there before the Surge, when the media finally began to acknowledge our progress, yet he said, "the only way we could lose was if the American people gave up." He's just one soldier, but he has more experience than we do over there, and he says not only that there is a military goal, but it is ours to be won if we keep up the will to fight it.

Again, that's just his opinion, but it's consistent with the mother and brother I told you about. Simply put, Roxpert can cite all of these "facts" he wants, but I choose to believe people who have been over there before I believe the media. It's like with the Rockies -- do you think I believe any of the crap I read about them in the paper? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Now, objectively, how do people such as TIR and other pro-war conservatives stay hopeful? I really just fail to understand that sort of thought process. And it's not because I'm "defeatist" - It's because I'm realistic, and am being hit over the head with facts everytime I research this debacle. If we ever do leave, that place will explode in blood. This is why I think Gary Hart's original prediction that we would have bases in Iraq in 20 years (he said so in 2003) will prove to be accurate. Sad. Really sad.

Roxpert, see above for my view on your "facts." Also, citing Gary Hart as an expert on foreign policy is like citing a Kennedy as an expert on drunken driving. No thanks.

[Jack Dobb]

Here's the link:

Air Force Education -- Courant.com

[Newman]

My son is not involved in the surge, which is where? In Baghdad? With the army?

My son appears to me to be a Marine accountant with a rifle. His main job is to pay the Iraqi police. Why can't they pay themselves I wonder?

He never talks about "training" them. How long does it take to train someone anyway, even if you don't speak the language or know the culture. Certainly NOT 6 years!

My son only posts happy pictures on his blog. He doesn't want to worry the folks back home. He'll show his Marines playing touch football, Army v. Navy style, with a "float" in the background. He'll show their version of Thanksgiving dinner. And so on.

He gives a sanitized version of the occupation.

It looks to me to be a third world country. Dirt roads. Poverty. The Iraqi people need money, and things, and food, and JOBS. I mail him candy to hand out to the Iraqi children. How does this change anything? Fix the problems? End terrorism?

Obviously it doesn't.

Roxpert, the righties don't read the links you post, or read opposing views. They listen to Rush or Glenn Beck all day long, or Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity on tv or radio, and get pounded 24/7 with neocon thinking. State run radio and tv. That's Fox News. How is it any different than Tass, the old Soviet Union news service that we all worried about when we were growing up in the l960s.

Brainwashing. Programming. Fear.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Jack Dobb

Roxpert, see above for my view on your "facts." Also, citing Gary Hart as an expert on foreign policy is like citing a Kennedy as an expert on drunken driving. No thanks.

Jack, there certainly are more facts being reported in those two links than anything you just wrote. I applaud the military for doing "their job" and making "progress" in terms of tamping down the violence and improving the security situation temporarily. It's all short-term. Read what Bremmer had to write, especially toward the end of his piece. If you think we are any closer to a stable and sustainable democracy and ally in the "war on terror" (which was our original goal along with finding WMD), then you are due for a major disappointment. We aren't any closer to political solutions.

The only way "WE" can win this "war" is if THEY decide to live together as one country and enable us to leave. That's not happening. We are baby-sitting them, entering our 6th year, and it won't be any closer to ending when the new president takes over in the 7th.

You obviously haven't read much of Gary Hart in the past if you are disrespecting his foreign policy knowledge and expertise. That's like saying Joe Biden is clueless on geopolitics. It's not true.

[John Cocktoston]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Who is "we"? Were they in Bali in the last week, or is their "science" being represented to them or anyone else for peer review? I'm really curious since I'm all for "better science", but haven't seen it. And it seems to be marginalized in the face of international consensus on this issue.

I guess "we" includes the over 400 who are mentioned in this report.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by John Cocktoston

I guess "we" includes the over 400 who are mentioned in this report.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Thank you for that report. It's very interesting, but it's still the minority view and does not invalidate the consensus. Yes, over 400 scientists sounds like a lot, but what PERCENTAGE of all scientists who have studied the issue does that represent? Also, please note that this report eminated from the GOP Ranking Member of that committee and clearly the introduction was written by his staffers.

I will read the report when I have time. From the intro, I particularly found this quote noteworthy:

"Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated."

That's from the Chinese scientists. Recall that Chinese spokespeople on the matter are overseen by the Chinese government, and China is incredibly polluted and becoming the top contributor of greenhouse gasses in the world. Even so, they acknowledge that it's "unsuspicious" that CO2 has an effect on climate change. They only question the degree of the change.

You know what? I don't think anyone knows the degree of disruption or change to our climate that CO2 emissions will have, and I would say that some of the dire consequences predicted are speculative. But can the world afford to sit back and wait to see what happens? By then, it may be too late to do anything about it, and we could have a much larger climatological problem to deal with than we would if the world is proactive now.

As TIR has said, just getting rid of pollution and our dependence on Middle East oil makes finding alternative energy sources worth the cost and effort. If it ensures us of avoidance of a potential global warming castastrophe, all the better.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Please. This "war" cannot be won militarily.

Okay. I'm just watching us win this war, every day, militarily.

For it to have a conclusion there has to be a political settlement.

As I see it, the way the military wins is by providing as much of a lasting peace for as long as possible for this to happen. The relative peace has just started and life is begining to return to normalcy. Iraqi congress has essentially been on vacation. But political progress has been made over the last 2-3 years, and the hope is it will continue and accelerate as the peace continues to grow.

The success or failure of the Iraqi government is in the hands of the Iraqi government and it's people, and will determine the success of the nation. That's on them.... if they fail for a lack of security, thats on us.

But the important 'political' solution libs keep referring to is less a political matter than a civil matter; it's the ability of Sunnis and Shias to coexist without killing each other. The 'Anbar Awakening' is spreading with resounding success, and it's working. No one was ever suicide bombing over the lack of a comprehensive deal for oil distribution amongst ethnic minorities; it's about deep-seated cultural/religious beliefs (and history of war) between Sunni and Shiite. The Anbar Awakening is basically the realization (and popularization) of the notion that there are better ways to compete than killing each other. It's a beautiful thing.

But that's not the case you're making; you're advocating the notion that Bush/Cheney dragged us into the more for the benefit of Halliburton and crony companies. Okay. Let's run with that for a second. Bush started a war with a nation who he knew posed no threat to American interests, knowing full well it would cost enormous amounts of American taxpayer capital, hundreds to thousands of American lives, at least tens of thousands of lives of Iraqi civilians, and quite possibly tarnish our world image, all so his insanely rich friends could get a little bit insanely richer? Thats just an incredibly deranged belief; you'd have to believe Bush makes Satan look like a lap dog. If you believe that, thats okay, you're entitled to. But it's such a fantastical belief that it's ridiculous.

Is it that far off? He sold it to you, Adam! And to his base of followers, the 24% who still support him.

Uhh, okay. The I don't need to say anything. I really don't. If that's what you believe, you discredit yourself entirely. That's fine.

We can hit them over the head with facts, such as this can only be won politically, not militarily

Wow, again, amazing what passes for 'facts' these days. The above is the textbook definition of an 'opinion.' And see above in re: Newman as to my rebuttal.

What are either of you going to say, when 12 months from now, we A) have an Iraq that is basically self sufficient in terms of security and keeping peace B) we begin drawing our troops dont to the 20-40k level, and they're mostly non-combat guys, C) Iraq is continuing to be a government of the people, that respects human rights, enjoys peaceful transfers of power, is an ally against terrorism, and serves as a successful model to the citizens of it's neighbors?

Thats a tall order in that time frame, and one truly horrific event could derail it by months. But it's possible.

I mean, I know you libs don't want to see that happen. I know it kills you to root for the home team. But what are you going to say, after all the amped up rhetoric of the last few years, if we win?

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

What are either of you going to say, when 12 months from now, we A) have an Iraq that is basically self sufficient in terms of security and keeping peace B) we begin drawing our troops dont to the 20-40k level, and they're mostly non-combat guys, C) Iraq is continuing to be a government of the people, that respects human rights, enjoys peaceful transfers of power, is an ally against terrorism, and serves as a successful model to the citizens of it's neighbors?

Thats a tall order in that time frame, and one truly horrific event could derail it by months. But it's possible.

I mean, I know you libs don't want to see that happen. I know it kills you to root for the home team. But what are you going to say, after all the amped up rhetoric of the last few years, if we win?

First, I say read this.....

Jarrar and Holland | Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law

Second, I say it probably doesn't matter what I say, at least to you. After all, it's "we libs" who are saying it, and being a "lib" just simply invalidates any thoughts we may have, in your mind. Dismiss over 60% of the US who are dissatisfied with our endless ocuupation (and 80% of the world) as "far-left" whackos whose opinions should be marginalized, the way Bill O'Reilly does. After all, anything labled "far left" cant' be worth your attention. Can it?

To even suggest that liberals are rooting for us to lose is an insult. Or that we could not fathom how it'll feel for the home team to win. OF COURSE we'd love to see Iraq become a stable democracy that doesn't need us to baby-sit them anymore to prevent a complete crumbling of their government and society. BUT IT AIN'T REALISTIC to even think that could be accomplished in 10 years, much less the one year you are suggesting for this successful withdrawal scenario.

I don't even think the Bush Administration has come close to suggesting this fantastic outcome is attainable, and in fact their actions suggest otherwise. The recently signed agreement with Maliki's government to allow us permanent bases in Iraq in exchange for security guarantees for their government would say otherwise, wouldn't you think?

Any rational thinker on this issue has to realize that Iraq's government is on "life-support", and would be extremely unstable without our occupation. Al-Sadr is quietly laying low, but reports are that his and many other "subterranian" groups in Iraq are re-arming and waiting us out. You see, we DO have to withdraw SOME troops next year (to pre-surge levels) since the current level of forces can't be maintained. Let's see what happens to violence over there after that happens.

Now, I suppose you COULD be right. Would I bet on it, or adjust my investment strategy on sudden stability in that region? Well, Israeli/Palestinian peace is also possible, but I wouldn't lay odds on it happening in the next year or twenty.

Ian Bremmer has a better handle on the situation than you do, TIR, and excuse me if I choose to listen to him.

That's just my opinion, based on the hundreds of articles I've read and stories I've seen on TV and the internet since 2003. You go ahead and dismiss that article I linked (and all the others), call the rest of us "you libs", question our lack of patriotism (which is what not rooting for the home team is code for), and go about your fantasies as you please regarding a successful outcome.

I think that's all you have left after being wrong about how this war would unfold since the very beginning.

[John Cocktoston]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Now, in return for this list of recommeded reading, I invite our right-wing friends to give us some recommendations of their own.....

Amazon.com: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism: Books: Naomi Klein

Amazon.com: The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot: Books: Naomi Wolf

Amazon.com: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: Books: John Perkins

Amazon.com: Cracking the Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds, and Restore America's Original Vision: Books: Thom Hartmann

I was actually planning to pick up "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" after hearing an interview Perkins gave on either NPR or BBC.

How's this for a deal? Since I was already planning on reading that book, allow me to suggest a video that you will watch. It will take you less than an hour (I think it's 42 minutes or so) and it will be an honor system thing: I'll read Perkins' book and you'll watch the entire video and then, if you'd like, we can exchange some thoughts.

Or you can call me a winger and I can call you a fringe element and we can go back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Roxpert]

I am always willing to watch or read opposing viewpoints. Go ahead and provide me the video info.

[TheIncredibleRox]

So, no substantive answer to the question other than 'we won't win' and a link to an article by a guy saying 'don't worry, we're still not winning.' Yeah, thats not defeatism.

Success is a 'little fantasy.' Unbelievable.

[Roxpert]

TIR, you are not making sense to me. What is "winning"? We aren't fighting a war anymore, don't forget. This is packaged as a war and as part of the "Greater War on Terror" (GWOT). But, it's obvious that this is simply an occupation and an ill-fated attempt at nation-building.

You speculated that things would improve so much, that we could withdraw all but 30 - 40k (mainly) non-combat troops in a year, or perhaps a few months later. You have shown no basis for this forecast, so I call it your "fantasy".

Now, if the Dems win the White house in a year, then you are right in the sense that a withdrawal plan will ensue in early 2009. But it will not be because we have "won" (in any sense of the word), or because our goal of establishing a self-sustaining democracy and ally in the GWOT in the heart of the Middle East has been accomplished. It will be due to the pledge made by the Dem. candidate (whoever he/she is) to bring this "war" to an end. Thus, our occupation will be drawn down, with unknown consequences w.r.t. Iraq's stability and future.

I really don't think you read my links carefully because your mind is already made up. Just like it was when you supported Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research since that's "killing fetuses". Sorry, TIR, but the facts aren't on your side on many of the positions you have taken.

And what is this "defeatism" crap you keep alluding to anyway? We've already lost hearts and minds, our moral high-ground in the world, our international image, a half-trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury, 4,000 precious American soldier lives, tens of thousands of mamed and mentally scared soldiers, uncounted Iraqi civilian lives, and our credibility as a nation whenever TRUE threats arise in the future, and for what? Yes, these are the COSTS of your beloved "cause". They were written in stone the moment we invaded in March 2003. You may call me a defeatist all you want. It doesn't change the TRUTH of this debacle that most can see as plain as day. This has been and remains the biggest strategic blunder in US foreign policy history, and has also harmed our national security in unimagined ways for years and decades to come. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

[John Cocktoston]

It's a speech given at the Heritage Foundation this year by a former writer for Bill Maher. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, the Heritage Foundation is a very conservative group. The speech, however, was picked up by C-SPAN and has been widely disseminated on Youtube.

Anyway, here is the link.

YouTube - HERITAGE FOUNDATION: "How Modern Liberals Think"

I will swing by Barnes and Nobles tomorrow to pick up "Hit Man". My wife is a voracious reader and bleeding heart liberal, so it can double as a gift for her!