The Democrats Sold Out America

[tellner]

The Libertarians would be a little more interesting if they weren't all religious fanatics with such a simple, smug, self-satisfied little religion. They have one G-d Almighty - The Sacred Market. They have one Devil - The Evil Government. No matter what the problem is the cure is less government unless it's for defending their Sacred Right of Property.

 

[jdinca]

Aw shucks....The Democrats sold this country down the river a long time ago.

Maybe people will wake up and smell that Libertarian coffee .... mmmmmm

Sigh, it's a shame we can't resurrect Barry Goldwater.

 

[Makalakumu]

So you're saying it would be better to run the country based on polls?

The last election saw the democrats win because they promised to do something about Iraq. The polls are just a reflection of this sentiment. It's not the other way around, the polls are driving the policy. Votes are...or should be.

Whether you agree with the original decision to go into Iraq, or not, the fact of the matter is that we're there. While they work on a way to extract our troops in an intelligent, rational manner, the troops still need to be funded.

Why aren't timetables and benchmarks a rational way of getting our troops out of there? Perhaps President Bush needs to face a congress that will give him no money for the war unless those are attached.

Why people thought that anything different was going to happen baffles me. The president flat out said that he wouldn't accept timetables and the democrats aren't about to not fund the troops. Without enough votes to overcome a veto, this outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Why is it so forgone? If the president is unable to accept a compromise and the democrats defunded the war, what do you think would happen? Wouldn't subsequent policy decision regarding the propagation of the war under those circumstances fall directly on the Commander in Chief?

In my opinion, if our soldiers ended up throwing rocks the blame could only fall on one person, the President.

Like I said before, wars have been defunded in the past and no other President played chicken with our soldiers lives in order to get the other side to blink.

Any person with a scrap of decency would get our people out of there...

 

[tellner]

Barry Goldwater, Mo Udall, Ross Perot before he went hemiptera-conjugation, 'Scoop' Jackson...

There have been plenty of good men and women, Democrat and Republican, who I wish we had. Even now there are people like Arlen Specter, Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. The problem is that it's difficult for a good person to gain power. And Power doesn't like good people.

In earlier decades it was a little better. But since the early 70s we've gotten the old Gilded Age idea that the interests of Capital should be those of Government. So we have a Republican Party which is entirely beholden to the interests of the extremely rich, much like it was in the early 20th century. Back then Teddy Roosevelt was disgusted with this corruption and became a fire-breathing reformer with early labor rights, the Pure Food and Drug Act, real regulation for health and safety and all the rest. So the Greedy Old Plutocrats who ruled his Party kicked him out and put in their compliant servant Howard Taft. They even went so far as to try and organize a military coup against his cousin FDR. This act of seditious treason was only stopped when Marine Corps General Smedley Butler refused to go along with it and told the President.

Now we have George W. Bush who is entirely the tool of these same monied interests. Industries get to write the laws that will regulate them. In order to free up people to suppress minority voting the Justice Department has declared that white collar crime is, and I quote, "Not a priority". We have a level of wealth and income inequity that is unprecedented in American history and a shrinking, increasingly insecure middle class.

And the parts of the GOP that are not ruled by the plutocrats are ruled by the theocrats.

The Democrats are not much better. The DLC - Democratic Leadership Committee (Caucus?) - which rules the Party through people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton is explicitly the Party of Big Business. Their economic policies are identical to the Republicans'. And they were the ones who caved with unseeming haste to torture, the continuation of the Iraq War and all the rest of that evil. They are the authors of "triangulation". They tried to shut Howard Dean out and then did everything they could to keep him from pursuing a 50 State strategy. When he told them to go to hell and knocked it out of the park last year they made sure that the hunger for reform would not be satisfied. They are the ones who force any Democratic candidate to bow to the consultants.

In short, they are bought and paid for just like the GOP, Tony Blair to Margaret Thatcher.

I've seen the frustration of the Progressives and the old-line liberals in the DP. They try, but the leaders will not let anything "controversial" happen.

What we have is a two-headed monster bought and paid for by the wealthy, the multinationals, foreign interests and the same military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about when he left office.

If you look up any of the accepted historical definitions of fascism you will see that at its core is the partnership of Capital and Capitol for the former's benefit combined with a strong and intrusive national security state. That is precisely what we have here. And both Parties are deeply culpable.

The minor parties are a joke. Since we don't have coalition governments in this country they are at best spoilers. It is undeniable that Ralph *spit* Nader gave us George W. Bush. The numbers are clear. The Libertarians are simply the wing of the Republicans which doesn't go to Church and likes to enjoy its sex and drugs without looking over its shoulder. Labor as a political force is dead, and the last shovel of dirt was heaped on the grave with the indentured servant, 'scuse me "Guest Worker", program that just got passed.

So what can we do about our two-headed monster?

I'd say get involved with the Progressive wing of the Democrats. They are the ones who made the difference in November 2006. Groups like MoveOn have changed the political landscape. Work with them. Get involved with the Dems at the grassroots level - I'm involved with the Oregon Democrats' Gun Owners' Caucus. Push the Party towards the future rather than the stagnant past. It isn't perfect, but it's the best we have.

And remember the last words of Joe Hill: "Don't mourn, organize."

 

[Nobody]

Yes, i agree with that tellner, i have felt ever sense i began voting in the early eighties that we have been sold out to the corporation an Lobbyist controlled by the big business. An honestly the ability to organize against the government right now that would assist in preferred change instead of one that goes around running up a debt that will never go away just at times seems like we will never get there. I have actually decided to quit voting cause it does not have any power.

 

[jdinca]

What we have is a two-headed monster bought and paid for by the wealthy, the multinationals, foreign interests and the same military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about when he left office.

Don't forget to add in "social complacency". Was anybody else shocked when France had 75% of eligible voters vote in their last election? When's the last time that happened in our presidential elections?

I'd say get involved with the Progressive wing of the Democrats. They are the ones who made the difference in November 2006. Groups like MoveOn have changed the political landscape. Work with them. Get involved with the Dems at the grassroots level - I'm involved with the Oregon Democrats' Gun Owners' Caucus. Push the Party towards the future rather than the stagnant past. It isn't perfect, but it's the best we have.

And remember the last words of Joe Hill: "Don't mourn, organize."

Damn, I was ready to stand up and cheer right up until you got to this part. The absolute last group of people I want in charge of our country are those who believe in an unworkable "global utopia" and a "world without borders". The "all we need is more of you money and our dream can come true" group. These are the same people that feel wealth should be redistributed, i.e., money should be taken out of the pockets of people who earned it and given to people who didn't. I want less government, not more. My main gripe with Bush is that he's grown the federal government to ridiculous proportions.

I have a little different perspective. Yes, I know, you're shocked. I think the Republican party needs to get back to the conservative roots that put them in power in the first place. It's that drift to the left that cost them the election, as much as anything else. It was the moderate democrats that carried the day last year, not the left wing "secular progressives". The DNC didn't necessarily win the election, the RNC gave it away.

And to both sides, I think they need to stay the hell out of my life and out of my wallet. They've yet to prove that they know how to live my life better than I do, or how to spend my money any better than I do.

 

[jdinca]

The last election saw the democrats win because they promised to do something about Iraq. The polls are just a reflection of this sentiment. It's not the other way around, the polls are driving the policy. Votes are...or should be.

When a significant percentage of the population doesn't know the name of the Vice President, or that Iwannajihad is the president if Iran, I have serious skepticism over the views expressed in polls when it comes to world views. When the poll questions ask whether, or not we should get out of Iraq before the Iraqi's are capable of taking care of themselves, the numbers are different. Polls are only as good as the questions that are asked.

Why aren't timetables and benchmarks a rational way of getting our troops out of there? Perhaps President Bush needs to face a congress that will give him no money for the war unless those are attached.

The Islamic fundamentalists have been at war for 1,300 years. Imagine the celebration when they find out the exact date the US is going to pull out, regardless of what the conditions in the country are. Osama predicted that the US had no stomach for an extended fight. What you're asking is for congress to prove him right. The aftermath in Iraq isn't going well but the carnage that would ensue if we pulled out before the time is right would make the current situation pale by comparison. Not to mention what would happen in a region where strength and power are the most respected traits in an ally, and an adversary.

On the flip side, I find benchmarks very appropriate. It's time for the Iraqi's to get off their *** and get it together. Remember though, we're expecting them to have a viable, working democracy in only a couple of years. It's been tough enough to accomplish in history, even without a very determined, vicious enemy who has no regard for human life, including their own.

Why is it so forgone? If the president is unable to accept a compromise and the democrats defunded the war, what do you think would happen? Wouldn't subsequent policy decision regarding the propagation of the war under those circumstances fall directly on the Commander in Chief?

Because that's the current state of affairs in American politics. If congress defunds the war, then they buy whatever happens in the aftermath. Right now, they have George W. Bush playing the part of the lightening rod and they're happy for it.

In my opinion, if our soldiers ended up throwing rocks the blame could only fall on one person, the President.

You mean, play chicken with our soldiers lives by taking away their funding?

Like I said before, wars have been defunded in the past and no other President played chicken with our soldiers lives in order to get the other side to blink.

Any person with a scrap of decency would get our people out of there...

In an intelligent, appropriate way, as opposed to what we saw in the Vietnam war, the last time congress defunded a war. Sorry, I care not to have history repeat itself in this case. We lost a lot of face in the world with that debacle, the risk here is significantly greater. We want moderate middle eastern governments in our corner. If we tuck tail and run, that's the last thing that's going to happen.

 

[mrhnau]

While the topic is somewhat interesting, this is just the topic de jour...

Want other such examples? We can go on for a while, but it all depends on what side of the aisle you lay on...

Is an large amount of debt selling out America?
Is killing a significant portion of our future generations (abortion) selling out America?
Is the killing of convicted felons selling out America?
How about almost total dependence on foreign oil? A lack of a cohesive plan to create green energy?
Not passing immigration bills that have any teeth? Not punishing those breaking the law to enter this country?
The eroding of privacy and constitutional rights?

There are more of course, just not going to spend more CPU cycles trying to figure them out... point being, if you want to see how politicians (not just Democrats, not just Republicans) are "selling us out", there are plenty of examples....

One gets tired of it after a while, but I don't see any major changes coming in DC any time soon... voting is a bit depessing at times when you realize nothing will majorly change. Just once I'd like to vote for someone that actually holds to my political ideals and is not afraid to declare them and vote appropriately.

 

[Sukerkin]

I feel your 'pain' so to speak with that last phrase .

Fear not, it is not just America that has drowned itself in the majority of mediocrity with an accumulation of small 'evils' that have matured down the line into rather large ones.

 

[Makalakumu]

When a significant percentage of the population doesn't know the name of the Vice President, or that Iwannajihad is the president if Iran, I have serious skepticism over the views expressed in polls when it comes to world views.

I'm the last person you need to remind how dumb the average american is. Hopefully, I can correct that.

When the poll questions ask whether, or not we should get out of Iraq before the Iraqi's are capable of taking care of themselves, the numbers are different. Polls are only as good as the questions that are asked.

Isn't this funny. Suddenly we know what's better for the Iraqis then they know for themselves.

THEY WANT US OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY!!!

Everyone you ask. Everywhere you go. The only reason we stay is so that we can force our puppet government to privatize the oil industry. That, ironically, was one of the benchmarks suggested by the democrats.

Imagine that.

The Islamic fundamentalists have been at war for 1,300 years. Imagine the celebration when they find out the exact date the US is going to pull out, regardless of what the conditions in the country are. Osama predicted that the US had no stomach for an extended fight. What you're asking is for congress to prove him right.

Assuming that most of the propaganda about terrorists the media says is true, this statement still has us playing chicken with our soldiers lives. If we were going to spend those lives, wouldn't it be better to do it in a venue that actually protects America?

And then there is the fact that most likely the boldfaced quote is ******** propaganda. So much of this "war on terror" has been fabricated already, its hard to tell what is true and what is not.

The aftermath in Iraq isn't going well but the carnage that would ensue if we pulled out before the time is right would make the current situation pale by comparison. Not to mention what would happen in a region where strength and power are the most respected traits in an ally, and an adversary

How do you know this? Since the US has invaded, there have been over 600,000 civilian casualties in Iraq and hundreds more are dying every week.

I think that if we pulled out, the impetus for this violence would disappear.

On the flip side, I find benchmarks very appropriate. It's time for the Iraqi's to get off their *** and get it together. Remember though, we're expecting them to have a viable, working democracy in only a couple of years. It's been tough enough to accomplish in history, even without a very determined, vicious enemy who has no regard for human life, including their own.

What if the people don't want to work together? What if they want something completely different then what WE want them to have? Is it right for us to force that on them?

Because that's the current state of affairs in American politics. If congress defunds the war, then they buy whatever happens in the aftermath. Right now, they have George W. Bush playing the part of the lightening rod and they're happy for it.

No they don't. Congress is not Commander in Cheif. The President is. The Founding Dathers designed the Constitution so that if congress cut funding for an unpopular war, that would be a check on the Commander in Cheif's power. The assumption was that they believed that a President would be decent enough to bring our soldiers out of harms way if this was done.

If congress cut funding for the war, it would fall on the Presidents shoulders to deal with that. If he decided to keep our nations sons and daughters in harms way without the funds they needed, then HE OWNS THAT DECISION.

Congress is not Commander in Cheif.

You mean, play chicken with our soldiers lives by taking away their funding?

Congress is not Commander in Cheif. If funding is cut and the Commander in Cheif still chooses to perpetrate this war and everyone dies, Congress could do nothing to stop the President except impeach the bastard.

In an intelligent, appropriate way, as opposed to what we saw in the Vietnam war, the last time congress defunded a war. Sorry, I care not to have history repeat itself in this case. We lost a lot of face in the world with that debacle, the risk here is significantly greater. We want moderate middle eastern governments in our corner. If we tuck tail and run, that's the last thing that's going to happen.

A couple of questions...

1. We've already lost so much face on the world stage when we invaded. How much would pulling out really affect this?

2. Why do we need middle eastern governments "in our corner" in the first place? Are you implying that we need something from them?

 

[Rich Parsons]

So much for all of their talk. Now they vote to give the President everything he wants to continue this worthless war...all of the money, no timetable and benchmarks are symbolic only. What is history going to say about the integrity of these people?

Meanwhile, President Bush moves nine more warships into the gulf, prepares to raise troop levels from 160,000 to over 200,000, and starts retraining navy and air force personal for combat missions...

I saw a report on the TV while at Lunch yesterday. It stated that over two thirds (2/3) of the Democrats voted against it including the two leading (* In the polls *) runners for the Presidential position.

Not sure if others brought this up, but How come it is always 100 % either you are with me or against me. Not about individuals and what they voted but the party is bad because they disagree with me or they sold me out because they did nto vote the way I wanted.

Check your local Rep/Sen voting records and decide form there. Even if they are the party you want, if they vote on issues different then what you want. you can still vote against them or raise a local campaing to let them know your concerns and issues.

 

[jdinca]

Isn't this funny. Suddenly we know what's better for the Iraqis then they know for themselves.

THEY WANT US OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY!!!

Everyone you ask. Everywhere you go. The only reason we stay is so that we can force our puppet government to privatize the oil industry. That, ironically, was one of the benchmarks suggested by the democrats.

Imagine that.

I think that this is probably the best, comprehensive poll I've looked at.​

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12898/iraq_poll_2007.html​

It paints a bleak picture in some areas, but some surprises in other areas. Read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Yes, the Iraqis blame coalition forces for a lot of the ills but the following question gives a different spin on it, directly related to your assertion that they want us out.​

Q27 [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave? [/FONT]​

Click on the link and look at Q27 (above). Do your own math. Only 35% want us to leave now, the other 66% don't want us to leave until the situation there is much better. Gee, why isn't this reported more in the press? Not quite as simplistic as you would like us to believe, is it?

And then there is the fact that most likely the boldfaced quote is ******** propaganda. So much of this "war on terror" has been fabricated already, its hard to tell what is true and what is not.

Huh? Did the US fake Osamas statements on this, or is he just a CIA operative following orders? Which conspiracy theory would you like to subscribe to?

How do you know this? Since the US has invaded, there have been over 600,000 civilian casualties in Iraq and hundreds more are dying every week.

I think that if we pulled out, the impetus for this violence would disappear.

Which violence? The sectarian violence where Shiite's and Sunni's are killing each other, or Al Qaeda killing everybody indiscrimintantly because they want an Islamic state that subscribes to the radical views of Islam? Note that neither one has anything to do with our presence in the country. It would be marvelous if all of those people suddenly dropped their centuries old hate for each other and gave each other a big hug and sang Kum By Yah, but the cynical side of me doubts this is going to happen. The moderate forces in Iraq that are able to think rationally and look past religious and tribal strife are the ones who must gain control in the country. Were we to leave now, they wouldn't stand a chance.

What if the people don't want to work together? What if they want something completely different then what WE want them to have? Is it right for us to force that on them?

Based on the outcomes of the voting that has taken place in Iraq, what is it YOU think they want? Looks to me like they want a stable democracy. That doesn't mean that they have to adopt our constitution, it means they have to write their own constitution (they did), elect their own officials (they did) and try and get their country up and running (they're trying). Am I missing something here? It looks to me like they've decided what they want and the minority who doesn't want democracy are doing everything they can to destroy it. If I'm misreading the election results, please enlighten me.

No they don't. Congress is not Commander in Cheif. The President is. The Founding Dathers designed the Constitution so that if congress cut funding for an unpopular war, that would be a check on the Commander in Cheif's power. The assumption was that they believed that a President would be decent enough to bring our soldiers out of harms way if this was done.

If congress cut funding for the war, it would fall on the Presidents shoulders to deal with that. If he decided to keep our nations sons and daughters in harms way without the funds they needed, then HE OWNS THAT DECISION.

Congress is not Commander in Cheif.

Congress is not Commander in Cheif. If funding is cut and the Commander in Cheif still chooses to perpetrate this war and everyone dies, Congress could do nothing to stop the President except impeach the bastard.

Yes, they do. If congress cuts off funding, the president has no choice but to pull the military out. The aftermath in Iraq and the region that results from this premature withdrawl falls directly on the shoulders of congress. Anybody who thinks that everything will be coming up roses once the US is out of Iraq before Iraq can take care of itself has their head firmly planted in the sand.

A couple of questions...

1. We've already lost so much face on the world stage when we invaded. How much would pulling out really affect this?

2. Why do we need middle eastern governments "in our corner" in the first place? Are you implying that we need something from them?

1. You're right, we should pull out and lose even more in an extremely important, volatile part of the world.

2. Because the radicals would like to take control of those countries too. Not to mention that they're more willing to put pressure on the more extreme governments if they know we have their back.

 

[Sukerkin]

Whilst you chaps are writing wonderful and proper arguments, I wonder if perhaps we're not straying from the core of the topic of what the Democratic party in America have been up?

The why's and wherefores, outcomes and consequences of the occupation of Iraq are inherently subjects that provoke debate but they have a few threads of their own. Let's allow the Democrats to keep this one .

 

[jdinca]

Whilst you chaps are writing wonderful and proper arguments, I wonder if perhaps we're not straying from the core of the topic of what the Democratic party in America have been up?

The why's and wherefores, outcomes and consequences of the occupation of Iraq are inherently subjects that provoke debate but they have a few threads of their own. Let's allow the Democrats to keep this one .

Thank you for the sound logic. What the heck am I doing here?

 

[Makalakumu]

I think that this is probably the best, comprehensive poll I've looked at.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12898/iraq_poll_2007.html​

It paints a bleak picture in some areas, but some surprises in other areas. Read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Yes, the Iraqis blame coalition forces for a lot of the ills but the following question gives a different spin on it, directly related to your assertion that they want us out.​

Q27 [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave? [/FONT]​

Click on the link and look at Q27 (above). Do your own math. Only 35% want us to leave now, the other 66% don't want us to leave until the situation there is much better. Gee, why isn't this reported more in the press? Not quite as simplistic as you would like us to believe, is it?

So why would benchmarks and timetables be such a bad thing? Why wouldn't President Bush want to give the Iraqis clear goals that they could acheive so we could graciously leave?

Huh? Did the US fake Osamas statements on this, or is he just a CIA operative following orders? Which conspiracy theory would you like to subscribe to?

How do you know "Osama" said anything he said? Think about how easy it would be to "hear" something and claim that Osama said this or that? I think a healthy degree of skepticism in regards to this sort of stuff is required.

Which violence? The sectarian violence where Shiite's and Sunni's are killing each other, or Al Qaeda killing everybody indiscrimintantly because they want an Islamic state that subscribes to the radical views of Islam? Note that neither one has anything to do with our presence in the country. It would be marvelous if all of those people suddenly dropped their centuries old hate for each other and gave each other a big hug and sang Kum By Yah, but the cynical side of me doubts this is going to happen. The moderate forces in Iraq that are able to think rationally and look past religious and tribal strife are the ones who must gain control in the country. Were we to leave now, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Again, how can we be so sure of who hates who and who actually is a terrorist or insurgent or whatever? There's conflicting stories coming out of Iraq every day in regards this sort of stuff. My feeling is that some bloodletting is inevitable in this situation. There is nothing the US or anyone can do to stop it short of blanketing the entire country with conscripts.

Based on the outcomes of the voting that has taken place in Iraq, what is it YOU think they want? Looks to me like they want a stable democracy. That doesn't mean that they have to adopt our constitution, it means they have to write their own constitution (they did), elect their own officials (they did) and try and get their country up and running (they're trying). Am I missing something here? It looks to me like they've decided what they want and the minority who doesn't want democracy are doing everything they can to destroy it. If I'm misreading the election results, please enlighten me.

The government in Iraq has largely been shaped by various administrators in the Green Zone, starting with Paul Bremer. In fact, many of the problems in Iraq stemmed from the fact that many of these Republican Ideologues attempted to establish their ideal market based society before anything like that could have ever been possible. Subsequent changes have all been spearheaded by the US.

Knowing this, I think it's a safe assumption that the US had lead the way through the entire process and nothing in the "Iraqi" constitution is there without our approval.

So, what do the Iraqis want? I don't know. I don't know if they want what we are trying to give them. This process surely isn't a very good searchlight for trying to figure that out.

Yes, they do. If congress cuts off funding, the president has no choice but to pull the military out. The aftermath in Iraq and the region that results from this premature withdrawl falls directly on the shoulders of congress. Anybody who thinks that everything will be coming up roses once the US is out of Iraq before Iraq can take care of itself has their head firmly planted in the sand.

Let me ask you this. What if we not only damned if we do and damned if we don't, but we are damned if we do and double damned if we don't? How long do we propagate this war? When have we spent enough of our treasure? Is this goal something that we can even attain without bankrupting ourselves? What if we are spending trillions of dollars in Iraq on something that is not worth it, but cannot be done?

None of this war is paid for. Our children and our children's children will have to sacrifice some of their prosperity to pay for it. Is all of this really worth that?

1. You're right, we should pull out and lose even more in an extremely important, volatile part of the world.

And every day the US spend in Iraq, we dig an even larger hole in regards to our reputation. Which REALLY would be worse? Staying or leaving?

2. Because the radicals would like to take control of those countries too. Not to mention that they're more willing to put pressure on the more extreme governments if they know we have their back.

Iraq is a populous and cosmopolitan nation. Radical elements are not going to successful there like they were in Afghanistan. Also, don't you think its a bit cheeky to keep using this situation to further entangle us in the affairs of other people?

 

[Makalakumu]

One more thing...

It's a valid thing to consider whether the US can do what we are trying to do in Iraq without bankrupting itself. This, however, assumes that we went into Iraq to do what we are trying to do now.

None of the reasons that originally prompted our country to invade Iraq and topple its government have stood the test of time...and it appears that a good many of them were completely fabricated.

How can the average American not feel completely ripped off by this? It's like being caught in a credit card scam where the original deal you signed up for turned out to be completely bogus and now you are stuck with this financial monster that is sucking you dry.

How many times can the government change the rules of the deal before the people say enough is enough?

 

[jdinca]

So why would benchmarks and timetables be such a bad thing? Why wouldn't President Bush want to give the Iraqis clear goals that they could acheive so we could graciously leave?

This from one of my earlier posts:

On the flip side, I find benchmarks very appropriate. It's time for the Iraqi's to get off their *** and get it together. Remember though, we're expecting them to have a viable, working democracy in only a couple of years. It's been tough enough to accomplish in history, even without a very determined, vicious enemy who has no regard for human life, including their own.

Timetables allow the bad guys to mark on their calendar when the most powerful military in the world is going to leave the field of play. Then all they will have to deal with is the Iraqi army. If they're not up to the task, especially if you've got radical governments in the region supporting the bad guys, you've got a problem bigger than you have now, and we'll be back.

How do you know "Osama" said anything he said? Think about how easy it would be to "hear" something and claim that Osama said this or that? I think a healthy degree of skepticism in regards to this sort of stuff is required.

Pretty damned big conspiracy in Al Jazeera, the media outlet that translates and broadcasts Osamas diatribes, is in our pocket. If you believe that, then I guess you could believe that the CIA was behind bringing down the WTC.

Again, how can we be so sure of who hates who and who actually is a terrorist or insurgent or whatever? There's conflicting stories coming out of Iraq every day in regards this sort of stuff. My feeling is that some bloodletting is inevitable in this situation. There is nothing the US or anyone can do to stop it short of blanketing the entire country with conscripts.

Sectarian violence isn't typically done by suicide bombers. They're fighting for power, not martyrdom. The terrorists are more than happy to blow themselves up in the name of Allah, if it kills infidels and gives them a bigger foothold.

Some bloodletting is inevitable. But if we leave before the Iraqis are able to deal with it on their own, which they certainly aren't now, the level of bloodletting will most likely skyrocket.

The government in Iraq has largely been shaped by various administrators in the Green Zone, starting with Paul Bremer. In fact, many of the problems in Iraq stemmed from the fact that many of these Republican Ideologues attempted to establish their ideal market based society before anything like that could have ever been possible. Subsequent changes have all been spearheaded by the US.

Knowing this, I think it's a safe assumption that the US had lead the way through the entire process and nothing in the "Iraqi" constitution is there without our approval.

So we also told the millions of Iraqis who voted who to vote for?

So, what do the Iraqis want? I don't know. I don't know if they want what we are trying to give them. This process surely isn't a very good searchlight for trying to figure that out.

Go read the poll results from the link I posted above. It's a mixed bag but democracy is at the top of the list.

Let me ask you this. What if we not only damned if we do and damned if we don't, but we are damned if we do and double damned if we don't? How long do we propagate this war? When have we spent enough of our treasure? Is this goal something that we can even attain without bankrupting ourselves? What if we are spending trillions of dollars in Iraq on something that is not worth it, but cannot be done?

We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. It's just my opinion that we're double damned if we leave too soon.

None of this war is paid for. Our children and our children's children will have to sacrifice some of their prosperity to pay for it. Is all of this really worth that?

That's up to history to decide. We'll know in about 20 years, or so.

And every day the US spend in Iraq, we dig an even larger hole in regards to our reputation. Which REALLY would be worse? Staying or leaving?

Leaving too soon.

Iraq is a populous and cosmopolitan nation. Radical elements are not going to successful there like they were in Afghanistan. Also, don't you think its a bit cheeky to keep using this situation to further entangle us in the affairs of other people?

Iran is a populous and cosmopolitan country too. The people there actually like us and want a more western style democracy. But who's in charge? Who makes the decisions? The Ayatollahs and their hand picked minions. This will happen to a certain extent in Iraq but if we leave a power void before the Iraq government can prove to its people that it can provide security and the services that are needed, the more radical religious elements are going to fill that void in. The Badr Brigades are in charge in Iraq. Look at what happened when the religious militias tried to take over security in Iraq. Look at Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories. This isn't a new concept I'm talking about here, there's more than enough evidence to support it in the neighboring countries.

Look, you and I have had a good open, honest debate. We are never going to agree on this and we are way off topic. I'm going to take Sukerkin's advice and let you folks go back to lamenting the fact that the people you elected last year turned out to be politicians, not saviors.

 

[Makalakumu]

Look, you and I have had a good open, honest debate. We are never going to agree on this and we are way off topic. I'm going to take Sukerkin's advice and let you folks go back to lamenting the fact that the people you elected last year turned out to be politicians, not saviors.

It's probably for the best that we just leave it at that anyway. We've got two different takes on this and it's nice to air them both out. About the only thing I can say to sum it all up is to quote Han Solo...

"I've got a bad feeling about this..."