"A War We Just Might Win"

Great Debates
161

From tagos’ link, Humanitarian Crisis and the ensuing quote that is up there for all to see, what, exactly, would you, on the pro-war side, call this situation? And how the fuck does it rhyme with all the smoke that’s being put-out by this Administration and their “progress reports”? Never mind the two sycophants offered by the OP as a sign that this is “a war we might just win”?

Really, I fail to understand why, after over five years of continually deteriorating conditions, literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and horrible injuries, a confirmed failed state there are those that still believe (or even give the benefit of the doubt) anything coming out of these proven purveyors of malfeasance that control your nation.

Rotting behind bars is where they all should be if there was any justice. Never mind impugning their “credibility.”

162

[QUOTE=xtisme]
At any rate, why don’t you start a new thread on US genocide in Iraq if you are so hot to talk about the subject. I’m sure Der and a few others will be along shortly to happily lap it up.
[/QUOTE]

I’m done with the topic. If you are interested in why I brought it up in first place feel free to look it up yourself.

It also appears to me that YOU are the one that is now continually derailing this thread.

And lastly, I’ll get right on that thread just as soon as you start yours on the almost total genocide of the original Indian tribes living in the US.

163

I don’t always assume I’m being lied too. But if somebody who has always lied to me starts telling me the same thing that has always been a lie in the past, I am going to assume he’s lying to me again. That’s not a lack of critical thinking - that’s learning from experience.

Do I have a master plan? No - I have some ideas of things we could be trying but they might not work any better than the Bush plan.

But at the very least, I can definitely say this: the Bush plan isn’t working. If we can’t think of a btter plan that the one we’ve been using for too long then we would be better off just acknowledging we have no plan and leaving the country. Right now, Iraqis and Americans are dying. We may not be able to stop the Iraqi deaths but we can stop the American deaths. And that may be all we can accomplish at this point.

164

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Ok…how?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

United Nations arbitration with the conflicting sides. We have zero credibility and can do nothing except leave.

165

And this just in…

(The site Think Progress offers a video clip of the statements above, which can be seen at their website http://thinkprogress.org/...tighty rightys are advised to proceed Shields Up.)

166

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

Deadliest July Yet for US Troops; 23% Rise in Iraqi Deaths in July; Maliki Government Teeters–Sunni, Da’wa Discontent

I suppose it depends on the tint of your shades.

167

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You claim I have a bug up my ass about you, but the only problem I really have with you is that I get more reports on your borderline insults than just about any other poster. If you would stop making most of your posts into snide commentaries on other posters and including veiled insults in every single thread (and nearly every single post), then I could ignore you as I would prefer to do.
[/QUOTE]

I debate here in good faith, addressing the points and issues addressed. The “snide” tonal backhands, when warranted, are simply a bonus. :slight_smile: Seriously though, I will not dispute what you claim here. But, assuming it is true, I think there are reasons for it that need to be taken into consideration, mainly that I am often “attacked” with snide remarks myself. (I am not claiming that has been the case here.) I’ve reported insults in the past and have been accused of whining. Or at best, will be reprimanded along with the poster who clearly stepped over the line, even though I hadn’t. So I’ve been trained to adopt a more self-sufficient posture. You have created me!!! Still, I will take this new information you’ve supplied and keep it in mind for future posts, as I sincerely would prefer a more pleasant experience for all concerned.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
If you would stop making most of your posts into snide commentaries on other posters and including veiled insults in every single thread (and nearly every single post), then I could ignore you as I would prefer to do.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you have the power to do just that. How about restricting you’re involvement with me to official Mod behavior, Mod Hat in place? When I break a rule or come close, weigh in. When I don’t weigh out. What you crave is within your ability to acquire it. And I strongly believe that your problem with me goes beyond my snideness, charming as it is.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The context is that you were attempting to change the topic from your bad behavior to my views of the Iraq war–couched in phrases with an excluded middle. I have been addressing only your behavior and not the war, genocide, or anything else in this exchange.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, give me a break. I addressed your concern then in the last line asked about YOUR OPINION. I don’t see what is so taboo about that in a debate forum. Again, if you wish to restrict your interaction with me to moderating, keep your Hat on and your posts to Moderating.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
There is no “diversionary hijack.” There is one Mod trying to keep you from disrupting this discussion without having to lace up the jack boots and start handing out red cards.
[/QUOTE]

Yet, that’s what it is. Why not come in, Hat on head, offer an admonishment for the near-infraction and move on? If I understand your position, nothing has been done to merit any red cards.

I’d just like to end this post by bringing the attention back to the first paragraph. I view the information about a good amount of the posts to you about snideness/insults as new information, and it does give me pause. As I said, I do prefer a more pleasant experience for all and I will try to keep what you shared in mind for future posts.

168

Crap.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=CATOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-08-01-08-46-28

As for the OP I only got the impression that they swallowed hook line and sinker the idea that getting rid of Al-qaeda is the main objective now and then ponies will finally rain down.

Once again:

Al-qaeda hates everyone and the Iraqis getting rid of them was to be expected.

The fact that we are the ones doing the killing and the dying is music to their ears.

Since about 5% of the insurgency is Al-qaeda, allow me to dismiss the optimism of that Op-ed piece since that also dismisses the current refugee crisis, all the dead and the fact that the latest polls showed that even more Iraqis want us out.

We are falling into the big mistake of the French in Algeria, sure you killed and defeated the most evil groups of the insurrection. Unfortunately other groups popped up to make sure the French had to leave.

As for victory, I already predicted (following the El Salvador model) before that a ““sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with” including millions of refugees not coming back and many more dying” victory was going to be declared by this sorry administration.

169

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m not so sure about that. No doubt many, or even most, might agree that going into Iraq was a mistake, I don’t think that they have such a low estimation of our motivation—or those of our troops—as you do.
[/QUOTE]
And why would you think that ? We invaded a country and devastated it, and there’s no evidence at all that we are remotely well meaning. Instead, every memo, scandal and revelation makes us look worse. We’ve destroyed and massacred and tortured, been corrupt and incompetent and brutal. We’ve been aggressive and dishonest towards the rest of the world. Short of parading about Iraq with babies heads on sticks, we’ve done everything we could do to convince the world we are the bad guys. And the rest of the world never supported our attack on Iraq.

The attack on Iraq was obviously both unjustified and stupid from the very beginning, and we’ve done an immense amount after the fact to underline this.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
As to ‘cheap-shots as Spain’, hey…I was just trying to give you an example close to home that you could use as a comparison of what REAL genocide was. I suppose I could have used the Nazi’s in Germany, but I think that as a percentage of the total population it would be hard to beat the Spanish in this regard. Perhaps the Cambodians finally managed to take away their brilliant record…not sure.
[/QUOTE]
The British killed off essentially the entire Tasmanian population. They systematically hunted all of them down.

The Nazis, historically, were not all that extraordinarily evil. They have such a bad reputation because the Jews and their sympathizers and humanists in general have pushed their ‘never forget’ campaign, and kept people from ignoring and glossing over the Nazi’s behavior, which is what usually happens. And because the Germans haven’t spent the kind of time and effort most perpetrators of such atrocities usually do in cover up and denial; the opposite if anything.

170

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And why would you think that ? We invaded a country and devastated it, and there’s no evidence at all that we are remotely well meaning. Instead, every memo, scandal and revelation makes us look worse. We’ve destroyed and massacred and tortured, been corrupt and incompetent and brutal. We’ve been aggressive and dishonest towards the rest of the world. Short of parading about Iraq with babies heads on sticks, we’ve done everything we could do to convince the world we are the bad guys. And the rest of the world never supported our attack on Iraq.

The attack on Iraq was obviously both unjustified and stupid from the very beginning, and we’ve done an immense amount after the fact to underline this.
[/QUOTE]

Whether it was a mistake to go into Iraq or not is now a moot point. Unless you can book us 6 billion seats in your time machine. By now, you’re well aware of the arguments, pro as well as con. If not, you can easily do a search and view the many threads on the subject.

I don’t think I nor anyone else will be able to effect the paradigm shift needed to get you to see things more from my point of view, or that of even—what I’ve been told is—the majority of people on the left. So, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. The chasm is just too great.

171

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Whether it was a mistake to go into Iraq or not is now a moot point.
[/QUOTE]
“Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who” - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Garbage. Whether or not we’ve killed tens of thousands of people for no good reason matters. Especially as far as the world’s collective opinion of our motivation, which is what I was talking about.

The only real question about our motivations at this point is : Evil, stupid, or both ?

172

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
“Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who” - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
[/QUOTE]

“Moot” as in we can’t unring that bell. As I explained.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The only real question about our motivations at this point is : Evil, stupid, or both ?
[/QUOTE]

Mismanaged. Possibly stupid. Not evil. Hope that helps.

173

[QUOTE=magellan01]
“Moot” as in we can’t unring that bell. As I explained.
[/quote]

Again, garbage. If I was arrested for murder, “Hey, the girl’s dead and that can’t be changed, so let’s go on to other things !” wouldn’t impress the judge and jury.

People care about why we went into Iraq, and whether or not it was justified. It matters, morally and practically, and “What’s done is done, nyah, nyah, nyah it’s too late to stop us !” doesn’t impress anyone.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Mismanaged. Possibly stupid. Not evil. Hope that helps.
[/QUOTE]
And a war of conquest for oil, religion, war profiteering and ideological fantasies against people who are no threat is not evil in what way ?

174

[QUOTE=magellan01]
…Mismanaged. Possibly stupid. Not evil. Hope that helps.
[/QUOTE]

Helps who?

175

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
My attitude is simple: Leaving Iraq precipitously could have dramatic consequences, as in world-changing consequences. It is worth trying everything possible to avoid that. Everything. The current situation truly sucks, and the odds of success are not good. But they’re also not zero.
[/quote]
Based on those assumptions, the U.S. must stay until either we’ve succeeded, or the chances of success have dropped to zero (from their current very small epsilon).

I don’t buy the assumptions, but I’ll try to come back to that later.

That’s not what you’ve told us in the past.

From the link:

That’s the thing: whatever mistakes of the past that you’re willing to finally disown, things are always looking up NOW, AFAYC.

You kidding? The minute we leave, he’s in the shark pond without a life preserver. Besides the Sunnis, he’s got to survive Hakim and al-Sadr.

I read the same article, but obviously through very different eyes. As I read it, the implicit suggestion was to simply stop trying so hard to keep those in Iraq that we regard as enemies from allying against us and taking over the government. Here we have a genuine possibility of a transconfessional, nationalist Iraqi alliance that is firmly against AQI and has no interest in being Iran’s pawn, and our government is doing its damnedest to thwart it.

One might get the impression that our government’s stated and real goals for Iraq differ appreciably. If our stated goals were our real goals, an Iraqi government’s anti-U.S. position wouldn’t matter, as long as it was firmly against Iranian domination and against al-Qaeda in Iraq, or in Mesopotamia, or whatever they’re calling it this week.

First of all, there’s always another Friedman unit where the last one came from. That’s the problem with FUs. Nobody ever seems to be able to stop with just one.

In January, this was being sold as our last-ditch chance, and if it didn’t work in six months, it was game over. That FU was supposed to be the last FU. But there’s always one more damned FU.

Second, the whole (alleged) point of the ‘surge’ was to create a space for the political process to work. We already know it (a) hasn’t so far, and (b) won’t progress by September.

See? There’s your report. Done.

176

Now, now, Arty, when the Parliament gets back from their much deserved vacation, they will be tan, rested, and ready! Well, I guess they all were pretty much tan already, compared with most of us, but anyway…

And they’ll have a couple of weeks to hammer out whatever piddling difficulties remain! Whaddaya worred about?

177

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
First of all, there’s always another Friedman unit where the last one came from. That’s the problem with FUs. Nobody ever seems to be able to stop with just one.

Second, the whole (alleged) point of the ‘surge’ was to create a space for the political process to work. We already know it (a) hasn’t so far, and (b) won’t progress by September.

See? There’s your report. Done.
[/QUOTE]

Short and sweet. Or bitter as the case might be for a dwindling minority. But in abridged form, the history of this clusterfuck.

Not much given to “me too posts” (check my posting history if you think otherwise – I mostly swim against the current here on most topics) but sometimes – such as this one – they are inevitable.

Very well put, RT. But you do realize, don’t you, that reality doesn’t quite mesh with the warmongers’ continually distanced dreams of success? No need to answer. Your post already does.

178

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
One might get the impression that our government’s stated and real goals for Iraq differ appreciably. If our stated goals were our real goals, an Iraqi government’s anti-U.S. position wouldn’t matter, as long as it was firmly against Iranian domination and against al-Qaeda in Iraq, or in Mesopotamia, or whatever they’re calling it this week.
[/QUOTE]
And that’s another problem with “winning”; we can’t even agree what winning would mean. As I asked in post # 124 ( and was not answered :

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And how do you define ‘success’ anyway ? A success for Iraq is a failure for America; we are, after all, their mortal enemies.
[/QUOTE]
What would winning in Iraq mean ? Make the Iraqis pro-America ? Can’t be done. Make it into a democracy ? Even if that succeeded, the result would a democratic Iraq that hated America and worked against us whenever possible; is that winning ? Killing our enemies in Iraq ? That would require killing everyone in the country. Install a pro-America puppet dictator ? Then what did we kill all those people for ? We could have bribed Saddam to be buddies again if we wanted to.

179

[QUOTE=RedFury]
I said it is arguable, and indeed it is, as evidenced by the fact that it IS being argued amongst legal scholars. See BBC link on the matter.

Secondly, please see this other post of mine and the cites contained therein.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I looked at those articles earlier. They’re about how certain groups in Iraq are facing threats of genocidal warfare because of the US’ inability (especially if we leave) to protect them. I never said I disagree with the possibility of genocidal conflict between the Iraqis, I said the US was not, and is not, conducting a campaign of genocide.

I agree that the essay website you linked to earlier (the one trying to redefine genocide) is well-written, and they have some very impressive lawyer talents to stretch and distort the phrasing of a UN document to kind of, sort of, make it describe the US invasion & occupation of Iraq, but that doesn’t make them right.

Frankly, much of how that essay is written makes me disinclined to put much stock in their outlook, because a lot of the language has the feel of extremist rhetoric & political propaganda to me. But of course, that’s a subjective assessment of the material, and obviously your mileage varies.

180

For Redfury:

Oh, and as for the news story about the crippled girl, yes, it’s tragic. As I’ve said, I agree the war is wrong. Civilians have been harmed (as they often are), and as always it’s terrible. This time around, we can’t justify it however. We need to end this conflict.

But. It. Is. Not. Genocide.

The USAF didn’t deliberately bomb her house. The US armed forces are not pursuing a goal of Iraqi extermination, nor Sunni, Shiite, Khurd, Assyrian, or otherwise. Nor are they actively trying to reduce their population to a controllable level (as was done to the Native Americans, which would be genocide, imo). They’re not even using Iraqi deaths as a metric for success like they did in the Viet Nam war (which at least stinks of genocide).