Say, Red, since you’re going back to Spain, would you mind doing me a favor? Rumor has it that one of the Tucker’s has made it’s way to Spain, but nobody knows for sure. Now I realize that you’ll probably not know anybody who might have information on it, but if you stumble across something like in a newspaper or a magazine, or whatever, wouldja be kind enough to let me know? Heck, even information on sophisticated car restoration shops in the country would be helpful, since the car was pretty much a basket case the last time anyone saw it, so presumably the new owner’s going to want to get it restored.
I don’t understand what that means in terms of things you expect real people to do. Based on what you said, what happend tomorrow? For example. how do we go about changing the government? Should we invade again?
We, the American people should disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can tell other nations how to conduct the task of governing people with justice, and honor. We should, instead concentrate on the task of governing ourselves in that manner. Our congress considers itself above the law, our president considers any who disagree with him to be enemies, and our judges are the leashed dogs of the party in power.
We care more about who is going to win the next American Idol competition than we do about our government legislating away our freedoms, and engaging in wars around the world for partisan gain.
Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Fight terror by not being terrorized. And vote against anyone who currently holds elective office. They are either dedicated to the current power madness, or ineffective against it.
There is no reason why any country should take governing advice from the nation that holds more of its citizens prisoner than any other “free world” democracy. We are the leaders of the world, to the lasting sorrow of the people who live in it.
To the rest of the world I beg you, Don’t follow us. Invite us out of your lives.
Let us build our wall around the country. Perhaps that will force us to clean our own house.
Tris
Tuckefan,
I’ve managed to postpone the trip till the end of the month. Simply too much on my plate at the moment. But sure, once I get there, I’l make some calls and purchase some specialty mags, ect. I’d be a pleasure to help you find your trreasure 
Trisk,
Wish I could come up with more deserving adjetives, but my brain’s stuck on first gear at the moment.
Just thought I’d tell you those two are some kick-ass posts. I pretty much said the same thing upthread – only not as well.
Thank you.
Good points, but here is the worst part. Is withdrawal the answer now? We have taken a developing nation and thrust it into civil war, destroyed the centralized military and political structures, the economic infrastructure and raised religious tensions to record highs.
This is the worst fact the American people have to face. If we just cut and run, to prove that Bush was wrong, then I think maybe we are making the same exact kind of mistake Bush made in the first place.
Sadly, as opinion polls have shifted, the same ignorant, mindless fucking drones that call themselves “middle america” who supported Bush in his policies because of fear, are now shifting to call for the withdrawal because of “concern for AMERICAN lives”. They could not give one fuck for the Iraqi’s. The same people who care about the Iraqi people AND American lives have held the course since day one. These new hop-along cassidy’s in the U.S., who now want to “flip-flop” on their international policy sicken me.
These midnless fucking drones allowed our retarded leader to follow a policy of international blundering and now, they just want to cut and run. Fuck, what HAVE we done?! I know we are just going to cut and run. The American people are shortminded, self-interested cowards and the actions of this prsident have insured the creation of 2-3 more generations of terrorists in the region. They have also insured that a power gulf will exist in Iraq that will costs millions of lives before it is resolved.
So I say to all the people who have shifted their views on this war “Too little, too late baby”.
Events in Iraq have already done an adequate job of proving Bush wrong. If we choose to stay now, we’ll be forced to choose a side in their civil war. I’ve little doubt that whichever side we choose will end up being the loser, in part simply because we chose. The Iraqi’s don’t like us, and don’t want us there making choices for them. That severely limits our ability to move things in any positive direction.
Thanks. I and everyone else in the blub, owe ya one.
Lotsa blood on our hands. How much ? What are the exact numbers? Who cares,we shame our country more everyday.
Sorry for not responding earlier - I was traveling yesterday.
Actually, the something useful we could have done was to either not invade or provide enough troops to do the job right. As I said in the thread about suggestions on Iraq, we should restore the infrastructure so that the average person at least gets some benefit from our invasion - not just no electricity, little water, no job, and the chance of being killed.
The way we’re doing it now, the war will happen no matter how long we wait, and will probably be worse the longer we wait. Given that Bush refuses to face reality and really try to fix the problem, I’d think a phased withdrawal would be better than the status quo - but not the best solution at all.
When he fires Rumsfeld, I’ll reconsider.
It was 95% certain, which is the standard figure. No one ever give 100% certainty - that’s an absurdity.
I read a column today by someone in the WaPost that got the statistics amazingly right - a much better job than I’ve seen from anyone except someone who is trained, like Krugman.
You remember incorrectly. I’ve never said we should leave right now. See post above.
More likely a followed by b. You don’t think they’ll come out of a civil war with a democracy, do you?
We may very quickly find ourselves gazing in nostalgia on the optimism of “phased withdraw”. In a ghastly way, we are lucky that they are so absorbed in murdering each other, out troops get less attention that way.
But the longer we stay, the more likely that we will be forced to choose a side, either tacitly or officially. We claim we are committed to a federal democracy, which implies, whether we like it or not, Shia domination of the government. And if that Shia dominated government, all sovereign and everything, decides that our presense impedes the perfection and purification of Iraq, they have every right to tell us to ship out.
If we align with the Sunni againt the Shia, we will nominate and elect ourselves the Protector of the Sunni, we will be sending our best and brightest to die for them.
Or, we could impose order and peace by sheer brutality, aligning with neither, but forcing a solution (which will almost certainly dissolve the moment we are not at hand.) The costliest of all, since we will have no native allies except the buzzards.
It is a wretched choice, but there is no other. Out now.
Thanks very much.
There is a civil war. The odds of the USA being able to hold Iraq together are slim to none. The USA should work toward partitioning Iraq,and devote a very significant portion of the USA’s GNP to development aid in Iraq.
Bush and his pals should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
None of the above would come close to solving the problem, but the situation would be improved and the death rate lessened.
It’s sad to see the USA go off the ethical deep end as a rogue nation.
Check this out:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
This is from an anti-war site, so I was surprised to find this, but I tend to agree with it’s distrust of the Lancet’s findings, for the same reasons they have…
Aren’t we seen as doing that already, and have been right from the start? Notice that the attacks on us are mostly, it seems, from Sunnis.
Only if there’s just one government. That hasn’t looked like an option for a long time - even the sham constitution provides for partition, and that is becoming the reality even more every day.
Compared to what? How’s that workin’ out for ya? What can we still “impose” on *anyone * there anymore?
We cannot accomplish anything more than we already are with force or brutality. We don’t have any more force available to apply, and no more ability to get away with brutality.
There is another. Face the reality of the various factions’ wishes, assist in completing and formalizing the partition they all want, apply diplomacy on Iran to minimize their meddling in the Shiite country and on Turkey to accept and work with the independent Kurdistan, cut oil contracts with the Sunnis. And get our people out - they can do no more than continue to be targets of attacks, as the majority of Iraqis now support.
Sorry to say I do find their reasons to be lousy logic:
Uh… There is incompetency already (brought in large part by the breakdown of health care in Iraq) Why does it have to be coordinated? That reason from Iraq Body Count sounds to me like conspiracy begging.
Duh! A De facto civil war going on IS bizarre and self-destructive behaviour.
Hello? Civil war? Death squads running around? I’m afraid Iraqi body count is stuck in “invasion and occupation casualties” (nothing wrong in noticing that their body count is based on published reports, but nevertheless, that is not what the Lancet was checking.) like the administration, it is ignoring other factors in the casualty rates.
As I remember from my years in El Salvador: Duh once again, iraqbodycount.org is basing their count on the official press, a press that now is constantly in fear for their lives. They have to deal with a conflict that includes foreign powers that are telling them what to publish, and local death squads telling them the same.
Ever since Elliot Abrahams and Negroponte (Currently in the Bush cabinet, for shame!) looked the the other way, when uncounted victims were disposed at sea from helicopters and other means by the Central American death squads, I was not surprised that the actual body count would be much higher.
I don’t know.
I heard an interview this morning with a US general. When asked if it were true that coalition forces were attacked on the average of once every 12 minutes, he said he hadn’t seen it broken down that way, but admitted to an attack every hour. 150 attacks per day are about 6 per hour - not too hard to believe considering we are hardly all over the country and a bit of a tougher target than a Shiite or Sunni enemy, especially unarmed ones.
The response seems to have a problem believing that attacks would not be reported by the media. What is the state of the Iraqi media? Would there be fear of reprisal when reporting attacks? Being a journalist in Iraq is not the world’s safest occupation. In the US, certainly every attack would be reported, but in Iraq? Look, assaults in small towns show up in the papers, but assaults in big cities rarely do unless there is something special about them. Perhaps the same thing is happening.
The point about lack of hospital admissions corresponding to injuries is a bit more telling, but my understanding that Iraqi hospitals have still not recovered. Might some of the injured never make it to hospitals in the outlying provinces?
As for morgues, yes in Baghdad, but outside, Saddam knew how to use mass unmarked graves. Are we sure the insurgents aren’t doing the same, especially when the murders are due to kidnappings?
I tend to agree with them that Coalition deaths have been overstated. I can believe that some households might have reported deaths from other causes as deaths from Coalition action - I can certainly understand the motivation for this.
Most disturbing the response reads:
But it is wildly improbable that 300 deaths in 1900 households does not imply significantly more deaths in the country as a whole.
I haven’t read the Lancet sampling criteria yet - I can believe that the actual number is on the low side of the range, or even lower. But some of this response seems to be that the casualty rate is too high to believe. It would be nice if they were right, but I’m not convinced.