[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Yeah, right. How many times have we been told “troop withdrawals are just around the corner”?
Oh, look, Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a list!
[/QUOTE]
And it looks like this newest one was just another case of premature evacuation.
A nocturnal de-mission?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Okay. Now that all that’s out of the way, how could I phrase my question to Luc in a way that pleases you?
[/QUOTE]
The quote marks are intended to signal sarcasm, in the sense of an expected accusation. In no wise intended to imply that the Dems actions really *are * unpatriotic, only that they will be slurred as such by the running dog jackals of the ruling class.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’d be very surprised if we did. Sticking permanent bases there is one of the reasons we attacked; I don’t think Bush ever intends to leave.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure we entered WWII with the intent of setting up permanant bases there, but that’s pretty much what has happened. Once the war was won, we needed a strong presence to counter the Soviets. Even if we were to somehow pull total and complete victory tomorrow, we’d need to stay for a long time to help stabalize the region.
America, for whatever you want to say of her militarily, has always gone to great lengths to fix what we break. Germany, Japan, even Vietnam to an extent.
I’m really not sure the number of people that didn’t think we’d be in Iraq for years or even decades is as high as you may think.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
And it looks like this newest one was just another case of premature evacuation.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. The WH is always going to deny this type of stuff.
And let’s keep this in perspective: That news story was not about getting out of Iraq, it was about reducing troop levels by about half. That would still leave a significant number of troops over there.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’d be very surprised if we did. Sticking permanent bases there is one of the reasons we attacked; I don’t think Bush ever intends to leave.
[/QUOTE]
So, we’d go to war against the current Iraqi regime in order to keep bases there? Not a chance. If they ask us to get out, I don’t see any way we could realistically stay. If Bush started a war with the current Iraqi regime, he’d be impeached in a nano-second and booted out of office.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, we’d go to war against the current Iraqi regime in order to keep bases there? Not a chance. If they ask us to get out, I don’t see any way we could realistically stay. If Bush started a war with the current Iraqi regime, he’d be impeached in a nano-second and booted out of office.
[/QUOTE]
By the same gutless vermin who just caved in to him ? Bush would have to cannibalize a live baby on national TV or start a nuclear war before they’d impeach him. A two sided nuclear war; I doubt they’d impeach if, say, he used nukes to kill everyone in Iran. They’d whine about it and do nothing.
I’m sure we arm twisted some “legal” right to those bases out of the Iraqis; we’ll just claim that as a justification. It’s no different than us squatting in Cuba; does anyone think we wouldn’t fight Castro if he tried to take Gitmo away ?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
By the same gutless vermin who just caved in to him ?
[/quote]
Yes, the very same ones. They caved on the funding bill in the face of a veto. Bush can’t veto an impeachment.
Here’s the thing, too. Let’s say the Iraqi parliament voted tomorrow that we had to get out. They wouldn’t order us out in 2 days… it would have to be a phased, orderly withdrawl that would probably take the rest of Bush’s term to carry out. They’d also probably agree to leaving a smaller force there for training purposes, even if they don’t want us doing combat missions. You have to stop thinking about this as an either or thing-- either in Iraq or out of Iraq. We’re going to get out of Iraq, but it’s going to take a very long time.
Enduring bases? Who fucking knows? I hear about them but no one has any photos of them, no one tells me how much $ has been pissed aw…allocated. Take away the personnel and the equipment, and an “enduring base” is little more than an airstip and some buildings built to house expensive equipment.
The US Embassy in Baghdad…now there’s a potential monument to hubristic psychosis. If they ever get it built, they will need a 100,000 troop surge just to cover the security for the Grand Opening.
Two bits says, ten years from now, its a museum named after a Shia martyr.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here’s the thing, too…We’re going to get out of Iraq, but it’s going to take a very long time.
[/QUOTE]
al Sadr is making speeches seeking a rapproachment with the Sunni, offering an alliance against the Americans. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t give that prospect much thought, but whats sane about any of this? If that approach succeeds, notions of orderly withdrawal with appropriate ceremonies are moot.
i’m not sure what the Democrats in the senate could have done. With regard to Iraq they are in the minority (49 R’s + Lieberman to 49 D’s).
The administration and Republican members of congress were playing the “denying the troops funding” card over and over.
I’m not all that sharp on political moves but I wonder if the Democrats shouldn’t have said repeatedly that it was the president and the members of congress who refused to overturn his veto who were endangering the money for the war.
If it is possible to be amused about anything concering this war it’s the drumbeat about Petraeus in September. Hell, I could write his report right now. He will say that we have made progress in some aspects of the problem but not others so the “others” need a little more time and a little more effort. That will leave us right where we are now except that the Iraqi parliament will have returned from vacation.
Its a learnilng process. Just a while ago, they were convinced that a drop in sectarian violence is a crucual, even definitive, indicator of progress. Violence is increasing, therefore we may expect that they are learning that its not so important, after all.
Since I don’t want to waste server space by quoting the whole thing, I’ll just say that Diogenes post in #117 seems good to me.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think that Republicans have ruined the word “patriotism” and tainted it with associations and false parameters (as you have pointed out) which have made the use of the word distasteful to many …
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The word “patriotism” and its useage make me want to puke.
However the debasement of the word goes back at least toDr. Johnson in the 1700’s who defined “patriotism” as “the last resort of a scoundrel.”
Near the turn of the past century writer Ambrose Bierce defined it thusly in The Devil’s Dictionary, and refined Johnson’s definition.
The word is a blind for sham and pretense to hide behind.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’m not sure I believe we will leave if this happens.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe we can urge them in this direction by nagging them to not take two months off.
We can only hope that if their parliament asks us out and GW refuses it will be too much, even for John McCain. I don’t know whether to be hopeful about that but there’s always a chance.
Bush says no? Next day, Drudge leaks rumors about how Bush is a secret Democrat. Approval rating hits negative numbers, when people who don’t know who he is hate him. At a press conference, Barney pees on his leg. Laura files for divorce, and seeks an annulment from the Catholic Church, though she and he are Methodists. Washington DC Post Office grinds to halt as millions of Americans mail bags of pretzels to the White House…
Why should the Democrats try to force a withdrawal? The majority of Americans support Bush!
There you go. The Decider has the backing of most Americans and the Dems should just butt out and let him handle things.