home

Benchmarks:Talabani Units

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:18:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Iraqi President Talabani says:

Iraq’s Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, said Friday that his country may need U.S. troops for one or two more years. The statement came after lawmakers in Baghdad backed a drawdown in the number of foreign troops in Iraq. . . . “I think that in one or two years we will be able to recruit our forces, to prepare our forces and say goodbye to our friends,” he said.

2 years ago, Talabani said:

Sunday, April 10, 2005 Posted: 6:20 PM EDT (2220 GMT) BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The newly elected president of Iraq said Sunday he expects that U.S. troops will be gone from his country within two years. Jalal Talabani told CNN two years should be enough time for Iraqi forces to rebuild and secure control of the country as well as take over the job currently being performed by some 140,000 U.S. troops.

Benchmarks anyone?

< Amendment Offered to Limit Intelligence Wiretapping to FISA | Author John Grisham: Stop Executions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Benchmarks:Talabani Units | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Saw that (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:20:35 AM EST
    Why don't we ask the Iraqi government to come up with $100B?

    As a Kurd (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    Talabani is an an easy spot to ignore the Iraqi Parliament's desires.

    His next gig will NOt be in Baghdad.

    Parent

    Indeed. Hope he likes London. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:35:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Two Years (none / 0) (#40)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    seems to be the Kurdish version of the Friedman Unit.

    Parent
    Hence your (none / 0) (#41)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:49:50 PM EST
    title. Heh.

    Parent
    Their NSA said the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    This is what the Iraqi National Security Advisor wrote in 2006 (Link):


    We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.

    A few Friedman units later, he is now singing a different tune.

    Squeaky (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    We are on the same frequency today. There is no war on terror. It's a convenient delusion to justify our holding the oil fields.

    "They hate us for our freedoms"

    The core of the delusion. They hate us alright. But not because of anything that even remotely has to do with freedom.

    Jim says:

    "You can deal with realities while learning lessons."

    If you and George Bush had learned the correct lessons of Vietnam, we would not be in this situation. You learned the lessons wrong, so here we are. The left didn't start the war, and the left didn't cause the lead up (fraud) that started this war.  Yet you still blame us for the problem. That is just one reason out of about 750 thousand why it is important to look at the origins of this conflict. Keep trying. But hurry up and learn. Innocent people are dying by your hand as we await your epiphany on the solution.

    Or you might help Condi find her strategy.

    Here's a benchmark.... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by desertswine on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    3386 and counting.

    Benchmarks... (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jarober on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    The only benchmark that matters is "not leaving Iraq as a terrorist state after we leave".  Any others specified are a waste of everyone's time.  We let Afghanistan stew after funding resistance to the USSR - and look where that got us.  You really want to leave Iraq in the same position?

    Any "this wouldn't be happening if we hadn't gone in" arguments have no value.  We don't get to have that possibility, because we are there.  Just like we don't get to go back and undo the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Regardless of anyone's position on it, it's now a matter for historians to deal with.

    No no no (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    In order to evaluate the soundess of your views, this - "Any "this wouldn't be happening if we hadn't gone in"  - is an extremely important consideration.

    The value of your thoughts on this must be gauged against a question like that.

    Answer the question, do you agree or disagree with that statement? And please tell us why.

    WIth that we canbegin to consider your points seriously and with respect. Otherwise, it is difficult for any fair minded person to take your views on the matter seriously.

    I mean this in all sincerity. I think your argument and important one and I have addressed that type of argument in the past. But you really must address the question you choose to ignore before you can ask us to engage your thinking seriously.

     

    Parent

    You Are Avoiding The Most Important Issue (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    In order to evaluate the soundess of your views, this - "Any "this wouldn't be happening if we hadn't gone in"  - is an extremely important consideration.

    That is not the most important comment by the poster and arguing about it avoids the most important argument he made:

    The only benchmark that matters is "not leaving Iraq as a terrorist state after we leave".  

    Now I won't say that is or is not the most important benchmark -  but it is an important benchmark.

    That facts are that the foreign terrorists elements who are now in Iraq are a result of Bushes refusal to think his actions all the way through and to not consider the consequences of those actions. That said they are now there and no one thinks it is wise to leave them there unchecked to multiply.

    Therefore we WILL, regardless of who is President, either remain In Iraq with enough forces to combat them and weed them out now - - or we will be returning in the future to do so.

    Either way no president and no congress regardless of party is going to turn a blind eye to dealing with what Bush has created as far as foreign terrorists elements goes.

    Parent

    How can something that happens (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    after we leave be a bench mark?

    Parent
    And the best way to (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    meet the "benchmark" of not letting Iraq stew into a terrorist state is to take out the US troops that are fuelling the conflict at this point and instead bring in a multinational peacekeeping force that Iraqis believe is there to actually bring peace and stability instead of to take over their oil and establish a military foothold in the region as part of a plan for world domination. US forces as part of a regional multinational force, not as US military per se, and actual support for negotiations between the real players in the conflict, not just the puppets that are convenient to us, are the better way to accomplish what I think we could all agree is a good thing, an Iraq that isn't a danger to us all.

    Parent
    Nice Thought - - But (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    "...meet the "benchmark" of not letting Iraq stew into a terrorist state is to take out the US troops that are fuelling the conflict at this point and instead bring in a multinational peacekeeping force"

    Problem is there is no one now, or no one in the future likely to step up to the plate to fill that roll.

    So in essence your solution is not realistic although it is a nice thought.

    Parent

    Realistic? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    And your drivel that the WOT in Iraq, or anywhere, can be won is realistic?  A benchmark that will always be met in six months to two years, forever in the future.

    Parent
    What Does Your (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    post have to do with a multinational peacekeeping force?


    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    If US policy were to resolve the situation through engineering a true multinational peacekeeping force to replace US forces and real negotiations to resolve the conflict between the factions, I have no doubt that enough arms could be twisted to make that happen.

    The problem is that the true goal of this administration is to prolong the occupation, for reasons of advancing national strategic interests (to ends that I think are terribly misguided in themselves) as well as for domestic political purposes, to whip up their base and polarize the electorate, as well as for pretexts to extend executive power. I believe their goal isn't at all "not leaving Iraq as a terrorist state after we leave" - that's just to gull the honest believers in better things into supporting them.

    Parent

    Terms (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    The problem with the WOT is that it can never be won, no matter how many arms you twist. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Terrorists will always exist as long as enemies exist.

    This is a war on language. It is right out of Alice and Wonderland.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'



    Parent
    I agree about WOT (none / 0) (#28)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    I was discussing Iraq.

    Parent
    Whose arms are we ging to twist? (none / 0) (#22)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    I have no doubt that enough arms could be twisted to make that happen

    Whose arms? The problem is that you are suggesting a broad solution without even coming up with one name of a country..

    You say that a multinational peace force can be put together when the truth is that the countries that we already twisted arms to be in the 'coalition' have been and continue to leave Iraq.

    Given all the countries who provided minimal forces starting in 2003 have left or are leaving your suggestion is just not realistic.

    Parent

    A coalition to invade (none / 0) (#29)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    is a very different proposition from a coalition to actually keep the peace and allow a space for negotiation to open up. Minimal forces or no forces were provided by many countries because the case to invade was bogus. It's the difference between why Canada, for instance, agreed to peacekeeping in Afghanistan but refused to join the coalition to invade Iraq.

    An actual peacekeeping force - as opposed to a fig leaf for US hegemony - would have takers.

    Parent

    I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    That it is possible for Iraq to have a peaceful country. Once we leave Iraq, the warring factions will come to the table and work out a deal. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of their neighbors will be key to maintaining long term stability in the region. We as occupiers are inciting instability and are a virtual powder keg against peace.

    Parent
    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    You are way off base here.

    Most of the coalition came after the invasion and they came in the roll of peacemakers. they are have left because Iraq has continued to remain about combat not peacekeeping.

    If you really think those countries are going to take the deaths that we are taking in order to let us go home you are dreaming.

    Yeah Canada they'll go to Iraq - sure thing.

    And Brown in Britain after becoming PM will change his mind on pulling out and send tons of troops so we can go home.

    Good luck!

    Parent

    They've realized (none / 0) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    what a loser it is to continue to be the fig leaf for US purposes in Iraq, that's all.

    The truth is, we won't know which countries will step up until the possibility arises. Then it will be dictated by other relevant factors at the time, perhaps quite unconnected, like an election, or an assassination, or the price of beans. But there will be takers if the real alternative is conflagration in the ME and loss of control of stability in the price of oil.

    Parent

    They Did? (none / 0) (#35)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    They've realized what a loser it is to continue to be the fig leaf for US purposes in Iraq, that's all.

    OH! I didn't realize you had first hand knowledge unavailable to others. For the rest of us the news tells us that with their populations Iraq is not popular to begin with and they do not want their young people dying there. But I'm your you are certain that those populations will change their minds and gladly send their young to die there in place of us. Right!

    But there will be takers if the real alternative is conflagration in the ME and loss of control of stability in the price of oil.

    Ah! but that is a totally different subject than the one you first brought up isn't it?

    Well at least you are coming around to reality. You don't know of any countries that would exchange places with us although you were so sure they would. And the only scenario that you can now envision where other countries 'might' go is for oil.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    Ah! but that is a totally different subject than the one you first brought up isn't it?

    No.

    OH! I didn't realize you had first hand knowledge unavailable to others.

    You might try other news sources than whatever Wingnut Times you've been relying on to inform you.

    You don't know of any countries that would exchange places with us

    I'm sure there are other countries who'd like to run the world for their own benefit just like the US. I don't think they'd be any more desirable as "peacekeepers".

    Real negotiations between the factions in Iraq - i.e., as opposed to a process that shuts out whole swaths of the population from benefiting from peace - will allow the warring parties to back off and talk instead of killing. The whole point of being a peacekeeping force is to ENFORCE PEACE. The purpose of the US in Iraq right now is to FIGHT. Even if the fight who part is something we haven't quite got pinned down.

    Parent

    You Know (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    I just went back though our exchange and you have a real tendency to ignore the facts when presented to you. It is a very common trait on blogs where one is more interested in winning than they are learning.

    You made some pretty broad statements not backed up by any facts. When I presented you facts you ignored them.

    Now you come back with nonsense.

    No.

    No? You never made even a mention in past posts that other countries should be peacemakers because of oil.

    In fact you even argued against oil as far as the US was involved:

    The problem is that the true goal of this administration is to prolong the occupation, for reasons of advancing national strategic interests (to ends that I think are terribly misguided in themselves) as well as for domestic political purposes

    National strategic interests - which everyone knows is oil. You don't know where you are at at all. Except that you will say anything to try to win a discussion - including contradicting yourself.

    So you argue against oil only to say later that othr countries would come because of oil.

    The whole point of being a peacekeeping force is to ENFORCE PEACE. The purpose of the US in Iraq right now is to FIGHT. Even if the fight who part is something we haven't quite got pinned

    That is the most nonsensical thing you have said.

    And with what is going on in Iraq:

    1.a civil war

    1. An Iraqi insurgency

    2. Foreign fighters

    Just how does one ENFORCE PEACE?  You can't be serious that if other unknown non-existent countries were to take our place that 1-2-3 would go away. So if they would not go away how do you think anyone is going to ENFORCE PEACE other than to FIGHT?

    You are really a confused person. Idealistic I'm sure - but still confused.

    I've invested all the time I am going to with you on this subject because you don't know what you are talking about.


    Parent

    If you don't want (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    to argue this strategy with me, maybe you'd prefer to take it up with this guy:

    Experts recommend ceasefire, peacekeeping in Iraq
    UPI

    May 10, 2007

    WASHINGTON --  A civilian advisor to the top commander in Iraq believes that the United States should try to broker and enforce a ceasefire countrywide.

    Stephen Biddle, a strategy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, told reporters Tuesday that he believes that Iraq does not fit the mold of a classic counter-insurgency that can be won by winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Instead, it is a communal civil war, with each group - Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and others - worried about their continued existence and fighting to protect themselves.

    Biddle is part of a team of advisors assembled by Gen. David Petraeus to assess the US strategy and tactics in Iraq. He has just returned after a month in Iraq. His conclusions are his own, rather than Petraeus'.

    Biddle said that the civil war construct suggests that the United States should be attempting to get the parties to "stand down" - including death squads, militias, insurgents, and criminals - and sign on to a rolling ceasefire agreement. It would then be US troops' job to see that the ceasefire is honored while the country slowly organizes itself.

    Biddle reasons that the United States has not committed, and probably cannot commit, enough troops to pacify the country on its own with a Baghdad-style clamp down. Instead, it has to end the fighting some other way.

    etc.

    Ceasefire first, then multinational peacekeeping force. It's been done before, you know.

    Parent

    You're arguing how to leave Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:37:52 PM EST
    with someone who does not want to leave Iraq.

    Parent
    Just (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    keeping in shape.

    Parent
    Been done before (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:01:52 PM EST
    Like here - 61 times.

    Parent
    Heh! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:05:09 PM EST


    Parent
    And BTW (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    those national strategic interests DON'T mean just oil.

    You really shouldn't assume you know what you're talking about. You obviously don't.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:28:59 PM EST
    I can't resist.

    A civilian adviser to the top commander in Iraq believes that the United States should try to broker and enforce a ceasefire countrywide.

    And just what do you and this yo-yo think we have been trying to do!!!!???

    We have had (not so) secret talks with the Sunni. We have begged al Malaki  to disarm te Shiia militia. But yet you think all we have to do is ask and they will quit fighting?

    You not only are out of touch with the real facts that have been taking place you also lack any common sense on the issue. To present that article from that yo-yo who obviously has no clue what has been and what is going on and why in Iraq is a real hoot. I just love you google brains who dig up this stuff - LOL.

    those national strategic interests DON'T mean just oil.

    Ha Ha! Pleeease stop!! This is better that Comedy Central.

    If oil is not our #1 - numero uno strategic interest in the middle east what is?

    And what even come close? Because again you make a statement without no supporting argument - not one example to back up your hollow assertion.

    Ask them to stop fighting!!! TFF!

    Parent

    Ceasefire (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:30:59 PM EST
    There have been multiple feelers from multiple factions in the conflict to engage in ceasefire over the past three years that have failed because of the fragile position of some of the other parties needed to be involved. The US used to be able to act as guarantor in such situations, supporting initiatives through the sheer weight of its prestige as a promoter of stability in the world and at least a faintly honest broker. That's been the main casualty of Bush's adventurism - America's reputation and moral weight to act with any credibility in situations like this.

    If oil is not our #1 - numero uno strategic interest in the middle east what is?

    Geopolitical positioning of military forces and alliances.

    And just what do you and this yo-yo think we have been trying to do!!!!???

    This "yo-yo" has apparently been doing enough to be recruited by Gen. Petraeus to advise on how to adjust US strategy in Iraq. Perhaps you didn't manage to read that part.

    I can't resist.

    Maybe you will now.

    Parent

    Keep Digging (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by talex on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    There have been multiple feelers from multiple factions in the conflict to engage in ceasefire over the past three years that have failed because of the fragile position of some of the other parties needed to be involved. The US used to be able to act as guarantor in such situations, supporting initiatives through the sheer weight of its prestige as a promoter of stability in the world and at least a faintly honest broker. That's been the main casualty of Bush's adventurism - America's reputation and moral weight to act with any credibility in situations like this.

    No kidding? Like no one knows that except you? Like I already said we have tried back channel negotiations and pressure on al Maliki to no avail so your yo-yo adviser looks like just that - a yo-yo - as do you for trying to present him to support your argument.

    Geopolitical positioning of military forces and alliances

    My question was if oil was not #1 what was. And you put positioning of military forces as #1!!!  You know nothing. The only reason we have ever had the sparse troops in the ME is to protect the oil dummy.

    Oil IS the Geopolitical reason for everything these days genius.

    When some people start digging a hole for themselves they just don't know when to quit.

    Geopolitical positioning!!! You put the tactic in  #1 position in front of the REASON for the tactic!!! TFF!

    Sorry man but you ought to just quit now because you lack the ability to even think out something a elementary as to oil comes first and then comes the troops to protect it. There is no other reason to be there. We have troops all over the world to take care of other needs anyplace on the globe already.

    This "yo-yo" has apparently been doing enough to be recruited by Gen. Petraeus to advise on how to adjust US strategy in Iraq. Perhaps you didn't manage to read that part.

    So what if he has? That is not what you presented him for. You presented him to bolster your position and in that event it failed miserably because what he said is as laughable as when you said it.

    Maybe you will now.

    Gee I don't know. On one hand you are so naive it is entertaining. On the other hand I feel that I should let you off the hook because you keep making up things that are divorced from reality.

    Maybe you are the one who should resist. Resist from responding so I don't have to keep showing how silly you are.

    Parent

    Oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    What a child you are.

    Oil is one resource only, though the most important one right now.

    Permanent global military hegemony and the economic dominance it advances is the goal. Control of the resource is for political and economic ends, not the end in itself.

    Parent

    Ha Ha (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by talex on Sat May 12, 2007 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    Permanent global military hegemony and the economic dominance it advances is the goal. Control of the resource is for political and economic ends, not the end in itself.

    Ha ha

    Why don't you just say eating and breathing air are for survival and not the end in itself.

    Ha ha

    Parent

    ...they (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:22:33 PM EST
    established their goal as the creation of an artificial world which the U.S. empire would rule single-handedly. Ignoring history, they were set on creating an illusory world, one where they alone would set the rules, decide who would run big corporations, who would dominate the world scene, who would control the enormous oil wealth of the Middle East and Central Asia, who would dictate the fate of the world...
    ...
    Military aggression might be needed in some cases, but always there would be insidious propaganda. The cultural domination, if thorough enough, might alleviate any need for the military to complete the task, or at least soften the blow on masses no longer culturally resistant to a U.S. invasion. Once the U.S. was allowed to install military bases on foreign land, the end was achieved and the empire could spread its tentacles to the next client state.
    Read more...

    Parent
    Per your second paragraph--sounds like (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    you will be able to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent
    If She (none / 0) (#23)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    ends up being our candidate I will yeah.

    Who you going to vote for in that case McCain?

    Parent

    I don't employ the litmus test some do. But I (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    very much disagree w/her statements that, if elected, she would maintain U.S. troops in Iraq, just not involve them in the civil war.

    Parent
    Oh OK (none / 0) (#31)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    So you would vote for her too.

    Then what's the point of your post to me? Pure snark? There is a lot of that on this site instead of serious conversation.

    Parent

    Reflexive response from too much time on DK. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:40:42 PM EST
    Litmus test very strong there.  

    Parent
    Well Then (none / 0) (#36)
    by talex on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:19:32 PM EST
    it is a good thing you come here to detox once and a while - LOL

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:23:02 PM EST


    Parent
    so... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Turkana on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    a talabani unit is 4 friedmans?

    meanwhile...

    the second paragraph of this washinton post article points out that the u.n. authorization for foreign troops expires at the end of this year!

    so, do we send powell back to the u.n., with tenet and negroponte sitting behind him, smirking?

    Turkana, help me out here. What (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    IS at "Friedman Unit."  

    Parent
    six months (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Turkana on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    atrios coined it, in response to this fair report on friedman. essentially, friedman kept saying that the next six months would be critical, for iraq- but he kept saying it for years, always six months, even as each six months elapsed.

    Parent
    6 Months (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:21:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#8)
    by jarober on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    Big Tent, my point is that we are already in Iraq - which makes discussion of whether we should have gone in back in 2003 moot.  We get to deal with the situation as it is, not as we wish it might have been.

    Then how do you learn from a mistake? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Fri May 11, 2007 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    If you don't even believe in the value of acknowledging and considering them?

    If invading created the chaos we have today, then continuing with the paradigms of that invasion is insane folly.  However, if mistakes are not to be learned from, we'll never figure that out.  And the beat will go on.  

    Parent

    Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    Nope.

    Laying aside whether or not we should have.

    We did.

    That, and the lack of support by the Left and the Demos, has created where we are now. And we must deal with that.

    Your claim makes no more sense than saying:

    Since I started a fire that is burning my house, I must not deal with the fire.

    You can deal with realities while learning lessons.

    Parent

    Since you started a fire that is burning the house (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:29:17 PM EST
    the first thing you do is stop throwing fuel into the fire. And since you destroyed the infrastructure of the house before you started the fire and made no effort to rebuild it, once you stop throwing fuel in and get out of the way before you are thrown out of the way, someone else will rebuild it.

    It probably won't look anything like what you'd like it to when they're done, but too bad.

    Them's the breaks.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    the first thing you do is stop throwing fuel into the fire

    I agree. But we couldn't get the Left/Demos to shut up and help.

    Thanks for the admission.


    Parent

    delusional (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Sailor on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    I agree. But we couldn't get the Left/Demos to shut up and help.
    bush had a blank check for 4 years and things are worse than ever.

    We were right to not want to invade.
    We were right when we said it would be a quagmire.
    We were right when we said the surge would be never ending, and not the 30 day wonder it was being sold as.
    And we are right that we should get the f**k out. Now.

    Wrongwingers were wrong all along and shouldn't be allowed to continue this war against the American and Iraqi peoples' wishes.

    The presence of the US is causing a lot of the violence. If we leave, the warring iraqi factions will kick the minor number of AQ out. No one wants us there, except a few deadenders who advocate spilling other peoples' childrens' blood for the sake of hubris.

    Parent

    It's people like you (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    who need to shut up and help end the war.

    As sailor says, your boys have had tons of money and lots of time to win this thing and they've utterly failed. Democrats haven't lifted a finger to stop your boys until now.

    All Bush and Cheney do is lie and spin this disaster. They are completely incompetent fools. And you are every bit as much of a fool for continuing to believe that there is a pony waiting to be discovered in this fiasco.

    Of course if Bush announced tomorrow that he was ending the war and bringing all the troops home you'd be here telling us how brilliant Bush is and how much you support his latest decision. Because you're nothing more than a shill for the worst administration in history.

    People are tired of your ilk. You are political dinosaurs now.

    Parent

    CharlieDontSurf had a good suggestion (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:18:57 AM EST
    for political dinosaurs here a long time ago. He suggested that they "Go find a tar pit and fall in it. Metaphorically speaking".

    The original dinosaurs are extinct now, probably because their brains were too small to comprehend signs that they were blindly walking into the tar pit. The political ones aren't far behind. ;-)

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    It's only the left, and until recently the democrats, who've all along been pressing to stop throwing fuel on the fire, and in fact opposed starting the fire.

    But thanks for the smarmy reply. No one expects more of you, and obviously I expect too much of you.

    Parent

    You can deal with realities while learning lessons (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:31:05 PM EST


    Parent
    If the United States leaves Iraq (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:33:13 PM EST
    If the United States leaves Iraq things will really get bad:
    This appears to be the last remaining, barely-breathing argument of that vanishing species who still support the god-awful war. The argument implies a deeply-felt concern about the welfare and safety of the Iraqi people. What else could it mean? That the US military can't leave because it's needed to protect the oil bonanza awaiting American oil companies as soon as the Iraqi parliament approves the new written-in-Washington oil law? No, the Bush administration loves the people of Iraq. How much more destruction, killing and torturing do you need to be convinced of that? We can't leave because of the violence. We can't leave until we have assured that peace returns to our dear comrades in Iraq.

        To better understand this argument, it helps to keep in mind the following about the daily horror that is life in Iraq:  

    • It did not exist before the US occupation.
       Has there ever been an empire that didn't tell itself and the world that it was unlike all other empires, that its mission was not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate? And that it had God on its side?

        Will America's immune system be able to rid itself of its raw-meat conservatives?

    Pre-Invasion Iraq Video:
    People on an Iraqi street, before they were made so happy by George W. Bush's 2003 liberation.

    There isn't a lot to say. Watch the video...
    Iraq will get fixed (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    But it will not be republicans or democrats, or even the U.S. that fixes it.

    The U.S. presence in Iraq, and the refusal to leave, is the problem.

    When Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah opened the Arab Summit in Riyadh [...] speaking about Iraq as a land where "blood flows between brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism," he offended many policymakers in Washington. But the statement was only one signal among many that, in the face of explosive conflicts that the Bush administration has caused or failed to contain, the king is out to assert Saudi Arabia's role as an independent leader in the region. The goals--to stabilize Iraq, build an Arab-Israeli peace and contain the growing influence of Iran--are the same as Washington's. But the means to those ends are very different. In an exclusive interview, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal sat down with NEWSWEEK's Christopher Dickey to trace the dramatic changes in his country's policy over the last year.
    link

    Parent
    In other words (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    what will fix Iraq is not staying in there and fantasizing that continuing to do the same things that are causing the problems there will somehow magically begin to solve the problems.

    What will fix Iraq is not "doing" something.

    What will fix Iraq is "not doing" something.

    Not funding the occupation any longer is what will begin fixing Iraq.

    Parent

    I'm beginning to think (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:42:46 PM EST
    that one major way to fix what's wrong with our political culture is by getting out of Iraq. IOW, the salve to our national problems is by getting the hell out of there.

    Parent
    It (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:21:14 PM EST
    sure seems that way sometimes, doesn't it?

    Sort of the same problem an addict has. Can't stop because it's going to hurt like hell for awhile. Can't keep going because it's going to hurt like hell, and probably be the end of him.

    The neocons can only stop the problems they set out to stop by stopping being neocons...

    Parent

    Which will also stop the problems they create (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 08:23:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Benchmarks:Talabani Units | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment