kmurti: in reference to your preferred strategy of independence...so we wouldn't have to worry about asian/european oil dependancies?

pls...pls...pls...let Barak/Hillary be elected. if we're lucky enough...many of the posters on this board will be the first to perish in a near certain first domestic terrorist strike since 9/11!

pretty pls!

A Few Good Men -
to constitute the Board of the AARP. I
recommend the following individuals!

John McCain
George W. Bush

Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Scooter Libby

Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Tom Delay
Bill Kristol Jr

Bob Dole
Rush Limbaugh
Bob Novak

Trent Lott
Joe Lieberman
Rev. Pat Robertson please...

Wm F. Buckley (sometimes)

Once it happens, all of America's problems with the rest of the world and likely its problems inside of the United States
will mostly have disappeared!

The New American Century (not the PNAC) appears to be getting underway - that is when these fossils are all retired!

More recently, there are active Arab-sponsored subversive movements in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Philippines

Recently? no you just recently found out about it, some of that has been going on for 40 years. Philippines has been having problems with radical muslims on Mindinao since at least the end of WW2

1. No matter how long we stay as soon as we leave Iraq spilts apart.
2. As long as we are there more servicemen will die and more terrorists created. Al Queada wasn't in Iraq until we went there.
3. We invaded Iraq there because of WMDs and to overthrow Saddam, we win, game over.
4. The commander In afganistan has said recently if they don't get more troops they may not succeed.
5. It is breaking the military.
6. It is breaking our bank, who is going to pay for this and now where do we get the money for the real crisis that has been ignored, infrastructure.

The tragedy of John McCain is that he is still trying to win the Vietnam war, and he has adopted Iraq as the vehicle. Let's not allow him to make his tragedy America's.)/////////Anon.

IN SHORT A MCCAIN PRESIDENCY WOULD BE AN EPIC DISASTER FOR AMERICA AND FOR THE WORLD AT LARGE. We have to date crippled or killed 10,000 Americans and spent depending on your method of accounting between 1.5-2.5 trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs of this war. The current recession and government fiscal crisis is directly related to faulty policies of this current regime, which John Mccain wants to continue into perpetuity. The current republican leaderships policies of cutting taxes, increasing domestic spending, and fighting a treasure draining war has turned the mightiest currency on the globe into the peso North. We don't need 100 years of Iraqi success Mr. Mccain.

Kmurti, I agree with the your post, good arguments. But I disagree with you in one respect, and it may be a minor point. I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 other then the fact that Bush used 9-11 as political and rhetorical cover for his naked money, oil, and power grab in Iraq. From your first post you seemed to suggest that Bush was right to invade Iraq based on his fears of WMD. And you seem to suggest that Iraq provoked the invasion. I disagree with this reading of history, if this your reading of it completely.

Re McCain, in occurs to me that he actually missed 5 years of US history when he was in the joint in Hanoi.

He didn't see the demonstrations in the streets. He didn't hear about the mutinies and 'fragging' in the conscript US army. He didn't see what happens in a democracy when support for an overhyped war disintegrates over 8 or 9 years.

He missed it. It's still 1968 for him.

Remember what Westmorland said: Victory is around the corner. We just have to keep fighting.

I like McCain as a straight shooter, as somebody who will not pander to sleeze as our two recent presidents have. But on the question of his ideas on terrorism and what it means to stay in Iraq, I fully disagree with him. The more we stay in Iraq the more we end up ignoring the eroding infrastructure in the United States. We are spending less and less in improving the infrastructure of our own country, while spending vast amounts of money in a country that has not shown any support for our troops or our views of freedom and democracy. Moreover we are constantly snubbed by the Iraqi leadership when Al Maliki does photo ops with the Iranian president with a big grin on his face. To keep pumping hard earned tax dollars in a country which has really nothing to offer us is disheartening.

McCain talks about not surrendering. As somebody pointed out, he is still thinking about Vietnam. In Iraq there is nobody to sign a peace treaty with. We are fighting an enemy that has no state or central leadership. If we continue to stay in Iraq who are we not surrendering to?

I wonder...
Is it possible for you to accept everything in your last stament as wrong?
Hmmm...

You sound the stupidest and dorkiest, when you are trying to sound "cool".

Your work as VRIO is not advanced by these displays of stilted clowning.

D-
Nah; it thoroughly sounded like your style to put it that way. You know - stilted, slanted, propaganda.
You might mistake that as a compliment...
Ha!

==Hey D:

You forgot(?) to sign your name on 'IMPOSSIBLE VS. INEVITABLE'.==

Always suspecting others of your own sins, eh?

Farzad, I have never defended the overthrow of Mossadegh; I am not about to do so now. However, in spite of their grievances, the Iranians did not launch the 9/11 attacks. I believe Americans can honestly disagree with the Iranina government of today, without disrespecting the Iranian people, or interfering in Iran's internal affairs. Of course, we have the right to defend our country against all enemies.

I am of South Asian extraction and have no animosity towards Persians. However, I am also American. This land is my land (and perhaps also your land). I believe in defending the Homeland. The United States has been hospitable to me and the American people have been very kind and friendly. I was devastated by the 9/11 attacks. But, since Iran was not responsible, I have no hostility to it or its people.

The Arabs are a different matter. Remember, this thread started with the question of American presence in Iraq. By the way, I am no conservative - a sixties' liberal, in fact. My post favored a withdrawal from Iraq. I believe it was a mistake to go there, since Saddam was a mainly secular ruler. The real culprits were the Saudis, along with the Afghanis and the Pakistanis. We handled the Afghanis but did not follow through and left the job half done. Now it is geting undone. We did not handle the Saudis because our leadership is beholden to oil interests; nor did we handle the Pakistanis because we think they are allies and we need them. We are wrong on both counts and need to wake up before it is too late.

The best defense against militant Islamists is to make America truly independent of their oil. Then we would be free to defend our country.

Hey D:

You forgot(?) to sign your name on 'IMPOSSIBLE VS. INEVITABLE'.

The tragedy of John McCain is that he is still trying to win the Vietnam war, and he has adopted Iraq as the vehicle. Let's not allow him to make his tragedy America's.

IMPOSSIBLE VS. INEVITABLE

Obama's dream isn't impossible, its inevitable, soon we will have to leave Iraq whether we are driven out by force or we simply lack the manpower to keep it up.

Bribing your enemies with guns and cash to lower your casualty rate is success? Most people call it surrender and tribute. Meanwhile the slaughter of the Iraqi innocents (and US contractors) continues at 2006 rates.

How can you write about Maliki's "government" with a straight face? There is no there there. Read any story about basic services 5 years after our invasion. Also there is no word for reconciliation in Iraqi Arabic.

The military says we have to stay? So why isn't the headline "MILITARY JUNTA TAKES CONTROL OF US FOREIGN POLICY", nope Arkin can never let go of the Grover Norquist/GOP 'curse on both their houses' meme. I'm sure Westmoreland said the same thing in 72', seems like we managed to leave vietnam.

(Don't forget that 80% of the current military officer corp is republican. They make up part of the 30% of W's base, and it is enlisted men, not officers, who get IED'ed.)

So McCain will send the same troops 10 times? 100? Now thats impossible.

On this "glide path," whose side are our troops supposed to take in the various civil wars?

There is a systematic reason that political reconciliation is unlikely as long as we are there: everyone knows that agreements reached under occupation will not survive our departure, and they don't bother trying to negotiate them.

The immediate aftermath of withdrawal is likely to be scary, but at any given time we really have only two choices: we can either begin withdrawing, or we can kick the can down the road for another 18 months or so, at which point maybe another 100,000 Iraqis will be dead, perhaps another 500,000 will be refugees, and we will be choosing again from the same two crappy alternatives.

The underground political establishment -

will undermine either Hilary or Obama, if either of these two were to become
President of the United States
of America just as they
attempted to do with
Bill Clinton!

Has anyone ever lived with a controlling person? The rest of the world has
tired of living with a controlling
nation, the U.S.A.! The people
of Iraq live under Marshal Law
as it is, America is the
marshal!

I trust that we will put someone in office
that will redact the illegal actions
of our nation, and then allow
other nations and people
to find their own way,
and live in the
manner that they
chose to live in!

I believe that both dreamers are correct...

We absolutely should withdraw from Iraq as Obama forestated. Will it stablize the
region from an American perspective,
no, however, we didn't consider the
region to be stable before dropping in!

Senator McCain is also right, that is, if theIraq is going to behave in the manner that the U.S.A. wants it to, the U.S.A. will have to remain there into perpetuity and ensure that Iraq conforms to American mandated dictates.

The American people will have to decide which flavor of the week they prefer. A smart American President ought to simply invade a country in the Americas. That way, it with satisfy that leader, his Party and some American's bloodthirst - and the troops will be close enough to come home on furloughs for the weekends during a one-hundred year war!

Problem solved? No. However, the problem will never be solved, because the actual problem resides right here in the United States of America. It is called bad policy, hegemony, adventurism, greed and duplicity!

If you think about it, the Treaty at Versaille was signed nearly a centruy ago, and the United States, Britain in stars and stripes is still trying to stabilize that portion of the old British Empire. Tch tch!

In honor of Black History Month: When will the majority culture, soon to be the minority culture in this nation realize that you just cannot force other people into doing what you want them to do? It never lasts - and you never learn---

The Iraq situation is like holding a wolf by the ears; you may not like the idea - but you dare not let it go either!

Either? Either way, the odds are on the wolf re-figuring your face!

//If we recognize that the Bush/Cheney approach has failed and is unsustainable aren't the alternatives either unilateral withdrawal, or return to Baker-style multi-lateralism, backed up by a smaller, non-permanent US military commitment?\\

Well al75; I can't agree with you that we have failed in Iraq. We haven't. But for us to return to a multi-national force may be possible if we see further advancements of Maliki's gov't. It may very well be a next step. Perhaps within the next three years there can be an exchange of our forces with some from the EU.

So long as they can learn and accept the means on which we have built our Iraq sucesses and can adapt to future circumstances, you may be right in what you propose. So long as we maintain the ability to adapt is key.

The Iraq situation is like holding a wolf by the ears; you may not like the idea - but you dare not let it go either!

Kmurti, I care little about the crimes of the Arabs one thousand years ago, as opposed to current events that are creating the current hostile situation. In fact, the Arabs were much kinder to the jewish and christian subjects of Spain, than the Christian reconquista knights were to the Arab and Jewish residents when they took Spain back, ever heard of the inquisition. Additionally, I am persian, and I have little to no desire to defend thousand year old dead Arabs. But history again did not start with 9-11, America's post colonialist actions supporting every dictatorial regime and likudnik Zionism is the cause of these catastrophes.

Other people have grievances as well, 9-11 is a drop in the bucket compared to the blood that America, the west in general, and Israel have spilt in the middle east long before 9-11 ever occurred and at an even accelerated pace. Do you realize that the CIA basically took down the Lincoln of the Iranian nation, that the CIA doomed my homeland to dictatorship and counterrevolution? Do you realize that 60 years since 70 million Iranians are still paying the bills of western arrogance? You don't and you don't care either and it is very apparent in your dismissive and stereotypical post.

Who is Barack Obama?

I can't tell whether he's a rock star or a candidate for high office. The media love him and shields him from tough questions about his inexperience and the serious holes in his healthcare and economic recovery plans. Obama's healthcare plan has been tagged unrealistic and undoable by many healthcare reform experts.

So where are the tough questions for Obama? Hillary is called to task at every campaign stop about her fashion choices and her Iraq war vote.

Obama's strength is having no record to criticize, except his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty and abortion, but he's not getting drilled like any other candidate would.
There are no direct questions to Obama regarding how he can meet his Iraq pullout deadline and protect the people in Iraq who cooperated with us. Will Obama leave four million people at the mercy of a civil war after a US evacuation? Wouldn't this produce another "Killing Fields" similar to what happened in Southeast Asia 36 years ago? Why no questions?

I hear fiery speeches and I'm inspired, but at the end of the day I need to see some substance. Right now Obama is untouchable-- largely because the "rock-star-groupy" press doesn't want this ride to end-- and why would they? But the press lacks a certain curiosity that's applied to most candidates with limited experience. The press compare JFK to Obama, but JFK had considerable legislative experience before taking office, and JFK had personal experience with the horrors of war.

Conversely, the media give equal air time and print space to tearing Hillary down. In all of Obama's small state victories the media ignore the fact the Clinton has won states with three times the amount of electoral votes (215 - 70) than Obama. If it's close at the convention, will the super delegates consider that? The media confuses us with the notion that the number of states matters more than amassing enough electoral votes to win the general election.

Obama has won in states with large Democrat minorities , many of which will probably go red if Elmer Fudd is the GOP nominee.

All we hear are the sound bites going back and forth through the media proxies, but I see no journalism going on, and no real debate on the issues.

I WANT SPECIFICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sick of all the racial and gender antagonisms that have been promoted more by the press than the candidates themselves.

I don't care about the media's glee with Hillary's loan to her campaign, and I don't care about Obama's Muslim/Christian roots.

I want to know about what these candidates propose, and how they propose to do it.

My healthcare provider sucks, I'm unemployed, and I have a nephew in Iraq.

I want healthcare but not at the cost of bankrupting the country for generations. I want the troops out of Iraq, but I don't want my nephew to live the rest of his life knowing he abandoned his Iraqi friends. And, I want an economic recovery that benefits the middle class.

I want to know these things, I want to see the plan. Draw me a picture if you have to.

This just in from the propaganda wars:

Ex-Iraqi Soldiers Train Children, NOT AQ!

Treasure of Baghdad (an independent Iraqi blogger) watched the video released of Iraqi children being trained as 'al qaeda' although some of the training seems to him to be regular military training. He identifies the children and their adult trainers as being Iraqi from the accent. He thinks the trainers are former members of Iraqi's military which was disbanded in 2003.

Source: http://ooibc.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-iraqi-bloggers-losing-hope.html

OUT NOW!

kmurti: "More recently, there are active Arab-sponsored subversive movements in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Philippines."

You equate arabs with muslim, and then fail to mention that the export of islamic jihad was financed almost in it's entirety by U.S. foreign aid to Saudi Arabia, and we're STILL supplying them with billions of dollars in aid and weapons systems.

The Saudis truly thank us for getting a potentially destabilizing element, al qaeda et al out of their country for a while.

"AMERICA STARTED THE FIGHT WITH THE ISLAMIC WORLD WHEN THE CIA OVERTHREW THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN 1953 SO THAT WESTERN OIL COMPANIES COULD GET ACESS TO EVEN CHEAPER OIL."

Farzad and I can play this blame game to no avail; after all, I can point out that Muslims have had a gory history in West Asia, South Asia, North Africa and the Iberian peninsula, during their centuries of ascension. More recently, there are active Arab-sponsored subversive movements in India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Philippines.

However, what matters to us, as Americans, is that we need to safeguard our Homeland. To do that, in light of 9/11, it is obvious that we need to cripple the terror-generator societies -- before they hurt us again.

Farzad and I probably agree on the need for America to forego the use of Middle Eastern oil. We can do it if we utilize nuclear power the way the French do, bio fuels the way the Brazilians do, and resort to renewable, non-polluting energy sources in a really big way. It may not be easy, but it is worth doing; the alternative is a nightmarish capitulation to militant Islamists.
Remember, every barrel of oil purchased from the Middle East is another $100 going to finance our known enemies.

Today's blog by Arkin displays an underappreciated, but realistic, perspective of how the mechanics of US federal governance actually works.

IMHO the President's power is abridged less often by Constitutional checks and balances than by decisions of day-to-day federal service employees and career staffers. These folks, who run the bureaucracy of government, have more effect on the "art of the possible" than any Presidential decree or Executive Order might.

IMHO, the "absolute" power of the President as CEO over the Executive Branch is more myth than reality. And it is exactly the reality of a inertia-ladened government bureaucracy that ensures that policies of government don't swing wildly from left-to-right (or vice versa) every four years. It's what allows for, and creates, incremental changes. Incremental policies which enable the nation, and the world, to adopt without too much trauma.

Arkin is right. And although the rhetoric of "victory" or "withdraw" defines the current political debate, it is the staffers and government service employees that execute policy. And to a large extent, effect the all-important timing of that policy execution.

Usually in some incremental way.

I could care less what these idiots in the security establishment are saying . These fools got us into or supported this mess. There are political implications to a continued military presence in Iraq or any other Arab and or Muslim country. We are not wanted, and the military has become so weak that it cannot support Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. Afghanistan is the source of 9/11, so it has priority over Iraq. The American people do not support the Iraq War, and any politician who supports a continued presence there is going to get his or her head handed to them.

And just to keep the hits rolling, George Bush's made up war against Iraq is so far the greatest crime of the 21st century, he is neck and neck with Rawanda mass murders and Sudanese janjawee, don't worry Georgie you still have another year of "killin" to secure your place in history.

Because, as long as they are tied up killing each other, they are, to that extent, less able to strike us at home. When, subsequently, we found out that they did not hae WMDs, we could have just shrugged our collective shoulders. Not our fault, they (Arabs) are the ones who attacked us first.)kmurti////

WRONG AGAIN, THIS IS THE TYPICAL PROBLEM WITH CONSERVATIVES IN THIS COUNTRY. THE ONLY THING THEY CARE ABOUT ARE THEIR GRIEVANCES. THE ARABS DIDN'T START ANIMOSITY AND WARFARE WITH THE US ON 9-11, AMERICA DID THAT WHEN THEY CARVED OUT A LITTLE VACATION HOME FOR RICH WESTERN JEWS ON ARAB LAND. AMERICA STARTED THE FIGHT WITH THE ISLAMIC WORLD WHEN THE CIA OVERTHREW THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN 1953 SO THAT WESTERN OIL COMPANIES COULD GET ACESS TO EVEN CHEAPER OIL. THE MEDIA AND MANY IGNORANT PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THINK THAT HISTORY STARTED ON 9-11, NO OUR INVOLVEMENT AND THE CRIMES OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST CAUSED 9-11. 9-11 WAS JUST THE MOST FAMOUS INCIDENT OF BLOWBACK. AMERICA AND ITS MURDEROUS LOVE CHILD ISRAEL HAVE KILLED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1-5 MILLION MUSLIMS AND OPPRESSED TENS OF MILLIONS MORE, JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE HISTORY STARTED ON 9-11 DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. By the way the Iraqis did not attack America first, and 9-11 doesn't give this country the right to destroy any muslim countries that idiot conservatives deem a threat in their paranoid minds. What America has done to the Palestinians, and what America did to the people of Iran by overthrowing their greatest domestic leader for cheap oil in my mind counts as two of the greatest crimes of the 20th century; right up their with Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin.

I think the central issue is whether "success" is envisioned as an outcome that the U.S. can unilaterally impose on Iraq, or one that we achieve in concert with the other players with chips on the table: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and -- yes -- Syria and Iran.

Bush summarily rejected James Baker's (and his dad's) internationalist approach. (remember when we had Egypt and Syria's token forces on our side in the first gulf war?)

If we recognize that the Bush/Cheney approach has failed and is unsustainable aren't the alternatives either unilateral withdrawal, or return to Baker-style multi-lateralism, backed up by a smaller, non-permanent US military commitment?

I don't think Obama is stupid enough to go for full-bore isolationism, and his position leaves wiggle-room for the Baker plan or something like it; Clinton is obviously proposing something similar.

What about McCain? I'm not a mind-reader, but I suspect he really isn't kidding about going at the war, harder. The only other possibility is that his present position is a Romney-like ruse: once elected, he'll reverse course, ally with the Dems to put a Clinton-like foriegn/military policy.

I can't see him doing that. He's spoken many, many times of the need to keep faith with the men and women who have died in battle. Many of us forget that before he was a POW, he watched 150+ of his own shipmates burn alive on the USS Forestal -- and then volunteered for accelerated return to duty.

I think it's a mistake to underestimate McCain's willingness to fight, Arkin and everyone else notwithstanding.

Thoughts?

The problem all along has been an incorrect definition of our mission in Iraq.

We went in thinking that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction. We toppled him and threw the whole country into chaos. We could have, and should have, withdrawn at that point and left the Iraqis to a civil war. Because, as long as they are tied up killing each other, they are, to that extent, less able to strike us at home. When, subsequently, we found out that they did not hae WMDs, we could have just shrugged our collective shoulders. Not our fault, they (Arabs) are the ones who attacked us first.

It was never in our interest to establish democracy in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East.

Ultimately, our safety lies in neutralizing militant Islam. This can be accomplished by destroying enough of the infrastructure of the countries that are the major sources of funds and jihadis for terrorism.

The memo above seems to be a bold admission that the U.S. government is attempting to engineer an Iraq in it's own image with little regard to the interests of Iraqis, their society, and culture:

Miranda: "I support the President's policy that ignores the historic stereotypes(?) of the Middle East and offers the region a culture of liberty protected by responsible government and the rule of law."

I would HAVE TO ASSUME Mr. Miranda means "WESTERN Law", such as the one that foists Monsanto owned GMO crops off on Iraqi farmers against their better judgment and will, almost at gunpoint by US soldiers during Operation Amber Waves.

Little do these farmers know about 'patent law' and how those crops, and any contaminated crops surrounding those crops are OWNED by Monsanto et al... and indeed, little should they have to know, except for the enforcement of 'western law' foreign to not only Iraqi culture, but truly foreign to muslim culture in totality.

Also, despite the consistently discredited brash claim that "...a long-term American military presence (is) ...welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis.."

I believe it would be just as brash to claim that the State department is any more welcome than our military, except perhaps in it's historic stereotypical (sic) role as an arbiter of trade and diplomatic relations.

To Ambassador Crocker
From Manuel Miranda, Office of Legislative Statecraft
CC ALCON
Date February 5, 2008
Re Departure Assessment of Embassy Baghdad

"... Nothing in this assessment is intended to be critical of General Petraeus, his leadership, his staff, the efforts of the Coalition forces in Iraq, or the success of the security component of the "Surge" initiative, now one year old. Nothing in this assessment is intended to cast doubt on the diplomatic strengths of the Foreign Service in Iraq. Nothing in this assessment should be read as critical of the hundreds of civilian men and women, of all ages and backgrounds, who work in Iraq tirelessly and at great personal sacrifice of their careers and family lives, and the many at lower levels of internal management who support us. Although my assessment is limited to certain areas of expertise, it is applicable Embassy-wide.

I should point out that I support America's mission in Iraq, while fully recognizing our many errors over time. I support the President's policy that ignores the historic stereotypes of the Middle East and offers the region a culture of liberty protected by responsible government and the rule of law.

In Full: http://mountainrunner.us/2008/02/departure_assessment_of_embass.html

Dog Bites Man Headline: On Iraq, McCain and Obama Have Impossible Dreams

So does the State Department, and everyone else involved in this murderous rampage: