|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 30, 2005 8:22:27 GMT -5
No, a deliberate provocation is where I point out to you that British Sea Power are pretentious, tuneless and shite ;P
Seriously, I know we'll never agree until/if such time as events categorically prove one of us wrong and the other uncannily prescient. What's clear is that your way no US/UK soldiers would have died, but mass graves and rapes/murders/torture of innocents would still be a way of life for non-Baathists in Iraq. Lets just see what happens eh?
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 30, 2005 9:51:56 GMT -5
Look on the bright side ...
1) Now all Irakis, regardless of their religious affiliations get an equal opportunity of getting blown up to pieces ...
2) One day, they will run out of bomb-making material ...
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Oct 30, 2005 9:56:13 GMT -5
I'm used to Chrisfan being utterly wrong on these things, but you too, Kenny? Come, now. Buy shin, these polls mean absolutely nothing, do they? I mean, there were plenty of pre-election polls calling a win for John Kerry. Where did that turn out? A simple rule of politics is that whoever frames the debate has the most success. The Republicans have masterfully framed the points of debate in this country for at least 5 years now, leaving the Democrats to play some sort of positioning game on issues NOT of their choosing. Remember how Clinton forced debate on healthcare, and literally backed the first Bush into a corner? Same deal here, only the Republicans are doing it with gay marriage and terrorism. More importantly, the soul of the Democratic Party is at stake. As "The Economist" pointed out earlier this month, considering that there is no viable American left, Democrats cannot win with less than 60% of the self-described moderate vote in the US. It's why Mark Warner of VA is so appealing to the DNC: he's someone who could win a southern state or two. But the Democratic base is split between moderates and self-decribed liberals with different agendas who disagree vehemently on many issues (gay marriage, anyone?) and for the past few years it's the liberal faction of the Democratic Party which has received the most air-time (thanks, in part, to efforts by Republicans to constantly paint Democrats in that pinko light). Bush is, as Bill Maher put it, a colossal fuck up. But unless the Democrats begin NOW to retool their message and to consolidate their base around certain ideas, they will leave the Republicans to run the show come election time. It's what the Republicans have done, after all. Evangelicals and Beltway Republicans may both be anti-Roe for different reasons, but at least both factions are anti-Roe. Impossible that such agreement might exist within the factions of the current Democratic Party.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 30, 2005 10:00:37 GMT -5
US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq
Michael Howard in Baghdad Monday May 23, 2005 The Guardian
US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.
Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.
"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.
A senior US official in Baghdad said yesterday: "It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves."
Under the plan, for which the official said there was no "hard-and-fast" deadline, US troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide "logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis". The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country.
He said the pace of the "troop consolidation" would be dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures.
A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.
US officers told the paper that the bases would have a more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand direct mortar fire.
A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves."
Part of the reason to invade Irak was to withdraw U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia...
Your guess about where they will end up is as good as mine ...
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 30, 2005 16:12:15 GMT -5
Actually I agree...a) man Vs. idea= idea 1, man 0...but the main reason is that much the sloppiness in the last year is direct result of the election and Bush's assumed mandate. Bush got comfortable becuase he thought he had the countries support in all matters, not just the war, and he fucked it up.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 30, 2005 17:07:03 GMT -5
Bush has always been at his worst when he's comfortable, and feels he doesn't need to compete. When he feels his back is against the wall and he's got to fight hard, he suddenly comes through. It's time for him to do that again ... and I think this time, it should start by replacing Scott McLellan. I'm willing to find the false evidence that says he was the one who put together fake marriage between Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame just so he could leak it, if that will get him out of the White House press office.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 30, 2005 20:22:11 GMT -5
No, a deliberate provocation is where I point out to you that British Sea Power are pretentious, tuneless and shite ;P Be. Here. Now. Seriously, I know we'll never agree until/if such time as events categorically prove one of us wrong and the other uncannily prescient. What's clear is that your way no US/UK soldiers would have died, but mass graves and rapes/murders/torture of innocents would still be a way of life for non-Baathists in Iraq. Lets just see what happens eh? You know, it was one thing to make this kind argument in January/February 2003 but at this point?!? Iraq is a complete and utter catastrophe, "the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history", according to retired U.S. general William Odom. Not even the Bushies actually believe it will ever become a democracy by any of their efforts anymore; all they're trying to do is keep Iraq and the region from sliding completely into the abyss and maybe get the bulk of their forces out before the next presidential election. By all accounts, Blair will start pulling his out next spring. Realistically, the best "hope" for Iraq right now would appear to be solid integration within Iran's sphere of influence. What does that tell you when you're down to pinning your hopes on the mullahs in Teheran? Torture. Yeah, glad to see that's a thing of the past for them, hmm? Let's see what happens? I think we've been seeing it day after day.
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Oct 30, 2005 22:09:07 GMT -5
Realistically, the best "hope" for Iraq right now would appear to be solid integration within Iran's sphere of influence.
That's crazy talk, Drum. I guess you're saying that that's what might look best through a few of their eyes? But it is still horse shit. I think there would be very few Iraqis who would want to jump in with Tehran. I think that would go against their grain - even the Sunis. We'll see. I do think that civil war is a distinct possibility.
Just when I think it's utterly hopeless over there, you post something like that which gives me renewed hope. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 31, 2005 5:50:10 GMT -5
Strat-0, what I'm saying is if you run down the realistic possibilities for where Iraq is going to end up in 2 or 5 or 10 years, there aren't a lot of happy outcomes. They've just passed a constitution which institutionalizes the kind centrifugal forces likely to tear the country apart – weak central government, everyone gets to keep their private militias, provinicial confederacies allowed (in deference to Kurdish aspirations) etc. etc. A large scale civil war akin to the Lebanese or Yugoslavian conflicts is a distinct possibility. I'm not sure mass graves are really at all a thing of the past for Iraq.
The US is highly unlikely to want to stay there for a decade or two so what does that leave you with? The current government is already developing close ties with Iran. Under the circumstances a deepening of that relationship might be a relatively humane outcome.
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Oct 31, 2005 10:03:07 GMT -5
It looks very dicey indeed. I guess much will depend on how strong the Islamic fundamentalists that want close ties to Iran really are - I don't see them being stronger than the hatred most Iraqis have for Iran and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 31, 2005 10:38:08 GMT -5
Saddam Hussein was the one with a "problem" with Iran...
Both countries have a majority of Shiites, almost 60% for Irak and more than 80% for Iran...
Religion is "thicker than blood" in this part of the world as we(sadly)all know ...
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Oct 31, 2005 11:28:04 GMT -5
Mmm, yes, I meant "especially the Sunis" rather than "even the Sunis." That was an awfully long and bloody war, though.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 31, 2005 12:30:13 GMT -5
More than one million deaths ...
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 31, 2005 12:32:55 GMT -5
For NOTHING !!
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 31, 2005 15:52:44 GMT -5
Musta been worth something, cuz we were helpin' out both sides.
|
|