Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unless Americans are willing to bite the bullet and commit realistic numbers of troops to Iraq, there will be more innocent Iraqis dying. If we continue on the same course or withdraw, more innocent Iraqis will die. A Catch-22. Iraqis will die no matter what we do. The real question is whether or not our troops will be caught in the middle of an increasingly bitter, deadly civil war. Pull them to the borders, and let the Sunnis and Shi'ias sort things out amongst themselves.
As to what it has to do with Chimpy...He struck the match to the tinder with the invasion of Iraq.
The only way we could meet the requirements for 450,000 troops is by a draft. Given the way Chimpy & Co have mismanaged things to this point, I don't think that Americans will tolerate that anymore than we should a further expenditure of blood and treasure. The only logical alternative is to withdraw to the borders...to Kurdistan and the nations bordering Iraq and stand by with humanitarian aid as they sort this out for themselves.
And why on earth would we want to leave Iran and Saudi Arabia move into Iraq? You understand that if we withdrawal, that is exactly what will happen.
Why do you Bush haters fail to see that withdrawaling the troops will lead to regional conflicts??
so, if withdrawing troops = regional conflict, what was the US invasion of Iraq? With all due respect, please don't pretend that conflict avoidance or regional stability are high on Bush's list of motives. Noone has done more to undermine those values.
On the other hand, I'm willing to entertain the notion that you seem to suggest here that the US as an offending nation is under a moral obligation to steer the course come what may, they being the sole responsibles for this mess. They should probably atone for their crimes by putting still more of their soldiers into harms way without any hope for bettering the situation.
May I suggest, however, that there is a faster and more efficient means to atonement? Bush personally randomly selecting about 3000 US troops and ritually sacrificing them one at a time, all the while begging for the world's forgiveness for our rash acts would probably go a lot farther toward calming tensions than a pithy troop build up, and we'd probably have a lower total US body count at the end of the day.
A bit masochistic for my taste, though.
So when exactly do you think we can declare Iraq officially out of harms way, safe from the evil Iranians and Saudis? What set of circumstances could be deemed sufficient? Could it be, I don't know, say, a permanent US presence? Or were you hoping the Sunis, Chi'as and Kurds, the torturers and the tortured, the murderers and the victims from each of these groups, would some day come together as one nation and work together under the same flag to provide for their own defense against potential Iranian and Saudi invaders that most of them, in one direction or another, would probably welcome with glee?
And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I'd still rather have lunch with him than with Kerry. I just think he's about the worst president our country has ever seen.
You bet Trobs.
I didn't "lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east" at the feet of GWB, though I do think he is entirely to blame for all immediate results stemming from this stupid and unjustifiable invasion and occupation of Iraq.
If you're feeling hurt because I said that W Bush was the worst when perhaps Reagan or GBsr. really deserve the prize, well, get over it. It's a tough competition, I agree, but for me, W takes the cake.
W has left the world dramatically less stable and less secure than when he found it, has dragged the cred of the US to all time lows, has gleefully made tatters of any basis for international agreement or law by exempting the US from any and all of its requirements, he has done it by himself (with his rogues gallery team of advisers, it's difficult to say who's really responsible, but since he's the man in the oval office, he gets to take all the responsibility),
If beyond insults you would like to actually offer a more constructive argument for why W is not the worst president in the history of the US, I promise to have an open mind about it,
though I must admit that if your argument is limited to discussing why Carter or any other was in fact even worse, I'd suggest we're more in agreement than it appears at first glance. Who was or is the worst is a matter of subtle opinion, but I should think at the very least that he deserves consideration among the elite candidates for badness. On the other hand, a defence of the current prez. as, contrary to public and expert opinion, actually being good would be impressive. Come on then, lift the veil from my eyes and educate me.
Cheers!
Bry, please, its really not about MY feelings, its about the President, and how you interpret his actions. There is no prize being given away here, and the last I checked there was no competition. This is a serious business, and our countries future, and the future of many others depend greatly on the actions, and support that our President gets in the upcoming months and years. This constant "arm chair quarterbacking" serves no purpose, but to weaken the administration's efforts to bring security to this country. Try to be just a little more mature.
We completly disagree on this point Bry. In fact, most Americans would also disagree with you. The current administration has had a lot of "catching up" to do, do make up for the lack of proper security, and intell by the former administration.
As a side bar, our President ISN'T responsible for the rest of the world, his responsibility is to the United States. Of course "others" would gleefully discredit the Current administration, and try to make allegations, that would further hamper our Presidents efforts on our behalf around the world. A good reason why we shouldn 't worry about helping others, for they show their appreciation in these ways.
I seriously doubt [your openmindedness] but I would point out, that I was responding to YOUR post, and certainly could find NOTHING in it, that one could consider constructive.
Worst is but a label, a projection if you will, of ones point of view, and basic beliefs, so trying to assign a level to such a statement, and rate administration would be of little value, wouldn 't you agree?
I would enjoy reading this "expert opinion", and who YOU assign that label to.
To the mature folks...
I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.
After all, I don't think it's a particularly small difference. But it's probably a matter of semantics. From your first response to my first post, I thought you had ascribed to me the former of the two. ("lay the blame for what is happening in the middle east") but in reality I was suggesting the later ("I do think he is entirely to blame for all immediate results stemming from this stupid and unjustifiable invasion and occupation of Iraq.") No two ways about it, but I see you're happy to take even the flimsiest of excuses to play the "oh yeah, you're a liberal" card. Is that what you call maturity?
so... you have only to recommend that we give our undying and uncritical support to the president because he is the president, because our dear leader surely has our best interest at heart.
I suppose you were giving Clinton and Jimmy the FU Carter the same benefit of the doubt in their respective turns at the wheel? Surprise me. Or is it only your boys who make "efforts to bring security to this country?"
I do not agree that all attempts at "bringing security" are equal. I do not believe it is the role of citizens of a democracy to remain steadfastly supportive or even quiet in the face of disastrous and inept leadership. Forgive me my flippant language of prizes and contests, but don't mistake bitter cynicism for a lack of seriousness.
By most Americans, you mean the 30-odd percent of Americans that approve of the handling of the war in Iraq?
the world is a thoroughly plural place, and if you're going to start referencing "others" you should have the courtesy to let your readers know which "others" you are referring to. Or are you just lumping the entire world into the "others" box and having done with it? Or is "others" just anyone who looks at Iraq and fails to see W for the loving, tender and helpful man that you seem to think he is?...
I would argue that it is in our best interest to respect international agreements and treaties rather than throwing them out as soon as they are felt to be a bit inconvenient.
I remain, openmindedly awaiting your list of things W has done right. My post explicitly seconded BPs outline for a phased withdraw. I'm sorry if my constructivness falls short of unquestioning dog-like admiration for W.
I see you're more than happy to pick up MORAL RELATIVISM when it suits you and run with it! I thought that was a lib trick...
No matter. I'm not a relativist. I just don't take my morals from a fairy tale. I think things can be evaluated objectively and determined to be bad, as for example when an action achieves the exact opposite of its announced objectives. I believe W meets the criteria which I think most rational beings might reasonably set for "bad" (without even having to refer to holy books or shamen). I'm still waiting for you to show me the error of my ways. As for the value of being able to recognize good from bad, I hold that to be self-evident. A bad recognized is a bad we may avoid in the future.
Is there anyone in the world anywhere who doesn't look at Iraq and at least feel a cold shadow of doubt?
Is there anyone who can look at this crying shame and not recognize it as wrong?
His father was smarter, better, a different class of man all together, and I mean that in the most absolutist way.
Quote:
I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.
It wasn't "lost" on me Bry, it just didn't make much sense.
If you cannot see the difference between the entire middle east and "post-invasion Iraq", why, pray tell, are you even IN this discussion?
and I wouldn't think you would be unable to see that W is NOT responsible for EVERYTHING in post-invasion Iraq, for good or evil. The military has some kudos here, and the Iraqis themselves have some blame coming, no?
where DOES the buck stop in this administration? If Harry Truman (or Ike, for that matter) had gotten us into this debacle, I am confident he would not be trying to parse and distribute blame away from the oval office like you are doing.
but I'm not W, of which I'm sure we are all grateful.
regardless, the buck has never once stopped on his desk in the six years he has been in office.
I disagree, but you knew I would. I don't think his inabilty to accept responsibility is the problem. His penchant for secrecy and the inevitable wave of leaks are though. Clinton at least put out false stories and spun like no ones business, W tries to do a Nixon, it didn't work out well the first time.
I guess there is a subtle but profound difference between "accepting responsibility" and "admitting your made a mistake"
Quote:
I had thought that the difference between the two ideas -- W being responsible for everything wrong in the Middle East; and W being responsible for everything wrong in post-invasion Iraq -- would not be lost on you.
It wasn't "lost" on me Bry, it just didn't make much sense.
If you cannot see the difference between the entire middle east and "post-invasion Iraq", why, pray tell, are you even IN this discussion?