Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

[thesightless]

OK, read this entire post before you try to come to a conclusion or a reply. firstly, i want to emphasize that my opinion here, is not that of taking an attack or offensive on the democratic party, but moreso that of fear of the possible answer to the question that was raised.

this morning, frank rich of the NY Times was on msnbc, and brought up a rather scary point. ok, so the democratic party took hold of office. but as most of us know, congress does not dictate foreign policy. sooo... (bear with me here, im having trouble creating a linear string of thought regarding this).

ok, so.... the fear that struck me is that what happens if they fail, we all know that they have no clue on what to do, and even if they do, in the end, its up to bush to accept and implement thier stratgey. therefore, i worry about a republican offnsive to the US citizen that goes along the lines of this..

""look, you elected them, and they arent getting anything done. all they want to do is abandon the iraqi people and run." ie a media creation of the idea that they really are clueless and weak. if they attempt to implement a strategy and bush embraces it, and furthermore, it fails, it gives the right wing even more fuel for thier fire.

so my fear that is rising is even with the congressional victory, there is a possiblity that it could damage them even more that john kerry's mouth.

ie. the so called benchmarks for leaving. what happens if the democrats cant come up with "benchmarks" or... even worse. the militias delay the benchmarks... god if their exit strategy fails, and we leave, and furthermore, iraq falls into a chaos beyond what is happening now............

basically it boils down to me thinking.."if thier plan fails, or comes up lame, it could possibly signal the biggest failure of the party in recent times, in that they couldnt get anything done after making it thier platform..."

that would hurt. very badly. all bush has to say is "if you thought my plan was bad, now look, they cant get out of a carboard box."

god the democrats need help. they really are a party without direction right now, and obama is thier ONLY hope, simply becasue he was the onyl not in congress for the initial vite to go to war. kuchinch could help them big time if they embraced him, but they wont, he is too independent across the board and utilizes certain right leaning methods on labor and taxation.......................................... .

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

ok. maybe this helps..

what happens when we all realize what i know now...

they dont have a clue, they dont have a strategy, no direction. no one does. but they made a huge point that they did....

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

It's this kind of thought process that led me to hope the elections would result in either a split in congressional control or another republican controlled congress. You had to know that if the dems won as they did, that people would expect them to fix the clusterfuck that bush got us into and would probably hold them accountable for it by the 2008 elections.

I know that the dems campaigned on a "this war is bad" slogan, but I can't recall them ever coming up with any kind of plan for getting us out of there, just that they'd like to start looking towards that direction...this is where I disagree with what you've said.

As for Iraq falling further into chaos when and if we leave, I've, of late, began having the attitude of fu*k em...I'm not proud of feeling that way, nor is that what ideally I'd like to see, but there was a story the other day that was quite telling to me of what the situation really is. The other day, a number of foreign workers were kidnapped in southern Iraq and the perpetrators were the Iraqi police (far from the first time they've been involved). It suddenly occurs to me that if this is the government they've voted in place and this is their police force that is supposed to maintain control after we leave...well they have no respect for our presence there, so why the hell should we care what happens to them?! My biggest concern here is the ripple effect this would have across the entire mideast region and the hell that may unleash...stuck between a rock and a hard place...call me crazy, but I want Saddam back in power

Now from the US political side, this is the pathetic state of our politics over the last half century. One party takes control, corruption ensues and then the other party gets control and is expected to clean up the mess...it'd be nice if we could actually get back to elections based on issues, rather than parties and turns.

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

It's this kind of thought process that led me to hope the elections would result in either a split in congressional control or another republican controlled congress. You had to know that if the dems won as they did, that people would expect them to fix the clusterfuck that bush got us into and would probably hold them accountable for it by the 2008 elections.

I know that the dems campaigned on a "this war is bad" slogan, but I can't recall them ever coming up with any kind of plan for getting us out of there, just that they'd like to start looking towards that direction...this is where I disagree with what you've said.

As for Iraq falling further into chaos when and if we leave, I've, of late, began having the attitude of fu*k em...I'm not proud of feeling that way, nor is that what ideally I'd like to see, but there was a story the other day that was quite telling to me of what the situation really is. The other day, a number of foreign workers were kidnapped in southern Iraq and the perpetrators were the Iraqi police (far from the first time they've been involved). It suddenly occurs to me that if this is the government they've voted in place and this is their police force that is supposed to maintain control after we leave...well they have no respect for our presence there, so why the hell should we care what happens to them?! My biggest concern here is the ripple effect this would have across the entire mideast region and the hell that may unleash...stuck between a rock and a hard place...call me crazy, but I want Saddam back in power

Now from the US political side, this is the pathetic state of our politics over the last half century. One party takes control, corruption ensues and then the other party gets control and is expected to clean up the mess...it'd be nice if we could actually get back to elections based on issues, rather than parties and turns.

You make a very good point. The democrats did not run with any agenda. They simply ran with a catch phrase: "Change" Vote for change. But "change" was never defined. Only a small handful of democrats have ever gone on record with anything close to a plan for Iraq. Jack Murtha had the balls to call for a phased re-deployment. But few others have been so brave to actually take a stand.

So, this past election was not "won" by the democrats. It was lost by the Republicans. People voted against the Republicans because they look at the current situation, don't like it.... and say to themselves.... well, let's give these other guys a shot.


As for your point about Iraq... I am with you in that I look at Iraq and see a population who doesn't want to fight for their own freedom. And they don't want us there, either. And this situation leaves an observer saying: "Well, if they hate us and don't want us there.... then we should just go and say fuck off."

The problem is that if we abandon Iraq, then Iran will take over and have control over the largest oil reserves in the world. From this strengthened position, Iran could blackmail the world. It would mean huge economic benefit to Iran, and also give them more leverage in diplomatic areas. It would speed their quest for a nuclear weapon, which is a scenario we cannot permit to happen. Ultimately, it would mean the destruction of Israel, followed by Iran taking over as much of the gulf region as possible.

Ahmadinejad has openly called for the destruction of Israel. If it looks like Iran is getting close to a nuclear weapon, Israel is certain to attack in order to slow the progress. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is not a good deterrant to Iran. Israel is a small country and could be completely wiped of the map by less than a dozen nuclear explosions. Iran is a huge country, and if Israel launched their nukes at them.... the damage would be limited to certain areas, while other areas remain unaffected. It is unlikely Israel could kill more than half the population of Iran. So there is little deterrant for a nuclear Iran to attack Israel, because an Israeli retaliation wouldn't mean the destruction of Iran.

If Iran gets close to having a nuclear weapons, Israel will be forced to bomb those development facilities using conventional weapons. Their only choice is to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Once Iran has nukes, Israel is done for.... and they know it. Not only Israel.... but a nuclear Iran would use it's new weaponry to force non-nuclear neighbors into submission. They would control the enitre gulf region, and all the oil there. So what's the big deal?

In the USA, it is common to hear liberals crying about "no blood for oil" or whatever.... but they fail to understand the ramifications if our country no longer has oil flowing to it. What happens to your brain if the blood stops flowing to it? You die. Well.... same concept. Our entire nation cannot function without oil. We use it for electricity, for our cars, for manufacturing.... you name it... Many things we do in our day to day lives can be traced back ultimately to the use of oil. And it's not just the USA which is in this situation. The economies of the entire globe are dependant upon oil. The only reason China isn't improving any faster than they are is because they can't get enough oil to meet their demand. Many people simply don't understand how important oil is to everyone in the world.... not just us here in the States. Oil is like the blood of our economy.

Anyway.... now that the oil rant is over... back to the point. I agree we need to get out of Iraq. But we can't just leave Iraq in shambles. While staying in Iraq seems like a futile endeavor, the alternative of leaving and Iran taking over is far worse. Iraq has got to get their military and police forces up to speed, and capable of defending themselves. And we can't leave until this happens.... or it really will be World War III.

And we have GOT to get off our reliance on oil. If we could do that, we would be in such a stronger position in Middle East affairs.



As for putting Saddam back in power..... honestly, that would be the best situation, if it were possible. Here is the problem:

Saddam hated Iran, and Iran hated Saddam. But Iran also thought that Saddam had WMDs, just like the rest of the world thought he had them. So Iran wasn't about to try invading Iraq because they were scared that Saddam would launch all sorts of shit at them. There was a stalemate between them.... similar to the nuclear stalemate between the USSR and USA during the Cold War.

But now Saddam is gone.... and we find out that the WMDs weren't really there. And so what does Iran do? Well, it's been a field day for them.... sending fighters over into Iraq to fight the USA and the new Iraqi government. Iran wants Iraq for themselves. And with the threat of Saddam gone, now is their chance.

If we hypothetically put Saddam back in power, he would no longer be the deterrant he was previously because Iran now knows the WMDs aren't there. So, we kinda shot ourselves in the foot with that one when we started this whole war. And there is no going back. That is why we can't leave until the Iraqi's can defend themselves.

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

agreed and agreed

[toasty]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

ok, so.... the fear that struck me is that what happens if they fail, we all know that they have no clue on what to do, and even if they do, in the end, its up to bush to accept and implement thier stratgey. therefore, i worry about a republican offnsive to the US citizen that goes along the lines of this..

Isn't your entire argument based upon the idea that Iraq is destined for failure because the Democrats are currently at the helm in Congress? Look, I'm not saying that they necessarily have the keys to the kingdom, but you ought to at least extend them the courtesy of allowing them to fuck things up before chastising them for doing so. People let Bush run Iraq into the ground for over 3 years with no plan, and the Dems don't come up with a cohesive plan within three weeks and you're calling for their heads? Come on.

Right now, for the first time since even before the war, there is actual debate going on about the best strategy to follow in Iraq -- the whole "Go big, go long, or go home" thing. Regardless of who it is that is developing these strategies, I don't think there can be any serious question as to why this is happening now rather than, say, a month ago -- it is because there are checks and balances in place again, and accountability is something that the folks in charge need to consider. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that having this discussion is a good thing. That, alone, was enough to justify putting the Dems in office, IMO.

That whole, "the democrats don't have a plan" refrain is election fodder. If, in fact, we're still where we are in a couple of years with our national thumb up our collective ass and you want to bring it up, by all means keep pumping out those sound-bites then. In the short term, though, it's just not useful to the goal we all have of unfucking this incredibly fucked up situation in Iraq.

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

toasty, ill try to clear it up. again, im put it a little off track for the non-coastal US mind.

it is most definetly not based upon the idea and assumption that it is destined to fail. but more baseed on the fact that they made thier party wide campaign that of ''we WILL change things and solve iraq''... so, what happens if it doesnt, from any variety of factors ranging from bush refusal to moqtada al sadr's getting another 20,000 militants to back us off. incorporate any idea of how. that neccessarily doesnt matter for the arguement. and im not calling for their heads, read the first line again. im fearing the possible answer of failure to the question of ''what will they do across the board, from iraq to domestic''

if they do fail, then im really scared for american government as a whole. b/c it would do things that might just add cannon fodder to the rove machine. and drop the party a few steps. again, im stressing this as a negative. a major failure on thier behalf can only lead to the strenghtening of the right, which, is already powerful enough IMO. and after a failure, or even a pull out and iraq going to chaos, it wont help them at all, but feed the blame game finger pointing at the ''new happless'' party, a party that took control and didnt get anything done.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

Isn't your entire argument based upon the idea that Iraq is destined for failure because the Democrats are currently at the helm in Congress? Look, I'm not saying that they necessarily have the keys to the kingdom, but you ought to at least extend them the courtesy of allowing them to fuck things up before chastising them for doing so. People let Bush run Iraq into the ground for over 3 years with no plan, and the Dems don't come up with a cohesive plan within three weeks and you're calling for their heads? Come on.

Right now, for the first time since even before the war, there is actual debate going on about the best strategy to follow in Iraq -- the whole "Go big, go long, or go home" thing. Regardless of who it is that is developing these strategies, I don't think there can be any serious question as to why this is happening now rather than, say, a month ago -- it is because there are checks and balances in place again, and accountability is something that the folks in charge need to consider. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that having this discussion is a good thing. That, alone, was enough to justify putting the Dems in office, IMO.

That whole, "the democrats don't have a plan" refrain is election fodder. If, in fact, we're still where we are in a couple of years with our national thumb up our collective ass and you want to bring it up, by all means keep pumping out those sound-bites then. In the short term, though, it's just not useful to the goal we all have of unfucking this incredibly fucked up situation in Iraq.

Bush has had a plan in place for some time. It was something along the lines of this:

1. Depose Saddam as leader of Iraq
2. Assist Iraqi's in setting up new democratic government
3. Assist in training Iraqi military and police forces so they can defend their country
4. Return home


Steps 1 and 2 were the easy part. Step 3 is where we are stuck.

So.... Bush has a plan. It just doesn't seem to be working now because we are stuck at number 3.


The democrats don't have a plan.... other than to say that Bush's plan isn't working. Well, criticism alone doesn't constitute a solution. They must ante up an alternative. They have not done so, except for a few brave democrats willing to take a stand. (Jack Murtha is one. Even though I disagree with him, I respect him for offering an alternative)

And why should the dems have to wait until after an election to offer an alternative? They have had 4 years to do so already, and they didn't. Rather than suggest alternatives they chose to wait until election time and then call for "change." Now they have achieved their little goal.... so now what? NOW they decide it's time to come up with a new plan? Hmmmm.... that's cute. So 4 years have gone by, with little else but partisan sniping from the left.... but never any hint of an alternative plan.

I'm not really trying to be a Bush apologist here.... I'm just pointing out that the democrats could have put together a coherent plan of action by now. Maybe Bush would have rejected it.... but the American people would at least see this plan and form their own opinions. I'm sorry..... but if the democrats wanted my vote earlier this month, they needed to give me a general idea about what they plan to do. I know that Bush is not going to abandon Iraq tomorrow. But I don't know what the Dems want to do. So.... while I may be critical of Bush's job with running this war, it find it worrysome to hand control over to a group which has not defined it's position.

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

i love this kid already. i can stop playing the devils advocate republican.

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

it is most definetly not based upon the idea and assumption that it is destined to fail. but more baseed on the fact that they made thier party wide campaign that of ''we WILL change things and solve iraq''...

I find the fallacy in your discussion is this very assumption. The dems did not campaign on ''we WILL change things and solve iraq''. If anything they took on the mantra of change after they'd already won the election. What they did campaign on is "We are not Bush" and they won on that single slogan.

Iraq is fu*ked and most-likely would've been fu*ked regardless of how we had fought the war...this is something that Bush Sr. understood years ago. Bush Jr. ignored this advice and tried it his way anyway and sure enough, Iraq is fu*ked and this past election, the American public finally understood this.

But if what you're suggesting is that the American public don't understand this and still expect the Democrats to come and fix the Iraqi situation, regardless of how damn near impossible any positive outcome may be, well the masses are asses...I just didn't expect you to be part of the masses on this one...

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

But if what you're suggesting is that the American public don't understand this and still expect the Democrats to come and fix the Iraqi situation, regardless of how damn near impossible any positive outcome may be, well the masses are asses...I just didn't expect you to be part of the masses on this one...

THATS IT.

see. you are good for keeping around!

if they do fail, cuz it is nearly an impossoble situation, then i fear the masses will be swayed away, when we need more balance and more parties. and wiseass, im not part of the masses on this. you know this. i understand that foreign policiy is dictated by the executive branch, currently run by karl rove and rumsfeld.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

I find the fallacy in your discussion is this very assumption. The dems did not campaign on ''we WILL change things and solve iraq''. If anything they took on the mantra of change after they'd already won the election. What they did campaign on is "We are not Bush" and they won on that single slogan.

They were saying: "It is time for a change." Believe me.... I was paying close attention. I heard that line so many times, I wanted to puke.

Change is fine. But tell me what change means. Does it mean pulling out tomorow, and just leaving Iraq in shambles? If so, I would rather stick with Bush's plan.... even if it's not working so well right now.

I think it is a fair question for me, as a voter, to ask what changes I would be voting for. I was listening for it.... but never heard it. That largely shaped my decision when voting time came around.

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

subterFUSE, I believe you left out the WMDs we were going to find, the flowers we would be greeted with and ytou totally skipped over the part about enriching the adminstration's friends at the expense of the Iraqi people and reconstruction.

Historically, this country is great at winning the war and horrible at keeping the peace. If we'd actually spent half the money we had allocated to reconstruction by using the US military and at fair rates, not Halliburton and the rest's inflated prices, we would be in a much better situation today.

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

They were saying: "It is time for a change." Believe me.... I was paying close attention. I heard that line so many times, I wanted to puke.

Change is fine. But tell me what change means. Does it mean pulling out tomorow, and just leaving Iraq in shambles? If so, I would rather stick with Bush's plan.... even if it's not working so well right now.

I think it is a fair question for me, as a voter, to ask what changes I would be voting for. I was listening for it.... but never heard it. That largely shaped my decision when voting time came around.

You will not hear me defending the dems on this one...those fu*kers haven't had any original ideas in about ten years, which is why they haven't won an election since and why the only reason they won this one is because the republicans had finally screwed up so badly. The public had to vote the Republicans out, but they didn't really vote the Democrats in, there just isn't anyone else in our sh*tty two party system.