Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

at the end of the day, I don't think it's difficult to make the argument, as toasty has many a times in this thread, that neither party has any concrete ideas on how to get us out of this mess (that for all intense purposes Bush created and the Republicans helped him along until this recent election cycle), but the positive is that we are at least allowed to discuss alternatives to the "Stay the Course" approach that has been force-fed down our throats for way too long.

Anything that promotes, encourages and allows intelligent and free discussion on Iraq is a step in a positive direction and better than the status quo.

Save Iraq. Save the world.

I like that. I am very down.

I don't understand how you got that from my response, but I could see you're a fan of Heroes.

[toasty]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

As the democrats attack the republicans but offer not other solution or input ... I ask you to be different and give me another viable solution.

I know this will not be popular, but if I'm being completely honest, I think the best plan of action -- at least from a military standpoint -- is to increase, in a significant way, the number of troops we have in Iraq and just go in there and clean shit out. I hate that idea, but we're clearly not going to win this thing any time soon doing what we're doing now, nor do I think that leaving the country in its current state is good for anyone. We need to do the ground version of shock and awe and just overwhelm their forces.

From a political standpoint, I would really advocate the idea of partitioning the country. Iraqis will always consider themselves Shi'ites, Sunnis or Kurds first, and Iraqis second. They owe no allegiance to their country, and foisting these folks together isn't really working in the absence of a dictator ruling with an iron fist to keep things stable.

[Jenks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

Anyone know Flyntt Leverett? Listened to this fella speak for a coulpe of hours on Cspan a few months ago. Yeah, Cspan, i guess i was bored. He gave a speech to a bunch of think tankers and nerds about his time in the NSA writing policy and arguing with Condi. He spoke a lot about what's going on in the middle east, and there WAS another direction on the table before we invaded Iraq...it was just ignored by Rumsfeld and Condi, which is why he ultimately quit the NSA. Pretty interesting to see two philosophies butt heads...his and condi's...anyway, here's a little bit of what he talked about if you don't feel like watching two hours of Cspan-

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/illusion_and_reality

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

an interesting read there, though I do think he has a tendecy to oversimplify a few things there.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

I'm pretty sure this actually was foreseen, and passed on to Bush. Wasn't there an intelligence estimate that was leaked/declassified a little bit ago that speaks to this? I don't honestly recall, but I'll see if I can't track it down and post it, if so.

It was foreseen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that most people in the middle east hate America. Before and after 9/11. And Iraq has nothing to do with it. Iraq just gives them a more recent and convenient excuse. But the hatred existed long before.

Just look at the reactions on the morning of 9/11. Muslims all over the world dancing in the streets. You'd think they had just won the World Cup or something.

Today, you see muslims protesting and burning US flags... and burning pictures of Bush in effigy. But when Clinton was president, they burned him in effigy too.

So.... I don't see how any serious person can claim ignorance about the level of hatred of America.

[asdf_admin]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

In no regard am I claiming that the general Muslim population would love America … that tension has been know for some time.

I am just claiming, that I think we did not expect the hate to be so strong and rooted. I believe there was this strong idea that if we did indeed remove the person in power, perhaps that would cause a change of heart. “Liberty”

The military is not a world police, they are trained effective killers.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

I know this will not be popular, but if I'm being completely honest, I think the best plan of action -- at least from a military standpoint -- is to increase, in a significant way, the number of troops we have in Iraq and just go in there and clean shit out. I hate that idea, but we're clearly not going to win this thing any time soon doing what we're doing now, nor do I think that leaving the country in its current state is good for anyone. We need to do the ground version of shock and awe and just overwhelm their forces.

From a political standpoint, I would really advocate the idea of partitioning the country. Iraqis will always consider themselves Shi'ites, Sunnis or Kurds first, and Iraqis second. They owe no allegiance to their country, and foisting these folks together isn't really working in the absence of a dictator ruling with an iron fist to keep things stable.

I agree. We've got to stop the fighting in a decisive manner.

Unfortunately, the problem isn't Iraq. It's Iran. They're the ones stirring this whole mess up. Unless we find a way to keep them out of Iraq, this fighting will continue. And that border is too big to police.

There are some people advocating that we seek to use diplomacy with Iran and Syria to end the Iraq violence. I think this is insane. If we capitulate to Iran, it will only speed their acquisition of nuclear weapons. If they get close enough to having nukes, then Israel will be forced to attack their weapons sites. They'll have no choice. Israel cannot allow Iran to go nuclear. If they do, it will be their doom. Ahmadinejad has all but promised it.

If Israel attacks Iran's weapons sites, it will only inflame more hatred towards them and, by associaton, us. We'll just see more and more violence like the recent battles in Lebanon.

No..... this situation is totally fucked if the Iraqi's can't get a unified government with a military strong enough to defend itself.

We can't even put Saddam back in power, because now everyone knows he doesn't have WMDs. Iran would have attacked Iraq long ago if they thought Saddam had no WMDs. But they though he had them, like everyone else in the world.... so they were scared. That gig is up now, though. No going back.

[asdf_admin]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

My favorite response to the Iraq situation (beats all critics, politicians, theorists, etc.), history will hold the true verdict of choices made. We truly do not know what the outcome will be, we all can only speculate. and that is the truth my friends.

[Lorn]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

^But it is fun to speculate, eh?

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

lets not talk about the past, this is about the future potential calamity of the republican party regaining control of all 4 parts. (2 houses, exec, judicial)



im baked right now, so i havent read much after asdf's love profession of another man.

[88Mariner]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

Some of you, it seems, have made an incorrect assumption that America voted FOR the Democrats. In reality, America voted AGAINST the Republicans.

Let's look at this: According to exit polls, what was the most important issue in the election? Iraq? Energy policy? Nope. According to CNN, 42% of voters said corruption was number one. Islamic terrorism came in at 40%....then the war in Iraq at 37%. In sum, it was an overwhelming rebuke of President Bush and the Republican party based on Iraq.

Let's look at corruption: You have scandals that elevated over the past few years, and being played up by the meida....the stench grew too great and voters couldn't ignore it anymore. Republican incompetence regarding the Foley incident was only adding insult to injury btw. Interesting, however, is that terrorism comes in second at 40%. The Democrats are the least-equipped party to ever deal with the issue of Islamic terrorism. That just shows you how far the Republicans have fallen, that they lost their on their signature issue. And.... if there were any other issues that caused America to vote against the Republican Party, it was illegal immigration. An i ssue Republicans have alsoe done nothing to change.

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

Some of you, it seems, have made an incorrect assumption that America voted FOR the Democrats. In reality, America voted AGAINST the Republicans.

Let's look at this: According to exit polls, what was the most important issue in the election? Iraq? Energy policy? Nope. According to CNN, 42% of voters said corruption was number one. Islamic terrorism came in at 40%....then the war in Iraq at 37%. In sum, it was an overwhelming rebuke of President Bush and the Republican party based on Iraq.

Let's look at corruption: You have scandals that elevated over the past few years, and being played up by the meida....the stench grew too great and voters couldn't ignore it anymore. Republican incompetence regarding the Foley incident was only adding insult to injury btw. Interesting, however, is that terrorism comes in second at 40%. The Democrats are the least-equipped party to ever deal with the issue of Islamic terrorism. That just shows you how far the Republicans have fallen, that they lost their on their signature issue. And.... if there were any other issues that caused America to vote against the Republican Party, it was illegal immigration. An i ssue Republicans have alsoe done nothing to change.

Good point. Most of the democrats who unseated republicans this time around are what we call "Blue Dog" democrats. They are moderates, if not outright conservatives wearing blue shirts. This was hardly a win for liberalism.

Secondly, it is common through history for a second term president to lose party control. It has happened to nearly every one.

The next two years will yield little or nothing in terms of legislation. I will explain why:

The democrat party is fractured. It consists of numerous special-interest groups. Evironmentalists, gays/lesbians, blacks, hispanics, blue-dogs, labor unions. So... if a democrat congressman wants to introduce a new bill, he has to get it past all these groups. Each group is going to tack on their own stuff. The black caucus will add on giveaways.... The the hispanics are going to do the same.... Then they have to get the Blue-Dog dems to agree on it, but they are going to disagree with the Black and Hispanic Caucuses provisions.... And then, if you can get past all that, the gays and environmentalists are going to have their way with it. By the time you get done, the bill won't resemble anything close to the original. So.... let's say you get past that, and then the House votes on it and it passes. Well, then you've got to get it past the Senate. Here is where you really run into a problem. The Dems only have a 1 seat majority in the Senate. In order to force legislation through, you need a 10 seat majority. Otherwise you can't override a fillibuster. And even then the president has a veto, and the dems don't have a 2/3 majority in the House to override the veto. So, we're not likely to see much new legislation for the next few years.

[thesightless]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

. The Dems only have a 1 seat majority in the Senate. In order to force legislation through, you need a 10 seat majority. Otherwise you can't override a fillibuster. And even then the president has a veto, and the dems don't have a 2/3 majority in the House to override the veto. So, we're not likely to see much new legislation for the next few years.

which is why i wanted them to gain a voting majority(the plus 10) in the senate and have the repubs keep the house. more would have gotten accomplished in regards to domestic policy. now it will be one unseless debate on iraq after another. we arent leaving we cant. we wont. not even hilary would walk away with the mess there.

[rubyraks]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

The democrat party is fractured. It consists of numerous special-interest groups. Evironmentalists, gays/lesbians, blacks, hispanics, blue-dogs, labor unions. So... if a democrat congressman wants to introduce a new bill, he has to get it past all these groups. Each group is going to tack on their own stuff. The black caucus will add on giveaways.... The the hispanics are going to do the same.... Then they have to get the Blue-Dog dems to agree on it, but they are going to disagree with the Black and Hispanic Caucuses provisions.... And then, if you can get past all that, the gays and environmentalists are going to have their way with it. By the time you get done, the bill won't resemble anything close to the original. So.... let's say you get past that, and then the House votes on it and it passes. Well, then you've got to get it past the Senate. Here is where you really run into a problem. The Dems only have a 1 seat majority in the Senate. In order to force legislation through, you need a 10 seat majority. Otherwise you can't override a fillibuster. And even then the president has a veto, and the dems don't have a 2/3 majority in the House to override the veto. So, we're not likely to see much new legislation for the next few years.

Not to defend the dems (I hate em just as much), but why not let things play out first before you go to the 90s excuse for the problems with the democrats...I'm sure given enough time, they may even show you some new reasons why they suck!

[subterFUSE]

Re: Scary thought. thanks mr. rich

Not to defend the dems (I hate em just as much), but why not let things play out first before you go to the 90s excuse for the problems with the democrats...I'm sure given enough time, they may even show you some new reasons why they suck!

I was just pointing out why nothing will get done legislatively over the next 2 years.