Comments on: Political Truce

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:09:49 +0000

Nice war you got in Iraq.

How much of the $15 Billion it was going to take to win do we still have remaining?

By: cfaller96

cfaller96 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:51:07 +0000

According to Quilly Mammoth (and President Bush and others):

elections = democracy

I disagree. Democracy requires many more institutions than elections, otherwise the Soviet Union yesterday, and Venezuela and Iran today, constitute democracies as well.

By: Mark Hansen

Mark Hansen — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:41:07 +0000

…?
According to W & Cheney we’ve already won so much (“we’re winning…”), so we can declare victory (if you like) and leave. The British have already declared victory, and are withdrawing (many countries have already done this). So, what are we waiting for?

Will Iraq fall into futher abyss? Since we are causing some of the violence now (anyone disagree with this?), I don’t see how it can get much worse; at least for any lenght of time.

Mark

By: Quilly Mammoth

Quilly Mammoth — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:51:20 +0000

Hey Jeff, just call me Quilly.

There was simmering sectarian violence. However every chart you look at shows an amazing increase in the operations of the death squads beginning in March, 2006.

I’ve never said everything was rosy, but the purple thumbs are important. Because democracy is the only course between two unacceptable options: Dhimmitude or Option Zero.

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:34:23 +0000

Me and Don Quixote trying to find a sliver of common ground between the Moonbats and the Wingnuts.

Whoever your are, do you or do you not insist on leaving American troops in Iraq forever?

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:33:52 +0000

Mammoth,
I know Tony and the folks at fox news say the sectarian strife started with the mosque bombing in 2/06 but if you were actually reading newspapers you would have seen that the death squads were operating in earnest by mid 2004 and any graph you want to do (Iraqi deaths, US deaths, number bombings, time the lights are on) shows stagnation or steady worsening over the last 4 years. You guys have this convenient fantasy that everything was rosy and purple thumbs until the Mosque blew up. It wasn’t and it ain’t.
As for this wonderful election as a sign of “success”,remember that the people elected a significant number of Mahdi Army members. In earlier days voters also elected Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin for that matter; it is the quality of elections that matters, not just that you have them.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:43:24 +0000

Does this mean I hit the Jerkpot?

By: Blackhawk

Blackhawk — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:27:22 +0000

Hey Gaius! Looks like you’ve got some new friends!

By: Quilly Mammoth

Quilly Mammoth — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:16:19 +0000

Wow, Gaius, you’ve sure attracted the Moonbat Patrol today. One thing about Moonbats…they have a remarkably short memory. In February of 2006 things in Iraq were looking better. A democratically elected Government had been elected, albeit with many Sunnis opting out, and violence was going down in the vast majority of the nation. Then Al Qaueda upped tha ante by attacking Shia’. Since then the nation of Iraq has been wracked with sectarian strife.

Lieberman is right. And so is Petraeus. As the General argued we never fought the War for Peace using the mistakes of Vietnam as guidance. Part of the problem with Vietnam is that once the enemy was defeated in area we would move on and let them “swim like fish” back into it. That has been a constant complaint of various Iraqi bloggers. This has been exacerbated by the increased focus by Iran on the area.

Petraeus has selected a team of warrior intellectuals to fight this phase. Including the hero of 73 Easting , COL H.R. McMaster. Also included is COL Pete Mansoor. All of whom have impeccable credentials in LIC warfare.

This is a change in course. Those that oppose it put lie to the claim that all they wanted was a change for “Stay the Course”.

As for Democratic’s wanting the enemy to win…what do you call Murtha’s call to hamstring the American forces so as to insure that?

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:01:53 +0000

Will someone please explain to me how DEMOCRATS will suffer damage to their reputation, but Republicans will get off scot free?

By: Kathy

Kathy — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:43:07 +0000

“The facts are that there will be a genocidal bloodbath in Iraq if we pull out precipitously and the entire nation will become a safe haven for terrorists.”

1. As opposed to what? You’re describing Iraq right now, and for the last two years.

2. Pull out precipitously? We’ve been there for four years! Obviously the mission failed, because Iraq was supposed to be a thriving democracy by now, not a safe haven for terrorists. The very fact that it IS a safe haven for terrorists demonstrates that the avowed purpose of the war is a failure.

By: cfaller96

cfaller96 — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:32:57 +0000

Regarding Joe Lieberman (and others), I think he suffers from what I call the “credibility entitlement” complex. Basically, he believes he should get the benefit of the doubt, because…well, because he believes he’s entitled to it.

It never occurs to him (and others) that

-when he/they say in a WSJ editorial a year ago that things are going great, and the strategy is working;

-but today he/they say that there haven’t been enough soldiers to properly implement a strategy;

that he/they are exposing themselves as complete liars. He simply expects to be believed, because, well, because we’ve never called him/them on it before.

Enough. We need to stop paying any bit of attention to those who have been so wrong about so many important things, only to see them turn around and pretend they did nothing wrong. They’re liars, and they’re a complete waste of our time.

By: jay k.

jay k. — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:30:03 +0000

jim,
while i think your suggestion is perfectly reasonable…the iraqis are already in default of the one benchmark that the whitehouse has publically discussed. they were supposed to have three battalions in baghdad two weeks ago. as of today, maybe half of those that the iraqi government commited to are there. so when do we say enuf already?

By: jeff

jeff — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:12 +0000

Mr. Harrison,
You won’t get anywhere here trying to make sense. Yes our presence is making it worse and yes it is our responsibility it got as bad as it did. But the folks in charge are not interested in “interim steps”. It is victory or nothing for these folks with “nothing” doomed to be an indefinite status quo (because victory by their WWII definitions, has been impossible for several years now)

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:35:45 +0000

Calling the Democrats pro-defeat isn’t analysis; it’s propaganda. Let’s pretend to be serious for a change.

Many of the most strident critics of the war are concerned about the consequences of a rapid American withdrawal. Juan Cole and others agree with Powell that we’ve broken the pot and now it’s ours. I don’t know if I agree with this notion. I acknowledge that the invasion made us responsible for the horrors we unleashed on the Iraqis, but I’m not sure if a continued American presence is really the way to make amends. But how about this as an interim step? Let us make a public and binding promise to remove all our troops from Iraq once certain benchmarks are achieved. As it is, the Iraqis have every reason to believe that we are planning on staying forever in order to remain the de facto masters of their country. An undertaking to leave wouldn’t solve everything, of course; but it would remove one of the main justifications for the resistance. What do you think?