All Bullshit Aside: Here Are the Issues

[domer]

What happens if we withdraw from Iraq, gradually or even more precipitously, even for deployment in surrounding areas? Would the political situation move toward resolution or toward exacerbation? Would a horrendous bloodletting ensue? Even more importantly for world peace, would the conflict take on a regional character, perhaps pitting Shiite Iran against the "stable" Sunni-Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt? What would this possibility mean for the entire stability of the world political system? Notably, crying debacle, Democrats have given no sustained analysis or discussion to these issues.

On the other hand, it is important to note from my perspective that this dilemma was totally unnecessary. It was created entirely by Bush's swagger and neo-con steel-fisted diplomatic concepts. As we can now see in retrospect, a continued Iraqi regime under Saddam -- yielding far fewer atrocities than now occur there daily -- would have stood as a "natural" barrier to Iranian ambitions, something this president's father knew ... and acted upon.

Bush is living in a fantasy world serving at once the phantasm of our national interest -- I still think he's convinced himself of the efficacy of his policies -- but also his stubborn, "I refuse to lose streak," which dovetails in his mind with his legacy, a matter now looming large for him. From an objective standpoint, if I can presume to assume that mantle, Bush's new strategy faces overwhelming if not prohibitive odds. By all indicators, it seems, it is a gamble not worth taking.

Yet, here comes the circularity of the problem: what happens if we withdraw? Crucially, to this very day, to my knowledge no opposition politician has painted a strategic vision of how we leave Iraq as well as can be expected and also how we can position ourselves for the long struggle with violent, radical Islam. Indeed, what would a "loss," which I'm willing to absorb, mean to the appeal and spread and virulence of radical Islam? Can that be countered now by joining the real issue as I see it: a broad-based cultural, political, social, economic, theological, etc. campaign to enable the Muslim world to accept the radicals' real enemies, the moderate Muslims, and thereby ooze the radicals out of haven, habitat and support as their ideology is routed by a true or truer Islam more in tune with reality and its own principles? While this is being done, of course, as appropriate, all military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets should be brought to bear on the problem.

[Michael Tee]

<<What happens if we withdraw from Iraq . . . ? >>

Of course that's a legitimate issue. 

<<Would the political situation move toward resolution or toward exacerbation? Would a horrendous bloodletting ensue? . . . would the conflict take on a regional character . . . ?  What [about] the entire stability of the world political system? Notably, crying debacle, Democrats have given no sustained analysis or discussion to these issues.>>

IMHO, these are unknowns.  The plain fact is, nobody can make an authoritative prediction.  Way too many variables.

<<On the other hand, it is important to note from my perspective that this dilemma was totally unnecessary. It was created entirely by Bush's swagger and neo-con steel-fisted diplomatic concepts. As we can now see in retrospect, a continued Iraqi regime under Saddam -- yielding far fewer atrocities than now occur there daily -- would have stood as a "natural" barrier to Iranian ambitions, something this president's father knew ... and acted upon.>>

If the votes are there, impeach the bastard.  If not, just move on.  You can all sing "We won't be fooled again," but Michael Tee knows for a fact that you will.  Nobody ever said democracies come with a guarantee of infallibility.

[BT]

You title your thread as all bullshit aside then yo start pushing the manure by the truckload.

This isn't Bush's War. This is an American War. .....and until that issue is agreed upon then there is no sense taking your laments seriously.

[domer]

It was an "optional war" and he opted. Simple as that. Now, of course, it is an American war -- one, I hasten to add, that America wants to exit like from a burning theater -- but too many are hung up on the causes of our predicament rather than on the solutions going forward, if there really are any. In this panorama Bush appears as a prime mover, fucking it up the first time and now expecting a wary public nonetheless to follow a failed leader to an unknown destiny. To do this, in addition to a heavy dose of reality, Bush needs a large measure of credibility, something he has lost precipitously and deeply. The only way to reclaim the tatters of his credibility is to talk straight, which implies candor about the whole mission, something he flatly refuses to do. That's another dilemma: the dynamics of a failed leader who's lost his credibility going to the trough one more time to trade on that very commodity. Mainly, I don't concern myself with that, focusing instead on the policy questions I have listed.

Oh, and fuck you.

[BT]

Now, of course, it is an American war -- one, I hasten to add, that America wants to exit like from a burning theater -- but too many are hung up on the causes of our predicament rather than on the solutions going forward, if there really are any.

Do you not read your own posts.
There is always a Bush zinger in them. Always.

What is strange is,  if i recall correctly, you were for this "optional"  war when it started.

I presume that your logic at the time was based on careful analysis and not some marching to the beat of the majority at that time, though your turnaround could fall into that same follow the crowd pattern.

Oh and go fuck yourself.

[sirs]

It was an "optional war" and he opted. Simple as that. Now, of course, it is an American war -- one, I hasten to add, that America wants to exit like from a burning theater -- but too many are hung up on the causes of our predicament rather than on the solutions going forward, if there really are any. ..... Mainly, I don't concern myself with that, focusing instead on the policy questions I have listed.  Oh, and fuck you.

It's amazing how good Domer is at posting questions & condemnations, all the while never actually posing any solutions or substantive ideas in addressiong those criticisms/condemnations.  Gotta love the consistency however

[Michael Tee]

domer:  <<Bush is living in a fantasy world serving at once the phantasm of our national interest -- I still think he's convinced himself of the efficacy of his policies -- but also his stubborn, "I refuse to lose streak," which dovetails in his mind with his legacy, a matter now looming large for him. From an objective standpoint, if I can presume to assume that mantle, Bush's new strategy faces overwhelming if not prohibitive odds. By all indicators, it seems, it is a gamble not worth taking.>>

Is that an issue?  Whether the gamble's worth it or not? 

You didn't define the terms of the gamble.

If the gamble is on "Iraqi democracy," it's a no-brainer - - WTF does it matter to the U.S.A. if Iraq becomes a democracy or not?  OF COURSE, it's not worth it.  It's not worth the life of a single American.  If they want democracy badly enough, they'll settle their differences amongst themselves and make a democracy, and if they don't want it badly enough, they'll wind up with whatever works for them.  Either way, none of America's fucking business.  It's SO much not America's business that no intelligent observer could ever believe that it was or is the cause of anything happening in Iraq now or at any time in the past.

If the gamble is for a reliable source of energy in future times of acute scarcity, it's a different story.  Depends on how highly you value oil, and how highly you value human life, specifically, the lives of Arabs and the lives of the American underclass.  And I think we all know what value the average American puts on the lives of either the Arab general population or the American underclass.

[Michael Tee]

domer, Prince of Denmark:

<<Yet, here comes the circularity of the problem: what happens if we withdraw? >>

Well, domer, let me break it to you:  you don't know and I don't know.  Your "President" tells you what will happen, but he's a liar, a coward, and a moron.  Since he knows absolutely NOTHING about the region in question, his "opinion" is whatever his clique of militarists, fascists and right-wing Likudniks tell him will happen, and since his track record is one of unadulterated lies, misrepresentations, false predictions, ridiculous claims of premature victory and disastrous errors, I wouldn't put too much credibility in any of his predictions of the calamities that would follow a cessation of his illegal occupation of another sovereign state.

<<Crucially, to this very day, to my knowledge no opposition politician has painted a strategic vision of how we leave Iraq as well as can be expected and also how we can position ourselves for the long struggle with violent, radical Islam. >>

Time to grow up, domer; no magic solutions on the horizon.  The present mess calls for an obvious solution, but the Prince of Denmark won't make a move until he finds a solution to ALL his problems.  (I would take issue, BTW, with your presupposition of a "long struggle with violent radical Islam," which is just complete and utter bullshit, but that's clearly a whole nuther topic.)

<< Indeed, what would a "loss," which I'm willing to absorb, mean to the appeal and spread and virulence of radical Islam? >>

Good old domer.  As long as he can pose a question which no one can answer about the future outcome of Problem A, he will be so paralyzed by fear of the worst Problem A outcome that he can't take the obvious steps necessary to resolve Problem B.

<<Can that be countered now by joining the real issue as I see it: a broad-based cultural, political, social, economic, theological, etc. campaign to enable the Muslim world to accept the radicals' real enemies, the moderate Muslims, and thereby ooze the radicals out of haven, habitat and support as their ideology is routed by a true or truer Islam more in tune with reality and its own principles? While this is being done, of course, as appropriate, all military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets should be brought to bear on the problem.>>

Absolutely hilarious.  The title of the thread is "Here are the issues"  (presumably at stake in Iraq)  Only in the tortured mind of a domer would these morph into the broader issues of the supposed intramural Islamic culture wars (moderates vs. violent radicals) which may or may not have anything to do with the real cultural divides in real Islam.  Do you REALLY think that Bush - - or to be fair to the little prick, ANY American President - - has what it takes to orchestrate a "broad-based cultural political social economic theological etc."  ("etc." - - was something left out???) - - these guys are lucky if they can just do a creditable job of managing the military aspect of the operation, domer, you're treating the individual President as if he were the force of history itself.

Nothing more pathetic than a man in over his head who is unable to admit fundamental error, unable to admit defeat, and goes on needlessly squandering the lives and money of other people to prove his point.  If the people of Iraq are hell-bent on slaughtering each other, it's gonna go on as it is, with or without the Americans.  Probably without them, it'll end a lot faster when one faction rises to the top - - as Saddam's did - - and then imposes a kind of rigid order-through-state-terror on the rest of them, which paradoxically produces a kind of peace and prosperity for most of the people most of the time.

And on the other hand, it's only when the U.S. gets involved - - by encouraging and assisting Saddam to attack Iran, or by intervening in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which should have been resolved by the Arab states themselves, probably by allowing it to happen, Kuwait being just a totally artificial creation of the British under their colonial policy of "divide and rule" - - that the blood really starts to flow in massive quantities.

[Lanya]

We can't keep this up and keep our own defenses strong.

It's like asking a sick person to give blood and donate a kidney, all while the person is 1) undergoing chemo 2) having dialysis 3) undergoing surgery and 4) hemorrhaging.


Well, you CAN do all that.  But the patient dies.

[yellow_crane]

Frame up the issues with the greatest logic you can.  Your personal logic usually deducts to  the refrains of "can't we all just be friends?"

The issues of which you speak are in contention with the reality of the Neocons.  They rubbed shit on the United Nations, and engaged in no diplomacy whatsoever with anybody, ever since.

Did you watch his speech?

The whole world waiting to see some reasonable compunction, see him get emotional and flinch were disappointed, as he coolly and calculatingly spoke his message without inflection.  He had to work on it to keep it that clean, that free of emotion.  My guess is chemical help, and that would be a kinder theory.

You would have to consult a voice analyzer to recognize any Bush inflection--it was flat, mono-toned and matter of fact.  Missing was the slightest passion.  It was a job of ubercareful script delivery control.

It was delivered with a complete reversal of his native emotional software.  The message and the delivery were created, carefully.

This would be reading Neocon points with a Big Brother voice, neutral but still beyond challenge.

In the facts, he robotically but securely gives the same extant Neocon plan: get what you can of the Middle East at all costs, no matter what the country thinks.  What matters is what Grubber Feuhrer Krystal thinks.

There is going to be a showdown.  Many Democrats are hating this.  They don't mind voting, but they mind committing.  This showdown is true, and could only be true, because the Neocons have lost their vise grip on the media.  Now the Democrats, long hiding and counting who knows what, will have to actually step forward and define themselves on the Middle East issue.  Some of them will have as much difficulty in embracing an unsavory issue as you have.  Some inevitable ugliness just happens, despite the finest Domer remediation.  While most were too bewildered to respond, due to the rank corruption in waging the war and the Katrina response, you were, if I remember, always giving the benefit of the doubt to Bush.

Lofty notions of what should be will continue to fall flat.  The war is a civil one, and will remain unwinnable as fought.  You might start to realize the misplacement of your gilded guesswork when you realize that there is nothing in the Neocon position that will embrace any discussion.  We invaded without discussion, which occured because we were misled.  Talking of compromize and negotiation in diplomatic terms will not be possible until they are gone, no matter the surrounding outrage.  Remember Watergate!  They did not give an inch, and had to be brought to their knees.  Marching tin Neocons and their Nixonian precursors do not know retreat or retract; they are mad like Hitler, reduced to commanding the war on table top on their own terms to the very end.

The key is to impeach.  When Pelosi took impeachment off the table, she tacitly gave pardons and paroles to many Democrats, and let's only hope that she was not swapping spit with the impish daemon wearing the zionist armband.  We are beyond your multi-colored bandaids, your bouncing ball pronoucements, Domer, I am afraid.

Get real or get back.

If they are impeached, it will be over.  America was healed to some degree because Nixon was brought to impeachment, but was cut short by the strange full and complete pardon by eagle scout Gerald.    But without bringing consequence to crime, we will turn over and over and over like the deadly theatre in Baghdad, until it is gratefully stopped by removing the insulting faction.

[BT]

We can't keep this up and keep our own defenses strong

If not now, when.

That is the real issue that seems to be avoided.

[BT]

Yellow,

I certainly hope the democrats attempt a coup d'etat via impeachment.

[yellow_crane]

You are only sure of yourself because it has been taken off the table.

But go ahead, explain why it couldn't happen.




And it wouldn't be a coup d'etat, but a coup caught and throttled by a coup de grace.

[domer]

Here I sit, targeted and "vilified" by both sides, when all I do is adopt the diction and syntax of any (wannabe) American politician, and struggle manfully to get a handle on this problem, intelligently and in good faith. If that "tack" doesn't work, I suggest we scrap the playbook itself and ready ourselves for a tumultuous time indeed.

[domer]

Nothing Bush is doing now in Pelosi's post-pledge period is anywhere near a high crime or misdemeanor. As for the entry into the war itself, from the avalanche of material that has been produced on it (though more may come out), I do not believe Bush "lied" our way into war so much as he fumbled us into it in a march of stupidity, stubborness and true belief. Neither is that portrait of his behavior a high crime or misdemeanor.