To Leave or Not to Leave

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) ............. “the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreements with the government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.”

That does not sound like anybig deal.  So they won’t ask the Iraqis..................... we already knew that much.

Anyway its all smoke and mirrors.  They have no intention of leaving.  The bases are built, they are being fortified and extended, they are clearly permanent bases, so who the hell is going to believe they have a plan of pulling out.

If that was on the cards you would at least have heard the next president of the US, whichever one she is, talking about withdrawing but they are only talking the same language as the chimp.  Read those tea leaves and see if you get anything different!

I mean, what the hell.  wew know why they attacked and occupied, fuck all the bullshit excuses before and since. We knew some of it in 2003 and now we know the rest.  Need a new big Middle East Base, Saudi’s use by date is nearing end.  Need to secure the oil for USA. We know about the OIL for Euros, which Saddam started and which is spreading to Iran and Venezuala, and the Iranian Oil Bourse due to open in 2006 trading in Euros..  Now know the whole story on that front.  Well maybe we never know the whole story, but you know what I mean.

Oops hit the submit button by accident too quick.  Also Rabbit leaves his battered spelling and syntax as always.  If it is good enough for a POTUS, it is good enough for a rabbit.

Of course Israel has a great deal to say about US foreign policy, you are their attack dogs after all, and getting shot of Saddam and Iraq, as an entity was always high on their agenda.

Lastly, but the thing which will probably come to oust all the other reasons when the history books are written, the real target is Iran.  This is all just the ground work to prepare for and set up that next phase of the PNAC master plan, which is itself but a part of the Illuminati means to their ends. 

Lets hope that they do all manage to bring about their own ends, and not ours.

But if by terrorism we mean the systematic threatening, torturing and/or killing of civilians to force them to accept a political or military situation they wouldn’t otherwise sanction, then the United States has committed far more acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity than the insurgents in Iraq

That’s funny. Ten million Iraqis voted for Iraqi political parties because 150,000 American soldiers told them to.

Let the shrilling begin.

By these terms, there is little chance of U.S. pullout from Iraq any time soon, since by the Defense Department’s own reckoning, the insurgency could last well over a decade.

More disingenuous crap. I guess someone forgot to tell Levine (or he is conveniently forgetting) that the end of the insurgency is not considered a necessary prerequisite for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Enabling an Iraqi Security Force that can deal with the situation, is.

president’s plan fails to acknowledge that for most Iraqis it is the United States—not the “insurgency”—that is the primary “enemy” in the country;

Again, Levine is being selective (is he suffering from Alzheimers?). If he is getting this from polling information, he is leaving out (forgetting again) that the majority of Iraqis are 1) grateful for the overthrow of Saddam, and 2) don’t want the Americans to leave until AFTER the political situation is stabilized.

in the almost three years since the current invasion, the United States has been unable to rebuild much—if not most—of the infrastructure it destroyed,

Levine needs to stop reading only the headlines from MSM news sources. Much of the infrastructure has been rebuilt, Iraqi income and wages are soaring, and the insurgency is responsible for a large share of the infrastructural damage that Levine alludes to.

Can anyone say “cherry-picking”?

by demonizing Iraq’s insurgents as “perverse” and “against humanity,” the Bush administration has precluded the possibility of a negotiated settlement and full withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Ah, now I understand. Levine did not read the National Strategy for Victory.

You see, one of the key elements in the political track of the Strategy is to isolate the insurgency by engaging Iraqi’s who current reject the democratic process. Far from demonizing them, the Bush administration wants to ‘coopt’ them by encouraging their participation within a democratic process.

But, there is nothing wrong with demonizing someone who encourages someone to strap on a bomb and deliberately target and kill innocents, all in the name of terrorizing the general populace. Of course, Levine is, again, forgeting that the Sunni insurgents publically stated that they would not target polling stations and Iraqis who voted last week.

A far cry from last January or earlier this October.

So much for failing to engage the insurgents in democracy, huh?

few of the alternative plans by Democrats and their allies are much better. On the official level, perhaps the most prominent statement by a “liberal hawk” was Sen. Joseph Biden’s (D-Del.) November 21 remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, in which he accused the Bush administration of “misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq, and misleading on the war.”

Pity Levine is not quoting Joseph Lieberman, the Dems true liberal hawk.

Biden, is, always has, always will be, a political operative with no scruples towards the truth, a reputation he earned a few presidential contests back.

America’s fundamental goals are to stop Iraq from being a haven for terrorists and to prevent a full-blown civil, and ultimately regional, war. But we’ve already lost on the first count, while on the second our continued presence will likely catalyze, rather than slow, the march toward regional anarchy.

1) “It ain’t over till it is over”. And even L. Kaplan at The New Republic has acknowledged that Bush hit at least a three-bagger with the last elections.

2) No it isn’t. If Iraq was slipping into anarchy, this last election would not have registered a 8.9 on the political Richter Scale.

this plan calls for 80,000 U.S. troops to be redeployed by the end of 2006 (“Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists,”) [...] This sounds like a big improvement over Bush’s open-ended commitment of more than 100,000 troops

Except, of course, the only reason we will likely be able to redeploy that many troops in the next 12 months is because of the successes on the ground thus far. The only difference between the 80,000 troop redeployment and the open-ended commitment of more than 100,000 troops is the first mandates a withdrawal before ensuring the timing is appropriate.

The second, of course, is not a mandate. It is making a commitment that, if needed, we will stay. But as I have indicated already, indications are good that they won’t be needed.

Bush, unlike the Democrats, is merely not counting eggs that haven’t yet hatched.

it admits that attacks have skyrocketed under the Bush administration. But without this historical context, a successful plan against the insurgency and the larger problem of terrorism cannot be developed.

Again with the journalistic misrepresentation. It should read, attacks have skyrocketed since 9/11.

Despite the attempt on the left to repaint the problem as caused by Bush, the problem actually predates Bush. I do feel for the terrorists, though. Imagine that your greatest achievement, 9/11, failed to achieve your prime objective. That is to push the Americans out of the Middle East.

Thank God Bush was at the helm!

Zarqawi serves American interests so well that if he didn’t exist the United States would have had to invent him.

Well, I guess Levine is publishing his rhetoric on the right website, after all.

In such an environment, simplicity is the best option for politicians and activists seeking to begin a process of withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. The longer and more detailed the plan, the more likely it falls into the very political, ideological and strategic traps that have made such a mess of the occupation to begin with.

Oh. So I guess Richard Holbrooke’s admonisment to create a 500 page plus peace document, ala Bosnia, before doing anything, is no longer on the table with the Democrats?

Thank God!

Can anyone say “cherry-picking”?

Here is another cherry, be sure not to choke on the pit.

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops

David, thanks.

I wanted to point out that a lot of the language the media and government uses is patronizing crap. I suggest that if we really want to “win the hearts and minds” of Iraqis, we might want to empathize with them to such a degree that we don’t see much point in bombing them.

The whole idea that if we weren’t fighting them “over there” that we’d be fighting them “over here” just floors me. Who are these “terrorists” who can pull off 9/11, but find fighting us in Iraq to be a sound strategy? If we pull out are they going to say, “Oh, no---now we have to fight over there”. Seems to me like taking the fight over there just made it more convenient for the “terrorists”. 

Many Iraqis consider the insurgency to be a national movement and don’t want outsiders to join the fight, btw.

Though I agree we should pull out completely, I have to say that we did not “lose the hearts and minds” of the Iraqis because we never won them.

And all this talk about elections and rebuilding is crap. We all know the money is being looted and a lot of it can’t even be accounted for, it was so blatantly ripped off. Good grief, Halliburton brought in Indians and Phillipinos to work in Iraq.

And if anyone here would like to walk up to an Iraqi who lost their house and family to our bombs and tell them that they should look on the bright side---they voted---then I heartily encourage that person to do so.

It’s so much bull talking about “victory”.  Iraqis have to deal with losses that can’t be repaid for what?!?! They did nothing to deserve this. The people of Iraq did nothing to us, and to keep making excuses and trying to make it look like we did them favors with our unjustified attack is chauvinistic hubris at best.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
Mahatma Ghandi

Jay,

You responded to most of my underlines added while reading Levine’s article. It seems useless to try to make a reasonable comment on this site — either most readers are still rejecting anything from Bush due to being Gored in his first election, or simply do not believe this is a real war. They see conspiracy in every action.

Bush is not my first choice as President, but he was the only choice when it came time to vote. Many things could have been done better in Iraq, especially in the post invasion phase. Those of us who are old enough to remember WW2 are continually puzzled at the naive questions asked and the wild criticisms. Obviously a lot of these writers have never felt truly threatened, or the need for secrets.

Bush’s recent speeches should have been sooner and more often. Admission of mistakes is far better than unanswered accusations.

If the general population were brought into the action as volunteers teaching defensive techniques for dealing with CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) attacks, if would be less remote and easy to dismiss 9/11 as a one-time fluke. Most people have forgotten the whole list of attacks because they were not in the U.S. proper.

Just this weekend I learned (from military people who have been there) that we are not only restoring their infrastructure, we are giving them a modern, more efficient one.

Example: Baghdad’s electrical grid, water and sewer systems were actually not unified systems. There were multiple segments. The electrical was composed of nine separate ones. Similar with the sewer.

Over 3,000 schools have been built. How they choose to teach is up to them, but there is hope for other than only the boys and other than Islamic indoctrination.

The idea that it is “all about oil” is a cop-out. Where would we be without oil?  Oil was a big factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions the paving company is run by pacifists. Should the meek ever inherit the earth, they won’t be able to hold on to it without the U.S military. The South Koreans have been protected for fifty years. We occupied Japan for years until they could handle their democratic government for themselves. Likewise with W. Germany through the Berlin airlift and the long Cold War.
----------------

David,
As for the Ghandi quote...wars are fought for the living and their future. His pacifism, while sacrificial on his part, only worked because of those willing to defend the rights of expression which he used.

whattheheck,

I would disagree only with your comment that it is useless to try and make reasonable comments on this site.

There are others who read this site without participating much.

It is only pointless to expect a rational response from the usual suspects.

Hey, David.

Here is some more cherries…

Bush’s overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism, up from 48 percent in the November poll.

Up by 8 to 11 points in just over a month!

How’s them pits?

Hi What the Heck,

Exactly who was defending the the rights of expression Ghandi used?

----------

Hi Jay,

I wonder how the Iraqis feel?

David,

I have quoted numerous polls here and at other ITT topics that indicate that, while the Iraqis would like the American troops to leave as soon as possible, which is certainly reasonable, the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time.

That there is animosity and resentment to be sure, particularly among the Sunnis, does not change that fact.

David,

In Ghandi’s case it would have been the British most of the time. Had he (or anyone else peacefully protesting) been in Saddam’s control, or in China today he would most likely had died a bit fatter and much younger.

Jay,

Point well taken regarding the possibility of silent readers.  I’ve read so much of the verbal jousting on here I guess I came to believe few would bother to stick around. Too much of it seems to be just for the satisfaction of one-upmanship or, perhaps I should say put-downmanship.

I’ve decided to come here less often. Too depressing. It is a lot more encouraging to talk to real people who can give their own impressions of the progressin Iraq. Not all of it is upbeat. Of course they have had some negative experiences by Iraqis who are impatient for restoration of services or feel we should leave. But the good things they relate like playing with the kids and their mothers thanking them make it all worthwhile.

Except for you not any comment on here from the usual suspects about the massive Iraqi voter turnout.  Probably hoping it is a mistake.

It seems to me that since there are so few secrets anymore if the election stats were faked we would be hearing the reports by now — especially at this site. 

They would be shouting with glee.

I hear you.

I left for a short while for the same reason, though David was sure I’d be back.

I guess he knows me better than I do. But I come now only for the rebuttal.

Shameless promotion - feel free to leave a little graffiti at my site. Hardly anyone there, but that doesn’t trouble me. I have a Letters to the Editor section, now, so people can comment about anything they wish.

while the Iraqis would like the American troops to leave as soon as possible, which is certainly reasonable, the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time.

<blockquote>• 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;</b>

Seems like a contradiction to me Jay. I would welcome any references you have to polls that indicate otherwise.

OK What the Heck, I will humor you.

Yes, there was good voter turnout in the Iraqi elections.

Jay, I knew you would be back. I detected a masochistic streak in you long ago ;)

No. I am tired of looking things up for people, especially when I have previously posted them.

Repeatedly.

OK. Don’t post any references to support your assertion.

Would you care to rebut the apparent contradiction between the poll I referenced and the allegation you made that the Iraqis themselves mostly do not believe now is the time for American troops to leave.

Have the Iraqis told you when they want the American troops to leave their country?

PART 1:
Too whattheheck, David in Canada, Jay and well everyone else:
I’d like to point out the main problem with ITT that neither of the three groups that are shown in its boards will point out.

First the three groups: 1. The writers (obviously)
2. Democrats
3. Conservatives
(Potentially you could add a fourth group consisting of foreigners but this group nearly exclusively agrees with the Democrat’s loyalist)

Now before I begin I must point out that whenever I post I am consistently castrated as tool of the conservatives or a right winger (by the Democrat’s posters) and if you read what i have to write I obviously am not.

Now on to the biggest problem with ITT, here it goes:
If you read this article it shows the problem in a perfect manner, although nearly all of Salim’s articles are great for this too). It goes along with the basic guidelines for articles on ITT which are essentially: 1. Attack the Bush administration (although I agree with this largely and disagree with Bush on nearly everything for now I am just pointing out the facts)…
Than they go on to: 2. Show some policy of the Democrats which would be largely better than that of Bush
And finally: 3. Show some sympathy for any of the following groups(depending on the topic) a. minorities, b. women, c. academics, d. peace activists, and e. activists in general.

Now when you look at this it seems all and good as this is a liberal “progressive” news source, however think about this in the context of the article. What solutions or other avenues does ITT explain in the article, well we have three:

1. Senator Joe Biden’s, which quoting the article includes such gems as:
A. “Iraq will not become a model democracy any time soon,”
B. “he accused the Bush administration of “misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq, and misleading on the war.”
C. “Biden argues that America’s fundamental goals are to stop Iraq from being a haven for terrorists and to prevent a full-blown civil, and ultimately regional, war.”
(and yes for all of those of you who will tell me that ITT doesnt like or accept Biden’s solution I already know that so save it ok)

2.  Rep John Burtha’s solution(and now thats funny and you will see why soon) which ITT details as:
A. “clearer, more pragmatic, and in one respect, profound: He calls simply for a coherent “exit strategy” that would bring all the troops home in the near future.”
B.  “"Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months” (PLEASE REMEMBER THE SIX MONTHS PART AS IT IS CRUCIAL IF YOU READ ON)(Also it is important to recognize that in the article this is largely the strategy which ITT backs)

3. And Rep. Barbara Lee’s plan which includes according to ITT:
A. “the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreements with the government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.” (A strategy which ITT seems unable to accept but does not blast like it does Bush’s or Biden’s)

PART 2:
Please think about all of this and consider the following:
1. RALPH NADER advocated a six month withdrawl plan during the 2004 campaign, yet ITT has not mentioned Nader or his plan in any of their discussions on Iraq instead always giving credit to the Democrats.
2. ITT claims to be such a great news source for the American left(and I think its pretty damn good but has alot of flaws). Now the American left would certainly contain in it the anti war movement and pro-peace movement right? Well while claiming to represent these people ITT consistently touts the greatness of so many Democrats(yes I know they do knock a few of them, but it is rare) while blasting the Bush administration(which it well deserves), yet it fails to ever mention Nader even during the campaign in 2004 when it was clear Nader was the only anti war candidate that was available to the American people(or available to some Americans but we will speak of that soon) and thus we would expect that a news magazine who speaks to the anti war and pro peace would tout the Nader campaign or at least mention it right? Nope look at the past year or hell past couple of years including the issues during the campaign Nader was never mentioned(except during the boards and usually by me). Moreover compare that with the coverage(mostly good, or well at the very least bad but well you should still vote for him “Anybody but Bush” mantra is applicable here) which ITT gave to John Kerry, to supposedly please or encourage their anti war readers they gave us a pro war candidate, but hey he’s a Democrat and that was enough to get most of you idiots to love him. And if your one of those tools who thinks that Nader is an egomaniac(which if you read any of his books and look at what hes accomplished no educated person can actually say) than think about the coverage ITT gave to the only anti war party! The Green Party during the 2004 campaign and since has been completely ignored by ITT. Anyone who reads the 10 key beliefs of the Greens should understand they are an anti war party yet in this debate about the war ITT conviently leaves them out of their pages along with Nader.
3. This Iraq thing its about democracy huh? Both the Democrats and Republicans often state this. I am not debating this statement but merely am here to point out a fallacy in it as far as ITT and the Democrats go. If we want to install democracy in Iraq wouldn’t it help if we maybe, just maybe took democracy seriously here at home huh? What I am speaking of here reflects on the actions of the Democrats during the 2004 campaign in which they systematically brought lawsuit after lawsuit in any state they could against the Nader campaign and to a lesser degree David Cobb’s campaign(but you wouldnt know who Cobb is b/c ITT and almost all media whether liberal or conservative ignored him). These lawsuits were meant to have two goals.

A. Through these suits the Democrats could drain funds from both campaigns by waging lengthy legal battles in the courts(which they clearly had an advantage in as well as in many states judges are elected and thus many are Democrats and will side with their party b/c they know if they dont they wont see the money they need for reelection).
And
B. When successful these suits would keep Nader off the ballot in that state(and as stated Cobb but too a much lesser extent) and thus the Democrats could corner progressives whom would have voted for Nader or Cobb into voting for Kerry as their real anti-war candidate would not be available on the ballots.

Yet since and during the election what have you heard on ITT about these actions which are truely undemocratic(As no matter what your ideology I beleive we can all agree that limiting the choices of voters is certainly undemocratic)? You’ve heard nothing, you can’t cite one article on ITT than even barely mentions this b/c they dont want you to know about this they would never dare speak out against the Democrats b/c they have fell into the pathetic group of persons willing to accept anything as long as its not Bush and than would dare not question the Democrats on this as to them the Democrats are the only option in fighting against Bush.(It also should be stated that the ACLU, an organization which I used to be a card carrying member of helped these ambushes on democracy against the Nader campaign, dare i ask if it could be because nearly all of their funding comes from Democrats...hmmmmm.) Oh and please dont forget how ITT continues to “save” and “defend” democracy by taking every chance they get to state how Bush shouldn’t have won the 2000(or to a lesser extent 2004 election, which at its core is an attack on Nader), yet while doing this attack on Bush they feel it not necessary to discuss the previously mentioned attack on democracy committed by the Democrats themselves.

4. The liberal-progressive issues which the Democrats dont support, or show mild support for, how much are they discussed on ITT. I am speaking of such issues and stances as:
A. The ‘living wage’ of $10 an hour being implemented(Nader and Greens for this majority of Democrats against)
B. The fight against the War on Drugs(Nader and Greens against the racist wasteful war on drugs, and Democrats are split coming close to 50-50, more likely 40-60 in favor of continuing it)
C.Publicly financed elections(Nader and Greens for, Democrats mostly against, probably about 80-20 with 80 % being against)
D. Instant Runoff Voting(Nader and Greens for, Democrats nearly entirely against)
E. The fact that many of Bush’s biggest campaign supporters(financially) (Citibank being the prime example) also gave ample financial support to the Democrats, thus playing both side of the coins.
F. Consumer Justice(yeah you try and argue that anyone has done more for the consumer than Nader and I will laugh at you)
G. Speaking out against fair trade agreements which export our jobs(which many Democrats have supported but have seen little, if any, criticism by ITT)

(Despite these downfalls I will give ITT some credit they have been very insightful as far as two topics go: Universal Health Care and Unions)

Now please, oh please!!!! Look through the list (A-G) which many of the progressive readers(which makes up a majority of ITT’s readership) likely should support. But how many of these issues are discussed in ITT, the sad truth is very few, possibly none, and when they are discussed it is very very rare and moreover it is usually discussed in order to tout some Democrat who is currently in favor of the topic discussed in this article, and thus largely with the goal of getting said Democrat elected.

With all of this said I await your comments and criticisms and follow ups thanks for reading through this and think before you act.

(Pre mature prediction: Many, if not all, conservatives will agree with much I have to say thus making the Democrats on here think their argument that I am a conservative supposedly stronger, the Democrats will blast me and say I am stupid, give a stat given to them by their party, or just rant an “Anybody but Bush” mantra in my face. And finally the true liberal progressives will really understand my criticisms of ITT and join with me to please consistently start a movement to point out these shortcomings to force ITT to become more progressive and truly represent us.

FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS YOUR NOT LIBERAL I AM A REAL LIBERAL AND IF YOU WANTTO KNOW WHY ASK A CONSERVATIVE WHO THEY FEAR MORE ME OR YOU?(Conservatives please give me your insight on this who do you fear more)

Thanks With Love
A Nader Raider(2nd Generation Raider)

Organizations (and websites) I Support or recommend:
1.  www.ssdp.org (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) (My flagship organization)
2. “The Washington Journal” on CSPAN (I truly love this show its amazing beyond belief, nothing else on TV or in any other medium can even come close to the Journal. To understand how truly fair they are to all well, I’ve seen Nader on the show twice, the head of the College Democrats once, all kinds of religious leaders several times, calls from all over the political spectrum, the editor of the “Weekly Standard” (highly conservative) on the program twice. Please watch the journal and call in and congrulate them for doing such a damn good job without the Journal I dont know where we would be politically speaking.
3. CSPAN in general (I really like their coverage its just amazing, did you see that 6 hour story on John Roberts that was incredible and unbiased) www.cspan.org
4. The Green Party (www.gp.org)
5. The Nader campaign and Ralph, (much love), www.votenader.org
6. DC VOTE (although I expect them to be heavily influenced in a bad way by Democrats I havent been able to prove it yet like I did with the ACLU) www.dcvote.org
7. NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) (shout out to Allen St Pierre and Kris Krane doing great work their guys) www.norml.org
8. BBC (can’t leave them out, doing great work there) www.bbc.com
9. http://www.wsws.org/index.shtml (World Socialist Web Site) although I disagree with alot and overall is blatant propaganda obviously there are some interesting things if you look hard enough on the site
10. Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org)
11. Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org)
12. Drug Policy Alliance (www.dpa.org) (Much love to the Chris who also works at NORML who works their, forgot your last name sorry)
13. The Libertarian Party (I disagree with alot if not the majority of their policies but they are helping third parties so they get a shout out to) www.lp.org

NaderRaider,

“FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS YOUR NOT LIBERAL I AM A REAL LIBERAL AND IF YOU WANTTO KNOW WHY ASK A CONSERVATIVE WHO THEY FEAR MORE ME OR YOU?

(Conservatives please give me your insight on this who do you fear more)”

Regarding the above:

It is not a matter of fearing either you or the Democrats since I don’t see other Americans as my enemies.  Many of our differences are in approach, method, style or whatever, since ordinary citizens usually want what is best for our country.

Regarding the war as a scam, a political ploy, or anything other than the single most important threat to us is the truly scary thing to me. If the anti-war people turn out to be right, I’d be pleasantly surprised. If they manage to divert the national leadership and my view turns out to be the accurate one, we’ll all be in deep shit.

My biggest criticism of Bush and his crowd is the lack of ability or, until recently, even the attempt to make a solid case that this war is genuine. I have seen similar disconnects in corporate leaders. They are too close to daily events to understand why other people can’t see things their way. Imagination is in short supply.

I have listened to Nader’s ideas each time he has run. In the last election campaign I found myself in agreement with him more than ever before, but…

I am one who genuinely believes this war is the most important issue we face.  I don’t think Bush is the brightest president we’ve had. (He for sure has a communication problem.) I disagree totally with his economic policies. I believe many things have been handled badly. But, he was/is the one willing to fight this war.

Nader, in my opinion, will never have the votes to win the presidency. I voted for Perot and got eight years of Bill Clinton, so I’m not about to vote for Nader on principle.  I will have to vote against the guy I perceive to be the worse choice once again. I’m too old for blind faith.

whattheheck thanx for your follow up feedback

However if you would and any one else who has complained about ITT or anyone at all or ITT loyalists the main reason for my postings(the four of them) is too get feedback on my argment about the problems i discuss which I believe are inherent in nearly every article here at ITT

David,

I am just tired of counting coup with polling data. Especially when both sides adamantly claim that polling data is not all that reliable. My point with Levin was he cherry picked the one to make his point. But, my previously mentioned polls were from the Pew Trust; and about as old as the polls you are citing…

But, if we are going to grab each others feathers, did you see Stephen Hayden, National Security Advisor, last night in a speech before the CSIS organization? He quoted some nifty polls. One was a recent ABC Poll (sorry, that is only as detailed as he described it) that indicated over 70% of Iraqi business people were optimistic for the next year.

Now, that is indigenous Iraqi business people. Not the Indian and Fillipino variants of Halliburten that Rabbit harps on....

Your turn!
;)

naderraider,

first knee-jerk reaction.

Love and respect your independence, hate your politics.

But that’s ok. Most people here hate my politics too.

A. living wage of $10 - I can dig it.
B. drugs - I’ve already debated the drug debate here about a month ago. I don’t remember what article is is attached to, which is not surprising. Nobody stays much on topic. If you find it and have something new to say, let me know here, but let’s keep the debate on whatever article it is slung to
C. Publicly financed elections - theoretically I agree, but recent history (ie PACs) have demonstrated there is always a way around. I am more in favor in providing access and possibly financing to the smaller political parties than any attempt to restrict financing. It don’t work and it just costs more.
D. Instant runoff voting - don’t know the issue
E. See C.
F. Consumer Justice - oh yea. I am big on that!
G. Fair Trade - Big time free marketeer here. I fear what protectionism did in the 20s and 30s. Free trade should not be completely unrestrained of course. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan and Bill Gates come to mind.

Errata.

Universal Health Care - No. I want managed care in ruins. Just give me real major medical insurance. I’ll pay for my own damn check-ups!

Unions - Again. Good in theory and they made some great strides in the first half of the last century. But about as manageable as Marxism. When people go on strike because they need a third ATV or snowmobile, I lose interest.

As usual here at ITT if you make a logical argument for independent third parties and against the democrats people just wont comment on it and ignore it
GO BRAINWASHING!!!!

NaderRaider,

I can’t vote for Nader because I don’t live in the United States.

I think independent third, fourth, fifth, etc. parties are great. I vote for the Green Party of Canada. The British Columbia Greens from Canada were the first Green party in North America by the way.

Just a side note :
A science fiction writer named Greg Bear wrote a book called Eon with Naderites in it.

NaderRaider,

As usual here at ITT if you make a logical argument for independent third parties and against the democrats people just wont comment on it and ignore it
GO BRAINWASHING!!!!
Posted by NaderRaider on Dec 23, 2005 at 4:54 AM
--------------------

Sorry, NaderRaider, I guess my logical argument can only be against the possibility of an independent third party.  Our two parties are so entrenched and since they have been allowed to make their own rules, any serious threat will cause them to circle the wagons and prevent it from happening.

IMO those who want something different (better) are inclined to be more thoughtful than the average voter.  They will likely not be a single issue voter, but be more interested in the larger picture. To get any power a single issue must dominate — this is why we have so many “special interest groups.”

I have been a member of the NRA for a long time. When I saw our manufacturing jobs begin to exit for cheap labor, I wrote to them to see if they would rally the membership (which is largely blue collar) to fight against it. Their reply was simple and understandable. If they were to take on any other issue they would arouse dissent and diminish their effectiveness on gun rights legislation.

I cannot imagine any independent party gaining enough support to be a serious threat to the status quo.  Even within the current parties, anyone who is elected is unable to buck the seniority/committee system to accomplish change.

Naderraider--- I voted for Kucinich in the primaries, and Kerry in the election because I wanted Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney out.

The president isn’t supposed to be the be-all and end-all of our government. 

Jay, if the wages are raised to ten dollars an hour and you rent, you can bet your butt that your rent will go up accordingly. Prices will go up too, because they are based more on what people are willing to pay than the cost of making these products. Wages have been steadily rising for the last thirty years or so, yet the middle class is disappearing and buying power is dropping.

Wiley,

I got this yesterday in a financial newsletter:

“...there is not one county in the entire United States where a person working full time, earning minimum wages, can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment. But it is not only lower income families that are having accommodation problems: even middle to upper income families find it difficult to move up. In some areas of the country, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Miami, affordability has declined to levels not seen since the ‘80s.”
----------------------------------
Minimum wage is a two-edged sword. A few years ago a friend told me the next time it is raised she will need to let at least two people go at her restaurant. It’s not just the hourly cost, but gov. regs and their requirements at various numbers of employees, insurance — a whole mix of stuff.

At the other extreme:
Friday I heard a TV discussion of GM’s problems. It seems the downtime while retooling is not the only time union employees get 90% pay while not working… There is something called a worker bank or employee bank. One of GM’s guys has been receiving such pay for ten years now. Under contract rules (at least this was the claim on the show) they can’t let him go and must pay him. If this is so, no wonder we are in trouble.

Wiley,

It was the belief on Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, that GM will declare bankruptcy in order to escape their $32 pension deficit.

WTH, I’m familiar with that single stat---I used to like living alone, but over time, it became unaffordable even though I made more than minimum wage.

GM spends more on health care than steel.

An automobile corporation (don’t remember which one---think it was a Japanese corp.) just chose to move a plant to Canada instead of the U.S. because (they claim) U.S. workers are mostly illiterate, they’re too hard to train, and to costly to insure.

My guess is that what a GM CEO makes in one year is enough to support at least a hundred workers. Why is it that there is nary a mention of stockholders making tax free money ad infinitum for doing nothing beyond investing money that has been more than repaid with interest when talking about people getting money and not working?  Why is it that there is never any talk about these slouches?

Wiley, you said…

“My guess is that what a GM CEO makes in one year is enough to support at least a hundred workers. Why is it that there is nary a mention of stockholders making tax free money ad infinitum for doing nothing beyond investing money that has been more than repaid with interest when talking about people getting money and not working?  Why is it that there is never any talk about these slouches?”

The multiple of a CEOs pay to the lowest paid in his company has soared in recent years. The last number I recall was about 500 times as much. The hundred you reffered to could get a good raise.

I was self employed nearly my working years and I have managed my own retirement savings since it was first allowed in 1983. (I was an illustrator and designer.) I have owned stock in dozens of companies at one time or another and can assure you it is not tax free. And not without risk — in 2000 a lot of us found out just how risky it can be.

It is also debatable as to whether investing your money is doing nothing. It is the investment of thousands of people which provides the funds for expansion of facilities, hiring more people, upgrading equipment and many other things.  A privately owned company like mine (I had no employees.) in order to expand is in effect “selling” part of his business to each shareholder.

Without investors there could never have been a GM.

What has happened over the years has allowed management to install people on their boards as directors who have voted each other great benefits. Just as the Congress votes their pay and benefits, so the boards take care of their buddies at the top. To a great salary has been added, stock options (the ability to buy shares with no commission at a fraction of the market price everyone else pays), deferred benefits (but not necessarily tied to the rules of the company plan), health care, etc. many CEOs now hire managers just like sports and entertainment stars, to negotiate super contracts.

In theory shareholders elect the members of the board to watch out for their interests. With so many shares now held in pension funds and mutual funds, individual shareholders have little chance to interfere with the oligarchy running the show.

In my own local experience I have worked on financial annual reports for four separate companies which had several multiple shared board members — Company C had the CEOs from Companies A,E and W. Company W had the CEOs from E and C. All three — C, E, and W were on the board at A.

They belonged to the same clubs. In some cases the same church. This is in a relatively small city and medium sized companies. Of course they all voted what pay each got as CEO plus what each board member got for service on each board.

As they began sending local jobs to Mexico, China, India, South Africa — they all told the papers what a heart breaking decision it was. It was a bit tougher on those who lost their jobs — and still is.

In my opinion the way to fund the Social Security and Medicare programs is to tax ALL income above the level of per capita subsistence. As it is now if you are wealthy enough you can avoid tax on much of your income.

I remember back in the 1970s hearing what Teddy Kennedy’s income tax was and I was paying nearly double his.

WTH, I’m not blowing you off, I’m recouping from the holidays. 
At least we agree on a couple of things.

Sorry whattheheck, I’m having a hard time reading anything less pressing than our current foreign affair fiascoes, and life and death matters. Everyone I know is freaking out about medicaid, and/or immediate health issues. And

all hell about to break loose

Wiley,

I read the Knight-Ridder piece on the Kurds and as the author says it has not appeared on Fox or CNN. At least I have not seen or heard anything about it elsewhere.

After reading some of the other articles I would say the writer has a very consistently strong bias. While there is probably some truth here, there is also a lot of slanted writing.

The truth is most likely somewhere in between the extremes we get. It is well known the Kurds have gotten the shaft from nearly everyone and many would like their own seprate state. Well, why not?

Everything is slanted WTH. If it’s not slanted, it’s not saying anything.

Look at Israel, WTH.  People don’t just establish states like buying a house. For one thing, the Kurds want a lot of oil rich territories. For another most of the Arab world and Turkey is going to find that completely unacceptable.

What gets me about the Kurds is that they keep falling for it----this administration doesn’t care about the Kurds or anybody else, and it is most likely that, once again, the Kurds will fight for their independence with “our” encouragement and then we will leave and they will have to fight the Mid-Eastern world on their own.

Wiley,

Sorry about the confusion on the other article as to who said what.  I copied and pasted the whole replies section to reply to later when off line. The bylines end up closer to the next writer’s comments and so I goofed.

Anyway…

It seems as though everything is slanted, but when I was in school editorial was supposed to be separated from basic news. Who, what, when, and where reporting separated from the why and what-I-think idea oriented stuff. I think it is possible to say “something” — just rare.

Example: Today it is raining where I live. (I won’t add whether I am happy about it or if we have enough already.) Not too interesting, unless you planned a picnic.

I try to read from various websites and watch the spectrum of network news along with C-SPAN to get a better perspective. All I meant regarding the Kurdish story was that the individual whose site it was on had all anti-war, anti-Bush stuff and so I read it with an additional grain of salt (as I would try to do on an all pro-War/Bush site).

Yes, the Kurds have wanted their own state for a long time and it is never an easy thing to do. As with Israel, getting it and keeping it would be a continuing battle of one degree or another.

They aren’t necessarily “falling for” anything. From the article it looks like they may be playing along just until the time is right to make a move totally independent of the U.S. stated goal of an independent coalition-led Iraq. These guys are pretty street-wise if they are still alive.

I cringed when I first heard nation-building added to the other reasons for our military entry into the area once more. Getting rid of Saddam? OK. Freeing the population? I hope so.  Stopping Iraq support of terrorists, halt the firing at U.S and British planes in the No-fly Zone?  OK.  But creating a democracy and a nation from several diverse groups with a long history of distrust and violence? You have to be a total optimist and/or idiot.

After reading “Martyrs Day” by Michael Kelly, I think they are a people who may be willing to fight the entire Mid--Eastern world on their own to get what they want.

Well, WTH, I probably don’t need to tell you that people are more complicated than weather. We all have our biases. Too bad we don’t have six or eight parties with which to hash out our various problems. We could be united on some issues, and in opposition on others without being unnaturally and unnecessarily polarized.

I want us to stop bombing people and to spend more our our money on infrastructure and education than we spend destroying lives and property. No one on this planet needs more trauma.

Wiley and LB,

Obviously the two of you are pretty much on the same wave length and apparently not convinced the radical Muslims are a continuing national threat. It is a threat where you and I will not recognize the individuals unless they actually take over a plane (or whatever) we are on at the time.  In such a case we will not be able to “reason” with them.

Changing U.S. policies or their perceptions is too long range to matter.

I am curious, however, because of LB’s comment regarding my being more concerned about protecting my friends and family than about injuring those who have declared us as people they intend to kill.

Do either you have children? Would you not choose to protect them first if an emergency were imminent? Would you refrain from injuring someone who was a danger to them? Is everyone of equal value to you?

During an armed robbery many years ago the gunman was about ten or fifteen feet away and swung his gun in our direction. The first thing I did was to shove my son (about 5 at the time) behind a pillar and yell at my wife to get down on the floor. If I had been armed I would have tried to kill the guy — I would have had a clear shot with no one behind him in the line of fire. There is no doubt in my mind at all.

WTH, I would kill, if necessary to protect any child.

The problem with Iraq is that it has nothing to do with terrorism and was no threat to us.

Other countries have been dealing with terrorism for years. When I was stationed in Germany, the Bader Meinhoff Gang was active. People didn’t build their lives around terrorism and give up their rights in the name of it.

There are rebels and terrorists in Central and South America.  There are criminals everywhere.

I would like to see us focus on defense. How we respond to something is as much a part of our integrity as how we work to prevent tragedies.

Wiley,

OK, so you do place more value on the children than the attacker. Good.

There are different degrees and goals of terrorism. These are not just criminals.

I responded to your similar post on the 2 Wars thread with my views.

whattheheck,

I pray all worked out in the end, in the armed robbery. It is incredible how quickly a father reacts and what he can do when his family is threatened. I have a four year old girl. Last winter, in the mall parking lot, she got away from us and ran out in front of an approaching van. I had just enough time to rush out, pick her up and shield her as the van struck us.

Fortunately, I was wearing this big parka that I had gotten from my mother-in-law the year before. Worst parka you could ever imagine. it didn’t breathe at all, and I sweat like a pig when I wear it. But it was really cold that so I wore it. it acted like those airbags they put on the Martian Landers. We bounced off the van and bounced off the ground.

The only damage was a raspberry on my elbow from hitting the ground.

And a rip on the inside sleeve that to this day sheds little down feathers.

To this day, my wife thinks I am some kind of hero. But there was nothing special. Instinct kicked in and it was like I was just a spectator.

Nothing like being papa, though.

WTH, we’ll never agree, probably. I think of bombing cities as state sponsored terrorism. I think killing Iraqi children is just as dishonorable and inexcusable as killing an American child.

Terrorists are criminals--they are mass murderers.  To label them as something so huge is to downplay our own role in conflicts and to excuse our unlawful behavior. We’ve dropped 300 tons of radioactive bombs and bullets on a country that did not threaten anyone.

We cannot eliminate every threat. It’s pathological to think that we must. To keep defending our outrageous and illegal behavior is to invest yet more in future atrocities committed by otherwise powerless people. 

Can Botswana put on their uniforms and bomb us legally because we harbor so many serial killers?

Should we declare war on teenagers because of Columbine?

We’re escalating the nuclear arms race, for crying out loud.
This wounded, innocent American crap is getting old.  Let’s get a little perspective, here. 

Good story Jay! I love other people’s stories.

Wiley,

Thanks for the kind words. When it comes to my daughter, I’ve got a ton of stories! Every month or two, I collect them and send out a Samantha newsletter to family and friends. Papa generally gets the short end of the stick in most of the stories. She is a real dickens! I should post them on my own blog with a permanent link.

Reflection is an important and vital part of life. Take a second look at Levine’s earlier piece on Iraq and democracy, Echoes of Oslo, published here Aug 21, just before the draft constitution was voted on.

Doom and gloom with serious doubts the Iraqis would even get past that. I wonder how silly that (and this) article will look next summer.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2286/

Wiley,

I don’t expect to eliminate every threat, but if you see no difference in what our troops are doing and what the radical Islamic groups are doing, there is little foundation for agreement.

I believe this is a totally different problem than Columbine, the Oklahoma idiots, N. Korea, the former Soviet Union, or any other in my lifetime.

Each of us thinks the other is unrealistic and being manipulated. You say, “This wounded, innocent American crap is getting old.” I’m dismayed with the comments like, “America is killing all those Iraqis who never did anything to us.” They are primarily being killed by Islamic extremists who are benefiting from all the sympathy coming from (IMO) naive people like you.

I know you mean well and so do I. You are right about one thing — let’s just agree we will never have a meeting of the minds.  If your view turns out to be the true picture, I will be perfectly happy with it.

Wiley,

Apologies for the following.

We’ve dropped 300 tons of radioactive bombs and bullets on a country that did not threaten anyone

Not that I would justify a Roman “salt-the-earth” victory, but I take issue with the preposition Saddam didn’t threaten anyone. Kuwait, Shi’ite and Kurdish massacres, Iran-Iraq War, support for terrorist (ie Abu Nidal, etc).

We cannot eliminate every threat.

I agree. But We don’t have to. When tyrants fear retaliation for their deeds, they back off, if only temporarily. After Reagan crossed Kaddafi’s “line-in-the-sand”, we stopped hearing much about him. I was stationed in Germany when Kaddafi was at his bellicose worst. After the second Iraq War, we didn’t initially hear much from Iran or North Korea. Those who point to their current belligerence as “proof” that we’ve only made things worse have forgotten their current high-pitched rhetoric isn’t much different than in the 1990s. We may have to shut down one or two more dictators to show our resolve (Syria would be a good candidate). And with Syria, we may not need a full scale military solution to effect that.

We’re escalating the nuclear arms race, for crying out loud.

If you are referring to Iran and North Korea, we are not escalating it. Just recognizing the reality of it. Both countries have been at it since at least the mid 90s.

I am all for peace. But not by ignoring the tyrant’s whip. That is not peace. That is merely an absence of resistance.

Jay,

We were all OK, thanks.  The guy hopped into a getaway car (no plates) and they skipped.  Just after he pointed his revolver at us a security guard (unarmed) yelled at him and he swung it back toward him. The guard did a head-first dive under a counter. No shots were fired. It never made the papers — bad for business.

I’m glad you were so alert and fast enough to save your daughter. I’m amazed how many parents seem unaware just how trusting and fast the little ones can be. 

Sunday, while touring an indoor botanical garden, I saw a little girl about your daughter’s age pushing a heavy glass door open repeatly. Her mother was so busy chatting with a friend she didn’t notice how close the little girl’s fingers were to the hinge edge. Imagine the leverage of a 3 foot wide door pinching those tiny fingers!  I went over to say something, but just then the girl discovered something at the other side of the room and took off running.

All the car seats, air bags, warning labels and safety caps are great, but nothing beats a caring parent. She’s a lucky girl.

So, Jay. What I hear you saying is that it’s alright to kill and poison Iraqi children because you think Hussein is a threat? How many of his peoples’ lives equals one Saddam? Is that “democracy” at work? 

If we were threatening another country that had done us no harm, with a nuclear strike, would it be alright with you if that countrys’ armed forces spread radioactive munitions in your neighborhood, poisoning your children, giving them cancer? Would that make sense to you? If you support this, then you support state sponsored terrorism. How can you think it’s o.k. to dump radioactive waste on an entire nation? That is so sick. Maybe you want to rethink this, huh? Do you know what you are saying?

Hussein has been sitting in jail for quite some time, and the generals appear to agree that we are fueling the insurgency.

Why can you not put yourself in these peoples’ shoes? Do you look for alternative explanations? Do you try to find other angles? If not, then why not? I know you’re intelligent.
The only people in the whole world that believe this tripe in the U.S. MSM is us. CNN broadcasts more accurate news to other world audiences. 

Why---if democracy is important to you---do you insist on conflating Saddam Hussein with the people of Iraq? Why do you not know/understand that when he gassed his own people he gassed them with weapons we sold him---he was our ally, because he was secular and he was fighting muslim fundamentalism. He was at war with the ayatollah of Iran at the time. The people he gassed (if he gassed them---there is argument about this) were Kurds and Shia that were fighting with Iran.

He’s no prince, but neither is George Bush, and Hussein did not poison his entire nation while he kept religious fundamentalism at bay. The only place where there were terrorists before our attack was the no fly zone which was under U.S. and British occupation.

We have over 3200 strategic warheads alone? And Bush wants to build more and start testing them ASAP. Do you really think we need more to be “safe”?

If you’re not willing to consider this, then we’re going to have to stop talking.  I will not converse with someone who insists on justifying the mass murder of children, and is unwilling to consider information that contradicts these views. 

What’s in the echo chambers is overly simplistic comic book crap. Evil-doers! Good grief.

So, Jay. What I hear you saying is that it’s alright to kill and poison Iraqi children because you think Hussein is a threat? Where did I say that? How many of his peoples’ lives equals one Saddam? Bad equation. If we must count bodies as the sole measure of morality, which I do not, then you must balance, not Saddam’s life, but the lives of those he has killed. Is that “democracy” at work? That is your assessment, based on faulty logic.

If we were threatening another country that had done us no harm, with a nuclear strike, would it be alright with you if that countrys’ armed forces spread radioactive munitions in your neighborhood, poisoning your children, giving them cancer? The assumptions here are 1) Saddam was not a threat, 2) we launched a nuclear strike on Iraq. I am willing to discuss the issue, utility and morality of using depleted-uranium tipped armament, but I will not defend against such hyperbolics. Would that make sense to you? If you support this, then you support state sponsored terrorism. How can you think it’s o.k. to dump radioactive waste on an entire nation? I didn’t say it was ok. In fact, I clearly stated that I do NOT support such Romanesque consequences. That is so sick. Maybe you want to rethink this, huh? Do you know what you are saying?

Hussein has been sitting in jail for quite some time, and the generals appear to agree that we are fueling the insurgency. Yes, I do not dispute that. But you must compare that to the alternatives. 1) if we never went into Iraq, Saddam the Butcher would still be butchering, 2) if we leave now, it is not a foregone conclusion that the insurgency would end. We are NOT the fundamental focus of the insurgency. The Sunni’s loss of power is. We are a target of convenience. If we leave, the insurgency will simply retarget on the Shi’ite-dominated Iraqi government. If you think the insurgency is bad now, imagine what would happen when the restraining influence we exercise on the government as they deal with the insurgency is removed. Now THAT would be a bloodbath

Why can you not put yourself in these peoples’ shoes? Do you look for alternative explanations? Do you try to find other angles? Yes. But I believe the current actions are currently the best possible. Cut ‘n run certainly isn’t. What other option would you propose? If not, then why not? I know you’re intelligent.

The only people in the whole world that believe this tripe in the U.S. MSM is us. CNN broadcasts more accurate news to other world audiences.

Why---if democracy is important to you---do you insist on conflating Saddam Hussein with the people of Iraq? How have I done that? Why do you not know/understand that when he gassed his own people he gassed them with weapons we sold him? If we sold Saddam chemical weapons to explicitly use against his own people, I would be outraged. Did we? ---he was our ally, because he was secular and he was fighting muslim fundamentalism. He was at war with the ayatollah of Iran at the time. The people he gassed (if he gassed them---there is argument about this - No there isn’t! Not any informed argument, that is.) were Kurds and Shia that were fighting with Iran.

He’s no prince, but neither is George Bush, and Hussein did not poison his entire nation while he kept religious fundamentalism at bay. The only place where there were terrorists before our attack was the no fly zone which was under U.S. and British occupation. Why are you conflating the no-fly zone with inciting terrorists? One does not directly follow the other. Was it wrong to restrict Saddam’s military operations against his own people? The two are unrelated.

Jay,

Totally agree with your latest.

Anyone interested in an account of an on the spot account between the two Gulf Wars should read, “Martyrs’ Day” by the late Michael Kelly.

I doubt if many readers here will go to this, but if so well get a whole load dumped on the site. I found it espcially significant that it came to me from a very anti-Bush friend.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Leave Iraq ...  from 2003 !

Don’t you get it yet ?

There have been many recommendations from various anti-US-Iraq writers at this site. Contary to what is often expressed I do read many of them. Here are a couple regarding the idea that Saddam was a contributor to Islamic terrorism for you to read and consider. (Yes, I know, these guys are NeoCons and also the PNAC group, but if I can wade through your stuff...)

In general I think we are ultimately hoping for a better, safer, more peaceful world — in 2006 and beyod. We just have differing views as to what is reality and what is the best approach to dealing with it.

Saddam’s Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Just the Facts — It is past time that the president insist that his subordinates get the facts out about Iraq’s terror connection. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/566igaww.asp

David,

Glad to see you are quoting sources that say,

His regime was also at least pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction

Do you get it?

Also from David’s source,

Instead of accepting a less-than-ideal situation in Iraq, the United States now is in the position of having to fix what it broke.

Yeah, we broke it right over Saddam’s carbine that he loved to pack and brandish for the crowds.

Of course we should fix it.

That has been the whole point.

His regime was also at least pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction

Looks like they got that one wrong too. Nobody is perfect.

Years of weapons inspections seemed to do the job very well.

Better than a war by a long shot.

Instead of accepting a less-than-ideal situation in Iraq, the United States now is in the position of having to fix what it broke.

Iraq is more broken than ever before :

Electricity below pre-war levels. Oil exports below pre-wear levels.

The only thing above pre-war levels is the killing.

Well ... not the only thing ... but you get my point.

Living Conditions in Iraq: A Criminal Tragedy

Thank you, David. It’s sad that so many people cannot summon the generosity and charity to say that it is at least tragic for us to kill so many civilians, and that we could do better. It’s such a simple thing for anyone who happens to think the golden rule is valid. There is a fundamental lack of reciprocity here that is dangerous and hypocritical.

We have duties and responsibilities even as (illegal) occupiers for the care of the Iraqi people and the restoration of what we broke.

And since we so take the “bad” with the “good”, why can we not give Hussein credit for keeping the radical fundamentalist moslems at bay, or for bombing Iran’s nuclear reactors before they went on line, as we are evidently planning on doing?

Not that I’m in favor of bombing their reactors---I’m not. I don’t like Hussein either, but I dislike being lied to by my own government and media even more, especially when we are doing harm and behaving in an abusive way that lowers us and is doing great harm to our relations with what we used to call allies.

Wiley,

Please clarify your comment, “It’s sad that so many people cannot summon the generosity and charity to say that it is at least tragic for us to kill so many civilians, and that we could do better.”

By, “...for us to kill so many civilians” are you referring to those currently being blown up by suicide killers and booby traps? Are you inferring our presence is the cause?

Since you asked, “...why can we not give Hussein credit for keeping the radical fundamentalist moslems at bay...” I guess I can assume you expect me to read your references, but choose to ignore those I send.

-----------------------------------

Saddam’s Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal--and why they should all be made public.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd. .asp

An excerpt from the above:

“As much as we overestimated WMD, it appears we underestimated [Saddam Hussein’s] support for transregional terrorists,” says one intelligence official.

---------------------------------

David,

Looks like you got that one wrong, eh?

Of course, there is always the Iraq real per capita income, up 30% over pre-war times.

But, that would mean you’d have to admit this whole argument is not going your wy.

whattheheck,

Isn’t it incredible that the story about all those documents hasn’t hit the headlines yet? I get feeds from five or six of the big news agencies (NYT, WaPost,etc) and still no aftershock....

Jay,

What exactly did I get wrong?

Your source for the Iraqi per capita 30% increase, please.

I could care less if an argument goes my way or not. If I am wrong about something I will happily correct myself.

Jay,

Astounding!  This should be page one on every paper, but I have seen nothing so far.

Another untold story: David says Iraq is more broken than ever before. Someone at this site criticized the lack of electric power in Iraq so far. At a Christmas party a good friend and retired Army Lt. Colonel told us we are building their electric, water and sewer systems from scratch. Before the war, Baghdad had eight separate electric grids. All utilities will be totally modern to latest standards when completed.

Can anyone in the White House say, “Public Relations?”

David,

You think, “Years of weapons inspections seemed to do the job very well.”

A bit like a Peter Sellers movie in my opinion. I posted this recently on the thread about Iran’s mistreatment of homosexuals. Why believe the Iraq inspections were any better?

--------------------------------

When El Baradei was seeking a third term as the director of the IAEA, (a nice, cushy job) his following comments were reported at BizChina News > International News.

-------------------------------
El Baradei rejects criticism of UN Iran inspections
( 2003-12-05 09:11) (Agencies)

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Thursday rejected criticism of its failure to detect Iran’s clandestine experiments to make enriched uranium and plutonium, saying they were practically undetectable.

Mohammed El Baradei, director-general of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also said Iran had yet to sign a protocol accepting more intrusive snap inspections, though diplomats said it was too early to say whether Tehran was stalling.

“People have been saying Iran has been cheating the agency, if you like, for 18 years,” El Baradei told reporters. “Yes, Iran has been successful in doing research and laboratory activities and this we were not able to detect, and I don’t think we will be able to detect in the future.”
------------------------------

18 years and too early to tell!

Here’s a public relations idea---let’s reanimate their children’s corpses.

Of course, for this public relations project to work, we must demonstrate that we think this is such a good idea that we don’t mind if they return the favor in our hour of need.

Why believe the Iraq inspections were any better?

Because no (significant) weapons of mass destruction were found.

At a Christmas party a good friend and retired Army Lt. Colonel told us we are building their electric, water and sewer systems from scratch.

... and you believe him? Consider this excerpt from the link I provided above :

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO),

“Iraq had a modern sanitary infrastructure with an extensive network of water-purification and sewage-treatment systems. Water networks distributed clean, safe water to 95% of the urban population and to 75% of those in rural areas. In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP”.

It has fallen to 127, one of the most dramatic declines in human welfare in recent history, as a result of the U.S-Britain-sponsored sanctions and wars, which needlessly killed civilians en mass.

All utilities will be totally modern to latest standards when completed.

When will that be? What about the power grid here in North America? It needs work too. Remember the black out of 2003? Maybe seperate power grids are a good idea to avoid similar problems.

US War Crimes, An International Vow of Silence

David,

“… and you believe him? Consider this excerpt from the link I provided above :
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO)”

Yes, I believe him. He is a holder of both the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. I know him quite well and for over fifteen years. His son and son-in-law both served in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively.

His contacts are extensive over there and they are appalled and disheartened at the distorted reporting they get back from here.

I don’t know anyone at WHO. But aren’t they a part of the UN, that outfit which has Libya on their Human Relations Commission?

Yes, I remember the blackout and as a matter of fact my neighbor, who worked at Commonwealth Edison for over forty years, was explaining the grid system to me this morning. The grid allows the U.S. and Canada to transfer power from one coast to the other as loads shift. Without it there would continually be countless blackouts across the continent.

Wiley,

“Here’s a public relations idea---let’s reanimate their children’s corpses.”

I guess you ARE blaming the U.S. for kids killed by suicide bombers and roadside bombs.  Who gets the blame for teaching their kids to do the bombing? Is that our fault as well? 

Are you forgetting this, or did you not bother to read it?

“Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis.

David,

In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP”.

In 1990? So, what were the rankings in 2002, just before Saddam was relieved of duty?

Your statistics only indicate that Iraq fell apart sometime after 1990. Clinton wasn’t even president then. This is what I meant when I said in another time and place that statistics are too easily abused.
I will get back to you on the source of what I have quoted. I think it was from a Max Boot article at the LA Times or CFR. I also believe I saw it somewhere else on this website.

I believe that is called cherry-picking.

David,

Here is another article from Boot with references to statistics about Iraqi opinion polls, which we discussed in relation to earlier cherry-picking charges.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-boot23nov23,1,5521295.column

I don’t know anyone at WHO. But aren’t they a part of the UN, that outfit which has Libya on their Human Relations Commission?

What the Heck,

That’s right. I suppose that rather than having Libya taking part in efforts to improve human rights you would prefer to bomb them back to the stone age?

Thanks for the inforamation regarding our power grid. Ask your friend if he thinks the North American power grid needs any improvements. Wouldn’t it be great to be spending some of the billions and trillions of Iraq war costs at home?

David,

Cool! That Max Boot reference also has the per capita stat, which Boot ascribes to the Brookings Institute.

He also passes on other BI info:

According to Brookings’ Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein’s day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users.

The growth of the independent media — a prerequisite of liberal democracy — is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations and more than 100 newspapers.

Apologies to whomever already posted this at ITT. I know it was not too long ago.

Let Freedom Ring!

In 1990, Iraq was ranked 50th out of 130 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national achievements in health, education, and per capita GDP

Jay,

After the first Gulf War in 1991 and the subsequent sanctions it went downhill in Iraq. After the 2003 invasion and occupation Iraq went over the cliff’s edge.

Clinton wasn’t even president then.

So what ? I don’t understand your point.

When are you going to tell me what I got wrong?

Jay, thanks for the LA Times URL. It was informative. How do weigh it against this.

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops

I know that we have come full circle here. I posted this information when the thread first began. I feel that it is worth repeating.

More freedom for Iraqis, great. Now get out of their country. If the Iraqis can’t handle the insurgents ( apologies to Donald Rumsfeld for using the I word ) three years after the invasion then something is very wrong.

There is good evidence to suggest the the USA (and coalition of the willing) occupation forces are fueling the insurgency. More reason to get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Yes ?