Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Remember I told you.

You also told us that the Civil War was not about slavery -- doesn't mean that you're right.

[LordShiva]

Can we have an avatar or sig bet?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Rufus, the point of the story is that the Dems statements that a US withdrawal would somehow end the resistance an stop the terrorists from attacking the US is just so much bull.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

That's the quote, Ned. Did you deliberately mischaracterize it, or did you just not understand it? Mendacity or obtuseness -- please choose.

[Kuciwalker]

It sounds like Ned characterized it correctly

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It sounds like Ned characterized it correctly

Nope. It's inelegantly phrased, but look again:

The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there.

Meaning, as long as we're in Iraq, the Jihadists will be, too. That's not only obvious, it's one of the Administrations gazillion excuses for the war (i.e., taking the war to the terrorists).

It does not say that our departure will "somehow end the resistance an stop the terrorists from attacking the US."

Put it this way: if I say that it's very hot in humid in Singapore, that that it'll be hot and humid as long as I'm here, but that I don't have to stay here, that does not imply either that Singapore will become cooler once I leave nor that I'll never be hot again if I go elsewhere.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

dp

[Kuciwalker]

They'll stay there as long as we're there.

could mean your interpretation or Ned's, and IMO Ned's is actually the more natural reading of the two. Meh.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

You'd be right if the sentence had no context. The context makes it clear that my interpretation is more plausible and that Pelosi doesn't have a much better command of English than Bush.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
What's McCain's idea for victory? To ship another 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops over to Iraq to help crush the insurgency? Yeah, whatever. If he's really serious about "victory," then he knows damn well that nothing less than another 100,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

The goal wouldnt be to use US troops to crush the insurgency. AFAIK McCain agrees with B-Ham AND the Admin, that this is for the Iraqis to do. What the surge would do, combined with a redeployment of troops within Iraq (esp from Anbar, where all theyre doing is playing whack a mole anyway), is to bring Baghdad under control, thus weakening both the Sadrists and the AQniks, and creating space for political compromise by the moderates on each side. And to buy time for the training of the Iraqi army and the reform of the Iraqi police. AFAICT there are US military leaders in Iraq who think thats the best strategy. It doesnt seem that B-H seriously addressed that strategy.

Hmm. Well, if that's the case, it basically sounds like a "muscularized" version of what the U.S. has already attempted in Baghdad to no great effect. But, who knows? Maybe it would be enough to quell the insurgency in Baghdad. Still, that leaves the rest of the country — odds are, insurgents driven out of Baghdad would simply shift their attacks into other areas of the nation. We could end up with a situation like Afghanistan — the capital is, for the most part, cool, calm and collected, but just about every other area of the nation is aflame.

Heh. I read an Ayn Rand Foundation op-ed piece earlier tonight that was basically pushing for "total war" on what it considered the source of the problem: Iran. They were talking about bombing cities into rubble and occupying it with hundreds of thousands of troops. I suppose so it might rise again, ala Germany and Japan, and become something other than a sponsor of terrorists.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
McCain, pandering to the right wing. It hurts to see him doing this, 'cause I rather liked him as a straight shooter. Amazing what a desire for the presidency can do to a person.

except calling for more troops is exactly what McCain has been doing for over 2 years, including back when the right wing hated him for attacking their precious Rumsfeld.

'Tis true McCain has been calling for more troops for some time now, and that was part of the "straight shooter" image I liked. It's just now that he's running for president, he's seemingly kow-towing to the right-wingers and is vociferous in not liking a good part of the Iraq Study Group report.

Well, we'll see how it goes. Hell, the elections are still 23 months away ...

Gatekeeper

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
Following the Dem formula will only result in a radical government in Iraq and further attacks the US, its allies and Israel. (Until we are gone, that is, or convert).

This will likely happen even if we "win" utterly. We are setting up a democratic government, or at least trying to - the odds of that government becoming a fairly radical religious one are very high, considering the already considerable influence various shia clerics and factions have in the government. This is what happens when you set up a democracy in a place that has been radicalized by sustained violence and poverty (read: Hamas elections in Palestine all over again).

By the way, if you think that "al Qaeda types" are going to take over in our absence, you're insane. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group with few friends among the majority Shi'ite Iraq; if you think that the Sunni minority and al Qaeda are somehow going to take over the country despite the Shia and Kurds, you've got another thing coming. It just isn't going to happen.

The best thing for America, as far as security is concerned, is to make an expedited exit. Our continued presence in the region stirs up far more terrorist activity against us than the alternative. The same goes for Israel; they are in trouble whether we stay or go. But then again, they've been "in trouble" for the last half century or so, and I think they can handle themselves.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Heh. I read an Ayn Rand Foundation op-ed piece earlier tonight that was basically pushing for "total war" on what it considered the source of the problem: Iran. They were talking about bombing cities into rubble and occupying it with hundreds of thousands of troops. I suppose so it might rise again, ala Germany and Japan, and become something other than a sponsor of terrorists.

Strange, you'd have thought they'd be opposed to such a massive increase in government spending.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ned
"Last month, just prior to U.S. midterm elections, WND conducted a series of exclusive interviews in which prominent Middle East terrorist leaders said they hoped Americans would sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq – a move, the terrorists explained, that would ensure victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WND an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired." They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53312

so we should actually listen to terrorists to form policy rather than the american people? brilliant! lets get rid of this whole democracy thing and just do exactly the opposite of what terrorists say they want us to do.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ned
Z, agreed. I think, though, that we eventually will see a repeat of Vietnam '75, with the choppers on the embassy roof rescuing loyalists who will be killed when the Sunni's and al Qa'ida types arrive.

are you completely blind to the shiite majority? i mean, are you really ignorant of the fact that the majority of the country, in the absence of order (either dictatorship or our own military) is somehow going to be overrun by the minority?

iran isnt going to let that fly and honestly the fact you think that its sunnis that running the majority of militias is ridiculous. the sunnis are the ones using terrorism, the shiites are using militia killing squads.

[MRT144]

i actually think the reason the public sentiment has turned is because not only were we decieved by the reasons to go to war, we were also decieved by how things would progress and now that the wishful thinking has hit hard reality, the public is saying "hold up, wait a minute, what the hell is really going on?"

also i think another thing is that we havent had any reason at home to remain fired up about this. i dont fear terrorism at home nor abroad (never have, never will). im not seeing any short term positive tanglible results of our iraqi excursion. Im not seeing what we ultimately gain from this either (based on the actualy things that are happening there now)