Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months time.

Video: Obama, 7-3-2008 (http://www.endpoliticsasusual.com/2008/07/video-obama-on-iraq-it-needs-to-come-to.html)

I am so encouraged when we are reminded of the clear choice before USAmericans in the coming election. I also intend to end this counterproductive and wasteful war of forced occupation in Iraq. How about you?

Yeah, any President who starts talking about ending conflict would get my vote ( I can't vote, wrong country).

Kevin Rudd swept into office in Australia with some clear messages along the same lines ( bring the troops home, sign Kyoto, say sorry to the indigenous people for past atrocities). Despite the redneck resistance and fear campaigners he was resoundingly elected and has fulfilled/is fufilling those promises.

Good luck to Obama, good luck to America, good luck to the world.
Change is in the air in the biggest way since the sixties.

I think I'm feeling a massive groundswell of positive thinking and change in the world ( yeah, yeah, I'm an optimist and a dreamer) but I'm not the only one.

:thumbsup:

“ Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months time. ”


About time,:jawdrop::bravo: the blood of american soldiers are on bush's hands just as the british blood is on blair's....

A war the world does not need(any war),Go obama, fingers crossed he practices what he preaches....Good Luck America...

Well that's kinda how they pulled outta Nam'. Then again, those people were mostly Buddists and communism was coming in(very stable).

I can't wait for the real show, when the Americans pull out of Mesopotamia(Iraq is a made up country from like 70 years ago - with no hope).

I'm not so much looking forward to the death of Iraq as I am to the end of her agony.

You don't know shit about "Iraq" then. It's fuckin doomed. Much more agony to come, when Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis don't have checkpoints anymore.

It's true, I don't know what is going to happen to Iraq after the US withdrawal- but I know that US meddling needs to stop before further conflicts are inflamed and regionalized. While I don't see it as a positive, I agree that the occupation is effectively segregating Iraq. I watched something similar happen living in Lebanon, and I learned something about the resilience and even inevitability of multiculturalism.

You don't know shit about "Iraq" then. It's fuckin doomed. Much more agony to come, when Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis don't have checkpoints anymore.
You aren't supposed to talk about that.

Why not? US intervention has been a cause of (not solution to) instability, and has set in motion a regional Shi'a ascendancy that will tilt the balance of East Arabia. It doesn't take unusual perception or historical education to understand how unprovoked wars often have far-reaching consequences. Long-term unintended consequences from ill-considered policy are no basis for perpetuating that policy.

It's true, I don't know what is going to happen to Iraq after the US withdrawal- but I know that US meddling needs to stop before further conflicts are inflamed and regionalized. While I don't see it as a positive, I agree that the occupation is effectively segregating Iraq. I watched something similar happen living in Lebanon, and I learned something about the resilience and even inevitability of multiculturalism.

Well, no one's got the balls to do it. The correct way to get out of Iraq is actually really simple. It's not very nice, but it is a classic american solution.

They give equal nasty goodies to each of the Sunni, Kurds and Shitites. I'm not talking about strategic weapons, but the fancy shit that wins wars nowdays 16000 pound bombs, etc, put em on that drip for about 10years and you can pay for all the expense of the Iraq war occupation. Enough of the "good stuff", so that if they were to war, they'd all be fucked. They divide up the land, in tactical manner - fuck their feelings on it. Then fuck off.

That way, if they don't fight after - American Victory. If they cancel each other out, or fight for 10years while on the American "drip" - American Victory.

I'm glad Obama is being clear and concise on this issue. Let's hope he lives up to it after he destroyed McCain.

I am glad Obama has this clear message. But, don't be so naive as to think the USA is going to pull out and stop meddling with the worlds last energy hot spot. It's simply not going to happen. If anything Obama will have an easier time picking a despot while simultaneously pulling the sheets over both Americans and Iraqi's eyes. In essence - look for Saddam 2.0, a kinder gentler version who will by necessity be just as ruthless to hold on to that oil and keep it pumping to American "green" SUV's.

I can see the spin now:
In order to save Iraqis from them selves, from the terrorists, ]from Iran and from this mysterious plague that is crippling Iraq, I was forced to call on the Americans help in the form of areal bombardment to put the full smack down on this deadly virus which just so happens to be inflicting Shia controlled areas of oil wealth....before it affects the entire world....

Why not? US intervention has been a cause of (not solution to) instability, and has set in motion a regional Shi'a ascendancy that will tilt the balance of East Arabia. It doesn't take unusual perception or historical education to understand how unprovoked wars often have far-reaching consequences. Long-term unintended consequences from ill-considered policy are no basis for perpetuating that policy.
You're already way over most peoples' heads. Never underestimate the myopia of the average voter. The economy sucks, Iraq is expensive, and most Americans support a drawdown of our force levels there predicated on a timeframe rather than meeting concrete objectives or a drawdown's effect on the country's security. One could hardly claim that as a nuanced policy.

E3R: "Never underestimate the myopia of the average voter."

Never underestimate the educational power of the Bully Pulpit, when someone more aware and articulate than W or McSame steps behind it in a time of national trial. A lot of average voters who think they have no opinion or interest are increasingly open to new ideas, because something is becoming increasingly obvious even to the most thick-headed: We're in a fuckup- Time to take a good look around.

"One could hardly claim that as a nuanced policy."

The hell with nuance. Obama can stick his nuance up his ass for all I care, the moment he takes office. Then I expect some honesty and accountability like we haven't seen in most Preisidencies. I want this country to take Obama's core message, and hold him and ourselves to it- starting with ending this shameful war of corporate empire ASAP.

Unless a violent new spectacle provokes us from reason to rage again, this election is primarily going to be about undoing as best as possible the grave mistakes this nation made as a result of the shock and manipulation of 9-11... starting with Iraq, and hopefully continuing with the dismantling of the nanny-state that "conservatives" have lately been concocting.

The hell with nuance. Obama can stick his nuance up his ass for all I care, the moment he takes office.
Thanks for making my point.

I'm glad we agree. Clearly there are compromises in campaigning to lead a confused nation. More brutal honesty would require a non-democratic Coup-d'Etat, which I also believe that neither of us want.

Iraq is broken. With Saddam, you had an equilibrium with Iran. I’m afraid the US, regardless of who is next POTUS, will never allow Iran to snatch it up—which is exactly what will happen if US leaves. As much as I like Obama and as much as I want Iraq returned to its people, I’m afraid MCcain’s “100 years in Iraq” is more realistic.

Iran has already snatched what Iran will snatch: The role of Shi'a power-broker- and their rising influence isn't limited to Iraq. The whole Gulf region is going to tilt (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17938). There was a dangerous moment (which I think has passed) when the PNAC architects realized this, and considered an attempt to put out their fire they had sparked with gasoline: They were seriously thinking about initiating a hot war with Iran. Then Wall Street reacted with a preview of economic tailspin. The neocons have done their worst.

Anyway, there is nothing realistic about perpetuating the occupation, because the USA lacks the economic and political means to continue the whole botched experiment.

But, don't be so naive as to think the USA is going to pull out and stop meddling with the worlds last energy hot spot. It's simply not going to happen.

Nor should it. You've got to face facts that we need oil, and leaving it in the hands of a region that simply has never been able to keep its head out of its own ass isn't a good idea. Of course we're going to protect our interests. But don't mistake the evil deeds of the neocons with sound political strategy. What Bush and his crew did was downright evil. I don't see the same level of corporate ties or pure dishonesty with Obama's camp.

JDawg: "You've got to face facts that we need oil, and leaving it in the hands of a region that simply has never been able to keep its head out of its own ass isn't a good idea."

That's Michael's post (#13) that you're quoting above BTW.

As I'm sure you're aware, oil is a commodity (granted, a diminishing one) that we will always be able to purchase without resorting to theft, right to the end of the Petroleum Age. Going criminal in our greed won't improve the standing of the USA in the world. What you don't seem to be aware of is that the Mideast generation now coming of age is just as sophisticated in terms of the ability to run their own affairs as their counterparts in the USA. There is a lot of turmoil associated with US and European meddling that needs to be sorted out locally. It's well past time to lay down the White Man's Burden.

"I don't see the same level of corporate ties or pure dishonesty with Obama's camp."

Nor do I. But he'll be under the pressure of intense corporate and foreign lobbying. It's our job as patriotic citizens to make ourselves more loudly heard than the oil barons. Their age is waning, and if we hold our elected leaders to their promises, we get to decide the nature of the next.

As I'm sure you're aware, oil is a commodity (granted, a diminishing one) that we will always be able to purchase without resorting to theft, right to the end of the Petroleum Age. Going criminal in our greed won't improve the standing of the USA in the world. What you don't seem to be aware of is that the Mideast generation now coming of age is just as sophisticated in terms of the ability to run their own affairs as their counterparts in the USA. There is a lot of turmoil associated with US and European meddling that needs to be sorted out locally. It's well past time to lay down the White Man's Burden.

I agree with the part about not resorting to criminal activity. That's why I think George W Bush belongs in a prison for the rest of his days. And I never said we should continue this neocon strategy. But I think we have to maintain an influence in the region.

When Barack gets us out of there, we'll see what these people are made of.

Nor do I. But he'll be under the pressure of intense corporate and foreign lobbying. It's our job as patriotic citizens to make ourselves more loudly heard than the oil barons. Their age is waning, and if we hold our elected leaders to their promises, we get to decide the nature of the next.

I agree, but let's not just assume he's going to be in their pockets.

Syzygys, in a related thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82702):I was asked why i thought it can not be done, so I looked it up, logistic-wise:

"Pulling the U.S. military out of Iraq would be a massive undertaking and would have to be done slowly and deliberately, defense officials said Friday. One general said it would take up to 18 months to cut his troop levels in northern Iraq in half.

The length of the withdrawal would depend largely on the level of violence in Iraq. It would be more difficult and take far longer if forces had to get out while intense fighting was going on.

Noting that it took a year to bring U.S. troops out of Kuwait in the early 1990s, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that was under good conditions where there was a “permissive environment” and easy access to ports and airports to move troops and equipment.

“You’re talking about not just U.S. soldiers, but millions of tons of contractor equipment that belongs to the United States government, and a variety of other things,” Gates told Pentagon reporters. “This is a massive logistical undertaking whenever it takes place.”

Gates is talking about a pretty departure, like the grateful, garlanded reception his appointer was telling us to expect on the way in; he's imagining a departure with grateful Iraqis waving goodbye, holding receipts for huge oil concessions. Not happening.

We're going to abandon a lot of equipment, destroy a lot of weapons in place, leave the new airbases, leave our obscene new embassy complex, leave all sorts of Halliburdens and other bad investments in Iraq on our way out. But we can't keep pouring lives and trillions of dollars into a failed colony. We don't get to have a pretty departure from Iraq; that's not happening. We're aborting a flawed mission that can only indefinitely squander lives and resources if it isn't ended. We're aborting the colonial mission in Iraq for the good or our fighting forces and for the good of our nation.

Syzygys, in a related thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82702):

Gates is talking about a pretty departure, like the grateful, garlanded reception his appointer was telling us to expect on the way in; he's imagining a departure with grateful Iraqis waving goodbye, holding receipts for huge oil concessions. Not happening.

We're going to abandon a lot of equipment, destroy a lot of weapons in place, leave the new airbases, leave our obscene new embassy complex, leave all sorts of Halliburdens and other bad investments in Iraq on our way out. But we can't keep pouring lives and trillions of dollars into a failed colony. We don't get to have a pretty departure from Iraq; that's not happening. We're aborting a flawed mission that can only indefinitely squander lives and resources if it isn't ended. We're aborting the colonial mission in Iraq for the good or our fighting forces and for the good of our nation.

Gates was talking an orderly withdrawal where we would be protecting our troops. Obama's plan, like most of his rhetoric, is terribly flawed in that he does not factor in any outside variables.

We're going to abandon a lot of equipment, destroy a lot of weapons in place, leave the new airbases, leave our obscene new embassy complex, leave all sorts of Halliburdens and other bad investments in Iraq on our way out.
No we will not. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

We're going to abandon a lot of equipment, destroy a lot of weapons in place, leave the new airbases, leave our obscene new embassy complex, leave all sorts of Halliburdens and other bad investments in Iraq on our way out. But we can't keep pouring lives and trillions of dollars into a failed colony. We don't get to have a pretty departure from Iraq; that's not happening. We're aborting a flawed mission that can only indefinitely squander lives and resources if it isn't ended. We're aborting the colonial mission in Iraq for the good or our fighting forces and for the good of our nation.

Oh no no no no. We're not leaving the new embassy, or any of our assets there. They built this gaudy monstrosity knowing that it wouldn't even be fully operational until Bush was out of office, and they also knew that even a couple of years ago when they thought Rudy was their top candidate that he didn't stand a snowball's chance against Hillary, who they presumed was going to be the Democratic opposition. We have goals (criminal or not) in that region, and Iraq is at the center of it. All Obama will do is bring an end to the war, not to the occupation.

Sure, and the Russians are still the lords of Eastern Europe. The sun never sets on the British Empire, wot?

A US-branded outcome in Iraq is not a realistic possibility. It hurts USAmerican pride a lot to contemplate that. Similarly, we avoid to this day coming to terms with the failure of our authority in Vietnam. But the hard truth is, we didn't get a friendly reception in Iraq, and we're not not going to get a friendly send-off. We're not heros in Iraqi eyes, and we're never going to be. They'll jeer and taunt us as we go, and then there will be one hell of a fight for the spoils. It hurts our nationalist pride, but it is what it is.

http://www.freewebs.com/alldonne/GreenNewBeginStatue.jpghttp://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/fall_of_saigon_1.jpg

Nothing is going to make it look like this expedition has not been a wasted effort, because sadly that is just what it has been. There is no way we're going to withdraw as if we knew what we were getting into. We didn't. We've got to stop pretending, because the only people we're fooling by it are ourselves.

Nothing is going to make it look like this expedition has not been a wasted effort, because sadly that is just what it has been. There is no way we're going to withdraw as if we knew what we were getting into. We didn't. We've got to stop pretending, because the only people we're fooling by it are ourselves.

Give me a break. We knew exactly what we were doing. The massive gains made by everyone involved in this situation proves it. Spare me the idea that these Jihadists are any more resourceful than we expected. They're not. They're all sheep, and we knew they'd be tough to fight. But the war itself was a success, don't lie to yourself that it wasn't.

JDawg: "We knew exactly what we were doing."

Supporters and architects of the invasion expected a grateful welcome from Iraqis. Didn't happen. They thought a small force could keep order. It couldn't. They thought privatizing security would be cheaper, and avoid legal snares. It wasn't, and it didn't. They thought that a friendly environment for strategic bases (replacing the immense facilities that had become an untenable Saudi liability) would be secured. They weren't. They thought advantageous oil concessions would be won. They weren't. They thought Iraqi and US public opinion would warm up to the human and financial costs of a protracted occupation. They didn't. The people responsible for this war did not know what they were doing at all.

"The massive gains made by everyone involved in this situation proves it."

Please elaborate on that: I am not aware of any "massive gain" in terms of any actual, specific US national interests.

"Spare me the idea that these Jihadists are any more resourceful than we expected."

No problem. Let's also spare each other the idea that all persistent resistance to nation-building under US auspices can be lumped together as "Jihadism".

"They're all sheep, and we knew they'd be tough to fight."

Sheep are not tough to fight. The people resisting US intentions are certainly not sheep.

"But the war itself was a success..."

Yes, the toppling of Saddam's regime was a military success. The re-ordering of Iraq to US specifications was not. Time to go.

Hyperwaders, why do I get the feeling you never finished any project that you hit a real roadblock in.

Just becuase the road is rough does not mean you give up. We turned Iraq into a mess(with the help of Saddam) We owe it to the people to help rebuild it, even in the face of minor adversity.

"why do I get the feeling you never finished any project that you hit a real roadblock in.

Just becuase the road is rough does not mean you give up."

...said every over-ambitious leader to his Generals.

We've bitten off far more than we can chew this time, TW.

also intend to end this counterproductive and wasteful war of forced occupation in Iraq. How about you?

You couldn't stop the war at its beginning.

What makes you think you can get past us war supporters and then stop the war?

Here I am.

Take me down.

Stop me.

Prove you can stop the war.

Punk.

Mamma's boy.

Mr Gee: "You couldn't stop the war at its beginning."

You couldn't start it without repeating lies.

What makes you think you can get past us war supporters and then stop the war?

1. You can't rationally support your position
2. Your numbers are falling precipitously.
3. Opposition to the war, and acceptance of the same is growing exponentially.

"Prove you can stop the war."

Watch and learn.

Mr Gee: "You couldn't stop the war at its beginning."

You couldn't start it without repeating lies.

What makes you think you can get past us war supporters and then stop the war?

1. You can't rationally support your position
2. Your numbers are falling precipitously.
3. Opposition to the war, and acceptance of the same is growing exponentially.

"Prove you can stop the war."

Watch and learn.
Bang.

You're a moment late.

You're genetically disadvantaged.

Dude.

Your mate ain't worthy.

"why do I get the feeling you never finished any project that you hit a real roadblock in.

Just becuase the road is rough does not mean you give up."

...said every over-ambitious leader to his Generals.

We've bitten off far more than we can chew this time, TW.

Actually it has been said by every successful person in the world to every person who just lays down and gives up.

You only bite off more than you can chew when you give up.

If you say so, Bonaparte.

As the cynical war-party desperation persists- Obama's going to order a CRAAAAZY fast withdrawal, and Obama's gonna slow the withdrawal, the lying bastard Obama is staying remarkably on message:

For me to say that I'm going to refine my policies I don't think in any way is inconsistent with prior statements and doesn't change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I'm going to end it as president.


Keep on keeping your eye on the ball, Barack: Get us out.

Supporters and architects of the invasion expected a grateful welcome from Iraqis. Didn't happen. They thought a small force could keep order. It couldn't. They thought privatizing security would be cheaper, and avoid legal snares. It wasn't, and it didn't. They thought that a friendly environment for strategic bases (replacing the immense facilities that had become an untenable Saudi liability) would be secured. They weren't. They thought advantageous oil concessions would be won. They weren't. They thought Iraqi and US public opinion would warm up to the human and financial costs of a protracted occupation. They didn't. The people responsible for this war did not know what they were doing at all.


I'm not saying we've executed the occupation well. We obviously haven't. The administration has had to suffer humiliating PR losses, and Bush's legacy is destroyed because of this, so much so that there is no way he'll be remembered for turning a vast national surplus into a vast national deficit, which might actually be his greatest crime. I'm just saying that we knew there would be insurgency, and we knew it would be a long battle.

Please elaborate on that: I am not aware of any "massive gain" in terms of any actual, specific US national interests.

Well, we have a staging point for future military operations in the region, we have an enormous embassy that will serve as our primary HQ for the region, and we have at least the beginnings of a democracy in the country. On the personal side, Haliburton raked in enormous profits from the oil fields, Bush's father made millions and millions of dollars selling arms to the country during the war, and because of the instability of the region causing massive spikes in oil price, the Right will now be able to put sufficient pressure on the Left to allow their oil buddies to drill on protected US lands. So as far as GW is concerned, we won big time.

Everything else has been a clusterfuck. Our troop morale is in the toilet, our world standing is in the gutter, we've lost whatever moral authority we had in the world, and we won't be able to execute any legitimate military actions in the foreseeable future without a real hassle from the UN. Likely, if we invade Iran, we'll face sanctions. But, that said, not one member nation of the UN has called for an investigation into this war...

No problem. Let's also spare each other the idea that all persistent resistance to nation-building under US auspices can be lumped together as "Jihadism".


No, there are legitimate complaints. But I don't believe for one second that anyone taking up arms against us is anything less than a terrorist. Call it what you want, but we did oust a murderous dictator. I don't agree with the war any more than you do, but let's not pretend that the people fighting against us aren't really our enemy. They are Islamic fundamentalists that want to kill or convert everyone in the world to their corrosive brand of Islam. I say we kill them first.

Sheep are not tough to fight. The people resisting US intentions are certainly not sheep.

Who says sheep aren't tough to fight? These fundamentalists don't question anything, because they have Allah on their side. Don't sympathize with these murderers, it makes you sound like a moron. Yes, let's root for them while they fly planes into our buildings, or blow up subway trains in England. Yes, we're the bad guys...:rolleyes:

Yes, the toppling of Saddam's regime was a military success. The re-ordering of Iraq to US specifications was not. Time to go.

Time to get our troops out of there, not to stop trying to build Iraq. We can't just leave them totally alone at this point. Even Obama says he'd leave enough people to train the military and police forces.

No we will not. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

You just now figured that out? Here's a clue: Hype says he doesn't even know who flew the planes into the WTC. In other words, leave him to his own devices. Talking to him only encourages his brand of belief.

JDawg: "we knew there would be insurgency, and we knew it would be a long battle."

Many long-time opponents of the war have expressed that understanding from the outset. The warhawks didn't, and the architects of the occupation did not prepare for our being widely despised and resisted.

"we have a staging point for future military operations in the region"

No, we have a beleaguered, exhorbitant, vulnerable, and untenable outpost.

"we have an enormous embassy that will serve as our primary HQ for the region"

No, we have deposited there an obscene monument to ignorant hubris.

"we have at least the beginnings of a democracy in the country."

When there is democracy in the Mideast, the utter demise of US hegemony there will be complete.

"Haliburton raked in enormous profits from the oil fields"

No, they have raked it in from US taxpayers.

"the Right will now be able to put sufficient pressure on the Left to allow their oil buddies to drill on protected US lands."

Hooray for early desperation.

"Everything else has been a clusterfuck."

Great. You're doin' a heckuva job, Georgie.

"Likely, if we invade Iran, we'll face sanctions."

What's a little Crash and Depression- Damn the Hoots (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002291.html), full speed ahead!

"I don't agree with the war any more than you do"

Yes you do- you've swallowed the propaganda that dangerously and deceptively conflates our foes:

"They are Islamic fundamentalists that want to kill or convert everyone in the world to their corrosive brand of Islam. I say we kill them first... Don't sympathize with these murderers, it makes you sound like a moron. Yes, let's root for them while they fly planes into our buildings, or blow up subway trains in England."

But what's this- Are you coming around?

"Time to get our troops out of there...

Or just mixed up?

"...not to stop trying to build Iraq."

We haven't been building Iraq- we've been destroying and dividing it.

"We can't just leave them totally alone at this point."

They aren't alone- they have better friends than us.

"Even Obama says he'd leave enough people to train the military and police forces."

They had better have names like Salim, and not Jim-Bob.

countezero: "Hype says he doesn't even know who flew the planes into the WTC."

I suspect they were former Saudi fighter pilots. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590)

Many long-time opponents of the war have expressed that understanding from the outset. The warhawks didn't, and the architects of the occupation did not prepare for our being widely despised and resisted.


I beg you to ask a soldier how they were received. The people there treated them like heroes. Don't buy into all the propaganda, please.

No, we have a beleaguered, exhorbitant, vulnerable, and untenable outpost.

Wrong.

No, we have deposited there an obscene monument to ignorant hubris.

Your editorial comment aside, the TRUTH is that we have a massive embassy that will be the HQ for us in the region. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

When there is democracy in the Mideast, the utter demise of US hegemony there will be complete.

:rolleyes: OK, man. But when there is democracy, we won't need to be there.

No, they have raked it in from US taxpayers.

The point was that they had to tend to the oil fields, meaning they got the contract to do the job, meaning they raked in huge profits.

Your next three comments appear to be quotes of some sort. Since you won't address me directly without trying to be cute about it, I won't address your responses.

Yes you do- you've swallowed the propaganda that dangerously and deceptively conflates our foes:

Uh-huh. Because terrorism is a lie, right? Because nobody wants to hurt the US, right? Nobody hates us, right?

We haven't been building Iraq- we've been destroying and dividing it.

Again, wrong. The Islamic fundamentalists, the tribes divided by their particular brands of Allah, THEY are the ones who seek to destroy Iraq. But go ahead, keep blaming us. You obviously enjoy believing that there are no problems in the middle east without us, so I won't try to stop you.

They aren't alone- they have better friends than us.

I didn't see any of these so-called "friends" removing their murderous dictator from power and giving them the freedom to elect their own officials...

They had better have names like Salim, and not Jim-Bob.

Oh, I see. So you're just a bigot yourself. OK, just wanted to clear that up.

:sleep:

countezero: "Hype says he doesn't even know who flew the planes into the WTC."

I suspect they were former Saudi fighter pilots. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590)

Now prove it.

You couldn't stop the war at its beginning.

What makes you think you can get past us war supporters and then stop the war?

Here I am.

Take me down.

Stop me.

Prove you can stop the war.

Punk.

.

BANG... your dead

no more war............!


You, back people dying for a stupids man's ignorance.....!!!!
are you willing to die or are you the stupid man..?

I suspect [the 9-11 attack were flown by] former Saudi fighter pilots.

Buffalo Roam: "Now prove it."

It's just doubt and suspicion about a mystery, that you needn't share if you don't want to.

JDawg: "I beg you to ask a soldier how they were received. The people there treated them like heroes."

I have. Hungry and bored kids hustle our soldiers for handouts, while their parents regard them (and occasionally try to kill them) from afar. Never has there been any popular reception resembling (for example) what GIs experienced in Paris in 1944. It is a callous fantasy to pretend that Iraqis consider US forces their heroes. Here in the USA, we would never welcome such a destructive invasion, and we would intensely despise such a demeaning occupation.

"we have a massive embassy that will be the HQ for us in the region."

More fantasy. I'll touch on that again later.

"But when there is democracy, we won't need to be there."

We wouldn't be wanted- Not even US-associated corporations like Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil.

"[Halliburton] had to tend to the oil fields, meaning they got the contract to do the job, meaning they raked in huge profits."

Their profits did not come from developing oilfields. They were bled from the US economy. We've been had, and it's embarrassing to realize that there were USAmericans fleecing their own country in the process.

You've swallowed the propaganda that dangerously and deceptively conflates our foes:

"Because terrorism is a lie, right?"

There is much lying in our government and media about fixing blame.

"Because nobody wants to hurt the US, right?"

Iraq never theatened the USA; never provoked what we have done to them.

"Nobody hates us, right?"

Our reckless and oppressive foreign policies are what is most wisely despised.

"The Islamic fundamentalists, the tribes divided by their particular brands of Allah, THEY are the ones who seek to destroy Iraq."

There are many various competing Iraqi factions, not all fundamentalists, (and not all of the fundamentalists are the same or aligned) who are going to continue fighting each other in the near future.

"You obviously enjoy believing that there are no problems in the middle east without us, so I won't try to stop you."

I grew up in the Mideast, and I care about it. I am quite aware that Iraq has its own problems. I am also aware that our occupation is making those problems worse.

Iraqis aren't alone- they have better (better informed, more respectful, and less disruptive) friends than us in the region.

"I didn't see any of these so-called "friends" removing their murderous dictator from power and giving them the freedom to elect their own officials."

That's right. I don't like our present regime in the USA, but that does not mean that I want a foreign power to destroy my country. If there were such a thing as foreigners enlightening the USA in the wake of a profound national disaster at foreign hands, it would behoove them to be sensitive to our cultural identity and pride- it would be best if they were well acclimated to our society, customs, and language. Our representatives in Iraq are for the most part completely unprepared to relate to Iraqis.

Any "advisors", US corporate or government representatives left behind after the US military withdrawal will recall to Iraqis the Ugly American (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/ugly_am.htm) at those advisors' peril. That's why it will be better for them to have names like Salim, and not Jim-Bob. US involvement in what's left of Iraq will come to require a low profile.

"Oh, I see. So you're just a bigot yourself. OK, just wanted to clear that up."

You misunderstand. It is not bigotry that Iraqis are insulted at what we have done to them. When this failing US project has run its course in Iraq, USAmericans will need to tread very lightly while we reform our policies and await our forgiveness. We've done a lot of harm, and it won't be soon forgotten.

JDawg, you seem to me as if you are some distance from understanding how you would feel, had you yourself endured what Iraqis are still enduring at foreign hands. Different life experience has surely given us different outlooks: I lived through good times and bad in Beirut as a young American- Through times when being visibly USAmerican brought affection, like instant celebrity from everyone I encountered, and later came the times when being visibly USAmerican more often meant mortal peril; when nice people I knew were being kidnapped and killed. Perceptions of USAmericans changed not because we expatriots in Beirut had changed- US foreign policy had come down like a mindless hammer, and some people were very mad about it. Years have passed and things are better there now, but it's still very fragile, and there are those who will never get over what we and our client Israel have done to Lebanon.

I realize that it can be hard to glimpse from afar and through so many filters of information, but we are not popular for what we have done to Iraq. When you begin to understand that, you will begin to understand why (for example) we will certainly not be holding forth in magnificent influence from an impressive "US Regional Headquarters" or mega-embassy in Baghdad in the years ahead.

I realize that it can be hard to glimpse from afar and through so many filters of information, but we are not popular for what we have done to Iraq.
Been there yourself, have you? In truth, it depends what area of the country you go to, and what the local political/cultural/religious alignment is.

I beg you to ask a soldier how they were received. The people there treated them like heroes. Don't buy into all the propaganda, please. They were treated reasonably, until the people realized that they weren't leaving. Then things got a ugly in a hurry.

The point was that they had to tend to the oil fields, meaning they got the contract to do the job, meaning they raked in huge profits. And all that is, like, sort of inevitable, an unstoppable natural outcome, as if it were the weather or something ?

I didn't see any of these so-called "friends" removing their murderous dictator from power and giving them the freedom to elect their own officials.. The Iranians did for themselves, and tried for Iraq. But you seem to disapprove of them, as well.

E3R: "Been there yourself, have you?"

No, but I've lived all around the region in peacetime and wartime, I've befriended Iraqis, and I know that my experiences have given me a some insight into how Iraqis feel about US intervention in their country. Having witnessed anger at US policy up close, I have a sense of Iraqi anger at US treatment of their country. I think it will help US understanding considerably, and improve the groundedness of our expectations if we will take the time to learn what those Iraqis (living and deceased) who have been co-operating with our forces and corporations in Iraq have been going through.

"... it depends what area of the country you go to, and what the local political/cultural/religious alignment is."

Iraqis overwhelmingly want US forces to leave their country immediately. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm) Many of those who are working for the occupation have emigration plans. The danger to those who are employed by US organizations is a telling indicator of opinion. This is not to say that most Iraqis want to harm collaborators- but the lack of safety for Iraqi partners in the occupation does say something about the viability of the enterprise. Of all the things Iraqis are personally and collectively struggling for, keeping the US as their self-appointed national nanny is very, very far down the list.

In February [2007] the State Department announced (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595248,00.html) that it would admit up to 7,000 more, giving special consideration to those Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government. But that's still just a fraction of the number of Iraqis in need. And although the Bush Administration has offered to cover about a third of the $60 million that the U.N. says is needed for the refugees, the U.S.'s European and Arab allies think Washington should cover far more of the costs resulting from what they view as America's war.

So why the parsimony? U.S. officials argue that resettling Iraqis will accelerate the country's brain drain. Admitting large numbers of Arabs also raises anxieties among some Americans that terrorists could slip in--even though refugees are among the most exhaustively screened migrants. But Bush Administration critics say the biggest reason Washington has been slow to act is that doing so would be an admission of failure in Iraq. Says Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School and former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor: "If the U.S. government were to do an active resettlement regime for Iraqi refugees, it would be conceding that its own rhetoric about the situation in Iraq becoming safe and stable anytime soon is a fantasy."

one young American named Kirk Johnson (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/60minutes/main4103104.shtml) has jumped into this breach. All he wanted to do was rescue one of his Iraqi co-workers. When he did, a thousand more pleaded for help and Johnson began "the list."

"The people on my list have been tortured, they've been raped, they've lost body limbs. There's one guy on my list who's been thrown out of a moving vehicle. And all of this because they helped us. They came every single day to try to pitch in, in our efforts there," Johnson tells Pelley.

Johnson says we owe these Iraqis "speedy resettlement" in the United States.

The U.S. failed to grant that speedy resettlement. So Johnson has taken it upon himself to plead the cases of some of an estimated 100,000 Iraqis who worked for America.

"These are the names, the supporting documents, the recommendation letters, the cell phones, every bit of information that we could compile to help the government live up to their obligation to these people and help resettle them," he says.

A binder holds the list of nearly 1,000 Iraqis Johnson is trying to get into the U.S. He gets Iraqis free lawyers, helps them navigate the system, and pleads their cases to the State Department, with praise from their former American employers.

And the binder is filled with the threats written by the enemy that make life in Iraq impossible.

"In the name of Allah, who kills the tyrants. This is your last warning," Pelley reads from one warning.

"Yeah, 'And to all those who work or cooperate with the pagan occupation forces we are running out of patience and our hearts are full of hatred,'" Johnson adds.

Threats like that have pushed four million Iraqis from their homes. About a million of them are hiding in neighboring Jordan, where 60 Minutes traveled to meet some of the people sending Johnson desperate e-mails by the thousands.

"The most common subject line that I get is simply 'Help,'" Johnson says.

"You know, I wonder how you feel when someone sends you an e-mail that says 'My life is in your hands,'"

September 2007: The most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed (http://abutamam.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-petraeus-lies-and-collaborators.html) Thursday by a bomb planted near his home in Anbar province, 10 days after he met with President Bush, police and tribal leaders said.
... "This is a tragic loss," said Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, in a statement released in Washington by his spokesman. "It's a terrible loss for Anbar province and all of Iraq. It shows how significant his importance was and it shows al-Qaida in Iraq remains a very dangerous and barbaric enemy. He was an organizing force that did help organize alliances and did help keep the various tribes together."
... two Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the matter, said the assassination could be a huge setback because it sends a chilling message about the consequences of cooperating with the U.S.

June 2008: Today nearly five million Iraqis--20% of the population--are displaced. (http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2008/06/confronting_the_1.php) About half of them have fled the country and live as refugees throughout the Middle East, while the rest are displaced within Iraq. Most fled their homes because they felt unsafe; those who worked for the U.S. as translators or drivers fled after they were attacked as collaborators.

[US Embassy] employees share a common tale (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442057/): of nine employees in March, only four had family members who knew they worked at the embassy. Iraqi colleagues who are called after hours often speak in Arabic as an indication they cannot speak openly in English

4 minute audio: Iraqi Journalists with US employers (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=91544399&m=91544372)

Leading up to their withdrawal, Australians showed a sensitivity that has not been typical of US officialdom:[Defense Minister] Fitzgibbon says all locally hired employees and their families will be eligible to settle in Australia (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-04/2008-04-09-voa8.cfm?CFID=9566689&CFTOKEN=37045716).

"We expect up to 600 Iraqis will be involved in the process," he said. "Interpreters and translators there have played a very significant role in assisting us in terms of strategy and of course, protection. And we do feel that we have a moral obligation to them, to resettle them here in Australia.

When the time comes, there will be many thousands of Iraqis who have assisted US efforts, who will be similarly in peril, and deserving of an offer of safe passage.

countezero: "Hype says he doesn't even know who flew the planes into the WTC."

I suspect they were former Saudi fighter pilots. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30590)

Right...

And I suspect you're deranged...

Video: Obama, 7-3-2008 (http://www.endpoliticsasusual.com/2008/07/video-obama-on-iraq-it-needs-to-come-to.html)

I am so encouraged when we are reminded of the clear choice before USAmericans in the coming election. I also intend to end this counterproductive and wasteful war of forced occupation in Iraq. How about you?
I'm thinking you're easy meat.

BANG... your dead

no more war............!

You, back people dying for a stupids man's ignorance.....!!!!
are you willing to die or are you the stupid man..?
Step outside. Let's find out.

Step outside. Let's find out.

As I open the door i'm wondering.......
A)are you a soldier supporting your fellow troops,
B)are you a financier reaping the supposed benifits of the war (cheaper oil...lol),
C)are you a christian fanatic that has been swept up in the media muslim war,
and i'm hoping your not A) as you might see the bottle coming as you walk through and kick my butt..

No...
What were you saying about glimpsing something from so far through so many filters of information? Yeah, nevermind. Iraq is not as diverse as the US, but it is still pretty goddamn diverse, especially by Middle East standards.

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/6630/iraqethnicityha0.th.jpg (http://img71.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iraqethnicityha0.jpg)

That graphic barely tells the half of it. Generally speaking, you will find that public perception and opinion of the United States is excellent in some places and terrible in others, correlating with the area's ethnic and sectarian alignment. For example, very few Sunnis think the invasion to depose Saddam was a good idea, but it still enjoys majority support in Shiiite and Kurdish areas. The same goes for faith in the coalition's ability to nation build, opinion of coalition troops, etc.

The polls you referenced do not break down their results by ethnic and sectarian lines. This one does (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070502_burkeiraq_perceptions.pdf). (PDF)

Generally speaking, you will find that public perception and opinion of the United States is excellent in some places and terrible in others, correlating with the area's ethnic and sectarian alignment. According to your poll linked, the perception of the US forces as beneficial is negatively correlated (on sectarian and geographical lines) with a desire for an independent and unified Iraq under a democratic government.

While being positively correlated with lower levels of violence, and nowhere very high.

That tends to support Hype's view of the current situation and likely future, no?

If only the coalition forces were departing from iraq for the right reasons, I would have respect for the decision if they were leaving because they don't want to destroy any more innocent lives. The only reason they are leaving is because the war is costing too much money and the obvious fact that US and british forces just can't win. There is no dignity in any of it, they came in a shameful manner and will leave in an even more disgraced way.


peace.

^^ Interesting perspective and very consistent.

According to your poll linked, the perception of the US forces as beneficial is negatively correlated (on sectarian and geographical lines) with a desire for an independent and unified Iraq under a democratic government.

While being positively correlated with lower levels of violence, and nowhere very high.

That tends to support Hype's view of the current situation and likely future, no?
Not really. Almost all Iraqis want the US out, whether immediately or contingent upon certain benchmarks. Almost all Americans also want the US out, too, whether immediately or contingent upon certain benchmarks.

At the same time, Iraqis are equivocal about the timing of a US and Coalition departure and fear a sudden withdrawal. Just over a third
(35 percent) favored immediate US withdrawal, peaking at 55 percent of Sunni Arabs -- fewer than might be expected. About four in
10 Iraqis polled -- Sunni and Shiite alike -- said US forces should remain until security is restored. “Leave now” sentiment was up, but
not vastly, from 2005 – 26 percent in 2005,vs. 35 percent in February/March 2007.

Not really. Almost all Iraqis want the US out, whether immediately or contingent upon certain benchmarks. Almost all Americans also want the US out, too, whether immediately or contingent upon certain benchmarks. But the US is not preparing to leave, and the benchmarks involved are not consistent or shared by even different factions of US and Iraqi citizens, let alone between the Iraqis and the US.

Neither is the definition of "out". That embassy is huge, the permanent bases are numerous, the oil valuable, the force projection into Central Asia much desired.

And the people who most want the US to stay a while are the ones most opposed to the alleged purpose of the US staying - a unified, stable Iraq.

If everybody wants the US out except the people making the money and the people making the decision to leave, what happens ?

Which brings us back to Hypewader's scenario.

Thanks, Iceaura. It's not easy to get past the persistent PNAC national-supremacist echos, and it's not easy or pleasant for anyone to ponder how much influence, and how many options the USA has lost through our recklessness and callousness in Iraq. When the Soviets were withdrawing from Afghanistan, their major media (much like ours) was still stacked with glowing Afghani praise, and skewed surveys reflected great affection for the progress and security bestowed upon grateful Afghanistan from Moscow. It was painful for all Soviets, whatever their orientation at that late state of their Union, to witness their own strategic and moral disgrace. Yet the writing was as plainly on the wall for all who had the least attentiveness- not to obscure tribal intricacies, but attentiveness to human nature.

So it is for the US intervention in Iraq, and so it is that the distraction and disgrace of Iraq will continue to have negative impact on our more justifiable efforts such as what is deteriorating today in Afghanistan. Things have reached the point where it is often unsafe for Iraqis beyond US perimeters to be overheard speaking English. Think about that: Iraq was a particularly Westward-oriented Arab society until the invasion. Now, just speaking English, not to mention "collaborating", can and does get Iraqis killed by their most countrymen, and all Iraqis who work with Americans do it with dread.

In such an atmosphere, nation-building, oil-extraction, force-projection- these are simply no longer viable as US enterprises, or under US auspices in Iraq. Which is why it's time for the USA come around to the greatly disappointing realization that it is time to end this horrifically deadly and costly charade, and just bring our faithful, misplaced troops home. They've done all they can do, and much more than we ever should have asked of them in such impossible circumstances for "transforming the Mideast" in a positive way.

If everybody wants the US out except the people making the money and the people making the decision to leave, what happens ?
So 4 in 10 Iraqis are either rich or in politics? I somehow doubt you can support this number.

Hypewaders's original assertion was that "we are not popular for what we have done to Iraq", apparently based on hanging out with other Arabs when he was a kid, and some Iraqi dudes he knows (who I guess know more about Iraq than Iraqis who live there). A paragon of nuance and objectivity, no doubt. In any case, the reality is reflective that popularity varies depending on who you ask, which is what I said:

One key result of the ABC poll is that many Iraqis do not see the US and Coalition forces as allies or liberators, and the US has
definitely failed to win the battle for “hearts and minds.” Iraqis divided, by 48-52 percent, over whether the United States was right or
wrong to invade in spring 2003. Once again, however, there are sharp sectarian and ethnic splits. Seventy percent of Shiites and 83
percent of Kurds polled endorsed the invasion. But 98 percent of Sunni Arabs said it was wrong.
Life is good for Americans in the areas that supported the removal of Saddam and support the continued coalition presence. People smile, wave, offer bread, water, and tea, give soldiers lower prices in their shops, and either point out any muj activity or run the bad guys out of town themselves. I'm not sure why both of you have such a demonstrably hard time grasping this.

E3R: "Hypewaders's original assertion was that "we are not popular for what we have done to Iraq", apparently based on hanging out with other Arabs when he was a kid, and some Iraqi dudes he knows (who I guess know more about Iraq than Iraqis who live there)."

No, you missed my point again. Our reckless shattering of Iraq didn't happen in my younger days, but familiarity with a region and culture does help in recognizing the humanity and human responses there. For USAmericans who haven't lived in the Mideast, it is a lot harder to identify with and understand Iraqi antipathy for their occupiers. I mention my atypical background in order to acknowledge that it is harder for someone like you to grasp what angers most Iraqis about the invasion and occupation, because you obviously have trouble realistically imagining yourself in their shoes. There is a difference, and I acknowledge the handicap that comes with being unfamiliar with a culture. It makes it much harder for you to anticipate how Iraqis react, which (ironically enough) is very much the same as you and your neighbors would react if similar tragedy and ordeals visited your own streets.

You don't have to live among Arabs suffering and despising occupation and civil war to consider their responses as equivalent to what your own would be, but I'm convinced it does give one an intuitive and empathetic advantage. I don't doubt in the least your ability to overcome our differences and understand what I do, but it's clear you're not there yet. There are multiplying independent ways that you can learn what Iraqis are going through and what their sentiments are, and it's evident to me that you have not afforded yourself of them. You can't change your background, but you can certainly change your diet of information.

"the reality is reflective that popularity varies depending on who you ask"

Iraqi opinions overwhelmingly rue the US intervention, and want for US military and corporate involvement in their country to end.

"People smile, wave, offer bread, water, and tea, give soldiers lower prices in their shops"

Yes, people do that everywhere. It has to do with trying to live one's life as normally and graciously as possible under the circumstances.

"...and either point out any muj activity or run the bad guys out of town themselves. "

If by "bad guys" you mean anyone in militant opposition to the occupation, well they too smile, wave, offer bread, water, and tea, give soldiers lower prices in their shops when it isn't advantageous for them to fight. Our intelligence efforts are plagued by both fearful and intentional non-cooperation and disinformation by Iraqis.

"I'm not sure why both of you have such a demonstrably hard time grasping [that Life is good for Americans in the areas that supported the removal of Saddam and support the continued coalition presence]."

Such conditions are artificially maintained, and cannot be expanded to the country at large. Without a strict occupation lockdown on isolated green zones, there is no faction of Iraqis that does not contain enemies of the occupation.

Hyper, the polls and numbers and reality speak against you. You're trying to say one thing and it is easily debunked. However you don't back down. You also refuse to concede a point, not matter how weel documented. It's like arguing with a two year old, except at least the two year old is more reasonable.

TW Scott: "Hyper, the polls and numbers and reality speak against you."

Polls consistently show Iraqi disaffection for the occupation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm).

"You're trying to say one thing and it is easily debunked."

Iraqis have overwhelmingly rejected the US agenda in their country and they have turned their attention to surviving or escaping their civil war. The occupation has severely disrupted, and continues to disrupt Iraqi life. The occupation is corrosive to relations between Iraq and the USA, is compromising US leverage in the Mideast generally, and is damaging our strategic and economic interests. You say that this is easily debunked, but have not confronted the preponderance of evidence (http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55) supporting my view. This was a hearts-and-minds war, and many USAmericans still lack the heart and mind to understand how and why we had lost it from the start: Hubris.

Some clear examples of information supporting my general opinion is available at Project on Defense Alternatives (http://www.comw.org/pda/):

Vicious Circle (http://www.comw.org/pda/0505rm10.html)
Iraq War Withdrawal and Exit Plans (http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html)

Never new 33% was an overwhelming majority before. I can see how Obama might become president now.

From where do you get 33%, and what does the number mean? Have you taken a look at any of the links (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/11other.htm) I've been providing?

[i]

http://www.freewebs.com/alldonne/GreenNewBeginStatue.jpghttp://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/fall_of_saigon_1.jpg

Nothing is going to make it look like this expedition has not been a wasted effort, because sadly that is just what it has been. There is no way we're going to withdraw as if we knew what we were getting into. We didn't. We've got to stop pretending, because the only people we're fooling by it are ourselves.

We put pressure on communism and communism is no longer a threat. Big mistake, should have done nothing and let them get a hold of your ass. Would have been great to sit back and watch that.

All you do is complain.

One key result of the ABC poll is that many Iraqis do not see the US and Coalition forces as allies or liberators, and the US has
definitely failed to win the battle for “hearts and minds.” Iraqis divided, by 48-52 percent, over whether the United States was right or
wrong to invade in spring 2003. Once again, however, there are sharp sectarian and ethnic splits. Seventy percent of Shiites and 83
percent of Kurds polled endorsed the invasion. But 98 percent of Sunni Arabs said it was wrong.
”
Life is good for Americans in the areas that supported the removal of Saddam and support the continued coalition presence. People smile, wave, offer bread, water, and tea, give soldiers lower prices in their shops, and either point out any muj activity or run the bad guys out of town themselves. I'm not sure why both of you have such a demonstrably hard time grasping this. According to the very poll you linked, "continual" US presence is favored by almost no one except some Kurds, and those Kurds do not support an independent, unified, democratic Iraq.

When the people who most favor your current behaviors are the ones most opposed to your declared goals, something's wrong, eh?

You seem to find importance in the fact that many Iraqis regard the deposing of Saddam as a good thing. Practically everyone on the planet, iincluding Iran and Al Qaeda, regards deposing Saddam as a good thing. It's more important that after five years a large minority of Iraqis still regards the deposing of Saddam as a bad thing.

You seem to take comfort in the large percentage of Iraqis who favor delayed and orderly withdrawal of US forces over precipitous and immediate withdrawal. Meanwhile, the US by its actions is preparing for permanent occupation and the installation of a client state. Do you think the Iraqis who favor delayed and orderly withdrawal are, or will be, happy with that ?

You don't have to live among Arabs suffering and despising occupation and civil war to consider their responses as equivalent to what your own would be, but I'm convinced it does give one an intuitive and empathetic advantage. I don't doubt in the least your ability to overcome our differences and understand what I do, but it's clear you're not there yet. There are multiplying independent ways that you can learn what Iraqis are going through and what their sentiments are, and it's evident to me that you have not afforded yourself of them. You can't change your background, but you can certainly change your diet of information.
So if I offer a bunch of contrary anecdotal evidence about the lives and opinions of my Iraqi friends (who actually live there) and my experiences helping them rebuild their lives, does that mean I win?

Here is the problem with your posting in this thread thus far. You are attempting to lecture the rest of us about what life is like for Jamal Iraqi while having no direct experience to base your opinions on. You have not lived there yourself, but you keep telling everyone who disagrees with you that they do so simply because they aren't as cultured, enlightened, or connected as you became from living in a different country a generation ago under different circumstances. The pulpit from which you preach to us is erected amidst the cheapest of the cheap seats, and no amount of flowery rhetoric countermands hard evidence. Recognize that.

Yes, people do that everywhere. It has to do with trying to live one's life as normally and graciously as possible under the circumstances.
That must be why, in 2005, rolling through Tikrit got nothing but crossed arms and ugly stares, but Tal Afar was a love-fest for the US Army. Obviously we were not making things hard enough for the Tikritis...

According to the very poll you linked, "continual" US presence is favored by almost no one except some Kurds, and those Kurds do not support an independent, unified, democratic Iraq.

When the people who most favor your current behaviors are the ones most opposed to your declared goals, something's wrong, eh?

You seem to find importance in the fact that many Iraqis regard the deposing of Saddam as a good thing. Practically everyone on the planet, iincluding Iran and Al Qaeda, regards deposing Saddam as a good thing. It's more important that after five years a large minority of Iraqis still regards the deposing of Saddam as a bad thing.

You seem to take comfort in the large percentage of Iraqis who favor delayed and orderly withdrawal of US forces over precipitous and immediate withdrawal. Meanwhile, the US by its actions is preparing for permanent occupation and the installation of a client state. Do you think the Iraqis who favor delayed and orderly withdrawal are, or will be, happy with that ?
Your attempts at psychoanalyzing other posters are always very cute.

I have posted some opinion polls in this thread that I felt sufficiently demonstrated the gradient of Iraqi opinion regarding the invasion, the coalition forces, and the consensus for what the future should look like. There really is not any more to it than that.

I have posted some opinion polls in this thread that I felt sufficiently demonstrated the gradient of Iraqi opinion regarding the invasion, the coalition forces, and the consensus for what the future should look like. There really is not any more to it than that. And I commented that your apparent feelings about what that particular poll - poll, singular - showed were not well supported by some results of the poll itself.

Instead, they supported in part and omitted in part the basic description of Iraqi "consensus" proposed by Hypewaders, which you appeared to be arguing against.

So if there is nothing more to it than that, back to the discussion.
So if I offer a bunch of contrary anecdotal evidence about the lives and opinions of my Iraqi friends (who actually live there) and my experiences helping them rebuild their lives, does that mean I win? No, you have to connect them with the matter under discussion by some kind of argument.
The pulpit from which you preach to us is erected amidst the cheapest of the cheap seats, and no amount of flowery rhetoric countermands hard evidence. Recognize that. Hard evidence takes its meaning from argument. If your evidence supports your argument, you haven't shown how. Instead you appear Yes, people do that everywhere. It has to do with trying to live one's life as normally and graciously as possible under the circumstances.
”
That must be why, in 2005, rolling through Tikrit got nothing but crossed arms and ugly stares, but Tal Afar was a love-fest for the US Army. Obviously we were not making things hard enough for the Tikritis... to misunderstand Hype's assertions, as well as my own, and several others' who have posted on this topic.

And I commented that your apparent feelings about what that particular poll - poll, singular - showed were not well supported by some results of the poll itself.
You are contesting that coalition forces enjoy different levels of rapport with and support from the population in different areas of the country? Hm, ok.

As for the rest, I'm simply refusing you the permission to make my arguments into something they're not. They call that obfuscation. It is a preferred tactic of the Republicans you abhor, but what works for them doesn't seem to be working out very well for you. In the future, try arguing against what people say, not what you wish they had said.

In the future, try arguing against what people say, not what you wish they had said. That kind of projection is also a common Republican obfuscation, and unworthy of you.

If you take your own advice, you will produce less of this:
You are contesting that coalition forces enjoy different levels of rapport with and support from the population in different areas of the country? Hm, ok. No, {your attempt to argue against what you wish I had said is noted, and declined} I am contesting your characterization of the rapport with and support of US soldiers as implying support of US goals, or even continued support of the mere presence of US soldiers, in a centrally governed Iraq.

Once again: According to your linked poll, the people most in favor of a unified Iraq are the ones least supportive of the presence of US soldiers, and vice versa. The declared US goal is a unified Iraq.

Once again: According to your linked poll, a large majority of Iraqis are willing to tell a pollster that they want the US soldiers to leave Iraq - some slowly, some quickly regardless of the consequences. Your interpretation of that as implying shared benchmarks, etc, is without evidence.

The Iraqi citizenry's "benchmarks are unspecified - in the past, other polls, they have included simple time (with security if possible, slowly, out within a year or so, was a common one). The declared US benchmarks are unrealistic, implying permanent occupation, and the US preparations are for permanent occupation.

You refer to such poll results as "hard facts", that trump "flowery rhetoric". I would include the facts of US preparations and concrete - literal, legal, political, economic - infrastructure. There is an obvious conflict between what most Iraqis want and what the US is doing - agreed ?

From where do you get 33%, and what does the number mean? Have you taken a look at any of the links (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/11other.htm) I've been providing?

I have been, and also been checking the poll questions as well as how they are presented. I have also been talking with some Iraqis and troops in Iraq online.

The poll you cite is along the old lines of "When did you stop beating your wife?" and then marking any answer other than a specific date as still beating .....

Since only 7% of the population at most has been fighting the Allies, and even that is stretching it, it can be assumed only 4 times that number of people are so adamantly against the reconstruction. I add in anohter 5% as not matter what you do 5% are pissed at you, This gives me the 33%. Also the one sect that is the most displeased with US involvment is less that 1/3 the population. The other two major sects are actually pro USA involvement and comprise a VAST majority of the population.

Since only 7% of the population at most has been fighting the Allies, and even that is stretching it, it can be assumed only 4 times that number of people are so adamantly against the reconstruction. A wild and unlikely assumption like that requires a great deal more evidence.

That agrees with no polls, no trend of events, no evidence at all that I can think of.

The other two major sects are actually pro USA involvement and comprise a VAST majority of the population. The only faction that shows up in polls as even willing to tolerate longterm US occupation is the Kurds.

And they want independence from Baghdad, not "reconstruction" of Iraq by the US.

So Obama voted for FISA. I wonder if some more people now think he will change his war position, as I have suggested?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/11/obama.netroots/index.html?eref=onion

Obama has been too emphatic about ending the war if elected, to ever back down without destroying himself. Even if he is seen to drag his feet, the core of his support base will collapse, because the core of his platform has become ending the occupation of Iraq. Thanks for the link, countezero which provided some insight on the passing of the new FISA bill-

Obama:...I had to balance or weigh voting against a program that I think that we need -- and that had been created so that your privacies were protected -- or create a situation in which we didn't have the program in place.


Gov. Richardson:What changed is that the bill got better and more acceptable to Sen. Obama -- the judicial oversight, the fact that the president can't unilaterally say he's going to eavesdrop on citizens. There are a lot of safeguards in the bill that weren't there before.



A notable new safeguard (however useless under the present Administration) is the Constitutionally-lame "note from Mom" proviso, immunizing telecoms- It's worth considering that Obama would not have to give them that note on his own watch.

Although I'm not happy with FISA today, I don't want Obama criticizing our anti-American security state so directly as I do. His candidacy would be immediately destroyed if he were to assail US paranoia and authoritarianism in the context of our powerful and irrational collective fears of terrorism. It's going to take more than a Presidential race for the USA to come to effective terms with the psychological warfare that is terrorism because up until now, our leaders have been playing along with our enemies in stoking our fears.

We're all tangled up in the USA over issues of security, and these knots can't be sorted out by arbitrarily grabbing one issue yanking hard. The disappointments that we Obama supporters feel are not merely in our candidate- progressives impulses will always be disappointed in a society that is not ready for radical change. Obama is no radical. He's merely our best chance for a more responsible and responsive Presidency than the last.

We put pressure on communism and communism is no longer a threat.


Except in our colleges and universities. ;)

Obama has been too emphatic about ending the war if elected, to ever back down without destroying himself. Even if he is seen to drag his feet, the core of his support base will collapse, because the core of his platform has become ending the occupation of Iraq. Thanks for the link, countezero which provided some insight on the passing of the new FISA bill-

Obama:


Gov. Richardson:



A notable new safeguard (however useless under the present Administration) is the Constitutionally-lame "note from Mom" proviso, immunizing telecoms- It's worth considering that Obama would not have to give them that note on his own watch.

Although I'm not happy with FISA today, I don't want Obama criticizing our anti-American security state so directly as I do. His candidacy would be immediately destroyed if he were to assail US paranoia and authoritarianism in the context of our powerful and irrational collective fears of terrorism. It's going to take more than a Presidential race for the USA to come to effective terms with the psychological warfare that is terrorism because up until now, our leaders have been playing along with our enemies in stoking our fears.

We're all tangled up in the USA over issues of security, and these knots can't be sorted out by arbitrarily grabbing one issue yanking hard. The disappointments that we Obama supporters feel are not merely in our candidate- progressives impulses will always be disappointed in a society that is not ready for radical change. Obama is no radical. He's merely our best chance for a more responsible and responsive Presidency than the last.

So after whining about this for months, you're suddenly OK with what he did? Now who's comprimising for political purposes? You ...

I'm OK with Obama, but I wouldn't say I'm OK with where our country is now. Without kowtowing to AIPAC and the War on Terror for example, a US Presidential Candidate would soon become mincemeat- and that's because of the mentality of the country, regardless of the level of understanding Obama may possess. While most USAmericans do want out of Iraq, public opinion remains too superficial to contemplate rolling back all our misreactions and over-reactions to 9-11 during the campaign season. I don't like these political compromises, but I do understand their necessity in the political climate of the present era.

If Obama wants the job, he has to astutely play the game. I do hope that Obama will win the Presidency, and will use his office to elevate USAmerican awareness and debate, and champion reform of FISA, DHS, the gulag, War Inc, and our many other post-9-11 travesties. Encouraging and attaining the necessary consensus in the public and in Congress for such changes will take more than a campaign, and more than one term. Because we're not electing a monarch, viable Presidential candidates can't get too far ahead of public opinion, however ill-informed public opinion may be.

Except in our colleges and universities. ;)

Or on this web site, where Marxism often reigns supreme.

Marxism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) Who specifically do you consider a Marxist here, and why countezero?

Marxism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) Who specifically do you consider a Marxist here, and why countezero?

"Marxism" might not be the accurate term, but radical leftist would be. Let's see, could it be :

#1 Some of the leftists on these forums that are defensive about the Communist democides of tens of millions of innocent civilians during the 20th century ? They act just like neo-Nazi's (but on the opposite side of the political spectrum).
#2 The class warfare talk coming from some of the leftists on these forums, that Karl Marx would be proud of ?
#3 The constant propoganda against GWB and the U.S. blaming them for every problem under the Sun, instead of blaming the real causes ? In their warped left-wing minds, every terrorist bomb was because of the U.S., NOT the terrorist pressing the button. Another words, they're apologists for terrorism.....it's sickening.

Cazzo: "Some of the leftists on these forums that are defensive about the Communist democides of tens of millions of innocent civilians during the 20th century"

Who? Where, for example, has anyone defended or justified Stalin's or Mao's crimes here? You are introducing unrelated crimes against humanity in order to mislabel and smear people that you shrink from confronting directly.

"The class warfare talk coming from some of the leftists on these forums, that Karl Marx would be proud of"

How do you reconcile your above statement " 'Marxism' might not be the accurate term" with that? You seem so accustomed to smearing, that you slide back into the habit before even completing a rational thought.

"The constant propoganda against GWB"

Surely you understand the difference between propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) and informed criticism. That GWB has not been a successful President, and that his policies (including "With Us or Against Us") have been harmful to US interests is not propaganda- it's common knowledge across the political spectrum. Marxists are a very miniscule part of that spectrum today, and rarely heard from. That all who oppose the failing GWB agenda are somehow abetting some monolithic menace, a fantastical Marxist/terrorist Axis of Evil is a laughable and desperate smear.

"In their warped left-wing minds, every terrorist bomb was because of the U.S."

There are many rational people right, left, and center who understand that terrorism is not spontaneous- It does not justify terrorism to acknowledge the objects of terrorist rage. What has most recently metastasized terrorism was the mobilization of a shocked USA into a war against a tactic. Terrorism is not an ideology that the Right can vanquish, and it is not an ideology that the Left are "apologists" for. You are irrationally conflating what you don't quite comprehend into one simplistic imaginary menace.

"they're apologists for terrorism.....it's sickening."

Puerile drama. Your simplistic, warmed-over Cold War ideology has no greater separation from the roots of terrorism than the left.

Cazzo: "Some of the leftists on these forums that are defensive about the Communist democides of tens of millions of innocent civilians during the 20th century"

Who? Where, for example, has anyone defended or justified Stalin's or Mao's crimes here? You are introducing unrelated crimes against humanity in order to mislabel and smear people that you shrink from confronting directly.

"The class warfare talk coming from some of the leftists on these forums, that Karl Marx would be proud of"

How do you reconcile your above statement " 'Marxism' might not be the accurate term" with that? You seem so accustomed to smearing, that you slide back into the habit before even completing a rational thought.

"The constant propoganda against GWB"

Surely you understand the difference between propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) and informed criticism. That GWB has not been a successful President, and that his policies (including "With Us or Against Us") have been harmful to US interests is not propaganda- it's common knowledge across the political spectrum. Marxists are a very miniscule part of that spectrum today, and rarely heard from. That all who oppose the failing GWB agenda are somehow abetting some monolithic menace, a fantastical Marxist/terrorist Axis of Evil is a laughable and desperate smear.

"In their warped left-wing minds, every terrorist bomb was because of the U.S."

There are many rational people right, left, and center who understand that terrorism is not spontaneous- It does not justify terrorism to acknowledge the objects of terrorist rage. What has most recently metastasized terrorism was the mobilization of a shocked USA into a war against a tactic. Terrorism is not an ideology that the Right can vanquish, and it is not an ideology that the Left are "apologists" for. You are irrationally conflating what you don't quite comprehend into one simplistic imaginary menace.

"they're apologists for terrorism.....it's sickening."

Puerile drama. Your simplistic, warmed-over Cold War ideology has no greater separation from the roots of terrorism than the left.

I'm not going to go through every single thread in this board to prove my points, because you'll just keep on nit-picking counterpoints. There's at least 2 previous threads I've made on the topic of Communist democides, and in all of them, the radical leftists on these forums were VERY defensive of the Communist democides. They behaved just like neo-Nazi's do when the Holocaust subject is brought up.

Cazzo: "the radical leftists on these forums were VERY defensive of the Communist democides. They behaved just like neo-Nazi's do when the Holocaust subject is brought up."

I haven't noticed any neo-nazis here (I doubt mods would long tolerate them) nor do I recall any significant accumulation of posts here that are equivalent in hatred or racism to typical neo-nazi boards or blogs.

"I'm not going to go through every single thread in this board to prove my points"

I'm not asking you to do so. I'm only asking for representative examples of Sciforums members being "VERY defensive of the Communist democides" and "just like neo-Nazi's", as you say. If you are not just making a general ad-hominem smear of members here that you disagree with, and if you are not offering a mere and bitter distraction from reasonable discussion, then you should be able to easily recall and list here the specific posts (and authors of the posts) that you describe as reprehensible sympathizers with terrorism and democide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide).

........ the radical leftists on these forums were VERY defensive of the Communist democides. They behaved just like neo-Nazi's do when the Holocaust subject is brought up.
Radical leftists on this forum denied that communist regimes killed millions of people?
Really?
How strange.

Could you back this up. I can certainly remember the thread where you felt Jews in Hollywood were not letting any other mass murders be made into films - except for The Killing Fields and other examples brought up.

But that is very different from denying the killings themselves. The post makes it sounds like there were a bunch of leftests who deny, for example, that Stalin killed huge numbers of people. Let me know who these leftists are and I will set them straight.

oops, double post.

Cazzo: "the radical leftists on these forums were VERY defensive of the Communist democides. They behaved just like neo-Nazi's do when the Holocaust subject is brought up."

I haven't noticed any neo-nazis here (I doubt mods would long tolerate them) nor do I recall any significant accumulation of posts here that are equivalent in hatred or racism to typical neo-nazi boards or blogs.

"I'm not going to go through every single thread in this board to prove my points"

I'm not asking you to do so. I'm only asking for representative examples of Sciforums members being "VERY defensive of the Communist democides" and "just like neo-Nazi's", as you say. If you are not just making a general ad-hominem smear of members here that you disagree with, and if you are not offering a mere and bitter distraction from reasonable discussion, then you should be able to easily recall and list here the specific posts (and authors of the posts) that you describe as reprehensible sympathizers with terrorism and democide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide).

Read through these 2 threads on Communist democides :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79530
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81774

You'll notice how some of the leftists on this forum blow off Communist democides like they were nothing or not important, and even tried turning the tables a couple times. In the thread about Hollywood, many clearly were against the idea of a film ever being made about China's democide that was GREATER than the jewish Holocaust. This kind of reaction from them is similar to how neo-Nazis react when the Holocaust is brought up....defensive and reactionary.

Radical leftists on this forum denied that communist regimes killed millions of people?
Really?
How strange.


I never said they "denied" it. But they definitely don't like the subject being brought up; they become defensive about Communist democides.

In the thread about Hollywood, many clearly were against the idea of a film ever being made about China's democide that was GREATER than the jewish Holocaust. This kind of reaction from them is similar to how neo-Nazis react when the Holocaust is brought up.

No it is not.
You were suggesting that there was a Jewish conspiracy to suppress films about communist crimes. Something a neo-nazi would be very pleased to agree with. Holocaust deniers say that the holocaust did not happen. Please make a list of the leftists here who have said that Communist regimes have not killed millions of people.

I never said they "denied" it. But they definitely don't like the subject being brought up; they become defensive about Communist democides.

In the thread I participated in it was the idea of a Jewish conspiracy that I found irritating. I certainly would not have disagreed about the millions of people killed by communist regimes. The 'defensiveness' as you put it, or disagreement, as I would put it, was around your conspiracy theory.

No it is not.
You were suggesting that there was a Jewish conspiracy to suppress films about communist crimes. Something a neo-nazi would be very pleased to agree with. Holocaust deniers say that the holocaust did not happen. Please make a list of the leftists here who have said that Communist regimes have not killed millions of people.

You CLEARLY never read anything I wrote in that thread. I NEVER mentioned a "jewish conspiracy"...:rolleyes:

Here's the thread again : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81774
I'll give you a cookie if you can find ANYWHERE in it where I (me) mentioned a "jewish" conspiracy.

I never said they "denied" it. But they definitely don't like the subject being brought up; they become defensive about Communist democides. You mean when you said that communists and leftists were really neo-nazis. Is that when they became defensive? You mean when you lumped together a wide range of people on the left of the spectrum and generalized about them, said what they did and said it was the same as neo-nazis? Was that when they became defensive?

If you had tried starting a thread simply on the topic of the democides that might be a better litmus test.

Here on this thread you are at it again. Read your own post above where you compare the leftists here TO HOLOCAUST DENIERS.

Then you say you never said they denied anything. Well, then your example was a poor one. And an imflammatory one. And, gosh, one that will lead, oddly enough to defensiveness.

If I say that your arguments here have problems of logic just like a pedophiles arguments do, perhaps you will 'get defensive'.

You CLEARLY never read anything I wrote in that thread. I NEVER mentioned a "jewish conspiracy"...:rolleyes:

Here's the thread again : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81774
I'll give you a cookie if you can find ANYWHERE in it where I (me) mentioned a "jewish" conspiracy.

So you are willing to state clearly that you do not think that Jews have had undue power over what mass killings have been presented by Hollywood?

Then you say you never said they denied anything. Well, then your example was a poor one. And an imflammatory one. And, gosh, one that will lead, oddly enough to defensiveness.

Their defenses were defending that Hollywood refuses to make films about Communist democides, not my claim about radical leftists. Read the thread again, you'll see many cases where they make bogus excuses for Hollywood.
You can spin it any way you want, this is starting to get OT.

Cazzo:"I'm not going to go through every single thread in this board to prove my points"

I'm not asking you to do so. I'm only asking for representative examples of Sciforums members being "VERY defensive of the Communist democides" and "just like neo-Nazi's", as you say.

"Read through these (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79530) 2 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81774) threads on Communist democides"

Following first link, I found myself agreeing with redarmy11: The raving neo-commies seem to be in your head, not in your thread.

Likewise, I couldn't put my finger on a single neo-commie in your second link either. I thought spidergoat refuted your thesis well.

"You'll notice how some of the leftists on this forum blow off Communist democides like they were nothing or not important"

Nobody there dismissed the crimes of the Cultural Revolution as nonexistent or unimportant. You've still failed to provide a single example of CR-denial at Sciforums.

"even tried turning the tables a couple times"

You poor thing. I noticed some even asked for specific examples of members who you consider Cultural-Revolution-Deniers.

You've had a fair hearing here and in other threads, you did not produce any support for your accusation, so at this point I intend to end this threadjack.

How about you?

Me thinks you are extremely naive and don't understand the situation in Iraq to think that ANY president would withdraw from there anytime soon....

Me thinks you are extremely naive and don't understand the situation in Iraq to think that ANY president would withdraw from there anytime soon....


Of course not. During GWB's administration, the democratic left wanted the troops pulled out ASAP because they knew it would end up in disaster (after they left), then they'd pin the blame on GWB rather than themselves.
Now that there's a chance one of their own (Obama) might get in office, they can't afford Iraq to become a failure under Obama. So now they're changing their toon....

Come on Cazzo, it is completely unrelated to that. First there is no difference between the 1.5 parties in this regard (they both voted for the war), so why would they REALLY want to leave? Simply, they don't, no matter what they say.

Second, it is kind of a complicated situation, but it has to do with denying the competitors of the US from access to the biggest prize on Earth...Not to mention having it for yourself... But sometimes just the ability to deny a big gain for your competitor is just as important than having the gain for yourself...

Second, it is kind of a complicated situation, but it has to do with denying the competitors of the US from access to the biggest prize on Earth...Not to mention having it for yourself... But sometimes just the ability to deny a big gain for your competitor is just as important than having the gain for yourself...

Yea, ever since the U.S. "conquered" Iraq as "it's new territory", it's been sucking all it's oil out for "FREE" ! :rolleyes:
/end sarcasm

Read the last sentence of post #98 again....

Syzygys: "Me thinks you are extremely naive and don't understand the situation in Iraq to think that ANY president would withdraw from there anytime soon...."

A clear US majority has no difficulty discerning that invading Iraq was a mistake. It is shameful, but not unusual for the US majority to ignore foreign tragedies, even those that have been much of our own making. Most USAmericans didn't lose sleep over the agonies of South East Asia after our similarly unprovoked and failed intervention there.

Regarding US leverage in terms of hidden objectives (primarily Mideast oil / protection of the PetroDollar) the damage is already done. The mission to forge a compliant US client-state in fractious Iraq through unprovoked intervention and military occupation was never realistic. The window of opportunity during which the experiment was tolerated by the populations and allies involved is now long past. Today, both US and Iraqi politicians with any future are not idly or duplicitously talking about the withdrawal of forces- Their political necks are on the line to withdraw US forces.

When you say that Obama will not be able to extricate our forces from Iraq "anytime soon" I take it to mean (at the latest) within the first half of Obama's first term. I say he can do nothing else- not only because it is his most significant campaign pledge: More importantly, the USA cannot afford to further expend our military and economic resources in a patently misguided and manifestly futile mission in Iraq.

In case other developments have been escaping your attention, our campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan is not going well. We had justification for our intervention in Afghanistan, and that justification still holds the considerable leverage that we utterly lack in Iraq. We still have attainable goals for influencing a stable and positive outcome In Afghanistan- That is, we can actually leave that long-suffering country better than we found it, if we commit sufficient resources. The Bush Administration is quietly shifting priorities toward that war, because they too perceive that if they do not, the unraveling will accelerate in Afghanistan.

WaPo- A Shortage Of Troops in Afghanistan: Iraq War Limits U.S. Options, Says Chairman of Joint Chiefs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070202010.html)

NYT: U.S. Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13military.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1215993865-Q0Rz83nSSN2IjdG+tBtKDg)

The Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq (http://www.comw.org/pda/taskforceresponsiblewithdrawal.html) has produced a study well worth the consideration of those sincerely interested in this topic:

Quickly, Carefully, and Generously: The Necessary Steps for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq (pdf) (http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/taskforceresponsiblewithdrawal.pdf)

Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html)

Snap.

Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html)

Snap.

Not much of a snap. He does say as time and conditions allow. If insurgents stop attacking we could be out there in record time. However we both know that is not the case.

The case is that illegitimate occupations are despised until they end. The Catch-22 argument is wearing out fast for politicians in both Iraq and the USA.