| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2007/9/14-22 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48073 Activity:moderate |
9/14 So, exactly what did the surge accomplish again?
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9804115
My feeling is that Republican just want to drag this until
2009 and blame Democrats for "loosing the war."
\_ It accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish:
it lined the pockets of the defence contractors, all who
donate to the GOP.
\_ Are you kidding? Most large companies donate to both
parties. It only makes sense to do so.
\_ Do you really think that defense contractos donate the
same amount to both parties? How about oil companies?
\_ Dunno if they donate the same amount or not, but I'm
quite sure they donate to both parties.
\_ Easy enough to look up:
http://www.csua.org/u/jk9
Big Oil: 3:1 Republican, 4:1 recently
http://www.csua.org/u/jka
Defence: 60:40 GOP, 2:1 lately
The latter actually surprised me a bit, I thought that
it would be more one sided.
\_ It used to be that the timeline for ending a war was "when we've
won". Now it seems like the timeline is "we haven't won and this
is really frustrating so let's just call it a day and go home and
pretend it never happened". The tactics, strategies, equipment,
man power levels, focus, and diplomatic efforts may all be wrong
and require a complete change of plan but retreating because we're
and re
Elsewhere in the programme, we meet glamour model Lucy Pinder, whose breasts hav\
e made her famous. With contracts to the Daily Star and Nuts magazine, Lucy has\
made a name for herself using her body quire a complete change of plan s got a b\
rain as well as a pair of The programme follows Lucy on a shoot for Nuts and he\
ars what life is like when you have some of the most famous breasts in the nation.
Also on Wednesday, model Jo talks about how her attitude towards her breasts cha\
nged dramatically after she had her baby, and Gemma explains what life is like w\
hen you have to spend up 800 a year on hiding an embarrassing nipple problem.
to boobs!Shebut retreating because we're
and but retreating because we're
"bored of this war and it's no fun!" is detrimental to our long
term standing in the world and our ability in the future for
generations to apply non-military pressure to accomplish our
national goals. No one follows a loser or a quitter. The war has
become so political that no one in DC seems to care about the
consequences anymore. It has become a faxed memo talking points
political item. How sad for all of us.
\_ The war was a mistake. If you make a mistake, the thing to do
is stop making it, not stubbornly keep doing it because you
are worried about pride and saving face. This whole thing has
already damaged our standing in the world. Talk about
consequences? What is your definition of "winning"?
\_ "The thing to do is stop making it": far too trivial an
answer. The answer is to finish what you started, not get
bored and go because it is annoying. We'll never win by
my definition. Our leaders (in both parties) are too gutless
to do what needs to be done. I read an interview with Powell
a few days ago where he said we should have shot a bunch of
looters on day one as a lesson to the rest. I'm with Powell.
\_ You still haven't answered the question as to what it
would mean for us to win.
\_ Win = defeat your enemies. In this case that would
mean closing the borders with Syria and Iraq to cut
off support and crushing groups such as the 'mahdi
army'. Once your enemies are defeated you can talk
about diplomatic solutions among the rational people
who remain. While these groups exist and still think
they can get more from fighting instead of talking
there can be no diplomatic solution to anything. War
is about breaking the will of your enemy to continue
fighting, which we haven't even *tried* to do yet.
That might get a bunch of folks into a tizzy and we
can't have folks in a tizzy, can we?
\_ Fighting it the way you want to fight it would require
many more men that the military has. I don't think
there is any way you are going to sell a draft,
especially at this point. And even if you could, I
don't think it would work, since it basically requires
breaking the Iraqi will to have an indepedent
government. It didn't work in Vietnam, why would it
work here? Iraq has a long history of defeating
colonial powers, you know.
\_ We're not colonizing, we're SETTING IT FREE!!!
Give me freedom or give me death! -Neocon
\_ How about choking to death on some Freedom
Fries?
\_ You CAN'T finish it. That's the fucking point.
\_ In your opinion. Fighting it like we have, you are
correct since we haven't been fighting, which includes
the surge in recent months.
\_ Whether Iraq should have been invaded or not is
neither here nor there. What people need to focus on
is the fact that we *are* there. Now what? Packing up
and going home is not a good solution, so what are the
other options?
\_ The only other option I can think of is to arm some
Saddam Hussein like strong man and let him kill as
many Kurds and Shi'ites as he needs to keep the
country together. Too bad we killed SH, eh?
\_ Then it is a good thing you're not making any
decisions.
\_ Yes, far better to listen to you and blow $1T,\
3k lost lives, 30k maimed and our credibility
\_ Yes, far better to listen to you and blow $1T,
3k lost lives, 30k maimed and our credibility
on a pointless invasion. I notice you haven't
been able to come up with any withdrawal strategy.
It is either the one I came up with or an out
and out civil war, which will be worse, and
just end up with the same kind of strongman
in the end anyway. Oh, and I warned that the
invasion of Iraq would most likely result in
a civil war there *before* the invasion. So yes,
it is a "good thing" that I am not making any
decisions.
\_ Stop focusing on the past. What's done is
done. Who cares about what you warned
against? So your withdrawal options are
what again? And what options are there
other than withdrawal, if any? Dems like
to say "I told you so". Fair enough. Now
they want to lead the country, so what's
the plan? Most of what I hear is BS that
panders to the "I told you so"'s in hopes
of getting elected. I'd like to hear some
real plans. So far my favorite is the
Biden-Gelb plan, which basically calls for
splitting Iraq up and guaranteeing the
Sunnis a share of oil profits. I think the
people who want our troops out of Iraq now
are thinking with their hearts and not
their minds.
\_ Actually, I think we should do the same
thing I suggested two years ago and it
starts with impeaching Bush and handing
him over to an International War Crimes
Tribunal. But I am sure you are not
interested in hearing it again, so I
won't bother. Any "solution" that doesn't
start out with hat in hand to the Iranians,
Turks, Syrians and Saudis is just a big
waste of time. You stilll are dreaming of
waste of time. You still are dreaming of
victory, when what you should be doing is
trying to cut your losses. Okay, I just
looked up the Biden-Gelb plan and it at
least recognizes the idea that the US needs
to engage Iraqi neighbors to have a hope
of a chance of success. But that chance that
Bush is going to effectively engage Iran is
nill. Maybe the next President will, though.
read the Biden-Gelb plan and I think it
focuses on the important points, which
are recognizing the inevitable need to
draw in and get the support from Iraq's
neighbors. I still think you are stuck
in fantasyland though.
nil. Maybe the next President will, though.
\_ Vote for Biden. People should stop
wasting their time with Hillary and
Obama. They are probably the 3rd and
4th best candidates the Dems have
but they have NAME RECOGNITION. The Dems
suck and I have low expectations for
the next President.
\_ Joe "never met a credit card company
I wouldn't fellate" Biden? Seriously,
Biden can't get the base. Without
primary voters, you can't get the
nom.
\_ I understand that, but I still
think he is the best man for
the job.
\_ I like Biden quite a bit, mostly just
from watching him at the debates, but
I don't think he has a chance. But
my candidate (Edwards) doesn't have
much of a chance either.
\_ Edwards leads the pack in Iowa.
Or, had for a while... It's neck
and neck, apparently.
\_ I don't think he has a chance
either and that's too bad. Why
is everyone all over Hillary? |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9804115 Get article background The Iraq war Why they should stay Sep 13th 2007 From The Economist print edition For all General Petraeus's spin, Iraq is still a violent mess. That is why America should not leave yet AFP POLITICS, said the late John Kenneth Galbraith, is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. The problem for America in Iraq is that it is agonisingly difficult to tell which is which. General David Petraeus, America's senior commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, its ambassador, went to Capitol Hill this week to tell Congress that bringing the troops home too soon would result in disaster. The ambassador said he could not guarantee success but that if America gave up now the consequences would be massive human suffering, the intervention of regional states and gains for Iran and al-Qaeda. More tunnel, little light This newspaper was not wowed by either man. The spin General Petraeus put on the military achievements of the surge exaggerated the gains. Mr Crocker's claim to see a spirit of sectarian reconciliation bubbling just beneath the surface of Iraq's stalemated politics was even less convincing. If America removes its forces while Iraq remains in its present condition, the Iraqi future is indeed likely to be disastrous. For that reason above any other, and despite misgivings about the possibility of even modest success any time soon, our own view is that America (and Britain) ought to stay in Iraq until conditions improve. A vote for staying does not mean that the leavers have no case. Most Democrats and a growing band of Republicans say that America has lost its ability to shape the politics of Iraq. By keeping its army on, ostensibly to hold the ring, America merely saves Iraq's Shia majority from the need to come to terms and share power with the disaffected and disfranchised (or so they feel) Sunni minority. By his insistence on staying and making only token troop reductions as his presidency counts down, George Bush just postpones the inevitable. It can also be argued that the disaster Mr Crocker says will befall Iraq if America leaves has happened already. America's military presence has not prevented massive human suffering. At least 100,000 civilians have already been killed in an orgy of sectarian killing. Several million have already been forced out of their homes. America's invasion has given al-Qaeda a new cause, battlefield and haven. And--irony of ironies--the best foreign friend of the Shia-led government that the American army props up in Baghdad is probably not the United States but Iran, America's great regional adversary. Iraqis themselves are understandably disillusioned and hostile. As General Petraeus took his flipchart to Capitol Hill, the latest BBC/ABC News poll reported that the proportion of Iraqis who want America to leave at once had risen from 35% to 47% since February. More than two out of three think the surge has made things worse, 85% say they lack confidence in the American or British forces and 57% (93% of Sunnis) consider attacks on them acceptable. On the security front, the best bit of news General Petraeus had for Congress is that local sheikhs in some mainly Sunni provinces such as Anbar, west of Baghdad, have stopped fighting alongside al-Qaeda and are now co-operating with American forces. But these Sunni tribesmen are at best fair-weather friends who do not trust and are not trusted by the government in Baghdad. Their decision to co-operate with America for the time being has had little impact on the sectarian killing and cleansing in mixed areas. General Petraeus says that by embedding American troops in violent neighbourhoods his surge has reduced sectarian killing by more than 45% since December. But even if his numbers are right that is just a kink in a graph of killing that has risen for most of the past four years. If the case for staying depended on extrapolating from the modest gains the general claims for his surge, it would be a weak one. The strong case is that if America leaves, things will get even worse. This can only be a guess, but it is more plausible than the alternative guess that America's going will nudge Iraq in the right direction. In the past two years, violence has tended to decline where American troops are present and to rise in the places they leave. There is no doubt that some Shia militias want to rid Baghdad of its Sunnis and that American troops are for now the only thing stopping them. Contrary to what foreigners think, most Iraqis say they oppose partition: in the BBC/ABC poll, 62% said Iraq should have a unified government and 98% said it would be a bad thing for the country to separate on sectarian lines. Not a must, just an ought In the Senate this week, the Democrats' Joe Biden predicted that the American people would not support an indefinite war whose sole remaining purpose was to prevent the situation in Iraq from becoming even worse. Asking Americans to squander more lives and money becomes harder and harder as the prospect of an Iraqi political settlement appears to recede. It is possible that within a year or 18 months a non-sectarian Iraqi army will be able to do much of the work the Americans do now. Or maybe the prospect of a new president in Washington in 2009 will concentrate the minds of the squabbling politicians in Baghdad. On the other hand, many previous hopes, such as those inspired by Iraq's first free elections of 2005, failed to bear fruit. If America could choose again, it would not step into a civil war in Mesopotamia. But there are worse reasons than preventing a bloodbath for a superpower to put its soldiers at risk. Having invaded Iraq in its own interest--to remove mass-killing weapons that turned out not to exist--America owes something to Iraq's people, a slim majority of whom want it to stay. At some point it may become clear the country has sunk so low it is simply beyond saving. |
| www.csua.org/u/jk9 -> www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?cycle=2006&ind=E01 Rankings are shown only for industries (such as the Automotive industry) -- not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car dealers). Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002. Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, June 04, 2007. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections. |
| www.csua.org/u/jka -> www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=D&cycle=2006 Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002. Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, June 04, 2007. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections. |