Reply With Quote
That sums it, but I don't think they can match Saddams worst.U.S. troops are the only thing standing between what we see on our television sets today and butchery
Tue Aug 29 , 8:05 PM ET
The wires are heavy with the question of Iraq. The defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut was a call to outright defiance by Democrats running for re-election. They have been warned now, by the unforgiving, that they must reject the war in Iraq and labor with the single end in mind of returning American troops and dissolving U.S. commitments.
Arguments are made for staying in and completing the mission. Norman Podhoretz, writing in The Wall Street Journal, does his illuminating best to make the case. National Review posts a symposium giving the views of a half-dozen students of the contest. The Weekly Standard publishes a robust defense of the Iraq venture written by William J. Stuntz, who is a professor at the Harvard Law School. He reminds his readers that in 1968 Eugene McCarthy practically defeated in bent president Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, bringing on the end of his presidency.
"On any plausible scale of strategic value," Professor Stuntz writes, "Iraq today easily beats Vietnam in the late 1960s or Korea in the early 1950s. America has three enemies in the Middle East today: secular or Sunni Baathism, violent Sunni jihadism, and violent Shiite jihadism. ... All three are dangerous because all have imperial ambitions; each seeks not control of a small piece of Middle Eastern real estate but regional hegemony -- even, in the case of the jihadists, world domination. Needless to say, all three hate the West."
The moral argument can't be conclusive, and nobody is arguing that it should be thought so. But it isn't right to ignore it. Here is how it figured in another context.
"I am convinced that (ours) is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world. Our involvement ... has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the military industrial complex; it has strengthened the forces of reaction in our nation. It has put us against the self-determination of a vast majority of the (native) people, and put us in the position of protecting a corrupt regime that is stacked against the poor. It has played havoc with our domestic destinies. We are spending $500,000 to kill every (enemy) soldier ... while we spend only $53 a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program, which is not even a good skirmish against poverty.
"Not only that, it has put us in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation. And here we are 10,000 miles away from home, fighting for the so-called freedom of the (native) people, when we have not even put our own house in order. The judgment of God is upon us today. And we could go right down the line and see that something must be done -- and something must be done quickly. We have alienated ourselves from other nations so we end up morally and politically isolated in the world. There is not a single major ally of the United States of America that would dare send a troop to --
"Vietnam."
That was a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. Four days later, he was slaughtered in Memphis.
Dr. King did not live to see the day, five years later, when the United States pulled out from Vietnam the last of our flags. That was in 1973. And he did not live to see the day, two years later, when Saigon fell and the communist victors killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and forced more than 1.5 million into re-education camps, causing 2 million others to flee Vietnam.
Lawrence Kaplan is a senior editor of The New Republic. He wrote last week: "U.S. troops are the only thing standing between what we see on our television sets today and butchery on a scale that would rival the worst of Saddam Hussein's depredations." Good men will perhaps not be finally governed by consideration of the moral question in Iraq, but they will not conceal that the point is there for men of good will to weigh.
That sums it, but I don't think they can match Saddams worst.U.S. troops are the only thing standing between what we see on our television sets today and butchery
I think they can, but that doesn't seem like that compelling a reason seeing as we did nothing to stop a million people from getting butchered in Rwanda or two million in Sudan.
No, the US has to stick it out in Iraq and get and achieve at least some semblence of Iraqization before they leave to retain any shred of credibility in their foreign policy. For an immediate pullout, we're damned if we don't but really damned if we do.
Credibility? So if we stay another 2, 5, or even 10 more years in Iraq, it will restore our credibility to the rest of the world? Both our enemies and allies already know we made a mistake. Will an extra decade or two of occupation radically alter the philosophies and culture of a people who value ancient tribal law over western-style jurisprudence? Iraq's former reputation as a more secular Arab state is vanishing as the Shia population continue to assert their popular majority and as educated upper and middle class Iraqi continue to emmigrate out of the country (suitcases are a big seller in Baghdad).
If we pull out the Democrats will politicize it...
s always find an excuse to .
Did I not say we are damned if we don't pull out as well?
I'm certain they will try, but it wouldn't amount to much more than red meat for their base. The politcal damage to Republicans is already done; independents and moderates opposed to this war aren't going to buy into Democrats suddenly saying "Look at the Republicans cut and run!"
Republican have squandered their foreign policy reputation, but that doesn't mean the public automatically renews their faith in the Democrats' foreign policy.
" s always find an excuse to ."
The biggest ins utionalized s in DC are the Repugs (DeLay, Abramoff, Reed, Norquist, K street) and their johns the corps.
The Iraqi government and cons ution are fatally weak.
The Iraqi army and police are infiltrated and dominated by militias.
The Shiite militias are a huge force waiting for the time to make their move.
After 3 years, not even Bagdad is secure. If the current by the US military to stabilize Bagdad is effective, we'll have to see if any security and stability of Bagdad persists.
But every single milestone has been totally meaningless, has not indicated progress towards the US achieving its objectives for Iraq. What's going to change that?
We'll see in Oct and Sep how many more Repug rats abandon dubya's sinking Iraq war ship to try to get re-elected in November.
the u.s. barely pulled out of bosnia..and foreign troops are still there.. i don't know what the you dumbasses(you know who you are) think, but anytime troops go in...they stay for a good while to settle things down...
...the Iraqi Army carried out an offensive not two days ago against the largest Militia (Sadr's) with minimal help from the US (not troops, in fact). Shia v. Shia - under the flag of THE Iraqi govt.
Is everything peachy over there? Of course not; but there are some encouraging signs. But just like the end of "Plamegate" and vidication for the adminstration in the Niger story, it goes unreported. Wouldn't want to give the "Repugs" any momentum this close to election day, would we.
Oh yeah, the economy is kicking a$$, too.
"the economy is kicking a$$,"
This is the first year the the poverty rate has not risen under the current Repugs, while we all know the tax rate for the super-rich has not risen. That's some kind of kick-ass progress for America?
Another "good" news for the non-super-rich and non-system-gamers:
"With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.
That situation is adding to fears among Republicans that the economy will hurt vulnerable in bents in this year's midterm elections even though overall growth has been healthy for much of the last five years.
The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation's living standards has risen steadily over the same period.
As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960's."
===============
I'm not for pulling out the US military "too soon", but nobody knows what "too soon" or "too late" or "stay the course" means. Even dubya sounded as blue as a Larry Brown in his latest press conference about Iraq, "frustrated", no progress, etc, etc. The Repugs have put the US military into a ing nightmare of a unending mess that was completely unnecessary and useless. Impeach the ers.
You left out that that article was from the NY Times on purpose I suppose, eh Boutons?
Of course! Boutons and New York Times are bed partners.
The article was from the NY Times, and it wasn't an editorial.
Those Repug government facts were widely reported in the last few days.
If you think the NYTimes, etc were lying about the facts, or doing Repug-style cherry picking of the facts, please refute.
So, you measure performance of the economy on what the tax rate is for the "super-rich". That's one bitter, envious, erroneous measurement you've got there.
"you measure performance of the economy on what the tax rate is for the "super-rich"."
link where I said that?
What's the point of the maco-economic measures being positive while the micro-economic wage slaves are losing ground?
what's erroneous? The Repugs are -bent on enriching and protecting the super-rich and corps, exclusively.
This is the first year the the poverty rate has not risen under the current Repugs, while we all know the tax rate for the super-rich has not risen. That's some kind of kick-ass progress for America?[
You clearly state that you consider the fact that the rich have not had a TAX RATE INCREASE indicates a lack of progress.
You are such a ing idiot, it defies all logic.
'"progress for America" includes everybody, not just the top 2%, or, eg, the only 8,000 families that will retain $300B in estate taxes.
Apart from the windfall enrichment of the super-rich from the Repugs, do you consider that the rate of poverty NOT rising for the first time after 6 straight years while median hourly wages drop 2% to be kick-ass progress?
Obstructed Anus, go yourself.
I just spent a month in Europe. They certainly have opinions. They're very interested in americans being divided. They laugh at how we will have to punish our dog Israel for losing the fight in the pit. They watch and consider our news networks like Americans watch entertainment tonight. They wonder how the leader of the free world can lie and cause so much death and chaos, and how weak and cowardly Americans must be for not finding their Marie Anntouinett (sp) moment. They also expect Iraq troops to turn on each other.
They have much more to say, but I have to go for now.
I don't measure the economic health of any economy based on the performance of the lowest performing en ies in that economy. Doing so would undoubtedly make me bitter, resentful and a hopeless pessimist. I generally judge the economy based on my own wallet, and those of the people I know (only a couple of whom are "super-rich".) We're doing pretty well, thank you.'"progress for America" includes everybody, not just the top 2%, or, eg, the only 8,000 families that will retain $300B in estate taxes.
Apart from the windfall enrichment of the super-rich from the Repugs, do you consider that the rate of poverty NOT rising for the first time after 6 straight years while median hourly wages drop 2% to be kick-ass progress?
Obstructed Anus, go yourself.
"I don't measure the economic health of any economy based on the performance of the lowest performing en ies in that economy"
Good, that's obviously a bad measure. You're grasp is improving.
Since when are the cited "wages and salaries" lowest performing en ies in an economy?
What's the point of an economy that expands while the wages and salaries are shrinking in both absolute and relative terms?
nevermind
Who cares?
who the cares what europe thinks... do we really care what is going in germany, italy, france, the UK.. and others.... it's like they have penis envy...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
