May 26, 2007

"If the United States withdrew its forces from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem would increase."

According to a NYT study:
The New York Times interviewed more than 40 Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and independent analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited....

Sheik Ajmi al-Mutashar, an agricultural engineer and businessman from Salahuddin Province in central Iraq and a Sunni, said he worried that an American troop pullback would lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government. “If the government falls it will be impossible to form another one,” he said. “We will have small emirates or cantons divided on sectarian and ethnic lines.”

Several Shiites also agreed that an American pullback would severely weaken the already fragile Iraqi government and lead to an upsurge of fighting among armed factions. “Without a strong and visible American presence, the government would collapse,” said Abu Fayad, an aide to a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Of course there will be many different wars. Basra, Diwaniya, Baghdad. Everyone will try to control Iraq’s fortune. The Americans failed, but they should stay.”

Salah Sultan al-Obeidi, 39, a government employee who lives in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City but says he holds secular views, says he worries that moderate elements of Iraqi society would be even more vulnerable if the Americans were to leave. “In Baghdad there will be fierce fighting between Sunni and Shiite extremists. Sunni terrorists will kill all the Sunnis who took part in the political process.”...

“I think the Sadr tide will rule the country,” said Muhammad Qasim Ali, a suitcase salesman in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Karada. “They are the majority and they have a good background, and that gives them a chance to take control. Once we take power, we will be merciful with Sunnis. Our way is to kill somebody only when we suspect he has a link to insurgents.”

134 comments:

Bob said...

The suitcase salesman doesn't fill me with confidence that the shi'ites won't begin ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis, if you know what I mean.

Michael said...

I may be in the midwest, but I can hear Pelosi and Reid yelling, "Na na na, I can't hear you!" all the way from here.

Torn ligament said...

'Salah Sultan al-Obeidi, 39, a government employee who lives in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City but says he holds secular views, says he worries that moderate elements of Iraqi society would be even more vulnerable if the Americans were to leave. “In Baghdad there will be fierce fighting between Sunni and Shiite extremists. Sunni terrorists will kill all the Sunnis who took part in the political process.”...'

Lord, what a sad freaking mess this all turned into.

Mindsteps said...

Does anyone provide good time estimates on when the Iraqi government will be able to exist and function autonomously (i.e. independent of a large U.S. military presence)? Should we give their government about the same amount of time we would expect a child to independently take care of him or herself physically, politically, socially, emotionally, and economically? Is the developmental trajectory of autonomous nationhood different than the trajectory for the newborn? Or is a better metaphor the development, stability, and viability of a new business venture? Is it even possible to impose metrics on this, and if not, why not?

Luckyoldson said...

There probably will be a period or mayhem, but exactly does this have to do with the United States of America...or Pelosi for that matter?

Are you implying that because we invaded (and basically created the mess that now exists), we're now also responsible for putting everything back in order...if that's even possible?? We really want our own young men and women putting their lives on the line...so the Iraqis aren't in harm's way?

And, hey...what about Darfur? Right now, there appears to be a genocide taking place...why aren't we there??

And I suppose we should get going on that nasty North Korean situation, too. I mean, we don't want any suffering to take place their either...right?

Or maybe someone can explain how America (after Bush getting elected based on not being in the "nation building business")...we're suddenly the saviors of all mankind.

*And of course, you notice the White House is now discussing a reduction of troop levels by 50% in 2008 ("cut and run" bastards??), you know...to coincide with that big ol' Presidential election coming up.

Now there's a real shocker!

Peter Palladas said...

Now let me see...just when precisely did Saddam invade Poland? Must be here somewhere.

Luckyoldson said...

peter,
saddam...poland?

downtownlad said...

And why should we give a damn.

Considering how your readers react to 655,000 dead Iraqis already, so what?

I mean if 5 million die in a genocide - I'll just take the tactic and say "LIAR! Stop being Anti-American! Only 2 people died".

I mean if facts don't matter, then just lie.

If mayhem increases - the answer is to just ignore the facts - and say that mayhem did NOT increase.

You can't have it both ways. Because there is mayhem right now - and it doesn't seem to bother the Republicans one iota - in fact they just deny that there is mayhem there at all. Democrats should take the same tactic after our troops pull out.

Me - I don't see why dead Iraqis is something that should concern us regardless. It's their problem - not mine.

Ann Althouse said...

"Me - I don't see why dead Iraqis is something that should concern us regardless. It's their problem - not mine."

Me -- I don't see why dead Americans is something that concerns you. You're all about your problems -- so what do you care?

Luckyoldson said...

downtown: ditto.

Torn ligament said...

'The suitcase salesman doesn't fill me with confidence that the shi'ites won't begin ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis, if you know what I mean.'

Certainly, if the suitcase case salemsan reflects the majority of shiite opinion. However, the Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr who resurfaced yesterday *appears* from his statements to want to work towards a resolution for the country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/
nationworld/world/la-ex-sadr25may26,
0,1930751.story?coll=la-home-center

'Several Shiites also agreed that an American pullback would severely weaken the already fragile Iraqi government and lead to an upsurge of fighting among armed factions. “Without a strong and visible American presence, the government would collapse,” said Abu Fayad, an aide to a leading Shiite member of Parliament.'

He must be the aide of one of the parliament minority leaders who didn't vote on the Bill two weeks ago asking for a timetable for US withdrawal.

Michael said...

downtownlad: I don't see why dead Iraqis is something that should concern us

They why do you keep harping on the Lancet study?

Anyway, genocidal wars are a concern for civilized people whether they threaten us directly or not. We teach the Holocaust in school for a reason.

dan said...

Amazing how a figure like 655,000 can become gospel so easily, truth be it not. But not being very enamored with utilitarian calculus I'll concede the point, a lot of folks, deserving and not, have died. And that "have" with regard to Iraq, goes back many, many decades. And yes, should've, could've, would've, I'll also grant ya, and thus this does make it all doubly sad, but a "freaking mess" it--Iraq--has been for some, some time. Way back when Bush was a drunk and doing lines off the glass table it was a sad and freaking totalitarian mess. Personally, being easy to please I guess, I don't at all mind the minor victory of Hussein, his sons and a few if not tens of thousands of his henchmen dead, and the nice fact that those who remain and are still holding to the old ways, while still killing like ever before are now, unlike before, being killed. Not to mention the thousands and indeed tens of thousands of jihadists streaming in from around the world getting their wish at martyrdom. Most importantly, to my way of thinking, is the fact the Kurds have been given some breathing room and, at last, a bit of justice. Does Petraeus, building on these and other successes, turn into a Grant and save Bush from all of Bush's many (and I almost wrote "inevitable", being from the SNAFU school of great human endeavors) screw-ups. Save him also from the Democrat Copperheads ready to clutch defeat from the jaws of a larger victory, or, is no greater victory possible, and all this must soon just wind down. Don't know. And I'll get back to ya fifty years hence, more likely it will be some proxy of mine, as what all this has really meant and how much or little of a success it has been. I'm sure there will be some two sentence entry in a timeline of world history at the back of a standard dictionary that will sum things up in an objective manner.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redhand said...

The Americans failed, but they should stay.

This is the most eloquent one line summary of the whole Iraq fiasco.

The biggest lesson I hope our nation takes from this (with apologies to Clemenceau) is "War is too important to be left to the [civilians]." For the second time in my life a U.S. President and his top civilian defense overlords absurdly thought they knew better than the military professionals. Two times running the result has been Presidential instigation and mismanagement of a war contrary to basic military principles, with utterly disastrous consequences.

Vietnam was obviously worse in the total number of US casualties, but Iraq is worse still in how totally unnecessary it was as a response to 9/11, and how pathetically if not criminally incompetent the Administration has been in everything associated with this effort since the fall of Baghdad.

I suppose we have a moral obligation to stay to prevent even more blood being on our hands, but I'd like to see us pull away from this tar baby as quickly as possible. How long is a decent interval folks, and did we really spill all this American blood so that Mookie-al-Sadr could call the shots?

Pathetic!

The Drill SGT said...

The Drill SGT said...
We fought Iraq in GW I and they signed a ceasefire/treaty. They violated the treaty, lots of UN security council resolutions they violated. We went in and took down the government and that was called unilateral, even though Saddam was defying the UN, because there wasn't a new explict UN resolution thaqt authorized action.

And, hey...what about Darfur? Right now, there appears to be a genocide taking place...why aren't we there??

Now in Darfur there aren't anything like a UN resolution to support any sort of UN peace force. Those great defenders of freedom, Russia and China oppose any action. We should now take unilateral action in an area that poses no direct threat to the US or its economy to prevent ethnic cleansing.

But in Iraq, we want to pull out early, knowing that if we do there will be ethnic cleansing on a scale that dwarfs Darfur, and in an area where we are the proximate cause of the instability.

I don't understand the cry from the left that Darfur demands us to deploy troops and Iraq demands us to withdraw troops.

TMink said...

"Are you implying that because we invaded (and basically created the mess that now exists), we're now also responsible for putting everything back in order"

I have this concern about the United States' national interests. There is responsibility, then there is prudent, enlightened self-interest.

I don't let wasps build a nest by my children's playground. I lock my door when I leave my house, and I hide the ipod if I leave it in the car.

There are global equivalents to these little safety precautions. A stable Afghanistan and Iraq are in our national interest. There is plenty to debate about whether we have added to that stability, and whether we can even assess that now, but we can agree that our national interests exceed our own borders can't we?

Trey

tc said...

So many crazy armchair strategists - all confused by feminist nonsense- and doubly crazy women (the normal course for women who labor under the feminist nonsense that men and women are equal.
No the only real and lasting solution to the Iraq mess is to give the Islamic world something else to do. When I was a kid,I read the DUNE novels with great delight. And today we have a need for jihad,a jihad off the earth to other worlds,other earths. Because we're ALL going to die in the next few years. If we continue to go on as we are....it is a certainty that the human race will become extinct by mid-century.

Luckyoldson said...

I love reading all of these posts by Ann, Michael and the gang...all bemoaning the fact that there is probably going to be big trouble in Iraqi City when we bolt...and how horrible it will be for the-whole-wide-world.

Well, first of all...BEFORE we went into Iraq...I don't remember reading a single commentary, article or publication over the course of the ten years preceding the invasion...that predicted anything of the sort...you know, when big bad Saddam was running the show. (And please...no more of the Saddam gassed his own people bullshit...they were the Kurds...unless of course you don't remember this:

Six months after the slaughter at Halabja, the White House lent Saddam Hussein another billion dollars. And in 1991, at the end of the Gulf war, US troops stood idly by while Saddam’s presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising by the Kurds for which the American president had himself called.

And if you're ALL so concerned about Iraq, why isn't there an uproar about Darfur? (Michael, you specifically mentioned the Holocaust...are those in Darfur less important to you?)

And Ann, what is it with the condescending drivel directed at downtownlad? "You're all about your problems -- so what do you care?"

Based on his postings he apparently CARES quite a bit about American lives....do YOU...or are you more concerned with what happens to the Iraqis??

GeorgeH said...

This could be a good thing.
Sectarian warfare is probably the best way to occupy Islamo-fascists available.

A juicy civil war, with multiple sides in dozens or hundreds of neighborhood enclaves should be an irresistible draw to the youth of the entire region.

Remove the heavy weapons leaving small arms and explosives and they could fight themselves to exhaustion or extinction without bothering the modern world.

Mindsteps said...

I am being a broken record here, but how are we modeling the development of Iraqi independent sovreignity. Is the model of U.S. military presence(I just realized when I typed the words 'U.S. Military' that we no longer really use the term 'Coalition Forces')similar to that of a physician casting a broken body part, the military serving as the cast while the bone heals and strenthens naturally? Is the model of Iraqi recovery analagous to an individual recovering from the removal of a brain tumor or a nervous breakdown or a stroke? Is the model we are employing to understand our role in Iraqi development that of the U.S. separating from the British in the late eighteenth century or India's independence from Great Britain?

Maybe we don't have a model of Iraqi independence and we are making it up as we go along, reactively shifting from one view to another and one intervention to another.

A near concensus has modeled very clearly what will probably happen if we leave...mayhem

So do we have a comparable vision, based upon some good data, on what Iraq will look like if we stay? I have yet to hear a plan (and I would desperately like to have one) that describes the developmental process we expect will take place in Iraq if we stay and in what time-frame. If I am the only one troubled by this, is it because everyone else has a clear sense of what to expect except me?

Luckyoldson said...

tmink says: "A stable Afghanistan and Iraq are in our national interest. There is plenty to debate about whether we have added to that stability, and whether we can even assess that now, but we can agree that our national interests exceed our own borders can't we?"

I agree with the premise that our "interests exceed our own borders," but exactly where is this "debate" to which you refer? The one about whether or not we've "added to that stability??"

You don't really believe things are MORE stable in Iraq and Afghanistan right now...than they were BEFORE we invaded??

The Taliban is re-grouping, poppy production is up 65% and in Iraq...well, we ALL know what's going on there.

*Oh, and another 8 Americans dead in Iraq today...putting us on a record pace for May.

EnigmatiCore said...

"And why should we give a damn."

The same reason that sane people should give a damn when someone, who contracted AIDS from homosexual sex, suffers and dies.

Because it is human to want to avoid pain and suffering on the part of other humans.

EnigmatiCore said...

"They why do you keep harping on the Lancet study?"

Because he thinks it helps the side he favors politically, silly.

Why ask questions when the answer is obvious?

Er...

EnigmatiCore said...

"You don't really believe things are MORE stable in Iraq and Afghanistan right now...than they were BEFORE we invaded??

The Taliban is re-grouping, poppy production is up 65% and in Iraq.."

I would say that things are less stable in Afghanistan, and that is a very good thing. Before we invaded, the Taliban was very stable.

In Iraq, the state of affairs is very debatable. Before we invaded, Saddam was very stable. Was that a good thing? Not in the slightest.

Is what we have now a good thing? No.

Which thing was better? The stability under Saddam or the instability now? Open question, in my opinion.

I would rather us make it NOT an open question, by defeating those who are so objectionable. What say you?

Er, that's me asking a question I know the answer to, once again...

Luckyoldson said...

While we're lamenting the possibility of "mayhem" when we bolt...consider this:

9 GI deaths keep May's grim pace

BAGHDAD — The U.S. military Friday announced the deaths of eight U.S. soldiers and one Marine, putting May on pace to be one of the deadliest months for U.S. forces in Iraq.

The reports increased the U.S. death toll to at least 91 for the month and to 3,443 since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The May average of nearly 3.8 deaths a day — if it continues — would result in 118 for the month, the most since 137 were killed in November 2004, when U.S. troops were fighting insurgents in Fallujah.

*There will come a day when Americans will not be able to explain why we went in, why we stayed and why we didn't leave before we did.

Luckyoldson said...

EnigmatiCore asks: "What say you?"

I say you're merely repeating the standard talking points of the Bush administration.

If you actually believe things are better now than they were when Saddam was in power (and completely contained for over ten years...with no WMD, no chemical weapons, no where to go)...I also think you're living in a world of deep delusion.

Is that clear enough for you?

downtownlad said...

Me -- I don't see why dead Americans is something that concerns you. You're all about your problems -- so what do you care?

Um - I care because I'm an American. Is thar really so hard to grasp?

Who says I'm about "my" problems? I'm an American. And since I'm an American citizen, I actually have a say over our foreign policy. And American foreign policy should ONLY serve AMERICAN interests. That's it. Iraq is not in our interests - and it's really not that hard to figure that out. The people who should care about dead Iraqis are the IRAQI citizens and this is their problem to solve, not ours. Just because I value my liberty, and favor an American first foreign policy, it is unfair of you to say that I want Americans to die. Which is exactly what you (unfairly) implied.

Our government should not be saving the world. We should be protecting American interests. Isn't that what George Bush promised when he ran for President in 2000 anyway, that he didn't believe in nation building???? Well guess what? We're nation building now.

Why Iraq only? Why don't you favor foreign intervention in North Korea? What about Cuba? What about Saudi Arabia? What about Darfur? What about Iran?

Do you want us to invade all of those countries to make them better?

You can easily make the case that Saddam was actually better under Saddam, which only goes to show that our intervention there was an absolute disaster - because life was pretty darn bad under Saddam.

And Michael - I'm not "harping" on the Lancet study. I'm just saying that it's the best study that has been done so far, and I think 655K extra dead Iraqis is the best estimate THUS FAR. And whether it is 100K dead or a million dead, it doesn't change my opinion on the war. We went there to depose Saddam and get rid of the WMD's. Saddam is gone and there were never any WMD's to begin with. So why are we still there? The mission has become muddled and it is time to leave.

I favor the continued occupation of Afghanistan, because they harbored Al Queada, and it is in our interest to make sure that country does not attack us again. The same cannot be said of Iraq.

But these are nuances that some people can't grasp. They only believe our dear leader that you are either with our or you're against us. How lame.

dick said...

Interesting that although Saddam had no chemical weapons and no WMD and was contained, he was able to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons and was also able to practically destroy the environment of the Marsh Arabs and at the same time had the funds to pull off the OIF scam on the UN. That was real containment!! And at the same time was able to offer a training ground for terrorists and fund suicide bombers and a sanctuary for people like Abu Nidal. What a wonderful situation for that area of the world. Right in the middle of the mess was this spider-like creature who could sit there and weave his web of backing all these other things while his LLL dem allies thought he was giving his people a paradise. What a mensch!!

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

I fought in Vietnam. You folks don't remember the casualties we took there.

what casualties look like


for those historically challenged, year 3 is 1968. And to put that in context:

In a memorable line from a forgettable movie (that I like), Marsha Mason, Clint Eastwood's wife says something like: Hard! Do you remember 1968? I didn't sleep a wink in 68. ...all those boys come home in boxes. Watching the TV constantly, hoping to see you, dreading I would

We left that war having won on the battlefield by 72. In 75, the Democratic Congress refused to honor our promises to the South Vietnamese after the North directly invaded. The result, 100,000 dead, 500,000 to "reeducation camps", 200,000 refugees, and 2,000,000 dead next door in Cambodia.

Every death in Iraq is a personal tragedy, but not close to Vietnam. (LOL, in the first DAY of the Somme, the Brit's alone lost 20,000 dead.) (We lost more dead on the beaches of D-Day than in Iraq over 4 years. )

Eli Blake said...

Yesterday (or was it the day before?) Ann, you posted a link to a story about how Sunnis were turning on al-Qaeda.

I've been arguing for years that Iraqis would drive out the foreign invaders (just as we would if someone conquered the U.S.) if we left, and so there was zero possibility that al-Qaeda would become established in Iraq if we left because the locals wouldn't allow it (and your link bears that out). For awhile they were tolerated because they were fighting against another foreign invader (us) but even that pass seems to have run out.

As for the sectarian violence, I think that in trying to hold Iraq together we are fighting against history. Like the former Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union, Iraq consists of three distinctly separate nations, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd, with arbitrary boundaries drawn on a piece of paper by British and French colonialists after WWI, and sooner or later it will separate.

This could either happen with minimal bloodshed (as in the case of the USSR) or with much more (as in the case of Yugoslavia-- and apparently in the case of Iraq.) The U.S. could still play a role in Iraq, not a military one but a diplomatic one as an impartial arbiter to smooth the transition to three separate states (especially since there would be three very tough sticking points, 1. borders, 2. the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in each state, and 3. the disposition of oil revenue.)

That's one reason I support Richardson for President, to be honest. The GOP candidates seem to have the position of 'stay there until we win, no matter how many years it takes' (which I don't honestly believe that we can or will win there-- we may have had a chance once upon a time but the opportunity we had has long since vanished); most of the Democrats agree on leaving Iraq but only Richardson (and maybe Biden and/or McCain if he recognizes reality and starts to negotiate) have the diplomatic experience and ability to be able to replace our military policy there with a negotiated settlement. Otherwise we replace it with nothing.

downtownlad said...

So Drill Sgt,

50,000 American deaths in Vietnam wasn't enough for us to win the war in Vietnam. So what would it have taken, 100,000 maybe?

Are you willing to sacrifice 100,000 American lives for us to do what it takes to "win" Iraq?

And define "win". Because I'd really like to know what we're still doing there. Cause if we actually knew, maybe we'd be doing a better job of it.

downtownlad said...

# of Car, Suicide, and roadside attacks in Iraq.

2003 - 55
2004 - 276
2005 - 488
2006 - 976

# of bombings killing more than 50 people
2003 - 5
2004 - 6
2005 - 9
2006 - 17

# of Mortar attacks
2003 - 10
2004 - 82
2005 - 73
2006 - 289

Civilians killed a day (from newspapers article only, so obviously understated).

2003 - 20
2004 - 31
2005 - 41
2006 - 73

http://iraqbodycount.net/press/pr15.php


What a rousing success this war is? Obviously our continued presence is helping to stabilize the situation on the ground. Not.

The question is, can things reach a point of chaos where the current war backers would ever turn against the war?

Sure - just have a Democratic President, and you will quickly see Republicans become the most vocal anti-war people ever. Just as they were against the war in Yugoslavia (which I opposed as well - but at least I'm consistent).

The Drill SGT said...

DTL,

you are missing the point. The South Vietnamese didn't lose the war in 72 when we pulled out. They lost when the Democrats cut their funds and forbid the President (Ford) from honoring the promises made to them by Nixon in 72.

as for what "win" means in Iraq?

A country run by a representative government of local Iraqi's, that doesn't threaten its neighbors or serve as a base for terrorism.

Is it worth more American Casualties? American soldiers certainly think so. They say so every day, and re-enlist in record numbers knowing the tough work ahead. I would give them a chance.

downtownlad said...

Is it worth more American Casualties? American soldiers certainly think so. They say so every day, and re-enlist in record numbers knowing the tough work ahead. I would give them a chance.

American soldiers don't have any more of a say in this matter than I do. So their opinion is relevant only in the fact that they get to vote for a President who either continues the war or doesn't. Same vote as mine.

This war costs $100 billion a year, and I think it's a horrible investment. Not only is it coming out of my paycheck, but it is actually making me MORE unsafe. As a New Yorker, Bush has increased the chance of another attack on my city during his watch. He already messed up once and I hate to see what the next attack is going to look like.

As for your definition of victory, Iraq is not going to threaten its neighbors anytime soon. Because they'll be too busy fighting themselves. So by that standard - we've "won". As for being a base for terrorism, well very simple - it wasn't a base for terrorism before the war. But now it is. So on that front - we've "lost".

As for the real bases for terrorism, that would be Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Should we invade them?

Eli Blake said...

Exactly, DTL:

I also opposed the war in Yugoslavia. So I'm also consistent. As a matter of fact, it was liberals who were in the leadership of the anti-war movement in Vietnam and convinced LBJ that he might not even be able to win his own party's nomination. So it's not even a matter of partisanship, it's a matter simply of right and wrong.

Oh, and one more little price of Iraq:

Because the President cried 'wolf' in Iraq, nobody trusts a word he is saying about Iran. Hopefully Iran is no more a real 'wolf' than Iraq, but if it is, then it really doesn't matter because our army is so bogged down in Iraq that he couldn't put together a ground force to invade and occupy Iran, even if he had the political support (which he does not.)

Internet Ronin said...

If 50,000+ American soldiers remain in Iraq for the next 5 to 10 years (at least), at a cost of another half-a-trillion dollars (at least), then there is a chance that, when those troops finally withdraw, a widespread bloodbath will not occur. Not very likely, but a chance.

If you believe that the odds are greater that we will simply weary of the project, prematurely declare victory, withdraw and allow the remaining locals to go at it tooth and nail, then there is no point in being there.

We are going to end up with not much more than we had originally: a protected Kurdish rump state. The great advantage in leaving now is that it might distract the Iranians from their nuclear ambitions, draw them further into the conflict, cause their own ethnic minorities (49% of Iran's population) to begin their own insurgencies and bankrupt their shaky economy. The wealthy Saudis, underwriters of AL Qaeda will be spending lavishly in support of the Sunnis instead. Here's hoping it bankupts all of them.

TMink said...

Luckyoldson wrote: "You don't really believe things are MORE stable in Iraq and Afghanistan right now...than they were BEFORE we invaded??"

I do not believe that things are more stable in Iraq. I recognize that we are safer in America since we invaded. A stable Iraq would lead to even more safety for us, and I hope for the sake of the Iraqi people that happens, but I am more concerned about our safety.

"The Taliban is re-grouping, poppy production is up 65% and in Iraq...well, we ALL know what's going on there."

The Taliban is certainly regrouping. They have to because we kill their leaders with satisfying regularity! I will be even MORE satisfied when their chief is dead, but killing their middle and upper management has been very helpful. Witness the proposed spring offensive in Afghanistan that never happened. Witness the recent stability of Anbar province.

Most important, witness the lack of attacks on Americans out of uniform.

Trey

boston70 said...

I normally don't believe anything the NY Times say because it is liberal, un-american, and unpatriotic-but this story I will believe-thanks for sharing.

Dowd has an excellent editorial today would be wonderful to highlight. It doesn't cover Gore's weight or Obambi but it is good. Oh wait, never mind, it talks about Bush's incompetence. Liberal NY Times. Ignore it, it is an awful editorial and Dowd is a French loving bitter woman.

TMink said...

DTL wrote about American soldiers: "So their opinion is relevant only in the fact that they get to vote for a President who either continues the war or doesn't."

No, that is wrong. I have a more informed opinion than you do on the state of my back yard because I just left there. My opinion is more informed, and thus more relevant than yours about that matter as you are clueless about the state of my backyard.

In the same way, the people on the ground in Iraq have access to information and experience that you and I do not. To deny this is to make yourself look foolish and declare your opinion irrelevent.

Trey

downtownlad said...

Well Trey. You think we're winning in Iraq.

So much for "informed" opinions.

Tell me - Have you ever gotten your news from any source other than FOX news? Doubtful.

Internet Ronin said...

Trey:

I do not believe that things are more stable in Iraq.

I agree.

I recognize that we are safer in America since we invaded.

I disagree. It is impossible to prove that we are either safer or less safe in the United States because we invaded Iraq. As nothing happened between 9/11/2001 and the onset of the war in Iraq in 2003, I tend to believe that nothing would have happened on our shores had we not invaded.

A stable Iraq would lead to even more safety for us,

Possibly, but not necessarily.

and I hope for the sake of the Iraqi people that happens,

So do I, but there is very little evidence pointing to that happening on a widespread basis any time soon.

but I am more concerned about our safety.

As am I, although I am much more concerned about frittering away our civil liberties in a misguided search for complete security.

Luckyoldson said...

Maybe if Bush and his neocon buddies had been more inclined to listen to this, we wouldn't be in this mess:

WASHINGTON — Two months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies twice warned the Bush administration that establishing a democracy there would prove difficult and that Al Qaeda would use political instability to increase its operations, according to a Senate report released Friday.

The report, issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee, brought to light once-classified warnings that accurately forecasted many of the military and political problems the Bush administration and Iraqi officials have faced since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

These warnings were distributed to senior officials with daily access to President Bush and others at the very top of the administration, the report states, and included figures throughout the national security bureaucracy.

One of those was then-deputy national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley, now the national security advisor.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said the report demonstrated that "the intelligence community gave the administration plenty of warning about the difficulties we would face if the decision was made to go to war."

He added: "These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it's clear that the administration didn't plan for any of them."

Unlike previous studies of the buildup to the war, the Senate report did not focus on the intelligence community's flawed information, which included overstated assessments of Iraq's potential for developing weapons of mass destruction.

These papers warned that:

• Establishing "an Iraqi democracy would be a long, difficult and probably turbulent process, with potential for backsliding into Iraq's tradition of authoritarianism."

• Unless the occupying forces prevented it, "score settling would occur throughout Iraq between those associated with Saddam's regime and those who have suffered most under it."

• Among the majority Shiite population, which Saddam had kept out of power, a political form of Islam could take root, "particularly if economic recovery were slow and foreign troops remained in the country for a long period."

• Iran would probably try to shape the post-Hussein Iraq, in a bid to position itself as a regional power.

• Al Qaeda would probably take advantage of the war to increase its terrorist activities, and the lines between it and other terrorist groups "could become blurred."

Each of these assessments was prescient. And Bush now cites the danger posed by Al Qaeda forces in Iraq as a major reason for resisting calls that the U.S. begin decreasing its troop levels and set a firm deadline for withdrawal.

In early 2003, even as their deputies were receiving the intelligence community papers, top administration officials — among them Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — publicly speculated that U.S. troops would be greeted warmly as liberators and gave no hint that some analysts were raising red flags about difficulties to come.

Luckyoldson said...

boston70 said..."I normally don't believe anything the NY Times say because it is liberal, un-american, and unpatriotic..."

You don't believe "anything"...because they're "liberal"..."un-american"...and "un-patriotic."

Thank you, Sean Hannity.

And what newspapers do YOU read?

Luckyoldson said...

the drill sgt...still hammering away at the vietnam mantra of the right: "we coulda won it if not for the liberals."

get a life.

Internet Ronin said...

get a life

Many would make the same suggestion to you.

vnjagvet said...

brinContrary to DTL's opinion, the troops in Iraq have two votes. One is their feet. They don't have to enlist or re-up. A volunteer military without a draft at least acts as a barometer of military opinion of overall performance and its collective judgment as to the wisdom of its missions.

Further, there is incontrovertable evidence that this country is safer as a result of going on the attack in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have not been attacked since 2001.

Finally, having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has the added strategic benefit of boxing in Iran, a volatile country pubicly attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.

I would rather rely on the judgment of guys like trey and Drill than guys like DTL and luckyoldson.

hdhouse said...

So..there are 2 alternatives to prevent mayhem.

1. the US stays forever as an ersatz police force.
2. the Iraq police trains up and stays forever as a police force.

I pick door #2.

All other arguments are just bullshit.

Internet Ronin said...

Further, there is incontrovertable evidence that this country is safer as a result of going on the attack in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have not been attacked since 2001.

No, there is not "incontrovertible evidence." The fact that nothing happened here since 2001 in no way proves that something would have happened here had we not invaded Afghanistan and/or Iraq. I'm not arguing that one or the other was a good or bad idea, I am arguing that claims that we are safer because we did lack a solid foundation. While it is true that there is no evidence disprove your theory, there is also no evidence to prove it. It is a theory, not a fact.

Jacques Cuze said...

Lots of ways to help us win in Iraq and win in the battle against global terror

I am certain they could use some sharp lawyers, experienced managers, logistics experts, and strategic thinkers.

You can choose work as a government employee, or work as a contractor.

Stepping forward to help the Iraqis up would be a strong step for making America safer, Iraq safe, and women across the world safer.

Uncle Sam needs you.

EnigmatiCore said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EnigmatiCore said...

"Is that clear enough for you?"

Yes, it is clear to me that you are a moron. Thanks for making things crystal.

David53 said...

Hi Quxxo,

It's been so long since you've done any serious posting here I can't remember what you propose, immediate redeployment, phased withdrawl or what?

Jacques Cuze said...

According the the Times, if we leave, we will increase violence in Iraq. And we can't have that.

I honestly feel that we need to send more people to Iraq to help our troops and the people in Iraq out.

Sadly, way too many people (70+%) favor immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal with timelines.

I believe I have found a source of educated, patriotic Americans with that can do spirit that America was once known for.

I would like to encourage Professor Althouse to follow in the steps of Constitutional Law Professor Noah Feldman and join our civilian administrators in the Green Zone.

Professor Althouse is experienced, and well, it would probably be a wonderful adventure, full of photo opportunities and a chance to give back to the nation that gave her such a privileged position.

There would certainly be books, blogs, media interviews, and widespread acclaim for her. In fact, I would honestly do what I can to make sure she gets all the respect and acclaim she deserves from all sides of the blogosphere.

She actually has the perfect credentials too. As Michael Crichton wrote in Andromeda Strain since she is single she can be expected to make wise decisions without the interference of conflicts with family.

I encourage all readers of this blog and like minded blogs (Dr. Helen, Professor Reynolds, etc.) to click the link I gave and help America and Iraq out.

It's the right thing to do.

Bruce Hayden said...

First, the Lancet study has been debunked so many times that those who keep using the 650k figures here show their lack of knowledge. Interestingly, if you multiply out DTL's figures for civilian deaths, you get under 20k. So, you are left with some 630k who are either not noticed or military/police. That is some 97%. Just some rough calculations from the few figures we have here today. 97% of the supposed deaths due to our intervention in Iraq not showing up in the papers as such.

As to LOS' suggestion that the Bush Administration had the information that would have prevented this, he is flagrantly cherry picking, picking a handful of reports out of probably thousands that somehow the CIA, that somehow missed 9/11, but should have caught known to pick those reports as more accurate than the 10x or 100x others saying the opposite.

Cedarford said...

Suitcase salesman: Once we take power, we will be merciful with Sunnis. Our way is to kill somebody only when we suspect he has a link to insurgents.”

Like it or not, the suitcase saleman's approach to ending terrorism and insurgencies is far more effective than the US military's current ROE (rules of engagement) or the pretense that terrorists can be thwarted through the agencies of the ACLU, the criminal justice system, and the courts.
***************

Luckyoldson - And, hey...what about Darfur? Right now, there appears to be a genocide taking place...why aren't we there??

Nothing would please me more than to call the craven Copperheads out on their Darfur bluff. Announce that any liberal moaning about Darfur will be paid at a US Army PVT 1st class's wages if they volunteer for 4 years in Darfur as soldiers under UN command (through the Nigerians, Gaboonese, Belgian).

Blanket every Lefty hangout - campuses, SF coffehouses, Hollywood, heavily Jewish progressive neighborhoods, the membership list of Moveon.org - telling them that the opportunity has finally arrived - they can be anti-American, hate the US military (while supporting the troops!) and instead fight genocide and maybe die in the process under the Supreme Moral Authority of the International Community!!

Just step right up and volunteer, boys and girls! The proposed "alternative military" takes all those gays just begging to mix it up with Islamoids in Pakistan's tribal areas! Prove you Lefties are not craven pacifists!

*Holds breath*

Jacques Cuze said...

Think how it would energize the campus when it becomes known that Professor Althouse has signed up. I would bet such a move would be followed by other recent grads from the law school, engineering, journalism, etc., it would be phenomenal.

And I am sure that Professor Althouse, America, and Iraq could use the services of an attorney experienced in the patent process with a background in engineering.

Redhand said...

Luckyoldson's references to the intelligence predictions about postwar problems in Iraq from Iran and Al-Q, which the Bush Administration cavalierly blew off, get to the heart of the real scandal here. Bush and Company, in defiance of all reason, thought they knew better.

More evidence of their hubris and recklessness can be found in this laughing-through-tears article, Iraq Intelligence Horror Stories Shouldn’t Be Old News.

Bruce Hayden said...

The May average of nearly 3.8 deaths a day — if it continues — would result in 118 for the month, the most since 137 were killed in November 2004, when U.S. troops were fighting insurgents in Fallujah.

Well, yes. Our soldiers and Marines are in harms way now. That is a good part of the "surge", getting them out of fairly safe, but ineffective, remote bases, and embedding them with Iraqi police and military in the Baghdad neighborhoods.

The problem was that previous strategy was not working. We could hold those bases indefinately, but Iraq was sliding into sectarian strife. The Shi'a militias were openly operating as they ethnically cleansed the mixed neighborhoods in and around Baghdad.

mcg said...

Geez, I can't believe that silly Lancet number still gets tossed around. I mean, my gosh, even the Iraq Body Count folks think it's bogus. Not that their number is particularly attractive (between 64333-70471) but at least they're credible.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that what was underestimated by the intelligence agencies around the world, and in particular, in the coalition, was the extent that the Sunni Arabs in central Iraq would use terror to try to reimpose their rule. For several years, the Shi'a listened to their more prominent clergy, notably Sistani, who preached peace and power through the democratic process. But then, the Sunni terrorists kept upping the ante, and started blowing up Shi'a holy sites. And at that point, a large number of the Shi'a determined that they only way they could live safely was without the Sunnis, who were aiding and abetting the terrorists. So, the process of ethnic cleansing was greatly accelerated, to push the Sunnis from mixed neighborhoods either out of the neighborhoods, or preferably out of Iraq itself. And it has been successful, with probably half the Sunni Arabs already having fled the country, and without our "surge", another quarter were expected to be pushed out by the end of the year.

Cedarford said...

eli blake - Hopefully Iran is no more a real 'wolf' than Iraq, but if it is, then it really doesn't matter because our army is so bogged down in Iraq that he couldn't put together a ground force to invade and occupy Iran, even if he had the political support (which he does not.)

If we had to, we could keep our staffing level in Iraq and handle Iran fairly easily - not occupy it - but set it's warmaking ability back 10 years or so with a coordinated air and naval attack on it's nuclear and military infrastructure and the Mullah's Special Revolutionary Guard. (The USAF and Navy which haven't been tapped much at all since Iraq started and are actually even more lethal than they were in 2002.)

Especially with pending Euro and Sunni Arab and Turk support for squashing the Mullahs.

And if we need to, we can Draft and in 6 months staff up the Army by 50% primarily in lower skill categories and in a year by 150% when the higher skill category soldiers are ready. A Draft is not impossible, despite Lefty screams. If our security depends on it, we will quash sedition, and do so.

We just have to be very, very careful and learn lessons from Team Bush's catastrophic blunders in Iraq if hitting Iran becomes necessary. Preferably after Bush and all his baggage is swept away in elections. Right now, many neocons urge war because the future threat to Israel is grave, but their influence is almost negligible...it is when serious thinkers elswhere are beginning to form a consensus that Iran is seeking nukes and long range missiles that could threaten the ME region, Turkey, most of Europe, and Pakistan that we may have to act. They are going full bore, according to the UN, on enrichment, missile development, re-entry warhead development, nerve gas capacity. And suspected of biowar development.

downtownlad said...

Interestingly, if you multiply out DTL's figures for civilian deaths, you get under 20k. Bruce Hayden

Liar. It comes out to almost 60K. The documented cases of civilian deaths is between 64,333 and 70,471. And that is just based on newspaper articles, something that is obvious to anyone with a brain is understated.

Fact.

http://iraqbodycount.net/

And that is just civilian deaths that can be directly attributed to American actions.

Add in just the increased number of deaths for children under five years old, due to the 150% increase in the child mortatlity rate, which is 73,000 extra deaths a year. For four years, that is 292,000 extra children who have died.

Fact.

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-report-iraq-child-mortality-rate-soars/93957.htm

So 292,000 + 64,333 (low estimate) is 356,000.

Now we haven't even counted the following:

1) deaths of Iraqi combatants. Considering that 3,500 Americans have died - how many combatants do you think we killed? Ten times as many? 20 times as many? 50 times as many? The American army is pretty good. I'm sure the number is high.

2) deaths of people in Saddam's army during the initial invasion. You know - all those buildings we bombed.

3) The number of adults and elderly that have died due to malnutrition. If the child mortality rate increased by 150%, do you really not believe that there were increased deaths in the rest of the population.

Wow, we're not very from from the 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths of the Lancet study. Adding in #1, #2, and #3 probably gets us to at least 600,000.

But Bruce Hayden declares the Lancet study "debunked". I suppose he's linking to that same 2004 Slate article, despite the fact that the Lancet study was in 2006.

I present FACTS. Bruce Hayden, like a typical Republican, denies the FACTS and just holds his ears and says "wah, wah, wah, I can't hear you".

Tell me Bruce - How many excess Iraqi deaths have there been?

Now you can oppose the Iraq war or support it. But I can't stand LIARS who say that the Lancet study has been debunked, when it's quite clear with some simple calculations that the number is credible.

Sloanasaurus said...

I am arguing that claims that we are safer because we did lack a solid foundation. While it is true that there is no evidence disprove your theory, there is also no evidence to prove it. It is a theory, not a fact.

This is true, however as time marches on and the fact remains that we have not been attacked, the burden begins to fall on those who argue that the war in Iraq has not helped prevent an attack. There are many legitimate theories (i.e. the flypaper theory) that support why we have not been attacked. After 5 1/2 years, it's time for the critics to disprove these theories rather than make the Administration prove them.

downtownlad said...

mcg - Iraqbodycount only counts civilian deaths as a direct result of violence. And they admit that their number vastly understates the true number of civilian casualties.

The Lancet study just compares the mortality rate before and after the war. It was 5.5 deaths per 1000 pre-invasion and it was 13.2 deaths per 1000 post invasion. Those deaths can be due to malnutrition, child mortality rates, suicide, etc, and thus wouldn't be captured in the iraqbodycount numbers.

downtownlad said...

I don't know who these people are who think we haven't been attacked since 2001.

Let's see, the Spanish rail attacks, the London underground bombings, the attacks in Turkey, and the various Al Queada bomb attacks against our troops in Iraq, the 2005 egypt attacks, the 2005 Jordan attacks, the 2007 Algiers bombings.

Yes, there hasn't been an attack on US grounds, but so what - Al Qaeda doesn't distinguish their attacks based on locations. The embassy bombings in Africa in the 90's were just as much an attack on the West and the US as the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

If we've really done so much to stop Al Qaeda, why are all those other attacks still happening?

Sloanasaurus said...

The Lancet study is a leftist hoax. It attempts to extrapolate from false numbers to begin with and argues that 800 Iraqis die daily because of the war.

What a sham.

downtownlad said...

What's the real number sloanasaurus?

I've already proved it's at least 356,000.

Jacques Cuze said...

DTL, are you of the body?

You sound like the old me, and not the new me. What happened to the DTL that was of the body?

Joy to you, friend. Peace and contentment will fill you.

downtownlad said...

I have no clue what you're talking about Jaques.

Sloanasaurus said...

Yes, there hasn't been an attack on US grounds, but so what - Al Qaeda doesn't distinguish their attacks based on locations

Ba HA BA HA HA HA HA HA H AH BA H AH HA HA

I just busted a gut with this one.

Besides, you only list a couple of successful attacks since 9-11. Al Qaeda trained 10,000 in their camps and had cells in 50 countries, and yet only a few attacks and none in America...

Osama himself has said he was going to attack us again. He has said it several times. Yet, still no attacks. Not even a bus bomb. Why? There are many reasons and Iraq is one of them.

What better than to attack us here in America while we are in Iraq to disprove the point that the war in Iraq is preventing future attacks.

The last time the radical jihad movement had a strategic victory was when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. They had a minor victory with the Spanish elections. Lets hope their next victory isn't the Democrats pulling out of Iraq.

Sloanasaurus said...

What's the real number sloanasaurus? I've already proved it's at least 356,000.

Dude, the article that you cite above says Iraq's infant mortality rate has increased 150% since 1990, not since 2003. You are trying to blame America for the evils that Saddam Hussein and crooks at the United Nations committed against the Iraqi people after the first gulf war. Did you even bother to read the article that you cited?

Your phony stats are good yucks. Saddam used to say that 500,000 were dying each year. Based on your number of 356,000 over 4 years, the war has save over 1.5 million children.

Kyle said...

This whole deal pretty much sucks. There's no good solution. If we pull out, there's massive genocide and a huge AQ victory. If we stay then it's just endless years of more low grade warfare. It would be pretty cool if someone could come up with a third options.


And, no, I don't have one. But I'm optimistic that some smart person can provide one.

TMink said...

DTL wrote: "Well Trey. You think we're winning in Iraq."

I never wrote that DTL. Stick to the posts and comment on the actual content or go do something else with your time.

Trey

Fen said...

It would be pretty cool if someone could come up with a third options.

The alternative option is already in play. Petraeus and his surge. Along with the complete turnaround in Anbar. Other provinces are looking to replicate that success - hopefully its a trend that will continue [hopefully unless, of course, you're on the Left rooting for genocide so you can bash Bush]

So I'm backing the surge, trusting in Petraeus and waiting on his after action report in September. If he sees success and advises we stay, so be it. If he says Iraq is lost and we should pull out, thats fine too.

Either way, I think we should still provide air support to the Iraqi government, as well as trainers and advisors. Maybe base them with the Kurds up north. They've done a splendid job on their own. And after our shameful betrayal of them in '91, the least we can do is put them under our sphere of protection and give them anything they ask for.

sloanasaurus: The Lancet study is a leftist hoax. It attempts to extrapolate from false numbers to begin with

Exactly. I wonder where DTL thinks we hid the "650,000" corpses? The only mass graves we've found were Saddams, and DTLs ilk have been silent on that subject. Very telling.

Fen said...

redhabd: but Iraq is worse still in how totally unnecessary it was as a response to 9/11

Thats an incredibly ignorant statement, it almost disqualifies you from any serious discussion of foreign policy.

Terrorists groups are much more lethal when supported by rogue nation states, esp those that have WMD programs. You are aware that Iran has been supplying Hezbollah for proxy attacks against Israel? What if Iran handed off Sarin and Anthrax [instead of Simtex] to Palestinian homicide bombers?

Fighting terrorism means you take down their infrastructre - command and control, logistics, financial networks, sanctuary, etc.

Fen said...

dtl: But I can't stand LIARS who say that the Lancet study has been debunked, when it's quite clear with some simple calculations that the number is credible.

"They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods across Iraq—equal-sized population "clusters"—and, this past September, set out to interview 30 households in each. They asked how many people in each household died, of what causes, during the 14 months before the U.S. invasion—and how many died, of what, in the 17 months since the war began. They then took the results of their random sample and extrapolated them to the entire country, assuming that their 33 clusters were perfectly representative of all Iraq."

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

Really DTL, the more you push the Lancet BS, the more you resemble one of those 9-11 "truthers" who think Bush blew up the towers.

Not that you had much credibility to begin with...

Gary Rosen said...

As usual Cedarfudd can't keep his Jew-baiting in his pants, you can practically feel his palms sweating. Creepy.

Fen said...

dlt: You can easily make the case that Saddam was actually better under Saddam, which only goes to show that our intervention there was an absolute disaster - because life was pretty darn bad under Saddam.

Tocqueville was right. Democracy is not sustainable. We end up with selfish parasites interested in nothing but satisfying their opulent appetites.

there were never any WMD's to begin with.

That a lie. Saddam had WMDs.

...Afghanistan, because they harbored Al Queada... The same cannot be said of Iraq.

Another lie. Saddam provided sanctuary to Al Queda before we invaded.

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus said... "however as time marches on and the fact remains that we have not been attacked, the burden begins to fall on those who argue that the war in Iraq has not helped prevent an attack."

Sloan...its a given that you are an asshole and can't think so let's try and help you here ok?

first World Trade was in what? 1993. Second was 2001. Please name the other "US Soil" Attacks...ding! NONE. A few have been foiled but then again a few have always been foiled...so we are down to "successful" attacks....so I'll give you 5 seconds to come up with the pattern....its like one of those IQ tests...ready Sloane? Here's the question...which number is next in this sequence?

1993 2001 ________?

I swear, you have been taking dumb pills lately as your posting, always a source of amusement and silliness bordering on slapstick has now pretty much been reduced to "knock knock".

hdhouse said...

and while we are at it...Fen, you seem to be hitting the sauce a lot before you post...you said:

Fen said...
"Tocqueville was right. Democracy is not sustainable. We end up with selfish parasites interested in nothing but satisfying their opulent appetites."

EXPLAINING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO A "T".

"That a lie. Saddam had WMDs."

REFERRING OF COURSE TO THE ONE'S WE SOLD HIM UNDER RAYGUN AND POPPY

"Another lie. Saddam provided sanctuary to Al Queda before we invaded."

AS IN TRANSIENT VISITS? OR DO YOU MEAN THAT SOME AL QUEDA LIVED THERE, TRAINED THERE TYPE OF THING?

WELL ASSHOLE, THEN THE UNITED STATES PROVIDED SANCTUARY TOO AS I REMEMBER IT THE HIJACKERS LIVED HERE AND TRAINED HERE FOR AN EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE THEIR MISSION?

Fen...you remain way too easy....pitiful. just pitiful.

michael farris said...

You know what would have been nice?

If someone (like, oh, I don't know, the president maybe?) would have thought about the possibility of this scenario BEFORE WE F*CKING INVADED!!!!!

I'm really in no mood to pay attention to those got us into (or supported getting us into) this no win, no exit clusterf*ck.

Redhand said...

Hey Fen, your implication that the Iraq debacle was a "necessary" step in the GWOT is absurd. Where are Saddam's fabled WMD? And please don't reference some of those ancient chemical artillery shells that were found. The fact is that we had done a rather good job containing the Iraq regime without a ground invasion. Try reading something intelligent on the subject like Thomas Ricks' Fiasco.

The only thing we really accomplished was to remove a regional counter to Iran. We now lack the military resources and will to confront this far graver, real threat.

Even if invading Iraq was justified, the Bush administration's unbelievable incompetence in planning for the occupation puts this conflict in a tragic class by itself. This is what happens when your commander in chief ignores worst case possibilities, and exists in a fool's paradise. ("Bring 'em on!") We're paying a terrible price for the insane notion that "we will be greeted as liberators," and that the Middle East is a place where "democracy is on the march."

It all goes back to the Bushies' ridiculous belief that we could occupy and administer this cesspool with a fraction of the troops that the military professionals recommended. You can thank the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for that, and blame Bush for being too stupid to do anything other than what Cheney said.

Oligonicella said...

Horrible mismanagement.

Cedarford said...

Gary Rosen said...
As usual Cedarfudd can't keep his Jew-baiting in his pants, you can practically feel his palms sweating. Creepy.


Like other paranoids, Rosen holds any criticism of Jewish political elements here in the USA as "jew-baiting".
Sorry, Rosen, be a big boy and grow up.
There is no immunity amulet that exempts Jews from criticism anymore than there is one that exempts Muslims, gays, Native Americans, Poles, evangelical Christians, Mormons, etc. from criticism based on their political beliefs.

In fact, you should be happy given the very low volunteer rates of Progressive Jews that I mentioned them as one of the groups that should be allowed to participate in alternative service to the US military. Officially sanction elements of the Left to form regiments and allow them to sign up for duty in Darfur under non-US command.
The last time progressive Jewish Americans, for example, signed up with enthusiasm under arms, was on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War 70 years ago, serving under command of US Communists or The Internationale.

With all the Left's talk of intervening in Darfur, Jewish Progressives could once again emulate the glory days of the Lincoln Brigade.

Another good thing would be all those gays the Left pronounces are ready and raring to fight but for the rank discrimination of the bigots of the US military would be free to sign up for fighting and dying in Darfur under non-US commanders...

*Still holds breath*

(Meaning if we allowed Lefty gays, progressive Jews, tweedy academics, Moveon.org types the opportunity to fight in Darfur as they urgently claim we must - that few would sign up for a 4-year hitch in the Sudan. Darfur is just a convenient rhetorical device to them. Nothing worth risking their asses over.)

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

You know, it is easy to look at something through hindsight's mirror and declare a 'mismanagement issue'.

Look at Lincoln in the Civil War. Every General he chose got his butt kicked by Lee and the Rebel Forces. It wasn't until Gettysburg (over 2 years into the actual fighting) that the South had a significant loss, and we lost more Americans in Picketts charge than we have lost in Iraq.

Was Lincoln guilty of mismanagement, or does history's filter show the end result, and make allowances for decisions made in the heat of the moment?

Grant was not as popular a General early in his command as he was after the war. His habit of using soldiers as cannon fodder (geatly increasing the casualty rate) to win battles drew some serious criticism. After he won, people forgot how expensive he had made the victory.

I'll be interested to read the history books in 50 years. How will this war be treated? The victors always write the history, so I will be curious to see which faction wins- Sloan's or DTL's.

Mindsteps said...

Cedarford wrote:

The last time progressive Jewish Americans, for example, signed up with enthusiasm under arms, was on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War 70 years ago, serving under command of US Communists or The Internationale.

Painting with some pretty broad brush strokes. I am not sure you have your stats together here. Are you anti-semitic?

Cedarford said...

Redhand - The only thing we really accomplished was to remove a regional counter to Iran. We now lack the military resources and will to confront this far graver, real threat.

It is almost axiomatic by people on the Left, most who never served in the US military and are clueless of it's capabilities, that we are powerless, just powerless!!! to stop Iran because the US military is completely tied down in Iraq.

It's not true.

While I join in many of the criticisms of the colossal bungle-job Team Bush did in Iraq and would prefer we wait until Bush is out of office and his baggage is swept away before we deal with Iran if we must...(Among which is Bush's near-criminal avoidance of building the Army and Marine manpower up, or replace the huge equipment losses the Army, Reserves have suffered..)

But - The truth is we could deal with Iran right now.

Not invade (and if we were not in Iraq I doubt we would really want to invade Iran). No, just take out selected chunks of their military and industrial infrastructure to set their military and nuclear capacity back 10 years - if they continue to insist on going ahead and becoming a strategic nuclear threat.

Our Air Force and Navy are relatively untouched by the Iraq War - yet battle-hardened by combat missions and recent experience in the last 15 or so years. And built up more capacity to precision bomb. They are far more lethal than they were even 5, 2 years ago...

And if Iran did go ahead and launched nerve gas, anthrax, or other mass terror events abroad as some in Iran have threatened on the record - and it became necessary to invade to end the Mullah's rule, finish them with rifle shots face-to-face, we have the Draft.

The volunteer military was never designed to support a large war where enemy ground must be taken and held. If you look at the 1971-73 Congressional debate on going all-volunteer, and current US strategic doctrine - the volunteer military was designed to wage nuclear war, do limited interventions, and hold the fort in a defensive role until the Draft restarted and enough new troops existed to fight and win a large ground war.

Iraq, with a military perhaps 1/6th the potency of Irans when Saddam refused to meet conditions of 17 UN Resolutions including the ultimatum...was right at the limit of what some planners considered our volunteer military could handle on the ground. Others at BUPERS (DOD Bureau of Personnel) thought it wasn't enough even for Iraq if that dragged on..

The Draft, if necessary, could ramp up the low skill positions in the Army in 6 months by 50-70%. The higher skilled positions beginning about a year out, plus still more low-skill personnel, and double the Army's size in 15 months without a significant loss in individual quality.

Then, if the public refuses to acknowledge the reality of Iran and wakes up one day to a Hezbollah anthrax attack courtesy of Iran on Israel, Pasadan shock troops pouring from Iran into US-abandoned Iraq, or Iranian nukes going off in Tel Aviv or Baltimore - and we cannot respond conventially because we refused to build up the military under Mother Pelosi - we still have the ability to obliterate Iran if we must...with conventional or nuclear munitions.

Freder Frederson said...

Painting with some pretty broad brush strokes. I am not sure you have your stats together here. Are you anti-semitic?

Haven't been here long, have you? Cedarford is our resident raving bigot. He hates everyone who isn't of true Aryan blood (in the Nazi sense). But that is being unfair to real Nazis--he hates Europeans too--because they are weak and Godless and have surrendered to the "Islamoids". He thinks blacks are genetically criminal and spews all kinds of other racist nonsense.

hdhouse said...

An Edjamikated Redneck said...
"Look at Lincoln in the Civil War. Every General he chose got his butt kicked by Lee and the Rebel Forces."

its the big thing now to compare Bush to Lincoln. So funny...also Redneck...I guess you forgot Antietam but I digress. Sherman didn't figure into your plans either..nor Grant's western campaigns...how convenient.

by the way, I'm still waiting for a declaration of war...seen one lately?

How the hell do you think this is going to end? Do you propose killing half of Iraq in order to save it? Still waiting for a plan? I am. Still waiting for the lights to go on regularly? I am. Still waiting for the $2-3 billion dollar war financed by Iraq oil? I am. Still waiting for sewage treatment instead of dumping it raw into the river? For a police force? For a functioning government? For an accounting of the money missing? For homes for the million wandering around the country?

Your arguments are so specious, so typical, so banal. Shame on you.

Cedarford said...

Funny, Freder, you are the one who effectively tagged himself as anti-American and an enemy-lover.

You always write with anger and bitterness.

I'm quite happy not dispensing ideology, but the truth that angers you so much!

I have fun opining!

I envision you as angry and isolated, physically pounding the keys on your keyboard, ranting about intolerant you are of people that disagree with you on black crime rates, the "precious civil liberties" of Islamoid terrorists and what not...

How about my idea of setting up recruiting stations for Lefties so they can serve under the French or Nigerians instead of evil American officers and put their asses on the line for 4 years of fighting Jangaweed in Darfur and guarding the Islamoid's victims of past Jihad?

My guess is any effort to get Lefties to risk their craven asses in Darfur would make such "Darfur recruiters" as lonely as the mythical Maytag Repairman.

downtownlad said...

Fen proves himself to be a moron as well.

How many other morons and imbeciles do we have on this thread who think that a 2004 Slate article can debunk a 2006 Lancet study?

downtownlad said...

Really DTL, the more you push the Lancet BS, the more you resemble one of those 9-11 "truthers" who think Bush blew up the towers.

Let's see. The Lancet study had prominent articles about it in publiciations such as the Wall Street Journal. Obviously the Wall Street Journal news board felt that it was sound enough to publish on the front page.

So who's really the equivalent of the 9/11 truther? It's Fen and his ilk.

Because when they don't like the results of a very legitimate and sound study - they just dismiss it out of hand. Similar to the 9/11 truthers, who don't like the government explanation, so they dismiss it out of hand.

Sorry - but you are just as looney as the rest of them.

The Lancet study is the best study that has been done to date of the Iraq mortality rate pre and post invasion. Which is why no other study to date has disproved it. Not to say that there won't be one in the future, but this is the best we have right now.

Just because you want to dismiss it as BS, doesn't make it so. You are the one inventing conspiracy theories about the study, not me.

downtownlad said...

And Fen believes that Iraq had WMD's before we invaded (well why haven't we found them????) and that Iraq was harboring Al Qaeada.

Like I said - talk about being self-delusional. But this is what happens when you only watch FOX News.

Mindsteps said...

Cedarford wrote:

The last time progressive Jewish Americans, for example, signed up with enthusiasm under arms, was on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War 70 years ago, serving under command of US Communists or The Internationale.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with religious beliefs, and maybe I shouldn't be insulted by your remarks. However, it is unsettling to read, especially when my father, almost all of my uncles, and many of their friends, (most might be termed progressive Jews), signed up to fight in WWII, some dying, others sustaining wounds and injuries. My examination of the statistics for WWII suggested many Jews, I suspect from a wide range of political persuasions, volunteered for the Armed Forces. (BTW, many of the WWII Jewish Veterans I have spoken with were confronted with episodes of anti-semitism during their service). Is it your intention to demean an entire group of people?

Cedarford said...

hdhouse - by the way, I'm still waiting for a declaration of war

That insipid Lefty/Liberatrian talking point always neglects to bring up that the archaic language of the Constitution is outlawed by treaties the US signed. No country has declared war since June of 1945, right before the 1st Treaty outlawing war declarations, the UN CHarter, was signed.
Your options:

1. Agree with Constitutional scholars that say nations have used substitute language since 1945 authorizing "use of force" police actions - that meets the Constitutional intent.
2. Argue instead that members of Congress were so stupid that they didn't know they were authorizing war in Iraq...and to fix their stupidity, the Constitution must be fixed by Amendment.
3. Withdraw from the UN. Withdraw from 4 other major international treaties so we can once again use the Magic Words of "declaring war" so the semantic tastes of the Venerated Old Dead White Founders can be honored once again. Accept that once we withdraw from all the lynchpin international treaties, we will have no allies in future conflicts.(That is what the Libertarians want, BTW).

********************
Mindsteps - Despite your anecdotal family stories, the only time where Jewish-Americans voluntarily fought in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the population was in the Spanish Civil war.

Even in WWII, Jewish volunteer rates were among the lowest of any ethnic group in America.
Indeed, at the outset of WWII, besides the Bundt of German -Americans and the Isolationists, no group was more opposed to US intervention than progressive Jews, following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

That changed a bit after Mother Russia called on all American Communists to reverse policy and demand intervention of the US, but still not enough to induce Jews to volunteer in the military in any appreciable numbers.

My intent by pointing out the low volunteer rate of Jews other than in the volunteer brigades of the Spanish Civil War is not to demean Jews anymore than it is to praise to heaven ethnicities with high volunteer rates like Native Americans, Scots-Irish, White southerners, Filipinos. Just the facts.

Facts not related to cowardace. Just certain groups that either had better options than becoming soldiers or came from a tradition that discounted military service vs. groups that saw military life as honorable and strongly approved of people volunteering.

And it was in context of all the groups that moan about how we are fighting in Iraq but not Darfur - including Progressive Jews - could always do as the Communists did 70 years ago and form up volunteer brigades for Darfur. This time with US approval.

But they won't, of course.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen, Sloan, Michael, a few others here are nothing more than Bush sycophants, constantly spouting the same Republican (neocon?) talking points regarding Iraq.

At this moment in time, with all we now know, they still adhere to the argument that Saddam had WMD, that it was right to invade, that we can't leave and that Bush is till doing a good job as President.

Fen said...

Lucky: Fen, Sloan, Michael, a few others here are nothing more than Bush sycophants, constantly spouting the same Republican (neocon?) talking points regarding Iraq

I claim Saddam had WMDs and provided sanctuary to Al Queda [proven facts, btw] and thats your best response? It would be more effective if you frothed in ALL CAPS like DTL does.

Mindsteps said...

Cedarford wrote:

Mindsteps - Despite your anecdotal family stories, the only time where Jewish-Americans voluntarily fought in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the population was in the Spanish Civil war.

Your stats and mine don't jibe.

According to the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (www.jwv.org), during World War I, Jews made up 3.3 percent of the population and 5.7 percent volunteered for the armed forces. During World War II, 3.3 percent of the population and 4.2 percent volunteering for the armed forces were Jewish.

Fen said...

How many other morons and imbeciles do we have on this thread who think that a 2004 Slate article can debunk a 2006 Lancet study?

No one claimed it did. The problem for you is that Lancets prior studies on this were discredited, their methodology and bias suspect. You call people morons, but your trust in is no different than swallowing reports from Dan Rather and Mary Mapes after the TANG Memo fraud.

Oh wait, you still maintain those docs were real, right?

Fen said...

Redhand: Where are Saddam's fabled WMD? And please don't reference some of those ancient chemical artillery shells that were found.

Heh. Hysterical: "Prove x existed. But don't reference x in doing so"

And define "ancient" please. The 500 arty shells are just one example, and they were found around Iraq in various types of storage: Some in the sand, some in underground bunkers. Some degraded, some not.

Fen said...

hdhouse: WELL ASSHOLE -

I see I hit home. Its true, you want your decaf lattes and MTV and cheap oil economy. And if 50 million arabs must suffer tyranny and oppression to satisfy your appetites, so be it. You've got your civil liberties, screw them.

Or more directly - you're ticked the war is draining revenue you wanted for your "free" health care, to pay for your AIDs cocktails, so you can continue indulging in unprotected anal sex with strangers in bathhouses.

Tocqueville was right. Democracy is not sustainable. We end up with selfish parasites interested in nothing but satisfying their opulent appetites.

Gary Rosen said...

"My intent by pointing out the low volunteer rate of Jews other than in the volunteer brigades of the Spanish Civil War is not to demean Jews"

Like all antisemites, C-fudd is a weasel, others here have proven him a liar. One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are invariably losers, nitwits and misf*cks.

Sloanasaurus said...

....its like one of those IQ tests...ready Sloane? Here's the question...which number is next in this sequence? 1993 2001 ________?

BAHAHHHHAHAHAHA. It hurts.

This is the classic leftist response to the argument that we haven't been attacked.

The problem with this claim is that in 1993 Al Qaeda was no one. Bin Ladin had not even started the organization and didn't open his camps in Afghanistan until 1998. In 2001, Al Qaeda was at the height of its power, with 10,000 trained terrorists, and cells in 50+ countries.

After Sept 11 everyone was arguing that it was inevitable that we would be attacked again very soon... yet no successful attacks in America after 5 1/2 years. Not even a car bomb. Bush deserves some credit.

Sloanasaurus said...

Fen, Sloan, Michael, a few others here are nothing more than Bush sycophants, constantly spouting the same Republican (neocon?) talking points regarding Iraq

We don't just support Bush, we also their mission. We support victory.

In contrast, you do not support the military. You support their defeat in Iraq.

Redhand said...

Fen: I claim Saddam had WMDs and provided sanctuary to Al Queda [proven facts, btw] and thats your best response?

Marvelous ipsa dixit assertions there, Fen. I can see you're a charter member of the Dick Cheney "enormous successes" fan club.

Fen said...

Hye, if your side can argue from assertion, why can't I? Why should I be the only one to post cites to back up my points?

Not that I can't - I've already linked to proof of Saddam's WMD program and Saddams ties to Al Queda several times on this blog. Probem is, your people are so partisan, they won't credit a link to Wapo or ABC or NYTs if it goes through right-wing blogs like Powerline. And when I quote directly from Wapo, CIA, 9-11 Commission, your side just ignores it. So really, why should I waste my time posting stuff you guys can google on your own? Its not like you're interested in discovering the facts; rather, you just want to keep parroting the same old discredited arguments.

Luckyoldson said...

Fen is still pounding away at the: saddam bad, saddam's WMD, saddam's chemicals wagons, saddam very bad, bad man...insanity.

more that 4 years in and this idiot is still towing the neocon line...even as the neocons themselves (wolfie, kristol, etc.) have abandoned the cause.

and the republicans wonder why they lost the last elections??

what a hoot.

Luckyoldson said...

sloan,
you really need to start reading more.

continually blathering on about supporting bush and the "mission" is laughable at best.

the "mission," according to bush was to get rid of saddam.

saddam's is gone...did you know that?

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus said...
"The problem with this claim is that in 1993 Al Qaeda was no one. Bin Ladin had not even started the organization and didn't open his camps in Afghanistan until 1998. In 2001, Al Qaeda was at the height of its power, with 10,000 trained terrorists, and cells in 50+ countries.

After Sept 11 everyone was arguing that it was inevitable that we would be attacked again very soon... yet no successful attacks in America after 5 1/2 years. Not even a car bomb. Bush deserves some credit."

SOOO sloan, let me get this straight. OBL and AQ were cyphers until actually Bush was elected and then they promptly attacked what they rightfully perceived to be a fool in the white house...so the only real terrorist attack in the US came with Bush as president and you want to give him credit?

Honest to God you need to think before you write. You really do. You sound awfully stupid sometimes.

and Fen, another classic FEN: "Tocqueville was right. Democracy is not sustainable. We end up with selfish parasites interested in nothing but satisfying their opulent appetites."

AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD EXPLAIN MR. BUSH AND MR. CHENEY NOW WOULDN'T IT.

God you two are sooo easy. Here's laughing at you kiddos.

Luckyoldson said...

hdhouse,
ditto.

hdhouse said...

and let's not forget the prime rib of stupidity...all hail Cedarford who recently babled:
"hdhouse said "by the way, I'm still waiting for a declaration of war.....

That insipid Lefty/Liberatrian talking point always neglects to bring up that the archaic language of the Constitution is outlawed by treaties the US signed."

Pardon me Mr. C, I don't think treats trump the constitution....i don't remember taking the power from congress do you? I think that "archaic" language (all the constitution's language is by definition archaic as it was written - prior to amendments - at about the same time....

Well anyway, you get the point. the UN charter doesn't say what you are praying it does and our constitution isn't overridden by treaty..

what does it feel like to be the dullest bulb on the christmas tree?

Fen said...

hdhouse, can you edit that last so it makes sense? Thanks.

Fen said...

Luckyoldson: Fen is still pounding away at the: saddam bad, saddam's WMD, saddam's chemicals wagons, saddam very bad, bad man...insanity.

No. I'm simply responding to your lies: Bush lied, Saddam had no WMDs, Saddam not a threat, Iraq better under Saddam, etc. Quit lying and I'll stop correcting you.

hdhouse said...

well Fen, the long and short if it is you are an idiot. but then again you just might be a fool.

let's see. idiot. fool...idiot/fool.....he's two mints, two mints, two mints in one!

Luckyoldson said...

How about a poll?

Who here still believes Saddam had WMD when we invaded?

*And please, none of the...oh, he shipped them to Syria, or they're there somewhere or everybody thought he did...just a plain straight-forward answer:

DID HE HAVE THEM WHEN WE WENT IN??

My Vote: Nope.

Fen said...

Who here still believes Saddam had WMD when we invaded?

500 arty shells with Sarin and Mustard Gas were found when we invaded [some degraded, some not]. So your poll will only out the ignorant.

BTW, whats with the narrow scope when we invaded? Saddam was under intense scutiny from the US and UN. So much so that he farmed his nuclear scientists out to Libya. Do you really think Saddam would have abandoned his WMD program after sanctions were lifted?

hdhouse said...

hey Fen...you and Senator Rick Santorum can put that out as proof...he lost by a landslide. You loose here.

Does it bother a sociopath if everyone is laughing at him?

Fen said...

hdhouse, do you understand that WMDs are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons [NBC]?

You claim Saddam didn't have any WMDs when we invaded. Are you saying that Sarin and Mustard Gas are not WMD?

Cedarford said...

Mindsteps - Your stats and mine don't jibe.

According to the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (www.jwv.org), during World War I, Jews made up 3.3 percent of the population and 5.7 percent volunteered for the armed forces. During World War II, 3.3 percent of the population and 4.2 percent volunteering for the armed forces were Jewish.

Nice try.

You conflate being drafted with volunteering. You then use the whole population as a measure of "volunteering" (voluntary or involuntary [Draft]) when the stat kept is of military age males.

Jews in both wars actually fared worse in the Draft because they tended to middlemen type jobs that were not considered critical to the country's war effort like other ethnicities concentrated in mining, other natural resources, farming, being a transportation or industry worker.

The truth still stands. Jews in America have had among the lowest volunteer rates of any ethnicity, Communist organized brigades to the Spanish Civil War excepted.

(But historians do note that Jews in WWI Germany and the UK did have a higher than average volunteer rate).

Gary Rosen - Like all antisemites, C-fudd is a weasel, others here have proven him a liar. One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are invariably losers, nitwits and misf*cks.

Rosen once again illustrates the millenia-old axiom of how unadept some Jews are at making friends and influencing people in balanced measure.

Luckyoldson said...

Here's a classic example of how the Bush administration has handled our Mideast policy:

Experts need not apply

When it comes to Middle East policy, career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang is hardly a slouch. He was in charge of the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s, and was later tapped to run the Pentagon’s international spying operations.

So when he sat down in 2001 with Doug Feith for a job interview, Feith probably should have been anxious to bring someone with Lang’s experience, stature, and expertise into the young Bush administration. Feith needed someone to run the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, and Lang had been recommended for the position. The interview didn’t go well. (via TP)

Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.

“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.

“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’

“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’

“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’

“That’s too bad,” Feith said.

The audience howled.

“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said. “I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.”

It’s best not to have too many qualified experts cluttering up the administration. Who knows what kind of reality-based policies they might have pursued.

Fen said...

That was the end of the interview, Lang said. I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.

Too bad we can't ask Feith for his version of the encounter. Lang sounds bitter. Wonder who beat him out for the job.

Regardless, here's another Lang quote, one you won't like:

"A basic lesson of history is that one must win on the battlefield to dictate the peace. A proof of winning on the battlefield has always been possession of that battlefield when the shooting stops. Those who remain on the field are just about always believed to have been victorious. Those who leave the field are believed to be the defeated."

You still want to redeploy to Oki, Lucky? Your expert advises against it...

Mindsteps said...

Cedarford wrote:

You conflate being drafted with volunteering. You then use the whole population as a measure of "volunteering" (voluntary or involuntary [Draft]) when the stat kept is of military age males.

You have provided no data to support your contention. I also challenge you to provide the supporting materials that you cite regarding your claim of the low rates of progressive jews volunteering for the Military. I offered data that suggested that in both WWI and WWII Jews were actually overrepresented in the military relative to their percentage of the general U.S. population.

I also provided you with the website containing that information. Please provide me with your references.

You wrote also:

Rosen once again illustrates the millenia-old axiom of how unadept some Jews are at making friends and influencing people in balanced measure.

If you have a problem with Rosen stick with Rosen. Instead, in response to this individual's confrontation, you chose to generalize to an entire religious group.

Do you believe Rosen's behavior is related to being Jewish? Do you believe that by using the qualifier 'some' that this negates your unfair stereotype?

Would you mind directing me to the axiom as well. Believe it or not, I am not familiar with it. Who coined the axiom and in what context?

Do you not see how your remarks could be construed as a form of bigotry or anti-semitism? If not, how would you explain your response to Rosen? Don't some people (in contrast to some Jews) have difficulty establishing or maintaining friendships? Cite me the research on the compromised friendship skills of Jews relative to others.

For the record, not wanting to speak for Rosen, I suspect his comment was not intended to establish a friendship with you.

hdhouse said...

The Drill SGT said...
"Every death in Iraq is a personal tragedy, but not close to Vietnam. (LOL, in the first DAY of the Somme, the Brit's alone lost 20,000 dead.) (We lost more dead on the beaches of D-Day than in Iraq over 4 years. )"

Well Drill Sgt...sure nice to meet a macho man on memorial day. Let me see if I can make this clear to you, D-day/Iraq is a srawdog and you dishonor both by making a comparison where none exists. Why don't you take some of the major battles from the first world war and by comparison your little adventure in Viet Nam was a walk in the park.

You can point to your heroism and John Wayne macho macho all you want but the twisted, demented logic you pushed off in your post is little more than appetizing than a turd in the punch bowl.

GFYs.... and if you need help with the abbreviation just think what people say under their breath to you every day...

Luckyoldson said...

Interesting slant on reporting the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/business/media/28carr.html?ex=1338004800&en=61d3ca3b3b6d5297&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Luckyoldson said...

fen ONLY beleives what he or she (what are you?) wants to believe.

no matter who anyone quotes, he or she immediately disputes the version as being untrue, but not based on any facts, just his or her right wing "opinion" that the person quoted must be lying...why?

well, because fen doesn't agree.

dumb, dumb, dumb.

Luckyoldson said...

FEN...you apparently forgot to include this posting from noquarter.com

Bleeding the Army and Marines
byLarry C Johnson

The last 11 months in Iraq are the bloodiest since the United States invaded in March of 2003. Despite a troop surge the violence is not abating and our troops are not more secure. Our losses in Iraq are significant.

Since March of 2003 we have lost 44 battalions worth of soldiers and marines (a battalion is a unit of 300 to 1,000 soldiers. Four to six companies make up a battalion. I am using the figure of 650, a combat arms battalion.) And the trend in Iraq is alarming--we are losing more, not less.

Total losses as of 2pm on 27 May 2007 are 3454 dead and 25242 wounded. Total casualties: 28696. The following chart is drawn from the statistics recorded at icasualties.org:

On the eve of Memorial Day it is important to repeat warnings that we are bleeding are military forces dry. Former Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, warned Congress last December that:

The changed conditions of warfare have greatly affected our armed services with the significant and sustained demands for Army forces across the globe continuing to exceed the strategy set by the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review.

As it currently stands, the Army is incapable of generating and sustaining the required forces to wage the Global War on Terror and fulfill all other operational requirements without its components - active, Guard, and Reserve - surging together.

*Try to be more honest the next time you post.

Gary Rosen said...

"Rosen once again illustrates the millenia-old axiom of how unadept some Jews are at making friends and influencing people in balanced measure."

A couple of questions:

What is the point of a Jew trying to befriend or influence confirmed antisemites?

How many friends do you have, C-fudd? When I point out your antisemtism, on this and other blogs, I usually get a few posts supporting me and you almost never get any.

Luckyoldson said...

Cut & Runners...???

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said this morning on CBS' Face the Nation that "unless something extraordinary happens," most members of Congress believe that troop withdrawal should be on the table in September.

"We have to be realistic," he said. "We have to know that we can't achieve everything we'd like to achieve. We have a limited number of men and women we can send to Iraq, and we can't overburden them."

Luckyoldson said...

I love it when someone posts a contrary view of how things are going in Iraq, or when the Republicans do what the right wing accuses the Democarats of doing every day...cutting and running...the right wing weasels...disappear.

where is fen...sloan?

Gary Rosen said...

Mindsteps:

"Do you not see how your remarks could be construed as a form of bigotry or anti-semitism?"

OF COURSE C-fudd sees it, that is exactly why he makes these remarks. Trust me, I've read his posts on this and other blogs and he is a classic antisemite, obsessed with Jews and compulsively inserts these kinds of statements apropos of nothing. My favorite example was on Belmont Club. Richard (the blogger on BC) made a post about the Barack Obama phenomenon, and the fourth word in C-fudd's response was "Jew" (he wasn't claiming BO was Jewish, he just had to say something about Jews). Don't waste your time tryin to reason with him.

Roger said...

With any luck this thread has run its course--re the Lancet study: What the study reported was the predicted number of casualties with a margin of error from 20K to 650K. For those of you who may have forgetten your basic statistics, that meant there was a 95 percent chance that the number could be as low as 20K and as high as 650K. AND ANY NUMBER IN BETWEEN. PERIOD. Thats what the statistics tell you, and you folks arguing otherwise clearly haven't got the remoted grasp of statistical fundmentals.

Luckyoldson said...

We need to push our elected officials to GET US OUT OF IRAQ...

Eight GI Deaths On Memorial Day Make May Deadliest Month This Year In Iraq