| Author | Message | ||
     Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 560 Registered: 2-2003 |
Something big is happening in Iraq. Many are warning about civil war. But I think another possible scenario is the Arab "Street" finally rising up in a massive demonstration of unity -- directed against the United States -- on the scale of the Orange Revolution of Kiev. If millions of Iraqis occupy the streets of Baghdad and other cities to demand that the United States get out of their country, the neocon adventure -- as described by Francis Fukuyama in the "Moving On" thread -- would be brought to a very quick and harsh conclusion. And the Arab "Street" might be awakened in other capitals, including Riyad, in tidal waves of humanity that could sweep those regimes aside as well. This might sound fanciful, but I watched a speech on C-Span the other night by the Iranian President before a vast throng of millions of very angry people. Why not in Iraq? We have started a fire in Iraq that could burn us very badly if we don't put it out by getting ourselves out, very soon. Do you think anyone at State, Defense or CIA is laying out this possible scenario to President Bush? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2593 Registered: 12-2001  |
I think everyone will calm down a little. I don't think there is going to be a sudden transition to full civil war. I also don't think things will get better too soon. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 717 Registered: 2-2004 |
You mean the "Street" is really mad this time? I geuss stock in U.S. flag producers is about to spike. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 562 Registered: 2-2003 |
W's biggest nightmare: Sunni/Shia unity demanding the US get out of Iraq: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/26/content_4230316.htm
| ||
| Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 59 Registered: 1-2006 |
I agree that the situation in Iraq is worsening, but things could really turn ugly in Pakistan: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind90.html One well placed bullet and Osama bin Laden could be riding in a ticker-tape parade through downtown Islamabad. Then what do we do? Cheers | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1602 Registered: 3-2004 |
"Feets, don't fail me now..." | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1765 Registered: 12-2003  |
"We have started a fire in Iraq that could burn us very badly if we don't put it out by getting ourselves out, very soon." Paul, please explain how the "fire in Iraq" would be put out by the U.S. exiting. What little economy and rule of law there is today in Iraq exists solely because of U.S. security. I don't pretend that the country as it is today is anything less than a disaster. But you act as if the violence in the country is being driven by the U.S. presence, and nothing else. These people blowing up U.S. troops... you understand their goal isn't just to kill Americans, right? They want the U.S. out so that they can move on to phase two. We created this mess. We have to try to fix it. If we pull out and the country turns (deeper) into a civilian bloodbath, I imagine the "Pull Out Now" crowd will wash their hands of the whole matter by telling themselves: it wasn't OUR guy who got us into all this. Whether that's enough to help you sleep at night, we'll have to wait and see. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 563 Registered: 2-2003 |
I agree with Congressman John Murtha who says that 93% of Iraqi insurgents are fighting for nationalist goals -- to rid the country of an occupying army -- and that 7% are terrorists. I agree with Murtha that the US presence worsens the security situation. This doesn't mean there will be peace if we withdraw, but it means that the security situation won't be worse if we do. The only way we could "fix" the mess we created would be to agree to turn over responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations Security Council and set the stage for the replacement of US forces with an interim international peacekeeping force. However, given the animosity of the Bush administration to the UN, such a scenario seems virtually -- although not totally -- impossible. Absent a UN takeover of responsibility for Iraq, it seems to me that a withdrawal from Iraq along the lines suggested by Murtha -- which would take about 6 months -- is the most viable option available. Here's more on the increasing role of the "Arab Street" in Iraq: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/ap/world/3686907 | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1767 Registered: 12-2003 |
So, 93% of these people are blowing other people up because what they want to do is form a free and stable Iraq? This is the group you want to put your confidence in? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8782 Registered: 4-1997  |
Our confidence isn't really important to the average Iraqi. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 104 Registered: 1-2006 |
The following are excerpts from a television program with Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, aired on Qatar TV on February 25, 2006. Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), and the spiritual guide of many other Islamist organizations across the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood. TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1052 . [...] "We are fighting them in the name of Islam, because Islam commands us to fight whoever plunders our land, and occupies our country. All the school of Islamic jurisprudence - the Sunni, the Shi'ite, the Ibadhiya – and all the ancient and modern schools of jurisprudence – agree that any invader who occupies even an inch of land of the Muslims must face resistance. The Muslims of that country must carry out the resistance, and the rest of the Muslims must help them. If the people of that country are incapable or reluctant, we must fight to defend the land of Islam, even if the local [Muslims] give it up. "They must not allow anyone to take a single piece of land away from Islam. That is what we are fighting the Jews for. We are fighting them... Our religion commands us... We are fighting in the name of religion, in the name of Islam, which makes this Jihad an individual duty, in which the entire nation takes part, and whoever is killed in this [Jihad] is a martyr. This is why I ruled that martyrdom operations are permitted, because he commits martyrdom for the sake of Allah, and sacrifices his soul for the sake of Allah. "We do not disassociate Islam from the war. On the contrary, disassociating Islam from the war is the reason for our defeat. We are fighting in the name of Islam." [...] "Everything will be on our side and against Jews on [Judgment Day]; at that time, even the stones and the trees will speak, with or without words, and say: 'Oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim, there's a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' They will point to the Jews. It says 'servant of Allah,' not 'servant of desires,' 'servant of women,' 'servant of the bottle,' 'servant of Marxism,' or 'servant of liberalism'... It said 'servant of Allah.'... -- JD | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 120 Registered: 6-2002 |
Question for you supporters of the Bush family: Bush 41 goes to war with Iraq over Kuwait but stops short of ousting Saddam, a decision that is made at great political cost. His feeling, in part, is that the removal of Hussien is likely to create a dangerous power vacuum in Iraq, likely to bring destablization. He implements system of oversight and inspections (with allies and the UN)that contains the Iraqi regime, neuters their army, destroys their WMD programs and monitors their every activity. Over 10 years, into the Clinton administration, inspections, sanctions and overflights continue this containment. Bush 43 invades and conquers Iraq on the pretense that there are still WMDs, ties to terrorists and to create stability in the region. Saddams fall creates a power vaccum that results in factionalized fighting, influenced by neighbors waiting years for the opportunity to exert their power. According to Negroponte: "If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country ... this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world." In other words, if the civil war gets out of hand there might be no way to contain it. I could go on (trust me, I wont). But, which Bush do you believe? Which Bush did a better job reading the region and developing a response? Cause the way I see it, these are two very, very different world views-- gotta pick one. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2616 Registered: 12-2001 |
U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports. Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops. The existence of the top-secret document, which was the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience. The reports received a cool reception from Bush administration policymakers at the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists - even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise [...] In August 2003, with concerns about the insurgency growing, Bush told reporters: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. ... We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." On Nov. 1, 2003, a day after the National Intelligence Estimate was distributed, Bush said in his weekly radio address: "Some of the killers behind these attacks are loyalists of the Saddam regime who seek to regain power and who resent Iraq's new freedoms. Others are foreigners who have traveled to Iraq to spread fear and chaos. ... The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will. Our will cannot be shaken." As recently as May 2005, Cheney told a television interviewer: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 900 Registered: 10-2005 |
"The only way we could "fix" the mess we created would be to agree to turn over responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations Security Council and set the stage for the replacement of US forces with an interim international peacekeeping force." Paul- One of the primary reasons we are in Iraq is because the UN failed to do its job (again). How do your turn something over to a body that has interest in taking on the responsibility? The UN had enough time to step in to assist if it really wanted to. -SLK | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 566 Registered: 2-2003 |
Scrotis, The United Nations was doing a fine job of searching for WMDs in Iraq but was prevented from completing its search by the Bush administration's pre-emptive attack and invasion in 2003. The attack and invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive only in the sense that it was designed to pre-empt the United Nations from completing its search and declaring that Iraq was free of WMDs. Such an outcome -- which the prewar evidence indicated was highly likely -- would have made it far more difficult politically for the Bush administration to launch its war of conquest and domination of Iraq. Had the Bush administration honored the UN Charter -- as the US is constitutionally required to do -- and allowed the UN to complete its inspections, thousands of dead Americans would be alive today, tens of thousands would not be seriously injured and nearly $300 billion of taxpayers money would not have been squandered. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 124 Registered: 6-2002 |
SLK, I see you are happy to take on Paul, but I don't see your response to my question. If 41 left things at the point where the UN had responsibility to search for WMDs, and they search- with interruption- and the President bombs selected sites that appear not to be in compliance- AND when we invade we find no WMDs--- well who was the more effective President? And between Bush 41, Clinton, the UN and Bush 43- only one party had NO PART in eliminating WMDs from Iraq. SLK, which party would that be? Look, I am not a dove about these things. But I think that when you put our soliders in harms way, you damn well better know what you are doing. And it better be for a good cause. You can spin all you want, but there were no WMDs or even viable programs in Iraq because of Bush 41, Clinton and the UN. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1603 Registered: 8-2004  |
Paul, I believe that the UN was prevented from finishing their job by Saddam in 1998. Bush placed 200K on Iraq's doorstep in 2002 to get the inspectors back in. Bush also was clear that if Saddam didn't comply quickly military action would be taken. bill, the Duelfer Report paints Saddam as a threat. Only one president eliminated that threat. As Bush said , " there are things about this war that will not be revealed for 50 years" If stockpiles are found would you change you opinion? | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 190 Registered: 1-2005 |
stockpiles of A bombs yes. stockpiles of mustard gas, no. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2621 Registered: 12-2001 |
the UN failed to do its job (again). They disarmed Iraq! They did great. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1604 Registered: 8-2004 |
If they disarmed Iraq , why did Clinton bomb them in 1998. If they disarmed Iraq, why was it necessary for them to go back in 5 years later. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 125 Registered: 6-2002 |
Look, I'm sorry I got sucked into all this. I'd much prefer to talk about how we get out. And Guy, I don't know when the WMDs were gone and who made them gone. Was it the strikes in 1998? Was it the Gulf war? I said this before-- I supported the war in Iraq. I supported Bush. I strongly disagreed with the way and the timing of when the war started, but I felt war needed to be an option. But, as they say, "mistakes were made". One of the mistakes that was made is that the intelligence about how damaged the WMD programs were was surpressed. But lets say there was no ill will, we were all fooled (a contention I don't agree with). Bush went to war over a mistake. I don't see how that makes him a great leader or a great President. And it sure as hell doesn't help anyone to back into a logic that wasn't there in the first place. No one could know whether there were WMDs. From everything I can see now, the inspections and the air strikes and the sanctions worked. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5813 Registered: 12-2001  |
Guy you know the answer to the 1998 question. the 2003 question is what many people are now scratching their heads over. Why did we go back 5 years later? Seems we went back for reasons completely disassociated with WMD's. the ole...this guy tried to off my father?? I don't know. But I do know we were fed a whole barrel of ___________ | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5815 Registered: 12-2001 |
Guy you know the answer to the 1998 question. the 2003 question is what many people are now scratching their heads over. Why did we go back 5 years later? Seems we went back for reasons completely disassociated with WMD's. the ole...this guy tried to off my father?? I don't know. But I do know we were fed a whole barrel of ___________ | ||
| Threeringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 65 Registered: 1-2006 |
Regarding kendalbill's question on the difference between Bush 41 and Bush 43, 41 seemed to be more of a pragmatist and 43 seems to actually believe his own gaseous Wilsonian rhetoric about spreading democracy and freedom around the world. The point about the pre-war intelligence on WMD's is not so much that it was wrong, but rather that it actually played such a small part in the decision to go to war. Paul Pillar says this: In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services. But in making this defense, the White House also inadvertently pointed out the real problem: intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region. If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades. Source:http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p0/paul-r-pillar/intelligence -policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html Cheers | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 753 Registered: 2-2004 |
Who cares. You libs had your chance to create the perfect society and you lost that opportunity because Gore couldn't win his home state. To be honest, no one in this current government cares what you think. You libs are the ugly girl of the wedding party. Bush doesn't care about you and neither do the rest of us. You better elect some representatives of your own party if you want to be cared for because we don't. How many times must we disregard you before you realize this. Bush doesn't care about your issues or whining. He is doing what us conservatives want him to do and the only thing saving you from a 3rd term is the Constitution. You guys should be really happy for term limits. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3289 Registered: 3-2004 |
We are. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1622 Registered: 7-2004  |
Southerner: Yawn. Do you really have nothing else to say? Are you as bored by your posts as the rest of MOL? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 755 Registered: 2-2004 |
Yes. Aren't you tired of yours. I think we are in agreement that this is a pretty boring time of year politically speaking. You guys throw accusations and we defend. Just a repeat of the last 6 years. The pace will be picked up come October when the polls give you guys some delirious hope. Then of course the election will happen and I will gloat and you will call me names and then we can repeat until 2008. So, yes, it does get kind of boring. I'm just so tired of scrimmages with you guys. Maybe if the Dems did take back Congress this board would be more interesting. | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 127 Registered: 6-2002 |
Southerner, all you ever want to do is talk about the 200 election. You guys won. Get over it. If you haven't noticed other stuff is happening now. Yes, it relates to elections. But it also relates to other things every day. In fact, I can go days, weeks, months without thinking about Al Gore. In fact the only time I ever think about him is when you bring him up. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 117 Registered: 1-2006 |
Please read Saddam's Bombmaker, and, also, The Bomb In My Backyard, by Iraqi nuclear scientists, for more facts about Iraqi weapons, esp. nuclear, and research, and Saddam's merry ways. I read both, you can too. jd | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4440 Registered: 5-2001 |
we went to war because a couple of guys wrote books? that's a pretty low bar. I'd be more confident if there were actual weapons, not just prose describing them. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 757 Registered: 2-2004 |
kendall, Then why aren't your posts aimed at the person you are really upset with. Why do you fault a guy (Bush) who is doing what those of us who voted for him want him to do? You libs act like you are shocked that Bush is acting like a conservative Republican. I can make a very simple promise to you my liberal friends on MOL. If a liberal Democrat wins the White House in 2008, I will not come on this board and act shocked and dismayed that this elected President pushes liberal philosophies on social and economic issues. Why you libs always seem shocked is amazing. So Kendall, please take out your frustration on the proper people. You should be going after Gore and Kerry as they are the ones who let you down. Bush never promised to be a liberal President so your calls of astonishment come across as hilarious. And I know, the thought of Gore brings your blood to a boil. To be honest, the way Bush 41 allowed himself to get rolled by Clinton makes me pretty upset. We should have had back to back two term conservative Presidents, instead 41 opened the door for Clinton and Clinton did a great job in seizing the opportunity. However, the silver lining is Clinton opened the door to Newt and the boys to begin this run of conservative domination. Maybe you Dems will reap similar rewards one day. But if you can't get it in 2008 with all the so called "scandals" then that would be a pretty bad sign for your philosophy. I mean, perhaps our top conservative voice in Cheney just shot a guy in the face. If you guys can't make a little hay out of that then you really have no hope. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1896 Registered: 6-2003  |
No need to waste time with the face-shooter when there are so many foot-shooters still running loose in the Administration. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2631 Registered: 12-2001 |
Here’s my little translator’s key to this emerging talking point: Republicans attach incredible importance to media criticism of the war, because they genuinely believe that the war is won and lost IN THE MEDIA. The American media, that is. Their partisan selves are so thoroughly embedded in the culture-jamming electioneering of the Rovist personality cult the GOP has become that they genuinely don’t recognize the difference between actually achieving peace and a non-doomed secular democracy in Iraq, and just being able to plausibly claim that peace on American TV. http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/03/02/kitten-pictures/ | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 130 Registered: 6-2002 |
Southerner, you completely missed my point. Intentional? You paint things as lib- conservative. To me, Bush ran as a new kind of pragmatic conservative and I had hope. I've said that before. I think he has governed in a way that is very different than how he ran in 2000. I almost want to start kidnapping and deprogramming you conservatives that defend nearly everything Bush does. You seem to have forgot your values. And, since you never asked I never offered my opinion but here it is: yes, I am upset with the Democrats for losing the last two races. But only because of the mess we are in now. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 763 Registered: 2-2004 |
Kendal, Please. Just admit you don't like Bush because he is a conservative Republican. Don't hand me the line that he ran as something else. He didn't. If you believe campaign speeches then you must be sorely disappointed after every election. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 129 Registered: 1-2006 |
No, Tom, they wrote after the war, free from the lefty's idol's nightmare oppression, and wrote about what was going on before the war, including what they did for Iraqi science. Read, you might like it. jd | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 133 Registered: 6-2002 |
Southerner, we are meeting up all over the place. I don't like Bush because he is an incompetent Republican. I have liked candidates like Jack Kemp, Bush Senior, John McCain and Ronald Reagan because they were more conservative fiscally than this president. Bush is doing nothing for Republicans. His legacy will be an enormous debt load and a broken government. I truly fail to see how Bush can be called a conservative on fiscal matters. And I still say he ran as a neoisolationist in 2000You might say all politicians lie, but then don't say he came as advertised. He said, plainly and clearly, he was against nation building. He is doing exactly that and it is the single biggest foreign policy he has implemented. To which you say it is my fault because I believed him? Forget the war, if he said in 2000 that he would spend untold billions on rebuilding Iraq do you think YOU would have voted for him? Why? Did YOU think in 1999 that the single biggest problem we have is the Saddam is still in power and we need to rebuild Iraq? In early 2001 the issues were Israel/Palestine, China and that Congressman who they thought killed the intern. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 768 Registered: 2-2004 |
Kendall, I hear you. I don't totally disagree. I'll give you a thought. I like this Bush because he doesn't flip flop and yes, I think he is doing the right things for the right reasons. I think having a little foothold in the Middle East politically (Pakistan) and militarily (Iraq) does help our nation out. We don't know when we will need those footholds but we will one day. Probably after the first nuke goes off in Manhattan. Everyone knows when this happens it will have originated in either Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. These are the only countries with the sophistication and religious fanaticism to pull it off. China and North Korea could do it by they lack that fanaticsm to act. Also, as much as I like Bush 43, I politically speaking dislike Bush 41 for the same reasons. We should have removed Saddam back during the Kuwait war. We already had the troops in position and perhaps installing a puppet government like we are doing now would have provided the intel to have prevented 9/11. Also, Bush allowed himself to get rolled by Clinton. He might have lost anyway but he never even engaged the debate during the campaign. He obviously relied on the polling data which showed him a poplular post war President. He and Kerry should compare polls! And believe me, I do not look at Bush 41 as a rock star like the Dems do with Clinton. He hurt our party and I don't give him a pass. As for 43's legacy none of us know what it will be. I suspect his supporters will see him favorably and his detractors will see him negatively (now that is insight). | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 857 Registered: 10-2004  |
Bush not a flip flopper - what a joke - Flip Flopper In Chief He has said to the public what the majority wants to hear but has done whatever it is he wanted to. The issue is his credibility which is nil. |
