I understand that Conan the Barbarian was quite a film as well. Really had the crowd going as did Mad Max in Beyond Thunderdome. Well, what can I tell you? The types of Europeans who are cheering are the same types as the Americans in Hollywood. Let’s leave them with art and not put too much credence in their political views. After all, most of them were and probably still are communist and we see what happened to that glorious system. Wanna bet that Islamofascism is wiped out in a couple of decades and then there will be yet another sucidal cause that they will espouse? Actors.
[color=blue]
Yes Spook:
You certainly did warn us, but forget the pep talk, let’s examine a few things first.
Saddam is gone as are his sons. That threat was real and it is gone. Case closed and that war we won. Iraq will not be a threat to any of its neighbors anytime soon.
The case for nation building was a separate matter so blame only those of us who wanted to attempt that as well to shake up the Middle East but good. I subscribe to believing that we can and will have an opportunity to do that.
What after all is the big disaster? I know that different things have come up since the very day that the war was started but what exactly is the big disaster?
We have lost roughly 550 troops in combat in 1.2 years of war and occupation. I am sorry but this does not have me terrified to the point of throwing in the towel. The Sadr group is being slowly mopped up. The Iraqis don’t seem to be ready to toss out the US yet. Calm is returning after the initial reaction to the abuse in Abu Ghraib prison. There is no link up between Sunnis and Shias and the Shias are telling Sadr to get out of their cities. The Sunnis are now temporarily? pacified in Fallujah. Joint patrols are taking place. What then is the big disaster? We originally envisioned losing 20,000 troops over three months to take Iraq. Given the total troop deaths of 775, that means that we are still ahead of schedule 19,225 if you want to look at it in a coldhearted fashion like this.
I am certain that there are very many officials who agree with the one that you quoted but that does not mean that it is or will be true.
I expected that our troop levels would be down to 90K by now. They are at 130K so guess what? That was a mistake and we are behind schedule. Oh dear.
So that leaves wmds where we were perceived as being wrong, though these latest developments might wipe that blot off our face and that the occupation is proving more difficult than we thought and that we are now 40K behind troop drawdown. Oh woe. Absolute disaster. Nothing is working. We are being defeated. Come on.
Fred Smith wrote:
[quote]It would be very nice if things calm down then (though we should not give too much power to the UN) so we can get troop levels down to 90K. Let’s see what happens[/quote].
Why shouldn’t we give to much power to the UN. Don’t you think that by attempting to internationalize (is that a word?) the occupation force then that might deflect some of the anger directed towards American forces. I know the U.S. talks about involving the UN but doesnt seem to want to give up any authority. In fact they don’t seem to plan on giving up much authority once the interm government is in place either. The American government states that they are not interested in running Iraq so why not give up the power and let the UN take over. Although they may not actually be willing to do that. It’s easier to complain about what’s broken than try to fix it.
“Historically, conservatism in the United States has meant support for small government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and great skepticism about overseas adventures,” notes Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan Administration official who back in the 1960s was among the young Republicans supporting Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a conservative standard-bearer. “What I see now is an Administration that’s not for any of these things.” . . .
Hungry for hard-hitting criticism of the Iraq war? You’re as likely to find it these days in publications like The National Interest, a conservative foreign affairs quarterly, and the recently launched American Conservative as in publications on the left. Want a rundown on the billions in government subsidies that the Bush Administration has lavished on corporations even as it claims to champion laissez-faire economics? Look no further than the website of the libertarian Cato Institute, which bristles with such information. How about sober analyses of the multibillion-dollar budget deficits the Administration has overseen? There’s no better source than the staid, conservative business press. . .
By 2003, the party that spent the Clinton years singing this tune had turned a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected deficit of $4 trillion–in two years. As the London Financial Times observed after Bush’s second round of tax cuts was passed, this was not conservatism but madness. “On the management of fiscal policy, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum,” the paper commented. “Reason cuts no ice; economic theory is dismissed; and contrary evidence is ignored. But watching the world’s economic superpower slowly destroy perhaps the world’s most enviable fiscal position is something to behold.”
Pete Peterson, for one, says he’s undecided about what to do come November. “I’ve been a Republican all my life, but I’m going to wait and see,” he says. “I think there’s a considerable group of Republicans who think of themselves as fiscally responsible and are very concerned.” Clyde Prestowitz, who has spent much of the past nine months traveling around the country to talk about foreign policy, says he has been "amazed by the frequency with which people come up to me after a speech and say, ‘You know, I’m a Republican but I agree with you.’ The number who have said, I voted for Bush last time and I can’t do it again–it’s happening."
Oh the UN schmoo N:
First of all, it was involved up to its neck in corruption with and supporting Saddam. It has no moral standing in Iraq.
Second, it cut and ran after one bomb. Some force.
Third, as Stalin asked how many divisions does the Pope (read: UN) have?
Fourth, who exactly is going to send more troops? No nation will send troops until the security situation is calm by which time, they will not be needed.
Fifth, the UN has a poor history of nation-building.
Sixth, the UN would add more bureaucratic layers to the whole process and this Brahimi is a diehard Arab nationalist who has been more supportive of dictators and other strong men than democrats but then where in the Arab world would you find the latter?
So sorry, UN is not a panacea. We will have to sort through this mess ourselves but while we do, it would be greatly appreciated if the peace brigade would take a rest. This constant criticism from Democratic senators like Kennedy is really beyond the pale and quite frankly seems to give aid and encouragement to the enemy.
Fred,
Putting a corrupt, toothless bureaucracy in charge of restoring Iraq is a profoundly bad idea.
Guess whose decision it was.
Well now hold on spook:
We have had an incredibly difficult month. Let’s see what happens after the turnover. After all, Fallujah for better or worse is pacified. We can argue about the rightness or wrongness of the strategy but it is quiet now. Let’s see if we can get this Sadr taken out or quieted down a bit and then proceed from there. I still do not see or understand all the gloom and doom scenarios that we have had thrown in our faces from Day 1 of the invasion. None of these predictions has occurred. The only thing that has me worried is that the levels of violence will slow reconstruction which will have an effect on the economy which is the key to showing directly to the Iraqis that their lives are improving. This was going far better than expected the first year. It is the last two months that have been a bit hairy.
That said, we are 40K troops above schedule and the cost is running about US$50 billion higher than the original plan. Okay, let’s hold medicare and social security to the same tests and see how they compare against the original plan. Shall we?
This article makes some good points:
In the last week the coverage of Iraq by the U.S. media has exhibited at least four separate failings:
- Selective Agonizing. Ever since the Abu Ghraib photographs emerged, the media has shown them on every possible occasion, accompanied by reports and editorials on America’s shame and the world’s revulsion.
Objectively considered, the U.N.'s “Oil-for-Food” scandal is a far bigger story, implicating not one international statesman but about two dozen, and involving not the abuse of suspected terrorists but the starvation of children. Interestingly, the media has been happy to forget it entirely in all their excitement over Abu Ghraib.
And the photographs of prisoner abuse are not remotely as shocking as the pictures of Nicholas Berg being beheaded by Islamist terrorists. You might imagine that the beheading of an innocent American would be replayed endlessly on the networks and the front pages. But the media suddenly discovered taste. The Berg murder was briskly reported and then confined to the memory hole. And the media hunt for Rumsfeld
Actually, since the Bush administration is so obviously planning- and policy-challenged, all anyone is left with is either (1) trust in Bush, or (2) galloping inferentialism. (Trotting at any rate.)
And I think we all know the “fool me once…” story by heart now, no? So obviously “trust” and “Bush” cannot go in the same sentence. 
Leaving us with inferentialism. In that spirit, what’s the future of Iraq post-7/1? If Bush is indeed between Iraq and a hard place, in addition to facing an election in November, what’s the Conventional Wisdom?
Here’s some gallop, or what I see as a highly likely outcome:
Given that John “Big Contra” Negroponte will be the new Iraq ambassador post-7/1, and that most of the Bush administration cut teeth in Latin America in the 1980s (including Elliot “Cattle Prod” Abrams), the “El Salvador” model comes to mind.
Most likely Iraq will become Death Squad Central and will likely make El Salvador ca1985 look like the Buddhist temple next door.
In the short term, Bush’s decision to hand over internal Iraqi security files to Ahmad Chalabi will enrich the target environment for Baathists. Those Shi’a who stray will likely be dealt with as well, in the longer term and all in an environment so lethal as to prevent any inconvenient media coverage before, say, December or so.
Let Iraq be governed by Iraqis! Vive la democracie!
Flike?
What the…?
Your Tax Dollars At Work:
"At least 10 Palestinians are reported killed as Israeli forces (U.S.-supplied Apache helicopters) fired on a crowd in Rafah in southern Gaza.
Thousands of people were demonstrating against a massive operation in the refugee camp on the edge of the town.
Several children were among the dead, and more than 50 people were injured, Palestinian medical workers said."
Palestinian “medical workers” said? as reported by the BBC? hahah This is the BBC that quoted “reliable sources” about the “massacre” in Jenin. Total death toll 54 of whom 23 were Israeli soldiers and the others were militants (mostly) and if civilians killed by booby traps rigged to blow buildings during the Israeli advance.
Israel rebuked over Gaza killings
The United Nations Security Council has adopted a resolution condemning Israel’s killing of civilians in the Gaza Strip.
The 14-0 vote came after at least 10 Palestinians were killed and 60 wounded when Israeli troops opened fire on protesters in the town of Rafah.
The resolution also urged Israel to stop the demolition of Palestinian homes in the area.
The US, which usually vetoes anti-Israeli resolutions, abstained.
That’s a progress !!
Fred,
If you rationalize or ignore Arab killing of innocent civilians or Israeli killing of innocent civilians you have a double standard.
haha Spook:
Good one. Well, show me that these Palestinians are in fact “dead” and then show me that this was not a justified military action and then we will talk. I think there is a big difference between Israeli actions and Palestinian ones. Besides, haven’t you seen the very funny video of how the Palestinians stage the wailing and shrieking for the cameras on cue. It was hysterical. This person films the whole process of the women waiting around, chatting and laughing and practicing “outrage” while the cameras get set up and then take one no take two and it’s a wrap! Surely, there has to be some law against such photos?
Yup. double standard big time. Lots of innocent Germans died during the British and American bombings but I would say there was a very big difference morally between the American and British position and the German one. Wouldn’t you? I think that the same applies with the innocent victims here. The overall fight is not of equal moral standing. Got it or has moral equivalence rotted your ethical core?
Fred,
I think we’ve already established by your own words that you have a double standard of proof, ne c’est pas?
Give me an example of the double standards of proof? I never said Saddam’s wmds were of primary importance to our little effort over there did I? I believe that he more than proved that he was a threat to his people and his neighbors so what exactly is the double standard that you are referring to?
spook,
I’m worried about you. You seem to be reading nothing but doom and gloom stories. Please read this… it’ll help, I hope, to cheer you up just a bit:
Gosh Tigerman:
Why oh why do you suppose all of that good news that you posted isn’t getting out? An election year? and most of the media and reporters are Democrats who opposed the war in the first place? No really. And the country is not falling apart after all though security is a major problem? Gosh but reporters are supposed to not only report the facts but do so objectively. Is there selective coverage going on? I mean we have heard so much about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. That must be the only story in Iraq right now, right? No? Well, that’s strange.