Where's the soundbites from Edwards?
The real problem is that everybody wants to let the media run the elections.
Edwards is perfectly correct. We've have a potential problem with these religous lunatics in the Muslim world, hq in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and Bush and the news media chose to ignore that for all the point making we were supposed to be making by kicking somebodies ass ala that idiot Friedman. Well, thanks to cheney's intervention for his oil corporate cronies, we have created an al queada problem in Iraq. If we were to get our eye back on the ball by dealing with the Paki's and the Taliban, that problem in Iraq might just go away, especially if WE AREN'T IN THAT MISERABLE FUCKING COUNTRY.
That seems to be the gist of Sen Edwards argument. I don't agree with your two options for him either because I don't believe your premise about what happens in Iraq is correct. Their terrorism in the country is going to be Iraqi's killing Iraqi's, al qeuadea is pretty much irrelevent in Iraq if we aren't in the country. Then they can have their bloody civil war courtesy of George W Bush and we can start to try to grapple with the real problems, the oppressive Saudi Regime, the psycho's in PakiAfghanistan and their ridiculous religiousness, and the fact that Exxon et al wants us to remain dependent on those god damned arabs oil.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 10, 2007 02:05 PMWe should be looking for Democrats who can not only say the right things but show how what they say can and will be translated into the right actions when they are in power.
eriposte,
We need to have a real foreign policy debate among the Democratic hopefuls. I'd love to see a debate devoted to answering what they would do to get us out of Iraq. They all say they're going to end the war, but how is that possible with thousands of residual troops left there for mutliple reasons - guarding the Vatican sized embassy, combating Al Qaeda, and now the newest use - protecting the Kurds.
I have to admit that I'd never heard Sen. Clinton mention keeping troops in the Kurdish area of Iraq before reading that in Foreign Affairs. Thanks for that link, btw. very revealing.
I don't see an end to this war in Iraq. ever. truly depressing.
Posted by portia at November 10, 2007 02:29 PM"I'd love to see a debate devoted to answering what they would do to get us out of Iraq."
Portia, you will not see any debate answering your question, because there is no such plan.
Posted by Judith at November 10, 2007 02:36 PMDuckman,
Edwards' sound bite is that he will fight terrorism within Iraq using U.S. forces outside Iraq. I've outlined exactly what the practical problem of doing this is in reality. Edwards has not stated that he will not fight certain types of terrorism, to the best of my knowledge - so, I'm going to address his statement, not your qualified opinion on what kind of terrorism is worth fighting.
Either a force outside Iraq will rarely be used or if he is seriously going to fight terrorism within Iraq and terrorism within Iraq stays high, U.S. forces will be mostly within Iraq. So, claiming that you can have forces outside Iraq and that somehow you can successfully fight terrorism within Iraq that way using those forces is a big stretch and doesn't sound particularly plausible to me.
P.S. The term "Paki" is sometimes considered a derogatory reference.
Posted by eriposte at November 10, 2007 03:36 PMPortia, Judith,
There are two problems we have to address to have an honest debate about Iraq.
a) It is election season and words and claims are being and will continue to be twisted out of context by the media and the blogs (yes, and the blogs). Candidates will therefore be guarded about what they are willing to share publicly.
b) Do we honestly expect any candidate to state and then stick to the *details* of their Iraq plan considering that any plan can be completely invalidated by events between now and Jan 2009? Give me your feedback - what kind of detail are you expecting candidates to share that doesn't just sound like they are pandering to you to get your vote?
Posted by eriposte at November 10, 2007 03:44 PMThere is no endgame. The point of this endless war is that it remain endless. This is war for war's sake. This war is for lining the pockets of war profiteers and riding the lizard brain to the end times. Triangulators we hardly knew Ye! This is all about the appeals to strength by the unjust. It will be "strong", for instance, to confirm an Attorney General who can't decide if waterboarding is torture.
Combat troops out of Iraq? H R Clinton end the war?--bring the troops home? Fat chance.
Norman Mailer died in the wee hours of this morning. In the last few years he made some dire predictions for this country. A few weeks before the 2003 invasion he wrote,
The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in Americans' lives. It will be an ever greater overlay on the American system. And before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way. My long experience with human nature--I'm 80 years old now--suggests that it is possible that fascism, not democracy, is the natural state.
Indeed, democracy is the special condition--a condition we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America already.Posted by Copeland at November 10, 2007 03:49 PM
what kind of detail are you expecting candidates to share that doesn't just sound like they are pandering to you to get your vote?
eriposte,
Simply put, I'd like to know how each candidate will end the war in Iraq while continuing to keep combat troops over there to fight Al Qaeda, guard the embassy, staff the new bases they are building all over the country, protect our "American interests" ie, civilian contractors, etc.
Because it sounds an awful lot like what we're doing now - but with fewer troops - which would make the remaining troops targets, and put them in greater danger than they are now.
Posted by portia at November 10, 2007 04:38 PMWell, the only thing you need to now, eriposte, is to include all caps and multiple fonts to make your point....
Posted by Bagley at November 10, 2007 05:05 PMBagley, that is a time-honored practice to distract the reader from otherwise noticing the almost appallingly low quality of the thoughts expressed thereby.
Posted by Toby Petzold at November 10, 2007 07:44 PM...just so that we can hear them say the things we want to hear.Not to worry - that's not happening because I want to hear about peace, which may be loosely translated as "wars we are not fighting". Posted by dus7 at November 10, 2007 08:26 PM
We should just get out of Iraq. Edwards is right.
Posted by NealB at November 10, 2007 09:34 PMMy apologies to anybody for the Paki reference, I was just trying to be brief with the typing.
But I don't think terrorism that would matter to us, i.e. al Qeuedaeadaeuea (I don't care if I spell their name correctly, a bunch of assholes run by a tall asshole who really just wants to have power in Saudi Arabia and using stupid religion as the tool deserves no respect nor consideration) will be at a high level if we leave. It isn't now, if we leave there's no reason to think it will become stronger. al qeiadia has no basis in Iraq except as an anti american force. If we leave the Iraqi's can get on with their civil war that has nothing to do with the great war on terror, a civil war that Cheney precipitated to try to secure their oil for his oil cronies.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 10, 2007 10:34 PMDuckman, I am not joking here---I am pretty sure that "Paks" is not offensive, and it's shorter.
Try that next time.
"There is no endgame. The point of this endless war is that it remain endless. This is war for war's sake. This war is for lining the pockets of war profiteers and riding the lizard brain to the end times."
And don't forget oil. How much has the price of oil risen since Dear Leader seized office?
Posted by gay veteran at November 11, 2007 08:01 AM