It's truly a shame that white male conservative militarist-jingoists and their families can't be made to endure the Hell on Earth their warmongering, oil grabbing shit-policies have created for the Iraqis.
Posted by euzoius at February 25, 2008 07:19 AM
truly a shame, a crime. All of that for no reason, except one man's vanity.
Posted by T2 at February 25, 2008 07:25 AMMultiply by 26 million. Then add 50,000 US soldiers and their families.
A truly monstrous crime, but also an equally self-destructive blunder.
We warned them, but would they listen? Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Not to get to far off topic:
Posted by Seven of Six at February 25, 2008 08:24 AMYou people liked this guy in the past, even posted his comments on the front page here...
"What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.
If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.
The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.
Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience -- or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves." Anthony Cordesman via the Wash Post
Posted by peter at February 25, 2008 08:53 AM"It's truly a shame that white male conservative militarist-jingoists and their families can't be made to endure the Hell on Earth their warmongering, oil grabbing shit-policies have created for the Iraqis."
Why only white male conservative?! What about all the nice non-white, non-male, non-conservative people who whole-heartedly, and enthusiastically supported the aggression against Iraq, and continued to support the occupation even after it became clear that it was a disaster based on lies?
What about, as just one example among many, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 09:12 AMBeacause the whole damn idea for invading Iraq (and the lies used to do so) came out of the conservative movement, Shirin---which is a white male operation. PNAC, the "regime changers", the Vulcans, the Kristols, etc.
This was their idea, they pushed it (for years) and it wouldn't have happened without them---that's my take anyway. The "idea men" are the most to blame, amongst a highly blameworthy militarist populace.
And Cordesman might just as well be writing about Vietnam in 1970. Just his use of the term "war" demonstrates his complete dishonesty and inability to think straight.
Posted by euzoius at February 25, 2008 09:26 AMTake a closer look at who is part of PNAC. I'll give you that they are "conservative" (in the most broad, crude sense), but not all male, and not all white. And certainly not remotely all Anglo Saxon Protestant, either.
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 09:31 AMPS Cordesman, as I recall, did not and does not support the Iraq project. I seem to remember he didn't even support it in the beginning.
In any case, Cordesman is a mixed bag. He has produced some of the better reports contradicting the claims and even the assumptions of the Bush regime, talking heads, "experts", and media. For example, he has produced and publicized studies showing that by far the majority of "insurgent" (sic) attacks were against occupation forces and their proxies, not against civilians. Unfortunately, those reports never got much in the way of "legs", but they exist, they were reported in the media, however inadequately, and I heard about them and read them.
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 09:39 AMpants pissing peter: we'll listen to you AFTER you enlist in the Army or after you agree to pay higher taxes to pay for Dear Leader's strategic blunder
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 25, 2008 09:40 AM" The most serious problems, however, are governance and development. Both countries face critical internal divisions and levels of poverty and unemployment that will require patience. These troubles can be worked out, but only over a period of years. Both central governments are corrupt and ineffective, and they cannot bring development and services without years of additional aid at far higher levels than the Bush administration now budgets. Blaming weak governments or trying to rush them into effective action by threatening to leave will undercut them long before they are strong enough to act.”
If I may be so bold, “the most serious problems” are foreign soldiers and an out of wacko invasion that should have never taken place to begin with.
Anyway, some of your post sounds somewhat civil and perhaps even some of the citizens whose country has been overtaken by force by foreign troops may agree with the sentiments. Yet, at the end of it all may say that what I’m firmly convinced of is this: that what those who are forced to live under the shadows cast by the boots of invaders truly want is to see the invaders get the hell out of their turf—and ASAP rather than later!
For anyone that has any problem swallowing this simple concept perhaps following the old notion of trying to put themselves into the shoes of the “invaded” may do the trick. Yeah, P, how would you like to trade places with, for instance, any Iraqi citizen? How would you like to see your country invaded by foreign troops and, to boot, for no reason on earth?
You know something, I lived under another dictator that, too, was nor precisely nice to those he deemed “antagonistic to his cause” and had no problem taking many out of the way via “el paredón” (‘the wall’) plus, of course, some much needed bullets to accomplish the deed. But don’t think for an instant that the citizens of Spain would have welcome foreign invaders to save us—indeed, not even in the much touted “name of democracy” or, as believed by some who must have their heads up their arses, in order to relieve us from our misery. For, no P, no matter what you and your ilk may want to conveniently believe, there’s not one dictator on earth who deserves that the blood of even a single innocent soul is spilled in their bloody names.
And if you pile of top of the above stated seeing one’s beloved country be blown to smithereens in order to accomplish deeds than seem unimportant to those who don’t want to see the senseless destruction is no chicken feed either, I’d venture to say again that what most invaded citizens want is to see the invaders get the hell out ASAP! Yeah, and thus regardless of whether the invaders may want to continue arguing about the “benefit” of later rather than now which, to add insult to injury, apparently is all done in order to help those who you’ve first blown to hell without a care on earth—as seems to be the case.
Time to do the right thing—which I dare say is to let the Iraqi people well in peace to cry, bury their dead, pray, cry some more, and then try to rebuild their much used and abused country as best they can.
In the meantime lets make sure that the pockets of those who’ve benefited most from this other chaotic mess are rendered empty while they pay for the reconstruction of the country they so willingly helped to destroy, that help without ties is truly given, and that the nutty notion that one can ram freedom down throats at the will of the “rammers” becomes a bloody thing of the past—if for no other reason because we, all of we, have finally learnt something out of this other travesty of justice that should have never have taken place.
Yeah, P, let us stop being apologist for that which deserves condemnation, let us cry with those we’ve hurt so, let us help them in their time of need, and let us pray that enough souls have finally seen the light. Wars are evil by their very nature, but never more so than when they are carried out for sheer profit or to settle devilish personal vendettas for, in this case, it appears that “daddy” actually knew a bit more about expedient retreats than the mad son…
PAZ
P.S. Even though I've emailed her, haven't heard from Riverbend since her last post, dated Oct 22, 2007. As with Sunshine, hope that everything turns out OK for them, as well as for the rest of their people.
Posted by quídam at February 25, 2008 10:33 AMTony Cordesman is not an apologist. He wasn't for this from the start, as late as October he was making comments from his visits there indicating a negative trend. That's what got him mentioned here. Now, after his ten day visit, he's made observations that are more positive in nature with warnings. He's been spot on with all of his observations, both negative and positive. He's been there, we haven't. He's trained or educated in this environment, we aren't. Whether agreeable or disagreeable, I've always held his commentary in high regard.
"Daddy" wasn't tasked with this venture. And a president Clinton or Obama will assess the lay of the land on 1/21/09 and reverse his campaign promises and stay the course as AC said they should. One of those easy to promise and hard to deliver. He/she won't deliver, they don't want to be held responsible for what happens.
Many regards PAZ, I respectfully disagree.
Posted by peter at February 25, 2008 11:25 AMJesus... PAZ means peace in Spanish. His/her name is quídam!
Posted by Seven of Six at February 25, 2008 11:35 AMWell, I have enough trouble with English. Sorry.
Posted by peter at February 25, 2008 11:37 AMWell, I have enough trouble with English. Sorry.
No problem with German though.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 25, 2008 12:10 PMBeautifully said, Quidam - thanks!
Posted by Shirin at February 25, 2008 12:13 PMSure do passed first year, didn't the second year some thirty plus years ago.
Posted by peter at February 25, 2008 12:51 PMpants pissing peter: we'll listen to you AFTER you enlist in the Army or after you agree to pay higher taxes to pay for Dear Leader's strategic blunder
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 25, 2008 09:40 AM
Though I disagree with most postings on TLC, I would like to add that there are many well spoken, articulate postings, with research that tries to back your points in most cases.
You, Gay Vet or X-Ray, are not included in that group.
Posted by jj at February 25, 2008 02:37 PMjarjar jj (or is it pants pissing peter), just another Yellow Elephant
you posting from Iraq? no? then STFU
Posted by gay veteran at February 25, 2008 04:42 PM"...you posting from Iraq? no? then STFU"
g-v, you should really get that harmonica fixed: the same note is getting old.
Yes, the young lady's story is heart-rending, however, the mass graves that have been found seem to indicate that her sentiment...
"Oh god how much I miss planning to picnics and preparing for parties, I feel I am so close to live in safety, and see my relatives , neighbors , & friends who had to leave Iraq again."
...was not (and probably is not now) universal.
P.S. The bones in the mass graves are unable to comment.
Posted by Bagley at February 25, 2008 04:57 PMPeter,
Don’t know a thing about Cordesman to comment on what he’s done or not, what is his posturing in re to this other quagmire we are witnessing, of what he stands for. But, frankly, unless the chap is a citizen of and lives in a country invaded by foreign troops my feelings towards him (or any other soul) who recommends stretching the ongoing invasion by even a nano second has no credibility with me, sorry. As mentioned before, in order to be objective about matters of this bloody nature first and foremost one should try to put oneself in the shoes of the invaded, and once the feat is accomplished perhaps one may have earned a shot at daring to have a say about lengthening such type of misery by, yes, even a nano second. And, with all, just a “shot” since, at the end, imagining and facing the cruel reality are light years apart—no matter how hard one tries to wear the “shoes” in which the invaded must walk each and every day.
“And a president Clinton or Obama will assess the lay of the land on 1/21/09 and reverse his campaign promises and stay the course as AC said they should. One of those easy to promise and hard to deliver. He/she won't deliver, they don't want to be held responsible for what happens.”
Guess that AC would have also said that staying the course in Vietnam for whatever long was convenient for the invaders to do their did was another one of those “should” that no apologist should dare question. At the same time, I doubt that the chap would have taken into account the wish of the invaded for, who gives a rat’s ass about them?
At any rate, if I wasn’t before, let me please be clear now. To me the particular sort of apologist that I was referring to have always been those souls who seem to have no problem accepting wars without questioning first and, once the did is taking place (and regardless of anything, such as no WMD’s {a.k.a. “no reason on earth to wage this particular war to begin with”), or such as the countless innocent victims that said war garners each and every day, such as the utter destruction of a country (any country) for the hell of it, such as the misery brought on people who’ve done absolutely nothing to deserve such wrath, and such et al), then have the gall to continue supporting the status quo without, usually, uttering a beep of discontent, and yet find all sorts of excuses to excuse the inexcusable.
So, as far as apologist is concerned must say that if the shoe fits wear it, but could you be so kind as to no bring to bat souls to agree with that don’t live under siege, or those who try to find ways to lengthen the hell in which the Iraqi people have been put by, precisely, apologists willing to excuse the inexcusable ‘cause, I guess, they can? No doubt, resting snugly on the safety net that raw power endows must be a bloody hoot…
BTW, I have no problem with your disagreeing with whatever stances I may have. As a matter of fact, though mainly reminded of what good old V had to say in re to rights and the lot, can assure you that regardless of our blatant differences “would defend to the death your right to…”
OK then?
PAZ
"...you posting from Iraq? no? then STFU"
bagless bagley: g-v, you should really get that harmonica fixed: the same note is getting old.
yes, YOUR cowardice is getting old
be a true patriot, join the Army and fight Dear Leader's war (or at least be willing to pay for it)
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 26, 2008 05:26 AM