Ya know, like Clinton.

After all, it wasn’t rumsfeld who drafted the plan to get us into (and out of) Afghanistan.

How’s that for preemptively fighting terrorism?

Maybe I need to clarify. My reply to you was simply this:

I offer a hand of friendship in dialogue and receive a fist to the face.

Everything else was in response to Harry Arthur, agreeing with a point of his and expounding on it.

The arguments for this absurd war started out as “realist” then switched to “idealist” when the realism was found to be based on delusion and lies. We’re supposed to be better than the schmucks we oppose. Are we going to reduce ourselves to their level?
How many died as a result of the sanctions?
How many died as the result of the war?
Answer those two questions please.

“Complaints by the Dems that we didn’t send enough troops.”
No. Complaints by the General Shinseki, among others.

So we went in small and light, consistent with the aim of assisting the Iraqi people to throw-off the tyranny of Saddam rather than coming as a conquering and occupying force. What did we get in return for that?
So what did we get for our lack of planning and follow-through?
Since the result was both predictable and predicted,
I assume that’s what you mean.

When you ignore basic information why should I waste my time arguing? You assert things as if we should take them on faith. And so enough of your points of ‘fact’ are so obviously wrong so why should I trust the rest? I’ve actually gotten called unoriginal on this site for sourcing my comments.
Im sorry but that’s how discussions go in the real world.

“It is easier to criticize the US on Human Rights issues than a murderous tyrant.”
Bizarre. I criticize the US for supporting a murderous tyrant for 30 years. I’ve pointed to the record enough times [and ignore the photograph please, there are 22 articles on the page.]

Did we help stabilize the region by supporting Saddam?
Have we helped stabilize the region by supporting The Saudis?
Have we helped stabilize the region by supporting Mubarak?
Did we help stabilize the region by supporting The Shah?
Have we helped stabilize the region by supporting The Israeli occupation? [and you can't say that we're really opposed it]

I support none of the above and I never have (and I’m a jew).
Make an argument and back it up. Or try to, since the data don’t support your dreams.

I offer a hand of friendship in dialogue and receive a fist to the face.

I don’t give a damn what you want to believe. …Frankly I don’t give shit one way or the other if the world blows up;…

“I would prefer to discuss issues and looking for clarity and understanding, not seeing who can “win” a debate.”
Then think a little more and do a little research.
Comment by AF — 4/28/2007 @ 7:50

am

To Harry Arthur:

This is one of the primary reasons Gen Franks wanted the smallest forces possible for both Afghanistan and Iraq, precisely to attempt at least to convince the local populations that we intended to be liberators as opposed to occupiers. It seems to me that the tactic worked fairly well in Afghanistan and, for a plethora of reasons, has not worked well at all in Iraq, at least in the aftermath of the initial combat operations.

I agree. Meaningful discussion between Democrats and the Republicans would be nice, as “two heads are better than one”, at least when there is cooperation.

Some reflections (if read, include the end please):
1. We cooperated with other members of the UN Security Council and gave Saddam time (once again after 10 years of nonsense) to demonstrate his willingness to cooperate. What did we get in return?
a. Members of the Security Council actively working to bolster Hussein’s stability, betraying the mission of the UN and the United States specifically.
b. Time for Saddam to hide things or ship them to Syria.
c. Still voices of complaint that we were too hasty.

2. Before the invasion of Iraq all of the noise was about how barbaric the US was, how we were going to make the Iraqi people suffer by destroying all of their infrastructure, claims we wanted to invade and occupy for oil, etc., etc.
So we went in small and light, consistent with the aim of assisting the Iraqi people to throw-off the tyranny of Saddam rather than coming as a conquering and occupying force. What did we get in return for that?
a. Complaints by the Dems that we didn’t send enough troops.
b. Complaints by the world that we didn’t maintain order well enough, resulting in museums being ransacked, etc.
c. Complaints by others that we didn’t use sufficiently overwhelming force to intimidate our enemies, hence allowing for an insurgency down the road.
d. Complaints that we didn’t listen to some sources of intelligence that doubted Chalabi.

3. Furthermore, the evil, repressive, arrogant, and expansionist Americans under His Excellency, Emperor Bush, wished to promote a -cough, gasp, choke, chuckle, guffaw- form of government that was representative of the people and a self-governing, independent nation. And what did his Excellency get for that?
a. Criticism for being optimistic and believing that the people of Iraq wanted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also.
b. Second-guessing that he should have backed a US-friendly “strong man” instead of the US-antagonistic one we replaced.

What other observations can be made?
- It is easier to criticize the US on Human Rights issues than a murderous tyrant.
- Open societies look worse when their mistakes are publicized while those of represime regimes are covered up.
- That relatively few people care how corrupt and feckless the UN is.
- Development of forbidden long-range missile systems, Hemorrhagic Fever viruses buried in the back yard of government scientists, and documents detailing the assembly of an atomic bomb don’t count as evidence that Saddam was a serious threat.
- We can have the greatest use of smart bomb technology, operate under rules of engagement that put our own soldiers at increased risk, and minimize deaths of non-combatants in spite of “guerilla warfare”, and still get accused by the world of being warmongers…while the rest of the world, including the UN, watch the killing in the Sudan.

What is one to conclude given these observations?
Possibilites include:
- Never commit to military action until we have been hit with a large enough attack to cause great enough losses that people will still be motivated to fight 5 years later, if necessary. (Also, hope that it happens under a Democrat administration, otherwise the Dems will be too busy blaming the Repubs for letting it happen to do anything about it.)
- If commit to military action do what you want, more devastating than necessary, and as rapidly as possible. That way the war can be finished before domestic partisanship bickering takes over, and the rest of the world will complain no matter what you do anyway.
- Surrender sovereignty to the UN, then we will be as victimized as the rest of the world and no one will need to feel guilty.
- Discuss diplomatic options until choose to do one of the above.
- Other suggestions?

Obviously this analysis has been filled with cynicism and sarcasm. The worst part is, though, it appears to be consistent with the views of too many. This is not what FDR, Truman, or JFK would have done, let alone Eisenhower or Reagan.

The US said Mr Hadi, whose real name was Nashwan abd al-Razzaq abd al-Baqi, was arrested as he tried to return to Iraq.
However, no other details have been released on his capture.
A US intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the BBC that Mr Hadi had a long-standing and deep awareness of al-Qaeda’s training activities and operational planning.
Mr Hadi, a man with a reputation for being a skilled and intelligent commander, had been in CIA custody since late 2006, the official said.
US intelligence services were particularly interested in his activities in relation to Iran, he said.
It believes in addition to supporting terrorist activities in Iraq, Mr Hadi was involved in “causing problems in Iran as well”, he said.

But wait… it gets better.

A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

You’re defending idiots. You’re defending the Taliban, and Bin Ladin is laughing.
Pat and the rest of you are talkiing politics instead of policy. Politics won’t protect the United States of America. Karl Rove won’t protect the United States of America. All he’s interested in is protecting the republican party from its “enemies” in congress. Who should accuse whom of “treason?”
Answer me that.

Further, Hertzberg wrote that “among those of the Republican persuasion,” the use of ” ‘Democrat Party’ is now nearly universal” thanks to “Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo ‘Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,’ and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz.” While Hertzberg noted that Luntz “road-tested the adjectival use of ‘Democrat’ with a focus group in 2001″ and “concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the … Democratic Party,” he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that “[t]hose two letters ['ic'] actually do matter,” and that Luntz “recently finished writing a book … entitled ‘Words That Work.’ ”
—
“While the view of only one, it is the surrent view of one Iraqi in Iraq with known credibility. that should be the kind of objective, “factual” evidence you claim to want”
You give me one person with “known credibility” well I’ll give you another
—
“Polls can show that 95% of Iraqi’s want less US influence in Iraq, but that 90% also want the US to stay there for the forseeable future.”
Show me the poll.
Here are seven.

I don’t give a damn what you want to believe. I don’t want to believe anything. Frankly I don’t give shit one way or the other if the world blows up; but I’m sick of other people’s rationalization and delusion. Self-important pompous liberals piss me off, but what I read hear is just bizarre.

“I would prefer to discuss issues and looking for clarity and understanding, not seeing who can “win” a debate.”

Then think a little more and do a little research.

Thank you MD, for the more complete discussion of the considerable problems with polling. It dramatically indicates why polls, while possibly indicating some level of current attitude (given all the caveats), are minimally, if at all, useful in informing our political leaders. I would argue that this is particularly true of polls taken other cultures, and doubly true in a country that we are currently occupying.

This is one of the primary reasons Gen Franks wanted the smallest forces possible for both Afghanistan and Iraq, precisely to attempt at least to convince the local populations that we intended to be liberators as opposed to occupiers. It seems to me that the tactic worked fairly well in Afghanistan and, for a plethora of reasons, has not worked well at all in Iraq, at least in the aftermath of the initial combat operations.

AF, if you’d like to entertain a civil discussion in which we both present mutually respectful arguments and where we can both learn from the other’s perspective, fine. If you’re not up to that level of maturity, then I personally don’t plan to waste my valuable time simply for your entertainment.

I tried to post a reply to you above, as well on a previous thread, but they were long with formatting that didn’t take, and I haven’t been able to redo it, just as well I think.

It seems to me that my arguments and person are attacked without much consideration of what was said and why. I don’t know if you realize that or plan it to be that way. I don’t find it very helpful to continue an interchange once I’ve put the urge to defend/counterattack on hold.

A few examples of what I mean:
One-

When are you right-wingers gonna learn that the word “Democrat” cannot correctly be used as an adjective? You all sound like Bush, which is not a desirable thing.
Comment by Pat Cunningham — 4/26/2007 @ 4:29 am

Would the use of the term “Democratan” be a better counterpart to the word “Republican”?
MD in Philly

“Would the use of the term “Democratan” be a better counterpart to the word “Republican”?”
I’m sorry, but you can’t change the grammar of the english language by caveat. It takes time and repetition to transform an error into a rule.
AF

First of all, my comment was meant to be more humorous than serious, apologies for my comic abilities. Second of all, as has been pointed out, there is reason why the word “Democrat” is used where typical usage would have “Democratic”. To get picky on the mechanics of grammar in this case is ignoring the point of substance being made. Besides, as you point out, what is accepted for word usage varies with time as the users of the language determine the rules. All kinds of new terms get into the language, “googled”; “blog”, “blogger”, and “blogged”. We even have new terms with disputed meanings (”swiftboated”).

Second- In post #45 DRJ gives a current quote of the perspective of one well-known Iraqi “spokesman” living in Iraq. [While the view of only one, it is the surrent view of one Iraqi in Iraq with known credibility. that shoul be the kind of objective, "factual" evidence you claim to want.]
You immediately post references to opinion polls, both of which are old, and neglect to discuss your opinion concerning the meaningfulness of polling data. Even if the polls were recent, polling can give different results concerning the exact wording of questions and how they were asked, and typically news stories don’t go into enough detail on that. For example, (empasis on example as in illustrative situation not necessarily factual) to say 50% of Americans disagree with President Bush’s Iraq policies doesn’t say whether 50% want to withdraw ASAP, or 30% want to withdraw ASAP, 15% want more agressive action, and 5% aren’t sure what they want done, but want something new triedI do know that polling data can also be apparently contradicting.

Also, polls can be conflicting. Polls can show that 95% of Iraqi’s want less US influence in Iraq, but that 90% also want the US to stay there for the forseeable future. [I always like the polls that show over 50% of people in the US consider themselves to be "Bible-believing Christians", and at the same time 75% of people in the US believe there are no moral absolutes. The results are logically incompatible, unless the terms don't mean the same things to different people, in which case the poll is meaningless.]

I would prefer to discuss issues and looking for clarity and understanding, not seeing who can “win” a debate.

Of course some “Iraqis want us gone” and it is equally true that “we want to be gone”, and our soldiers “want to be gone” first of all since the preponderance of the burden for the prosecution of the war falls on them and their families. My statement in no way stated nor implied an equivalence of the reasons for the “battle fatigue”, certainly not in any sense of moral equivalence, simply that “battle fatique” on the part of both populations was understandable and that it would certainly be reflected in any cited polling data. Perhaps we should take a poll or two in Afghanistan to determine whether we should stay there as well.

My comment was clearly directed at the lack of utility of polling data in determining the direction of our foreign policy. Polls reflect a current set of attitudes. They are arguably of minimal if any use in determining courses of action that have long term impacts. I would further argue that they in reality trivialize an extremely difficult and important set of decisions that we as a nation are in the process of making. I expect our national leadership, of both parties, to lead based on what they truly believe to be the best course of action for our country and for the region in the long term, not to stick their finger in the wind and go in whatever direction the current wind seems to be blowing. Simply, if they wish to be considered “leaders”, then … leaders lead.

Some Iraqis “want us gone” so their death squads can continue to exact revenge for decades of abuse by other Iraqis; some Iraqis “want us gone” so they can conduct criminal activities with fewer impediments; some Iraqis “want us gone” so they can replace the duly elected government with their own version of Sadam; some Iraqis and non-Iraqis “want us gone” so they can set up AQII terrorist training and operational bases; some Iraqis “want us gone” simply because we are foreigners occupying their homeland and they’ve had enough; and some Iraqis “want us gone” not exactly immediately but at the very instance that other Iraqis can provide them with the security to allow them to live their lives and provide for their families in relative peace. And some Iraqis and Americans for that matter, are simply mistaken in their belief that if we leave the violence being created by AQII and other foreign fighters will simply magically end. The actual set of facts is much more complex than your trite statement suggests.

Finally, the clear context of my post was to comment upon the thread topic by offering Sen Lieberman’s comments to the Senate in the debate on the supplemental funding legislation regarding his clear disagreement with the direction in which the democrats and a few republicans want to move with this effort. I’m very disappointed that you chose to snipe about the latest polling data and my characterization of it rather than to intelligently discuss what I believe was a well reasoned and logical argument by Sen Lieberman regarding the flaws in the democrats’ “plan” for Iraq.