Bush: If you don't like my plan tell me yours

[xkss99x]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/13/Bush.Dems.radio.ap/index.html) reports Bush calling on those who oppose his plan to offer an alternative to stoping the violence in Iraq.
What would be your plan?

[Jason Tate]

Leaving.

/There is going to always be violence over there.

[LostSymphonies]

i'm excited for a new president, i dont care what party but it just seems like bush is starting to tire out

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Leaving.

/There is going to always be violence over there.


I was gonna say, hasn't an alternative plan been suggested loudly and often by many people.

[Jason Tate]

I was gonna say, hasn't an alternative plan been suggested loudly and often by many people.
Yep. Lots have. He's ignored them, fired them, selectively chosen to pick pieces to support his fucked up ideas, and is now (in my opinion) maneuvering himself so that if we "leave" or if we "fail" he can blame others instead of taking the fall (as he should).

Impeach the bastard.

[Love As Arson]

The U.S. occupation of Iraq
Act III of a tragedy in many parts

By ANTHONY ARNOVE

THE TRAGEDY unleashed by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq defies description. According to the most recent findings of the Lancet medical journal, the number of “excess deaths” in Iraq since the U.S. invasion is more than 650,000.1 “Iraq is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world,” according to Refugee International: nearly two million Iraqis have fled the country entirely, while at least another 500,000 are internally displaced.2 Basic foods and necessities are beyond the reach of ordinary Iraqis because of massive inflation. “A gallon of gasoline cost as little as 4 cents in November. Now, after the International Monetary Fund pushed the Oil Ministry to cut its subsidies, the official price is about 67 cents,” the New York Times notes. “The spike has come as a shock to Iraqis, who make only about $150 a month on average—if they have jobs,” an important proviso, since unemployment is roughly 60–70 percent nationally.3

October 2006 proved to be the bloodiest month of the entire occupation, with more than six thousand civilians killed in Iraq, most in Baghdad, where thousands of additional U.S. troops have been sent since August with the claim they would restore order and stability in the city, but instead only sparked more violence.4 United Nations special investigator Manfred Nowak notes that torture “is totally out of hand” in Iraq. “The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein.”5 The number of U.S soldiers dead is now more than 2,900, with more than 21,000 wounded, many severely.6

The underlying trend is clear: each day the occupation continues, life gets worse for most Iraqis. Rather than stemming civil war or sectarian conflict, the occupation is spurring it. Rather than being a source of stability, the occupation is the major source of instability and chaos.

All of the reasons being offered for why the United States cannot withdraw troops from Iraq are false. The reality is, the troops are staying in Iraq for much different reasons than the ones being touted by political elites and a still subservient establishment press. They are staying to save face for a U.S. political elite that cares nothing for the lives of Iraqis or U.S. soldiers; to pursue the futile goal of turning Iraq into a reliable client state strategically located near the major energy resources and shipping routes of the Middle East, home to two-thirds of world oil reserves, and Western and Central Asia; to serve as a base for the projection of U.S. military power in the region, particularly in the growing conflict between the United States and Iran; and to maintain the legitimacy of U.S. imperialism, which needs the pretext of a global war on terror to justify further military intervention, expanded military budgets, concentration of executive power, and restrictions on civil liberties. The U.S. military did not invade and occupy Iraq to spread democracy, check the spread of weapons of mass destruction, rebuild the country, or stop civil war. In fact, the troops remain in Iraq today to deny self-determination and genuine democracy to the Iraqi people, who have made it abundantly clear, whether they are Shiite or Sunni, that they want U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately; feel less safe as a result of the occupation; think the occupation is spurring not suppressing sectarian strife; and support armed attacks on occupying troops and Iraqi security forces, who are seen not as independent but as collaborating with the occupation.7

It is not only the Iraqi people who oppose the occupation of their country and want to see the troops leave. A clear majority of people in the United States have expressed the same sentiment in major opinion polls and in the mid-term Congressional elections, which swing both houses of Congress and the majority of state governorships to the Democrats, in a clear vote against the imperial arrogance of Bush’s “stay the course” approach to the disaster in Iraq. The public did not vote for more money for the Pentagon (as incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada immediately promised, announcing a plan to give $75 billion more to the Pentagon), for more “oversight” of the war (the main Democratic Party buzzword these days), or for more troops (as Texas Democrat Representative Silvestre Reyes, the incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has demanded), but to begin bringing the troops home.8 A clear majority of active-duty U.S. troops want the same thing, as a much-ignored Zogby International poll found in early 2005, with 72 percent saying they wanted to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006.9

But Bush’s response to the groundswell of opposition to the war, which has led not only to his setbacks in the midterm elections but to even further erosion in his already abysmal approval ratings (with approval of his handling of the war reaching a new low of 27 percent), is to insist that the sun still revolves around the earth.10 “Absolutely, we’re winning,” Bush told reporters.11 “I know there’s a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there’s going to be some kind of graceful exit from Iraq,” Bush said. “This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever,” he added. “We’re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done.”12 In a similar vein, Vice President Cheney said, “I know what the President thinks. I know what I think. And we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.”13 After the midterm elections Bush was forced to jettison his deeply unpopular defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, but nominated in his place someone who is unlikely to oversee any fundamental shift in U.S. strategy. Robert Gates, an old CIA hand, is a dedicated Cold Warrior who advocated, among other enlightened policies, the bombing of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua for daring to challenge the corrupt order of death squad dictatorships in Latin America.14 Bush also dropped UN ambassador John Bolton, a man who embodies everything that the world hates about U.S. foreign policy today.

Perhaps most significantly, though, in the face of the failures in Iraq, Congress resorted to the old strategy of bringing in the “wise men” to repackage a failing war, convening the Iraq Study Group (ISG), with Bush family fixer James Baker III, former Indiana representative Lee Hamilton, and other foreign policy establishment figures with little or no knowledge of Iraq. The commission was never going to advocate any radical reversal of U.S. policy in Iraq, but even so, Bush has hedged his bets from the outset, setting up two different internal military review committees to make suggestions to the White House about the next steps in Iraq (much as he had overseen a separate intelligence operation to create the evidence that would be used to sell the invasion in the first place). Indeed, when the report’s findings were made public on December 6, Bush immediately distanced himself from its highly limited recommendations. As the New York Sun noted, “Barely 24 hours old, the bipartisan report has been placed on a high shelf to gather dust, its principle function having been to take the heat off the president for a time while allowing him to gather his resolve to press on” with the same course as before.15 Bush immediately rejected the report’s call to negotiate with Iran and Syria, the Wall Street Journal reported: “A senior administration official said the White House doesn’t feel bound by the report and is unlikely to implement many of its recommendations, especially regarding calls for diplomatic outreach to U.S. foes Syria and Iran.” In addition, “The White House has rejected mounting calls for a course correction in Iraq, insisting it would maintain the current number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq indefinitely.”16

But even if the Bush administration sought to immediately implement every recommendation of the Iraq Study Group report, it would only be a recipe for more death, displacement, and despair. The ISG report explicitly rejects setting any deadline or timetable for withdrawal, asserts the need for a “considerable military presence in the region, with our still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan” for years to come, and basically repackages the Bush Doctrine of “as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down,” that is “Iraqization” of the conflict, much as “Vietnamization” was presented as the solution in Vietnam.17
It is worth briefly reviewing the various options now being considered by the Bush administration, none of which offers any real alternative:

Sending in more troops in the short term

The idea that sending in more troops would provide stability and improve the situation in Iraq ignores the fact that the U.S. is the main source of violence and instability. More troops breed both more opposition and more sectarian violence. Observes Michael Schwartz, “Instead of entering a violent city and restoring order, [U.S. forces] enter a relatively peaceful city and create violence. The accurate portrait of this situation…is that the most hostile anti-American cities like Tal Afar and Ramadi have generally been reasonably peaceful when U.S. troops are not there.”18 Even the ISG notes that Operation Together Forward II, which redeployed thousands of U.S. troops to Baghdad in August 2006, achieved the opposite of its stated goal: “Violence in Baghdad—already at high levels—jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006.”19 Schwartz also explains the way in which the higher presence of U.S. combat troops exacerbates sectarian violence:

American patrols in Shia neighborhoods immobilize the local defenses and make the community vulnerable to jihadist attack; while American invasions of Sunni communities are even more damaging. They not only immobilize the local defense forces, but almost always involve the introduction of Iraqi Army units, made up mainly of Shia soldiers (since the army being stood up by the Americans is largely a Shia one). What results is violence in the form of battles between a Shia military (as well as militia-infiltrated Shia police forces) and Sunni resistance fighters defending their communities. These attacks generate immense bitterness among Sunni, who see them as part of a Shia attempt to use the American military to conquer and pacify Sunni cities. The result is a wealth of new jihadists anxious to retaliate by sacrificing their lives in terrorist or death-squad-style attacks on Shia communities—which, in their turn, energize the Shia death squads in an escalating cycle of brutalizing violence.20

The United States, in addition, cannot add more troops without straining an already badly overtaxed military and relying on greater use of backdoor draft measures that are provoking more opposition at home and within the military to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, another failing occupation.

We’ll stand down as they stand up

The idea that training Iraqi troops can be improved, a major recommendation of the ISG report, suggests that there’s a technical solution that the U.S. faces in Iraq. But the root of resistance to U.S occupation is political. As long as the U.S. remains an occupying power, the police and military will continue to be seen as collaborators and illegitimate. Resistance groups in Iraq, meanwhile, face no such training problems, and are carrying out increasingly sophisticated operations, including direct military battles with U.S. troops, because their fighters are politically motivated and have a defined goal that has widespread support.

Engage Iran and Syria

The idea behind this strategy, another major thrust of the ISG report, is that the root of resistance to U.S. occupation in Iraq is foreign, rather than indigenous—much as we were told that the popular resistance of the Vietnamese to U.S. state terrorism was directed by Moscow and Beijing. In this delusional worldview, Iran and Syria, and groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, are the sources of violence in Iraq. This baseless theory then leads to the equally baseless idea that the U.S. will somehow stabilize Iraq through talks with two governments it is committed to overthrowing. As the Financial Times observes, there is little reason to think Bush “would be willing to follow advice that contradicts his deeply held belief that the U.S. should not talk to…Iran and Syria” because doing so would “reward bad behavior.”21 Bush has repeatedly said that a precondition for talking to Iran is a suspension of the country’s legal nuclear enrichment program, something that Iran has no reason to agree to in advance of negotiations. At any rate, even if talks do take place, Iran and Syria are not the masters of events in Iraq, which are driven by the internal politics and the dynamics of the U.S. occupation.

Gradual withdrawal

Proposals for gradual withdrawal with no timetable are a recipe for pursuing an infinitely receding horizon. The idea behind gradual withdrawal was put accurately, if cynically, by Donald Rumsfeld in a secret leaked memo, written November 6, just a few days before his resignation: “Recast the U.S. military mission and U.S. goals (how we talk about them)—go minimalist.” In other words, change the rhetoric while lowering expectations, but pursue the same goals. “Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’”22

Redeployment

A frequent buzzword in discussions of the occupation of Iraq today, especially among Democrats, is redeployment. On November 14, 2006, Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat considered to be at the extreme left end of the party’s elected officials, introduced a bill “requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007.” But the plan itself calls for keeping troops in Iraq. “My legislation would allow for a minimal level of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counterterrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.”23 In other words, redeployment envisions U.S. bases, U.S. troops, and U.S. occupation, while merely shifting some personnel to other military bases in the region—where they can be quickly mobilized to strike when necessary—and most likely shifting to greater reliance on air power in Iraq and in the region to pursue U.S. imperial objectives.

Partition

One plan that the ISG did not recommend, and which Bush has also criticized, but which remains a real possibility as the crisis in Iraq unfolds, is partition. The deteriorating situation on the ground has encouraged some analysts and politicians—including incoming Democrat Joseph Biden, the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair—to call for the breakup of Iraq into three independent countries or three relatively autonomous territories within a loosely federated state. Such a division of Iraq, however, could only be accomplished by massive ethnic cleansing. The largest urban concentration of Kurds in Iraq is not in the northern zone that would likely make up a future Kurdish enclave or state, but in Baghdad. Most cities described by reporters as “Sunni strongholds” or “Shiite townships” have mixed populations with significant minorities of Sunni, Shiite, Turkmen, Kurds, or Assyrians. In addition, any predominantly Sunni state in central and western Iraq that emerged from a tripartite division of the country would be significantly impoverished compared to its oil-rich southern and northern neighbors.

The iron fist

Another option—one with a long history in Iraq and the Middle East—remains support for a new “iron fist.” Eliot A. Cohen, Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, suggests that “A junta of military modernizers might be the only hope of a country whose democratic culture is weak, whose politicians are either corrupt or incapable,” a narrative that is gaining much more popularity in the establishment press and among pundits and politicians seeking an explanation for the disaster in Iraq that avoids looking at its real roots.24 This is a refurbishing of an old idea—a Saddam-style regime without Saddam—that became impossible as soon as the Bremer administration in Iraq dismantled the army and the Baath party, the only political and administrative basis on which such a dictatorship could have been established.

Expansion

Despite the ISG’s recommendations of direct talks with Iran and Syria, and the caution of Robert Gates and others about the pitfalls of pursuing Iran militarily, the threat of the U.S. expanding the war in Iraq remains very real. In summer 2006, Washington sponsored the disastrous and bloody Israeli invasion of Lebanon, hoping to gain some tactical advantage in the region and hence in Iraq. The gamble failed miserably, but some feel another such gamble is necessary. As Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker, “many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. ‘It’s a case of “failure forward,”’ a Pentagon consultant said. ‘They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like doubling your bet.’”25

Whatever Bush’s new plan for Iraq may be, a major clash of expectations is likely to come about as the Democrats fail to pose any real challenge to the war. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stressed “bipartisanship” the moment the results were announced, adding that impeachment of Bush was “off the table.” Pelosi and the new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said they would take off the table the greatest power the Democrats have in Congress, the ability to cut off funds for prolonging the occupation.26 As Alexander Cockburn wrote in the Nation: “It’s…the role of elections in properly run western democracies to remind people that things won’t really change at all. Certainly not for the better. You can set your watch by the speed with which the new crowd lowers expectations and announces What is Not To Be Done.”27

Out now

Indeed, the one option that remains truly off the table in Iraq is the only sensible one: complete and unconditional immediate withdrawal, followed by reparations to the Iraqi people for the massive harm the occupation—and before that the sanctions, the Gulf and Iran-Iran Wars, and years of supporting the dictatorship—have caused. According to the New York Times, “In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats’ victory…in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.”28

The debate today in Washington remains one largely over tactics, not strategy or principles. In fact, the one debate over principles that is taking place is a racist one: more and more “experts” now question whether Bush’s folly was in thinking he could bring democracy to Arab or Muslim people, who, we are told, “have no tradition of democracy,” are from a “sick society,” a “broken society.”29 In a much-lauded speech, Barack Obama, the great hope of the Democrats, couched his criticism of the Bush administration’s policy by saying there should be “No more coddling” of the Iraqi government: the United States “is not going to hold together this country indefinitely,” he explained, adding that “we should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy.”30 Richard Perle, former chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, one of the main neoconservative enthusiasts of the invasion of Iraq, in explaining why things had gone so contrary to his glorious predictions, now says he “underestimated the depravity” of the Iraqis.31 And the ISG report chides that “the Iraqi people and their leaders have been slow to demonstrate their capacity or will to act,” and therefore the U.S. “must not make an open-ended commitment” to them.32 In other words, blame the victim. As Sharon Smith wrote on Counterpunch, “Within a few short weeks, the Washington ‘consensus’ has rewritten the history of the U.S. invasion of Iraq—as if Iraqis invited the U.S. to invade their sovereign nation in 2003 and now have failed to live up to their end of the bargain.”33

As the crisis in Iraq unfolds, we can expect these arguments to gain even wider traction, providing more cover for the real U.S. objectives in the Middle East.

The tragedy unfolding in Iraq is still far from over. In Act I of the tragedy, we were told that Washington would invade Iraq, quickly topple the dictatorship, install a stable client government, and then—having radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East—march on from Baghdad to confront the regimes of Iran and Syria. With that dream in tatters, the United States commenced Act II: the manipulation of sectarian divisions in Iraq to form a Shiite and Kurdish coalition government that would isolate the Sunnis (though it would seek to co-opt as much of their political leadership as possible) and serve the intended client role, if less effectively than Washington had hoped, allowing the U.S. to gain at least some foothold in Iraq and claim victory. By mid-2006, the failures of this strategy could no longer be ignored, however. Having invaded Iraq intending to weaken Iran and Syria, to strengthen its position and that of Israel and its Arab allies in the region, the United States instead achieved the opposite. (Of course, all of this ignores the many stages of the tragedy authored by the United States before the March 2003 invasion, through its support of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein, its nefarious role in the Iran-Iraq War and then the 1991 Gulf War, and the more than twelve years of sanctions and bombing that followed.)

Acts I and II in the tragedy of the Iraq occupation have now come to a close. But Act III has only just begun. All the signs suggest that the endgame in Iraq is likely to be long and very bloody. Iraq and the Middle East are so strategically important to the United States that neither party is willing to withdraw and admit defeat; such an outcome would be more disastrous for the United States than its defeat in Vietnam.
But there is one factor in the Iraq tragedy that we should not discount. The question of how long this war lasts, whether it will expand to Iran and Syria, whether more troops will be sent to needlessly kill and be killed for profit and power, does not only depend on the decisions and internal conflicts of the ruling class. It also depends on the level of public opposition in Iraq, at home, and within the military itself. Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War are already playing a leading role in the struggle to end the occupation. But we are still only at the beginning of organizing the kind of opposition we need to affect the course of the war decisively.

The U.S. war against Vietnam was lost by 1968, if not sooner, but continued for years after, with millions of lives lost as a consequence. We cannot allow a repeat of that tragic history. The Vietnam War, though, also has another lesson to teach us: that when people speak out and organize, they can deter even the most powerful and reckless government. The war against the people of Indochina would certainly have lasted even longer—and might have spread even farther—had concerted opposition at home and internationally not forced the United States to retreat. That is a lesson we badly need to relearn—and put into practice—today.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/iraqtragedy.shtml

[tambam]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/13/Bush.Dems.radio.ap/index.html) reports Bush calling on those who oppose his plan to offer an alternative to stoping the violence in Iraq.
What would be your plan?

Leaving, and letting the people that are actually from Iraq worry about it. It's not like having the troops there has lessened the voilence anyway. If anything, it has increased.

[dw1003]

Bush has ignored his critics, fired voices of decent, and bullied his way through foreign policy and ignored diplomacy. He's a fucking war monger. Worst President ever, he's a fucking lying sack of shit.

This is my personal suggestion...
UN peacekeeping forces phased into Iraq over the next six months. While US concentrates soley on developing the police force/army in Iraq. We're out in 12 months... UN stays for as long as it takes for a secure government to take over.

[tambam]

Bush has ignored his critics, fired voices of decent, and bullied his way through foreign policy and ignored diplomacy. He's a fucking war monger. Worst President ever, he's a fucking lying sack of shit.

This is my personal suggestion...
UN peacekeeping forces phased into Iraq over the next six months. While US concentrates soley on developing the police force/army in Iraq. We're out in 12 months... UN stays for as long as it takes for a secure government to take over.

Completely agree.

[Love As Arson]

The UN is merely a tool of the US and will be viewed as such. Certainly reparations should be provided, but there should be no interference by foreign powers. As stated by opinions Iraqis, they want no foreign forces in the country, including the UN, so let us refrain from forcing that option upon them.

[Justin_stacy]

Putting the UN’s armed forces in is almost comical; they've failed or made matters worse everywhere they go.

Now that we’ve invest this much in Iraq we have to make at least an attempt at finishing this before we get the hell out. The quickest way to go about that is to flood Iraq with more career soldiers, like the 50,000 just sitting in Korea doing “nothing” or the 30,000 in Germany doing “nothing.” Bring these fresh soldiers in, pullout the reserves, and give them 6 months, unrestricted, to crush the insurgence anyway possible within the rules of war. No war can be won when the soldiers can't act appropriately/safely (no fire until fired upon, etc), or have to worry about being second-guessed after the fact by an over zealous media. Following this 6 month period give the Iraqi people a vote, ask them if they want us to stay for up to but not exceeding one year or leave within a reasonable period of time.

We can use this not only as our last ditch effort to win (save face) and prop up a "democratic"-like Iraqi government, but also to consolidate our forces away from being the world’s "protector," which is what keeps getting us into these messes and what continues to effect foreign opinion.

Where the UN can help is by working to set up a governing body within Iraq. Where as their troops are useless, their bureaucrats can be helpful. A nation that knows only dictators, religious fanatics, and "occupiers" isn't going to have the concept to set up a successful working government or getting the people to understand the process of voting. The UN can come in, unarmed, and work locally with citizen and non-secular officials to get a real government going. It would also be wise to drop this whole "Iraqi-slovia" idea that was created in Iraq and allow the 3 separate factions go there own way. Without this a real civil war is likely in the near future over oil rights (particularly when Iran runs out of oil in the 50 years).

Also to the moron that called bush the worst president ever, if your concept of history is limited to only what has happened before your own eyes, learn to not speak when the subject requires more knowledge than that. Bush is a bad president, just as Carter or LBJ before him were, but none of our modern bad presidents hold a candle to some of the past individuals the office has seen.

[thatwasamoment]

I would suggest a summit of all the new states from Yugoslavia along with the UN, US, UK and others to figure out how to properly seperate Iraq into seperate different nations as peacefully as possible.

[Jason Tate]

Putting the UN’s armed forces in is almost comical; they've failed or made matters worse everywhere they go.

Now that we’ve invest this much in Iraq we have to make at least an attempt at finishing this before we get the hell out. The quickest way to go about that is to flood Iraq with more career soldiers, like the 50,000 just sitting in Korea doing “nothing” or the 30,000 in Germany doing “nothing.” Bring these fresh soldiers in, pullout the reserves, and give them 6 months, unrestricted, to crush the insurgence anyway possible within the rules of war. No war can be won when the soldiers can't act appropriately/safely (no fire until fired upon, etc), or have to worry about being second-guessed after the fact by an over zealous media. Following this 6 month period give the Iraqi people a vote, ask them if they want us to stay for up to but not exceeding one year or leave within a reasonable period of time.

We can use this not only as our last ditch effort to win (save face) and prop up a "democratic"-like Iraqi government, but also to consolidate our forces away from being the world’s "protector," which is what keeps getting us into these messes and what continues to effect foreign opinion.

Where the UN can help is by working to set up a governing body within Iraq. Where as their troops are useless, their bureaucrats can be helpful. A nation that knows only dictators, religious fanatics, and "occupiers" isn't going to have the concept to set up a successful working government or getting the people to understand the process of voting. The UN can come in, unarmed, and work locally with citizen and non-secular officials to get a real government going. It would also be wise to drop this whole "Iraqi-slovia" idea that was created in Iraq and allow the 3 separate factions go there own way. Without this a real civil war is likely in the near future over oil rights (particularly when Iran runs out of oil in the 50 years).

Also to the moron that called bush the worst president ever, if your concept of history is limited to only what has happened before your own eyes, learn to not speak when the subject requires more knowledge than that. Bush is a bad president, just as Carter or LBJ before him were, but none of our modern bad presidents hold a candle to some of the past individuals the office has seen.

"Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history.."

I'm only responding to your last paragraph because reading the first few make me wanna throw up. Seeing as I don't really feel like throwing up today -- I'm just ignoring them.

[Love As Arson]

The Iraqis have stated that they do not want us there. Whether or not we made an investment is irrelevant, as it is their country.

[Jason Tate]

Cheney dismissed the idea (http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5936982&nav=1LFX) of running a war "by committee."

We try to bring a "democracy" to the middle-east, but dismiss the notion at home.

Dick Cheney is the scariest man alive on this planet.

[Justin_stacy]

"Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history.."

I'm only responding to your last paragraph because I reading the first few makes me wanna throw up. Seeing as I don't really feel like throwing up today -- I'm just ignoring them.


There are about 15 presidents who are "traditional" viewed as having lower historic marks then Bush (noting that we have only 6 years of office to judge).
Given that political bias always manipulates the results, it is probably not reasonable to think that all conservative and liberal historian would agree exactly on Bush’s placement within those fifteen, but is reasonable to assume that an agreement would be easy to come by on at least 6-10 of them as being obviously worse (such as Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Harrison, Filmore, Grant, Johnson, Nixon....and closer ones like Ford, Carter, Johnson, Coolidge, Hoover). Point being calling Bush the “worst ever” is the act of a political hack or a political puppet.

That said, I too get nauseated by some the humor you post.

Cal's truthful remarks in the Ethics thread reach a little to close to home for you to "allow" them to stand? Quite the cowardly act to erase them without response, wouldn’t you agree?

[Love As Arson]

Reagan was far worse than Bush.

[Justin_stacy]

The Iraqis have stated that they do not want us there. Whether or not we made an investment is irrelevant, as it is their country.

The investment is relevant, and its only their country now because of that investment.

I'd agree with you that we had no business being there in the first place, but now that we are i don't think its even with in question to not try and finish this. Given that we do have options.

[Love As Arson]

The investment is relevant, and its only their country now because of that investment.

I'd agree with you that we had no business being there in the first place, but now that we are i don't think its even an option to not try and finish this. Given that we do have the options.
The extent to which it is theirs should be evidenced by our response to their public opinion. The investment is not wholly one-sided, as they Iraqis have paid in hundreds of thousands of deaths, destruction of their infrastructure, sectarian violence,US-trained death squads, etc. The US military is only exacerbating these conditions and cannot be a remedy for the violence, because its nature is to destroy, divide and procure resources.

[Justin_stacy]

The extent to which it is theirs should be evidenced by our response to their public opinion. The investment is not wholly one-sided, as they Iraqis have paid in hundreds of thousands of deaths, destruction of their infrastructure, sectarian violence,US-trained death squads, etc. The US military is only exacerbating these conditions and cannot be a remedy for the violence, because its nature is to destroy, divide and procure resources.



Violence will not stop with a troop withdraw, infact it is only reasonable to assume that if you withdraw the only sense of authority out of the area that hostilities will likely increase, not decrease. America is also the one common enemy that draws the insurgency into a common goal and would allow them to be defeated, before they drive the nation into a real civil war. That is why I think one more attempt, with fresh troops, should be tried. We have the fresh troops, so we have the options.

But it so goes further then that, America can't afford to accept the defeat when options still exist. In world opinion we are an "empire" going the way of Rome, and we are also an "empire" that directly protects more then 1/3 of the world, if we fail in Iraq to a hand full of untrained, unorganized, and ill-equipped militants it is going to have a long term effect on more then just us.

Liberal-NeoCons got us into this mess for all the wrong reasons, but leveler heads have to prevail and find a way out without losing face, which a withdraw with options still on the table would do.

[dw1003]

The investment is relevant, and its only their country now because of that investment.

I'd agree with you that we had no business being there in the first place, but now that we are i don't think its even with in question to not try and finish this. Given that we do have options.

finish what?
Bombing civilians... killing people to force a democracy they don't want?

Finishing a job with a bullshit premise doesn't make any sense. The frustrating part is that people believe that it is the US's responsibility to install democracy in Iraq...
don't you remember that we were sold this war as an effort of disarmament? now the mission has changed because they didn't have any WMD's... It's a fucking nightmare.
we've instigated a war, caused a civil war and increased sectarian violence... what exactly are we supposed to finish in you opinion.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

to force a democracy they don't want?




Just because they want us out doesn't mean they don't want democracy. Its probably more accurate to say that they want democracy without any further US involvement.

Unless of course you were referring to the terrorists and Sadaam sympathizers. But I assumed you weren't.

[dw1003]

Also to the moron that called bush the worst president ever, if your concept of history is limited to only what has happened before your own eyes, learn to not speak when the subject requires more knowledge than that. Bush is a bad president, just as Carter or LBJ before him were, but none of our modern bad presidents hold a candle to some of the past individuals the office has seen.

I'm pretty sure that Bush is the only president who sold an offensive invasion of a soveriegn nation to the american people based on lies... Given all the technology, and resources at Bush's disposal... he's still making blundering mistakes...

I don't know about you but... that qualifies as the worst fucking mistake any president has ever made.

name me something that even comes close.

[Love As Arson]

Violence will not stop with a troop withdraw, infact it is only reasonable to assume that if you withdraw the only sense of authority out of the area that hostilities will likely increase, not decrease.
The US is not an authority figure, rather it goes into relatively calm areas and actually causes violence.

America is also the one common enemy that draws the insurgency into a common goal and would allow them to be defeated, before they drive the nation into a real civil war. That is why I think one more attempt, with fresh troops, should be tried. We have the fresh troops, so we have the options.
The insurgency is not some entity independent of the Iraqi people, they are the Iraqi people. Moreover, the civil war is largely the resultant of US policy, whether or be the creation of a sectarian government, with sectarian elections, or the training of death squads and sending them into towns of opposing ethnic groups.


But it so goes further then that, America can't afford to accept the defeat when options still exist.
It will likely be made to accept defeat, as was done in Vietnam.


In world opinion we are an "empire" going the way of Rome, and we are also an "empire" that directly protects more then 1/3 of the world, if we fail in Iraq to a hand full of untrained, unorganized, and ill-equipped militants it is going to have a long term effect on more then just us.
You and I diverge on this, for I do not believe the United States has to, or should, be a super power. Moreover, I view a defeat for imperialism as a good thing for the world. And let us not be intellectually dishonest, there is no protection going on. What one finds is the exploitation and dominance of many nations in the world. The protection, as you call it, is generally a coalition of first-world countries to sustain economic supremacy.

[dw1003]

Just because they want us out doesn't mean they don't want democracy. Its probably more accurate to say that they want democracy without any further US involvement.

Unless of course you were referring to the terrorists and Sadaam sympathizers. But I assumed you weren't.

I should rephrase... they don't want the kind of democracy we are "offering"...

[Sleepaway]

I'm pretty sure that Bush is the only president who sold an offensive invasion of a soveriegn nation to the american people based on lies... Given all the technology, and resources at Bush's disposal... he's still making blundering mistakes...

I don't know about you but... that qualifies as the worst fucking mistake any president has ever made.

name me something that even comes close.

Prove that point.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I'm pretty sure that Bush is the only president who sold an offensive invasion of a soveriegn nation to the american people based on lies... Given all the technology, and resources at Bush's disposal... he's still making blundering mistakes...

I don't know about you but... that qualifies as the worst fucking mistake any president has ever made.

name me something that even comes close.

Though this may be an old point
Say what you want about Bush but I think he sold us the war on bad intelligence. Now maybe he was stupid to believe it, or not double check it, or whatever else you want to say. But I really do not believe that Bush knew there were no WMDs and then came out and said there was. Sorry.

[Love As Arson]

A senate report was issued prior to the war stating that there were no WMD's.

[captainhampton]

Reagan was far worse than Bush.

the end of communism in the Soviet Union was a terrible thing.

[dw1003]

Prove that point.

One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States. Pretty fucked up.

Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning... Bush has committed the US military to an unjustified invasion in middle of the most volitile region on earth. His war has strectch on years longer than promised, and the mission has changed to suit Bush political situation at home.

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided fucked up policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst fucking president in U.S. history.

[x togepi x]

Reagan was far worse than Bush.

yes.

[Love As Arson]

the end of communism in the Soviet Union was a terrible thing.
1. The Soviet Union was not a communist country.

2. Income inequality was at historic heights and nations abroad were subject to brutal repression by parties employed by Reagan. The drug war was implemented, while the CIA simultaneously made deals with drug organisations to fund its regimes in Latin America. Saddam Hussein was taken off of the terrorist watch list, which then allowed them to fund Saddam, and consequently, allowed the murder of the Kurds and Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA and radical Islam was a foreign policy tool. So, one abstract the Cold War into a good vs. evil struggle, but, in all reality, it was merely a struggle between two imperial powers and the people were those that suffered.

3. The end of the Soviet Union was the result of a confluence of circumstances, none of which had anything to do with Reagan.

[Logan95]

1. The Soviet Union was not a communist country.

2. Income inequality was at historic heights and nations abroad were subject to brutal repression by parties employed by Reagan. The drug war was implemented, while the CIA simultaneously made deals with drug organisations to fund its regimes in Latin America. Saddam Hussein was taken off of the terrorist watch list, which then allowed them to fund Saddam, and consequently, allowed the murder of the Kurds and Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA and radical Islam was a foreign policy tool. So, one abstract the Cold War into a good vs. evil struggle, but, in all reality, it was merely a struggle between two imperial powers and the people were those that suffered.

3. The end of the Soviet Union was the result of a confluence of circumstances, none of which had anything to do with Reagan.


I agree with points 1 and 2. However, point 3 is debatable. Reagan forced a military build up of an unprecedented scale which in turn cost the USSR trillions of dollars which sped up the process of the collapse of their economy. The USSR would have most likely failed on it's own but Reagan did help speed it up.

[x togepi x]

I agree with points 1 and 2. However, point 3 is debatable. Reagan forced a military build up of an unprecedented scale which in turn cost the USSR trillions of dollars which sped up the process of the collapse of their economy. The USSR would have most likely failed on it's own but Reagan did help speed it up.

point 3 is debatable since i read the USSR was collapsing before Reagan's build up, and the build up actually propped the USSR's government up even more for a few months.

[Love As Arson]

I agree with points 1 and 2. However, point 3 is debatable. Reagan forced a military build up of an unprecedented scale which in turn cost the USSR trillions of dollars which sped up the process of the collapse of their economy. The USSR would have most likely failed on it's own but Reagan did help speed it up.
It merely exacerbated Russia's desire for imperialism and allowed it to appropriate stability through the exploitation of other countries, though the hemorrhaging was stifled, the collapse was inevitable.

[saysmydoctor]

He makes a valid point. You can't just pack up and leave. They call for an exit strategy but they don't actually propose one.

[dw1003]

He makes a valid point. You can't just pack up and leave. They call for an exit strategy but they don't actually propose one.

The democrats have proposed multiple strategies for exiting Iraq...
John Kerry has been talking about a year long exit strategy for a phased withdrawl in coordination with other coalition forces and training of Iraqi forces...

you just have to look into it... Bush has been ignoring advice for a long time. the democrats were asking for a surge of troops in 2003.. when it would have made a difference. There are so many examples of Bush ignoring the people around him.

The burden of a successful outcome to the war, by the way sits with President Bush, not with the newly elected democrats.

[Jason Tate]

He makes a valid point. You can't just pack up and leave. They call for an exit strategy but they don't actually propose one.
Yes they have, countless times. A whole bunch of different senators have proposed different strategies. You have to try not to know these things.

And yes, we can just pack up and leave.

[Love As Arson]

The exit strategy should be immediate withdrawal. The US could have all the troops out within a week.

[saysmydoctor]

Yes they have, countless times. A whole bunch of different senators have proposed different strategies. You have to try not to know these things.

And yes, we can just pack up and leave.
No you can't. I understand leaving is important. But you can't just pack up and leave. It's not plausible. The switching of powers has to occur gradually; you can't just hop on boats and planes and leave a note saying, "Sorry, we have dinner reservations, good luck. XOXO, US."

[youcomebeforeyo]

I think the only possible reality for a stable Iraq is to allow Islamic militants take over. Much like the Islamic Courts in Somalia.

It seems sad though, the people of Iraq deserve to have a free country but it's hard to envision how that could ever be achieved.

[saysmydoctor]

The democrats have proposed multiple strategies for exiting Iraq...
John Kerry has been talking about a year long exit strategy for a phased withdrawl in coordination with other coalition forces and training of Iraqi forces...

you just have to look into it... Bush has been ignoring advice for a long time. the democrats were asking for a surge of troops in 2003.. when it would have made a difference. There are so many examples of Bush ignoring the people around him.

The burden of a successful outcome to the war, by the way sits with President Bush, not with the newly elected democrats.
I don't deny Bush ignoring device--and excuse me for never wanting to take an idea out of Kerry's book. This is the same man who cried after he lost in 2004.

[Jason Tate]

I don't deny Bush ignoring device--and excuse me for never wanting to take an idea out of Kerry's book. This is the same man who cried after he lost in 2004.
That's the definition of an "attacking the person" -- just so you know. Completely dispels any validity you may have had.

[Jason Tate]

No you can't. I understand leaving is important. But you can't just pack up and leave. It's not plausible. The switching of powers has to occur gradually; you can't just hop on boats and planes and leave a note saying, "Sorry, we have dinner reservations, good luck. XOXO, US."
Copy and pasted from earlier in the thread:

"Indeed, the one option that remains truly off the table in Iraq is the only sensible one: complete and unconditional immediate withdrawal, followed by reparations to the Iraqi people for the massive harm the occupation—and before that the sanctions, the Gulf and Iran-Iran Wars, and years of supporting the dictatorship—have caused. According to the New York Times, “In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats’ victory…in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.”"

Leaving is very plausible, and when compared to the other options available - it's the only that makes sense.

Get up - get on a plane - leave.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Copy and pasted from earlier in the thread:

"Indeed, the one option that remains truly off the table in Iraq is the only sensible one: complete and unconditional immediate withdrawal, followed by reparations to the Iraqi people for the massive harm the occupation—and before that the sanctions, the Gulf and Iran-Iran Wars, and years of supporting the dictatorship—have caused. According to the New York Times, “In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats’ victory…in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.”"

Leaving is very plausible, and when compared to the other options available - it's the only that makes sense.

Get up - get on a plane - leave.

What does the US do if in their leaving they destabalize the country entirely? Where it turns into a warlord situation or a full out civil war?

I'm not anti leaving i'm just wondering what your opinion is?

[Jason Tate]

What does the US do if in their leaving they destabalize the country entirely? Where it turns into a warlord situation or a full out civil war?

I'm not anti leaving i'm just wondering what your opinion is?
It's clear that the continued presence of the US troops is what is doing the most "destabilization." Second, yes, us leaving is going to cause a shit load of problems. I didn't say it was a great solution -- I simply said it's the best one we have.

[dw1003]

I don't deny Bush ignoring device--and excuse me for never wanting to take an idea out of Kerry's book. This is the same man who cried after he lost in 2004.

apparently it doesn't matter what anyone else's plans are:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/14/bush-congress-iraq/

[Love As Arson]

Has anyone noticed that many of the arguments for a continued presence are largely based in the "White Man's Burden" concept?

[dw1003]

I don't deny Bush ignoring device--and excuse me for never wanting to take an idea out of Kerry's book. This is the same man who cried after he lost in 2004.

by the way... are you serious? you're response to Kerry's suggestions are: "you cried"

I'm not a huge fan of Kerry as a person... but come on...

go fuck yourself.

[saysmydoctor]

That's the definition of an "attacking the person" -- just so you know. Completely dispels any validity you may have had.
I'm sorry, but I would never take anything Kerry suggests and use it. Not for that reason only, we have to keep in mind, he is just as much an idiot as Bush is--him and his purple hearts.
Copy and pasted from earlier in the thread:

"Indeed, the one option that remains truly off the table in Iraq is the only sensible one: complete and unconditional immediate withdrawal, followed by reparations to the Iraqi people for the massive harm the occupation—and before that the sanctions, the Gulf and Iran-Iran Wars, and years of supporting the dictatorship—have caused. According to the New York Times, “In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats’ victory…in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.”"

Leaving is very plausible, and when compared to the other options available - it's the only that makes sense.

Get up - get on a plane - leave.
Hold the phone. I've said already, leaving is a excellent. move. But let me break that down.

1. The Iraq-Iran War instigated by Iraq and the US backed them. Why should they given reparations for their fuck-ups?
2. The Gulf War didn't occur in any Iraqi cities. As a matter of fact, not only did Iraq make the offensive into Kuwait, they made the offensive across the Saudi Arabia border and attacked US outposts before Operation Desert Storm. Only then did the US swiftly move them back across there borders. They should pay Kuwait reparations.
3. The sanctions were well called for to stop Hussein from actually making weapons we didn't want him to have.
4. We supported Hussein? Didn't we just have him hung?

[Jason Tate]

apparently it doesn't matter what anyone else's plans are:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/14/bush-congress-iraq/
It's the famous, "we're imposting democracy but practicing something different" speech.

I fucking hate that man.

[youcomebeforeyo]

It's clear that the continued presence of the US troops is what is doing the most "destabilization." Second, yes, us leaving is going to cause a shit load of problems. I didn't say it was a great solution -- I simply said it's the best one we have.

If the US withdraws I can see it being either a great success or failure.

If the US withdraws it could end the fertile atmosphere that is recruting young muslims to the concept of Islamic Jihad and essentially become a giant damper across the Islamic World to the cause of terrorism. The Palestinian issue however would stop it from being a complete success.

Or..

The insurgents and Islamic Terrorists could see it as the greatest victory for 'Islam' ever and buyoed on by this apparent success the cause of Islamic Jihad could be futhered futher than ever imagined by us in the West.


It's hard to judge what is worse, staying in Iraq or possiblity #2.

[Jason Tate]

I'm sorry, but I would never take anything Kerry suggests and use it. Not for that reason only, we have to keep in mind, he is just as much an idiot as Bush is--him and his purple hearts.

Hold the phone. I've said already, leaving is a excellent. move. But let me break that down.

1. The Iraq-Iran War instigated by Iraq and the US backed them. Why should they given reparations for their fuck-ups?
2. The Gulf War didn't occur in any Iraqi cities. As a matter of fact, not only did Iraq make the offensive into Kuwait, they made the offensive across the Saudi Arabia border and attacked US outposts before Operation Desert Storm. Only then did the US swiftly move them back across there borders. They should pay Kuwait reparations.
3. The sanctions were well called for to stop Hussein from actually making weapons we didn't want him to have.
4. We supported Hussein? Didn't we just have him hung?
I can't educate you on the past 20 years of history in this region, I just don't have the time to do it. You're only 16, you still have history classes to take. So I'm going to let the school system do it's job for now -- and hopefully by the time you can vote you'll have some grasp on reality.

[youcomebeforeyo]

3. The sanctions were well called for to stop Hussein from actually making weapons we didn't want him to have.


But ended up destroying the Iraqi middle class by crippling the economy, health and education systems. In the end Saddam lost nothing, the Iraqi civilians lost everything.

History shows that the middle class is one of the most important parts of achieving freedom. By destroying it in sanctions the US hurt any hope of a moderate free Islamic state in the Middle East.

[saysmydoctor]

I can't educate you on the past 20 years of history in this region, I just don't have the time to do it. You're only 16, you still have history classes to take. So I'm going to let the school system do it's job for now -- and hopefully by the time you can vote you'll have some grasp on reality.
No, respond. I'm sorry, but that's a childish response, to a relatively intelligent rebuttle. I'll grant, the Iraq-Iran War influenced chiefly by the US and Russia. Should we make Russia pay reparations?

[Jason Tate]

No, respond. I'm sorry, but that's a childish response, to a relatively intelligent rebuttle. I'll grant, the Iraq-Iran War influenced chiefly by the US and Russia. Should we make Russia pay reparations?
I can't respond -- I literally would have to teach you 20 years of history. I can't do that right now - I don't have the time or patience to rehash it.

I quoted a passage, and you're getting caught up on a word (reparations) that's mostly used so that the US can appear to save some face in the international community.

[saysmydoctor]

But ended up destroying the Iraqi middle class by crippling the economy, health and education systems. In the end Saddam lost nothing, the Iraqi civilians lost everything.

History shows that the middle class is one of the most important parts of achieving freedom. By destroying it in sanctions the US hurt any hope of a moderate free Islamic state in the Middle East.
Iraq didn't have much of economy before hand, hence why they made the move on Kuwait. They were crippled by the Iraq-Iran War--

(I'm reading my past post and I posted myself that the US influenced the Iraq-Iran War and I just now stated that war crippled Iraq's economy. I guess you can say that the US unintentionally pushed Iraq into invading Kuwait.)

[Jason Tate]

Iraq didn't have much of economy before hand, hence why they made the move on Kuwait. They were crippled by the Iraq-Iran War--

(I'm reading my past post and I posted myself that the US influenced the Iraq-Iran War and I just now stated that war crippled Iraq's economy. I guess you can say that the US unintentionally pushed Iraq into invading Kuwait.)
No, it was very intentional. We even hinted at it being "okay".

Do we even have to post (http://eyedot.blogspot.com/rumsfeld_hussein.gif) the now cliche image?

[x togepi x]

The insurgents and Islamic Terrorists could see it as the greatest victory for 'Islam' ever and buyoed on by this apparent success the cause of Islamic Jihad could be futhered futher than ever imagined by us in the West.
.

this is already happening.

[saysmydoctor]

I can't respond -- I literally would have to teach you 20 years of history. I can't do that right now - I don't have the time or patience to rehash it.

I quoted a passage, and you're getting caught up on a word (reparations) that's mostly used so that the US can appear to save some face in the international community.
I don't need you to teach me history. I've tested out of all my history classes. I can handle it. But whatever.

The US would save face if they didn't just abandon Iraq in the middle of a situation they caused. They would just lose more of it.

[captainhampton]

No, respond. I'm sorry, but that's a childish response, to a relatively intelligent rebuttle. I'll grant, the Iraq-Iran War influenced chiefly by the US and Russia. Should we make Russia pay reparations?

he does this all the time. and he's using the i'm older than you excuse now. don't buy his i've read 100's of history books act either.

anyone who has read up on the Iraq-Iran conflict knows that we had to support Iraq. you are correct.

[x togepi x]

I don't need you to teach me history. I've tested out of all my history classes. I can handle it. But whatever.

The US would save face if they didn't just abandon Iraq in the middle of a situation they caused. They would just lose more of it.

this isn't about "saving face", this is about doing the right thing. Saving face would have meant us not going there in the first place or trying to fix the situation when it was feasibly possible.

[saysmydoctor]

No, it was very intentional. We even hinted at it being "okay".

Do we even have to post (http://eyedot.blogspot.com/rumsfeld_hussein.gif) the now cliche image?
Seriously? A handshake = invade Kuwait.

I've ordered that numerous times then, you could blame it on me.

[Jason Tate]

I don't need you to teach me history. I've tested out of all my history classes. I can handle it. But whatever.

The US would save face if they didn't just abandon Iraq in the middle of a situation they caused. They would just lose more of it.
Well, then apparently you do need someone to teach you history. You're exactly the kind of person that should not "test out of" the one subject it's apparent you need the most.

Wrong. The past 4 years are the only proof you need. We're doing more harm than good, the majority of Iraq wants us to leave, the majority of the world wants us to leave, the majority of the armed forces has lost faith in Bush, and the majority of the US public wants us to leave.

We need to leave - say we fucked up - and apologize. We can't make the situation better, we can't. It's time to leave.

[Jason Tate]

he does this all the time. and he's using the i'm older than you excuse now. don't buy his i've read 100's of history books act either.

anyone who has read up on the Iraq-Iran conflict knows that we had to support Iraq. you are correct.
My point was that we once supported Iraq. :rolleyes:

(I haven't used any excuse - I simply said that I don't have the time to teach someone 20 years of history on a message board.)

You really going to get involved in another debate? You a masochist? Really looking to get destroyed again? :shake:

[Jason Tate]

Seriously? A handshake = invade Kuwait.

I've ordered that numerous times then, you could blame it on me.
No, those (two paragraphs) are two separate points. They're not tied together.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Iraq didn't have much of economy before hand, hence why they made the move on Kuwait. They were crippled by the Iraq-Iran War--


It still had an economy with a middle class and services. Like Cuba it provided education, healthcare (and had access to high quality drugs) and infrastructure.

According to economic studies carried out in the late nineties, Iraq's real gross domestic product (GDP), i.e. Iraq's GDP adjusted for inflation, fell by 75 percent during 1991-1999. The results of these studies showed that Iraq's GDP in the late 1990's was estimated at approximately the country's real GDP in the 1940's, before the oil boom the process of the modernization of Iraq.

Sanctions destroyed any ability Iraq had to provide for its people. Iraq's previously growing middle class fled or suffered.

Iraqi agricultural production rose from 14% of GDP in the mid 1980's to 35% by 1992.

Sanctions reversed Iraq's progress. The mark of modern society is the shift away from agriculture and into industrial production.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31944.pdf

[x togepi x]

sanctions also propped up saddam while allowing him to use the oil for food program as his personal bank account while blaming the us for the sanctions. it was like paying him and giving him free publicity.

[captainhampton]

My point was that we once supported Iraq. :rolleyes:

(I haven't used any excuse - I simply said that I don't have the time to teach someone 20 years of history on a message board.)

You really going to get involved in another debate? You a masochist? Really looking to get destroyed again? :shake:

the difference is you are using this to blame the US for supporting Iraq then.
Supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq conflict was the right decision.

[saysmydoctor]

Well, then apparently you do need someone to teach you history. You're exactly the kind of person that should not "test out of" the one subject it's apparent you need the most.

Wrong. The past 4 years are the only proof you need. We're doing more harm than good, the majority of Iraq wants us to leave, the majority of the world wants us to leave, the majority of the armed forces has lost faith in Bush, and the majority of the US public wants us to leave.

We need to leave - say we fucked up - and apologize. We can't make the situation better, we can't. It's time to leave.
Holy shit, do you skim?

"Hold the phone. I've said already, leaving is a excellent move."

I know and won't deny that the world, Iraq, the armed forces, the public, wants us out of Iraq. I just disagree with, "Oh shit, we fucked up, we better go home and act as if we never came concept." It should be gradual. We should train them to handle shit on their own so it doesn't collapse.

And I ranked in the top percentile on all of my history exams. It's my best subject.

[captainhampton]

And I ranked in the top percentile on all of my history exams. It's my best subject.

you can't argue with him. you could've read every history book ever written and he'd still tell you that he is more qualified than you. it's how he argues. he'll declare himself the winner soon. watch.

[Jason Tate]

the difference is you are using this to blame the US for supporting Iraq then.
Supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq conflict was the right decision.
No, that's not what I'm doing at all.

[Jason Tate]

Holy shit, do you skim?

"Hold the phone. I've said already, leaving is a excellent move."

I know and won't deny that the world, Iraq, the armed forces, the public, wants us out of Iraq. I just disagree with, "Oh shit, we fucked up, we better go home and act as if we never came concept." It should be gradual. We should train them to handle shit on their own so it doesn't collapse.

And I ranked in the top percentile on all of my history exams. It's my best subject.

Well, good thing that's (bolded) never anything I said, or was a proponent of.

The top what percentile, you realize a percentile is a # right? :rolleyes: If it's your best subject, you should start diving into it so you actually understand the history.

[youcomebeforeyo]

I know and won't deny that the world, Iraq, the armed forces, the public, wants us out of Iraq. I just disagree with, "Oh shit, we fucked up, we better go home and act as if we never came concept." It should be gradual. We should train them to handle shit on their own so it doesn't collapse.

If the US withdraws I can see it being either a great success or failure.

If the US withdraws it could end the fertile atmosphere that is recruting young muslims to the concept of Islamic Jihad and essentially become a giant damper across the Islamic World to the cause of terrorism. The Palestinian issue however would stop it from being a complete success.

Or..

The insurgents and Islamic Terrorists could see it as the greatest victory for 'Islam' ever and buyoed on by this apparent success the cause of Islamic Jihad could be futhered futher than ever imagined by us in the West.


It's hard to judge what is worse, staying in Iraq or possiblity #2.

Personally I cannot see a phased withdrawl leaving Iraq in a stable state. The belief behind immediate withdrawl I believe is that it has the possibility of completely removing the fuel behind the insurgent fire.

[Jason Tate]

you can't argue with him. you could've read every history book ever written and he'd still tell you that he is more qualified than you. it's how he argues. he'll declare himself the winner soon. watch.
I've never said I'm more qualified than anyone -- do you just make shit up? Dude, you're about to get banned.

[saysmydoctor]

Copy and pasted from earlier in the thread:

"Indeed, the one option that remains truly off the table in Iraq is the only sensible one: complete and unconditional immediate withdrawal, followed by reparations to the Iraqi people for the massive harm the occupation—and before that the sanctions, the Gulf and Iran-Iran Wars, and years of supporting the dictatorship—have caused. According to the New York Times, “In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats’ victory…in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.”"

Leaving is very plausible, and when compared to the other options available - it's the only that makes sense.

Get up - get on a plane - leave.
No, it was very intentional. We even hinted at it being "okay".

Do we even have to post (http://eyedot.blogspot.com/rumsfeld_hussein.gif) the now cliche image?
No, that's not what I'm doing at all.
That's exactly what you are doing.
Well, good thing that's (bolded) never anything I said, or was a proponent of.

The top what percentile, you realize a percentile is a # right? :rolleyes: If it's your best subject, you should start diving into it so you actually understand the history.
How can you debate like that? Insulting their intelligence just cause you disagree with them? I'm 16, and you are acting more childish than me.

[Jason Tate]

That's exactly what you are doing.

How can you debate like that? Insulting their intelligence just cause you disagree with them? I'm 16, and you are acting more childish than me.
Uh, you're gonna actually have to show where in any of the above posts I did what you're accusing me of. Maybe you should read what I quoted in this thread (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5388535#post538853 5), because it's sort of important.

I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm actually giving you credit by saying you can learn this material.

[saysmydoctor]

Uh, you're gonna actually have to show where in any of the above posts I did what you're accusing me of. Maybe you should read what I quoted in this thread (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5388535#post538853 5), because it's sort of important.

I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm actually giving you credit by saying you can learn this material.
Get this, I have learned the material. You just don't agree with my view of it, which is fine. That's your right. But saying I need to learn history of the Middle East since 1987 merely because my perspective is different than yours, I'm sorry but you look like a total pompous dick and insufferable know-it-all. If you just responded to my rebuttle instead saying "I'd have to delve into the databanks of my mind and educate you," I'd have a little more respect for your opinion. I'd still disagree but at least I'd understand where you are cominh from.

[Love As Arson]

Gradual withdrawal means increased casualties for Iraqis. Furthermore, training the Iraqis is irrelevant, because, on one hand, those they train are known for turning on their regimen or engaging in sectarian violence when in opposing ethnic towns. On the other hand, those they train are not viewed as legitimate. The US should withdrawal and pay the Iraqis for the damage they incurred on their country. It is the only viable option.

[Jason Tate]

Get this, I have learned the material. You just don't agree with my view of it, which is fine. That's your right. But saying I need to learn history of the Middle East since 1987 merely because my perspective is different than yours, I'm sorry but you look like a total pompous dick and insufferable know-it-all. If you just responded to my rebuttle instead saying "I'd have to delve into the databanks of my mind and educate you," I'd have a little more respect for your opinion. I'd still disagree but at least I'd understand where you are cominh from.
No, my point was that you typed up 4 "points" that showcased absolutely NO knowledge (in fact some of the "points" were completely lies, and completely wrong). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you were uneducated on the topic, and that's why you were spewing bullshit. Apparently I was wrong. This has nothing to do with your opinion, this has to do with your manipulation of history and completely ignorance of facts on the matter. I thought, before, that you were simply too young and uneducated and therefore gave you the benefit of the doubt. Guess I was wrong to do that.

Irony is that I was giving you more credit by saying you had no idea what you were talking about.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm sorry, but I would never take anything Kerry suggests and use it. Not for that reason only, we have to keep in mind, he is just as much an idiot as Bush is--him and his purple hearts.

Hold the phone. I've said already, leaving is a excellent. move. But let me break that down.

1. The Iraq-Iran War instigated by Iraq and the US backed them. Why should they given reparations for their fuck-ups?
2. The Gulf War didn't occur in any Iraqi cities. As a matter of fact, not only did Iraq make the offensive into Kuwait, they made the offensive across the Saudi Arabia border and attacked US outposts before Operation Desert Storm. Only then did the US swiftly move them back across there borders. They should pay Kuwait reparations.
3. The sanctions were well called for to stop Hussein from actually making weapons we didn't want him to have.
4. We supported Hussein? Didn't we just have him hung?
These three points are completely accurate, except for the first which in a sense was also instigated by the US and Russia. My fourth point was total sarcasm, questioning our apparent support for Hussein.
No, my point was that you typed up 4 "points" that showcased absolutely NO knowledge (in fact some of the "points" were completely lies, and completely wrong). I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you were uneducated on the topic, and that's why you were spewing bullshit. Apparently I was wrong. This has nothing to do with your opinion, this has to do with your manipulation of history and completely ignorance of facts on the matter. I thought, before, that you were simply too young and uneducated and therefore gave you the benefit of the doubt. Guess I was wrong to do that.

Irony is that I was giving you more credit by saying you had no idea what you were talking about.
But whatever. Let's pull out the way you want to. 2 years from now you'll be bitching that was the wrong course of action.

[Jason Tate]

These three points are completely accurate, except for the first which in a sense was also instigated by the US and Russia. My fourth point was total sarcasm, questioning our apparent support for Hussein.

But whatever. Let's pull out the way you want to. 2 years from now you'll be bitching that was the wrong course of action.
No, actually they're not completely accurate -- which was my original point.

And no, at this point we have no "right" course of action. Best case scenario is we leave, impeach Bush, and then spend the next 15 years apologizing to the world. But we're probably not going to do that.

[Love As Arson]

Saddam thought the US would support his invasion, as they'd ignored his human rights violations and incursions into Iran for years. With that said, Saddam should have paid reparations to Kuwait, not the Iraqi people, who had not consented to his government. On the other hand, the US government, voted into power by Americans, is now incurring damage directly onto the Iraqi people, so it should provide reparations accordingly. As to the war with Iran, there should be some punishment for its facilitation of murder against Iranians and Kurds, with the chemical weaponry we gave to Saddam Hussein.

[saysmydoctor]

No, actually they're not completely accurate -- which was my original point.

And no, at this point we have no "right" course of action. Best case scenario is we leave, impeach Bush, and then spend the next 15 years apologizing to the world. But we're probably not going to do that.
You can't impeach Bush for being wrong. Especially when congress gave him the ability to invade Iraq.

[youcomebeforeyo]

You can't impeach Bush for being wrong. Especially when congress gave him the ability to invade Iraq.

If it could be proved he knew that the intelligence he based the war on was faulty and had been influenced by his administation to fit reason to invade Iraq then technically there are grounds for impeachment.

Personally I believe he did know these things but still believed it was the right thing.

[Love As Arson]

As was stated earlier in the thread, there was evidence given to the government by a group of senators stating there were no weapons of mass destruction and moreover, let us look at the Project For A New American Century, which sought out a strategy such as this, and whose members were in key positions in Bush's cabinet. There are also reports that Bush inquired as to how to connect 9-11 to Iraq.

[youcomebeforeyo]

As was stated earlier in the thread, there was evidence given to the government by a group of senators stating there were no weapons of mass destruction and moreover, let us look at the Project For A New American Century, which sought out a strategy such as this, and whose members were in key positions in Bush's cabinet. There are also reports that Bush inquired as to how to connect 9-11 to Iraq.

Exactly. I think he knew these things but also still believed it was the right course of action and in the 'success' of a new liberated middle East it would be completely forgotten by the general populace. Now things have turned out differently.. ouch.

[saysmydoctor]

They found a jet fighter buried in the deserts of Iraq. You don't think they hid the weapons.

[youcomebeforeyo]

They found a jet fighter buried in the deserts of Iraq. You don't think they hid the weapons.

Yet the regime that documented everything on paper has absolutely nothing on the location of its weapons. And after three years of occupation within Iraq not one piece of concrete evidence has been discovered?

[x togepi x]

Why would they hide the weapons? If they had them, they could have just used them on our soldiers during the invasion. Letting yourself get owned by the US military when you could be using your weapons makes no sense.

[aminorthreat55]

If it could be proved he knew that the intelligence he based the war on was faulty and had been influenced by his administation to fit reason to invade Iraq then technically there are grounds for impeachment.

Personally I believe he did know these things but still believed it was the right thing.
I was at a foreign policy forum with Senator Ben Cardin and former Secretary of State Albright a couple months ago and the subject of gathered intelligence came up and she said that there is very rarely black and white intelligence presented to the President and his cabinet and that the meaning, value and use of that intelligence is open to wide interpretation.

[halifaxrocks]

Yep. Lots have. He's ignored them, fired them, selectively chosen to pick pieces to support his fucked up ideas, and is now (in my opinion) maneuvering himself so that if we "leave" or if we "fail" he can blame others instead of taking the fall (as he should).

Impeach the bastard.
JUST LIKE CLINTON...Clinton, like the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, served the remainder of his term.

He makes a valid point. You can't just pack up and leave. They call for an exit strategy but they don't actually propose one.
It's true

It's the famous, "we're imposting democracy but practicing something different" speech.

I fucking hate that man.
Get out and actually do something about it

I can't respond -- I literally would have to teach you 20 years of history. I can't do that right now - I don't have the time or patience to rehash it.

I quoted a passage, and you're getting caught up on a word (reparations) that's mostly used so that the US can appear to save some face in the international community.
You seem to know everything there is to know about history and politics in general. Jason Tate for pres. 2020?:shrug:

You can't impeach Bush for being wrong. Especially when congress gave him the ability to invade Iraq.
Wait you mean congress has to say that he can do that kind of stuff. Man people should think about this one.

They found a jet fighter buried in the deserts of Iraq. You don't think they hid the weapons.
Governments dont hide things though.

I love how you are one of the few that actually knows whats going on

[dw1003]

I was at a foreign policy forum with Senator Ben Cardin and former Secretary of State Albright a couple months ago and the subject of gathered intelligence came up and she said that there is very rarely black and white intelligence presented to the President and his cabinet and that the meaning, value and use of that intelligence is open to wide interpretation.

I think most americans are discovering that they disagree with president Bush's interpretations...
It's a shame that Bush has used his wieght with the religious right to propagate his fucking insane interpretations of intelligence info...

we were dupped because we feared what God would think if we didn't not act...
now we act in a way God feared we would...

[Jason Tate]

You can't impeach Bush for being wrong. Especially when congress gave him the ability to invade Iraq.
Good thing I didn't say that's why they should impeach Bush now did I? I just said we should impeach him. There's plenty of grounds (I believe at least 10) for this.

[Jason Tate]

They found a jet fighter buried in the deserts of Iraq. You don't think they hid the weapons.
Now if only the evidence supported your wishes.

[Jason Tate]

Why would they hide the weapons? If they had them, they could have just used them on our soldiers during the invasion. Letting yourself get owned by the US military when you could be using your weapons makes no sense.
Hahahaha, so true.

"Let's hide these so we can ... well, never use them."

If there was a time to use the weapons they "supposedly" had -- it has, most certainly, already passed.

[Love As Arson]

Halifax, your arguments lack substance or anything to back them up, so either provide an argument or cease speaking.

[x togepi x]

Governments dont hide things though.

I love how you are one of the few that actually knows whats going on

yeah you're right. it's much more believable that saddam had wmds and just hid them from us when we attacked him. i mean obviously someone who was such a big threat because of wmds would hide them in the desert and not use them.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Well i'm glad we've finally sorted out the WMD debate for once and for all!

[halifaxrocks]

Halifax, your arguments lack substance or anything to back them up, so either provide an argument or cease speaking.

I wasn't really agruing anything. I was just making comments. So there is no reason to "provide an argument or cease speaking."

yeah you're right. it's much more believable that saddam had wmds and just hid them from us when we attacked him. i mean obviously someone who was such a big threat because of wmds would hide them in the desert and not use them.

Hey I never said it was true. But if it is, and they were hidden or sold or anything else, they obviously are not there now. thats a given. Plus if he had them, and didn't use them he turned most of America against their leader.

[x togepi x]

I wasn't really agruing anything. I was just making comments. So there is no reason to "provide an argument or cease speaking."



Hey I never said it was true. But if it is, and they were hidden or sold or anything else, they obviously are not there now. thats a given. Plus if he had them, and didn't use them he turned most of America against their leader.

Bush isn't my leader. He never was, and he never will be. But, the american head of state turned the us against himself with his "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric, as well as his inability, either true or perceived, to listen to other plans for Iraq outside his own circle of advisors. Americans got tired of seeing soldiers come home dead. If Gore/Clinton/Kerry were in Bush's position and did the exact same thing, these same complaints would be made.

It's really cute how you implied that dissent was Saddam's ultimate weapon. taking plays out of the Rove handbook much?

You're being an apologist for this invasion. Sure, you're not really advocating the idea that they were there and sold/stolen, but you're just putting it out there. This is a really weak position for you to be making. There *might* have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and they *might* have been stolen/sold. I feel like you're still trying to justify the war in Iraq, but don't know how, so might as well just rehash a classic.

[halifaxrocks]

Bush isn't my leader. He never was, and he never will be. But, the american head of state turned the us against himself with his "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric, as well as his inability, either true or perceived, to listen to other plans for Iraq outside his own circle of advisors. Americans got tired of seeing soldiers come home dead. If Gore/Clinton/Kerry were in Bush's position and did the exact same thing, these same complaints would be made.

It's really cute how you implied that dissent was Saddam's ultimate weapon. taking plays out of the Rove handbook much?

You're being an apologist for this invasion. Sure, you're not really advocating the idea that they were there and sold/stolen, but you're just putting it out there. This is a really weak position for you to be making. There *might* have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and they *might* have been stolen/sold. I feel like you're still trying to justify the war in Iraq, but don't know how, so might as well just rehash a classic.
:whisper: it was a joke

[x togepi x]

:whisper: it was a joke

it's hard to tell when someone else is literally saying the same thing seriously.

[Logan95]

point 3 is debatable since i read the USSR was collapsing before Reagan's build up, and the build up actually propped the USSR's government up even more for a few months.


I once read leprechauns ran rampant through out Ireland killing all the unicorns, but that doesn’t make it true. Please quote a source rather than just saying you read somewhere. I’m not denying the validity of the theory and I have heard it before but I’d like to know which source you are using to get a better idea of where you are coming from. Forgive me for not believing something just because you tell me that you read it somewhere.

[x togepi x]

I once read leprechauns ran rampant through out Ireland killing all the unicorns, but that doesn’t make it true. Please quote a source rather than just saying you read somewhere. I’m not denying the validity of the theory and I have heard it before but I’d like to know which source you are using to get a better idea of where you are coming from. Forgive me for not believing something just because you tell me that you read it somewhere.



why? if you've heard this before, then there's really no point, especially as we're not even talking about Reagan anymore. Even if I'm wrong, which i don't really care, there's still the drug war, Iran-Contra, etc that shows him to be a much worse president than Bush.

[dw1003]

why? if you've heard this before, then there's really no point, especially as we're not even talking about Reagan anymore. Even if I'm wrong, which i don't really care, there's still the drug war, Iran-Contra, etc that shows him to be a much worse president than Bush.

you should... you really should.

[x togepi x]

you should... you really should.

why? me being wrong about this one thing wouldn't change my opinion of reagan since I pretty much agree with Love As Arson's analysis of how the cold war went down. If Reagan brought down the USSR earlier, awesome, that's like one positive to all the negatives of his admin. Acting like he's the reason the USSR collapsed would be like me throwing a ball up in the air and then taking credit for it falling down instead of gravity, it was inevitable.

[Jason Tate]

Great Bush quotes today:

"We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude."

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”

[dw1003]

why? me being wrong about this one thing wouldn't change my opinion of reagan since I pretty much agree with Love As Arson's analysis of how the cold war went down. If Reagan brought down the USSR earlier, awesome, that's like one positive to all the negatives of his admin. Acting like he's the reason the USSR collapsed would be like me throwing a ball up in the air and then taking credit for it falling down instead of gravity, it was inevitable.

I don't care about your uninformed opinion regarding reagan and the USSR...

I just think it's funny that your relying on Love As Arsons opinion, and then you follow it up with "I don't care if I'm wrong"

pretty funny stuff.

[dw1003]

Great Bush quotes today:

"We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude."

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”

“A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit.” - Arnold H. Glasgow

[aminorthreat55]

“A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit.” - Arnold H. Glasgow
Please don't tell me that you actually believe he is a good leader.

[x togepi x]

I don't care about your uninformed opinion regarding reagan and the USSR...

I just think it's funny that your relying on Love As Arsons opinion, and then you follow it up with "I don't care if I'm wrong"

pretty funny stuff.

You're taking where I said "i don't care if i'm right or wrong" way out of context. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong about the USSR since Reagan did other things that I think make him worse than Bush. Hence me not caring, as it doesn't change a damn thing. The Cold War's over. It doesn't really matter if Reagan, Pope John Paul, Gorbachev, or David Hasselhoff ended it.

But here's some sources backing me up:

"George F. Kennan agrees. The former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, and father of the theory of "containment" of the same country, asserts that "the suggestion that any United States administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish." He contends that the extreme militarization of American policy strengthened hard-liners in the Soviet Union. "Thus the general effect of Cold War extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union."


Though the arms-race spending undoubtedly damaged the fabric of the Soviet civilian economy and society even more than it did in the United States, this had been going on for 40 years by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power without the slightest hint of impending doom. Gorbachev's close adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, when asked whether the Reagan administration's higher military spending, combined with its "Evil Empire" rhetoric, forced the Soviet Union into a more conciliatory position, responded:
It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it."
http://www.counterpunch.org/blum06072004.html

Or if you want to dismiss CP as leftist bs, here's something from the washington post

"But if he had warm, appreciative words for Reagan, Gorbachev brusquely dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated either him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. Was it accurate to say that Reagan won the Cold War? "That's not serious," Gorbachev said, using the same words several times. "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion," he said, referring to the money Russians and Americans spent on an arms race that lasted more than four decades. "We only won when the Cold War ended."...

...The changes he wrought in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. "The country was being stifled by the lack of freedom," he said. "We were increasingly behind the West, which . . . was achieving a new technological era, a new kind of productivity. . . . And I was ashamed for my country -- perhaps the country with the richest resources on Earth, and we couldn't provide toothpaste for our people"....

...Did Reagan's success in his first term, and the huge build-up of military power that he persuaded Congress to finance, affect the decision of the Soviet Politburo to choose a young and vigorous new leader in 1985 -- someone who could, in effect, stand up to Reagan? "No, I think there was really no connection," he replied, chuckling. He said he was chosen for purely internal reasons that had nothing to do with the United States."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html


And finally, from Jonathan Weiler, adjunct professor of Russian and East European Studies at North Carolina University:

"
The problem with this narrative is that it gets most of the story wrong, and it glosses over a less comfortable legacy of Reagan's policies.
The first erroneous piece of the narrative concerns the effectiveness of Reagan's confrontational first term in undermining the Soviet economy. It is true that defense spending comprised an excessively large share of the overall Soviet economy, but this fact well pre-dated the Reagan presidency. And virtually all observers agree that the Soviet economy had begun to stagnate by about 1975. By the time of Leonid Brezhnev's death in 1982, many in the Soviet leadership knew that their economy was beset by long term problems, including eroding worker discipline, rising alcoholism, wasteful investment and the Soviets' striking failure to integrate computer technology into their economy. None of these factors owed anything to the Reagan military buildup, which began only a year before Brezhnev's death and several years after Soviet growth rates began to sputter.


A second misplaced claim is that Reagan's policies prompted beleaguered Soviet hardliners to promote the reformist Gorbachev as Communist party leader. Gorbachev's rise to power had nothing to do with the Reagan administration's hostility to the Soviets. In fact, Brezhnev's two successors – Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko – each died within fifteen months of attaining power. If not for this relative fluke, there most likely would have been no progress in easing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during Reagan's second term. Only Gorbachev's premature ascension to power and extraordinary departure from prior Soviet leadership patterns allowed for the stunning breakthroughs of the late 1980s. Furthermore, Gorbachev's ideas, including his belief in the need to fundamentally reform the Soviet economy and to pull the superpowers away from the nuclear brink were not influenced by Reagan's stridency. Instead, it is clear that Gorbachev and his key ideological ally, Alexander Yakovlev, had recognized the fundamental weaknesses in the Soviet system years before Gorbachev came to power. European social democratic ideas and universal humanism, the latter embodied by dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, most influenced Gorbachev's "new thinking." Gorbachev's political mentor, Yuri Andropov, also influenced Gorbachev's understanding of the need for significant internal change."



later he continues:



"The subsequent Soviet collapse was almost entirely an internal affair. Gorbachev's reforms were a response to an era of stagnation that began long before Reagan was president. Gorbachev's glasnost unleashed long-suppressed nationalist currents in the Soviet Union and he dismantled the communist party's oversight functions before any meaningful market-based institutions were in place. These factors led to chaos and implosion. The end of the Soviet empire does not owe itself to Reagan's tough anti-communism. Rather, it owes itself substantially to Mikhail Gorbachev's arrival on the world scene."
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=136



So yeah, I totally stole my analysis from Love As Arson, and not the fact that this I've done projects on this in the past. Yes, I obviously agree with him. He comes of as really leftist, I've admitted to being really leftist, I just don't espouse those beliefs online, but to claim that I'm just propping up my "uninformed" opinion with quotes from Love As Arson is just stupid.


What makes your opinion so much more informed than this one?

[dw1003]

Please don't tell me that you actually believe he is a good leader.

He obviously doesn't take hardly any blame...
He obviously takes way too much credit...

you tell me.

[dw1003]

What makes your opinion so much more informed than this one?

I never said I was more informed... only that you were uninformed.
your references, although facinating, go only so far as to say that reagan has received more
credit in the fall of the soviet union than he deserves.

In regards to whether Reagan is the worst president... I disagree, not because he was he was a good president, but because Bush is so bad...

maybe we'll need to invade another sovereign nation for you to agree... but that's ok buck'o you'll come around.

[x togepi x]

I never said I was more informed... only that you were uninformed.
your references, although facinating, go only so far as to say that reagan has received more
credit in the fall of the soviet union than he deserves.

In regards to whether Reagan is the worst president... I disagree, not because he was he was a good president, but because Bush is so bad...

maybe we'll need to invade another sovereign nation for you to agree... but that's ok buck'o you'll come around.

HAHA invading *another* sovereign...Do you know what Reagan did during his presidency? He hardly respected other nations.

You need to reread the articles I posted. They say that the soviet union was collapsing on its own even before he was in office. Reagan had little to no effect.

[dw1003]

HAHA invading *another* sovereign...Do you know what Reagan did during his presidency? He hardly respected other nations.

You need to reread the articles I posted. They say that the soviet union was collapsing on its own even before he was in office. Reagan had little to no effect.

I've already acknowledged this point...
and I've already told you that it has little or no bearing when considering whether Reagan was "the worst president"...

Apparently you are not interested in talking about the topic of the thread... you're only interested in regurgatating some project you did for you government class in high school...

no thanks buck'o

[thejetstolehome]

I've already acknowledged this point...
and I've already told you that it has little or no bearing when considering whether Reagan was "the worst president"...

Apparently you are not interested in talking about the topic of the thread... you're only interested in regurgatating some project you did for you government class in high school...

no thanks buck'o

he never said anything about reagan being the worst president. there was never any discussion about that just reagan's involvement in the fall of the soviet empire.

and obviously you don't pay attention to how this place, or any forum, or any regular discussion for that matter, works. not everything is going to stay on topic. the content of the thread shifted a little bit and he was merely discussing that.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I've already acknowledged this point...
and I've already told you that it has little or no bearing when considering whether Reagan was "the worst president"...

Apparently you are not interested in talking about the topic of the thread... you're only interested in regurgatating some project you did for you government class in high school...

no thanks buck'o


thats twice he has said buck'o
unless im the only one keeping count

[dw1003]

"he never said anything about reagan being the worst president. there was never any discussion about that just reagan's involvement in the fall of the soviet empire.

and obviously you don't pay attention to how this place, or any forum, or any regular discussion for that matter, works. not everything is going to stay on topic. the content of the thread shifted a little bit and he was merely discussing that."


why? if you've heard this before, then there's really no point, especially as we're not even talking about Reagan anymore. Even if I'm wrong, which i don't really care, there's still the drug war, Iran-Contra, etc that shows him to be a much worse president than Bush.

ummmm...

anyway, I understand what you are saying... the point (imo) is that Bush is consistently making decisions that are virtually unprecedented in Presidential politics... unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation... running our deficit higher than any other time in history, ever.

The idea that Reagan, even with all the scandals and skewed historical credit... is somehow worse than Bush... just doesn't make sense to me...

I don't think we'll really understand how destructive Bush's policies are for a couple of years...

But when we have to pay down this deficit, and try and rebuild our foreign policy... it's going to take a miracle. (or Barack Obama)

[Love As Arson]

Reagan unilaterally invaded Grenada and toppled its government.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0609-07.htm

[x togepi x]

I've already acknowledged this point...
and I've already told you that it has little or no bearing when considering whether Reagan was "the worst president"...

Apparently you are not interested in talking about the topic of the thread... you're only interested in regurgatating some project you did for you government class in high school...

no thanks buck'o

actually it was for international relations in college, but whatever, you're just using a really shallow view of history. when mccain gets elected, i bet you're going to be OMG MCCAIN IS TEH WORST PRESIDENT.

ummmm...

anyway, I understand what you are saying... the point (imo) is that Bush is consistently making decisions that are virtually unprecedented in Presidential politics... unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation... running our deficit higher than any other time in history, ever.

The idea that Reagan, even with all the scandals and skewed historical credit... is somehow worse than Bush... just doesn't make sense to me...

I don't think we'll really understand how destructive Bush's policies are for a couple of years...

But when we have to pay down this deficit, and try and rebuild our foreign policy... it's going to take a miracle. (or Barack Obama)

Pretty much all of these problems that you attribute to Bush would not have been possible if not for Reagan. Bush basically admitted to trying to follow Reagan's legacy. Reagan pulled a lot of shit that the american people let slide, and without this, Bush would have had a much more difficult time passing his agenda.

let's look at it:

civil rights abuse? the main conservative argument against people criticizing the war on terror is that the police powers now being used against private citizens in "the fight against terrorism" had long been used against private citizens in "the fight against drugs". Who made the drug war the way it is today? Oh, that'd be Reagan.

our foreign policy: bush steals all of his free the world rhetoric from the Bush administration, nevermind the fact that we supported both Saddam and the Taliban in the past.

our debt: Reagan spent trillions to defeat the USSR. Reagan set the precedent that a Republican can be a big spender. It's interesting to note that while doing so, he cut government programs for the poor. Bush does the same thing, but Reagan's cuts were a lot more extreme.

free trade: Reaganomics brought us back from a time of government regulation to a laissez faire approach. This eventually means that the government under Bush Sr and Clinton will push free trade agreements like NAFTA which will fuck over the third world even more.

media deregulation: Under Reagan, there was a massive rollback in media laws. This allowed companies like Clear Channel to dominate the radiowaves as well as giant telecommunications companies to control cable. Want to complain about how the media enabled Bush's fuck up of a war? You probably should blame Reagan, since he was the one that allowed the elite rich to have more control over the radio/tv, which allowed for the pro-war propaganda to come out in full force, while destroying the dissenting views. Without this media deregulation, Rupert Murdoch would not be as rich and powerful...this means there'd probably be no Fox News.

do I need to continue?

Bush is obviously a fuck up and a horrible president, but he's only trying to catch up to his idol, Ronald Reagan.

[then she said]

i would put a universal law into effect that said that everything someone killed they had to eat. that would stop war. but not hannibal lecter.

but on a more serious note, i would start following the constitution. it is supposed to be the foundation of our country, and sometimes it needs to be changed, but it has never been so completely ignored before. universal peace is unnatainable until persons in power realize that violence can not be stopped with violence, hate can not be stopped by hate, and killing people to show that killing people is wrong.

true marxist society all the way. fruits of labor, equality.

[Love As Arson]

The Constitution is essentially a confluence of interests by the large business interest of that time. It certainly contains rights that should be provided by all, but that was not its intention, as one saw with the numerous groups that had to struggle in order to have those rights provided to them.

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/us_constitution.php

[then she said]

The Constitution was, at its inception, a confluence of interests by merchants, bankers, slave-owners, etc. It certainly contains rights that should be provided by all, but that was not its intention, as one saw with the numerous groups that had to struggle in order to have those rights provided to them.

this is very true, which is why it calls for change. but the fundamental message in the consitution is that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. if we want to spread it to the world, it's not going to happen through violence.

martin luther king jr. was, and still is, one of the most influential political activists, but he protested in peace. he educated america and made his mark on the world.

with each generation comes new interests, and within those interests, laws change. racism has made dramatic strides since the beginning of the 2-th century, but there are still prosecution and laws against social issues like gay marriage. it takes time. there is no way to impose change.. change must be brought about willingly.

[Love As Arson]

I agree, however, we cannot pretend that it is not a bourgeois construct, made specifically for them.

[then she said]

no, there is no argument against that.