|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jun 11th, 2006 03:19 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13251244/site/newsweek/ How to Exploit the Opening More troops in Baghdad is a good idea, but true security will need more than firepower. By Fareed Zakaria Newsweek June 19, 2006 - You've read all the cautions. This is not a turning point. Zarqawi's death is not a seismic event. He was not that brilliant or strategic. He will be replaced. Al Qaeda is just one of the many militias running rampant in Iraq. All true. And so, the violence continues. But there are some political signs—no more than glimmers—that make me just a bit hopeful. First, Zarqawi's death might be a sign of the changing attitude of some radical Sunnis. Zarqawi was likely betrayed by someone close to his organization, perhaps even someone within it. His extreme ideology and actions were turning off Sunnis, even those who had allied with him. His increasing brutalities against Shiite civilians—blowing up mosques—were not popular. In a recent audiotape, he urged the killing of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who is respected (even if not revered) by many Sunnis. Last week, in Fallujah, the heart of radical Sunni land, Zarqawi's men tried to destroy the tomb of a Sunni saint because, according to Al Qaeda's puritanical interpretation of Islam, such shrines are blasphemous. But Fallujah's Sunnis, even the radical and fundamentalist among them, have long respected such sites. The result was a pitched battle between Al Qaeda and other Sunni insurgent groups. The latter won. Then there is the changing attitude of some radical Shiites. More important than Zarqawi's death last week was the completion of the cabinet in Baghdad, which included a Sunni defense minister. Earlier in the week Iraq's Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, announced the release of about 600 prisoners, a number that will go up to 2,000. It also reported that Maliki will present a national reconciliation plan at a conference sponsored by the Arab League later this month. The proposal apparently will make some provision to end de-Baathification in its current form, and include an offer to reintegrate Sunnis who abandon the insurgency. Such an initiative would represent an attempt by Maliki to address key Sunni demands and draw some of the more moderate insurgent groups into the mainstream political process. Maliki is also beginning to move on the militias. One of his first official acts as prime minister was to go down to the city of Basra, where Shia militias run rampant, and declare a state of emergency. He has also spoken up about disbanding all militias in Iraq. His actions have provoked angry reactions from his rivals within the Shia alliance, chiefly SCIRI, which has its militias throughout Basra. SCIRI's leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and his son, Mohsen al-Hakim, have both given interviews in the past few days (to Knight Ridder and the Financial Times) that indirectly criticize Maliki's new direction. This internal Shia dissension has been the principal cause of the delays and dysfunction in Iraq's government. And it may get worse now as the tensions rise to the surface. Maliki will have to tackle not just Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, but Moqtada al-Sadr. However, Zarqawi's death has given Maliki greater popularity and thus a stronger hand with which to deal with all his challengers. Maliki sees his job, first and foremost, as creating security, and he wants to do it by using more troops and focusing them in Baghdad. That's a good idea, but true security will now require a lot more than firepower. Maliki has to rebuild basic political order. Consider an analogy. Imagine if after the fall of apartheid in South Africa, the black majority had come to power and decided to dismantle the entire apparatus of the Afrikaner state. Let's say they disbanded the army, which had slaughtered them, and then fired all the whites in the civil service. The result would have been chaos, a dysfunctional state, and—in all probability—the rise of an Afrikaner insurgency. But they did none of that. On the contrary, the ANC was extraordinarily forgiving, reassuring white South Africans that they would have an important place in the new South Africa. As a result, South Africa has been more politically stable and economically successful than anyone would have predicted in 1994. The contrast is obvious. The United States disbanded the Iraqi army and fired 40,000 bureaucrats after taking over Iraq, on the urging of some—though not all—Shia political leaders. We see the results. For two years now we have been attempting to reverse course. But to build a stable political order, it will take more than just an Iraqi military. It will take an Iraqi Mandela. |
||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 05:13 PM | |||||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
I thought this was gonna about Zarqawi saving money on his car insurance. But after reading this I must say I'm very happy. It is good to see we are on the road to final victory and ultimate withdrawel. It may have cost a LOT of lives btu I believe America has made the world a better place with this new government. |
||||
| Jun 9th, 2006 12:58 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060801532.html Our Strategy for a Democratic Iraq By Nouri al-Maliki Friday, June 9, 2006; Page A23 BAGHDAD -- The completion of the national unity government Thursday in Iraq marks the starting point for repaying Iraqis' commitment to and thirst for democracy. We are at this juncture thanks to the bravery of the soldiers, police and citizens who have paid the highest price to give Iraq its freedom. Our national unity government will honor these sacrifices by pursuing an uncompromising agenda to deliver security and services to the Iraqi people and to combat rampant corruption. This government will build on the additional momentum gained from the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in order to defeat terrorism and sectarianism and to deliver on the Iraqi people's hope of a united, stable and prosperous democracy by following a three-pronged strategy: We will draw on the country's untapped workforce to kick-start extensive reconstruction, put into motion an initiative for genuine national reconciliation, and increase the intensity and efficacy of building the military and police. While some parts of the country have been very quiet and secure, this has not resulted in increased investment or reconstruction. Our government will correct this imbalance and develop the infrastructure and services in these more secure regions, making them a model for the rest of the country. We will mobilize the impressive energy and skills of Iraq's young population to invigorate the rebuilding effort. This government will embark on a national reconciliation initiative, which is important if Iraqis are to begin to heal the divisions and wounds brought on by Saddam Hussein's dictatorial rule and further widened by terrorism. This, along with genuine cooperation among all of Iraq's ethnic and religious groupings in this national unity government, will allow us to pursue the terrorists with maximum force. Baghdad is home to a quarter of Iraq's population and is its financial and political center. This government of national unity will launch an initiative to secure the capital and confront the ethnic cleansing that is taking place in many areas around it. We will meet head-on the armed gangs and terrorists who we believe constitute the main threat to security. Furthermore, we will develop and strengthen the country's intelligence services, which represent the best form of defense against terrorist bombings. We believe we will soon reach a tipping point in our battle against the terrorists as Iraqi security services increase in size and capacity, taking more and more responsibility away from the multinational forces. Key to meeting this target is ensuring that current forces are properly equipped and competent to take over security, while at the same time enhancing and expanding the training program. To provide the security Iraqis desire and deserve, it is imperative that we reestablish a state monopoly on weapons by putting an end to militias. This government will implement Law 91 to incorporate the militias into the national security services. Unlike previous efforts, this will be done in a way that ensures that militia members are identified at the start, dispersed to avoid any concentration of one group in a department or unit, and then monitored to ensure loyalty only to the state. In addition, we will engage with the political leaders of the militias to create the will to disband these groups. While security represents the major impediment to reconstruction and the provision of essential services such as electricity, administrative corruption is also contributing to the problem and robbing Iraq of its wealth. We will fight corruption from the top down. We will revamp and strengthen our anti-corruption watchdog, the Commission for Public Integrity, and initiate necessary political, economic and civil reforms. This will include gradual reductions in government subsidies, which impede Iraq's economic recovery and abet corruption, coupled with the establishment of a social security program for the least privileged. The political and economic reforms outlined here are guided by a common belief in democracy. Liberty is the essence of a democratic system, which is why I believe they must go hand in hand. Finally, to achieve this vision, it is necessary that Iraq's neighbors not interfere in its internal matters. While some neighboring countries provided refuge for many Iraqis during the rule of the dictatorial Baathist regime, this does not give them a right to meddle in Iraq now or turn a blind eye to terrorists' operations. Iraqis have elected a national unity government that will always put national interests ahead of sectarian or ethnic agendas. This government will support the judiciary in relentlessly pursuing the murderers and kidnappers who have blighted Iraqi society. With the help of the international community and regional partners, we will be able to defeat the terrorist groups in Iraq. The scale of the task ahead is humbling. Iraqis have time and time again demonstrated their patience and perseverance in the face of many challenges. With our allies, we will also persevere to make Iraq a prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East. The writer is prime minister of the Republic of Iraq. |
||||
| Oct 18th, 2005 01:32 PM | |||||
| Geggy |
my problem is every article i read, i'm skeptical on how solid the information is. i'm just keeping it an open mind and keep my options open until the outcome of the result, then i can form an opinion. i've noticed numbers of conversative blogs are declining. it's a possible sign they're getting fed up with the bush administrations, espcially after the mier issue. they're completely over it which is the reason i'm leaning more on the liberal assholes' point of views. they seem to be winning the opinion war. but it can get tiring reading some blogs written by liberal assholes who cringe at every good news coming from white house and iraq that they try everything in their power to contradict the good news. oh well |
||||
| Oct 18th, 2005 09:11 AM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Election fraud? We still have election fraud here, and MyDD is complaining about it over there? If you want to better formulate your opinion on the war, don't read just MyDD and then the AP Wire. If you're going to read a blog with a liberal leaning, then yes, it may contradict what you're seeing in the mainstream press. Read the Daily Kos and the MyDD's of the blogosphere, but compliment it with something like http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/. This guy is very conservative, and is very open about it. He unfortuantely doesn't update this blog anymore, but it provides some pretty comprehensive links and examples of positive things coming from Iraq. And good things coming from Iraq don't necessarily contradict the fact that George W. Bush is an idiot. |
||||
| Oct 18th, 2005 04:54 AM | |||||
| Geggy |
This is coming from the Yahoo! news source... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq Yikes... |
||||
| Oct 17th, 2005 06:23 PM | |||||
| Geggy |
My head hurts  http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/10/17/123548/13 This is why I'm having difficulties forming my own opinion on the war, the rebuilding of iraq or any other issues for that matter. After constantly reading countless articles over the years since 9-11, I just don't know which type of information spewed forth by journalists, bloggers, reporters, etc., that I should fully believe in. But I'm definitely certain about one thing...and that is W. Bush has proven himself clearly retarded. |
||||
| Oct 16th, 2005 05:05 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines In Fallouja, Lining Up to Have Their Say Turnout is reported to be heavy in a Sunni Arab city recovering from fighting last year. Sentiment seems to be against the constitution. By Solomon Moore Times Staff Writer October 16, 2005 FALLOUJA, Iraq — The referendum on Iraq's constitution was important enough to Mufeed Abed Ghafour that he cast not just one, but five ballots. Ghafour walked into a polling station at Al Asad School on Saturday and cast a ballot for himself, his wife and his three children. "We all came earlier," he said. "But the crowds were too large. So now I have returned and have brought their ballots for them." Impassioned election workers openly discussed their views on the proposed charter a few feet away from cardboard voting stands. Security was dicey. A local election official said there were more than a dozen hand-grenade attacks against Iraqi troops in and around Fallouja, and the day before, someone firebombed a local political party office. Mistrust of Iraqi security forces runs so deep that local tribes formed their own guard units for polling stations and urged the soldiers to keep away. And many residents' knowledge of the subject of their votes, a complex document completed only last week by Iraq's National Assembly, was sketchy at best. This is what a successful election looks like in battle-scarred Fallouja, a predominantly Sunni Arab city where only 7,000 residents out of a pre-invasion population of about 350,000 voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in January. In the aftermath of a massive U.S. offensive in Fallouja last year, most residents were displaced; most who remained boycotted the vote at the behest of Sunni Arab leaders. On Saturday, nearly 75% of eligible voters, an estimated 150,000 people, cast ballots in the Fallouja area in a vote relatively unimpeded by violence. The large turnout signaled not only the willingness of a large Sunni Arab community to participate in Iraq's nascent political process but the unwillingness or inability of insurgents to disrupt the vote. John Kael Weston, a State Department official assigned to Fallouja, said that a large reason for the shift from January's boycott to Saturday's high turnout was the decision of 50 clerics to endorse participation in the referendum. "We're seeing grass-roots organizations telling people to vote, not necessarily because it's what they want to do, but because they have to do it," Weston said. "They realize that if they don't participate they don't have a lot of other options. They also realize that they made a mistake in January by sitting out the last election." Like many Falloujans, Anad Aboud, 65, boycotted the January election. Aboud's house was destroyed and three of his sons were killed by Iraqi soldiers, he said, shortly after the worst of the fighting in Fallouja. He said that local clerics had persuaded him to vote. "This our election, and we have to express our opinions," he said. "The clerics, they told us in their sermons that we should vote." Although no results were available Saturday, anecdotal evidence suggested that Falloujans would vote heavily against the proposed charter. "I will vote no because I am against sectarianism," said Hareth Abdul Kareem, a 46-year-old merchant. "Iraq should be one nation. Sunni, or Shiite, or Kurd — we are all Iraqis." Many Sunni Arabs had expressed concerns that the proposed constitution opened the door for eventual secession by the predominately Shiite south or the largely Kurdish north. Last week, however, the Iraqi Islamic Party, a major Sunni Arab political party, agreed to back the constitution in exchange for the chance to renegotiate the document after the next parliament is elected in December. But the Islamic Party's agreement to support the constitution appeared to have little traction in Fallouja. Unknown attackers firebombed party offices in Fallouja on Friday night, and voters derided the organization for changing its position on the draft constitution. Rafa Alwan Mahana, 48, a retired teacher, said Fallouja's council of clerics was disappointed by the party's decision. If the party wanted to take a position, he said, "the Muslim community should be asked first. They did this without consulting." Weston said that heavy participation in the vote had undercut extremist groups. "You've got the grass roots, the whole community standing up and saying they want to participate in the election process," said Weston, who has been assigned to Fallouja for 18 months. "If you see your neighbors, your relatives, your own people walking down the street to vote, do you want to kill them? Probably not." Sheik Dhari Abdul Hadi, who is Fallouja's mayor, said that he was less concerned about which way people voted than how many people voted. "They are going in great and huge numbers and I noticed this morning that they were joining overcrowded lines," Hadi said. "All the voters know their responsibility to their future of this country." Weston estimated that Fallouja's vote would comprise roughly 80% of the total vote in the western Al Anbar province, a vast, but sparsely populated Sunni Arab region. The desert province has been a main thoroughfare for insurgent groups trekking over the border from Syria and the target of several major military offensives. Much of the province will likely report much lower turnouts than Fallouja, Weston said. Marines have been tracking down insurgent groups in Al Anbar towns such as Qaim and Ramadi, and fighting has displaced enough people to lower voter turnouts. Fallouja has become a key piece of the U.S. public relations effort in Iraq. The U.S. Embassy flew several journalists to Fallouja to observe the election and coordinated security with Marines and Iraqi police throughout visits to polling stations in prescreened areas of the city. About 4,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers patrol Fallouja's streets. Generally, only residents of the city are allowed to enter, and the Marines are closely monitoring them. Marines said as many as 70,000 Falloujans have been subjected to retinal scans and have had their names entered into a military database. All residents must carry identity cards and can be detained if they attempt to pass without the papers. Residents said their unhappiness with tight security was another reason to vote. "The Iraqi security forces are doing patrols and raids, they are torturing innocent people," said Amir Ismael, 45. "We have no freedom, we are oppressed in this place…. I will express my opinion, and I feel satisfied that all my neighbors will say no to this constitution." Fallouja itself has been slowly rebuilding. The Iraqi government has spent $200 million this year to compensate Iraqis who lost family members or homes when 6,000 Marines and 1,300 Iraqi soldiers assaulted insurgent fighters in the city. The money is also being used to rebuild Fallouja's damaged sewers, power lines and other infrastructure. Two-thirds of Fallouja's buildings were destroyed in the fighting — everywhere there are broken roofs, clipped mosque minarets and gaping holes in walls. During a brief meeting Saturday with local leaders at a Marine outpost, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad urged residents to continue to build their local institutions and their political voice. A tribal leader told Khalilzad that the central government still owed Fallouja millions of dollars in reconstruction money. The local leaders also said Al Anbar province should be represented by more parliament members during the December elections. Hadi, the mayor, expressed his fears that the constitution could further divide the nation, and his hope that relations among Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds could replicate the Saddam Hussein era when, he said, there were no divisions. "Of course, nostalgia for the past should not be a motive driving the political process here," Khalilzad said. "The past is finished. It is gone." |
||||
| Oct 15th, 2005 04:10 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html Count begins in Iraq's vote on draft charter Turnout high in some spots; few reports of violence BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- After decades of repression and years of war and insurgency, millions of Iraqis let their voices be heard Saturday, voting in a historic constitutional referendum whose results could significantly alter the way the country is governed. An Iraqi election official reported early signs of high voter turnout in eight of Iraq's 18 provinces, but the United Nations' top elections official said it was too early to be certain. Fareed Ayar, spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, said initial figures show more than two-thirds of eligible voters cast ballots in Baghdad and provinces in northern and central Iraq. By contrast, less than a third of the voters turned out in one southern province. Turnout estimates for the rest of the country ranged between 33 and 66 percent. Carina Perelli, the U.N. elections official, said the early estimates are little better than guesses and don't take into account the possibility of irregularities in different provinces. With security tight, few incidents of insurgent violence were reported. Election officials, some working by lantern light, began the hand count as darkness fell. Rings of Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops closely guarded the polls. Vehicles were barred from the streets, so voters walked to the polls. Iraqis marked paper ballots to indicate whether they approved or rejected a draft constitution setting up the democratic framework to govern the nation. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari were among the first to cast ballots. CNN correspondents in different parts of the country reported that voting had been brisk. (See video of one of the polls -- 3:04) CNN's Nic Robertson, who covered the January vote for the transitional National Assembly and is in Iraq now, said voting appeared to be heavier this time. And at least one polling site in Diyala province -- which has seen its share of insurgent violence -- reported a high turnout exceeding the 60 percent turnout seen in January elections. About 15.5 million of Iraq's 26 million people are eligible to vote. "All regions are voting and all regions are voting steadily," U.N. elections official Carina Perelli said a few hours before polls closed. Attacks meant to stop voting As expected, insurgents attempted Saturday to disrupt the voting -- but no major attacks were reported. An Iraqi police patrol near a polling station in Baghdad was hit by a roadside bomb shortly after voting started. Two police officers were wounded, according to to an Iraqi police official with Baghdad emergency police. At about noon, a civilian was killed when a sniper opened fire from a building across from a polling station, police said. The sniper, who may have been targeting police, was not captured. On Friday, a bomb attack on the main power line into Baghdad knocked out power to about 70 percent of the capital, an official from Iraq's electricity ministry said. The cities of Beiji and Musayyib were also affected. Power began gradually returning in the city early Saturday morning. Sunnis' objections and crucial role Chances for approval of the constitution increased considerably Wednesday when the Iraqi Islamic Party -- the largest Sunni Arab party -- dropped its opposition, after the transitional assembly agreed to consider changes in the framework once a general election is held in December. Sunni Arab groups have objected to provisions that would grant more autonomy to Shiite areas in the south and Kurdish areas in the north. They also object to provisions that exclude elements of former dictator Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated Baath Party. Friday, insurgents attacked four offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which made the last-minute deal with the country's governing Shiite-Kurdish coalition to support a "yes" vote on the constitution. No casualties were reported. A spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party, Ayad al-Samarraie, said the attacks would not change the party's decision to support the constitution. "Those who could not convince people by words, they want to terrify them by these actions," he said. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, demurred Friday when asked if he thought the draft constitution would be approved. "We'll have to see. Now it's in the hands of the Iraqis," he told CNN's "The Situation Room." "The draft constitution, which a few days ago could have been characterized as a Shia-Kurdish document, now has got a substantial amount of Sunni support." In the mixed Shiite-Sunni area of Baquba about one-third of the local population had visited the polling stations by midday. How the vote must go The draft constitution -- hammered out after months of contentious, painstaking negotiations by lawmakers in Iraq's transitional National Assembly -- must be approved by a majority of Iraq's voters. With strong support in the Shiite and Kurdish communities, which together acount for more than three-quarters of the population, that threshold is expected to be met. However, the constitution will fail if it was rejected by at least two-thirds of the voters in at least three of the country's 18 provinces. With many Sunni Arab groups opposing the document, rejection is considered possible in four provinces where Sunnis predominate. (Full story) Rejection of the constitution would be a serious blow to Iraq's political evolution since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam in 2003. The transitional assembly would be dissolved, and the process of writing a constitution would have to start all over after a new assembly is elected in December. By contrast, if the constitution is approved, Iraqis would vote in December for a new, permanent government -- possibly clearing the way for the United States and its coalition allies to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. TV appeals from both sides In a country once governed by the will of Saddam -- where dissent and debate could result in death -- both sides in the constitutional referendum took their case to the people in the days leading up to the vote with emotional television appeals. (Watch efforts to push Iraqis to the polls -- 2:30) In one pro-constitution message, a warm female voice speaks over the national anthem as images of people casting ballots are shown. "Let's vote for a better future, not a past of fear," the narrator says. "Let's vote for our strength and not our weakness." Anti-constitution forces responded with a message portraying the document as the result of the U.S.-led invasion, rather than the product of a homegrown democratic movement. "Resist the occupation by voting down the constitution," the message says. As a central part of their strategy, opponents complained that Iraqis have not had adequate opportunity to evaluate the complex constitution because many have just received a copy of it in the last few days. And some Sunni Arab leaders argued that the constitution is the work of Shiite leaders too cozy with neighboring Iran, where Shiites predominate. "Only those who are pro-Iran and they worked for Iran, they want to pass this constitution because they want to link part of Iraq to Iran," said Salih al-Mutlag, an official who regularly speaks for a faction of Sunni Arab lawmakers. But in a recent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said, "I hope and I pray that the Iraqi people will say yes, yes, loud and clear for this constitution." "It is a huge step toward building a new Iraq, and this is a milestone," he said. CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, Arab Affairs editor Octavia Nasr and producers Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report. |
||||
| Oct 10th, 2005 01:03 PM | |||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
|
||||
| Oct 10th, 2005 12:09 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Politics isn't about reality, preechr. It's about perception. Your problem is that you look for tangible and substantive things.  You can contradict the fact that Republicans may or may not really cut taxes, but the bottom line is if a GOP candidate is in a GOP-dominated district, when all else fails, they'll appeal to the base with tax cuts and Jesus. One of the two generally works. Democrats revert to felatio. And I'd start another thread, if I knew what the hell you'd like to talk about. Shall I title it "Preechr's omnibus thread"??? |
||||
| Oct 10th, 2005 11:21 AM | |||||
| Preechr |
Sure it has! It's all in how you look at it. The more globalization removes authority from politicians, the more politicized normally civil things become, such as war and disaster management, for instance. In fact, without this process, you wouldn't have had to go looking for "Good News From Iraq" because the news we see wouldn't be so damn politically biased. I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on about this, but since you seem so keen on starting another thread to deal with it separately, I'll wait on that to happen. (On that note, you might wanna let me know which thread that is since I don't read them all.) As a preview, I'll go ahead and disagree with you that R's revert to tax cutting and D's go back to healthcare and education on the grounds that what you call tax cutting is simply tax manipulation and if you want to claim some sort of Democrat focus on healthcare or education then I'll point to the lack of any sort of improvement in either system in many, many years and announce to the world that Kevin from I-mockery just labeled his party completely ineffectual and dead. On second thought, I think I'll agree with you on the Democrat thing. |
||||
| Oct 8th, 2005 12:47 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Yeah, you really need to stay on topic. And type less. I agree with you on the parties being election-oriented machines, as opposed to being any sort of an ideological resource. But it s still about ideology....until after election day. Republicans revert to tax cuts and Democrats revert to healthcare and education, and regardless of what they do in office, the parties serve as ideological message boxes more than anything else. Great Society Liberalism is dead, and fiscal conservatism is getting the plug pulled. This is an interesting topic (the parties, ideology, alignment, etc.), it's really my most geeky interest, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ AND GOOD NEWS!!! 
|
||||
| Oct 7th, 2005 05:41 PM | |||||
| Preechr |
Well, I have yet to vote for but one Republican, and his name wasn't Bush. That's not to say I prefer a pull-out guy like Badnarik (who?) over a fighting-God's-fight guy like Dubya... I vote third-party moreso than I vote for whomever the Libertarian Party dregs up to waste a few million on.. In that respect, I'm not even your average LP voter. Back during the campaign, I was encouraging dissatisfied liberals to vote for the only significant candidate that had adopted an anti-war stance (hint: it wasn't the Democrats.) Not that I'm necessarily anti-war myself, but I am a bit of a self-appointed booster for the LP even if I've never officially joined. My stance isn't really "isolationism, but..." as much as it is one that ultimately favors isolationism and acknowledges that the main problem with our foreign policy it's severe lack of isolationism. Can we adopt overnight an isolationist policy like the LP believes? Hell, no. That's idiocy. My ideal plan would be one that has isolationism as a goal, but honors all of the checks we've written since this time last century when we began to become entangled in messy relationships with foreign powers. To be clear, I believe globalization is a permanent, postive force for the future of this world. Globalization is a commercial force, not a political one. When I speak of isolationism, I mean to take political power off the global market. Eliminate all trade barriers and all strategic trade alliances. You're a smart guy, and it's almost beer-thirty, so I'm not gonna fill up several paragraphs describing what commercial globalization is and what political isolationism is and how they differ and whatnot... How can I reconcile preferring two goals that seem inseparable? Easy: It's possible as long as we live in a homogenously free world. Let Bush and his (Democrat?) successor break the eggs that will make my omlette. Bringing Democracy to the MidEast is by no man's plan an easy task, and I'm willing to bet that no matter how well thought out such a plan might have been there would have been MAJOR issues with implementation. Let the bunglers bungle as long as we stay on the right path. Maybe it's bad to be so cavalier about mistakes involving the deaths of people, but it's not like my guy's in charge now, is it? I feel no responsibility for the actions of Bush, just as I would have felt about the likely identical actions of a President Kerry. The swollen egos and shortsightedness of our leaders are to blame for the few thousand lives that could possibly have been spared in this fight so far, but at least they're fighting the fight that needs to be fought, IMHO. BTW, Democrats grow a spine? The race between the two parties at this point is not about ideology and how closely one party sticks to theirs as compared to the other. JFK's dead, or haven't you heard? These days, it's all about effectiveness of party management and staying on top of the political game. Both parties are racing to the place held so well by Blair's Tories in the UK system. We will have large and growing government with ever-expanding welfare programs tempered by reason and prudence no matter which party's in charge. Isn't that sounding a lot like Maxist Populism? I guess it's a win-win for Mr. Burbank no matter who's in charge, huh? Personally, I believe all large human structures are destined to fail. That includes governments and "Great Societies." I like small and efficient, not huge and doomed. The best government is no more than we absolutely need. Again, though, this is not something we can have overnight. Consider the trauma caused by the sudden lack of expected titty in service addicted New Orleans. See how tired I am of Iraq? I can't even write a whole ramble without going horribly off topic. Let's talk about something interesting like Tax Reform... |
||||
| Oct 7th, 2005 01:58 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
EDIT: Let me change that. It seems to me that you don't really advocate isolationism. You advocate "isolationism, but...". My problem with that is that there can always BE a "but," and unforseen circumstances are in the eye of the beholder. I think the issue of isolationism does have a place in this conversation though. Have Libertarians like yourself Preech made strange bed-fellows with the far Left? I mean, people who want us to pull out of Iraq and withdraw from the world don't call themselves isolationists, but that's essentially what they are. It almost strikes me as the uneasy alliance in the early 20th Century between Republicans like Bob La Follette and Bob Taft. Soon, Democrats will grow a spine (I know, a cliche these days, but it works), and they will start calling for withdrawal. Especially if '06 goes the way it looks like it might. What then? Paint the picture, Preechr-- the GOP is hurt, the Democrats are on the rise, and we have ourselves an internationalist, interventionist president, and an isolationsist Congress. Who jumps on board? Where do you stand? Is it ideology, or stick with Bushy? |
||||
| Oct 7th, 2005 11:00 AM | |||||
| Preechr |
Once upon a time in Indonesia, Muslims were generally regarded as the least problematic of the various religious groups found in the many diverse cultures contained therein. Nothing like the "Mohammedism" practiced back in the Arabic western nations. Something happened that changed all that, and since that something that happened, Indonesian Islam has become more and more fanatical to the point that violence is commonplace and Indonesia, home to the largest population of Muslims in the world, is written off by Westerners as just another "war torn" area it's probably best to stay clear of. What was that pivotal something? Krakatau. The worst natural disaster in human recorded, verifiable history. What happened immediately thereafter? The Dutch closed up shop and pretty much abandoned the Asians to economic famine and ignominy. Next thing you know ol' Abu's a fanatical muslim. Afghanistan? We abandoned it to the Taliban after the Russian war was safely (for us) over. Pakistan? Well, with the Cold War waning, we really couldn't justify those listening stations there anymore now, could we? Bye Bye to the West and Hello Radical Islam! Over and over and over this pattern repeats itself throughout modern history. Westerners abandon and Muhammed soothes. The kings of the islamic theocracies... and I'll be so bold as to place Iran in this catagory... have become expert at manipulating the rage of their peoples so as to deflect the expression of their pain onto the West and away from those that are directly responsible for their plight, their leaders themselves. The East has been mismanaged from the get go. We can keep trying to blame it on them, claiming they've "always" been fighting "over there" and will continue to do so forever. The price for those pseudo clean hands of ours can be set up on a payment plan, with horrors like 9/11 serving as installments. We also have the choice of owning the consequences of the West's past involvements reaching back to the spice trade and fixing that which we abandoned to disrepair and outrage. One needs to look no further than Cuba to see how well America's turning of a cold shoulder works in our favor. Had we followed the advice of our founding fathers and avoided entangling alliances with other nations, keeping our noses out of the business of others, maybe we wouldn't be finding ourselves in this position today. Personally, I blame the Europeans for being such pussies and dragging us into WWI, but I sigh and admit that it was our own leaders at that time that answered the call with their hearts in the right, albeit a misguided, place. As a libertarian, I firmly believe in isolationism and I can point to the mess it's absense in our policy has created as proof that my beliefs are correct. As a realist, however, and a responsible person, I can also see the need for fixing that which we had a hand in breaking. Can isolationism ever again be the official foreign policy of America? Probably not in my lifetime. There's just to much international work that needs to be done before such a policy could be considered reasonable and prudent. I do believe, however, that a return to such a policy, once we've helped repair the damage we've caused, should be the long term goal. In the mean time, there's work to do in the Middle East... |
||||
| Oct 7th, 2005 09:56 AM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pen...eda/index.html Pentagon: Bin Laden deputy complains about money, Iraq tactics U.S. says it obtained intercepted letter WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intercepted letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the al Qaeda leader in Iraq complains that the terrorist network is short of cash and faces defeat in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman says. The United States obtained a recent letter that appears to be from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 figure, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, outlining both the strategy and concerns of the terrorist network, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. In the letter, al-Zawahiri warns that some of the tactics currently employed by the insurgency, including the slaughtering of hostages and the suicide bombings of Muslim civilians, may risk alienating the "Muslim masses," Whitman said Thursday. Reading from a summary of the letter, Whitman said al-Zawahiri concedes that al Qaeda has lost many key leaders, is resigned to defeat in Afghanistan, and that its lines of communication and funding sources have been seriously disrupted. Al-Zawahiri includes a plea for financial support, indicating he is strapped for money, Whitman said. He could not say when the letter was intercepted or when authorities believe it might have been written. The lengthy communication was said to detail the strategy of Muslim extremists to push the United States out of Iraq and establish an Islamic state that could expand its form of governance to neighboring countries, Whitman said. Senior U.S. officials told CNN that the 6,000-word letter is believed to have been written within days of the July 7 terror attacks in London. Only parts of the letter have been made public, the officials said. The decision to confirm the existence of the letter came after an incomplete and partially inaccurate version was leaked to news organizations, the senior officials said. Earlier Thursday, President Bush made similar points about the terror network in what aides billed as a "major speech" on the war on terrorism, which was launched after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Bush repeated his long-standing contention that Iraq had become the central front in that conflict, and said a U.S. withdrawal from that currently unpopular conflict would leave behind a country ruled by bin Laden and al-Zarqawi. "We will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence," Bush said. (Full story) CNN's David Ensor contributed to this report. |
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 09:16 PM | |||||
| Chojin |
Quote:
|
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 07:21 PM | |||||
| GAsux |
I'm baised I suppose but I'll always be skeptical of the plan to "hand over" security in any country. With all of our training, professionalism, technology, etc, our efforts to combat the insurgency militarily are marginally beneficial. I don't have the slightest confidence that a hastily trained, marginally motivated Iraqi security force will fare better. The day you turn over control to the Iraqi security apparatus is the day you've lost. |
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 06:12 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1475581.htm Iraq U-turn on constitution vote rules Iraq's Parliament has reversed an earlier decision over rules governing a referendum next week on the country's new constitution. "They have reversed their decision as we had hoped they would," United Nations spokesman Said Arikat said in Baghdad. On Sunday, the Iraqi Parliament voted to change the rules for the referendum, saying that for it to be defeated, two thirds of registered voters in three of Iraq's 18 provinces would have to say "no", rather than two thirds of those who turn out to vote. The decision sparked a storm of protest, including from the UN. The UN said such an interpretation was unfair and did not meet international standards. But under pressure from the UN and the United States, the Iraqi Parliament has decided to revert to the original rules. The deputy speaker of the parliament, Hussain al-Shahristani, says a crucial clause in the interim constitution will be interpreted as meaning those who turn out to vote, not merely registered voters. "The 'voters' means those voters who are registered and who exercise that right," he told reporters, speaking in English. Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker who had campaigned against parliament's earlier decision, calling it a double standard, says he is pleased it has been reversed. "The decision the other day was wrong, it was unfair and it was not democratic," he told Reuters. "Now when we say voters, we mean those people who put their ballots in the box, as it should be." The earlier decision by parliament was rammed through by Shiites and Kurds, who dominate the chamber and who want to ensure that the constitution, largely drafted by them, is passed. Many Sunni Arabs, a minority in Iraq, reject the constitution, saying it favours the Shiites and Kurds, and are hoping they might be able to defeat it at the referendum if they can rally enough "no" votes. |
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 12:46 PM | |||||
| Dr. Boogie |
|
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 12:42 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
|
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 10:53 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
US Policymakers Despair of Iraqi Army By Martin Sieff United Press International Monday 03 October 2005 As Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, commented, "It doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that there is only one Iraqi battalion fully capable." US politicians and policymakers' perceptions towards the Iraq war have reached another tipping point: There is now a widespread recognition shared among senior uniformed US military officers and Washington foreign policy analysts that plans to rapidly build up the Iraqi army as a new, independent effective fighting force have failed disastrously. The Senate heard testimony last week from some of America's top generals that the war in Iraq is going worse than ever and that only 1 out of 119 Iraqi army and security battalions can operate by itself in combat situations without US military backup. Top US generals admitted in testimony Thursday to the Senate Armed Services Committee that only a single Iraqi battalion was prepared to operate on its own without US military support. This was a stunning decrease from the three battalions that US generals had assured Congress in previous testimony were ready to operate independently. The Iraqi army consists of 119 battalions. But the generals' testimony meant that after two and a half years of US efforts, only 750 men out of 200,000 can be relied upon to operate and obey orders independently in combat situations. As Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, commented, "It doesn't feel like progress when we hear today that there is only one Iraqi battalion fully capable." And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. bluntly told Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's most reliable uniformed hawk on Iraq, "Things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, Gen. Myers." Alarmed by the political breadth and intensity of the reaction to the generals' testimony, the Bush administration ordered its top generals into spin control mode over the weekend. Casey claimed to be more confident in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "There are peaks and valleys that you go through, but overall the trend is good," he said. We're certainly confident." And the same day he told ABC's "This Week" that the training of Iraqi forces was "very much on track." But that was not what he and other senior generals told lawmakers frankly that "Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time." And as the Washington Post's Dana Priest noted Monday, "It is not unusual for the administration to send out its top military commanders to clarify or speak more optimistically about operations after congressional testimony or independent statements to the media that appear more pessimistic than the administration's position." Commenting on the Congressional testimony, Anthony H. Cordesman who holds the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of America's most respected military analysts, said, "If only one battalion has the highest level of readiness, doesn't this mean that after some two and a half years of Coalition effort, less than 1 percent of the 86,900 men in the (Iraqi) Army have the highest level of readiness?" "The decline in the readiness of Iraqi forces described in (the) testimony is a major reversal for the United States," Cordesman said. "We expected to be far better off today, not only in terms of the highest readiness category, but the second. (category of readiness)." The generals reported that the Iraqi army now did have 35,500 men trained and equipped, but they did not specify how many of them were in units in the two highest categories of readiness? They also reported some 68,800 men in the regular Iraqi police as trained and equipped. but Cordesman expressed some skepticism at this claim. "We have reports of major problems in both measuring the effectiveness of police units and in bring them to the level of readiness required," he said. Nor did the generals specify how many of the Level One and Level Two (levels of readiness) units are primarily Shiite and Kurdish, Cordesman said. "How much of the cutting edge of Iraqi forces consists of largely ethnic and sectarian units?" he asked. "Isn't it true that almost all of the newly "trained and equipped" troops are Shiite?" Cordesman also noted that there had been serious problems in properly manning the US and Coalition advisory teams for the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior? Other major unaddressed problems with building up the Iraqi security forces, he said, included a lack of data about their missing and desertion rates, which are believed to be high and rising. Also, he said, in many critical areas, such as Basra, the primary Iraqi security forces are now completely different forces like hard-line Shiite militias, elements of the Badr Corps, and other forces over which the Coalition and Iraqi government has limited or no control and influence. Just as hawkish Republicans like Sen. McCain are now strongly and openly criticizing administration policy on Iraq, Democratic groups are taking much stronger positions in advocating major or even full withdrawals of US troops from there. On Friday, a well-funded and influential think tank with strong ties to the Clinton administration issued a new security report saying the United States should pull all of its troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. The report, entitled "Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists," was written by Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis and was issued by the Center for American Progress, a major Washington think tank run by John Podesta, Democratic President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. "By the end of 2006, the United States should take out 80,000 troops and it should announce after the Iraqi elections (scheduled for December) that we should be out (of Iraq) by the end of 2007, Korb, a senior fellow at CAP and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, told reporters. The United States should "keep some forces in Kuwait and over the horizon in the Gulf" on US warships, Korb said. The massive US military presence in Iraq, now nearly 150,000 troops, was counterproductive and jihadi fighters from around the world were learning expertise there that they could use in the United States and in other countries around the world against US targets, Korb said. The fact that the much-touted new Iraqi armed forces have been making almost no progress in defeating these forces in their own country, as the US generals admitted in their Senate testimony, didn't hurt Korb's case either. |
||||
| Oct 5th, 2005 09:37 AM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
What about martyrdom? Will this no longer be a noble and spiritual gesture in a democratic iraq? We're on the same page about religious co-existence, and I think we also agree about the positives of a free, deomocratic Iraq. But even the Islamic nations that are often held up as proto-types for how "it could be," such as Morocco, have produced killers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| Oct 4th, 2005 09:46 PM | |||||
| Preechr |
Islamic extremists can be as "extreme" as they wish as long as they are made to understand that convincing young, impressionable idiots that they should blow themselves up will not work out in their favor. You could make that arguement that we were better off with a repressed Iraq, but you'd have to go back to the 1980's to do so. It is just impossible for a modern, democratic, western civilization to deal with a totalitarian goon like Saddam. You lie with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Dealing with goons has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS left us with a black eye. I agree with you and max in that N. Korea, Saudi and Iran pose even greater dangers to our security for the same reasons Iraq was a threat: They have shitty governments. Saddam was weakened and was STILL difficult to replace. It's now common knowledge among the people of those countries the hardships faced by waiting until the US marches in and "fixes" things... If their own leaders get too far out of line, wouldn't you think they'd start to wonder if it'd be easier to take the task in hand for themselves? The mistakes we've made so far in Iraq work in our favor in this respect. Had we expertly zipped in to depose Saddam and promptly zipped out within weeks, leaving a model Democracy in our wake, the people of Iran, N.Korea and Saudi would have simply decided to sit and wait until we did the same thing for them. This way, our interference seems much more like a worst case scenario... Not that we really want to be sending troops their way any time soon anyway... Once the Iraqi people round the corner on their new government, whatever it is they've built will be seen as a shining example of whatever it is because THEY did it, not us. It will be THEIR OWN blood, sweat and tears they see in their nation and they will defend it just as we do ours. What we might have, in a "best case scenario," built for them flawlessly, they would not have appreciated nor understood. Dictators around the world demand less now and speak in more subtle tones, depite the fact that everybody knows we couldn't possibly manage another front in the war. Iraq is being rebuilt by Iraqis with a little help from a bigger, stronger nation. That surely sends a signal to the repressed people of other nations that it's up to them just how little "help" they get. It's probably going to best for everyone involved if they get up off their asses and overthrow their own despots... You say the problem is internal within Islam. I counter that Islam is their form of government as well as their religion, and thus we agree. The spiritual side of Islam is just as good as any other religion as far as I'm concerned, and I see no good coming from chastising a people for their spiritual beliefs. Most religions suffer from a sense of superiority, and most have set out to conquer and subjugate the unbelievers at one time or another. It's just what we do when we think we're right, isn't it? I will likely argue with you until one day I convince you you are in fact a libertarian, just like me. I will be right, and you will admit you've always been wrong. You will probably want to kiss my butt, but I'm a nice guy and I'll probably spare you the humiliation you deserve for being so wrong for so long. When I finally do convince you of the error of your ways, it will not be because I tracked you down and blew up your car, killing your wife and kids. We are ideologically chained to a similar set of limitations to our conflicts. A small faction of Islamic evangelists have decided to loose those chains for whatever reason, and we are in the process of proving to them that, in a civilized society, there is never a good enough reason for terrorism, and that it will never be tolerated. If they choose, as has the IRA, to lay down their arms and seek more acceptable solutions to their problems, we will help them as we are the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Africa and South Korea and Chechnya and... damn, we're helping a bunch of folks... If, however, they choose to continue their "jihad," we will continue to exterminate their terrorist soldiers and every once and a while even the leaders will get caught up in the killing. It will only become more difficult to recruit, and operations will become more dangerous and less effective. If they truly believe themselves to be leaders of their people, don't you think they'll eventually realize that they'll be doing their people no good if they're dead? |
||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||
