Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I think the people that kept saying Iraq was "on the brink" of a civil war (or even in one) were the ones hallucinating. How long do you think it will take them to admit they were wrong? Years? Decades? Millenia?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >>They said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given. << McClellan says differently. And he was in a position to know. As much as you may want to discredit him, you can't. It must be awfully inconvenient to continue with these dog-eared talking points when even the white house spokesman says they're not true. >> How long do you think it will take them to admit they were wrong? Years? Decades? Millenia? << One of two things will likely happen - obama will be elected president and he will commence with an orderly withdrawal of troops, and iraq will descend into a form of 'civil war' - sunni vs shia vs kurds. Or - McCain will be elected president and we'll continue being the cork in the bottle for the forseeable future. Which would you rather see? Is it worth our hundreds of billions of dollars and american lives to artificially hold iraq together? I say no. We've given them every opportunity to sort out their internal strife and gain a measure of stability. So far they've squandered it. And with an open-ended commitment from us, they have no incentive to find a resolve. What's in it for us if we continue the occupation? Military "super-bases" in iraq? To what purpose? An invasion of iran? A nation that has NEVER shown any inclination at expansion or conquest. Perhaps to bend them to our will and our way of thinking? It'll never happen - it's clear that these people are fanatical and we're never going to be aligned. The preservation of israel? We can do that without the need to occupy a sovereign nation. The continuance of the military/industrial complex? Endless war? Bingo. There's your GOP wet dream. Warmongering for the rest of our days. And it's one of the chief reasons they need to be turned out in november. It's up to us.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I just find it difficult to believe that the world's opinion of us will automatically change if Obama, or anyone else, is president. I believe that a majority of people living outside of the U.S. have no idea what the difference between a Republican and Democrat is and will not make much of a distinction between Bush and Obama.>> I don't doubt that many Brazilians' opinions of the US were formed well before Bush took office and that those opinions will remain unchanged by who we elect subsequently. Same for Peruvians. And Canadians. And Germans, and Israelis, and Lebanese, and the Dutch. I'm not romanticizing foreigners. I don't think that every Argentinian peasant or every British white-collar worker is a braniac with a passion for following American politics. But I do think that people of other countries tend to be more informed about international politics than Americans are. And I do think that a significant -- and consequential -- number of world citizens have have formed an opinion on the actions of Bush, specifically. And that they will take note of whether Americans will now elect the "like-Bush" or the "not-like-Bush" candidate. Of course there are people in foreign countries who won't follow our election or let it affect the stereotype they already have of the US. That doesn't change the fact that there ARE numerous and influential people who WILL take note that the American people did (or did not) choose to elect another Bush-like president.
Originally Posted By X-san For the record, most Japanese I've spoken to don't really have a strong concept of the differences between Democrats and Republicans (for example, many of them assumed that Reagan and Clinton were "on the same team" based on their two terms and level of popularity, something I think is pretty common in Japan where the popular party tends to remain far longer). They all hate George Bush though (who doesn't?).
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo In the UK, the US elections has been high on the news agendas. Especially the debate between Obama and Clinton. In fact my British colleagues seem to discuss it more than I, but in a way it is to be expected as we are government advisors. But even the average joe seems to get it, and we are all wishing that November would hurry up.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I think the people that kept saying Iraq was "on the brink" of a civil war (or even in one) were the ones hallucinating. How long do you think it will take them to admit they were wrong? Years? Decades? Millenia?" Never? Watch what happens when we leave. That's why it's idiotic to think we can "win" over there, according to your definition. It doesn't matter if we pull out today, next month, or 2020. They'll start bombing each other the minute the door slams shut on us. It all goes back to the mantra- what part of 1500 years of sectarian violence don't you understand?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As much as you may want to discredit him, you can't.> He's discredited himself. He either didn't understand what was going on around him, or he purposefully lied about it, or he's lying now. I think it's the first. <Is it worth our hundreds of billions of dollars and american lives to artificially hold iraq together? I say no. We've given them every opportunity to sort out their internal strife and gain a measure of stability. So far they've squandered it.> But they haven't. The government is coming together and taking charge. <What's in it for us if we continue the occupation?> An ally in the region. A model for the rest of the Muslim world. <A nation that has NEVER shown any inclination at expansion or conquest.> Then why are they building nuclear weapons and funding terrorists?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Although the administration did its best in the run-up to the war to sell us on the idea that there was one, usually being careful to avoid saying so directly, but using every opportunity to forge the connection in the minds of the public.>> <They said what they believed, based on the intelligence that they were given.> It must be comforting for you to believe that. They intentionally misled us into war. There was no other reason for the talking points to be so carefully aligned, for them to rarely fail to mention Iraq and 9/11, or Iraq and bin Laden in the same paragraph. When we invaded Iraq, something like 70% of the US public thought Saddam was BEHIND 9/11. They didn't get that idea from nowhere. The administration carefully planted and nurtured that idea, for many months. You can try to deny this, but that won't wash. <<That Saddam supported these groups was not an adequate rationale for invading and occupying that country.>> <Of course it wasn't, and nobody said it was. It was a whole bunch of things that were considered together - Saddam's links to terrorism, his pursuit of WMD's, his thwarting the UN inspections, his oppression of his people, his threats against his neighbors, his defiance of the UN, and the deterioration of sanctions against him, all pointed to the idea that he needed to be removed, sooner rather than later.> No. Even taken together that was not an adequate rationale. The monumental step of invading and occupying a country must only be taken as a LAST resort, not a goal you set for yourself and then "fix the intelligence around" as the British put it. It must only be done if there truly is no other option. And there were. We manage threats in many ways. North Korea and Iran today, the soviets for 40+ years. Invasion was neither necessary nor wise. As for your fantasy that we're now "winning," give me a break. It's been abundantly clear to all but the blinkered for some time now that the surge was never about "winning." It was about Bush running out the clock. So that when the fighting resumes (and it will after we leave), he and his partisans can say "not our fault" and blame on whoever is in office at the time. You heard it here first, folks: if Obama is elected, Doug will blame Iraq's fighting on Obama, rather than on the person who created the power vacuum in the first place and made the power struggle inevitable. All the surge is doing is temporarily "keeping the cork in the bottle" as gadzuux put it.
Originally Posted By PetesDraggin "That doesn't change the fact that there ARE numerous and influential people who WILL take note that the American people did (or did not) choose to elect another Bush-like president." That's a good point, Inspector. I guess my problem is that all politicians, especially the president, have left me very skeptical and hopeless. I would love to believe that everything will be better if Obama becomes president, but he's just another in a long list of untrustworthy candidates in my book. Do I find any of the candidates trustworthy? Absolutely not. But I can't remember the last time I actually chose one candidate over the other rather than picking the lesser of two evils. And this election is looking like it will be the same.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes351011.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/oes/current...1011.htm</a> <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos161.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos161.htm</a> Check out these two pages for more information than you ever wanted to know about being a chef. According to the government it looks like a head chef may start out a little less than $30,000 a year and the best of the best end up at $65,000 in today's dollars, though cookbook sales may add more to that .
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP oops--wrong thread ignor the above post, as a matter of fact someone could admin it and it would be fine with me!!
Originally Posted By Elderp Oooh I soo caught MrsP. She said I am silly for reading in WE... Who's the lurker now? I can't believe she even tried to get herself admin'd just to hid her tracks. She is so busted...
Originally Posted By woody >>You heard it here first, folks: if Obama is elected, Doug will blame Iraq's fighting on Obama, rather than on the person who created the power vacuum in the first place and made the power struggle inevitable. All the surge is doing is temporarily "keeping the cork in the bottle" as gadzuux put it.<< If Saddam was still in power, we would be the ones putting the cork on his power. And who knows how much longer he has to live before the power struggles erupt again and again. The alternative wasn't any better, but I suppose we would still have the dirty hands of keeping a brutal dictator in power. Is this the more moral choice? BTW, we will blame any president for whatever is happening in the middle east whether it is warranted or not. Besides, it will be Obama's policies which will be judged for its effectiveness. If Obama withdrawals from Iraq and things happen, the blood is in his hands... like it or not.
Originally Posted By mele LOL, Mrs.Elderp! I was trying to figure out what part of the thread I had missed.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If Saddam was still in power, we would be the ones putting the cork on his power. << We were already doing that for thirteen years before the invasion. Saddam was effectively contained. Remember, he didn't have any WMD and he didn't have a capable army. He was a paper tiger - no threat to anybody. >> Is this the more moral choice? << Compared to what actually happened? Absolutely. >> we will blame any president for whatever is happening in the middle east whether it is warranted or not. << No - whatever the outcome of iraq is, it will be bush's legacy. It's his war all the way. >> If Obama withdrawals from Iraq and things happen, the blood is in his hands... like it or not. << Nope. But it's because of people who think like this that bush pushed this through the end of his term. Like the weasel that he is - never accepting any accountability. The 'surge' was ostensibly to facilitate a reconciliation that's never happened. The administration never effectively pushed for one either - that's condoleeza's job, and nothing happened. Instead, what "really" happened, is that the surge (along with MASSIVE cash payouts in the tens of millions) has allowed bush to effectively run out the clock so he can duck out and leave the dirty work to the next guy who sits in the chair. How noble. In McClellan's interviews going on around the cable news channels, he's saying that bush thought that being a 'wartime president' was a ticket to greatness. Only problem is that bush isn't a great man - in fact he's a rather small one, but with visions of grandeur for himself and his legacy - all on the backs and blood of others. People - and history - will know exactly where to place the responsibility for the chaos and bungling in iraq, and it won't be obama. Time will not be kind to bush - or even the people that enabled him by their support. They were on the wrong side the whole time, but didn't have the vision or reason to see it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The alternative wasn't any better, but I suppose we would still have the dirty hands of keeping a brutal dictator in power. Is this the more moral choice?> What's the more moral choice in Korea right now? Should we allow Kim, a worse tyrant than Saddam, to remain in power, or should we invade and occupy Korea? What's more moral is arguable - but what's wiser for our country is obviously that we not invade and occupy that country. It's a sad fact that there are tyrants and dictators all over the world. We can't just be invading and deposing and occupying all those countries. We can only take that monumental step of invasion and occupation when absolutely necessary - and Iraq did not rise to that level.
Originally Posted By X-san ***We can only take that monumental step of invasion and occupation when absolutely necessary*** Actually, we're not really supposed to do that EVER. Unless they attack us first. But those that believe I'm wrong probably also supported Korea and Vietnam. Two OH so proud pinnacles of American history.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If Obama withdrawals from Iraq and things happen, the blood is in his hands... like it or not." Like it or not woody, your statement is ridiculous. That's like saying if you pull someone from a burning building it's your fault they were there in the first place. Or that if you save the person, and they ended up living a miserable life as a result of their unjuries, that's your fault too because you should have just left them there to die and not suffer for years. Which actually happened to my father in law. I've told this dtory before. He was LAPD. 30 years ago, he gets to the scene of an auto accident. A carful of people are trapped. Fuel is leaking everywhere. He jumps on the hood of the car, tears out the windshield with his bare hands (permanently ruining both shoulders in the process as it later turns out), and saves everyone. Later, he gets sued by the same family he saved. They said one of their number ended up a vegetable and had no quality of life. He should have left him there to die. Nice, eh?
