Lieberman's Senate Race Shows Why Cut-and-Runners Are Wrong

[Pangloss]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13528837/site/newsweek/

 

In short, Lieberman faces a serious challenge in August against a candidate who's almost entirely known as an anti-war candidate. Lamont, who is described here as a "wealthy Greenwich cable-television executive", is polling well and shows every sign of being able to beat Lieberman in August.

 

But this quote is particularly revealing about Lamont's true nature:

 

Lamont, who says a deadline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would "change the dynamic of things," is serving an unmet demand from many Democrats. He says his position is "Murtha's, probably." (Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq.) Lamont says the administration's position—America will stand down as Iraqi forces stand up—is backward: "They won't stand up until we stand down."

 

Nonsense. There's absolutely no indication that the Iraqi forces are either being held back or are holding themselves back in any way. None. Everything we know about the situation in Iraq indicates that they're standing up as fast as they possibly can, gradually taking on increasing responsibilities and moving towards being able to take over. Experts have been constantly telling us that it will take a very long time for these forces to become ready. Well obviously if they're not ready, they can't stand up.

[ecoli]

Nonsense. There's absolutely no indication that the Iraqi forces are either being held back or are holding themselves back in any way. None. Everything we know about the situation in Iraq indicates that they're standing up as fast as they possibly can, gradually taking on increasing responsibilities and moving towards being able to take over. Experts have been constantly telling us that it will take a very long time for these forces to become ready. Well obviously if they're not ready, they can't stand up.

 

If these guys thinks building a government overnight is possible, they should remember that the declaration of independance was signed in 1776, but the constitution was not ratified until 1788, and did come into effect until 1789.

 

I know it's hard to have patience when it's our money being spent, but it's better to have patience and spend the money now, then to repeat the fiasco in 20 years.

[Jim]

If these guys thinks building a government overnight is possible' date=' they should remember that the declaration of independance was signed in 1776, but the constitution was not ratified until 1788, and did come into effect until 1789.

 

I know it's hard to have patience when it's our money being spent, but it's better to have patience and spend the money now, then to repeat the fiasco in 20 years.[/quote']

 

Another example was our rebuilding of Germany after WWII. The US faced terrorism from Werewolves until 1947 from a movement that had been completely discredited and faced total occupation.

 

The harsh truth is that it takes far less effort, intelligence and courage to destroy than it does to build.

 

Boxer on Sunday's face the nation was particularly shameless. She argued that Gen. Casey's plan validates the Dem's plan for a time table. She knows better, surely?

 

She also argued that the only reason for staying is so Bush and Cheney can prove they were right.

 

Fortunately, President Bush understands that he has two more years to get this right and that far more than his legacy will be shaped by the far reaching implications of success or failure.

[Mokele]

The US faced terrorism from Werewolves until 1947

 

Um....you do know you're only supposed to take one square of the blotter paper, not the whole sheet, right?

[Jim]

Um....you do know you're only supposed to take one square of the blotter paper, not the whole sheet, right?

 

Sorry, not to be obtuse but you're going to have to tell me what you mean.

[Mokele]

Ahh, blotter paper is what LSD is stored on, in sheets of numerous doses. The reference to terrorist werewolves sounded either very trippy, or oddly like a bit of fiction I'm working on (not that such commonality bodes well for my sanity).

[KLB]

Ahh, blotter paper is what LSD is stored on, in sheets of numerous doses. The reference to terrorist werewolves sounded either very trippy, or oddly like a bit of fiction I'm working on (not that such commonality bodes well for my sanity).

 

Okay, this will prove that I'm a History Channel adict, however, some of the countless WWII History Channel programs have discussed an insergent movement in Germany after the fall of Germany that called themselves Werewolves and they tried to undermine Allied occupation forces using terrorist tactics similar to the insergets in Iraq today.

[Jim]

Okay, this will prove that I'm a History Channel adict, however, some of the countless WWII History Channel programs have discussed an insergent movement in Germany after the fall of Germany that called themselves Werewolves and they tried to undermine Allied occupation forces using terrorist tactics similar to the insergets in Iraq today.

 

I'd meant to include a link but was pressed for time.

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAB/is_6_113/ai_n8693890

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0867211970/sr=8-2/qid=1151425120/ref=sr_1_2/102-5147824-0328955?ie=UTF8

[Mokele]

Interesting stuff. You must admit, though, it certainly sounds weird as initially phrased. Good for WTF value.

[Sisyphus]

If these guys thinks building a government overnight is possible' date=' they should remember that the declaration of independance was signed in 1776, but the constitution was not ratified until 1788, and did come into effect until 1789.

 

I know it's hard to have patience when it's our money being spent, but it's better to have patience and spend the money now, then to repeat the fiasco in 20 years.[/quote']

 

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1777, in the midst of a war with a much more powerful enemy and at that point largely unsupported by anyone. The Iraqis have a powerful army helping them, and they still can't stop killing each other, let alone stand up to a foreign threat.

 

Not that I think we should leave, but don't pretend the trouble they're having is normal. A unified, democratic Iraqi state is a very unnatural thing right now, and if we insist on forcing it that way anyway, we ARE going to pay for it.

[Nevermore]

Pangloss, maybe you should change your signiture.

[Pangloss]

Nevermore, maybe you should focus on substantive replies instead of cheap shots.

[ecoli]

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1777' date=' in the midst of a war with a much more powerful enemy and at that point largely unsupported by anyone. The Iraqis have a powerful army helping them, and they still can't stop killing each other, let alone stand up to a foreign threat.

 

Not that I think we should leave, but don't pretend the trouble they're having is normal. A unified, democratic Iraqi state is a very unnatural thing right now, and if we insist on forcing it that way anyway, we ARE going to pay for it.[/quote']

 

The articles make a good point about the Iraqi war. The first 'constitution' didn't work out for the American people, so we were forced to try again. As with Iraq, we may try different solutions that don't work for everyone, we have to give it time.

 

And in the meantime, hope that our army and our culture can weed out the extremists willing to do harm.

 

But what you said is true, right now, a unified Iraqi state isn't going to work, which is why we can't leave, or the country may well descend into anarchy and political squabbling.

[Sisyphus]

Or we could try out a less unified state, like in the Articles. Three largely autonomous states in northern, central, and southern Iraq, who share a military, oil revenues and Baghdad. Most of the violence in Iraq is not anti-American (although there's obviously a lot of that too) but Sunni vs. Shiite. Neither wants to be ruled by or rule with the the other, so why force them to? Trying to force the U.S. to adopt the Constitution we have now in 1777 would have done nothing but break up the Union and allow the British to regain control.

[ecoli]

I see nothing wrong with that, but, of course, I'm not exactly in charge of things, so I can't make your suggestions happen.

[KLB]

The problem with a "three state" solution is that all of the oil is in Shiite and Kurdish held areas. The Sunni areas have far less oil reserves.

[Pangloss]

Actually we talked about this recently and the "three state" plan suggested by Senator Biden takes that into consideration. The sticking point is just getting all three parties to agree, but it's actually a "win" for all three parties. The method is to have all of the oil pooled into a single, state-run resource.

 

The "win" for the Shiites is that the southern oil fields, while largest, are completely undeveloped. A lot of money will have to be spent there in order to develop those resources. (Interestingly, the United Nations is requiring that the oil industry in Iraq be unified under a single corporate entity before international investment in the country can take place (i.e. those sanctions are lifted).)

 

The Kurds win because they have an "oil future" once their oil is used up. (Kinda silly, IMO -- that's the oldest oil resource in the entire middle east region and one of the oldest oil sites in the entire world, and it still shows no signs of slowing, but at least it appeases any Peak Oil fearniks amongst the Kurds.)

 

And of course the Sunnis win because they have no oil, so they get to participate in both systems.

 

As to why the Kurds and Shiites would want to include the Sunnis in this plan at all, they'd do that because we tell them to. And they "win" because we provide international investment.

 

Everybody wins.

[KLB]

The three state one oil company plan could work, but I think so much of the problems in the Middle East was brought upon the Middle East by the West that we should't force any "solution" upon them.

 

I do know that Turkey is really concerned about the Kurds having an independant state because it could cause Turkish Kurds to demand independence.

[ecoli]

The three state one oil company plan could work, but I think so much of the problems in the Middle East was brought upon the Middle East by the West that we should't force any "solution" upon them.

 

How can you blame the west for Muslim religious conflict?

[Sisyphus]

How can you blame the west for Muslim religious conflict?

 

He's probably referring to inept colonial rule by the Ottomans, arbitrary national borders by the British, and the formation of the state of Israel.

[KLB]

He's probably referring to inept colonial rule by the Ottomans, arbitrary national borders by the British, and the formation of the state of Israel.

Exactly! This is what I am referring to. The borders for Iraq were arbitrarily drawn and did not take into account any cultural/ethnic considerations. For instance, Kurds are very different from Turks, Sunnis and Shiites, Yet this group was essentially split in half with half of the population being ruled by Turks and the other half being ruled by what became Iraq.

 

Had the British had any cultural considerations, they would have created a separate state of Kurdistan out of what are the Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iraq. We see the same boneheaded drawing of borders during the breakup of the British Empire throughout the Middle East and Africa. It has created ethnic minorities all over that ended up being repressed, creating all kinds of ethnic strife.

 

Any time an ethnic group gets arbitrarily split like happened with the Kurds and then turned into an artificial minority it is bound to create resentment and conflict.

[john5746]

Had the British had any cultural considerations' date=' they would have created a separate state of Kurdistan out of what are the Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iraq. We see the same boneheaded drawing of borders during the breakup of the British Empire throughout the Middle East and Africa. It has created ethnic minorities all over that ended up being repressed, creating all kinds of ethnic strife.[/quote']

 

And if they split them ethnically, maybe there would be little countries in constant battle with each other. No, the real problem is they "cut and run" instead of staying the course. Why, if Bush was in control, the Brits would still be there, trying to make things perfect.

[Skye]

I don't think you'll find a country in the world that doesn't have ethnic minorities, I don't think you could create one. Even if you split Iraq up into Kurdish and Sunni and Shia Arab states, what about other groups, like Armenians?

[Pangloss]

The three state one oil company plan could work' date=' but I think so much of the problems in the Middle East was brought upon the Middle East by the West that we should't force any "solution" upon them.

 

I do know that Turkey is really concerned about the Kurds having an independant state because it could cause Turkish Kurds to demand independence.[/quote']

 

The Biden plan doesn't call for three independant states, it calls for Iraq to be divided into three sub-states, much like the way the United States is divided into 50 "states".

 

As for the west interfering in middle-eastern affairs, I think the horse is several miles away from the barn on that one.

[Pangloss]

Exactly! This is what I am referring to. The borders for Iraq were arbitrarily drawn and did not take into account any cultural/ethnic considerations. For instance' date=' Kurds are very different from Turks, Sunnis and Shiites, Yet this group was essentially split in half with half of the population being ruled by Turks and the other half being ruled by what became Iraq.

 

Had the British had any cultural considerations, they would have created a separate state of Kurdistan out of what are the Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iraq. We see the same boneheaded drawing of borders during the breakup of the British Empire throughout the Middle East and Africa. It has created ethnic minorities all over that ended up being repressed, creating all kinds of ethnic strife.

 

Any time an ethnic group gets arbitrarily split like happened with the Kurds and then turned into an artificial minority it is bound to create resentment and conflict.[/quote']

 

All of this is true, but Iraq has a solid national identity. Just ask any Iraqi, as many polls since the Iraq war have done, and they'll tell you -- most of them think of themselves as Iraqis first, and their religious affiliation second.