Say Anything Blog

Or maybe he’s serving up the red meat he knows it’s gonna take to dodge Democrat obstruction on his appointment?

Fileitunder.com

Mike, there’s a difference between “we’re not winning now” and “we can’t win at all.”

Gates favors a change in tactics.  At this point I don’t think there’s many people who disagree with that.  The question that needs answering is what the nature of the change will be.

Will we give up on our mission in Iraq and return to a foreign policy that promotes stability, even if it means tolerating tyranny, or will we rededicate ourselves to the Bush doctrine of supporting the aspirations to liberty of all people?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Or maybe he’s serving up the red meat he knows it’s gonna take to dodge Democrat obstruction on his appointment?

Ain’t it illegal to lie during these thingies?

Will we give up on our mission in Iraq and return to a foreign policy that promotes stability, even if it means tolerating tyranny, or will we rededicate ourselves to the Bush doctrine of supporting the aspirations to liberty of all people?

Rob
I assume when you say “all people” you include Sunnis… I went through a lot of trouble pointing out that your whole ‘Bush doctrine of supporting the aspirations to liberty of all people’ is simply bullshit when applied to the current state of affairs in Iraq. Remember the post about how the democracy Iraq has is not fair and is actually inciting more violence by not providing a political voice or veto to the Sunni minority? Until Bush makes a bona fide attempt at anything remotely like what you describe why don’t you give it a rest? Its just more hot air like the rest of the BS y’all spout about Iraq…

MikeA: I suppose you believe that Robert Byrd(the questioner) has not partisan bias?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

That should be “...no partisan bias...”

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

MikeAdamson:

There’s no shortage of SA readers who think that the battle in Iraq is being won...maybe this Gates nomination should be rethought

I see Mike’s getting a little testy here!  Here’s Gate’s clarification:

Later, he clarified his remark, saying the United States wasn’t losing either and that his comment pertained to Iraq as a whole, not just as a military endeavor.

I actually think that the current course would eventually succeed, because all or most of the right steps are already being taken, the big thing is the balance needs to be adjusted, as describe by Rumsfeld’s memo.  “The right steps” includes training the Iraqi security forces as well as other steps such as forging alliances between the US and Sunni tribes already being done in the Anbar region by the US Special Forces.  Thus...it would be bloody as Hell, but it would succeed absent a Murtha maneuver.

Like most people, I agree that significant and substantial adjustments should be taken.  And like Rumsfeld, I think it’s going to be a waste of time talking nice to Syria and Iran, even though I think we should still try.

If you really want to the answer to the specific question “What would happen if we made no course adjustments?” seems like you would have to ask that one, instead of trying to read tea leaves to divine the answer.  It’s really unfortunate that the left is still more interested in trying to score points than to figure out how to resolve this regional conflict.

Sparkie:

I assume when you say “all people” you include Sunnis… I went through a lot of trouble pointing out that your whole ‘Bush doctrine of supporting the aspirations to liberty of all people’ is simply bullshit when applied to the current state of affairs in Iraq.

The Sunni Arabs don’t want parity or an equal share in Iraq.  They want greater than equal representation in parliament as well as a share of oil revenues from other provinces.  (Lessee, Alaska should divide its oil revenue equally with the other 49 states.  Right?) And they want everything to be forgiven from those 30 years where they indiscriminately slaughtered members of the other ethnic groups while they drove the country down into the toilet.  And of course they’re funding the “insurgency” that is attacking and killing Kurds and Shi’ites.

So ... whom exactly should we be upset with here?

Carrick
Unfortunately your anger should be to no avail - But it is. I never said the Sunnis should have all that. Give them a veto. Perhaps Iraq will have a gridlocked democracy, but so be it. The reality then will be diplomacy - the only way to make things happen in that scenario. Now they are outraged and fighting as that has become the only means.
Holding things against these people should be done on a level where the direct causal responsibility for atrocities et cetera is high. Beyond that, holding such things as the general economic outcomes against an entire block of the population is BS. The outside world tacitly consented and aided Saddam to exploit his people since he came to power. Furthermore, those attitudes will prolong the Iraq war indefinitely.
I know you righties need a clear and identifiable alien thing to point to and hate, fight, be upset with, et cetera… I don’t think the Sunnis as a group deserve to be that thing. Maybe the neo-cons should go back to the drawing table and fabricate a new alien monster thing. I heard Gates is good at ramming lies, spending-inducing, and fear-inducing propaganda down the countries throat - let’s get those commies! ...I mean Islamics.

Try that again, Sparkie.  I’m not sure quite what you’re trying to say with that ramble.

If you’re not proposing a greater than equal share of power in Iraq for the Sunni Arabs, what exactly are you proposing?

As to a “veto”???  What veto are you referring to?  You had mentioned in a previous post a veto for the Kurds… but that was during the Provisional Authority days, and is now defunct.  There isn’t anything in the ratified constitution about any veto that I could find.

I’m not proposing punitive measures, I’m merely saying “they sure as hell don’t have any claim for special consideration after the ‘bang up’ job they did.” You’re claiming otherwise?

And who said I was angry about anything?  You’re the only one spitting venom.  Really, you need to calm down and start making sense.

And who said I was angry about anything?

you did

So ... whom exactly should we be upset with here?

My point is clear. The oil controlling ethnic groups control the government. 100%. They are not 100% of the population. The Sunnis have no political means to instigate diplomacy such as, for example, a veto. Something like that or a filibuster… is needed. A kick in the democracy pants. As I argued before… a country that is not ethnically and geographically divided does not necessarily need this measure for democracy, but Iraq does.

Sparkie: The Sunnis(20% of the population) controlled Iraq for about 30 years, and you know how well that worked out.  Now, they should thank their lucky stars they have a proportional voice in the govt at all.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Sparkie Arbuckle said, I know you righties need a clear and identifiable alien thing to point to and hate, fight, be upset with, et cetera… I don’t think the Sunnis as a group deserve to be that thing. Maybe the neo-cons should go back to the drawing table and fabricate a new alien monster thing.

And this is what passes for political commentary among some members of the left. Sad, really, but Sparkie did stumble upon a point, which will be demonstrated in my next point.

I heard Gates is good at ramming lies, spending-inducing, and fear-inducing propaganda down the countries throat - let’s get those commies! ...I mean Islamics.

Commies and Islamics - both totalitarian groups, in both nature and practice. One is imperialistic totalitarian government and the other is imperialistic totalitarian religion. Both have historically had bloody borders. Given that, who needs “fear-inducing propaganda” when we can point to hundreds of millions who have died under both communism and Islamicism? Who needs to “fabricate” anything when the record is clear for all to see?

Through your snark, Sparkie Arbuckle, you stumble upon something. You don’t seem to recognize that of which you stumbled upon, but I hope that it is a start.

Me:

And who said I was angry about anything?

Sparkie:

you did

Point to me me where I said “I’m angry”.  I’d like to see that.

Sparkie:

My point is clear.

Your point is mush.  You simply have NFI what you are talking about in this case.  Currently, national revenue shared by all the provinces, which is codified in their constitution, under Articles 110 and 111.  What the Sunni’s are demanding is a share of revenue from privately owned future fields, since these would not be covered under the constitution.  And they have no rights to it, since it is a democratic society.  As I have said before (at least now I understand why it flew over your head), this is like the other 49 states demanding a share of the private revenue from the state of Alaska.

Sunnis have no political means to instigate diplomacy such as, for example, a veto.

Or a teepee.

Seriously, WTF are you talking about?  Tell us how to change the Iraqi constitution so that Sunnis as a bloc have a veto.  And exactly what should they have a veto for? Everything?  You make very little sense as usual.

I know you righties need a clear and identifiable alien thing to point to and hate, fight, be upset with, et cetera…

Sparkie,

Of course we do.  That’s about the only reason we tolerate your sorry foolishness.

One last comment:

a country that is not ethnically and geographically divided does not necessarily need this measure for democracy, but Iraq does.

Actually, minority parties wield an undue influence in a parliamentary system such as Iraq, as long as the high population group is less than 50%.  In order to form a government, you have to have 50% of the vote.  This generally means that the small fringe groups have a great amount of leverage compared to their percentage of the populace, because they get a fair amount of concessions to join in the new government.

I actually think that Iraq would be better off with a representational democracy like the US.  It’s more complex, but our electoral system and bicameral legislature does divide power between the small states and the large ones much more evenly than one based simply on plurality.  No doubt, in another thread, we will see Sparkie rant about the evils of our electoral system...because he’s just clueless.

The problem for the Sunnis is not that they are underrepresented or have no power, it’s just that when they have been given the opportunity to participate, they have not done so to the degree as other groups.  Naturally, Sparkie will blame everybody else besides the people responsible for their own fate for this, the Sunnis in this case, but the bottom line is the Sunnis have screwed the pooch more than once during this democratization process, by failing to fully participate in the system.  Sucks to be them.

We already defeated Iraq.  We already liberated millions of Iraqis. We are killing terrorists in Iraq, because as everyone knows Iraq is the current front in the war on terror. 

We are not securing Iraq as quickly as we would all like to.  The violence isn’t being quenched.  Stability for the Iraqi gov’t seems to be slipping away.  The terrorist propaganda is affecting world opinion. 

The war against terror is clearly being won.  The battle for security and stability in Iraq isn’t. 

I wonder… what was the context of the question and answer?