This should be interesting. Saddam Hussein, whose gun is a trophy in the Oval Office (am I the only one creeped out by that?) has been sentenced to death, along with several of his co-conspirators, for crimes against humanity.
Obviously I ain’t shedding a tear over his fate. I am reminded, though, that he was once an ally of the United States. And I am also pondering the repeated assertions by the President and all his spokesmen that we cannot “cut and run” and must instead remain in Iraq “until the job is done.”
Well…it’s done. Buh bye.
Our “job,” as laid out repeatedly by the administration, was to disempower Saddam Hussein and get his weapons of mass destruction. Well, there’s no WMDs, so that is never going to happen. And Saddam is slated to be executed. I don’t think you can be more out of power than being dead.
The only other job that remains is to get the Iraqis to stop killing each other. Here’s a news flash: Not going to happen. They’re going to keep killing each other over differences that go back since God-knows-when, and our presence is not going to deter that. The only presence that deterred it at all was Saddam’s, and the way he deterred it was through means so fierce and brutal that he was judged guilty of crimes against humanity. Now he will die but the killing will continue. And with him as a martyr, it will likely intensify. In the meantime there are people in charge of Iraq now who are our allies, but ten years from now, I will not be remotely surprised if they or someone else are using the exact same tactics that Saddam used to try and keep order. I don’t think we’ll ever know whether Saddam shaped the circumstances or if the circumstances shaped him. But we sure know that perfectly decent, upstanding service men and women were thrust into a situation where they had to keep order in a prison and they turned almost overnight into people whose actions were unrecognizable to their loved ones. So don’t tell me that Iraq won’t see the return of executions and secret death camps within the next few years, and then what? We start carpet bombing again?
Here’s what we know for sure: Iraqis are going to keep killing each other, will not be stopping anytime soon, and will doubtless ratchet up the body count once Saddam is a martyr. They’ll do it whether our young men and women are there or not. The ONLY question anyone should be considering is if our people should be killed while the Iraqis are going about killing each other, and whether anything is to be gained from their deaths.
I don’t think so.
Our job is done. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to acknowledge that it’s up to the Iraqis. I opt for sooner. There’s nothing undignified or wrongheaded about cutting and running. The administration has tried to characterize that notion as dirty and stupid…you know, just like they’ve done with the word “liberal.” I find it funny that phrases they don’t want to deal with, such as “death” or “slaughter,” becomes “collateral damage” or “acceptable losses.” But “cut and run” doesn’t get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It’s not “cut and run.” Call it “strategic withdrawal.” Call it “organized troop relocation.” Call it whatever you want that will save lives.
In the words of the shepherd, let’s get the flock out of there. Because when Saddam dies, that place is very likely going to erupt whether we’re there or not. I vote not.
PAD
• 
“You broke it, you buy it” only goes so far. When the shop owners continue to break what you’re trying to buy, I think your obligation to pay for what you’ve broken goes away.
No one likes to lose. But PAD summarized the mission pretty well: eliminate the chance that Iraq might provide WMDs to terrorist groups that want to target the US. Saddam was supposed to be the lynchpin of that scheme. We’ve not found WMDs, and Saddam is about to permanently check out of the terrorist web. It sounds like mission accomplished to me.
And it’s becomingly increasingly apparant that continued US presence isn’t helping. Iraq’s going to have to defend itself. We can’t continue to occupy Iraq…what good will it do the US to fight against the terrorist if we bankrupt ourselves in the process? Maybe, if the US government changes it’s approach, and actually increases taxes to the point where we can sustain a military occupation of Iraq while running a surplus, we can afford to stay. But that’s not likely to be the case. Both in terms of human life and money, the US cannot afford to maintain a protracted military presence in Iraq.
This isnt a shop where you broke something. Its a private house, you werent invited and you still havent payed what you broke.
The part when you state that it is not in your interest to stay in Iraq is clear. PAD stated it clear enough in the post too. I just think you shouldnt stop trying, at least until Iraq living conditions are that of before the War. So maybe keeping that military forces isnt the best choice? ok, try something else, but to simply say “We had enough of this, we quit” is to deny the USA have a responsability towards the people of Iraq. Yes, even those who hate you.
So… Here’s two options: Leave and let them kill themselves or, stay and watch americans trying to hold on as they get killed by the people they were supposed to protect. As someone mentioned, the reason to go to war wasn’t democracy, but oil. Now, its done and Bush will leave the situation to the next president to sort it out because he knows there’s not good solution there.
Save americans and leaving Iraq to Iran. Because, Iran is forcing the conflict inside the Iraq. They want another Teocracy and the Iraqi oil. That will make things worse for americans in the future. Not one country financing terrorists, but two.
Stay and watch americans die without knowing if democracy will actually work there, but, avoiding Iran’s grasp over it, and for better or worse, creating a balance point in the Middle East.
I know it sounds harsh to rationalize lives like that. But, I thought about the situation and there’s the choices. Unless I’m missing something.
I wouldn’t like to make that choice. The easy way out could be disastrous in the future and the tough decision to stay will make the current human losses look like child’s play.
Again, I stand ready to be flamed. *Catches the antifire equipmente*
=)
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 12:05 PM
“You broke it, you buy it” only goes so far. When the shop owners continue to break what you’re trying to buy, I think your obligation to pay for what you’ve broken goes away.
The problem with your argument is that you’re trying to extend an analogy that isn’t very apt to begin with. A better analogy would be to liken Iraq to a forest fire. We started it, and just because we’ve not had success putting it out doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility to continue trying.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 12:05 PM
No one likes to lose. But PAD summarized the mission pretty well: eliminate the chance that Iraq might provide WMDs to terrorist groups that want to target the US. Saddam was supposed to be the lynchpin of that scheme. We’ve not found WMDs, and Saddam is about to permanently check out of the terrorist web. It sounds like mission accomplished to me.
The elimination of Saddam Hussein does not eliminate the threat of Iraq becoming a source of WMDs that could be used against the U.S. or its allies. If a Shi’a government takes over Iraq and forms an alliance with Iran, for example, the latter country could add the former’s resources to its efforts to go nuclear. Very, very bad juju if something like that happens.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM
I didnt say that is a problem created by the US, just expressed my frustration when speaking with americans (and now I am generalizing, of course),
Actually, you are overgeneralizing. It’s interesting that we are often referred to as “ugly Americans” because of our supposed propensity for being culturally insensitive. And yet it’s perfectly OK for other nations to stereotype us.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM
as their take on ethnic/border disputes its allways the same “so what? move some other place”, i.e; “there is a lot of arab countries palestinians can go, no need to cling to that little piece of dust”.
That’s a complete oversimplification of the Palestinian situation. You’ve omitted the fact that the Israelis aren’t going anywhere, and that’s all there is to it. If the Palestinians insist on fighting to the death to return to the days before Israel became a state once again –something that cannot happen — there’s nothing anyone anywhere can do to help them.
The U.S. has for many years pushed for a peace plan that includes Palestinian self-rule and an eventual Palestinian state. The Palestinian culture is not a “piece of dirt” but a concept created by bonds of commonality created throughout the centuries. The Palestinian culture could return itself to the pursuit of advancing itself, rather than existing in a state of perpetual arrested development, if only they would consider the fact that a piece of dirt does not a people make.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM
Again on this thread someone suggested Turkey should welcome a Kurdish independent state ’cause their own kurds would migrate there, and I just pointed the naivette of that theory.
It’s only naive if you misstate it as you did above. Bill Mulligan suggested that some Kurds might migrate to a Kurdish independent state, and thus such a state might act as a safety valve against the threat of Turkish Kurds waging a civil war within Turkey.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM
I never expressed an oppinion against the existence of Kurdistan, I just pointed out the facts that make such occurence difficult. Personally I think a Kurd state, lead by kurdish main political force, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, would be at least interesting to behold and probably a good influence in the area.
You can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, you’ve said that a Kurdish state would place many non-Kurds under a government they don’t like, and criticized the U.S. for consistently offering a ham-handed solution to such problems (which, as I’ve already pointed out, is a grossly oversimplified way of characterizing U.S. foreign policy over the decades). On the other hand, you say a Kurdish state might be a good thing, but the U.S. is among those standing in the way. Well, which is it?
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 11:36 AM
Just another fact I checked… less than 10% of Kurds in Turkey vote for nationalists parties, the rest vote for mainstream parties.
Which lends credence to Bill Mulligan’s argument that a Kurdish state might draw some of the nationalistic Kurds out of Turkey, thus helping Turkey as well as an independent Kurdistan.
Bill Myers answered all the Kurdistan points as well as I could.
I don’t want to pick on the Turks–they have done a mostly good job of being Muslim and secular, to a degree I’d like to see others achieve. They are good people–you could do far worse than put your life in the hands of strangers in Turkey.
But while I appreciate Bill’s comparison to the What If of having Latinos declare parts of the USA a new country, a better analogy would be us demanding that Quebec never secede from Canada because we’re afraid all of those kids who took high school French would insist on taking North Dakota as well….ok, also not a great analogy. Never mind.
Well, that would explain why you insist on denying genocide, Craig….
WTF…Mike has an acolyte???
Well, that would explain why you insist on denying genocide, Craig….
WTF…Mike has an acolyte???
OMFG, no! That was an attempt to be funny (apprently a failed attempt…), Bill. I suppose I should have included some kind of smiley or something… *grins sheepishly and slinks away*
> Turkey doesn’t want that.
Oh, are we talking those loons who when a natural disaster had hundreds, if not thousands of their citizens in emergency wards, refused shipments of blood from outside because they didn’t want to have vile Greek blood in the veins of decent Turkish nationals?
Those Turks?
>>Hmmm. Did you realize that to an Asian, your last name would be spelled “Lies”?
>Wow. A personal attack AND a racial slur, in one tidy package. How economical of you….
Patrick – Don’t forget the part about his being ignorant to boot, because Japanese – who qualify as Asians, last time I checked – all 128 million of them, WOULD pronounce it correctly because they DO have “ri” in their syllabic alphabets. Though they’d be more likely to use the “ra” sound in conjunction with the “i” which they’d pronounce fairly close to the original.
>”Pack your things and leave, after all there is still plenty of “Iraq for you to live on, no matter where your family did for centuries”
Trouble with that being, unless you’re an ideologically/racially/socially homogeneous people – and the last such I believe lived in Japan until the Meiji Restoration in 1854 – you’re going to have SOMEBODY unhappy. Either those who want their own country and aren’t getting it, or, if they do, those who didn’t want to break away from the motherland in the first place. And who, after probably dozens, if not hundreds, of generations living there has the better claim? If you can answer that, call up Solomon. He’s looking for a replacement.
OMFG, no! That was an attempt to be funny (apprently a failed attempt…), Bill. I suppose I should have included some kind of smiley or something… *grins sheepishly and slinks away*
Slink back, friend, I’M the one who should be ashamed. There’s nobody here who should be more careful about not reading things at literal face value than me. Glass houses and all…
Slink back, friend, I’M the one who should be ashamed.
I dunno. I thought it was funny, and I was the target of the joke. 🙂
No, no, I agree, it WAS funny, I was justtoo dopey to get it. My bad.
I say we blame this misunderstanding on Mickey and Sparky.
Bill, even if it’s a forest fire that we set, you don’t fight it to the death. You throw what you can at it, try to manage it, and keep people from harm, while trying to protect property. But you also try to not kill yourself in the process. What good does it do to fight a fire if the entire village population dies in the process? At some point, you let the fire rage away, and move in to rebuild after it’s destroyed everything…while you still have people left.
It’s the same in Iraq. Does the USA have a responsibility there? Absolutely. But so do the Iraqi people. And from where we get spoonfed our news over here, it looks like there’s plenty of Iraqis that are more than happy to engage in a civil war. And that the conditions that made a civil war possible are not an American creation, but the remnants of a situation that Hussein controlled, but did not remove. America, and more importantly, the Federal Government, has a primary responsibility to protect Americans and American interests. The action in Iraq is not making American interests safer…if you believe the reports, it’s making us less safe…and it’s ballooning an already huge debt carried by this country. It’s harsh, cold, and probably unfair to Iraqis caught in the middle of the civil war going on, but America no longer is serving anyone’s best interests. We need to hand over control of the country to the current government as quickly as we can.
As for future threats…we have to deal with them as they come about or we discover them, just like anyone else. Jumping at shadows and being willing to see every sand dune and cargo truck as a WMD is what got us into this situation in the first place.
“You can’t have it both ways”
1- I think Iraqui Kurds wont secede because Turks and the USA doesnt want that. One theing they can get (and are getting actually) is a wide degree of autonomy. I say this not because I dont want kurds to secede, but because its how I see the situation. And I said it because someone mentioned it as a likely scenario.
2- I think a laicist, socialist Kurd state could be a good thing for the region on the long term. But I am neither seeing that happen soon nor I would activelly support the idea, because short and midterm it would mean war.
Maybe my english isn’t that good, but please note that I never said I had a solution for the whole issues, only pointed out the flaws (both political and ethical) I saw in solutions other exposed here. Solomon can keep his job ’cause neither me nor any of those writing here is worthy of such ilustrious seat.
And you can save the rap about palestinians, I only used that phrase because its a statement I have read and heard way too many times. And yes, mostly from americans. And thats not attacking your country, its just stating the obvious: american idiosicracy isnt as attached to the land as we “old worlders”, and many americans “dont see whats the big deal is” when they propose the migration of whole groups of people.
“Which lends credence to Bill Mulligan’s argument that a Kurdish state might draw some of the nationalistic Kurds out of Turkey, thus helping Turkey as well as an independent Kurdistan.”
Actually it only gives credence to the argument that turkey’s Kurdist nationalist movements kill people to create a Kurd state most Kurds dont want. And instead of moving to other places where they have more backing (PKK has around 50% support in Iraq) they still keep fighting in Turkey. So no, I dont think they would leave Turkey if Iraqui Kurds secede. If only, they would only use such a state as base for future operations.
“Oh, are we talking those loons who when a natural disaster had hundreds, if not thousands of their citizens in emergency wards, refused shipments of blood from outside because they didn’t want to have vile Greek blood in the veins of decent Turkish nationals?”
Yes, those Turks. Greek and Turks have the kind of bad blood you usually only see in fantasy novels. And it goes both sides, Greeks are equally intolerant of the turks. But such attitude is not so uncommon. I think the USA refused both fuel donations from Venezuela and medical relief temas from Cuba when Katrina wasted New Orleans. It was a cheap political gesture on their part but I am sure Cuban expertise in these kind of emergencies (theyve been present in almost every latinoamerican disaster for the last decade or two) would have been noticed in N.Orleans.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 03:42 PM
Bill, even if it’s a forest fire that we set, you don’t fight it to the death. You throw what you can at it, try to manage it, and keep people from harm, while trying to protect property. But you also try to not kill yourself in the process. What good does it do to fight a fire if the entire village population dies in the process? At some point, you let the fire rage away, and move in to rebuild after it’s destroyed everything…while you still have people left.
I think you’re extending the analogy too far. I was merely using it to drive home the point that the situation in Iraq is not like breaking an item at a store. That’s a discrete occurence with short-lived ramifications. I used the forest fire analogy merely to illustrate that the problems we created in Iraq are still ongoing and are having long-term ramifications.
While I agree with Bill Mulligan that it’s difficult to feel optimistic about Iraq at the moment, I believe it is in our national interests to continue trying to stabilize that nation.
It’s funny, because when we first invaded Iraq pundits all over the place were trying to tell us that only hysterics saw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. The situations are too different, they told us. Now those selfsame pundits are drawing the parallels, and they’re failing to see one crucial difference: Vietnam was never of strategic importance. Iraq is.
I never thought we should’ve invaded Iraq in the first place. Iraq was never a key player in the war on terror — until we invaded. The choice to invade was an incredibly stupid one. Now that we’re there, however, pulling out anytime soon would be equally stupid.
Very ironic.
Posted by: Bobb Alfred at November 6, 2006 03:42 PM
As for future threats…we have to deal with them as they come about or we discover them, just like anyone else. Jumping at shadows and being willing to see every sand dune and cargo truck as a WMD is what got us into this situation in the first place.
The mythical WMDs were indeed a shadow. The threat of a radicalized Iraq, and a shift in the region’s balance of power to favor Iran, are not shadows but very real threats.
And the problem with taking a reactive posture towards terrorism is that you end up with tragedies like 9/11. The choice between being reactive or making dumb mistakes as the Bush administration has done is a false dilemma.
For example, had the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies been less bureaucratic and territorial, we might have been able to put the puzzle pieces together and prevent 9/11 from ever happening. That wouldn’t have required the Patriot Act or wiretapping or any of that crap. It merely would have required federal security agencies to view national security as being more important than their turf battles.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 03:49 PM
And you can save the rap about palestinians,
Perhaps I can, but I won’t. Remember, you brought that into the debate, not I.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 03:49 PM
I only used that phrase because its a statement I have read and heard way too many times. And yes, mostly from americans. And thats not attacking your country, its just stating the obvious: american idiosicracy isnt as attached to the land as we “old worlders”, and many americans “dont see whats the big deal is” when they propose the migration of whole groups of people.
I believe it was the British who initially had the idea for re-creating the state of Israel. Britain is of the “Old World,” no?
Moreover, have you looked at historical maps of Europe? Borders have changed, people have been displaced — and yet people somehow manage to adapt.
Throughout history, people have always been dissatisfied with their borders, and wars have been fought over territory since the dawn of civilization. This idea that “Americans simply don’t understand” omits the fact that people have been displaced as a “solution” to various problems for millennia.
I’m not saying that’s a good thing, I’m just saying it’s true.
Posted by: El hombre Malo at November 6, 2006 03:49 PM
Actually it only gives credence to the argument that turkey’s Kurdist nationalist movements kill people to create a Kurd state most Kurds dont want. And instead of moving to other places where they have more backing (PKK has around 50% support in Iraq) they still keep fighting in Turkey. So no, I dont think they would leave Turkey if Iraqui Kurds secede. If only, they would only use such a state as base for future operations.
The fact that they’ve not emigrated to Iraq right now proves nothing. There would have been no reason for a sane Kurd to go to Iraq under Saddam’s regime — his policy was to grind the Kurdish people under his boot heel. Now that Saddam is gone, the Kurds in Iraq have comparative security and relative autonomy, but that could change in a hurry. Iraq is a bloody mess right now! So the fact that Turkish Kurds aren’t moving there in no way proves that they might not be willing to move to a new Kurdistan under better circumstances.
Bill Myers, you’ve invited yourself to discuss my sex-life as an ongoing topic and persistently refer to me when I’m absent.
I don’t know anything about your girlfriend, but I’m pretty sure she’s entitled to a relationship with someone who’s actually attracted to what she has to offer.
When she discovers you have a secret life obsessing over me, whatever happiness she can derive from your relationship will be revealed as a lie, and she will realize too late that she’s wasted the best years of her life with some kind of closeted cretin.
Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2006 04:35 PM
Bill Myers, you’ve invited yourself to discuss my sex-life as an ongoing topic…
Yes, and it was a very, very short discussion.
Uh, yeah, Bill Myers, and very young, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You obviously need the contrast for your own arousal.
In the immortal words of Lennie Small: “I just wanted to pet her, George, but she wouldn’t stop screaming.”
Sad to say, but as much as it would be nice to bring the troops home now, due to the dishonesty and incompetence of the Bush League, to leave now would leave a bigger mess than now exists.
In Canada, the same debate rages about the mission in Afghanistan. Same problem. To pull out now makes a bad situation worse.
Up here, we get the same rhetoric you folks get. “If you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops.”
It’s a warm, steaming crock, either side of the border. The best way to support the troops is to not waste their lives on political pìššìņg matches.
Personally, I’d love to hear anyone explain how “Stay the course” can be called anything other than a desperate plea by a desperate administration to be allowed to continue doing…nothing good, anyway.
”Hello, This is JOE PISCOPO, I’m from New Jersey and I’m a Democrat but I’m voring for Tom Kean Jr. for US Senate”
Really, I’m not making this up! I got this call today.
I’m from Jersey. Are you from Jersey? What Exit?
Vietnam was never of strategic importance. Iraq is.
Vietnam was of strategic importance, but in a different way than Iraq.
Vietnam was all about stopping Communism, and the strong belief, at the time, that Communism would continue to spread if we didn’t fight it.
Well, things didn’t get as bad as our government thought, but we still continued to fight this fight through the 80’s (where we armed bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan).
Oh, and it has finally happened.
Bush has come full circle with one of the reasons that many say is the reason why we went to Iraq in the first place:
Oil.
While here in Colorado yesterday:
“PRESIDENT BUSH: You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, “We’re gonna pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up, unless you do the following.”
“PRESIDENT BUSH: You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources. And then you can imagine them saying, “We’re gonna pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up, unless you do the following.”
Hey Chucky,
Guess you must be one of those guys who has a car that runs on Vegetable Oil, right, Mr. High-And-Mighty, I’m oh-so-superior-to-everyone-else?
OUR ECONOMY RUNS ON OIL, STUPID.
I don’t like it either, by unlike you, I DON’T live in the fûçkìņg MARVEL UNIVERSE…”With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility” doesn’t put FOOD on my table, moron.
I have a job.
I have to get to that job.
I need GAS to fuel my car to GET TO that job.
The cheaper the GAS, the more FOOD I can put on my table.
What part of that quantum equation don’t you get?
And if you actually USED that WAY-BACK machine of a brain you have Mr. Peabody, you’d realize that YOU NEED CHEAP GAS TOO!!!
Jesus H. Christ! So we’re fighting for gas! We’re fighting to keep our way of life so that our society doesn’t fall into Chaos!
What the hëll did you think the machines of our society on, the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak??? I don’t think so!
Last line should read:
“What the hëll did you think the machines of our society RUN on, the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak??? I don’t think so!”
Sorry. When I get really righeteously cheesed off, I type fast.
Sorry. When I get really righeteously cheesed off, I type fast.
It doesn’t seem to take much to get you “righteously cheesed off”, jìzzbág, and you’re obviously typing a lot faster than you’re thinking.
Fine, we get it, you’re really scared and you’re šhìŧŧìņg yourself at the thought of what would happen if you couldn’t afford to fill up your gas tank or heat your house or whatever. So, in your hysteria, you’re turning into a world-class douche and taking it out on us because we see things differently.
Fine, let’s assume that being the bad guys and invading a country without provocation was worth it because it ensured that we wouldn’t run out of oil anytime soon, if that is indeed what you believe. What’s gonna happen when THAT oil supply runs out? Do we conquer Saudi Arabia? And then what? Venezuela? Yes, we’d be the world’s darlings, and of course we could get away with it because nobody else in the world has any nuclear weapons or armed forces they could use against us if we got out of line. Oh silly me, I forgot, the rest of the world DOES have those things, and Russia or China or the European Union or somebody else could easily vaporize an American city with the touch of a button if we tried anything as evil as that. Bummer.
If lack of fuel is a problem, then the first priority of western civilization should be finding an alternative to fossil fuels. Don’t go about it half-assed, devote every available scientific mind to it. Use every spare dollar to fund the research. Taking oil that doesn’t belong to us is not a long-term solution.
Oh, and no, lots of machines don’t run on the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak OR oil. They run on electricity, which can be generated in any number of ways.
originally posted by Peter David: I find it funny that phrases they don’t want to deal with, such as “death” or “slaughter,” becomes “collateral damage” or “acceptable losses.” But “cut and run” doesn’t get embellished into something acceptable. Me, I have no trouble with it at all. It’s not “cut and run.” Call it “strategic withdrawal.” Call it “organized troop relocation.” Call it whatever you want that will save lives.
I recall a funny Western movie from about 40 years ago (which, I think, was the basis for the TV series F-Troop). The movie begins with a US army troop, losing badly to the Indians, becoming totally disorganized. I forget the exact sequence of events leading up to it, but all of a sudden all the soldiers are making a mad scramble to get away from the battle.
In the aftermath, there is a court-martial. One of the men on trial testifies: I didn’t think we were retreating. I thought we were advancing to the rear.
“Advance to the Rear” was the title of the movie. I can easily imagine Bush borrowing that phrase when the time comes.
>YOU NEED CHEAP GAS TOO!!!
Jesus H. Christ! So we’re fighting for gas! We’re fighting to keep our way of life so that our society doesn’t fall into Chaos!
Over THIRTY YEARS AGO, we had this little contretemps which came to be known as the first ‘energy crisis’. The Arabs turned off the taps and we found out we were screwed. Governments (US and Canadian alike) swore up and down they’d do what it took for us not to be held hostage at the pumps again.
So, did they immediately corral the best chemists, engineers, physicists and throw money at them telling them “solve this, and solve it now” as they had for the Project Mahnattan?
No, they just started digging more holes.
Given that, whenever someone sneezes in Whereveritsland, the price of the stuff shoots through the roof, we can see how successful Shrub and previous presidents’ strategy has been. As in not at all. Iraq is just one more part in this failed philosophy.
originally posted by Mauricio: “Here’s two options: Leave and let them kill themselves or, stay and watch americans trying to hold on as they get killed by the people they were supposed to protect…”
Here’s a third option:
(a) Announce that the US will be withdrawing its troops over the next year.
(b) Announce that all the money we are currently spending on a military presence will instead be put toward rebuilding Iraq and making it a country where people can live their lives in reasonable comfort and safety. (That includes money we are spending on no-bid contracts with military-industrial-complex contractors, even for things with ostensibly non-military aims.)
(c) Instead of hiring Halliburton or similar companies to do this rebuilding work, give the money to groups which opposed the war in the first place, groups which argued against the invasion and believed there was a better way to deal with the problems.
These groups, if they are willing to do so, would receive funding from the US government to send volunteers into Iraq to work on restoring water, electricity, and other utilities, rebuilding schools, staffing hospitals, and doing whatever else they think would be helpful make Iraq livable.
It would be dangerous work, especially if these groups are as wrong in their ideas about Iraq as the Bush administration was in theirs. That makes it a good chance for such groups to show whether they are simply people who hate American and love to complain (as some vocal proponents of the war like to claim) or whether they are in reality people who are sincere in their criticisms of the war and who are willing to risk their own lives in support of what they believe.
I believe there are anti-war groups which would be willing to take up such a challenge. Some of the groups I have in mind are:
American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.org)
Christian Peacemakers Teams (www.cpt.org/)
Fellowship of Reconcilation (www.forusa.org/)
Veterans for Peace (www.veteransforpeace.org/)
We are currently spending billions of dollars on Iraq. If the aim is to make Iraq a better place, wouldn’t it make more sense spending that money on things that help them live rather than things that help them die?
We “need” gas about as much as we need another Bruce Willis/Ben Affleck end of the world flick. We’ve been trained to believe that the only fuel around is fossil fuel. As soon as anyone starts doing work to replace fossil fuels with any alternative, OPEC gets their collective snot together and drops prices to the ridiculous level, two steps below “you gotta be kidding me!”
The training took. The theoretical technology has existed for 100 years. Gasoline as a fuel was obsolete 50 years ago, but everyone thought the geological party would never end.
Then Exxon and their bášŧárd corporate siblings refined the arts of Lobbying and feel good B.S. spin to levels unheard of outside Goebbels’ diseased brain.
Bio diesel. Not only good for Mothe Earth, also good for American and Canadian farmers.
Hydrogen. Clean, just a little Hindenburg for me.
Electric.
Or, horrors, ride a bike, take a bus when practical, walk.
We don’t “need” gas, we’re addicted to the crap.
“If lack of fuel is a problem, then the first priority of western civilization should be finding an alternative to fossil fuels. Don’t go about it half-assed, devote every available scientific mind to it. Use every spare dollar to fund the research. Taking oil that doesn’t belong to us is not a long-term solution”
I never said I wasn’t for that.
But what are we going to do while these fledgling alternatives are being developed?
Yeah, take the money that we’re wasting on other projects that are hoplessly dead-end and put it toward alternate energy source research.
Projects like EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research, for example. KEEP ADULT Stem Cell research, as its a hëll of a lot more promising on all accounts, INCLUDING Parkinson’s (Ooooo…bet that’s got MJF shaking in his boots…pardon the pun….)
Manny:
“We don’t “need” gas, we’re addicted to the crap.”
You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
See, bìŧçhìņg doesn’t actually SOLVE anything. Neither does pushing the responsibility on “Society.”
You want change? Its gotta start with YOU.
If you can’t do that, then STFU……….
When she discovers you have a secret life obsessing over me
Wow, Bill. MIke just called you “obsessive”. Being called Obsessive by Mike is like being called stupid by…uh, Mike.
In the immortal words of Lennie Small
I can’t wait until your 10th grade teacher assigns you Moby Ðìçk or Catcher in the Rye, just so we can get some variety.
“If you can’t do that, then STFU……….”
Practice what you preach.
PAD
Ben Bradley, Arab scholars have discovered that jojoba oil, which requires very little technology to press, also requires minimal processing to turn into diesel fuel. Ethanol from sugar has been consistently been cheaper than gasoline, and provides 75% of the auto fuel in Brazil. Fuels can also be made from organisms as omnipresent as algea.
In the meantime, you can trade in your car and buy a Prius, so you can do a week’s commute to work on a single tank of gas. Now you can buy another big mac everyday. Now you have no more problems. Congratulation.
Bill Myers, it took all of your friends 14 hours to post that reply. Pitiful.
If only you could cite an exchange to back up the observations in your fantasy world.
Yes, you are obsesses with me, and now I’m wondering if who you mean by “girlfriend” is really some hostage you are keeping in your basement.
I know your pretense that you are some kind of decent person was shattered when you were caught sheltering racism. Fortunately for me, I can simply continue to cite what you’ve said to make my point.
Oh, my point with the jojoba oil is that it jojoba trees can be raised in parched desert-regions. The majority of the earth can be used to grow fuels.
Mike, you almost–almost!–made a point worth commenting on. Then your personality had to go and ruin it. Oh well.
Bill Myers, it took all of your friends 14 hours to post that reply. Pitiful.
Sorry Mike, my internet is down.Blame Charter Cable for the 14 hours you spent waiting for someone to reply to you. Must’ve been a tough night.
I know your pretense that you are some kind of decent person was shattered when you were caught sheltering racism. Fortunately for me, I can simply continue to cite what you’ve said to make my point.
And every time you do you look like a nut. So keep on doing it. Dance, little doggy,dance.
Ben, fledgling alternatives? Wind power, solar power, hydropower…all three of these, with proper investment, could totally replace every coal burning power plant in the country. They aren’t fledgling alternatives, we just don’t have any decent incentive to invest in them. Because the owners of those power plants are just fine making their money off of the rest of us.
As for a dependance on Middle Eastern oil…it’s imposed on us. Once again, because the few companies that own the refineries and gas stations don’t want to lose their cash flow. America could eliminate it’s dependancy on Middle Eastern crude in less than 5 years with the proper investment in renewable energy sources, and converting any need for an oil lubricant to natural sources like corn and other vegatable oils.
Unfortunately, I don’t have $30 gabillion to do that myself, and I don’t run the country or any of the corporations that might have the ability to make that kind of investment. Guess I’ll just go STFup now.
“Fortunately for me, I can simply continue to cite what you’ve said to make my point.”
And he so he will, Bill. He’ll repost every word of every exchange over and over and over again in some strange and obsessive attempt to relive whatever limited contacts he has had with you. It would almost be flattering to you if it wasn’t beginning to rise to the level of some spurned but still infatuated High School girl who won’t get it through her head that there is no “there” there and that there never will be. And that’s how he comes off at best. He comes off as a Glenn Close wanna be at worst.
Mad Mikey, seek professional therapy. For all your various issues, please, just seek help.
> buy a Prius, so you can do a week’s commute to work on a single tank of gas.
Here’s a better idea: move closer to work. Or petition to work out of home. The technology exists in many cases. Several people in my department do so. And I’m close enough I can drive to work in fifteen minutes in the morning (not much traffic at 05:30 – although also no buses) and not much more back in the afternoon. A tankful in my 14-year-old Mazda 323 lasts me almost three weeks. (Two income household with the couple each working in opposite ends of the city? Can’t help you there…)
> Wind power, solar power, hydropower…all three of these, with proper investment, could totally replace every coal burning power plant in the country.
Studies here have shown wind power can’t realistically replace more than about 30% – at best – because it is unreliable and you need other sources to take up the slack when the wind dies down, which it is wont to do. Solaw power ties up huge amounts of land which then can’t be used for living on or growing food. That leaves hydro which is getting pretty much maxed out.
You left out nuclear.
Lots of people don’t care for it, but it may realistically be the only viable, large-scale choice in the long run, barring an unforessen, entirely new technology, or some breakthrough in fusion research.
“Studies here have shown wind power can’t realistically replace more than about 30% – at best – because it is unreliable and you need other sources to take up the slack when the wind dies down, which it is wont to do. Solaw power ties up huge amounts of land which then can’t be used for living on or growing food. That leaves hydro which is getting pretty much maxed out.”
True, not one of those sources will replace fossil fuels…but all three, together with geothermal power, will. Large scale solar plants won’t work, but equipping buildings with solar generating cells would greatly reduce the draw they put on the grid. Also, changing the way we build…more green, less steel…reduces the need to power cooling and heating systems.
Nuclear is an option, and a modern nuclear power plant would be able to incorporate all the safety lessons we’ve learned from past incidents. If people can get over the Three Mile Island and Cherynoble fears…very real and justified fears, but our safety technology has progressed so far in the past 30 years.
Either way, it all comes down to investment. What are the Big Oil companies doing with all those profits? Issuing dividends? That’s extremely short sighted. The energy consumer of the US, if not the world, is poised to demand an alternative to fossil fuel produced electricty and power. The smart company would start now to invest in a way to provide that.
Many countries are giving a new chance to “nucular” plants. As frantic as some people get when you mention the “N” word, it seems its far more reliable, clean and geopolitically safe than other sources. And thats a bitter candy to swallow for some like me, who grew up hearing nuclear power was the gate to hëll, but lately it seems like a sensible option imho.
So a fallout can create an ecological disaster? Sure, every year there is some tanker spilling oil on some coast and ruining life there for decades. And I put more trust in a nuclear engineer than in a greek drunkard captain.
Other pros for Nuclear:
-you dont have to buy it from Saudi Arabia
-goverments can strictly control its prizes
-no greenhouse emissions
-you dont have to buy it from Vladimir Putin
-You dont have to buy it from Saudi Arabia…yes, again.
Our future energy needs are not going to be met by any single source, but a combination of strategies:
Wind – Starwolf noted that it will probably not amount to more that 30% of our energy needs, but that’s still 30% taken from other sources. The biggest stumbling blocks for wind power actually aren’t the intermittant nature of it, but the NIMBY factor and concerns over threats to migratory birds.
Biomass: This inclues biodiesel, alcohol, and methane derived from anaerobic digestion of wastes. These will replace some of our current oil consumption. So long as we generate wastes, we’ll have the raw materials to make these fuels. It’s simply a matter of putting the resources into the developing the technology.
Synthetic fuels: We have tons of coal still in the US. The problem is simply that it’s the dirtiest fuel around. We’ve known how to make synthetic fuels from coal for nearly 100 years. The stumbling block has always been the cost. Now that we’re over Hubbard’s peak, the price of oil will rise again, making these fuels more attractive.
Solar: While it’s true that large scale solar operations take up large amounts of land, smaller scale units on the rooftops of houses can serve as a supplement. Similar strategies involving putting windmills on the tops of skyscrapers have also been proposed. Also, the areas of the country that are best suited for building a solar power plant, ie Death Valley, arent’ really suited for agriculture anyway. Plus, one possible strategy would be to use solar power in SoCal to convert sea water into hydrogen.
Hydrogen: It’s clean and abundant, if we can use solar power to extra it from water. The drawbacks are the costs of electrolosis and compression. While it is highly explosive, so is natural gas and we’ve been using it for heating and cooking for over 100 years.
Nuclear: The advantages are no air pollution. The disadvantages are that we still don’t have a permananet repository for the waste and it turns out that it’s more expensive than coal. New developments in advanced light water reactors might offset the cost problem, but the public support isn’t there. I grew up 30 miles from Three Mile Island abd lived through the accident. Trust me, no one is ever going to build another nuclear power plant in central PA again.
Hydro: Starwolf is right, this is maxed out in the US, but there are a few variations that will see more investment in the coming years, such as tidal power.
Geothermal: Well, if Bush ever does achieve his goal of drilling in ANWR, you can count on a geothermal plant being built over Old Faithful.
Bill Myers lobbed insults at me in this thread first, and I’ve responded. The orc-chitter I cited from the Pronoun Trouble thread demonstrated Bill Myer’s obsession with me. The Principal Poopy pants thread? You and Bill addressed me before I addressed you or him. The Fantasy Press Conference? Bill again.
Bill’s “very, very short” comment? That was Bill undressing me for your circle jerk. You accusing me of starting this when it’s plainly observable the obsession is yours? Hey, if you need fantasies of me for your pleasure, enjoy.
Projects like EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research, for example. KEEP ADULT Stem Cell research, as its a hëll of a lot more promising on all accounts, INCLUDING Parkinson’s (Ooooo…bet that’s got MJF shaking in his boots…pardon the pun….)
Ben, this is a lie, pure and simple.
How can you possibly call adult cell stems more promising when you’re obstructing research into embryonic cell research? It’s a circular argument and it’s mind-numbingly stupid.
It just shows that you’re not thinking, you’re not doing any research on your own and you’re just regurgitating talking points from some other mind.
>Wind – Starwolf noted that it will probably not amount to more that 30% of our energy needs, but that’s still 30% taken from other sources.
Uh, that’s “at best”. Figure more on about 15%.
>solar operations … smaller scale units on the rooftops of houses can serve as a supplement
Provided it doesn’t snow and cover the receptors. And that doesn’t work very well at night when people are home cooking food, using the air conditioner, watching that big screen tv, either.
Actually, our best bet to solve the problem lies in one word in the previous paragraph:
People.
As in, let’s encourage fewer births and see a reduction in the population. Fewer people, less demand, problems (lots of them) solved.
Yes, this causes economic problems. Important ones. But they’ll happen anyway when we run out of some essential or other because of too many people. Better solve it now under controlled conditions than in the train wreck we’re eventually going to run into. ie pay me now, or pay me [lots more] later.
Roger Tang:
“Ben, this is a lie, pure and simple.
How can you possibly call adult cell stems more promising when you’re obstructing research into embryonic cell research? It’s a circular argument and it’s mind-numbingly stupid.
It just shows that you’re not thinking, you’re not doing any research on your own and you’re just regurgitating talking points from some other mind.”
Um, Here:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
and HERE:
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/opinion/15861260.htm
and Here:
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=11947
I could go on, but you’d just be claiming I’m lying again.
Michael J Fox was the one that wasn’t thinking.
Apparently, you aren’t either.
Actually, our best bet to solve the problem lies in one word in the previous paragraph:
People.
As in, let’s encourage fewer births and see a reduction in the population. Fewer people, less demand, problems (lots of them) solved.
Unfortunately, that’s one answer that is just about guaranteed to raise more of an uproar than just about anything else.
Sadly, we’re already at a place where many highly intelligent couples who see the problems with overpopulation are not reproducing, while many less intelligent, “be fruitful and multiply” types keep pumping out babies and more than taking up the slack.
Never ceases to dismay me, you need a license to drive a car of even get married, but you can spawn all you want with no restrictions.
-Rex Hondo-