Nobody else finds this obscene?

[JackFTwist]

We are bending over backwards to give them a new start and they obviously don't want our help. We REALLY need to get out of there and let them fend for themselves.

somehow didn't mean to quote this but since I did, I am still waiting for Andreus to be asking about Moe, Shemp, Curly and Larry --

 

[Kulindahr]

As to this Iraqi vacation thing -- it's typical.

Anybody who's shocked has not been paying attention.

The whole point our Democratic Congresspeople have been trying to make --and it's what's written into the legislation Bush just vetoed-- is that timetables are necessary because the Iraqi government is not accomplishing what it should. The timetables are specifically tied to Iraqi government accomplishment -- if they meet certain goals then the timetables are moved.

Bush & Co and their supporters keep saying send more troops, send more money (because they're free spending warmongers) but they refuse to substantively address the political and governmental elements that are the only ways to bring stability to Iraq. One of the problems with BushRepublicans is they like war too much and deaths of non-white non-Americans on non-American soil doesn't mean squat to them.

The benchmarks the Democrats want are useless, because they buy into the same fantasy Bush is suffering from: that Iraq can magically transform into a Western-style democracy, skipping societal development that took us half a millennium. The place is a tribal society, and is just ready to move to the stage of the Magna Charta -- and if we want to leave behind a successful government, we'd recognize that, and forget trying to force something on them that they'll merely go throw the motions of so they can get our approval.

The impulse to just throw money at problems has been handed down faithfully from FDR; it's just that Democrats tend to throw it at social problems (generally creating three new problems for every one addressed) and Republicans tend to throw it at the military (and now, thanks to Bush, at "faith-based initiatives").

Until these two fantasies -- jumping Iraq to an alien type of society, and solving a problem by burying it in money -- are abandoned, nothing's going to be resolved over there.

 

[Kulindahr]

Useless? No, not really. They certainly won't be magical but anything, I mean ANYTHING, we can do to get that fucking gov't to start trying to take care of the problem areas on their own would be a plus.

That also buys into the fantasy -- "that government" can't "take care of the problem areas" without ceasing to be the kind of government it is -- a democracy.
Iraq is a tribal society. Worse, it's an artificially-assembled one, slapped together as a "nation" by foreigners drawing lines on a map. There are only two ways to hold it together, escaping constant bloodshed: Saddam's approach of totalitarianism, or recognizing that it's a tribal society and fashioning a government based on that.

Want a government that can take care of things? Here's some benchmarks for getting that:

1. Scrap the fantasy constitution; it's as artificial as the borders
2. Call together a "Great Council", or whatever, of all tribal heads, after the pattern of England's Magna Charta
3. Let them write a constitution based on the realities of Iraqi society, so long as it includes stipulations guarding inherent human rights

The people already look to their tribal leaders for, well, leadership. Put that together with what "constitution" means and you get the above -- because "constitution" is that which constitutes, i.e. that which makes up the operating principles of society. That's what the U.S. Constitution was, with a few tweaks -- just what the colonists were used to, in essence. Anything else will fall apart anyway, rejected by the people as an alien intrusion into their society.

When you get right down to it, "that government" IS a "problem area". Much of the country ignores it as something imposed from outside, and a fair portion of the populace fights against it, as antibodies do any foreign object invading a body. Bush & Co. were too historically ignorant to recognize that, so we have the mess we're in. The way out isn't to try harder to make the artificial become real, it's to scrap the artificial and settle for a big step in the right direction.

My response to the extended vacation these laggards are taking would be to start over while they're gone -- convene a Great Council, tell them they're in charge, help them with a Constitution that reflects and works with reality, and when the useless slackers get back, tell them, Sorry, but since you abandoned your posts, you've been replaced -- with people who actually govern, not who just play at it.

 

[radical matt]

Oooooh, Kul, I want to nominate you to run for President. ^_^


Nickcole, the problem with the timetable the Dems passed was that it had a cap that we remove our troops in, and the only way the timetable "changes" based on Iraq actions is that if the Iraqi leadership doesn't meet the benchmarks, the timetable gets even shorter.

My own view of tactics and combat is that you NEVER forecast your actions to your enemy. Further, if we're even going to use a timetable idea, it needs to start at a set point and EXTEND LONGER (more time in Iraq) if they do what they're supposed to, not get SHORTER if they don't. Try brib-err..."persuading" a little kid to do something right. Tell him if he does it, you won't take his cookie/video game/toy. He probably will just not do it and then get pissed when you take his stuff. But if you find a kid that doesn't have a cookie/video game/toy and tell him if he does what he's supposed to that you'll GIVE him (instead of take from him) said cookie/video game/toy, then he's more likely to do the thing you ask. And yes, the Iraqi leadership are just a bunch of little kids. Threten to take support from them and they'll just get pissed.


...though I much prefer Kul's idea. We should have done that when the Dems walked out of the Texas Congress and holed up in Okalahoma a few years ago. Said, "Alright, you don't want the job? Fine...we'll hold new elections to fill your seats so we can get the people's business done. Oh, and you'll get your final paycheck in the morning." Bet that wouldda gotten them back fast. ^_^

 

[Kulindahr]

Oooooh, Kul, I want to nominate you to run for President. ^_^

Please, no!

I wouldn't want the job -- dictator for two terms, yeah, but not president.

My first act as dictator would be to send all of Congress out to get cruddy minimum wage jobs in their own districts and live off those wages, so they can get a grasp on reality.

My second act would be to carry out what I said about Iraq.

 

[NickCole]

My own view of tactics and combat is that you NEVER forecast your actions to your enemy.

Oh is that your own view?

So much of what you write is derivative of BushRepublican propaganda talking points. Those aren't personal opinions, they're reconstituted babble. "you NEVER forecast your actions to your enemy"!!! Ya think?! BushRepublicans have been spewing that as propaganda against Democrats but in truth it has no relevance to Democratic proposals.

We don't have an enemy in the Iraqi civil war. We can't. It's Iraqi against Iraqi, not Iraqi against terrorist. That's one of the problems with our involvement.

The timetable presented by Democrats does not pull out US presence in toto. It only pulls out our troops from combat in the Iraqi civil war.

And yes, the Iraqi leadership are just a bunch of little kids. Threten to take support from them and they'll just get pissed.

Good. Let them get pissed.

One of the problems with BushRepublicans is they talk tough but in truth they're fearful and that leads to bad decision making. I'm not afraid of the Iraqi leadership getting pissed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh is that your own view?

So much of what you write is derivative of BushRepublican propaganda talking points. Those aren't personal opinions, they're reconstituted babble. "you NEVER forecast your actions to your enemy"!!! Ya think?! BushRepublicans have been spewing that as propaganda against Democrats but in truth it has no relevance to Democratic proposals.

We don't have an enemy in the Iraqi civil war. We can't. It's Iraqi against Iraqi, not Iraqi against terrorist. That's one of the problems with our involvement.

The timetable presented by Democrats does not pull out US presence in toto. It only pulls out our troops from combat in the Iraqi civil war.

You contradict yourself.

The Democrats want time tables... but forecasting our actions to the enemy doesn't apply to that.
Ri-ight.

Oh -- yeah, there's Iraqi vs. Iraqi, but there's also a lot of people there vs. Americans. Sounds like we do have an enemy over there.

 

[NickCole]

You contradict yourself.

Nope. I did not.

But maybe I only know that because I know what the Democratic proposal actually says rather than relying on BushRepublian propaganda talking points.

The Democrats want time tables... but forecasting our actions to the enemy doesn't apply to that.
Ri-ight.

Right.

Oh -- yeah, there's Iraqi vs. Iraqi, but there's also a lot of people there vs. Americans. Sounds like we do have an enemy over there.

And the Democratic proposal --like the Iraq Study Group proposal-- addresses that:

"The $124.2 billion bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pull out by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain. ..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070425/us-iraq

 

[star-warrior]

^ good point.

 

[radical matt]

Oh is that your own view?

It's my own take, but technically you're right, it's not my own originally. It comes from Myumoto Musashi (who is said to be the greatest Japanese swordsman of all time) and from Sun Tsu (who wrote the Art of War, a tristies on tactics and strategy, over 2,000 years ago...and in that whole time, only ONE of his points has ever been found to be false; that he said a significantly smaller force, no matter the technological/morale advantage, will never defeat a significantly larger one. This has been shot down by such things as small teams of Navy SEALs taking out significantly larger forces.)

So you're right, it's not mine originally, it's my derivative of the works of great men. Although I will say that I came up with the idea before I read their texts when I did things like play Chess and Age of Empires, as well as fighting and FPS games. I learned that if I want to win, I should only let the enemy see what I WANT them to see, and not what I'm really doing. Now that I've said that, let's hear YOUR take on it:

So much of what you write is derivative of BushRepublican propaganda talking points. Those aren't personal opinions, they're reconstituted babble. "you NEVER forecast your actions to your enemy"!!! Ya think?! BushRepublicans have been spewing that as propaganda against Democrats but in truth it has no relevance to Democratic proposals.

Oops, looks like someone either doesn't know his history or just gave the "BushRepublicans" a MAJOR compliment (since if they understand this concept, than they understand war...and apparently, you do not.)

We don't have an enemy in the Iraqi civil war. We can't. It's Iraqi against Iraqi, not Iraqi against terrorist. That's one of the problems with our involvement.

The timetable presented by Democrats does not pull out US presence in toto. It only pulls out our troops from combat in the Iraqi civil war.

And here's another problem you have; there is an Iraqi civil war brewing, and a lot of the killing is Iraqi vs Iraqi...this is the backdrop; the actual scene on stage is that of terrorists trying to hurt Americans. Sadly for them, they can only get at our troops right now, and, of course, kill Iraqis in the process. See, they don't care about life like we do (if they did, they wouldn't have a Mickey Mouse wanna-be telling children to be suicide bombers.)

Good. Let them get pissed.

One of the problems with BushRepublicans is they talk tough but in truth they're fearful and that leads to bad decision making. I'm not afraid of the Iraqi leadership getting pissed.

This is your idea of peaceful negotiation, piss people off that you're supposed to be working with? Gee, no wonder diplomacy doesn't work anymore...

Nope. I did not.

Actually, you did. The timetable has EVERYTHING to do with forecasting moves to the enemy. As I've said before, if we're going to pull out, the date should be secret, SO secret that no one knows we've done it until the next morning when they don't see a single US troop anywhere in their cities or across the desert sands.

But maybe I only know that because I know what the Democratic proposal actually says rather than relying on BushRepublian propaganda talking points.

<snip>

And the Democratic proposal --like the Iraq Study Group proposal-- addresses that:

"The $124.2 billion bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pull out by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain. ..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070425/us-iraq

Good for you, you just seem to miss a few things...like how can something be a "nonbinding goal" when it binds the final date at April 1, 2008? I'd call that pretty binding, myself...

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope. I did not.

But maybe I only know that because I know what the Democratic proposal actually says rather than relying on BushRepublian propaganda talking points.


And the Democratic proposal --like the Iraq Study Group proposal-- addresses that:

"The $124.2 billion bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pull out by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain. ..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070425/us-iraq

Yep -- read that, read other stuff about it... don't have any idea about anyone's talking points.

What I do have an idea about is that you contradicted yourself again -- you support a bill that tells the whole world what we would be planning to do, and then you say that has nothing to do with telling the enemy what we're going to do.
So, telling isn't telling, in your book.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's my own take, but technically you're right, it's not my own originally. It comes from Myumoto Musashi (who is said to be the greatest Japanese swordsman of all time) and from Sun Tsu (who wrote the Art of War, a tristies on tactics and strategy, over 2,000 years ago...and in that whole time, only ONE of his points has ever been found to be false; that he said a significantly smaller force, no matter the technological/morale advantage, will never defeat a significantly larger one. This has been shot down by such things as small teams of Navy SEALs taking out significantly larger forces.)

So you're right, it's not mine originally, it's my derivative of the works of great men. Although I will say that I came up with the idea before I read their texts when I did things like play Chess and Age of Empires, as well as fighting and FPS games. I learned that if I want to win, I should only let the enemy see what I WANT them to see, and not what I'm really doing. Now that I've said that, let's hear YOUR take on it:

....

Oops, looks like someone either doesn't know his history or just gave the "BushRepublicans" a MAJOR compliment (since if they understand this concept, than they understand war...and apparently, you do not.)

I was going to point out that Sun Tzu said it, but decided to wait -- I was right; you knew.
BTW, Alexander the Great proved him wrong on the same point you mention; he achieved a few victories against forces more than ten times his size. But those few over the centuries are the exceptions which prove the rule.

The same point is in Clausewitz, and Machiavelli makes it as well. General Robert E. Lee was a master at it; one never quite knew where his army was, or what it was going to do, until meeting it in battle -- and then it still wasn't certain....

The only time I can think of in history when the principle wasn't considered important on a tactical level was when armies used to line up and take turns shooting at each other -- something the American Revolution had a hand in bringing to an end.

So... yes, anyone who thinks not letting your enemy know what you're up to is a "BushRepublican talking point" is seriously deficient in education. Bush et al may like it as a point, but then even the man with just one note, in the choir, is right some of the time -- and no reflection on the note!

 

[radical matt]

Yep -- read that, read other stuff about it... don't have any idea about anyone's talking points.

What I do have an idea about is that you contradicted yourself again -- you support a bill that tells the whole world what we would be planning to do, and then you say that has nothing to do with telling the enemy what we're going to do.
So, telling isn't telling, in your book.

Hehe, Kul, what do you expect from the party who's leader about, oh, ten years ago, questioned the meaning of what the word "is" is? ^_^ If is isn't what it is, then maybe telling isn't telling. Such people don't realize that something cannot (in logical terms) be self-contradicting. That is, if A is true, then NOT A cannot also, simultaneously, be true. I mean, same line of thinking says that, on the one hand, Bush is a retarded dislexic coward with a speach impediment, yet somehow, at the same time, has engineered a mad genius mastermind plan to take over America and the world. The two simply cannot exist at the same time, it must be one or the other (or neither), but it cannot be both.

So yeah, if you give a DATE, and this DATE is made public, than ANYONE, and that INCLUDES "the ENEMY" (got enough caps here yet?) is aware of that date, which means we're effectively telegraphing our punches/battle strategy to people that might seek to use this information against us. If nothing else, even IF the timetable/benchmark/"non-binding" binding "goal" weren't bad things already (and some of them aren't THAT bad...), stating a clear date, both for withdraw to begin (if not sooner) and for the withdraw to be complete are bad things. At the very least, they could have said "...by a decided, but for security reasons, secret, date..." and included a date, but not given it out to the world. Yeah, I realize that's not the way Congress is supposed to work, but Congress also has no Constitutional right to direct war (tactics, strategy, or timeing) outside of authorizing war; once war is authorized, that is entirely the perrogative of the President as Commander-In-Chief. Now, if the Democrats want to impeach Bush and let "President Chaney" into the Oval Office, that's THEIR perrogative. But that wouldn't succeed either, and the political backlash might be fairly intense (the Reps lost a lot of support from people when they tried impeaching Clinton and it failed. People thought it was pretty petty, and they'd likely think the same thing here.)

 

[Kulindahr]

I do think that setting benchmarks is beyond the constitutional authority of Congress -- not that some people care, so long as it is their Congress.

But this whole politicians-running-the-war thing is something the liberals half never learned from Vietnam; they only see the Right's error of getting bogged down -- not that it really was the Right's error; it was another good ol' boy from Texas who surg-- er. escalated that one. But let's assume it was: the Left doesn't see their own error, only the Right's, and the Right won't admit their error, they only see the Left's. It's a conspiracy of incompetence founded on ignorance.

It can even be analyzed from that basic rule of civilization: you own yourself. On that principle rests all responsibility -- and on it rests the ultimate failure to behave morally which besets both sides here.
Morally, you don't just cook up a reason, and persuade other people of the rightness of your cause with dubious information, and go off to invade another country. That's irresponsible -- and thus immoral -- because it tramples on the self-ownership of those other people. But, once having gone, morally you don't just walk off when you've stirred up a cauldron of trouble, leaving people in the lurch when you've taken away the stability of their society.

Both sides. each convinced of its own righteousness, have been irresponsible.