Third Party & Independents Archives

“These statements fly in the face of logic, and therefore, constitute an appeal to voters ignorant of what has taken place in Iraq. “

I guess that is the main point, to get people not to believe the evidence of their own eyes. I saw Stop-Loss the other day. We are just digger a deeper hole for ourselves, all to keep our military in an oil producing area. Better get off the oil instead.

david

the surge, troop increase, or whatever you choose to call it has obviously had some success. the violence has decreased greatly over the last couple of years. to say that if it was a success why aren’t we leaving, is illogical. to the best of my knowlege a slow draw down of troops is already planned, or taking place. success in iraq will equal disaster for liberals, and all who have a vested interest in us losing. your boy obama is going to lose david that is my prediction. he’s all flash and no substance. not that mc cain is much better. IMHO they’re both weak candidates, and niether has what it takes to lead this country in the right direction. a socialist, and a moron, what a choice.

dbs, the stated purpose of the SURGE by Bush and the Congress’ funding for it, was to give space to the Iraqi government to assume the governance of their own country, and thus open the door for our troops leaving.

You can invoke whatever reasons you personally wish to ascribe to the Surge, but they are irrelevant. There was a stated and funded purpose for the Surge, and that is the ONLY legitimate measuring stick by which to measure its success or failure.

Jan. 2007 State of the Union speech by Bush said of the troop increase:

So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

That last sentence is the definition of the purpose of the Surge: “ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs”.

Are the Iraqis now capable of providing their own security? If yes, then we can bring our troops home. If no, then the Surge has not been a success, to date.

david

the surge had a positive effect. the draw down is starting. should we just pack our stuff and leave all at once ? things don’t always happen on schedule, but if progress is being made what sense does it make to leave prematurely and possibly throw away the gains we’ve sacrificed so much to achieve?

dbs, the Surge had a positive effect on reducing the violence. But, McCain is saying it doesn’t matter, preparing to withdraw or announcing a timetable for withdrawing, is not in his plans.

I hear you when you say that for Republican leaders like Bush and McCain, things never happen on schedule, Katrina, Iraq in a few months, cutting the deficit in half, yada yada yada.

That’s precisely why America needs someone who believes schedules should be kept other things being equal. The Iraqis want us out by 2010. Are you suggesting Iraq is not a free and sovereign nation, but a satellite republic of the likes of McCain and Bush? If so, then a free Iraq was another lie of Pres. Bush’s. Free means free to make their own decisions.

There is no logical basis for our remaining in Iraq, and NO ONE has ever called for a 24 hour pullout of Iraq, so you can drop that strawman right now.

If McCain wants to honor Iraq’s free democratic status then he will announce he will comply with Iraq’s request for our withdrawal according to Obama’s and the Iraqis timetable, 16 months after the new president in the U.S. is in office. If not, then McCain does not believe in free and democratic nations making their own decisions.

It just doesn’t get any clearer or simpler than this.

david

i think it’s fine to set an outline for a goal, but we must be flexible enough to realize that if the goal hasn’t been met we’ll need to stay longer. the iraqi leaders said they wouldn’t be ready to assume all responsibilties by 2010. leaving to early would give iran, or syria an opening to wreak havoc on a country trying to establish its own security. iraq may be a free and sovereign nation, but they will still need our support.

dbs, that sounds like another way of saying, We need to be flexible so we don’t ever have to admit failure in the face of failure. Political sophistry. When you don’t meet your stated objectives, you failed. Everyone knows this.

Most people also know that when you fail at your objectives, doing the same things over and over again, is not likely to change the outcome.

There is a lot to be said for “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” But, it is insane to persevere with the same actions that failed previously. Also insane to refuse to go around a landslide in the road, trying again and again to drive through it.

The goal of the surge was to move the Iraqis in government to take responsibility for their own security and governance. As long as the Iraqis are dependent upon our tax dollars, our soldiers, and our equipment, the Surge continues to fail its objectives.

This logic cannot be evaded without rationalization.

david

“that sounds like another way of saying, We need to be flexible so we don’t ever have to admit failure in the face of failure. Political sophistry. When you don’t meet your stated objectives, you failed. Everyone knows this.”

i wouldn’t say it was a failure. if you set out to do something, and make progress towards your stated goal, but need more time that would not IMO be a failure. if nothing had changed, and no measurable progress was made, then yes that would be a failure.

“The goal of the surge was to move the Iraqis in government to take responsibility for their own security and governance. As long as the Iraqis are dependent upon our tax dollars, our soldiers, and our equipment, the Surge continues to fail its objectives.”

they’re headed in the right direction david, but if you insist that it’s either black or white, there’s nothing else i can really say.

BTW, it’s good to see you back.

Maybe McCain spent to much time in the Hanoi Hilton. He’s been on the loony side ever sense he’s got back. I’m not saying he hasn’t had any good ideas, but I just can’t remember when.
Having had and having kin in both Iraq and Afghanistan I get most my information from the grunt on the ground. What they tell me is both McCain and Obama are full of it.
While violence is down in Iraq it aint as far down as Bush or McCain would like us to believe. The surge has worked to some extent but not like it should have. The big reason for this is not enough troops. Both from start of the war, and not enough sent in the surge.
The Iraqi army is making slow progress and while it can hold it’s against the insurgents, it most likely wouldn’t be able to hold of an invasion from Iran.
The place I see as being the most dangerous right now though is the Afghan, Pakistani border. It seems that there’s more violence there every day from what I’ve been hearing. Maybe we need a surge there.
I agree some what with David. Why would anyone attack someone giving them what they want? But then these folks don’t follow the normal way of thinking for us westerners. Given that why wouldn’t they?
But it also seems from what my kin has told me the only ones that want Us troops to leave in a big hurry are the Islamic Extremist. The average Iraqi doesn’t mind the troops being there.

Ron,
The level of violence in Iraq today is roughly the same as the level in January 2006 (if you believe any statistics coming from the US/Iraqi government). Oddly enough, the last time Obama visited Iraq was in January 2006. The difference between then and now is that the city of Baghdad lost at least 800,000 people. That’s the result of the ethnic cleansing that happened in 2007, during the surge. And that’s out of a pre-invasion population of around 5 million.

David,
It seems like the same old GOP talking points keep popping back up. The surge is succeeding, so once again, we’ve won yet another victory, we’re winning, winning, winning, but somehow everything looks pretty much the same.

Ron Brown said: “The average Iraqi doesn’t mind the troops being there.”

Sorry, but the polls tell a different story. More than 80% of Iraqis want our occupation to end, and more than 65% want it to end sooner than later. It’s understandable however, that our people on the ground would have a different view, since their primary contact with Iraqis are those whom they have friendly relations with, and common courtesy prevents those Iraqis from saying Yank, Go Home to our soldiers faces.

More than 3/4 of the Iraqis, according to polls, believe our presence is causing more violence than preventing it. Their opinion is probably not accurate, but, it is their opinion and their country, if sovereignty has any meaning, which so far it doesn’t, for this Bush Administration, there or here.

Good to see you back too, dbs. Thanks.

Missing the mark by a few months, or even a year, is one thing, provided the objectives are met. But, missing the mark by many years and still not having those objectives achieved, well, that is failure no matter how you cut it.

Sure, you and Bush and McCain can legitimately say there has been progress. But, that is like saying Warren Buffet made progress in seeking to buy a good ink pen and ending up paying a few hundred million for only a pencil. Yes, he made progress, he now has something to write with, but, it is not what he sought and the price was outrageously counterproductive.

phx8, David
Knowing how our politicians and the media twist statistics and polls to say what they want them to I don’t set a whole heap of store by them. I’ve talked to GIs that’s been in Iraq other than my kin and get pretty much the same thing from them that my kin folk tell me. I’ll believe them before I believe some poll or statistics made up by any government. They’ve been there. How many of these statistic takers have?

Ron Brown, but they have not empirically sampled the Iraqi population, nor could they.

The polls are the better indicator. To deny them out of hand for personal perspective is playing Ostrich.

The logical and rational approach to polls is to question their reliability and validity based on their implementation or design. BTW, these polls have been done several times by a couple of different sponsors over the years and the trend is consistent. The longer we stay, the more Iraqis want us out.

One only has to reverse the situation with the Iraqis occupying America, to, in a very common sense analysis, recognize that those polls are very likely valid and reliable. In a reverse situation, Americans could be counted on too to say they wanted the Iraqis out by a large majority, regardless of how beneficent the Iraqis were toward us.

David,
Now that the Iraqi’s have moved on the oil contracts I think it is safe to say the surge has been successful. While the stated goal may not have been meant the unstated goal certainly has.
While I get tired of hearing that the dems want to see us defeated in Iraq I must say that it appears thats the only way to bring our troops home and to stop the financial bleeding of our grandchildren and children as being victorious as much as we have been in Iraq hasnt caused the troops to come home nor has it caused the taxpayers any relief. Saddam overthrown, WMD free, Democracy installed, AQI diminished yet we stay. Now the oil contracts, what more do we want before the real victory of having our national guard and other branches of the military home.

j2t2, McCain will never leave Iraq, as Bush never would. There thinking is that we bought rights to set up military shop in Iraq to oversee and police any and all activities that might impede the flow of the 70% of our total oil we now import.

Ironic that these fools actually want to drill on the East and West coasts, retarding progress on dumping fossil fuels almost entirely as our mainstay energy source. One would think that they would want the most rapid end to our dependence upon foreign oil imports given the cost of Iraq and maintaining a presence there. But, no. They want more and more oil as far as their limited capacities can see.

The surest and quickest way to fossil fuel independence is to leave the Middle East and invest the savings in alternate energy source development, marketing, and infrastructure.

Exxon-Mobil, btw, just posted new record profits this week. What Republican politician isn’t invested in that corporation, or failed to receive campaign donations from it? The quid pro quo may not be provable in a court of law, but, it is provable to common non-partisan sense.

BTW, just saw a July poll on setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. 60% to 30% in favor. 10% unsure. That puts McCain in the position of NOT representing the American people in his bid to be their leader.

David, the stated purpose of us withdrawing troops is to let the Iraqi’s step up and defend their country once again. With that in mind a timetable should be the only option any thinking person could accept. It allows the Iraqi military commanders to plan for and motivate themselves and their troops to action. It gives purpose to their training and cause to their troops.

This lackadasical approach favored by the repubs only serves to demoralize the Iraqi military. I mean really should AQI emerge and the Iraqi government,at this point, be unable to remove them, then we need to take a serious look at what we have been training them on the past 6 years and wonder if they can govern themselves. It seems that we are treating the Iraqi people as our youngsters and are afraid to see them go out and succeed or fail on their own. It wasnt that long ago that they were able to invade their neighbors and do battle with Iran, certainly with 6 years of US training they can meet or exceed that level of military capability.

It does me good to see that 60% of the American people can see the obvious. The 30% really dont count as they are Bush/McCain followers and have to much history on this issue to be objective. Its all about looking good to them at this point.

j2t2, that 30% DOES COUNT !

Just because they hold a minority viewpoint, does not mean they don’t count. The whole point of democratic societies is to allow all viewpoints to be heard and counted.

You may want to rethink your phrasing. Wasn’t long ago, Democrats held the minority viewpoint. They still counted.

Yes you are right David I didnt mean their opinion doesnt count although that is what it appears I said. My point is there are +/- 30% of us that will follow the administration regardless of the issue. Outside of that 30% most Americans seem to see the situation for what it is even if they are not sure of the course of action to take.

Ron Brown

I find your remarks on Iraq as sensible and agree that they are probably close to accurate. I would however like to point out that talking to the grunts about the state of a situation does not always give an accurate accounting. You must remember that most of them are giving you an assessment based on their individual experiences within a limited area of involvement. They most likely are less informed on the situation than we are. I served in Viet Nam and can attest to the fact that we were told only what our superiors wanted us to hear. Anything beyond that was derived from deciphering bits of truth out of armed forces radio in an attempt to get a true grasp of the situation. Yes we experienced fire fights, rocket attacks etc, but in reality for each unit the conflict was all local. Each locality had its own set of circumstances, parameters and politics. The result was that the troops were never able to completely see the big picture because we were never privy to it. Some of this was by design. Most of it was the result of simply not having a broad avenue of communication due to circumstances on the ground.

Most of what they have to say most likely has a degree of correctness to it. We need to remember that they are subject to the politics of this conflict just the same as we are. As a result they can be swayed by half truths and opinion just the same as us.

Please do not get me wrong. I am in no way belittling our troops or their opinions. I admire and respect what they do and wish them all well. I do hope that they can return home under the guise of a successful mission. I remember all too well what it is like to return from conflict lacking the respect of your fellow countrymen. If the Iraqi’s wish to continue this conflict without us then that is the way it should be. Regardless of the outcome once we leave our troops can consider their mission a success knowing that it was their efforts that provided opportunity for the Iraqi’s.

The problem with any discussion of the “Surge” is that it inevitably leaves out an important issue: the peace agreement with the Sunni tribes in the months prior to the “Surge.” At that time, the Sunnis were engaged in a three pronged war: against the US military occupation, against the Shiite dominated gov. and its Madhi army allies and against an out of control Iraqi al-Qaeda faction. Sunnis were being ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, the seat of power.

Under the above circumstances, the Sunni tribal leaders chose to make a peace agreement with the US. In exchange for US arms, protection from the Shiites, elimination of employment and other restrictions on former Baathists, the Sunnis agreed to stop attacks on US military, cooperate in the elimination of al-Qaeda and to participate in the Iraqi political process.

That agreement provided the foundation for the “Surge” to work. It is no mistake that the US troops were almost exclusively detailed to Baghdad and focused their attention on protecting Sunni neighborhoods, eliminating al-Qaeda elements with the cooperation of Sunni residents and controlling Shiite extremists. The fact that the Sunni triangle turned from deadly to quietly cooperative during this period was a key element in allowing the US to gain control over extremists in Baghdad.

McCain distorts the time line of the agreement attributing it to the “Surge” even though it had clearly been brokered prior to the “Surge.” Why? In my opinion because he wants to portray the reduction in violence in Iraq solely to military action occasioned by the “Surge.”

Obama notes the importance of the Sunni tribal agreements as precursor for the reductions of violence during the “Surge.”

Both are probably correct. Diplomatic efforts to reach agreement with the Sunni insurgency gave the US military opportunity and time to concentrate on extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Army via the “Surge.”

An additional factor that should not be overlooked in regard to Iraq is the vast increase in oil revenues the country has experienced in the last two years. The improved economic condition from that windfall is conducive to a reduction in violence.

Rich Harrington, quite right. In fact, McCain is now distorting every topic he talks about these days. His ad this week about Obama is just over the top. I see Rovian tactics at play here.

In the ad, McCain puts forth two well known white women having nothing to do with politics next to images of Obama. There is no point to be made here save that white bigots should fear for their white women if this man becomes president. And coincident with the release of this ad approved by McCain, McCain is on the campaign trail calling Obama’s tactics racist.

I disagree with one point. I no longer believe McCain is lying and distorting exclusively. I now believe he truly is a mentally challenged person for the volume of facts and information required of his aspirations. The man simply doesn’t have the smarts to know geography, (Pakistan bordering Iraq?) or to keep clear the many players in the Iraq situation (repeatedly stating Iran was training Sunnis in Iran to return to Iraq to fight the occupation).

In other words, Republicans have selected yet another educationally challenged individual to be their prospective leader. This time however, is quite by accident that such a dim wit was selected. The man has been in the Senate for years and years and years, and never once undertook to learn chapter 1 of economics, despite his vote carrying consequences in the Senate over trillions of U.S. tax payer dollars.

This is a man whose only claim to fame is becoming a prisoner and surviving by capitulating and cooperating with his captors (as anyone would under those circumstances). Living in the shadow and on the leash of his wife’s great wealth, he now, in the autumn of his life is seeking to become more than he was and is while there is still time to do so.

America, would be making the gravest of mistakes in electing this all to GW Bushlike individual to his aspired to level of incompetence. The Peter Principle has held him in check for decades. If the American voters have any sense, they will insure he does not ascend further than his already superceded position of incompetence.

This is an easy one. Without a doubt and beyond further question, ignorant!

Those comparisons to GWB are not by accident or simple party affiliation.