Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline)
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 46 (386847)
02-24-2007 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
11-20-2006 4:26 PM


Dana Priest, Anne Hull, Walter Reed and Imus In The Morning
I-Rock's OP about the lies of our current administration makes this seem the appropriate place to point out how another of their lies has been recently exposed in all its rancid glory, just in case you might've missed it: that the administration and its defenders staunchly "support our troops". It seems unconscionable, but oh so American, that the saga of Anna Nicole has overshadowed reports of the deplorable conditions in which our returning, heroic soldiers, the ones who've lost parts of their own bodies for this insane war of choice, are being ignored by the very people who are supposed to be the ultimate supporters of our troops. But on second thought, one might find a parallel theme running through the two stories: both have much to do with negligent yet excuseful "caregivers" who all seem to want to be entrusted with the care of someone whom they really don't appear to have much genuine regard for.
I'm not a big fan of Imus, but the fact that his are often the most probing and uninhibited political interviews available on any channel at that hour keeps me tuning in from time to time. I missed this segment but I think I tuned in soon after when he was talking about how people like Susan Sarandon and Alec Balwin are far more supportive of the troops than bastards like General Kiley. He also said, and I couldn't agree with him more, that Dana Priest and Anne Hull deserve not only Pulitzers but also the Congressional Medal of Freedom for their reporting.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-20-2006 4:26 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 46 (386925)
02-24-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
02-24-2007 1:00 PM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
quote:
Whether Iraq was a good idea or not, we are there now and it would be incredibly irresponsible to simply leave without the fledgling Iraqi government able to support its own weight.
I'll concede that you have a point, but there's a much larger and overshadowing counterpoint: the tribes that are now at war with each other in Iraq were at war for centuries before Iraq was ever a country. Only Prince Fiesal was ever able to truly unite the different Arab tribes, and even he, beloved as he was by almost all Arabs, was only able to do it ad hoc. By the time he was made King of Iraq, it was only the continuing presence of British armed forces that allowed him to keep peace.
What makes you think we can do any better? George Bush isn't Lawrence of Arabia and Ahmadinajhad (I probably mispelled that) isn't Prince Feisal.
These people have been at war with each other since the 7th century. We deposed a dictator who, ruthlessly or not, managed to control them and keep peace. Without him they're out of control and at war with each other again. What the hell do you neocons propose we do to change that?
Everything about the execution of this war - EVERYTHING! - has been "incredibly irresponsible". The Bush administration has been nothing but "incredibly irresponsible". And we continue to be "incredibly irresponsible" in the way we treat our troops (see my post above for just one ignominious example).
I think George Bush planned this whole nightmare, obviously thinking it would turn out much better and obviously seeing himself as achieving what people like T.E. Lawrence and King Feisal were never able to do: create a lasting alliance between bitter Arab enemies. Even if it were just in one country - like Iraq - uniting the Shia with the Sunni would change the course of Arab history. Bush would be a global hero if he could pull something like that off. But he didn't pull it off, and even if you ever thought he could, surely you must see that we are far beyond any such hope now.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-24-2007 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 11:59 AM berberry has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 46 (387057)
02-25-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hyroglyphx
02-25-2007 11:59 AM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
quote:
Sectarian rivalry is a problem within the Islamic community, and as you alluded, always has been. But should we forsake it all over this fact, or should we establish order in Iraq and gain a new and much needed ally in the Middle East?
I'm not talking about forsaking anything; the idea of a stable, democratic Iraq where Sunni and Shia share power and work together is pretty much off the table now, already forsaken. It's a lovely thought, but it's grossly unrealistic. Even the president seems to have dropped that nonsense, apparently wanting now to commit to nothing more than, to use your words, establishing order.
What I'm talking about is acknowledging facts and informing our policy with those facts. If Iraq's history is any indication at all, then even under the best possible scenario the most we can do is maintain some measure of peace through force. Tensions will continue to simmer and, be it five, ten, twenty or however many years from now we finally do pull out, the whole thing will fall apart into a continuation of the very civil war that's going on right now. Unless we find some solution completely different than what we're trying to achieve right now (whatever that happens to be these days, no one seems to be able to clearly explain it. Perhaps you can?) then sectarian war is inevitable and all we're doing is wasting the lives of the men and women we're sending over.
quote:
I think military strategists would really like to make Iraq a new home for a few air bases because of its central locality. They can't achieve this until the hostilities subside.
You're worried that we're not going to have permanent military bases in Iraq? That's why you want us to stay there? Has anyone consulted with the Iraqi people to see whether they'd be amenable to American military bases being permanently established in their country? Would their opinion matter to you?
quote:
What is your suggestion in how we should handle it.
Make like the Brits and get the hell out. Quit meddling in internal Arab affairs.
quote:
Clinton wanted to be the one guy to reconcile the Palestinians and Israelis. But he wasn't able to achieve it no matter how hard he tried.
You're right, and it's probably true that regardless of whatever altruistic motives Clinton might have had, he probably had some selfish motives, too. What president wouldn't want to be remembered by later generations as a great peacemaker?
I'm not sure what kind of analogy you're trying to draw here, but I think it's worth mentioning that Clinton didn't start any wars in the Middle East.
quote:
I think now that Rumsfeld resigned that we are better off than ever were with him. Notice how many people left the Administration abruptly, but most prominently, Colin Powell, who I believe would have made a far better Secretary of Defense. There has been a lot of mismanagement in the Iraq conflict because the SecDef was not listening to his commanders on the ground, who, lets face it, feel like their hands are tied behind their backs.
You're making my case for me. I don't see how you reconcile these sentiments with your continuing support for the president's policies.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-25-2007 11:59 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024