Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq: Poised to Explode
While everyone's looking at Iraq's effect on American politics -- and whether or not John McCain and Barack Obama are converging on a policy that combines a flexible timetable with a vague, and long-lasting, residual force -- let's take a look instead at Iraqi politics. The picture isn't pretty.
Despite the Optimism of the Neocons, which has pushed mainstream media coverage to be increasingly flowery about Iraq's political progress, in fact the country is poised to explode. Even before the November election. And for McCain and Obama, the problem is that Iran has many of the cards in its hands. Depending on its choosing, between now and November Iran can help stabilize the war in Iraq -- mostly by urging the Iraqi Shiites to behave themselves -- or it can make things a lot more violent.
There are at least three flashpoints for an explosion, any or all of which could blow up over the next couple of months. (Way to go, Surgin' Generals!) The first is the brewing crisis over Kirkuk, where the pushy Kurds are demanding control and Iraq's Arabs are resisting. The second is in the west, and Anbar, where the US-backed Sons of Iraq sahwa ("Awakening") movement is moving to take power against the Iraqi Islamic Party, a fundamentalist Sunni bloc. And third is the restive Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is chafing at gains made by its Iranian-backed rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
Perhaps the issue of Kirkuk and the Kurds is most dangerous. Last week, the Kurds walked out of parliament to protest a law passed by parliament to govern the provincial elections. The law passed 127-13, but it was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. Juan Cole, the astute observer, says : "The conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk is a crisis waiting to happen." He cites Al-Hayat, an Iraqi newspaper, as claiming that not only do the Kurds want to control Kirkuk, an oil-rich province in Iraq's north, but they plan to annex three other provinces where Kurds live: Diyala, Salahuddin, and Ninewa. That's not likely, but they do want Kirkuk, and the vetoed election law would have limited the Kurds' ability to press their gains there.
The election law was supported by Sadr's bloc and backed by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraq National List. Another nationalist party, the National Dialogue Council, has demanded the ouster of President Talabani over his veto of the law. Other Iraqi parties are backing the now-vetoed law, too, which also restricts the use of Islamic religious symbols by political parties seeking to corral illiterate, religious voters.
Because of all this, it now looks like there won't be provincial elections this year at all. The ruling bloc of Shiite religious parties and Kurdish warlords is split over the crisis, weakening Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and members of the ruling coalition are trying to patch things up. I don't think they'll succeed. Many Shiites in the ruling bloc, including ISCI, have criticized the law as divisive, but as Arabs it's hard for them to endorse a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk. ISCI and the Badr Brigade, its armed wing, are holding parlays to decide what to do. Interestingly, all three members of the ruling presidential council, including Talabani, the IIP's Hashemi, and ISCI's Adel Abdel Mahdi, voted to veto the law, putting ISCI and the IIP on record as supporting the Kurds. Bad for them politically.
The IIP says that it wants to mediate the crisis. But the IIP is in a very, very weak position. Having just rejoined the Maliki government, it is under siege at home in its base in Anbar province, where the Awakening is flexing its muscle. This could be the second explosion. The Sunni Arabs are still seething over the divisive Iraqi Constitution and their continuing exclusion from political power, and the Awakening movement sees the IIP (correctly) as wildly unrepresentative. So the Awakening, representing Sunni tribal powers and former resistance fighters, wants in, at the expense of the IIP. That time bomb is ticking, too.
The final crisis-to-be is the Sadr vs. Badr one. The Times today suggests that Sadr is weakening:
The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
Don't believe it. Sadr's rivals, ISCI, don't have anything like the popular base that Sadr has. And underneath Sadr is a volatile mix of neighborhood, local and regional militias, mosques, and economic fiefdoms that won't yield easily to ISCI and Maliki. Because Sadr's forces are dependent on Iran, however, for arms and cash, Iran may be in the driver's seat. Just the other day, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps crowed that the United States has failed to install an anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, and he's completely right.
So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I'm not sure either "plan" will work.
The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
Don't believe it. Sadr's rivals, ISCI, don't have anything like the popular base that Sadr has. And underneath Sadr is a volatile mix of neighborhood, local and regional militias, mosques, and economic fiefdoms that won't yield easily to ISCI and Maliki. Because Sadr's forces are dependent on Iran, however, for arms and cash, Iran may be in the driver's seat. Just the other day, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps crowed that the United States has failed to install an anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, and he's completely right. So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I'm not sure either "plan" will work.




55 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't Obama's plan to slowly withdraw predicated on the assumption that the "surge" worked?
It makes no difference what America does in Iraq. Iraq will be what Iraq is, sooner or later.
Now, America is rotting from the inside, easily evidenced by the lack of health care, low incomes, increasing debt, financial weakness, and military industrialization.
Distinctions are blurred as change accelerates, and solutions are unclear. Problems accumulate faster than they can be solved. Congress approves wrong-headed solutions written by K Street. The downward spiral is systematized and shows no evidence of meaningful correction. The system is designed to fail. Thoughtful people sense the real danger. As the dollar falls in value the likely tipping point will be in the hands of the Saudi's. When the Saudi's decide to accept Euro's instead of dollars for oil our troubled financial system will collpase. Bin Laden wins and the American empire ends.
Do you have enough food, water, and medicine to last for six months?
Good to see ya Doom & Gloom! We saw this one coming a long time ago. The economic hurricane is about to make landfall. An "explosion" in Iraq/Iran might just elevate the the rating a bit, however.
Dreyfuss is the best source of real info about what is going on in the middle east. It would be wise to at least listen to what he has to say. If he's right, and if any one of these time bombs goes off, the landscape in the U.S. will be more devistated than than in the middle east. I wonder how the sheeple will react? We do indeed live in interesting times.
Disaster is the Neo-Con's only real product.
Look for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to destabilize.
America is already falling apart. Bush is looting our treasury as I write this to feed Fanny and Freddie's investors. His Conservative Brownshirts are shooting Liberal Christians. And so it goes - protect yourself and 'short' the Dow.
the surge boss the surge
mccain is like tattoo on fantasy island, except a lot older - has anyone carbon dated him yet
the american body politic is so dysfunctional it has to ignore the imperial empire building exercise that is iraq totally and focus on the fictional "war on terrorism" as expressed by the shaky non-concept that is the "surge"
these conflicts, however, are all good for the occupying forces and they demonstrate the need for "security"
don't be surprised to find the american corporations behind all of these "conflicts" - the more the merrier for them
dead bodies = profits
dead bodies = oil
dead bodies = occupation continuance
good news for bechtel, dynecorp and kbr to mention a few
now that maliki has reneged on his promise to be a traitor to his own people and sign the sofa agreement don't be surprised to see him turn up dead one day real soon
no doubt at the hands of some terrorist soon to be glaring out your tv screens on abc, nbc, cnn.........
we may even get a newer, revised, bigger and better than ever version of osama bin laden out of this yet
this will all be further proof that the "terrorists" still "hate american freedom"
and will speak to the need for a continuing or residual force - at least til the oil is gone anyway
The surge worked...there might be a slight uptick before the elections but that war is over and won...we just need to stay a couple more years till Iraq is a more stable Democracy...sorry kids...I know it pains you to see Republicans win a war
Missing from Dreyfuss' column is mention of Sadr's stature as symbol and leader of Shiite resistance to the occupation and to the oil giveaway, and his long history of calling for Shiite-Sunni unity. Also missing is any mention of the Iraqi labor movement, including the powerful oil workers union, fierce supporters of Iraqi political and economic sovereignty.
Sadr has led his movement in morphing into a vehicle for political and popular struggle. He is a militant nationalist, and I would be wary of attempts to paint him as a tool of Iran. When Maliki and the occupiers start backsliding on US withdrawal and trying to push through permanent agreements, the result could be quite a dramatic national uprising!
The surge worked...the surge worked...the surge worked...just repeat it over and over like a parrot with avian spongiform encephalopathy while the country bleeds hundreds of billions each year...and the Empire slowly circles in the toilet bowl...
I'm trying to train my dog to say it "Sssuurge woofed..." because I think I can get her a high profile (and high paying) spot at Fox News ... if not there then maybe NPR for a little less green.
Or she could ask for a cabinet post in Captain Fossil's Administration...if the little Locomotive that could runs out of steam by November.
SnowWolf above must be from the Holly Golightly Wing of the GOP. They believe their own BullSh*t.
America actually won the Unnecessary Iraq War, i.e. Operation Iraqi Liberation, in 2003. But they couldn't leave as W had to be a "War President", the Afghan war was over and the GWOT is pure Bullsh*t.
If we had left the Iraqis to figure it out for them-selves, about 4000 Americans would not be dead, and Iraq would probably be a very stable secular state. But the Masters of Disasters, the NeoCons and W, wanted to turn Iraq into the Right Wing Wet Dream. So they imposed the dream on Iraq and gave Tax money to their Friends to "rebuild Iraq".
As with everything the GOP does, it is good for their Friends and bad for America.
The Arabs have very long memories, and believe in "1000 years for Revenge", America will be the target and it will be personal. It may make 9/11 look like a picnic. You can thank you GOP friends for it.
snowwolf lives in the most populous state in the union - the state of denial
he needs to be renditioned to gofuckistan for some good old fashion waterboarding - i'm sure he agrees that its not torture
maybe he should be dropped in boiling oil - that is not torture either
so says cheney
SnowWolf July 28th, 2008 2:38 pm
The surge worked…there might be a slight uptick before the elections but that
war is over and won…we just need to stay a couple more years till Iraq is a more
stable Democracy…sorry kids…I know it pains you to see Republicans win a war
Snow Wolf, you've been hitting the red pill a little hard this week or you're being
facitious. Unfortunately, i think you're for real. Thanks for reminding the rest of
us what mindless, republican thinking spawns.
Drefuss's article, like today's terrible hard news about the multiple suicide bombings in Baghdad and in northern Iraq, are reminders of just how ephemeral all signs of "progress" are when the observer is caught up in a highly unpopular military occupation, superimposed upon somebody else's civil war.
Just keep right on whistlin', right past the cemetery.....
Bill from Saginaw
Thank you, Chris Horton (2:48pm)for your comments on Moqtada el-Sadr. In addition to popular support, I believe he also is supported by a majority of Iraq's parliament. He, and they, want full sovereignty for Iraq and for the US to end its illegal occupation (and oil grab).
Except for firing in self-defense, Sadr's followers held his August 2007 ceasefire through US and Iraqi attacks. (No wonder they have been "weakened.") Sadr also organized a large, non-violent march for peace in Baghdad that, to me, indicates that he and his religious advisors may be followers of Gandhi and King.
That the election law has not passed may be a good thing if it delays a parliamentary decision on the so-called oil law that is NOT just about sharing revenues, but also includes giving control and 75 percent of the profits from all new drilling to oil companies selected in early 2001(way before 9/11) as "suitors" for Iraq's oil after our successful, brief invasion.
Were you serious ~Snowwolf~?
You couldn't be.
Watch out now. Here comes the Big Chief who knows how to handle every contingency. McCain will bomb Iran. That's his style. Unless you are a coward, you will either join up or if you are too old, you will wave the flag.
When Russia intervenes, we will need another 400,000 troops. They won't volunteer for this one (rember the old saw: screw me once, shame on you: screw me twice, shame on me.) They know they are only fighting for Cheney's oil.
So we draft 400,000, but only 200,000 show up. Canada's population increases again. So McCain nukes Iran and Russia nukes Israel. McCain nukes China and India nukes Pakistan. But McCain will not back down. He wants his war and he wants his graves covered with American flags. He should have starred in "Dr. Strangelove."
He dies from a broken heart when Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans and Pittsburg are nuked. But he lived long enough to nuke North Korea for the hell of it and he is going after Darfur because of all the Aids.
And so on....
WMD's, did we ever find them? Oh right... found those 6 lost ones on the B-52 that was probably deploying further forward because we're at DEFCON 2. Also found those WMD's in congress members mailbox. And ofcourse we're drawing up designs for new ones, does that count? What you say, US WMD's don't count?
Bernice, I'll accept that Sadr is popular and not the monstrous badguy the US military wished they could believe and portray him as, but a follower of Gandhi and King? No, he is the head of an armed militia that glorifies martyrdom and deals out draconian punishments to "immodest" women, etc.
And yes, he's a nationalist, but the Sunnis and Kurds loathe him and so does most of the Shiite hierarchy, so he's got a way to go before he can claim the mantle of national liberation leader.
Unfortunately, after decades of imperialism, Saddam, war and Anglo-American brutality, Iraq's sectarian/ethnic divisions have not been tempered by modern national development and the country is pretty well screwed. About the only hopeful scenario I can come up with is that their collective anger at us unites them enough to throw us out - but after we go, it's still going to be a bloody mess.
busterkikki---all that done to the tune of Randy Newman's "political science" (let's drop the big one, no one likes us anyway)
If you think the surge worked, Obama, you must also think band-aids take care of cancer. NADER, NADER, NADER.
Like that other part of the former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Iraq is a slow-motion disaster waiting to happen. Right now, the USA is acting like an inept version of Marshall Tito. Just like the Yugoslav break up, a messy multi-sided war with shifting alliances and enemies that could very draw in some of the neighbors is in the offing.
My local television news (NBC) just reported 57 dead, over 300 wounded in Baghdad and Kirkuk today. The information was presented in a ho-hum way, in a report that lasted about 20 seconds. A lengthy report of the Virgin Atlantic space program followed.
It's almost like everyone just wants to pretend everything is fine.
2cent2 - Don't you know? The Obscenely Wealthy are just marking time until they board their Scientology patented golden DC10-shaped spaceships to fly 'Star Trek (tm)' style to reclaim their martian homeland. Mars, where humanity first evolved, and migrated to Earth to avoid a war that destroyed the planet that used to be where the asteroid belt now is.
Or they are just obeying the orders of our reptilian overlords who live in the eighth dimension, and whose human hybrid offspring are Queen Elizabeth II and George W. Bush, among others. Just as David Icke.
Or they don't give a tin-plated god-damn because they KNOW they will be taken up bodily in The Rapture (tm), as foretold by the great Republican guru and Blackwater buddy Tim LaHay.
Okay, enough 24 carat sarcasm.
But the views I outlined above are REALLY out there, and have millions of believers.
Dear Mr. Robert Dreyfuss,
I don't know whose payroll you are on and to which devil you have sold your soul. I just want to remind you that the Kurds are not "Pushy" or "Warlords". They are a peace-loving nation of 40+ million (the third largest ethnic group in the Middle East) without a state of their own (thanks mainly to the imperialistic policies of the Western Colonial Powers who have nothing in mind except their own national interests). All the Kurds in Iraq wants is that the Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution to be honored and put into effect. This Article calls for a referendum to be held in Kirkuk to determine whether or not the population of the province wants to be ruled from Baghdad, or they want to join the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. The Iraqi Constitution, I may add, is a document that was prepared under the supervision of the representative of the U.S. in Iraq and was approved by 98 percent of the Iraqi population. Why do you call the Kurds "Pushy" while all they want is to uphold the country's Constitutional Law?
Dear Mr. Robert Dreyfuss,
I don't know whose payroll you are on and to which devil you have sold your soul. You sound more like another Kurdish-hater that I know, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. Anyway, I just want to remind you that the Kurds are not "Pushy" or "Warlords". They are a peace-loving nation of 40+ million (the third largest ethnic group in the Middle East) without a state of their own (thanks mainly to the imperialistic policies of the Western Colonial Powers who have nothing in mind except their own national interests). All the Kurds in Iraq wants is that the Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution to be honored and put into effect. This Article calls for a referendum to be held in Kirkuk to determine whether or not the population of the province wants to be ruled from Baghdad, or it wants to join the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. The Iraqi Constitution, I may add, is a document that was prepared under the supervision of the representative of the U.S. in Iraq and was approved by about 90 percent of the Iraqi population. Why do you call the Kurds "Pushy" while all they want is to uphold the country's Constitutional Law?
Weelll of course the Kurds are war lords if they won't sign over oil rights to what once were the 'seven sisters'(big oil)...and further they don't wish to be ruled by Baghdad, must be something wrong with them.
Another something this article brings up is all the different groups and parties there are in Iraq....while here in 'merica we have but two...who like the double mint gum commercials are really two yes two in one.
And we are to worry about the IRAQI CONSTITUTION
while our own US CONSTITUION has been relegated to the trash heap and our economy isn't far behind.
IS IT TIME TO WAKE UP YET?
Impeach and Prosecute Now all who have broken with OUR US CONSTITUTION save America!!!!
2cent2....Everything is fine, if you read the newspapers and watch television....Good Grief! They only get the weather report right about half of the time so how can you trust what you read and watch? We are in Wonderland where up is down and down is up and after living topsy turvy you begin to believe it because it appears everyone else believes it and none of us want to step on any toes or rattle any cages and after all upside down really isn't so bad after all. Sarcasim can be very truthful....
When it comes to Iraq, McCain is hopeless, and Obama is not getting the best advice from his advisors, and most of the rest of us have not been able to discard the notion that our leadership (of both parties) persists with the attitude that only the "good old U.S of A. can solve the mess in Iraq (and in the whole of the Middle East, for that matter!). When was it that McGovern and Roth published their book "Out Of Iraq"?.They drew upon the lessons of history to build an excellent case for getting us out of Iraq and helping the Iraqi's restore their homeland and end the strife there as well as the infrastructure which still is nowhere near providing a decent place for the remaining populace to live. Sure, there's still a lot of combat going on there, but it's really not a "war" anymore in the strict sense of the word, and the U.S is not and has not been any kind of a real mediator - - we have too many vested interests involved. This is a situation where the U. N. should be acting in its role as mediator/arbitrator and peacekeeper along with the assistance of a heavy dose of other neighboring middle East nations. We should be obliged to provide the wherewithal for reparations (which would be far cheaper than the huge deficit the military and non-governmental contractors are piling up for our future taxpayers to contend with). Learn from history (from Britain's experience with What is now Iraq in the 1920's, for instance). Obama's 16 month goal is sort of commendable, but it is not likely to happen unless there are other approaches to the problem than anything that is on the table now - - McCain's "100 year" gaffe may be more realistic - - if the U.S. is able to survive that long under the burden we have inherited from the Bush Administration, the neocons and the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Economics alumni courtesy of the regimen of the late Prof. Milton Friedman.
Dreyfuss is a prime example of the adage ' someone who can see both sides of an issue has limited vision.
He has completely missed the question of the Turkoman population in Kirkuk and the related potential of Turkish military action if the Kurds take over Kirkuk. The Turkish gov't has warned it will invade to protect Turkoman interests.
That will be the gasoline poured on the fire - so to speak.
Snow Wolf - utter codswallop and absolute bollocks.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And btw it would have been marvellous if Republicans like yourself had fought and "won" the war but no the repugs are only ever "armchair warriors" who leave the fighting to others.
SnowWolf July 28th, 2008 2:38 pm "...that war is over and won..."
Holy @#$%&*!
There is no "won" in the Bush Iraq war, other than the inevitable victory we handed Iran the day we launched the invasion. We could garrison Iraq for every week of McCain's cherished 100 years, except that it would bankrupt us, and the day after we leave, in 2010 or 2110, it's going to be Yugoslavia all over again.
The war we're supposedly "winning" with the "Surge" hasn't even started yet.
Those people have grudges against each other that were already ancient a thousand years ago. What we do makes absolutely no difference to the outcome, except that the longer we keep killing civilians, the more America-hating recruits we make for Al Qaeda, the IIP, and the Mahdi Army. Not to mention, the more innocent blood will be directly on our hands.
I'm in denial?...too funny...I can't wait to drop by here when McCain wins the election...THEN you'll see denial
Rob Roy...I am a Veteran...are you?
My son is in the 101st ABN in Bagdad (JSS Thrasher) right now...so "I got skin in the game" as they say....He emails me a couple times a week...they are bored...NOTHING is happening in their sector...its all happening in Mosul...AQI is getting a royal butt-whupping everytime they raise their heads...Iraq is slowly becoming a stable Democracy...you are probably safer there than on the Streets of Chicago
SnowWolf
So your son is bored and the republicans have won a war......and Iraq is slowly becoming a stable Democracy......have I got this right? Stable democracy like right here in the good ol' U S of A? Where we no longer have a Constitution, our economy is terrible, the national debt continues to rise as the dollar devalues, Corporate bail outs while people starve and are without proper medical care? Outright Corruption and moneys disappear by the millions and billions in Iraq...not to mention the death count of both sides.......or that the infrastucture of Iraq is gone as in water and electricity.
And hey if it is safer in Iraq than on the streets of one of America's biggest cities you've won what? Oh by the way I thought it was only the justice department jobs you had to be a republican to get....you infer it is the military as well... plus the fact that although this might look like a war...legally it isn't.
Is it time to wake up yet?
Nothing but a botched armed robbery.There's no 'winning' a WAR CRIME.
SnowWolf turn-off corporate propaganda.Ignorance is BAD CITIZENSHIP.
"Iraq is slowly becoming a stable Democracy…you are probably safer there than on the Streets of Chicago"
Right...
Iran/Iraq (and the overall-ME) has a LONG way to go before it has even the benefit of the so-called "stable-Democracies" it once-had -- before our&Israel's covert-'Patriots' (in WallStreet's CIA/Mossad) de-stabilized them -- pre-Shaw/Saddam. 'Instability' was the the exact-intent for the resource-rich ME since the Brit's took-over from the failed Ottoman Empire...and deliberately 'drew the map' for strife/Division/'terror' (easily-exploitable for enforced 'Western-Interests').
Any 'democracy' formed there now, with all-'meddling'/Interests considered, will resemble Franklin's definition: "Two-wolves and a Sheep, voting on whats-for-dinner".
There is no stable-Democracy (or Socialist-state) anywhere on the planet. There is only rising/competing Corporatism.
For good/ill/indifferent, that is our World-Politic -- and our immediate-Future... Corrupted-Monarchies and their selfish-Interests fell to corrupted-Corporations, and their selfish-Interests. [I see no major-differences betwixt Feudal-Subjects and Capitalist-Consumers -- do you? The same Mythos supports/enables both Monarch or Corporate-board...]
Ali peace loving? Kinda like the bombs the Kurdish seperatists set off this week in Istanbul? My ass. I know the Turks are also awful and have bombed Kurdish Northern Iraq and the Kurdish regiosn in Turkey but please don't label yourselves as peace loving when evidence says otherwise.
SnowWolf July 29th, 2008 11:33 am
I have to go along with the fact that we have won nothing.
That the surge worked is undeniable. It should heve. It was a good tactic and the dunderheads finally put an able officer back in charge. But its just a tactic, not a strategy.
Iraq is a no win situation for us, the biggest strategic blunder since Viet Nam. A tragic waste of lives and resource's. And a real tragedy for the Iraqi.
Bless your son and tell him to keep his hat on.
Thomas More...thank you
I do worry about him...I for one are glad he's in a quiet sector
Richard Paine...let me guess...you're a charter member of move-on.org...right?
Thomas more...I like it here because MOST can debate without getting stoopid about it...I see your points...and I respect them...the Bush=Hitler=destroyed the Constitution crowd doesn't add anything of value to the debate...thank you being intelligent and using argument, not vitriol
SnowWolf July 29th, 2008 5:19 pm
Thomas More…thank you
"I do worry about him…I for one are glad he's in a quiet sector"
As am I and I hope it stays that way. I'd bring them all home tomorrow if I could. But its going to take some time to disengage. From the looks of it about a year and a half. And thats when we finally start.
Pax
I'm just curious about your brethren here that really believe Bush is out to destroy the Constitution in some sort of weirdo power grab...have they never studied Lincoln during the Civil War or FDR during WWII?
I believe Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and had the entire Maryland state legislature put in jail till they signed an "oath of allegience" to the Union
I KNOW that Roosevelt was aware that he was committing a grave civil liberties offense against Japanese Americans in the internment camps and it must have pained him...but he had to weigh that against the consequences of having people possibly sympathetic to the cause of the enemy running loose...I don't blindly think Bush is infallible but I know he has to do what he has to do...lives depend on it...possibly ours
SnowWolf July 29th, 2008 6:07 pm
The things you say about Lincoln and Roosevelt are true.
Bush was our Govenor and I can tell you he was the worst we ever had. As far as I am concerned he is the worst President we've ever had.
He was probably led down the garden path by Perle, Wolfewitz, Cheney and other neocons, but he rushed into an attack that should never have been made.
When the Sec. of the Department of Justice that you appointed declares the Geneva Convention a quaint document, declares that he has the power to decide things that are excluded from his power by our Constitution, allows the graft and corruption that is so great its even turned most conservatives against him, appoints people that are so inept to offices that are so important, even declares that he will selectively enforce laws at his decision, that allows our borders to remain wide open years after 9-11............
As you can tell, we don't share the same opinion of George.
Look at it this way, they claim that for our security, we need to approve various forms of torture, suspend certain Constitutional rights, etc and at the same time actively oppose controlling our borders, allowing access to our ports and facilities by choice.....I can't see how anyone believes their claims.
As to the fight them there or fight them here line, we both know Iraq wasn't about to invade.
Just remember the examples you used and the fact that we faced nothing like those situations.
Pax
I never lived under Bush as a Govenor...so I will take your word on that...you were there...
I do feel that Carter is still worst Prez ever...I wasted my first ever vote on him too...and I agree with you on the Borders issue also...The Dems won't stop it because they want Hispanic votes and the Repubs won't because they want cheap labor (perhaps we should flush ALL the incumbents and start over?)...we will part a bit over Geneva...Al Quaeda isn't a bona fide military organization and aren't entitled to its protections...(Law of Armed Warfare and all that)...as far as water-boarding etc...I concede that its torture...but having been in the military myself I know that Navy SEALS and Special Warfare folks in general get to experience it...just to show them how easy it is to get you to talk...the only reason to take them alive is for intelligence purposes...so if we can't interrogate them and with the recent asinine ruling of the Supreme Court regarding detainees...I figure we'll just adjust to direct action missions and not bring them back...
Also...you are right about some of the people Bush has appointed...Grants Presidency was very similar...He was a good man but unfortunately his appointees were disapointments also...
As far as the next administration...I think Obama has peaked...and he won't make it...His biggest problem right now isn't McCain...its Hillary...the Clinton smear machine is working overtime to get the dirt on Obama ...and if she doesn't get to be VP she'll make sure McCain gets elected...I'm willing to make a small wager on that...if she DOES get to be VP...Obama better watch his back...I'm only half joking too
SnowWolf July 30th, 2008 4:30 am
(perhaps we should flush ALL the incumbents and start over?)…
Best idea going!
Torture never gets you anything thats worth more than what you lost indulging in it. As to the Terroists, if we don't accord them the same treatment we would expect, then we lose when they indulge in much worse torture.......its a no win situation.
From what I'm seeing on CD and other places it indeed looks like Obama may very well lose. If enough votes are diverted to third tier candidates, if he can't find some way to repair the damage he's done with middle class and the center........McCain could win.
We should always bring them back. We should always take them alive if possible. They might just be Iraqi defending their home. Who knows.
The biggest problem I've had talking to people here is thaty the are not combat veterans, haven't even served in the military and can't possibly understand what its like.
But there are many fine people here and most will welcome your opinions as you've stated up front your position.
Tell your son to KEEP HIS HAT ON.
Pax
SnowWolf July 30th, 2008 4:30 am
(perhaps we should flush ALL the incumbents and start over?)…
Best idea going!
Torture never gets you anything thats worth more than what you lost indulging in it. As to the Terroists, if we don't accord them the same treatment we would expect, then we lose when they indulge in much worse torture.......its a no win situation.
From what I'm seeing on CD and other places it indeed looks like Obama may very well lose. If enough votes are diverted to third tier candidates, if he can't find some way to repair the damage he's done with middle class and the center........McCain could win.
We should always bring them back. We should always take them alive if possible. They might just be Iraqi defending their home. Who knows.
The biggest problem I've had talking to people here is thaty the are not combat veterans, haven't even served in the military and can't possibly understand what its like.
But there are many fine people here and most will welcome your opinions as you've stated up front your position.
Tell your son to KEEP HIS HAT ON.
Pax
Good morning my friend...
Flush all the incumbents is definitely worth consideration.....we could start with Ted "Do me a favor" Stevens and William "Cold Cash" Jefferson ...there is two that need to be out of my Government
I really don't have much to add to this thread (hope to converse on another)..and thanks for the concern about my boy...as he has told me recently when I ask what they're doing: "We patrol the neighborhood, we settle disputes, we look for suspicious activity"...hopefully it will stay quiet
What would happen if there was a national referendum on the war in Iraq? … Beyond that, what would happen if there was a national referendum on war itself, war in general?
Perhaps we should ask the question another way. … Why do those in power *not* want a national referendum on war; a national referendum on either a specific war or war in general?
The political establishment in the United States – the United States possessing the largest, most powerful military in the history of the world – will never allow the general public to vote on war or peace. And the reason is simple: the average person, in any country in the world, not just America, doesn't want war.
The United States is spending $15 billion per month on the war in Iraq. Ask the average American how they would like that $15 billion per month spent … on war or on peace?
See the following -- http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home -- especially the part of this website that outlines how *else* that $15 billion dollars per month can be spent -- how $15 billion dollars per month can be spent on health, education and welfare, instead of war.
Those in power know damn well that if a national referendum were held on the question of "WAR OR PEACE, WHICH DO YOU PREFER?" that the overwhelming majority of people would vote for peace.
(Continued)
Notice how regularly, how systematically and how cynically those in power take the antiwar sentiment of millions of people "off the table." …
Consider the 2002 Congressional elections. This was the period of time in which the Bush Administration was claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many people believed otherwise. … What did the Democratic Party do?
The Democratic Party made it quite clear to the voting public that the 2002 Congressional elections would not be about whether the United States should or should not go to war. You may recall the famous picture (the "photo op") of the Democratic Congressional leaders standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican Congressional leaders right after the vote was taken authorizing the invasion of Iraq. The message to the American public was clear: "Don't expect the Democratic Party to serve as an oppositional party to the president's war -- invading Iraq is a bipartisan decision."
In other words, the Democratic Party was saying, loud and clear -- "Don't think that this Election will be a referendum on war or peace; it won't."
And so the Democratic Party made the 2002 Congressional election about "other issues." The war in Iraq, as far as the Democrats were concerned, was "off the table."
Indeed, rather than act as an oppositional party on the issue of the War, the Democratic Party went right along with it, authorizing the invasion as well as every subsequent funding of the War.
(Continued)
Now flash-forward to 2004. The general population is, again, questioning the war in Iraq. And from out of nowhere an unknown Vermont governor, Howard Dean, becomes a rallying point for antiwar sentiment throughout the United States. He raises an unprecedented amount of money for his campaign, an unprecedented amount of small donations via the Internet and, above all, an unprecedented amount of support by virtue of his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Were Dean to have gotten the Democratic nomination, the Election would have been, in effect, a national referendum on the war in Iraq.
So what happened to what was shaping up in 2004 to be a national referendum on war versus peace, Bush versus Dean? Well, we all know what happened. Dean "yelped" and his candidacy tanked.
Enter John Kerry, the war candidate.
John Kerry in a July 16, 2004 interview he gave to the "Wall Street Journal" was asked: If you are elected President, how long do you think the US will be in Iraq? … Kerry's answer: Probably to at least the end of my first term.
So that far from representing the antiwar sentiments of millions of Americans, John Kerry *embraced* the Iraq War. … Far from being a peace candidate, Kerry's position was that the war in Iraq was fundamentally right, that the United States *should* be in Iraq -- it's just that Bush was conducting the war incorrectly, inefficiently.
A Kerry administration, John Kerry told us, would prosecute the war more effectively.
… And so what could have been a national referendum on the War (Bush versus Dean) was "taken off the table."
(Continued)