Never mind public relations. This sort of thing is murder. It goes on because Bush and co. started an unjustified & unnecessary war, and then executed it badly. America should bring its occupation of Iraq to an end quickly, and should pursue criminal charges wherever appropriate — which means all the way up to the Whitehouse.
Charles N. Steele is correct. The only moral thing is to hand the Iraq people back into slavery of the the Baathists and Islamists. Buscho are Murderers!! So let’s give up now and submit to the totalitarians. Over throw bushco and install a communist/islamist dictatorship. For liberty’s sake.
No name, this is a silly mischaracterization of my position. It isn’t obvious that immediate withdrawal is a good solution (it might be, but it’s not obvious).
I also don’t advocate overthrowing Bush. But I am fairly sure that there are adequate grounds for legal action against members of the Bush administration, including Bush himself, and they shouldn’t be allowed to violate the constitution and otherwise break laws.
But apparently you think that the only altrnatives are continuing the present course and establishment of a “communist/islamist dictatorship” (whatever that is). This suggests to me you are ignorant of serious policy debates.
BTW, I do think — based on what I have read — that the shooting of these women constitutes murder. I don’t think Bush did it.
May I infer, anonymous, that because the United States has not invaded Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, or North Korea, that we are well on our way to adopting their forms of government?
If not, then I don’t see how your attacks on Mr. Steele carry any weight at all. Choosing to leave a bad situation alone does not imply approval.
No name’s replies to me don’t deal with anything I actually say or think.
For the sake of making my points clear (not for No name, who is more interested in attacking anarcho-utopians or somesuch):
1. The Biddle piece in the Mar/Apr 06 Foreign Affairs makes a good argument that Iraq is completely different from Viet Nam, as it is a civil war between 2 main factions: Shiite & Sunni, with Kurds on the wings.
2. Former head of the NSA Gen. William Odom (U.S. Army ret.) has publicly argued that the U.S. military presence greatly exacerbates violence in Iraq, by turning what would otherwise be a small and unpopular insurgency into a relatively popular resistance against a clumsy and sometimes brutal foreign occupier.
Biddle concludes that the U.S. should stay in Iraq but become very tough with all factions — Shia, Sunni, Kurd — in the civil war. The Baathists and especially Al Qaeda factions are not the important players here.
Odum, on the other hand, believes that the U.S. should get out, because occupation is only making things worse by inflaming large numbers of people and making the U.S. the enemy.
Although they draw different policy conclusions, neither one sees the Iraq mess as primarily a struggle against al Qaeda and Baathism. And both agree that the current conduct of the occupation is seriously mistaken.
As for me, I think that getting out quickly makes much more sense, as I have no faith in social & political engineering. They don’t work, especially when attempted by a relatively small number of foreign occupiers. And staying in Iraq long-term simply drains American blood and wealth and generates more hatred towards the U.S.
Getting out quickly doesn’t necessarily mean immediately, but it does mean ending the current open-ended occupation and actually setting up a real plan for leaving.
Never mind public relations. This sort of thing is murder. It goes on because Bush and co. started an unjustified & unnecessary war, and then executed it badly. America should bring its occupation of Iraq to an end quickly, and should pursue criminal charges wherever appropriate — which means all the way up to the Whitehouse.
Charles N. Steele is correct. The only moral thing is to hand the Iraq people back into slavery of the the Baathists and Islamists. Buscho are Murderers!! So let’s give up now and submit to the totalitarians. Over throw bushco and install a communist/islamist dictatorship. For liberty’s sake.
No name, this is a silly mischaracterization of my position. It isn’t obvious that immediate withdrawal is a good solution (it might be, but it’s not obvious).
I also don’t advocate overthrowing Bush. But I am fairly sure that there are adequate grounds for legal action against members of the Bush administration, including Bush himself, and they shouldn’t be allowed to violate the constitution and otherwise break laws.
But apparently you think that the only altrnatives are continuing the present course and establishment of a “communist/islamist dictatorship” (whatever that is). This suggests to me you are ignorant of serious policy debates.
BTW, I do think — based on what I have read — that the shooting of these women constitutes murder. I don’t think Bush did it.
Too bad Congress authorized the Iraqi operation. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good utopian vision.
May I infer, anonymous, that because the United States has not invaded Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, or North Korea, that we are well on our way to adopting their forms of government?
If not, then I don’t see how your attacks on Mr. Steele carry any weight at all. Choosing to leave a bad situation alone does not imply approval.
No name’s replies to me don’t deal with anything I actually say or think.
For the sake of making my points clear (not for No name, who is more interested in attacking anarcho-utopians or somesuch):
1. The Biddle piece in the Mar/Apr 06 Foreign Affairs makes a good argument that Iraq is completely different from Viet Nam, as it is a civil war between 2 main factions: Shiite & Sunni, with Kurds on the wings.
2. Former head of the NSA Gen. William Odom (U.S. Army ret.) has publicly argued that the U.S. military presence greatly exacerbates violence in Iraq, by turning what would otherwise be a small and unpopular insurgency into a relatively popular resistance against a clumsy and sometimes brutal foreign occupier.
Biddle concludes that the U.S. should stay in Iraq but become very tough with all factions — Shia, Sunni, Kurd — in the civil war. The Baathists and especially Al Qaeda factions are not the important players here.
Odum, on the other hand, believes that the U.S. should get out, because occupation is only making things worse by inflaming large numbers of people and making the U.S. the enemy.
Although they draw different policy conclusions, neither one sees the Iraq mess as primarily a struggle against al Qaeda and Baathism. And both agree that the current conduct of the occupation is seriously mistaken.
As for me, I think that getting out quickly makes much more sense, as I have no faith in social & political engineering. They don’t work, especially when attempted by a relatively small number of foreign occupiers. And staying in Iraq long-term simply drains American blood and wealth and generates more hatred towards the U.S.
Getting out quickly doesn’t necessarily mean immediately, but it does mean ending the current open-ended occupation and actually setting up a real plan for leaving.