Mickey

Why would they start a war they would certainly lose? Presumably, The Japanese Self Defense Forces, especially their Maritime Forces, would not just sit back and count the missiles. The ROK isn't going to just sit and hope. China isn't going to go to the mattresses for a lunatic regime that started WWIII. Would they have any ally worth having?

No, the line I am talking about isn't between two governments. I was addressing bib's point that Iraq isn't as violent as it appears, that it is being caused by 5% of the population, etc. Doesn't matter whether it is 1%, 5% or 50%, it is enough to prevent the government from effectively governing or even surviving once we leave. The line is between violence a government can survive and violence a government can't survive.

I am more of a pragmatist. I don't like one size fits all policies. Where bold action seems like it will work, great. Where bold action appears to lead to disaster, we should shun bold action. A healthy and realistic understanding of what is possible and what is not would be a good start. Sort of an "anti-hubris" policy. I don't like boldness for the sake of being bold. There are times however, where boldness is just the ticket. That is why I shy away from idealouges. See, I can't even spell "idealouges", that is how much I hate them, Ir egfusel two spill ix rigt.

I don't know where the line is, but there is one. On one side of the line is violence at a level that can be tolerated and the government survive, on the other is violence at a level that can't be tolerated so that the government can neither govern nor survive. That is the side we are on now. How do I know? I don't but if we were on the other side, we could go. We are still there so I think there is a good chance that those who make our decisions have decided that we are still on the "too violent to survive" side of things.

I think the historical problems with that kind of solution focuses on borders. What do you do with a nation that is ethnically or religiously interlaced? The population distribution does not follow sharply marked geographic or political boundaries. What do you do with Sunni's living in Shiite areas? With Shiites living in Sunni areas? With Kurds? Can you imagine the displacement as refugees from one area move to another? What happens to those who don't move despite suddenly being a minority in a poltical subdivision? Abuse at the hands of the majority in their sector which is avenged by their kin in their own sectors? Admittedly, it sounds appealing but I think in practice, it might not really be viable. My first take anyway.

Have the Iraqi government issue an ultimatum, a timetable with definite dates for our withdrawl. Then follow it. Have lots of ceremonies marking the handover each step of the way. Then declare the whole thing a big victory and leave it up to the Iraqi's to sink or swim on their own. Btw, no permanent bases in Iraq, none. The result? A. a civil war: if so, it becomes a problem for every one to solve, not just us. The UN complains, fine, let them committ troops to pacify the warring factions. They won't? Fine, they can't then blame us for not re-re-invading Iraq. Maybe let Arabs figure out how to stabilize an Arab state in chaos? B. they work it out, we take credit Either way we are outta there and so we stop bleeding lives and money. Iraq either fixes itself or the rest of the world figures out what, if anything, should be done or better yet, Arabs themselves intervene. The primary approach here is to recognize that the long term future of Iraq is not really within our power to decide. There are no strings we can pull to make this puppet dance the dance we want it to dance. We have largely done all that was doable. We got rid of Saddam, we broke the back of his regime. We have given them the beginnings of a democracy. Reality. There is only so much that we can do.

Perfect, just swap Hutchinson for Gandy.

That is one argument, everybody dies. Thus we wait. Efforts shoud be directed at taking maximum advantage of that occurrence since it is a certainty. I just don't know if that will really be a watershed moment. By then, there will likely be another wack-job in the wings ready to become the next dear leader. This should primarily be a problem for ROK, China and Japan to work out.

I see, so if you agree with someone on one issue, you have to agree with them on all issues? Hmmm.....that explains the knee jerk, exceptionless devotion to Bush so prevalent among the far right. Thanks for the tip. Buckley may be right on the merits, he might be wrong. He can't, however, be dismissed without an inquiry in to the merits of his argument simply by ignoring him as a raving, partisan left wing lunatic except by raving, partisan right wing lunatics.

My views and those of anyone on the left are quickly, automatically, deligitimized as partisan liberal tripe. Whenever we are critical of the administration in general and the war in particular, that is invariably the response. Sometimes we are stupid, sometimes lunatics, sometimes cowards and sometimes traitors. Always the same. Buckley however, can't be so reflexively ignored so I posted his opinion with little comment on them other than to emphasize that he is clearly not a liberal, lunatic, coward, defeatist. Posting my own views would have just drawn the same old same old reflexive response of or maybe . With Buckley, I hoped, maybe someone on the right might actually produce a thoughtful response. They are the people that need to be reached. Democrats don't run anything that matters foreign policy-wise. They aren't going to listen to me and, apparently, not Buckley. Either the situation in Iraq will get better, much better, and it won't matter anymore or it is going to continue to worsen. If it does, sooner or later, that reality will reach even the right. I don't want there to be needless loss of life dragging on for years because some just won't face reality. It won't be me that convinces them, apparently it won't be Buckley either.

Reality is the overarching thing here. You are right, there are larger problems at stake. However, the reality is that we are failing in Iraq. So whether we should be there, shouldn't have gone there, whatever, doesn't really matter. We are not achieving our goals in Iraq. Lots and lots of lives have been lost and lots and lots of our national wealth in the process. For what? For Iraqi's to fight another round of the same civil war they have been fighting for ages? If there is a way that a civil war achieves a strategic goal for us, I admit that I don't get it. The larger problems, the longer term strategic interests, how are they effected by Iraq? We can decide to influence events all we want rather than to react to them but the reality is that if you decide to act and then fail, the result isn't much better than doing nothing in the first place. Arguably worse. I was using Buckley as an alarm bell because somewhere out there is a person, likely a conservative, whose credibility can't be deligitimized in a hail of or posts. Somewhere maybe there is someone the right will listen to despite how emotionally they are tied to supporting this war and this President. Democrats don't control anything, they are a non-factor in foreign policy right now. Who can influence policy, who can make some changes maybe that would make a difference? It has to come from the right because they have all the buttons that can be pushed at their disposal. They are the ones that have to do something if this thing is going to have a prayer at a good outcome for our interests. Who will they listen to? Along came Buckley so I gave him a shot. Turns out he is anti-Bush and apparently as big an idiot as me so no need to worrry about anything he has to say. So much for that.

That wasn't the intention CTM. I figured that the same point of view from the left would be simply dismissed or the credibility of the source attacked. To get anyone around here to take it seriously, I figured I needed the point to be raised by a conservative. That was why I used Buckley, hoping he wouldn't be simply dismissed as a Sheehanesque lunatic and emphasized the point that whatever he is, he is no liberal. I thought that would force a discussion of the issues he raised, that the sectarian violence is out of control, our 130,000 troops can't contain it and it is leading to disaster. That reality has to be embraced before it can be fixed, I think that is his point anyway and it is worth discussing. Of course, the response was that A. Mickey suks and B. Buckley is anti-Bush. Lastly, to paraphrase Bentson, I know Tennyboy, I am a friend of Tennyboy and me sir, I am no Tennyboy, he is waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy smarter.

If you can't defeat his argument, go after his credibility. Exactly what makes political discourse these days such a waste of time. How many posts do you have in this thread already and you still haven't addressed any point beyond "Buckley is not a fan of GWB". His argument is simple, sectarian violence beyond the ability of our 130,000 troops to control has led to failure in Iraq. Have you challenged his assertion that there is sectarian violence? No. Have you challenged his assertion that our troops have not been able to control that violence? No. Have you challenged his assertion that these issues have prevented us from reaching our objectives in Iraq? No. If I had posted Howard Dean's position on this (quite similar but reached 3 years ago), it would have been dismissed because he is a political partisan hack liberal pansy etc., etc. Buckley may not be GWB's biggest fan but Cindy Sheehan he aint. I had hoped that maybe the points he raised might be addressed on their merits by the far right wing so amply represented on this board rather than avoided in favor of an attack on his credibility as would surely have been the case if the same views from a different source were cited. So much for that. I guess the "ignore merits, attack credibility" response is too deeply ingrained in the far right at this point to ever expect anything different. Buckley is right, there is violence, we aren't controlling it and it is leading to failure. Is it a done deal? I hope like hell that it isn't but for things to change, either the people in charge need to do something different or we need different people in charge. Whether Buckley tortures hamsters in his spare time, shares loofah stories with Bill O'Reilly or writes dreary poetry about having lost his virginity to the maid, doesn't effect whether or not he is right.

Ummm....I presented it as William F. Buckley thinking it is a failure and further, as a conservative, he can't be dismissed as a traitor, coward, looney etc. which is what I hear whenever someone on the left attempts the same. I have no idea what the majority of conservatives believe as far as Iraq is concerned. I posted that column with very little comment on it to see what people had to say, the response was, "mickey sucks", along with a couple of 's. Excuse me if I didn't see that as an invitation to discuss the issue. I personally think that if we haven't "failed" in Iraq, we are going to if this keeps up. What better course should be pursued, I have no concrete, ready for prime-time suggestions. I do believe however that if the current bunch of ne'er do wells in the WH can't even admit there is a problem or recognize a civil war when they see it, there is zero chance of any substantive changes in how we are handling things in Iraq. No change means more of the same and the same suks.

Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements? Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing? I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility. I do get that kind of response from you three along with wacka, RK and the like but I somehow I don't see that as an indicator of my partisanship. Not that I don't enjoy indulging your need to discuss me but is there any chance you have an opinion on Buckley's column we can discuss?

Thanks, I think... Notice the lack of response to Buckley's article by KRC? When I pointed out in the reply to bib that the basic point of Buckley's column was fairly reasonable and that clearly he is no partisan yet, I am one for posting it, there was still no response to Buckley's point that sectarian violence in Iraq due to 130,000 troops not being able to control such violence has led to failure. KRC's only response is not substantive, ie what is going on in Iraq, but instead, all he has to say is "Mickey suks". And I am the one who has gone Richio. Here were the options for KRC in first reading the post that started the thread: 1. express an opinon on Buckely's column 2. express an opinon generally on the war 3. lacking an interest in doing either 1 or 2, post no response 4. express your personal distate for the poster Which of the four seems most Richio like? Which path did KRC choose? Back to the substance of the post. There is sectarian violence, that is a point that is not even arguable. This morning, even George Will called it a civil war, in fact, he almost bust a gut laughing at the notion that this isn't a civile war. Someone asked, what does a civil war look like? Will said "this, this is what it looks like". So you now have George Will and William F. Buckley in agreement. Two very conservative guys. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are right. Seems like we ought to be able to reasonably discuss it.

I discovered that only by agreeing with most around here could I avoid the lable of party hack. Any disagreement whatsoever on my part was immediately attacked as partisan hackery. So it was either express my views or pretend I didn't have them. Take Buckley's column, he makes a simple point, that sectarian violence that can't be controlled by 130,000 US troops has led to failure in Iraq. Is there sectarian violence? Not even arguable. Is it being controlled by the presence of our troops? Less clear but certainly a reasonable conclusion. Has it led to failure? Much less clear but again, not an entirely unreasonable position to take even if he is ultimately wrong. Say what you will about him, he is no democratic hack. So the basic point of the column is more or less reasonable and it is by a guy who is clearly not a partisan democratic hack. And yet, I am a left wing hack for noticing it and *gasp*, posting it.

Right, what point could there be to posting the opinion of a noted conservative columnist on one of the most important issues of the day on a political discussion board entitled "Politics, Polls and Pundits"? What was I thinking? What is the point you are trying to make with regards to Buckley not being a "fan of GWB"? Does that fact, despite his conservative credentials, mean he has no credibility? Is his argument somehow less reasonable, less valid merely because he is not a fan of GWB? If so, does that mean that the only people with any credibility on this issue or whose views are worthy of discussion here, are those who are fans of GWB? Whether he is right or not is one issue, another is the reaction his questioning will provoke. Were he a liberal or a democrat, it would be charges of treason, cowardice, partisanship or some comibination of the three. With more conservatives willing to question the war, that kind of reaction becomes even more obviously ridiculous. In that vein, I note your initial reaction was to go after Buckley's politics, who he is or is not a "fan" of rather than to discuss the merits of the issue.

Here you go: Buckley

Sign them both. We are likely cutting Moulds anyway. I gotta beleive that the money we were paying two first rounders, one an all pro and both at higher paying positions than center and guard is enough to nab these guys. OT's are better paid than interior lineman, especially when they are the 4th pick in the draft. Shouldn't the money we were paying MW be at least close to enough to sign Bentley or Hutch? WR's, especially pro bowler like Moulds are definitely paid better than centers. Why wouldn't Moulds' money be enough, or at least close, to get LeCharles? Other teams seem to be able to juggle the books to make a big move now and then. If ever there was a year where we could do the same, its gotta be this year given the two huge contracts we are dumping. C'mon Marv, pull off a coup like you did with Biscuit. Show us ya still got it.

Nazis are bad enough but Florida Nazis?!? They're the worst.

Excellent point Captain Pyrrhic. Haven't more soldiers died since we "won it" than did in winning it? How many soldiers do we have there? 130,000? I guess since the war is over, they must be on an extended and unusually lethal training exercise.

The ability to admit reality comes easier to some than to others. If you don't think it is significant that conservatives are now calling it a failure, fine. Reality will overcome you sooner or later, like it did Buckley. Lets see, if the left doesn't support it and the right doesn't support it, who would that leave? Oh yeah, the looney right.

Noted liberal Sheehanesque whack job, William F. Buckley says: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." And further, that the challenge for the President is to: "...persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy." And lastly, "...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat." I guess he can't see through the media conspiracy to portray the Iraq war as a disaster when in truth it is a smashing success. Chalk up another defeatist. Link fixed

I don't know jack about ports but you don't really need to in order to predict the reactions on the board do you? Press=bad Bush=good Democrats=bad Hillary=really bad Who could have forseen this?