Mickey

Toyota/Honda employs 28,000 people in the US. Their Georgetown Kentucky plant employs 7,000 people and was the major factor in Kentucky becoming a boom state in the auto assembly and supply business. They are going to build a hybrid Camry in the US. Any market share lost to GM from Toyota could hurt American workers not to mention Americans who hold stock in Toyota. GM owns Saab, don't they? If I buy a Saab, who does that help, workers in Flint or in Scandanavia? GM also owns Opel and has a large stake in Suzuki and Isuzu. Ford owns Mazda, Volvo, Aston Martin and Jaguar. Lord knows where all the parts are made. Which workers benefit if I buy a Mazda or a Volvo? GM has three plants in Ontario so if I buy GM, have did I "Buy American" or did I "Buy Canadian"? I think GM's problems are that the market for large SUV's and trucks has bottomed out due to gas prices. Cadillac's, Hummers and GMC Jimmy's just don't sell well getting 3 MPG when gas is $2.50 per. I'm just not sure that "Buy American" is the answer here although it as attractive one because it is A) simple; and B) appealingly patriotic.

"15 quatloos for the newcomers!" Star Trek: The Gamesters of Triskelion The crew gets marooned on some planet that is run by three disembodied brains floating in glass bowls. Their only amusement is to each keep their own stable of thralls, fighting slaves. The brains then have death matches between their thralls and bet on the outcome. When they snare new thralls like the Star Trek crew, they bid on them in a thrall auction. Their monetary unit is "quatloos". Everything you ever wanted to know about quatloos

Turns out the cheney X was just a technical glitch, not a liberal conspiracy and even Malkin agrees that is the case. Glitch

Speculate. What are they? I'm trying to understand this. I'm reading what I can from books to blogs to speeches. Does anybody here know? I'm not fishing for an argument to knock down here. I just want to know from those who say we should stay until we "win" or until the "Iraqis can defend themselves" etc, what in the world that means. The reality is that we are definitely going to leave at some point. I think we all agree that we shouldn't stay there forever. Once that is conceded, it just becomes a question of "when" and that is the focus of my inquiry, such as it is. It remains unanswered or, from your description, undecipherable.

I was two, going on three. First real book I ever read was "John F. Kennedy, a Boy's Life", sort of a biography of JFK's earliest years written for third graders. From that point on, he was my "boyhood hero" and probably why I am a democrat still. Even now, to think about it is to have your heart broken all over again. Rest in Peace JFK.

Bingo in the fireside room

I don't watch CNN or FOX, I get all my news here. How pathetic is that?

I don't know what is worse, knowing what it means without even having to think about it or being secretly proud of that fact.

I am told I qualify as a "lefty nut" and yet, never have I posted a thing about Fox. Thus, my anecdote obliterates your argument and you owe me five quatloos, six if you can't tell me where the reference "quatloo" comes from without googling it. The guantlet having been suitably flung, I now return to my drawing room to enjoy a snifter of Brandy while I wait to hear from your seconds.

So they have answers but they are secret answers. I don't trust that they make sense. Again, I think the question is a legitimate one to put to those who say we must stay until we have "won". The publicly stated goals and the ones mentioned here are indeed shapeless, immeasurale and amorphous. If I responded in an argument here to anyone with something along the lines of "there are some great points which totally support my position, I just don't know what they are right now...", I think you could imagine the response I'd get. I remember in the lead up to the war, there were those on this board who opined that there was rock solid intel on WMD's and terrorists in Iraq that the administration couldn't share with us so we should just trust them on that one. I think we are there until it is politically tenable for the country and the Republican party to leave. That doesn't necessarily require defeating the insurgency. It doesn't even require a viable democratic government in place. It may be enough to be asked to leave by the Iraqis themselves. Then we are not running, we haven't been defeated, we would simply be respecting their sovereignty.

You need to add that he also stripped your wife naked, put a trash bag over her head, made her stand on a bucket and snapped photos of her which he later sent to the Toledo Herald. Now we have a complete analogy.

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince them.

The presence of over 100,000 American troops in Iraq to depose Saddam long after he was deposed is not a theory. It is a fact. Public opinion in the Arab world is not likely to be more informed than it is here, probably much less so. I don't think it is realistic to expect them to understand the intricate argument that despite the presence of all those soldiers, we are not an occupier. Even your best friend visiting from Toledo is going to outstay his welcome sooner or later. Karen Hughes doesn't seem to be able to counteract that perception. Maybe we should give Michael Brown a shot.

I hope they don't wonder too much lest they conclude that the reason is that they are selling their oil waaaaaay to cheaply.

I think their neighbors might also be thanking Muhammed that Iraqi's are dying in droves and they are not. I think the Shiites are happy to see Sunni Mosques attacked and Sunnis are happy to see Shiite mosques attacked. I don't know, is it our strategy to hope that the insurgents kill enough of the wrong muslims so that they become a pariah among their own people?

Add that to the list of amorphous goals in Iraq: "do not embolden terrorists".

Such a plan would start with answering the basic questions: 1. What precisely must be achieved before we can leave? 2. How will we measure each one of those conditions to determine when they have been achieved? The only answers I get are either silence or some version of an immeasurable, amorphous goal like "when the Iraqi's can defend themsleves" or "when the Iraqi's are strong enough..." etc.

What it says is that they can operate "...only with strong support from U.S. forces." If we can't leave until they can handle their own security then it doesn't matter if they have 8 billion troops who can operate "...only with strong support from US forces" because that would still require us to be there. The question being, what are the conditons that need to be established so that we can leave? What the administration keeps saying is that we will leave when the Iraqi's can handle things on their own. Well, "..only with strong support from US Forces..." is not "on their own". Quite the opposite in fact. Please understand that my point is not that we should leave, not tommorow, not next week. I just don't want to be there forever, endlessly, for no good reason other than sheer stubborness. Hence the question I have been asking over and over, for the most part unanswered: What precisely has to be achieved before we can leave and how will those achievments be measured? Essentially, what constitutes "victory" in this war?

That figure comes from the Pentagon, why don't you believe them? Pentagon says only 700 Iraqi troops can operate independently Maybe so but that was not the point we were discussing. I asked why you thought the Iraqi's could achieve what we have not been able to do with our vastly superior forces. Your response was because there were 25 million of them, ie, they have more numbers and thus, might be able to outperform us. If numbers are the key, as your post suggests, and our numbers are insufficient, again, as your post suggests, then it is true that we went in to this war without enough troops to get it done. Further, the numbers we have there now are not enough. I don't really buy that the Iraqi's will be able to do any better than us simply based on numbers but that is your point I can't guess at the intentions of every single person who cites casualty statistics. However, that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The point is that the lethality of the insurgency has not been reduced by our efforts in over two years of trying. Unless your argument is that the lethality of the insurgency doesn't matter or is not an indicator of progress or the lack of it, it merits discussion. The difficulty or ease with which one can mount an effective insurgency is not really the point. Whether our enemies are mounting an effective insurgency with difficulty or with ease doesn't change the fact that they are mounting an effective insurgency. One which we have not been able to stop in over two years. "Without constant supervision" What does that mean? That is just as amorphous and immeasurable as "until the Iraqi's can stand on their own". I thank you for trying to answer my question as to what precisely has to be achieved before we can go and how will each be measured. This doesn't really do it, it just restates the same vague, ill-defined and amoeba-like mission no army should be asked to fight. You do acknowledge that it simply might not be possible to achieve all of this. Frankly, among the most thoughtful democrats, this is what they are most worried about as well. They, at least some of them anyway, have simply reached that conclusion before you. Before me as well. Outlasting them is an equally fuzzy standard. What does that mean? How do you measure that? "..until the Iraqi's are strong enough..." How strong is strong enough? How do you measure that? Is the lethality of the insurgency to be considered in that determination? In over two years, the Pentagon itself says there are only 700 able to operate on their own. Does that mean we won't be up to 1,400 until 2007? Will they be up to 2,700 by 2009? I really don't know about this. Part of me thinks we have achieved all we can achieve there as it is. It was a twisted broken society long before we ever showed up. There were bad guys there, we went in and killed the worst of them. I don't think we "owe" the Iraqi people anything. If they want a peaceful society, they can have one and they wouldn't really need our help. If they want a civil war, they are going to have one sooner or later no matter what we do. I wonder if the administration isn't aware of this and is just hanging on until an opportune moment arrives where it can credibly claim "victory" and get out. What they want is the Iraqization of the Iraq war. They will leave the split second it is politically tenable to do so. For them, ideally, that would be before the midterm elections next year. 508360[/snapback]

Unfortunately, the WH now says that it is "highly unlikely" that Z was among the AQ members killed in Mosul. Article Hopefully, now that his own tribe has disowned him, it will be easier to send him to paradise. Anybody know what being disowned by your family in that culture means in terms of his ability to hide? Please share.

Well, in two plus years we are up to 700 of those 25 million Iraqi's ready to fight on their own. So by 2008 we should be up to 1,400 and by 2010, 2,100. Hmmm. Of those 25 million Iraqi's, how many of them want to kill us? How many want us out, now? If numbers are the problem, and all those Iraqi's the solution, shouldn't we send in more troops? Didn't we send in too few to start with? I don't think anyone is arguing that taking a casualty means we are losing, if they had, you would have mad a hell of a point. Save that line, maybe someone will and you can trot it out then. The point is that the lethality of the insurgency has not been reduced. What needs to be achieved for us to leave and deny the terrorists their victory and how will those acievements be measured? Is reducing the lethality of the insurgency something that must be achieved or is that meaningless?

Precisely what has to be achieved before we can leave and how will those achievements be measured? Is the insurgency more lethal, less lethal or just as lethal as it was last year? Last month? Last week? If we have not been able to defeat this insurgencey in over two years with the best equipped, trained and motivated force in the world with the most advanced weaponry and other technology, what makes you think the Iraqi's themselves will be able to accomplish this? If defeat of the insurgency is not necessary for victory to be achieved, define what victory means in this war.

Two plus years into this bloody war and we still don't have a "coherent strategy in Iraq." Yikes. I can't guess at the future in Iraq. I do know that if any part of it depends on drumming up the vanishing support for the war here at home, the administration is in trouble if they can't figure out anyway to shore up their own credibility besides attacking democrats. The right just doesn't get the extent to which the WMD's, the "last throes", the Niger yellowcake and the like have destroyed the administration's credibility. I heard Rummy this morning and he is still spinning that 212,000 Iraqi's in uniform number even though the military itself says only 700 are ready for independent combat. As John Q. Public, what the freak am I supposed to think about the progress on Iraqi troops being able to take over from us? Is it 212,000 or 700? I mean, that is a range of 211,300. Somebody is either waaaaaaaayyyyyy off or a total and complete bullshitter. Really, who cares if there are 80,000,000,000,000 Iraqi's in uniform if none of them can take over for our guys? Tell me why, after hearing that on two different shows from Rummy this very morning, that I should ever believe a thing he or his administration ever says about this war?

Name those conditions and how many of them need to be met for us to declare victory and go home. For bonus points, describe how each will be measured. I have asked one version or another of that same question several times in several threads of several people who all have the same take as you, that we can't leave until "victory" or "defeat of the insurgency" or "when the Iraqi's can protect themsleves" or when we have "conditions favorable to the United States". I think it is the fundamental question in Iraq and it is the one that nobody is willing or able to answer. This is what we should be talking about, not the political tactics of either party trying to out manouver eachother on the war issue.

I agree, Z made a mistake in Jordan. I don't think it was our strategy to get him to bomb some muslims who's feelings about the USA aren't so terrible that they are glad to be bombed for it. Even so, if it was luck, I'll take all the luck we can get. Hasn't the civil war already started? I know it is not "out and out civil war" and maybe we can avoid that but they are killing eachother. Are our expectations now so low that limiting this to a hit and run civil war as supposed to an "out and out civil war" is our goal? Is it realistic to think this government is going to last much longer than the presence of our troops? I understand your point about patience, who cares what the score is at half time, its the final score that counts. Still, the more time that goes on with seemingly little progress being made, the less time we have. I don't know precisely when it will become politically/economically, etc, untenable to remain in Iraq any longer, I just know that as each day passes, we get another day closer to reaching the end of that line. There comes a point where the prospects for the victory once hoped for: a free, stable, peacful, prosperous and democratic Iraq become too long of a long shot. One sign of that are diminished expectations.