What is "good judgment"?

[Winstonm]

I hope we win(whatever that means).

 

I believe that when compared to the Bush definition of "winning", the correct phrase should be "I hope we conquer."

 

There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq; there is no legitimate reason to stay unless imposing will by force is now considered acceptable behavior.

[kenrexford]

An explosive device placed next to a brick wall might blow a hole in that brick wall.

 

A few well-placed devices placed next to a few walls might bring down a few walls.

 

Those walls might falls down in a heap of rubble.

 

The walls might not have been the target. The target might have been the sixteen stories of building perched above those few walls.

 

Arguing about effectiveness and precision as it pertains to the end positions of the few bricks in the few walls will drive you nuts if you do not see the entire picture of the building collapsing.

 

I look at a map, and think.

 

I consider that loads of oil, money, explosives, and weapons keep turning up missing, and think.

 

I read my Azimov, and think.

[Al_U_Card]

I hope we win(whatever that means).

 

I believe that when compared to the Bush definition of "winning", the correct phrase should be "I hope we conquer."

 

There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq; there is no legitimate reason to stay unless imposing will by force is now considered acceptable behavior.

Worse yet..."I hope we NEVER have to leave"...

[Winstonm]

It is amazing that roughly 7 likeminded people, placed into positions of power and authority, with the help of a complicit Congress, could cancel rights held inviolate for over 200 years and change the face of a republic into a presidential monarchy - all because of the introduction of a "common threat".

 

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme - Mark Twain.

[Gerben42]

Worse yet..."I hope we NEVER have to leave"...

 

Let's rename Iraq to "Oil" and make it the 51st state?

[Al_U_Card]

The neocons tried unsuccessfully under Nixon to get this program going. Nixon screwed it up and they had to lay low for a bit (Nixon was Prescott Bush's "protégé" anyway). When GHB became President he even declared his hope and intent to install the new world order (NWO). Cheney, Rummy et al were all waiting in the wings having killed time in the mil-ind sector, plotting and planning. Bill resisted 'cos of Hil but as soon as W made it in...it was game over.

 

Funding Saddam and Bin Laden and the Muhajedeen and then waiting while Al Qaida perfected their plan for Karmakaze . Once the powers that be (PTB) had solid intel, they set up the planes and the attacks and the "network upgrades" in the twin towers the weekend prior and held back the good folks that might have intervened while the attacks took place. This was their "Pearl Harbour" first described in the early 90's that they "needed" to take away your freedoms to better control and abuse you.

 

Silverstein was ready for his big insurance payday that we all have been paying for with our increased premiums since then. When WTC-7 failed to "implode" when the other towers went down, they had to enter and manual re-rig so that they could make sure that all of the documents and SEC investigations were "pulverized" just like your liberties.

 

In the last 2 years you have lost more rights than in the last 2 centuries. Start screaming to get your rights back! Make sure that the guilty are punished! Do not lie down and go to sleep! Do not duck and cover! No one else will do it for you.

 

The government coven is embarking your society in an eternal witch-hunt for the bogey-man that can never be found. International Islamic Terrorists....my eye! National Terrifying Murderers is more like it. They have the blood of innocents on their hands. Catch them before it is all washed away in a flood of tears.

[Al_U_Card]

btw, I guess inalienable rights don't count when aliens are able to annihilate them by proxy?

 

Looks like your Bill of Rights is quickly becoming a Bill of Lefts. (As in, "What will we have left after they take away the next one?".)

[Al_U_Card]

Not the best technically, but a decent resumé of your society on its way down the drain.

 

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105

[helene_t]

I expected it to be much worse. I expected Basra to declare itself part of Iran, for the Turks to invade Kurdistan to wipe out the PPK, and the Saudis to heavily arm Al Qaeda and friends. Only #3 is happening so far, though there is a very good chance of #1 and #2 happening, and soon.

Why would that be bad? I can imagine a scenario for a future Iraq which would, although maybe not the best thinkable scenario, be much better than the present and probably the best the Iraqis can hope for among realistic alternatives:

 

By means of mass deportation, Iraq gets divided into three ethnically/religiously distinct countries:

- The South, inhabited by shiite Arabs, nominally democratic (but only pro-Iranian parties allowed), de facto rules by Teheran-trained ayatollas

- The middle, inhabited by sunite Arabs, governed by Riadh-trained mullahs

- The North, inhabited by the rest, nominally democratic (but only pro-Turkish parties allowed), de facto rules by Ankara-trained generals

 

I think such an Iraq could be reasonably peaceful. And in the North and the South, at least part of the population might even be able to live a sorta civilized life.

[pbleighton]

Why would that be bad? I can imagine a scenario for a future Iraq which would, although maybe not the best thinkable scenario, be much better than the present and probably the best the Iraqis can hope for among realistic alternatives:

 

By means of mass deportation, Iraq gets divided into three ethnically/religiously distinct countries:

- The South, inhabited by shiite Arabs, nominally democratic (but only pro-Iranian parties allowed), de facto rules by Teheran-trained ayatollas

- The middle, inhabited by sunite Arabs, governed by Riadh-trained mullahs

- The North, inhabited by the rest, nominally democratic (but only pro-Turkish parties allowed), de facto rules by Ankara-trained generals

 

I think such an Iraq could be reasonably peaceful. And in the North and the South, at least part of the population might even be able to live a sorta civilized life.

 

Partition is a dirty word in Washington, but I agree with you, Helene, this is probably the best realistic scenario.

 

IMO it won't start happening until after (probably quite a while after) the U.S. leaves.

 

Peter

[skjaeran]

I can imagine a scenario for a future Iraq which would, although maybe not the best thinkable scenario, be much better than the present and probably the best the Iraqis can hope for among realistic alternatives:

 

By means of mass deportation, Iraq gets divided into three ethnically/religiously distinct countries:

- The South, inhabited by shiite Arabs, nominally democratic (but only pro-Iranian parties allowed), de facto rules by Teheran-trained ayatollas

- The middle, inhabited by sunite Arabs, governed by Riadh-trained mullahs

- The North, inhabited by the rest, nominally democratic (but only pro-Turkish parties allowed), de facto rules by Ankara-trained generals

 

I think such an Iraq could be reasonably peaceful. And in the North and the South, at least part of the population might even be able to live a sorta civilized life.

I fail to see how this northern part of Iraq, with a majority of Kurds in the northern region could be a peaceful area under Turkish rule, given how the Kurds have been treated by the Turks since the 1923 treaty of Lausanne.

[jtfanclub]

I fail to see how this northern part of Iraq, with a majority of Kurds in the northern region could be a peaceful area under Turkish rule, given how the Kurds have been treated by the Turks since the 1923 treaty of Lausanne.

Nor do I see how the South outside of Basra is going to love being a part of Iran, since the Arab Shiites consider the Persian Shiites to be barbarians and Persian Shiites consider the Arab Shiites to be illiterate scum.

 

And finally, with no real resources except people, the Saudis will use the Sunni Iraqis as indentured labor (like they don't already). With nothing to lose, the Saudis will use the Sunni Iraqis to stir up trouble with Iran and/or Turkey. You know, kind of the same way they use the Palestinians.

 

A more reasonable split would be to make the Kurds independent- ***** Turkey, the deal was that if they helped us in the invasion and allowed use of their roads and airspace, that we'd keep the Kurds part of Iraq. They backed out at the last minute, so I don't see a reason that we should keep our end of the bargain. Put as many troops as necessary in the Kurdish part to make sure that Turkey doesn't invade it, and try to convince as much of the Kurdish Worker's Party to relocate to Kurdish Iraq as possible.

 

Then have the Sunni part join Syria, not Saudi Arabia. They're a lot closer socially and ethnically, and it's not a coincidence that at this point 10% of Iraqis are refugees in Syria. Syria is also a lot less likely to make trouble with Iran.

 

Ideally, the rest of Iraq would remain independent. This would contain all of the Southern oil fields and that is a big deal. Would it end up becoming a part of Iran? I'm not sure. I don't know. There's enough wealth in the South that there wouldn't be a real incentive for them to join Iran. As Kuwait is to Saudi Arabia, so Shiite Iraq might be to Iran.

[Winstonm]

Any attempt at a reasonable or even semi-reasonable solution to the Iraq quagmire will never be allowed as long as Bush and Cheney are in control. A greater concern is expansion of middle-eastern war:

 

AFP quotes Bush thusly;

 

"It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon."

 

 

Sorry, Mr. President, but this is a 100% baldfaced lie. The Iranian government has repeatedly denied a desire to build a nuclear weapon - it is you, Mr. President, who has insisted that Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions must be stopped.

 

Creating an illusion, and then openly declaring it as fact, does not make it true.

 

I would hope we had learned that lesson with the illusion pronounced as fact about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and support of Al-Qaeda.

 

Until now, some hawks within the administration — including Cheney — are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons

 

And what will Russia do afterwards?

[Al_U_Card]

As long as the Carlyle Group (Bush and Bin Laden families) and Halliburton (Cheney et al) continue to make billions from armed conflict...there will be one.

 

Iraq cannot "last" because they will run out of reasons (mostly lies as Winston points out for Iran...WMD, Saddam, Al Qaida...yada yada) to maintain the conflict but Iran will be next then....Canada? Why not? Homeland Security means never having to say you're free......just secure....as in secured....as in imprisoned, one way or the other.

 

Bush and the NWO will not stop until they are stopped. ARE YOU LISTENING?