Warszawa wrote:

dajafi wrote:I have two questions about the Iraq War:

1) How will we know we've "won"? Is it when the incidence of violence drops below a certain level? When the power is on for more than a given number of hours in a day? Some political resolution to what looks and evidently feels like a civil war? Economic measures (jobs, oil revenues, Iraqi GDP)?

2) Assuming victory can be defined, do supporters of the war believe that there is any price, in lives or money or time or "opportunity cost" (i.e., forces committed there can't be used elsewhere), that's too great to justify it?

1) I think its just a matter of the next president taking office and ending this fiasco so that George Bush can say "I didn't lose". Then they'll just spew some nifty catch phrase about 8 billion times until even they believe it themselves (see: "Cut and Run")

2) I think the most of the country who do support the war want something for nothing. Are there people actually still supporting this war?


Actually, after thinking about it, even if there was a war effort on par with the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam (if they really thought this war was the big "good vs evil" showdown of our generation) I don't know if there would be a point where we could truly say the war was "won". I mean you can put 500,000 people over there and completely clear out everybody who has a devious look on his face. You can then station a true occupational force, with bases and everything. You could then use Iraq as a launching point for the invasion Syria and Iran and subjugate those people too. I imagine with a large enough force and lots of funding you could accomplish all of these things, but I also imagine the outcome would probably fall short of widespread middle-eastern democracy and eventually would create a whole new generation of terrorists.

This seems common-sensical to me. I have no doubt you're correct about #1; whoever comes in next, with the possible exception of McCain (which ain't gonna happen), will wind down the war as quick as possible--because s/he won't want it hanging over his/her 2012 re-election bid.

On #2, you're probably right as well, but the sort of lazy thinking of the Phillies front office really isn't well suited for big geostrategic efforts; it doesn't even work when applied to running a baseball team.

dajafi - It's hard to win a never-ending battle against an idea. Our problem is we're still thinking of an enemy as a nation-state.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aizz0o9fPWU&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

pacino wrote:dajafi - It's hard to win a never-ending battle against an idea. Our problem is we're still thinking of an enemy as a nation-state.

That kind of reminds me of the war on drugs...

dajafi wrote:I have two questions about the Iraq War:

1) How will we know we've "won"? Is it when the incidence of violence drops below a certain level? When the power is on for more than a given number of hours in a day? Some political resolution to what looks and evidently feels like a civil war? Economic measures (jobs, oil revenues, Iraqi GDP)?

2) Assuming victory can be defined, do supporters of the war believe that there is any price, in lives or money or time or "opportunity cost" (i.e., forces committed there can't be used elsewhere), that's too great to justify it?

We won the war, it's the post-war policing (training, maintaining law and order) that isn't going too well.

Realistically, what more can we do? We dethroned Saddam (who's heavy hand kept the waring sects in line), thus enabling a civil war to break out. Oops! We "planted the seeds" for democracy, which apparently, a sizeable segment of the Iraqi population doesn't want. When all is said and done, Iraq won't be a democracy... more likely an autocratic theocracy that will probably engage in some sectular cleansing as well as be a greater threat to US security. A three state Iraq democracy? Probably too late for that. Right now, we're just basically providing military and police training to Iraqis that end up fighting for their respective sects. What more can we do, aside from all-out colonization?

Hey, you guys are preaching to (a member of) the choir here. I just wish that some more Republicans--who probably agree with these points, particularly as PiP put them--would start singing with us.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:We won the war, it's the post-war policing (training, maintaining law and order) that isn't going too well.

Realistically, what more can we do? We dethroned Saddam (who's heavy hand kept the waring sects in line), thus enabling a civil war to break out. Oops! We "planted the seeds" for democracy, which apparently, a sizeable segment of the Iraqi population doesn't want. When all is said and done, Iraq won't be a democracy... more likely an autocratic theocracy that will probably engage in some sectular cleansing as well as be a greater threat to US security. A three state Iraq democracy? Probably too late for that. Right now, we're just basically providing military and police training to Iraqis that end up fighting for their respective sects. What more can we do, aside from all-out colonization?

Although I think the war was a terrible idea, I have a lot of reservations about pulling out now, one of the largest being that the bolded statement really isn't true. The number of Iraqi victims testifies to the brutality of the murderers within the Iraqi insurgency, but not their numbers, particularly as a percentage of all Iraqis. Pulling out would be the second time in 15 years we've left a portion of their population to the wolves.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:We won the war, it's the post-war policing (training, maintaining law and order) that isn't going too well.

Realistically, what more can we do? We dethroned Saddam (who's heavy hand kept the waring sects in line), thus enabling a civil war to break out. Oops! We "planted the seeds" for democracy, which apparently, a sizeable segment of the Iraqi population doesn't want. When all is said and done, Iraq won't be a democracy... more likely an autocratic theocracy that will probably engage in some sectular cleansing as well as be a greater threat to US security. A three state Iraq democracy? Probably too late for that. Right now, we're just basically providing military and police training to Iraqis that end up fighting for their respective sects. What more can we do, aside from all-out colonization?

Although I think the war was a terrible idea, I have a lot of reservations about pulling out now, one of the largest being that the bolded statement really isn't true. The number of Iraqi victims testifies to the brutality of the murderers within the Iraqi insurgency, but not their numbers, particularly as a percentage of all Iraqis. Pulling out would be the second time in 15 years we've left a portion of their population to the wolves.

I only stated a sizeable segment doesn't want democracy, i.e., an amount significant enough to muck it up. After all, Iraqi voter turnout has been in the high-50s percentage range (although the Kurds tilt the scales a bit). Those Iraqis most in favor of democracy are the professionals (doctors, engineers, educators, scientists, budding entrepreneurs, etc.)... those that would appreciate it more as well as have more to gain in a democracy (not necessarily monitarily, but freedom, liberty, etc.). Unfortunately, those are the types of Iraqis that have fled Iraq due to the aftermath of the "liberation".

Something interesting that I read in this Sunday's paper... nearly half of Iraqis marry their cousins, with the preferred marriage being a daughter to the son of her father's brother. This is just one example of how the loyalty of many Iraqis is to their respective tribe or clan, and not to the nation of Iraq. It seems that many Americans, be it politicos or general populous, seem to forget, ignore, or discount that their culture is different than ours.

I don't get how NJ, NY, Cali and Mass have had republican governers in the past 10 years. How does that fly in such blue states? I understand that people look differently at local situations than federal ones, but is it that many people?

Disco Stu wrote:I don't get how NJ, NY, Cali and Mass have had republican governers in the past 10 years. How does that fly in such blue states? I understand that people look differently at local situations than federal ones, but is it that many people?

swings both ways, discus. funky indeed.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/I ... -blue.html

Disco Stu wrote:I don't get how NJ, NY, Cali and Mass have had republican governers in the past 10 years. How does that fly in such blue states? I understand that people look differently at local situations than federal ones, but is it that many people?

Those are rich states. Sometimes rich folks want their taxes lowered...

A bit more seriously (because I do think the tax thing factors into it), you could probably argue that in any part of the country, a basic cultural consensus obtains. Almost everyone is socially tolerant and pro-environment in NY and CA, just as almost everyone's culturally conservative and anti-regulation in, say, Wyoming and Oklahoma (where there are Democratic governors), so elections aren't contested on those issues. Instead it's local stuff--corruption/misbehavior, economic development, etc--and personal politics. Probably the other piece is that everyone--at the upper middle class and upwards levels, I mean--did so well in the late '90s that whoever was in at that time got to stay, absent something goofy like the California recall or Whitman going into the Bush administration.

Then there's just fluky luck. George Pataki, the former three-term governor of New York, benefitted from circumstances more than any politician I know of: he's Chauncy Gardener. Pataki first won in '94 in a huge Republican wave year, mostly because New Yorkers were sick of Cuomo. Four years later, the state's economy was doing well, and the Democrats nominated a machine hack from Queens who couldn't play upstate and couldn't raise money anywhere. Four years after that, Pataki had the 9/11 halo effect, and the Democrats self-destructed with a divisive primary. If he'd run last year, against Spitzer, he would have lost by 40 points; he didn't.

dajafi wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:I don't get how NJ, NY, Cali and Mass have had republican governers in the past 10 years. How does that fly in such blue states? I understand that people look differently at local situations than federal ones, but is it that many people?

Those are rich states. Sometimes rich folks want their taxes lowered...

A bit more seriously (because I do think the tax thing factors into it), you could probably argue that in any part of the country, a basic cultural consensus obtains.

The consensus is wider than that. Governors tend to be evaluated on more or less pragmatic or competency grounds. Most state issues are "valence" issues--everyone wants decent schools, safe streets, and good jobs. A governor who appears to be capable of delivering those things without raising taxes too much will do well. Good governors (Huckabee, for instance) will not allow their ideological prejudices to interfere with their problem solving abilities. A number of issues such as Iraq, globalization, for instance, are simply not relevant in a gubernatorial election.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

The British govment is planning on reviewing it's National Drug Strategy in 2008. Imagine that!

Disco Stu wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

2 hours long?

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

2 hours long?

That's a long time to hold a note.

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

2 hours long?

Go past the first hour to the point that they are asking each other questions. Neither did a great job, but all Hannity did was insult, insult, insult.

Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but that mayoral debate last night went a small ways toward restoring my faith in American democracy. All five of those guys (maybe not Fattah), seem pretty genuinely determined to help Philadelphia.

Disco Stu wrote:

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

2 hours long?

Go past the first hour to the point that they are asking each other questions. Neither did a great job, but all Hannity did was insult, insult, insult.

Isn't that what he does daily on his shows?

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

phdave wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6153683903005498978&hl=en

Anyone who listens to Hannity and agrees with this one note bully can't think for themselves.

2 hours long?

Go past the first hour to the point that they are asking each other questions. Neither did a great job, but all Hannity did was insult, insult, insult.

Isn't that what he does daily on his shows?

Yeah, but it seems so much more pathetic when he is doing it in front of an audience in this situation. Don't bother if you don't care, but I like to watch asses make themselves look foolish. That is why I read all of MpMcGraw's posts.