I think Ramadi was the proverbial Rubicon for Iraq.

Once the Iraqi forces showed they were unwilling to fight for their own land, this sent an intensively powerful message to the world.

There's nothing you can do for people who have lost the will to fight. Either an event, a leader or a belief has to emerge to galvanize them to fight for their own national existence. If that's not important for them, they will become something different, but being an Iraqi is not on the table any longer.

Bucky wrote:

As President Obama was weighing how to halt Islamic State advances in Iraq, some of the strongest resistance to boosting U.S. involvement came from a surprising place: a war-weary military that has grown increasingly skeptical that force can prevail in a conflict fueled by political and religious grievances

Looks like LG is being heard!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... nes&wpmm=1

the borders of Iraq are completely and utterly arbitrary. I don't see why Shia Iraqis from Baghdad WOULD fight to reclaim Sunni Ramadi.I understand strategically it's fairly close, unlike Mosul, but the differences in their society are real. I think Baghdad wants to concentrate on rebuilding their formerly great city, not dealing with yet another war. It's one of the worst places in the world now.

I think Iraq is done. We just don't know it yet.

Stephen Colbert must have put Trump up to this. Letterman is probably kicking himself for retiring a few months too soon.

TenuredVulture wrote:Stephen Colbert must have put Trump up to this. Letterman is probably kicking himself for retiring a few months too soon.

Stewart only gets a month or so to enjoy it, too. I hope he finds a new venue where he can take down Trump.

pacino wrote:the borders of Iraq are completely and utterly arbitrary. I don't see why Shia Iraqis from Baghdad WOULD fight to reclaim Sunni Ramadi.I understand strategically it's fairly close, unlike Mosul, but the differences in their society are real. I think Baghdad wants to concentrate on rebuilding their formerly great city, not dealing with yet another war. It's one of the worst places in the world now.

I think Iraq is done. We just don't know it yet.

way back in 2003 I recall someone proposing to split Iraq into 5 states (Kurds in the north, shiites in the east, sunnis in the central, etc) , starting to think that he or she was right

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

pacino wrote:the borders of Iraq are completely and utterly arbitrary. I don't see why Shia Iraqis from Baghdad WOULD fight to reclaim Sunni Ramadi.I understand strategically it's fairly close, unlike Mosul, but the differences in their society are real. I think Baghdad wants to concentrate on rebuilding their formerly great city, not dealing with yet another war. It's one of the worst places in the world now.

I think Iraq is done. We just don't know it yet.

way back in 2003 I recall someone proposing to split Iraq into 5 states (Kurds in the north, shiites in the east, sunnis in the central, etc) , starting to think that he or she was right

Biden proposed 3 states and was laughed at

its bc he didn't have his pants on

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Stephen Colbert must have put Trump up to this. Letterman is probably kicking himself for retiring a few months too soon.

Stewart only gets a month or so to enjoy it, too. I hope he finds a new venue where he can take down Trump.

it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I'd rather he'd stick it to those who are taken seriously or else it softens his bite.

HEY HE'S GOT A POINT

So movement on the discussion from last week - Three Booted From GOP Whip Team as Leaders Crack Down. Taking people off the whip team when they oppose the whip team on whipped votes seems pretty obvious. The more interesting threat is at the bottom of the article to start taking away subcommittee chairmanships from members who stray because that would be a real punishment. Boehner apparently went on a rant during the caucus meeting today, in addition to that quote in the article.

Also it's worth highlighting the bit from Rep. Labrador (R-ID) on why so many voted against the rule - "I think many of the people who voted against the rule felt it was inappropriate for our leadership to continue to negotiate with Democrats without negotiating with conservatives in the House. That's the failure of this leadership. … They're not even aware of what's happening around them and they need to be very careful about that." The Republicans who voted against the rule and the Democrats who voted against it did so for different reasons...the GOP reason being that leadership was too accommodating to Democrats! There isn't some hidden majority of 218 members who would start passing legislation if only the party structure would get out of the way. Nothing would get accomplished.

I was going to post this in the uber thread, but I think it fits better here. I wonder how many users of uber and airbnb (because hotels are so corporate man) oppose TPP. Because that's inconsistent.

Trump used paid actors to fill out his crowd. I love him.

NOBODY BUILDS WALLS BETTER THAN ME, BELIEVE ME


he's going to build a wall along our southern border. it's going to be great, it's going to be cheap and he's going to make Mexico pay for it. why make it cheap if they're paying for it?


also, Mexicans are rapists.

plus, he has lots of $3 websites.

TenuredVulture wrote:I was going to post this in the uber thread, but I think it fits better here. I wonder how many users of uber and airbnb (because hotels are so corporate man) oppose TPP. Because that's inconsistent.

What?

pacino wrote:NOBODY BUILDS WALLS BETTER THAN ME, BELIEVE ME


he's going to build a wall along our southern border. it's going to be great, it's going to be cheap and he's going to make Mexico pay for it. why make it cheap if they're paying for it?


also, Mexicans are rapists.

plus, he has lots of $3 websites.

now we know where the inspiration for George Bluth Sr. originated!

Soren wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I was going to post this in the uber thread, but I think it fits better here. I wonder how many users of uber and airbnb (because hotels are so corporate man) oppose TPP. Because that's inconsistent.

What?

Free market v. regulation and artificial constraints on trade.

There are some surface similarities on that level, but I think creative destruction brought on by new models for existing industries shouldn't be conflated with Libertarian/Neo Con free market fantasies. I'd also argue that the success of Uber/Air BNB and the like will eventually bring about new regulation but we haven't legislatively caught up with the innovation.

The big problems with TPP from my and my fellow liberals' perspective are the following:

No one knows what the fuck is in it since it's been negotiated in private
It's been compared to NAFTA which was bad for American workers
There are some leaked provisions granting private entities the right to sue nations trying to protect public interests/health which has a pretty significant ick factor.

pacino wrote:NOBODY BUILDS WALLS BETTER THAN ME, BELIEVE ME


he's going to build a wall along our southern border. it's going to be great, it's going to be cheap and he's going to make Mexico pay for it. why make it cheap if they're paying for it?


also, Mexicans are rapists.

plus, he has lots of $3 websites.

Isn't there already a wall there?

pacino wrote:he's going to build a wall along our southern border.

To keep out Genghis Juan?

pacino wrote:also, Mexicans are rapists.

Sure, focus on the negatives. He said some of them are good.