Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-25-2009, 06:29 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Leaving Iraq

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:02 PM
MargaretH MargaretH is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lexington MA
Posts: 29
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Heather: Mil-Mil relationships??? You both require very close listening. Closer than I have time to give after my hum-drum citizen's day work!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:09 PM
Pendragon Pendragon is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Eli Lake is living in a strange world. "The Iraqi forces will rival the Israeli military".

The Kurds are not part of Arab Iraq, the Sunni middle class ( 4M people ) are exiles, the Sunni tribes in Anbar are on the American payroll and could restart the Iraqi civil war at any time, 50% of Iraqi children are malnourished, in Baghdad you can get electricity for 6 hours a day if you are lucky. Baghdad is the most dangerous city on earth.

All indicators of a strong military in Iraq ?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:16 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

I think Lake needs to step back from his ideology a bit, he had a lot of trouble simply understanding rival claims about how Iraq's improved. An America that stays in Iraq forever fighting an Iran that plans the same = chaos forever. Maybe the US could have convinced people to side with it without showing signs of ending their presence and no longer using Baghdad as a battleground but Lake's only evidence for this is that it's the only line of reasoning he gets.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:39 PM
jr565 jr565 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 54
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Heather just can't warp her mind around the fact that Clinton and Gore were renditioning Al Qaeda long before Bush took office, and even before 9/11 created the rationale to capture Al Qaeda members and send them to foreign countries, and so wants to change the subject.

From Richard Clarke's book:
Quote:
The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"
So there is the implicit acknowledgement that Gore was all for violating international law even prior to 9/11 and he and Clinton had no problems sending Al Qaeda captured illegally off to Egypt to presumably be tortured.

Isn't the difference between Clitnons policy and Bush's splitting hairs? They used rendition on more people, but this was after 9/11 and war was declared on Al Qaeda.

And saying that torture is not effective is clearly the talking point of ideologues saying such and not based on actual evidence. This is not to say that therefore there should or shouldnt be torture, but almost anyone who says we shouldn't torture argue that we can get as good intel without having to resort to torture. Which may be true, except in the cases where it isn't.And isn't mutually exclusive in either case.

Khalleid Sheik Mohammad was not broken through traditional means, but broke immediately after being waterboarded. That doesn't speak to the morality of waterboarding or not waterboarding as a policy but to the result of the action and its potential efficiency.

Last edited by jr565; 02-25-2009 at 09:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-25-2009, 09:48 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
So there is the implicit acknowledgement that Gore was all for violating international law even prior to 9/11 and he and Clinton had no problems sending Al Qaeda captured illegally off to Egypt to presumably be tortured.

Isn't the difference between Clitnons policy and Bush's splitting hairs?
Three points:

1) Al Gore was not POTUS. It doesn't matter in the least what his views were on international law, although I am not buying the hearsay account quoted above either.

2) Although rendition is plenty bad, US military doing the torturing, running Guantánamo, performing "enhanced interrogation" endorsed at the highest levels of civilian and military command and setting up black sites are practices that are a whole lot worse.

3) So no, not splitting hairs.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-25-2009, 10:35 PM
jr565 jr565 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 54
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Three points:

1) Al Gore was not POTUS. It doesn't matter in the least what his views were on international law, although I am not buying the hearsay account quoted above either.
Al Gore was VP, and the conversation also included Clinton who ultimately signed on for said renditions, and the rendition policy was his. It's just that the book cites Gore's common sensical utterance. And hearsay or not, what Clarke said is simply a fact. What, are you saying that Richard clarke is a liar? Funny, I don't remember all this talk about Clarke's lack of truthfulness when he was brought out as a critic of Bush to suggest that he wasn't heeding Clarke's warnings about Al Qaeda being the worst threat we faced.

Quote:
2) Although rendition is plenty bad, US military doing the torturing, running Guantánamo, performing "enhanced interrogation" endorsed at the highest levels of civilian and military command and setting up black sites are practices that are a whole lot worse.
lets be honest. There is ehnanced interrogation and then there is torture.
or to put in another way, we use waterboarding on our cadets in SERE training. But for example, we wouldnt go as far as to actually torture them (i.e. torture with a capital "T" - like say take a drill to their knee) because then we'd be torturing them. Waterboarding, while certainly traumatic, is acceptable enough to be used for training purposes.

Egypt and these countries that we might ship people off to are not at all bound by our squeamishness, so its practically a guarantee that waterboarding would be the least of their torture or interrogation. Have you ever seen, for example, the videos of Sadaam Husseins torture? There's footage of people being thrown off buildings, have their tongues cut out, being beaten with rods till their arms are bent at weird angles and their whole bodies are covered in bruises. So, if we are sending people to countries like that, I'd imagine they are treated far worse and are having their rights violated in ways we couldn't even imagine. Apparently, outsourcing our interrogations is a ok, if it allows us to be self righteous in our false purity.

Quote:
3) So no, not splitting hairs.
So what's the magical number or cut off point whereby Clintons outsourcing was ok or to be expected, or not comment worthy, but Bush's was? And if renditions were ok, and Al Gore could see the common sense argument that even though they violated international law, that they were a no branier prior to 9/11 wouldn't 9/11 make an even stronger case that they were a no brainer and necessary? I can't possibly imagine that Al Gore, saying such things in 1993, would somehow find the case for renditions made worse after we were hit by Al Qaeda on 9/11 were he to have won the election instead. can you?

Last edited by jr565; 02-25-2009 at 10:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-25-2009, 08:54 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

I spent most of the first part of this diavlog wondering whether Eli is supplementing his income by collecting a paycheck from the Bush Legacy Project.

I spent most of the second half wondering what brought on the return of Crazy Eli (how many times did he say "the far left wing of the Democratic Party?").

I can't decide whether it was due to his being within the walls of the Moonie Times or if he just needs to start smoking again.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-26-2009, 01:00 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I spent most of the first part of this diavlog wondering whether Eli is supplementing his income by collecting a paycheck from the Bush Legacy Project.

I spent most of the second half wondering what brought on the return of Crazy Eli (how many times did he say "the far left wing of the Democratic Party?").

I can't decide whether it was due to his being within the walls of the Moonie Times or if he just needs to start smoking again.
I spent the same time reflecting on why it is so many people opposed to the war were incapable of acknowledging that their later opposition and calls for immediate withdrawal and bringing the troops home asap in the midst of the worst of Iraq since the war started was actually the WRONG strategy.

But then it is not surprising. And while this opinion will be swallowed up by the hordes who are invested in a complete and total failure of policy in Iraq and its eventual success, I will make it anyway. People opposed to the war must at all costs deride everything associated with the war. Not a case of a net negative with some pluses, all negative or nearly so. Conceding any potential benefit, even DECADES out is seen as a copout, a concession to the argument that there was some benefit, or could be, and that by conceding anything like that will forfeit the entire argument against.


It is a pathetic tactic, but there it is.


To take a side example I may have given before, abortion. I think women should be able to have abortions if they wish.

Many people who agree with my end position have supports which I find fractured and devastatingly wrong.

People spouting women should have the right to "choose" are missing the mark by a mile. People who say a fetus is not human and not alive, are just flat out wrong. If a single celled bacteria is alive, why not a fetus? And if that fetus contains human dna, why is it not a HUMAN fetus that is also alive?

Shakey foundations to support abortion, pathetic really, yet some people cannot let those carcasses of an idea die.

On the choice issue, the REASON women should be allowed to choose is NOT because they have some infinite right to choose anything, it is because a fetus is not the SAME as a human being. If I actually believed there was no difference in the self awareness of a 10 year old and a fetus, that they were in fact nearly the same, I would be against abortion in almost all cases too. Choice bypasses a deeper disagreement. And harping on THAT front is just terrible logically, it is almost willfully missing the mark.

But some people will concede none of these points, the incurious, the dimwitted, the cravens of logic, the ones who think that conceding ANY point, concedes the entire argument. Or at the very least weakens the case.


You know what, sometimes conceding point DOES weaken a case, either ours or an opponents, but we ought not refuse to make concessions just for the sake of. If we are wrong on something, they just say so, this does NOT mean the entire argument, the entire war is lost, simply a battle. And if the concession is so great that it does cause a turning point in the argument, then so be it, what is the goal anyway? truth? Or being right?


Heather I am afraid to say was a case study in refusing to concede any points on the more radical anti war position of get out asap no matter what. Why? doing so means Iraq was a golden city? A Golden war? Even "I" would not make that case and I am far more sympathetic to the war.


People with an inability to make concessions disturb me, it is the difference between Peter Beinart and Rachael Maddow, the latter much more eager to score wins by refusing to concede much of anything, to cede much of any ground. And many love her for it, even if it is a less honest posture.


I know many want to discredit the use of non retaliatory military force to achieve some sort of positive end. Because such moves are anathema to them on general principle, independent of how things actually turn out. I just wish those people were not so eager to stifle and squash any notions that challenged their view of things.

Last edited by JonIrenicus; 02-26-2009 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-26-2009, 01:17 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
I spent the same time reflecting on why it is so many people opposed to the war were incapable of acknowledging that their later opposition and calls for immediate withdrawal and bringing the troops home asap in the midst of the worst of Iraq since the war started was actually the WRONG strategy.
I can't be sure, but I suspect it has a lot to do with people like Eli, most of the Bush Adminstration, and the overwhelming majority of prominent right-wing pundits showing no willingness to admit that the war was wrong in the first place, that the corruption, torture, and other crimes committed during it have been largely covered up, that it was sold under false pretenses, that the reasons for going to war, the arguments for staying, and the definition of victory have all been updated more often than Alberto Gonzales said, "I don't recall," that The Surge (tm) is jingoistically claimed to be solely responsible for the reduction of violence in Iraq, that because things aren't quite as bad there as they were at their worst, therefore every war opponent is utterly wrong about everything, and that virtually none of people listed at the start of this sentence have apologized for accusing opponents of the war of hating America, rooting for the terrorists, and treason. Among other things.

One tends to feel when dealing with such obstinacy that adopting an equally rigid stance is the only way not to get trampled.

Ditto when dealing with anti-choice hysterics.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 02-26-2009 at 01:49 PM.. Reason: wordsmithing
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-25-2009, 09:13 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

The discussion on the Bush truth commission was very good. Both participants expressed mixed feelings about it, and in the process of sketching out the pros and cons, they illuminated the whole issue. Viewers looking for some kind of vigorous left/right conflict will be disappointed by the lack strident argument in this segment, but I think the honesty in the discussion was great.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 02-26-2009 at 12:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-26-2009, 12:08 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Eli without his trademark mood lighting and music!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-26-2009, 12:31 AM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

How does Eli explain the fact that the key strategy that helped end the civil war - i.e. putting Sunni shieks on our payroll - was deliberately kept from President Bush by General Petraeus - at least according to Tom Ricks. This is as damning as anything of Bush's incompetence leadership and terrible judgement . Bush was treated like an idiot child by his top general. Also Ricks doesn't judge the "surge" a success - because there's no assurance or compelling evidence that the present situation will hold. I'd love to hear Eli debate with Ricks.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-26-2009, 09:49 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
How does Eli explain the fact that the key strategy that helped end the civil war - i.e. putting Sunni shieks on our payroll - was deliberately kept from President Bush by General Petraeus - at least according to Tom Ricks. This is as damning as anything of Bush's incompetence leadership and terrible judgement . Bush was treated like an idiot child by his top general. Also Ricks doesn't judge the "surge" a success - because there's no assurance or compelling evidence that the present situation will hold. I'd love to hear Eli debate with Ricks.
Sober Eli was nice, but I guess we're back to loopy and tendentious Eli. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-26-2009, 12:36 AM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Eli - "the leftwing of the Democratic party needs to know that it's losing."

If this is what losing looks like, I'll take it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-26-2009, 12:39 AM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

The long-term Shiite regional alliance in the Persian Gulf, with Iran the stronger partner, will surely lead to that re-assessment of the Iraq war by Americans that Eli thinks he's looking forward to.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-26-2009, 07:32 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
The long-term Shiite regional alliance in the Persian Gulf, with Iran the stronger partner, will surely lead to that re-assessment of the Iraq war by Americans that Eli thinks he's looking forward to.
This is the real crux of the matter. Did either speaker even mention it? All the rest is at this point an academic exercise in ex post facto justification of the biggest blunder in US foreign policy since Vietnam. Rightwing republicans would no doubt like to pin the blame for failure on Democrats or Congress---on anyone in fact but Bush and his merry band of screwball advisors, but surely they are aware that the responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy lies with the president? Didn't they, after all, advocate the theory of a "unitary executive"?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-26-2009, 03:34 AM
jr565 jr565 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 54
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Heather is snotty as hell and awfully defensive about Iraq. And she is LYING.

The plain fact of the matter is democrats were saying the sky was falling and there was no way we could ever win, that it was a totally lost cause and that we shouldn't even go through with the surge and should still pull out (the implication being that the surge wouldn't work). Even the NYT said even if Iraq fell into genocide we still should get out. That is CLEARLY the position of the democrats at the time.

They were not arguing that we should leave by winning but that we had to leave because we couldn't win.

How is she reconciling this position with the garbage she's spewing. In 2006 and 2007 it wasn't' a situation of the surge going on forever. It was rather that the surge couldn't work AT ALL. Bush ignored the dems and went 180 degrees against their wishes and essentially implemented the surge over their dead bodies and the surge was successful. Its the difference of ending the war with al qaeda winning and us leaving Iraq in a mess or us ignoring the dems gloom and doom and carrying on through success. If the dems had their way the US wouldn't be around for the long term OR the short term.

Last edited by jr565; 02-26-2009 at 03:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-26-2009, 03:59 AM
Lemon Sorbet Lemon Sorbet is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 114
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr565 View Post
.....The plain fact of the matter is democrats were saying the sky was falling and there was no way we could ever win, that it was a totally lost cause and that we shouldn't even go through with the surge and should still pull out (the implication being that the surge wouldn't work). ....
What is the point of all this crowing about you were wrong I was right about the “surge”? It’s stunning to see the constant singular focus on this twisted moral victory by the tunnel visioned war proponents who chose not to exercise (or just plain disregard) realistic analysis in the first place that would have required surge-like numbers of troops in the first place. The bigger fact that the entire war is a disastrous and tragically defining moment for the U.S. seems to be lost on this group while they crow about being "right" on the "surge". It’s sickening.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-26-2009, 05:09 PM
jr565 jr565 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 54
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Sorbet View Post
What is the point of all this crowing about you were wrong I was right about the “surge”? It’s stunning to see the constant singular focus on this twisted moral victory by the tunnel visioned war proponents who chose not to exercise (or just plain disregard) realistic analysis in the first place that would have required surge-like numbers of troops in the first place.
The bigger fact that the entire war is a disastrous and tragically defining moment for the U.S. seems to be lost on this group while they crow about being "right" on the "surge". It’s sickening.
It's kind of ironic to argue that one shouldn't crow about being wrong or right and then turn around and argue that those who argued a different position then you are wrong.


First off there are many stages of the war whereby a calculus must be made as to its rightness or wrongness of the Iraq war. To go in in the first place was one such calculus. While you may argue it was wrong to go in the first place, its not a fact that the alternative was all that great either. Containment was falling apart at the seems, our containment in part radicalized Al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11 and there was also the matter of Iraq violating 16 resolutions, and the threat of proliferation and that we'd need to still contain iraq indefinetly while also trying to reign in Iran, N Korea who would similarly see how well it was working out with Iraq. And Sadaam would still be in power violating yet more resolutions and being uncooperative. So the calculus was made to go in or not go in, and this was all hashed out and the decision to go in was made.

Once they're in and the war is going badly there is another calculus as to whether to implement a surge strategy or to let Iraq fall into hell and wash our hands. Whether one was for or against going in is no longer relevant to that consideration, and, unless you think that somehow abandonding Iraq to Al Qaeda and letting it sink into a genocide is good for our long term interests (many do, so if so own up to it), then even if you might be against going in, it doesn't mean that you want to see Iraq fail once in. And that's what the democrats were counceling. completely pull out even if a genocide were to occur. Thankfully, we didn't listen to them and pressed on. We've now had multiple elections in Iraq, and have completley removed Sadaam from the calculus and Iraq has the chance to be a flawed but democratic state. So which is better for us (and Iraq) long term, a state with Sadaam Hussein flouting international law, (and remember we'd now be dealing with Iran and Iraq both as states who refused to comply were we have maintained containment) or a country that is not a WMD threat that has to be contained, run by a terrorist loving dictator and which is relatively peaceful. You can't possibly argue for the former, so if you agree that a peaceful state is better, then you have to long longer term as to whether Iraq was a positive or negative. I keep hearing that it was the worst international policy in the history of the world by those putting down Iraq, which is ahistorical pablum but which also requires that we are defeated there and waste all that blood and treasure for nothing and leave Iraq as a genocidal state (which is what the left was hoping for and pushing for, frankly). If though its a stable state then perhaps it wasn't the worst international policy ever, and all the talking points become just that. I think we'll find that it's actually Afghanistan that will prove to be the tougher nut to crack, and you'll note that Obama is actually escalating there as we speak.
And Heather has it exactly wrong. It's not the pro war crowd who should be thanking the democrats, its Obama who should be thanking the pro war crowd for not listening to his asinine anti surge strategies, because now he'd have to deal with a failed state of his own making in addition to all the other international issues he'd still have to deal with, as opposed to an orderly withdrawal of troops from the country.

Last edited by jr565; 02-26-2009 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-26-2009, 01:20 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Man, just read Tom Ricks before you rant like that. Everything you think you know about the "surge" is wrong. If you want to dispute his point of from a better informed position, have at it. But, just now the "plain fact" is that you're regurgitating triumphalist bullshit - a commodity made cheap by right-wing claims about this war from its start.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-26-2009, 01:29 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Man, just read Tom Ricks before you rant like that. Everything you think you know about the "surge" is wrong. If you want to dispute his point of from a better informed position, have at it. But, just now the "plain fact" is that you're regurgitating triumphalist bullshit - a commodity made cheap by right-wing claims about this war from its start.
I think Ricks is supposed to be on the Hugh Hewitt talk show later today.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

Curious to see how it goes as Hewitt is solidly in the pro Iraq war column.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-28-2009, 09:51 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
I think Ricks is supposed to be on the Hugh Hewitt talk show later today.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog

Curious to see how it goes as Hewitt is solidly in the pro Iraq war column.
Just happened across this, and remembered your post. If you or anyone else is interested, you can find the transcript here. (h/t: Instaputz)

Apparently, this was just the first part of a two-part interview. I don't see a transcript listed on the index page for the second part yet.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-26-2009, 10:53 PM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

heather hurlburt is a liar. the democrats wanted out of iraq in 2007 regardless of conditions on the ground that would have led to US defeat and genocide, greater civil war, and instability in the region.

i stopped listening to the diavlog after 10-15 minutes. she joins jaqueline shire and Joseph Cirincione in the BHTV clowns list.

(shire and cirincione claimed on bhtv that global warming is a bigger threat to the US than jihadist terrorism. i laughed then. but it is even sillier now with the climate getting colder.

i wonder in this age of economic depression, people are still in the mood for more cap and trade...)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-27-2009, 10:41 AM
olmeta olmeta is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

FINALLY! BHTV conflict at last! I'm so tired of the luke warm, polite conversations of late.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-27-2009, 11:32 AM
PaulL PaulL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
heather hurlburt is a liar. the democrats wanted out of iraq in 2007 regardless of conditions on the ground that would have led to US defeat and genocide, greater civil war, and instability in the region.
Heather also forgets Senator Reid in 2007.
Quote:
you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid.
Reid tried to revise history in the the same way as Heather.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-27-2009, 03:15 PM
DWAnderson DWAnderson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 64
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

I was amused to hear Heather accues Eli of entering counterfactual land, given that is where she spends the entire discussion about Iraq. Heather's arguments are full of post hoc rationalizations about how the last three years of history transpired, whereas Eli's are actually fact-based and backed up with specific evidence.

It is equally amusing to the the majority of commenters here have seen the diavlog through glasses that are just as ideologically tinted.

Two non-substantive comments:

-- Eli, get headset.

-- Heather, try to sound less condescending.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-27-2009, 04:07 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Oy Vey! Can we please get the old(new) Eli back?? The one who doesn't try to re-write history to fit his ideological prism. I especially love when he tells me what Obama's stance was when he campaigned, how it appealed to liberals, and how Obama has changed his stance. Funny, I voted for Obama, partly because of his position on drawing down troops. And I am a liberal. But I guess Eli knows more about what we think than we do.

Heather thank you for calling him out on his counterfactuals. You guys are still one of my favorite pairs.

+1 on the suggestion of having Tom Ricks on. That would be great.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-28-2009, 02:17 PM
x9#z6 x9#z6 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 27
Default Re: Leaving Iraq

Heather is awesome. Her verbal skills are scary sophisticated. Like, WTF, check out her lead into the Iraq discussion at the beginning of this diavlog. Is this really how she thinks on the fly. I'm in awe.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-01-2009, 03:51 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Iraqis step up or dressed down - video

Youtube video of a US drill instructor dressing down his Iraqi trainees. Language used is NSFW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Grd...eature=related


Compelling video, but one which certainly leaves me saddened, rather than hopeful.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-01-2009, 04:08 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Iraqis step up or dressed down - video

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
Youtube video of a US drill instructor dressing down his Iraqi trainees. Language used is NSFW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Grd...eature=related


Compelling video, but one which certainly leaves me saddened, rather than hopeful.
I dunno. Sometimes the drill sergeant has to kick a little ass. Probably we don't want every last American soldier talking to Iraqis this way, but sometimes it's appropriate. Reminds me of nothing so much as a basketball coach I once had.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:31 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: Iraqis step up or dressed down - video

Quote:
I dunno. Sometimes the drill sergeant has to kick a little ass. Probably we don't want every last American soldier talking to Iraqis this way, but sometimes it's appropriate. Reminds me of nothing so much as a basketball coach I once had
It's not so much the tone. I expect the shia in Iraq have faced much harsher treatment both prior and since the Iraqi invasion.

It's that the clip reveals a Heller like synposis of this conflict. A US solider bellowing in 'american' at a police force, some of whom he suspects of targeting americans, of disloyality, of cowardice. All the while the solider is asking out loud why should his men have to die for Iraq, while I suspect the Iraqis are asking themselves the same question. Same geography, different realities.

Last edited by opposable_crumbs; 03-01-2009 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:36 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Iraqis step up or dressed down - video

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
It's not so much the tone. I expect the shia in Iraq have faced much harsher treatment both prior and since the Iraqi invasion.

It's that the clip reveals a Heller like synposis of this conflict. A US solider bellowing in 'american' at a police force, some of whom he suspects of targeting americans, of disloyality, of cowardice. All the while the solider is asking out loud why should his men have to die for their country. Same geography, different realities.
You'll get no argument from me about the FUBAR nature of the overall situation that put that soldier in that position. I was reacting only to the episode in and of itself.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-02-2009, 01:48 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Iraqis step up or dressed down - video

Quote:
Originally Posted by opposable_crumbs View Post
Compelling video, but one which certainly leaves me saddened, rather than hopeful.
Absolutely appalling. Thanks for the link. At the very beginning of the Iraq war there was an article in the New Yorker (I forget the author's name) about the attitude of American soldiers towards the Iraqis. What it revealed about the American military and the mentality of the lower-class Americans who staff the military was, to say the least, disgusting.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:51 PM
opposable_crumbs opposable_crumbs is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 504
Default Re: Iraqis step up or dressed down - video

Quote:
Absolutely appalling. Thanks for the link. At the very beginning of the Iraq war there was an article in the New Yorker (I forget the author's name) about the attitude of American soldiers towards the Iraqis. What it revealed about the American military and the mentality of the lower-class Americans who staff the military was, to say the least, disgusting.
This video, which appears to be shot during the opening weeks of the occupation, shows the US military crushing the car of a looter. It's pretty easy to see how the seeds of militancy found fertile ground after acts like this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV7aO8oLAsg

Rather than the insolence of individual troops, which are distateful enough, I think the fact that such acts seemed to be part of policy on the ground is what I find more shocking. If this video had been publicised and commented on by the wider US public and military, then incidents like Abu Ghraib may well have been curtailed.

Unlike Eli though, I'm more interested in the future of Iraq, rather than rehashing the merits of the surge and the Sunni awakening.

Last edited by opposable_crumbs; 03-02-2009 at 02:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.