On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:43:09 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@yahoo.com>
wrote:

What the administration is offering is an open-ended commitment to a
country that hasn't the slightest idea what democracy means.

You aren't an ignorant bigot, are you? You have no facts upon which to
base such an assumption.
Do you hold to the majority opinion of the Ignorant Left?--they state
often that no brown people on earth are "sophisticated" enough to
deserve democracy.

Facts? Name me a Mideast democracy outside of Israel and Turkey. Hint
- Egypt isn't. But Georgie will give it to them whether they want it
or not. Democracy has nothing to do with race and everything to do
with heritage.

And please give me a list of 'liberals' who have stated
that democracy will not work for anyone but Caucasians. Next.

The
administration hasn't made a single correct decision beginning with
WMD's,

The previous administration held the same "incorrect" opinion. Or, at
least, it's on record as claiming such. So are all the Dems who now
comprise the majority leadership in Congress--all are on record as being
as "fooled" as the President. Hardly Bush's mistake, alone.
And, even so, as mistakes go, it's completely irrelevant--not even
tangentially to this discussion.

The previous administration didn't start a war over it.

And if an
administration picks and chooses what intel will be given out, it's
likely that all will come to a similar decision using that intel. BTW
- you don't get to select which mistakes are relevant. But let me be
fair - give me some major successes. Next.

thinking that Iraq would welcome conquerors with open arms
(hint - they never have),

It depends on which Iraq you're speaking about. There were certainly
many Iraqis who "welcomed the conquerors with open arms."

Name three. It was a stupid and false assumption on the
administration's part. Next.

seriously underestimating sectarian violence
(hint - Sunnis killed Shia and Kurds under Saddam and the pressure had
built up over decades),

Decades is an ignorant qualifier. It has gone on for millennia. The
followers of Ali are the longest oppressed religious sect in history.

I was referring to Saddam's time in power, Mr. Ignorant, as you can
see if you read what was written. Next.

disbanding the Iraqi army, and on and on.

Disbanding the Iraq Army was a "blunder?"

Of course it was. And many in the military thought so at the time. The
Bushies had the perfect model in occupied Germany. They said they were
using this model but forgot the most important part. The Iraqi army
sans a few generals and the Republican and Palace guard would have
provided some type of immediate security but the Bushies knew better.
Next.

The
administration had no idea what they got the US into, and have been
playing catch-up ever since.

No, evidently YOU had no idea what the US had gotten into.

Nice answer but beep - non sequitur. I didn't get the US there - Bush
did. Next.

Realistically I don't see any viable option for the US at this point.

Which is why there are no alternatives offered.
But why not even a hypothetical alternative?

If we leave, the Civil War widens and anarchy wins because of the
various militias. If the US stays under the current plan including the
surge we put US soldiers between the two sides of the Civil War.

Are you of the opinion that the central authority never wins a civil war?
What would you base this on?

There is no viable central authority.

It's Shia controlled and if
placed in a position of power will proceed to do to the Sunni what
Saddam did to the Shia. Next.

Actually three but the Kurds have been fairly silent. If they start
making noise Turkey will soon become involved like Iran and Syria at
present. Bottom line - Bush has put the US in an untenable, no-win
position.

It was already in that position before January of 2001. You just hadn't
noticed. For instance, Russia working directly against US interests in Iraq had
begun before 1999, when Clinton forced Operation: Allied Force down
their throats.

The 'It" refers to the US? If so why become more bogged down in that
untenable position. The Russia comment is inane. Next.

How many posts will it take for you to list just one or two alternatives
to current policy?

Give the Iraq government 6 months to put an end to the militias and
the sectarian violence. The government gets the same amount of time to
divide the oil revenues between the provinces. The government gets the
same amount of time to take over and direct both military and security
forces.

What kind of plan is this? The idea isn't to pretend that everything is
quiet and secure and then leave.
We ain't leaving anyway. Nor /should/ we.

You're making my point just fine Thanks again. The Iraqi government
had best begin producing and a check list with timetable is one of the
best methods available. Next.

And, nothing is gonna settle down in Iraq until the Islamic Republic of
Iran collapses.

Ain't gonna happen. There will be a Islamic Republic of Iraq before
that. next.

The US would then withdraw to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

If you don't understand the dynamics, you should just admit it.

I understand them fine, thank you. Next.

The US will not "withdraw to Saudi Arabia." Do you know why?

'Splain it to me, Lucy. We have troops there at present and the
'redeployment' would also send troops home hence not materially
increasing our presence in Saudi Arabia. Next.

Some of
these forces would redeploy to Afghanistan. The administration would
begin a dialogue with Iran and Syria ostensibly to seek their help,

Iran and Syria aren't gonna help. They share no common interests or
goals with the US. Least of all an interest in having a free Shi'ite
majority in Mesopotamia.

I didn't say they would help. Look up ostensibly. next.

Do you think a "homegrown" insurgency could maintain the breathtaking
pace of attacks you see in Iraq today?
All by itself? Without burning itself out?

Of course the insurgents have help. But let me turn to the flip side -
no insurgency could exist without a great dal of support from the
locals. Next.

While you can set up a direct dialogue with Syria, you can't with Iran.
For Iran, you must use the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, and they must use
their embassy in Islamabad to communicate with the US.

So what? That's process not agenda. Next.

Syria is in the assassination business in Lebanon, and they are acting
as unapologetic proxies for Tehran. Tehran has been exporting Shi'ite
Revolution to Lebanon, Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan,
Iraq, et al, for over twenty fucking years.

And the US was in the assassaination biz for years.

And the US is
trying to export (un)democracy to the region. I can go on and on. But
bottom line the US bears a lot of the responsibility for the Shah, his
torture chambers, and the SAVAK. Iranians have long memories. next.

What on EARTH would bringing them into the discussions accomplish?

You don't know until you try. I'll look at it from your point of view
- it would silence the critics who advocate this. Next.

Iran is the country most threatened by a successful outcome of
Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

Hint: It isn't successful nor will it be. Next.

but realistically to tell them hands-off.

They've already been told.
They're not listening.
What now?

You tell me. I'm not the one trying to build a tenable position out of
this mess. Next.

Unless firm goals coinciding
with a time table are put in place, the Iraq gov't will continue at
their current pace and continue to suck up billions of USD for them
and their cronies to pad their bank accounts.

What WOULD you have done differently between 9-11-01 and 3-18-03?
That is the fucking question.

I'd have gotten Bin Laden and I wouldn't have atacked Iraq who had
nothing to do with 9/11. Next.

PS: Current policy hasn't worked at all so why should anyone accept
any of Bush's ideas he's put forward.

Because none of his critics have the foggiest notion of what the Shrub
is doing, nor care, nor do ANY of them, including you, have even a vague
notion of what should be done, or what should have been done.
Criticism isn't an alternative. Staying home in bed isn't an alternative
we'll take seriously.

Is Rove emailing you the talking points?

I've given you alternatives.

Whether your little peabrain can accept them or not isn't my problem.
Hint: Bush hasn't the slightest idea either. Next.

The fact remains that Iran is the central actor in the Global Jihad,
even to the point of harboring as many as 3,000 bin Laden jihadis after
Op: EF--and Iran is untouchable.
Given that she's untouchable, you must begin a proxy war with her if
you're going to engage her at all.
If you were going to start a proxy war with Iran, logic indicates you
had very limited choices of sites for that war:

1) Syria (which will inevitably directly involve Israel)

2) Lebanon (which will inevitably directly involve Israel)

3) Iraq

(Afghanistan is not a good place for any kind of war--nor is Bosnia.
Azerbaijan is as untouchable as Iran. Pakistan is doing its best to
survive its own Salafis while arresting bin Laden and Mullah Omar
operatives. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are doing likewise. Libya is too
interconnected with Syria and Egypt.)

Hint: Bin Laden was a proxy for the Taliban at the time of 9/11

so the
US invasion of the country was warranted.

Pakistan is well on its way
to becoming another militant Islamic nation. The current rulers are
barely hanging on. Next.

Of the choices, only Iraq is isolated. Of the choices, only Iraq has
been the shinning apple in Tehran's eye since 1979. Of the choices, only
Iraq required immediate regime change anyway (regime change in Iraq was
even advocated in the Democratic Party Platform of 2000).

So what? They're wrong too. Next.

And Iraq, herself, was a key in the global jihad. And since 1995 Saddam
had done everything he could to increase his influence with global
jihadis.

If not Iraq, where and who?

How about no war as none was necessary.

Seems to me that both you and
Wee Georgie think that Geopolitics is some type of Korean sports car
to take out and test drive every so often. Sheesh!