Republicans steadfast- Bush says US will not pull out of IRAQ until stabilized

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

1 paragraph - true.....to a degree. although i'm certain that the average german between 1940-1945 would pick that first statement to pieces........

2nd - a strong dictator is kinda redundant, isn't it? otherwise he's not a dictator for long......

3rd - all true.

4th - i've asked that very question to many of the do-gooders here in vj - those who drone on about the poor ______ (fill in the blank) yet these same individuals have done zippo about that situation they are carrying on about .... i guess talk is cheaper than action.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Repression DOES NOT always imply Law-and-order; Yahya Khan (gone after two years due to his grandiose delusions of himself as "conqueror") and Zia ul-Haq were both examples of brutal repressive dictators who suppressed rather than enforced laws--Musharraf is another.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Repression DOES NOT always imply Law-and-order; Yahya Khan (gone after two years due to his grandiose delusions of himself as "conqueror") and Zia ul-Haq were both examples of brutal repressive dictators who suppressed rather than enforced laws--Musharraf is another.

Granted - but whether it be repressive or not repression is control. Control of any kind being better than none, though not necessarily for the people - but from the perspective of foreign self interest it unfortunately makes a weird kind of sense.

It goes back to why the allies didn't remove Saddam after the first Gulf War - because they didn't want to be bogged down in the country, dealing with precisely this exact kind of lawless sectarian violence that is going on at the moment.

Still along comes GWB to try to prove everybody wrong - and look what happens. A huge mess, with no clear end in sight.

Edited November 30, 2006 by erekose

[Saddle Bronc 124]

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

1 paragraph - true.....to a degree. although i'm certain that the average german between 1940-1945 would pick that first statement to pieces........

2nd - a strong dictator is kinda redundant, isn't it? otherwise he's not a dictator for long......

Actually, Charles--"strong dictator" is NOT redundant. In reality most dictators project the ILLUSION of strength (while maintaining hold on power by bumping-off opponents). Remember that Stalin held power for nearly a quarter century just this way (illusion of strength by getting rid of perceived opponents), and Mao for more than that (27 years to be exact).

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

1 paragraph - true.....to a degree. although i'm certain that the average german between 1940-1945 would pick that first statement to pieces........

2nd - a strong dictator is kinda redundant, isn't it? otherwise he's not a dictator for long......

Actually, Charles--"strong dictator" is NOT redundant. In reality most dictators project the ILLUSION of strength (while maintaining hold on power by bumping-off opponents). Remember that Stalin held power for nearly a quarter century just this way (illusion of strength by getting rid of perceived opponents), and Mao for more than that (27 years to be exact).

eliminating the competition? i thought pretty much every dictator did that

Edited November 30, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Peikko 1,575]

4th - i've asked that very question to many of the do-gooders here in vj - those who drone on about the poor ______ (fill in the blank) yet these same individuals have done zippo about that situation they are carrying on about .... i guess talk is cheaper than action.

All you can say for certain on this point is that when you try to interogate people on their actions you interpret their unwillingness to indulge you as proof that they do nothing. It seems not to occur to you that your requests for 'proof' are invasive, rude and more often than not irrelevant.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

4th - i've asked that very question to many of the do-gooders here in vj - those who drone on about the poor ______ (fill in the blank) yet these same individuals have done zippo about that situation they are carrying on about .... i guess talk is cheaper than action.

All you can say for certain on this point is that when you try to interogate people on their actions you interpret their unwillingness to indulge you as proof that they do nothing. It seems not to occur to you that your requests for 'proof' are invasive, rude and more often than not irrelevant.

ah play the wounded swan, will you? i find nothing wrong with asking someone if they "put their money where their mouth is"as it shows to me, at least, if they really do have convictions or if what they spout is just hot air.

[Peikko 1,575]

Knowledge is a wonderful tool.

I haven't noticed any wounds, not sure what you mean by that, and I have no intersest in what category you put me into.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A general observation here - countries with working governments and an effective law enforcement infrastructure are usually preferable to those without either.

There's a difference of course between a strong leader and a good leader, but there are 'law and order' benefits of leadership. Saddam was certainly not "good", but noone can fault a dictator for not being 'strong'.

Similarly (generally speaking) when a country gets itself embroiled in war, its generally out of some form of self interest - millions of people die in country's around the world on a daily basis out of neglect, starvation and genocide. Is that ok - certainly not, but you don't see the US or Europe going out of their way too redistribute the wealth of capitalism or to stop the likes of the Khmer Rouge or Idi Amin when we know full well they were committing massive atrocities. The point is that you can't moralise something like foreign policy, that is intrinsically amoral.

If we were all genuine moralists we'd be giving away our wealth and worldly goods and helping the homeless. You have to ask why a great many people don't do this, and why our governments don't raise more than a finger when millions of people are dying around the world. It's an interesting question..

1 paragraph - true.....to a degree. although i'm certain that the average german between 1940-1945 would pick that first statement to pieces........

2nd - a strong dictator is kinda redundant, isn't it? otherwise he's not a dictator for long......

Actually, Charles--"strong dictator" is NOT redundant. In reality most dictators project the ILLUSION of strength (while maintaining hold on power by bumping-off opponents). Remember that Stalin held power for nearly a quarter century just this way (illusion of strength by getting rid of perceived opponents), and Mao for more than that (27 years to be exact).

eliminating the competition? i thought pretty much every dictator did that

Like Putin?

Say the wrong thing about that guy and no matter where you are in the world you can find yourself mysteriously poisoned by industrial chemicals or rare radioactive isotopes, traces of which inexplicably turn up on jet airliners, restaurants and the offices of private security companies.

Edited December 1, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The steadfast Republicans will announce a "gradual but meaningful withdrawl" (there's your alternate verbiage to cut 'n run) in the next couple of weeks. This withdrawl will likely begin in Q1 2007. They're not so steadfast after all.

Edited December 1, 2006 by ET-US2004

[GaryC 7]

The steadfast Republicans will announce a "gradual but meaningful withdrawl" (there's your alternate verbiage to cut 'n run) in the next couple of weeks. This withdrawl will likely begin in Q1 2007. They're not so steadfast after all.

Bush always said that when the Iraqies are ready to take over then we will start to draw down. It's not cut and run, it's the Iraq government taking over. You just want to bash Bush. Get over yourself dude. It's getting real old.

Et's mantra, Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush. Repeat 10,000,000 times. God it's getting old. Don't you have any other opinion or is that all thats in your hate filled head?

Edited December 1, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The steadfast Republicans will announce a "gradual but meaningful withdrawl" (there's your alternate verbiage to cut 'n run) in the next couple of weeks. This withdrawl will likely begin in Q1 2007. They're not so steadfast after all.

Bush always said that when the Iraqies are ready to take over then we will start to draw down. It's not cut and run, it's the Iraq government taking over. You just want to bash Bush. Get over yourself dude. It's getting real old.

Et's mantra, Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush. Repeat 10,000,000 times. God it's getting old. Don't you have any other opinion or is that all thats in your hate filled head?

Be prepared for an extremely long wait. 18 months seems to have evolved into 3 years and counting. In all likelihood we'll still be there 3 years from now, perhaps even 10 years. This country with all of its tribal divisions is not much different from Afghanistan.

I wonder at what point we admit the obvious that the situation there is spirally dangerously out of control. There's a major bombing almost every day now.

What's the solution? Difficult to say - what does seem clear is that the Bush administration not only failed to properly plan for the aftermath of taking out Saddam, but wasn't visionary enough to predict this sadly obvious chain of events. And now Iraq's PM is postponing/cancelling meetings with Bush to cuddle up with Ahmadinejad. We're stuck here precisely because noone has a solution - other than the hindsight that this war has been counterproductive and was a generally bad idea.

[GaryC 7]

The steadfast Republicans will announce a "gradual but meaningful withdrawl" (there's your alternate verbiage to cut 'n run) in the next couple of weeks. This withdrawl will likely begin in Q1 2007. They're not so steadfast after all.

Bush always said that when the Iraqies are ready to take over then we will start to draw down. It's not cut and run, it's the Iraq government taking over. You just want to bash Bush. Get over yourself dude. It's getting real old.

Et's mantra, Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush. Repeat 10,000,000 times. God it's getting old. Don't you have any other opinion or is that all thats in your hate filled head?

Be prepared for an extremely long wait. 18 months seems to have evolved into 3 years and counting. In all likelihood we'll still be there 3 years from now, perhaps even 10 years. This country with all of its tribal divisions is not much different from Afghanistan.

I wonder at what point we admit the obvious that the situation there is spirally dangerously out of control. There's a major bombing almost every day now.

What's the solution? Difficult to say - what does seem clear is that the Bush administration not only failed to properly plan for the aftermath of taking out Saddam, but wasn't visionary enough to predict this sadly obvious chain of events. And now Iraq's PM is postponing/cancelling meetings with Bush to cuddle up with Ahmadinejad. We're stuck here precisely because noone has a solution - other than the hindsight that this war has been counterproductive and was a generally bad idea.

Iraq will be a mess for a while longer. But the point is that when the Iraq government is ready to deal with it themselves then we will start drawing down. We are not saying that we stay until all violence is gone. Just until the Iraq goverment can deal with it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The steadfast Republicans will announce a "gradual but meaningful withdrawl" (there's your alternate verbiage to cut 'n run) in the next couple of weeks. This withdrawl will likely begin in Q1 2007. They're not so steadfast after all.

Bush always said that when the Iraqies are ready to take over then we will start to draw down. It's not cut and run, it's the Iraq government taking over. You just want to bash Bush. Get over yourself dude. It's getting real old.

Et's mantra, Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush. Repeat 10,000,000 times. God it's getting old. Don't you have any other opinion or is that all thats in your hate filled head?

Be prepared for an extremely long wait. 18 months seems to have evolved into 3 years and counting. In all likelihood we'll still be there 3 years from now, perhaps even 10 years. This country with all of its tribal divisions is not much different from Afghanistan.

I wonder at what point we admit the obvious that the situation there is spirally dangerously out of control. There's a major bombing almost every day now.

What's the solution? Difficult to say - what does seem clear is that the Bush administration not only failed to properly plan for the aftermath of taking out Saddam, but wasn't visionary enough to predict this sadly obvious chain of events. And now Iraq's PM is postponing/cancelling meetings with Bush to cuddle up with Ahmadinejad. We're stuck here precisely because noone has a solution - other than the hindsight that this war has been counterproductive and was a generally bad idea.

Iraq will be a mess for a while longer. But the point is that when the Iraq government is ready to deal with it themselves then we will start drawing down. We are not saying that we stay until all violence is gone. Just until the Iraq goverment can deal with it.

If indeed the public at large have the patience for that.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is setting up shop in Somalia.

[Dean iWait 0]

The steadfast Republicans will announce a "gradual but meaningful withdrawl" (there's your alternate verbiage to cut 'n run) in the next couple of weeks. This withdrawl will likely begin in Q1 2007. They're not so steadfast after all.

Bush always said that when the Iraqies are ready to take over then we will start to draw down. It's not cut and run, it's the Iraq government taking over. You just want to bash Bush. Get over yourself dude. It's getting real old.

Et's mantra, Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush-Bash Bush. Repeat 10,000,000 times. God it's getting old. Don't you have any other opinion or is that all thats in your hate filled head?

Yup, Bush has said all along that when the Iraqi's are ready to stand up we will stand down. So if that actually happens the Libs have to try and spin it in to something else.

It's a simple Lib formula.

Anything thats goes wrong anywhere in the world is Bush's fault.

If Bush does something we agree with then we forced him to do it.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Dean iWait