Story Comments
Posted by: jimdoze 7 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is Dick on TV saying this, where our enemies can hear him? Why isn't he submitting his ideas for making us safer to Obama through private channels?"
Reply
Because Obama and company have succumbed to the au courant disdain for him and have chosen to ignore him.-
94%
GWHayduke7 months, 1 week ago
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except, Hayduke, that W administration did not "bungle every single attempt to provide security domestically and globally".
Reply
Only in the strange intellectual paradigm of the left can that case be temporarily made. Trust me... it is only temporarily that that case is being made.-
100%
GWHayduke7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
-"Trust me... it is only temporarily that that case is being made"-
Reply
Right from the Decider's playbook.
Should we trust your infinite wisdom and the ability to see the future...and MUST we be scared of the unknown because the terra-ists are a-comin' to git us?
Funny that the duration and policies of the W administration saw the largest growth of al Qaeda and the Taliban ever.
THAT makes us safer, huh?
Your inability to see the wheels spinning in an ever-circular, self fulfilling prophecy of increased animosity does NOT decrease the likelihood of security, it only increases it.
History proves it over and over again.-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Really?
Reply
In your intellectual paradigm the world would have been safer place with Iraq as continuing to have the only two possibilities it clearly had previously... either 1) a wildly destabilizing rogue state or 2) a wildly destablilizing imploding state. I see/saw it as having the higher probability for being the latter of the two.
There were only two choices the Bush Administration had regard to Iraq. 1. Re-arm and rebuild Iraq with Saddam and his lot at the helm (as in the old Realpolitik), or 2. clear the decks of Saddam and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq with a different, more humane model just as we had done with Europe.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are clearly big problems. Now that Iraq is under control they represent the greater problem than Iraq now is. But, not compared to the danger Iraq had formerly been.
Iraq formerly had an extremely high probability of being catalyst for middle east regional war... and due the the strategic worldwide issue of the daily flow of massive amounts of oil from the region, of possibly world war. As such, it was the far greater issue when the Bush Administration made its move.
My wheels are not spinning as you would like to believe, Hayduke. They have excellent traction and my windshield is plenty clean for seeing clearly.-
100%
dunkirk7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No I'd say your wheel are coming off the axle considering your anlysis of Iraq isnt very valid. Prior to the invasion they had no ability to destabilize much of anything. His military was a shadow of its former self. The only argument made for its ability to destabilize the region was its possesion of WMD, which was a falsehood. What has happened is the check on Islamic radicals (Saddam viewed them as a threat to his power) has been removed. Al Queda IS present and influencing events and Iran has risen in influence from the bungling of the Bush administration.
Reply-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
-
100%
Progressive7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is why Saddam perpetuated the WMD ruse:
Reply
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/saddam.cbs/index....-
33%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bingo, Progress!
Reply
""For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro."
Saddam's fears were not idle hallucinations. The Iranian territorial threat was, and remains, very real.-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is up to the likes of us (who can offer little more) to come to understand that those 5,000 did not die in vain... and, in coming to that understanding, sanctify their deaths. As is always the case with the military, there are those who die so that others may live. That is the case, in spades, with Iraq.
Reply-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neither today, nor at the time of the invasion, was Iraq in a position to repulse a concerted Iranian effort to take territory. Perhaps their military was quantitatively in a slightly better position at the time of the invasion than they are today.. but, certainly not enough to make a difference.
Reply
I believe that, in due course, it will be on its way to a better position... and, as they get there, the rest of the region will have far less to fear that they will spin out of control like Saddam did a la his Kuwait adventure.
In the meantime, American presence is certainly provides a balance.
-
-
100%
gamahuche7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It is up to the likes of us (who can offer little more) to come to understand that those 5,000 did not die in vain"
Reply
May I suggest that the people whom you need to be convincing of that are the relatives and nearest and rearest of those who died.
Good luck with that, btw!
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dun, You got it right as well!
Reply
What would have happened when the Iranians figured it out?
What would have the Iranians have done had Saddam died or been incapacitated?
Do you really think it would have been better to wait until that happened?-
-
-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps it has, perhaps it hasn't. The one thing that is clear to me is that ignoring Al Qaeda was not an option either. If what we did in Iraq was a source of recruitment, surely anything we would and will do elsewhere to root them out will also be a source for recruitment as well.
Reply
Al Qaeda was at the time of our Iraq invasion, strategically, the lesser important of the two issues. Now that Iraq has subsided, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan in one corner... and Iran with nukes in the other... are clearly the hot issues now.-
Neutral
dunkirk7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems Al Queda wasnt the Repugs worst enemy until they decided to blame Clinton for not going after Bin Laden, ignoring the fact they stonewalled any attmept he made to shut him down. Seems the repugs believed Clinton was making a big deal out of terrorism because of Monica. The end result of their inaction was 9/11. Clinton was doing quite well in fighting terrorism thru a series of exec orders since the repugs were intent on stonewalling everything. His use of covert operations was very good, since it went after the perps and not the incedental causalites that Bush was noted for. The end result of that is no recruting propaganda for Al Queda. Thats a lesson the right never seems to grasp, unless bombs are falling from the sky and entire armies are moving the right doenst believe anyone is dong anything,
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The hilarious part is you're serious. We invaded on a premise he HAD WMD not based on the fact he didnt. If Bush truly wanted to wage a war on terror he would have followed Clintons lead (Terrorism worldwide went down under Clinton, it rose under Bush astronomically). Bush used WWII tactics to fight a guerilla war. Maybe you can elaborate on how we completely stopped Iran from invading Iraq. All we;lve done is increase their influence in the one area we needed to keep them out of,
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
GWHayduke7 months, 1 week ago
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
-
100%
Progressive7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Realpolitik is the belief that the pragmatic pursuit of self-interest and power, backed up by force when convenient, is the only realistic option for a great state.
Reply
The term was coined in 1859 to describe the German chancellor Bismarck's policies. -
100%
GWHayduke7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From your specious argument, I'm trying to figure out whether you support it ot not.
Reply
That, and the fact that you toss it out every time you discuss foreign policy leads me to believe in your Nationalist intent.
Or should I just.....trust you, big brother?!?-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Realpolitik as it came to have meaning in the context of U.S. foreign policy during the cold war came to mean dealing with miscreants like Saddam Hussein for the simple reason that if we didn't, they would turn to the Soviet Union... which, of course in the case of Saddam, he happily did. There are many here who think that, even with the demise of the Soviet Union, we should have continued to deal with Saddam in the same way. Many of those people were quick to point out the supposed immorality of dealing in such a way with such leaders and rogue nation at the time... now, those same people are quick to shout of the immorality of dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein and his regime in any other way than that.
Reply
Support it? as in Realpolitik? It was supportable while there were no other alternatives. Upon the demise of the Soviet Union, it was no longer necessary... in fact, in the case of Iraq it became nonsensical and morally vacuous.
Nationalist? Wrong again!
You and yours beggaring Globalization by calling for trade barriers in the guise of protecting American workers are far more about nationalism than I am... and, in fact, as growing government control of the economy proves counter-productive, I will guarantee that the Obama administration will feed into what will be a rising tide of economic nationalism to get quick fixes for the problems they are creating.-
100%
Beau78907 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You say you're not a nationalist. You imply you'd like free trade everywhere, which would cause increased globalization.
Reply
At the same time, you believe the U.S. should invade foreign countries in order to protect our economic interests.
That sounds like not only nationalism, but imperialism.-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are other isms, Beau.
Reply
Did we "invade" Europe and set up shop there as a matter of nationalism and imperialism?
If by nationalism you mean that we got sick of feeding 1000 dead soldiers a month through the woodchippers of European wars, then "yes", you can call it nationalism.
Imperialism? No... there is no real case to be made for that. Unless you believe that being there to keep them from tearing each other apart, and dragging us into it, is imperialism. Are we being imperialistic in Korea? Japan? It's pretty tough to make that case, I would say.-
100%
Beau78907 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your analogy of post-WWII Europe to Iraq is lacking. Europe after WWII did not have a leader (regardless of how brutal) keeping internal factions at bay, as Saddam did in Iraq.
Reply
We did not depose a Korean or Japanese government and set up our own.
-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Further, Beau, it was not just our economic interests being protected in Iraq. It was the world's economic interests and well-being protected in Iraq. Infofar as we are inextricably linked with the world's economic interests, yes we are protecting our own... but, my point is that it is a much wider umbrella than just simply our own interests. That, by the way, is one of the big pluses of globalism.... we are all in it together. Just one example... our navy patrols the Straits of Hormuz. The vast bulk of the oil we protect as it goes through that choke point is going not to the U.S., but everywhere else in the world.
Reply-
-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"why don't any other countries support our efforts there?"
Reply
Many have... and you are now pre-supposing that they don't... They do... at least tacitly. How many are calling for us to pre-emptorily pull out? None.
As far as who did or didn't prior to going in... take a real close look at the tentacles of Oil for Food for most of your answers.-
-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They withdrew support because support was not politically popular...
Reply
and also because they knew that the U.S. would protect their interests.
Spain, for example, withdrew support because an attack on their train system caused their leadership to back away.
I do not believe the majority of world leaders are tacitly calling for us to pull out, no. And, that is particularly telling because most of their local popular sentiment would likely be, if put to the test, that the U.S. should pull out.-
100%
Beau78907 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Forgive me if I'm confusing you with hsomeone else, but haven't I heard you complain about the UN because the US bankrolls all its programs?
Reply
If that's you, why would you support the US unilaterally protecting other countries' economic interests in Iraq?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
gamahuche7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"or 2. clear the decks of Saddam and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq with a different, more humane model just as we had done with Europe."
Reply
I'd prefer to suggest that this is one of the most puzzling remarks, conceptually, that I have ever read on propeller - or anywhere else come to that - if you're talking about post-WW2 history..
Were you around at that time, by any chance?
There is NO viable comparison between the European situation then and the Middle Eastern one of the last 2 decades, or before .. It doesn't matter where you start or how far you go back in history.-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The comparison of the fratricidal relationship of the three major ethnic groups in Iraq to the fratricidal relationships of European nations prior to WWII is about as close a parallel as you will find in any historical context.
Reply
Furthermore, the implications of those three groups cleansing each other is of strategically greater importance for the whole world, than were the previously fratricidal conditions in Europe.-
100%
GWHayduke7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When, exactly did these fratricidal relationships in Iraq begin occurring en masse?
Reply
Oh, of course, AFTER the US invaded and destabilized the region.
Realpolitik success?!?
I trust you are not a military strategist, although you would have fit in well with the W administration.-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The U.S. did not destablize the region. In fact, the U.S. presence has stabilized the region.
Reply
The fratricidal rampage that was kicked off by the bombing of the Al Aksari mosque was but a small taste of what would have gone on in that country with the demise of Saddam and what still could go on if we leave prematurely.
It could well be a couple of generations before the tensions between the three major factions of Iraq subside. However, the Iraqis have a unique carrot and stick situation. The carrot is that if they work together, they can share vast natural resource wealth. The stick is what they got a foretaste of in 2006 and 2007, i.e. if they can't get along, they will hang separately... first, by their competing factions and then at the hands of their hated neighbors, Iran and Turkey.-
100%
GWHayduke7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do admire your consistency jimmy.
Reply
But one man's stability is another's chaos.
Choosing al Qaeda, suicide bombers, no water or electricity over Saddam is, I'm sure, a choice easy for you since you don't have to make it.
Now we have another nation building project that will ultimately fail due to the declining importance of the region.
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
gamahuche7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do. I've been living at the cutting edge of the European crisis since I was born as a partially Jewish child in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia, with an English mother who was working in Prague for the British Council.
Reply
That was a dangerous situation, believe me.
Paradoxically even more so when the Communist coup of 1948 took place.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Candida7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jimdoze: "clear the decks of Saddam and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq with a different, more humane model just as we had done with Europe"
Reply
I know it's flattering to see the US as a country that can remake the world in it's own image, but you should take a more careful look at the facts. The US helped to rebuild part of Europe, but for the most part the Europeans rebuilt Europe by themselves, even the parts where the US provided no help at all.
Iraq is far from stable now, and only time will tell how humane a country it will become. If it does become a more humane democracy, it will be mostly the achievement of the Iraqis themselves, but that outcome is far from assured at present.-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Candida, you are right on some counts...
Reply
1. Europe did rebuild itself. Key to maintaining the conditions for that were the Marshall Plan and NATO. You are wrong to say the U.S. provided no help at all.
2. It is true that Iraq is far from stable now. And, only time will tell whether it will be in the future. As the Marshall Plan, NATO and the rebuilding of Europe unfolded, no one could predict with 100% probability that it would all work out. However, you cannot argue that Iraq had a better chance of working out well under Saddam.-
100%
Candida7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What help did the US provide to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? They are part of Europe too.
Reply
A big difference between Europe and Iraq is that the hostilities were pretty well over in Europe by the time the rebuilding started. There is still fighting in Iraq, and we don't know when/if they will end.
Does Iraq have a better chance of working out well than it had under Saddam? I don't know. We should ask the Iraqis. About a year ago, many of them still said that they were better off under Saddam. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they ended up with a new "Saddam," or if the country broke to pieces, or if they allied themselves with Iran.-
0%
jimdoze7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" big difference between Europe and Iraq is that the hostilities were pretty well over in Europe by the time the rebuilding started"
Reply
That's right. At the cost of roughly 250,000 American soldiers dead in Europe... to say nothing of the 40 to 50 million Europeans dead.
So, you figure with all the things you cite as domestic benefits provided by Saddam to his people, we should rather have undertaken to rebuild Saddams army as a counter-balance to Iran?
It is still possible to screw up Iraq, in which case you would see the south "ally" with Iran... if you can call what the Persian Shia will do with the Iraqi Shia as being "allied".
You would also see the Kurds go independent... as they would have no other choice. This would be followed by the Turks taking northern Iraq (reclaiming former Ottoman territory which is now vastly more valuable due to oil) and summarily crushing the Kurds.
If you can think of a better way to start a regional war, risk the daily flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf, and bring the worldwide economy to a halt.. thereby risking world war... I'd like to know it.-
100%
donald517 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, doze, all you say, Dumya's Dad knew could happen and he withdrew, while dumya occupied... to allow the likely possibillity of what you mention... so disatrous for us, the region and the world! Only thing you left out is how much the Iranians have been empowered!
Reply
What failed diplomacy from Dumya to threaten from afar (axis of evil) then just send in the troops... destroying the last good will the world had toward us after 911. Heck even the Iranians offered to help in Afganistan and were, until Dumya inlcuded them in "the axis"!
You are unfaithful to your fellow soldiers to support such a failed Bush policy - but it helps with those contractor jobs doesn't it? Did you get one of those Dick Cheney/Rummy sole source contracts with your wife to move into with you when she retires?
-
-
-
100%
willottica7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why not? Far less of the population was subjected to daily violence than were in the last 6 years.
Reply
Infrastructure and education were in place. Saddam had established himself and though not a nice guy, didn't have to resort to much more violence to maintain power.
Now, if American troops ever leave the region, it will be a divided nation with a power-void. Small powers will vie with each other over control, likely with much bloodshed, and the eventual winner will likely have to be quite brutal to maintain control over the diverse factions that he beat out to attain power.
Or maybe all the hatred, mistrust, and violence will magically dissolve into a fairy-tale democratic society where everyone trades in their IEDs for a chamber of commerce membership and agrees to live happily ever after. -
100%
gamahuche7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On one level of course the Marshall plan was extremely important and helped enormously the recovery of those countries which signed up.
Reply
However it also was a huge factor in creating the us and them situation which became the Cold War.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jd:
Reply
Nothing personal.
But I'm sick and tired of the failed policies of the 4th Reich.
From the time of Reagan the poltics have been about taking control of the world through a financial disaster.
It is happening.
Communism is again raising its ugly head in Soviet spheres, Capitalism has been replaced by corporatism.
And the right wing nut cases have hijacked Christianity into a torture and war belief system.
Get a clue man.
The setting is right for the anti -christ and both parties are harkening it with their foolish displays of power mongering from one extreme to the other. -
-
-
-
100%
Beau78907 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jim, don't you think Dick would want to let everyone know how much he's been trying to help and that Obama's been ignoring his advice before blasting out BS over FNC? Wouldn't he want to make the case in the press with evidence that Obama has ignored him, if he were truly trying to change Obama's policies to make the country safer?
Reply
Nope. This is politicking and fear-mongering at their ugliest.-
100%
Desdamona7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When its all he knows what can we expect. Perhaps all this talk of hope has made him uncomortable... Fear is what he lived and breathed for... well probably his whole life... its all he knows. If you are not a master of fear mongering how else would he get the man he shot to apologize to him... If you listen to what he says from this perspective his rants become somewhat comical...
Reply -
100%
Progressive7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right. Dick can run as well as he could hide:
Reply
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/200...
-
-
83%
cowboygrandpa7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jd:
Reply
"Because Obama and company have succumbed to the au courant disdain for him and have chosen to ignore him."
No they are not ignoring him.
They are rejecting his insanity, as a sane person is want to do !!!!!
He has been shown the door and hates he cannot continue on with his plan to destroy our country.
But hey there are still those of you who seek to continue the destruction of American values by placing a Nazi like jack boot -GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice...- in positions of terrorizing the world and America for their sick and demented view of the world !!!!!!
They should be in prison awaiting trial on charges of terrorism, not out trying to place more garbage on the plate.
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment positively. Is it really that bad of a comment?
donald51
gamahuche
juvel
dunkirk
DenCuddy
Progressive
9critters
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.