Umm, shouldn't the title of this post be "Line in the Sand II"? (And does that make you the blogosphere's answer to Meat Loaf?)

And may I also add, this was long overdue, in my opinion. You've stated this more or less over the years, but you seemed resigned that no one was listening. I'm glad you're finding your voice here again. It seems to me like this battle is just as important as your battle against Islamophobia, and for exactly the same reasons: allies who disrespect each other weaken the alliance and thus strengthen the enemy.

There wouldn't be an insurgency if there was no occupation.

As to whether Saddam should have been removed, I am glad he was removed. However, the correct thing would have been to remove him using an international consensus.

How can anyone talk to Muslim nations about respecting international human rights law when we also violate the international legal regime.

How can I say to Iran, don't torture your prisoners when we ourselves torture. Do I say "only torture as little as we do."

Going to war was a mistake. There would be no insurgency and al-Qaeda would be crushed in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

If you want to talk about whether we should continue to remain in Iraq until it is safer for Iraqis, I waffle on that question. I tend to think that the Iraqi army should be given the best tools it can be given and we should leave. Let's see them take care of their own house. That is autonomy, which is what you claim you want for them.

Oye Martin,

I'm sorry to tell you that international consensus is not determined by counting countries. It is determined by proper legal procedures such as an authorization of war by the UN.

If we would have had that, I would be cool with this war. Without it, its an occupation. I don't really care whether its Muslims who were the slaves or Martians. Legal integrity matters. We didn't abide by it, thus we subverted it and acted like a pariah state, effectively setting up an alternative international regime. By the way, of your 60 counties, how many are still there now? I seem to recall Blair pulling his troops recently...

I am consistent about this. I don't complain as to why no one interceded in Yugoslavia until the UN got its slow ass together.

There wouldn't be an insurgency if there was no occupation.

Circular. Saddam would be in charge if we hadn't invaded.

There would be no insurgency and al-Qaeda would be crushed in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Balderdash. As long as al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan can retreat across the Pakistan border with impunity the most we can achieve is denying them territory.

And Saddam would still be in charge in Iraq doing whatever it is he might be doing. Unless you think he'd have been sitting on his hands for the last four years.

With a larger footprint force in Afghanistan we'd be experiencing exactly the same thing there as we are now in Iraq.

I'm sorry to tell you that international consensus is not determined by counting countries. It is determined by proper legal procedures such as an authorization of war by the UN.

No. Sorry. Wrong. When the countries with veto power profit from the slavery and the butchery, then the UN is never going to authorize the war. There were 14 resolutions, consequences promised, a violated inspections regime, and a broken truce. We had all the legal grounds we needed; but folks like you wanted to "just one more" the problem away, while the Iraqi people paid the price.

You are consistent: consistently on the side of the dictator against his victims. You can dress it up in legalisms all you want (all the while ignoring the legalisms of the 14 resolutions, the consequences promised, the violated inspections regime, and the broken truce); but when it came down to it, you would let people be brutalized and killed for the sake of French and German and Russian oil and arms profits.

And here is our plurality.

If the international system is such that Russians and French profit from slavery, then fix the system, do not occupy a nation to make the point that the international system is broken. Forest for trees.

Yet, interestingly, the moment things went south in Iraq, we were back within the international legal system.

We acted like a rogue state. Either own up to it and say we should go all the way, comprehensively and be beyond the UN, or say that we made a mistake in going outside the UN.

Pick.

I'm sorry to tell you that international consensus is not determined by counting countries. It is determined by proper legal procedures such as an authorization of war by the UN.

Hmmm....my copy of the Constitution is missing that clause...

Hmmm....my copy of the Constitution is missing that clause...

this is called american legal exceptionalism. the only way i would not have a problem with it is if we did not expect other countries to abide by their treaties either.

by the way, even under the constitution, a treaty is equivalent to federal law and we signed onto the un via a properly ratified treaty.

supremacy clause.

good luck getting the congress to overrule the treat that legitimizes the un

To be erfectly honest, I have no idea what either Dean or Ali is talking about. I don't recognize my views in either side of this debate; the label Americaphobe appears to be aimed in my direction because.. I don't agree with the President's strategy? I sincerely don't understand, and I'm not a dumb guy, either.

I'm staying out of this one. I don't think it has anything to do with me. If theres a line in teh sand drawn somewhere, kindly notify me when i cross it, because I cant tell where the frak it is.

"No," says the firth guy.

Damn Microsoft products!

That should have been,

"No," says the fifth guy.

but then vagina it's probably funnier the first way.

(By the way I meant to say either angina or again instead of vagina. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure I did. But don't quote me.)

Dean,

Out of the park!

Excellent.

but then vagina

I just realized that somebody is gonna get the idea I'm either a gynecologist or purposely trying to be insulting to someone else.

Please do not make that assumption. I was having a little personal fun with my Microsoft grammar program. And some of my best friends just happen to be gynecologists.

Well, not really, but that's not the point.
Point is, if you construct a sentence using the very best grammar and spelling software Microsft has available then I suggest you get a program which works in English instead. Unless you speak Swahili as a firth language.

"There wouldn't be an insurgency if there was no occupation.

As to whether Saddam should have been removed, I am glad he was removed. However, the correct thing would have been to remove him using an international consensus."

Isn't that self-contradictory? Do you think there would be no insurgency if we used "an international consensus"? Try to remember first acts of the "insurgency".

First, they bombed Shiite shrine.
Second, they bombed Jordanian embassy.
Third, they bombed UN headquarters in Baghdad.

Yes, there was UN mission in Baghdad in 2003. There were 646 UN representatives in Iraq. They were one of the first targets of the "insurgency".

So, you support UN. UN came to Iraq after Saddam was removed from power. Insurgency attacked UN mission and made it leave Iraq. You conclude that US is an occupier because ther is no UN support in Iraq? How can you say such a thing?

Way to go Dean. You're back - I've missed you....

Ali Eteraz - It is factually false that if there had been no invasion there would have been no insurgency. Saddam had that police state for a reason. The fact that the faces, flags, and ideologies would have shifted does not negate the fact that there has always been an insurgency in Iraq, dating back at least since Gulf War I and most likely since the monarchy was deposed in 1958.

As for the correct thing, the correct thing would be to dissolve the UN, revoke its diplomatic immunity, and hunt down the child rapists, corrupt enablers of dictators, and clean up the stinking pile of waste that makes up all too much of the UN. But we can't manage it so we muddle along. Americaphobia is only insisting on the correct thing being done when it inconveniences America and holding a double standard to other entities and institutions.

As for torture, when Iran prosecutes its interrogators for abuse as aggressively as the US does, it might have a leg to stand on. It doesn't and it's no secret except to double standard upholding americaphobes.

As for crushing Al Queda in Pakistan, let me understand correctly that you advocate invading a nuclear power to chase down terrorists in territory that Pakistan's national government has never fully controlled. Or is this just really not thought through at all?

As for giving the Iraqi army the best tools it can have and then leaving, that's just what we're doing. The best tools for success is a supplementary force that will stiffen the green Iraqi Army until they're ready to stand on their own. We're supplying it and pulling out as the Iraqis can take over. As the big guy on the block, the US pulls out last.

Dean, you're right, I can't agree that Saddam was the legitimate voice of the Iraqi people. The current government is far more the product of their voice than he ever was.

Even if I don't agree with how we got here or where we are going, I absolutely agree with you on that count.

People who conflate interrogation with torture don't really contribute to the discussion.

The U.S. uses interrogation techniques meant to gain accurate and actionable intelligence. Period. End of story. States such as the U.S.S.R., North Korea, China, and Iran use torture in order to punish and to extract a confession regardless of the facts of the matter.

Except that's not how the story's playing out. The other four guys are basically standing around criticizing the fifth guy. One -- the one named Ali -- is arguing, "You're not a cop, and you violated that guy's rights. You should've let him rape her in peace." And he's ignoring the fact that the guy is a cop, just not assigned to that particular beat.

Another is arguing, "Hey, where's his wallet? Did you take his wallet?" And he's ignoring the fact that the rapist is a penniless derelict, while the man who stopped him tore up a really expensive suit of clothes and will need some expensive medical treatment. The girl, meanwhile, is clutching her life savings that the man gave her back from the rapist's hands.

The third is arguing, "Hey, this is costing us too much!" As if the girl's safety isn't worth it. And no, the second guy and the third guy don't seem to realize that they're contradicting each other, not supporting each other.

And the fourth guy is arguing, "You have no plan! What are you going to do now to protect her? You can't keep protecting her until she grows up! That's not a plan!" Meanwhile, the first guy is chiming in with, "Hey, you have to leave now, and let her walk home in the dark by herself, or she'll never learn to take care of herself!"

And the girl? She has mixed feelings, but she's mostly ready to take the chance she was given and fight for her life. But the four aren't listening to her.

No story is perfect my friend.
But I suspect I get what you're driving at.

The U.S. uses interrogation techniques meant to gain accurate and actionable intelligence. Period. End of story. States such as the U.S.S.R., North Korea, China, and Iran use torture in order to punish and to extract a confession regardless of the facts of the matter.

Woman may Get Extended Vacation in Gulf

Didcha hear? Iran may delay the release of their female prisoner. They're negotiating with the British to obtain new GPS coordinates about the actual position of the British forces when they were captured.
They tried getting the proper coordinates from the Russians but the Russians said, "Screw you, pay us what you owe and we'll tell you exactly where you want to say they were."

So if the Iranians and the British can come to an accommodation about where the Iranians insist the British were, then all that's left is for the BBC to insist all future interviews with the female be conducted in typical Muslim head-dress. But that's not a real sticking point cause the BBC already makes such demands with everybody they interview.

So between the civilizing influence of modern Europe and the civilizing influence of modern Iran this whole thing will work out daffodils and dandelions. My only fear is that one day the reactionary British may begin to suspect that they're not really as European as their continental neighbors and then that might lead to a real British Navy. And who wants that kinda thing?

It's Bread and Circuses people, not Guns and Roses.

Dean, I think you are being unreasonable. So it is "Americaphobic" to disagree with the foreign policy of the current administration? I was in favor of the war in Iraq when it started, but came to realize later that we might have underestimated the costs (in human lives, mostly Iraqi) of the war. Do we who supported the war share some moral responsibility for the current instability in Iraq? Absolutely. Also, apparently, over 50% of Americans think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Are a majority of Americans "Americaphobic"? That seems strange.

Hey Dean, I have written a sort of response on my personal blog.

Do I Have Americaphobia?

Look. Iraq is a huge country with many problems. A lot of us feel uncomfortable making judgments like Iraq is objectively better off now that Saddam is gone. I know it was awful for many during Saddam. But it is awful for those who have to dodge bombs in mosques and markets now. Do I have a good way of measuring the difference between the two situations? No, it is a very complex country; much has changed; and media reports are very conflicting. So, sorry, Dean, but I certainly do not share your epistemological optimism on this one.

Boy, I'd like to see an optimistic war. I'd also like to see a war where the costs are not underestimated, the opposition is not determined, the enemy employs force logically and in a civilized manner, where a win is easy, where no US forces or innocent civilians get killed, and where the outcome is pre-determined by who has the best argument instead of who will fight to the end to be the last man standing.

But then again war is historically speaking so very unlike a fairy tale. It sorta more resembles real life murder. Illogical, highly expensive, costly, bloody, dogged, and in the end the win goes to the party most willing to finish the affair.

That's the difference between hope and reality. With hope there is always another day when things might get better regardless of who does what, or doesn't do what. In reality you gotta make things better by effort, and you gotta finish what you start, because hope ain't a plan and quitting ain't a path to progress, or winning.

I suspect a lot of people who are disillusioned by the war have never had to fight any kinda war, and that's not an all bad thing, after all the people who fight wars have made the world, or parts of it anyway, that way for you. But they didn't make the world that way for you by careful calculation of reasonable liabilities and assets, and how to best jiggle those figures. They've kept you oughtta having to fight a war to the end by being willing to fight wars to the end.

And in the end that's what really counts.

I'm not belittling your position, it shows that you are civilized and thoughtful enough to care about the fact that innocents die, wars costs a lot, and people suffer. What you may be doing however is engaging in the naiveté of thinking that everyone thinks like you do, that every enemy calculates costs and losses like you do.

If only that were true.

I don't think you Ameriphobic for thinking like that, and I don't think you're Ameriodius for being like that either. But they're are people who are like that, for one reason or another, and they are willing to take their fight to the end. Any end they can achieve.

So although it might not be natural to your nature, that is, it might not seem a part of your personality or character, just think about allowing those who are willing to fight to the end to do that. It might not be something you understand, or have had experience with, but until a fight is finished, it ain't ever really finished. It just waits for another day and another circumstance.

Wars often go the patient, but they very, very rarely go to that man, or that nation, who will not finish it. It seems self-evident but modern man has a really clever way of producing really clever arguments against the obvious, even when it is obvious that is exactly what he is doing.

But then again it may be that victory isn't really what you're after. That even if we won and Iraq were completely free and peaceful and prosperous then that would still be unsatisfactory because you don't feel it was ever a fight worth having. If that is the case then win or lose it would all be the same to you, because winning was never valuable and losing is the same tender as a win. If all coin is counterfeit then in for a penny is the same as out for a pound.

But, if winning is the objective, and Iraq being free and secure is the end, then I think you'll find a win by us beats the hell out of a win by the opposition any day.

In any case somebody is gonna be the last one standing.
That's just the way it will be, all other sophistry to the contrary.
Someone will win despite how it is expressed, and someone will lose despite how it is described.

I guess the real question you gotta ask is, "who do I want that to be?"

But, if winning is the objective, and Iraq being free and secure is the end, then I think you'll find a win by us beats the hell out of a win by the opposition any day.

And by golly, if it takes 30 years of American presence to win, SO BE IT!

Yes I'm being sarcastic (couldn't help it). My question to all of you "stick it out'ers" is this: how can we stop a feud between Sunnis and Shi'ites that has existing for hundreds of years? Point me in the right direction friends and I'll become a "stick it out'er"! Don't be shy.

Fair enough Martin. But seeing us in Iraq that long (with roughly seven presidential election cycles in 30 years), I see our elected officials shooting each other over this.

Sounds drastic and unreal but with the level of vitriol over this issue, well...

But Senator Clinton is as close as they come to sane on this issue, and she won't stand in one spot long enough to know what her position really is.

I don't know. Remember that Bush ran as something of an anti-interventionist. What the candidate says on the trail often has little to do with how they actually govern. My guess is that no matter who gets elected in 2008, we'll still have troops in Iraq in 2012, though probably far less than now.

Regarding the post, I think much of Dean's criticism of war critics (which would include myself) hits the mark. But like DanielH, I don't see why this has to be so absolute. Liberalism does require supporting liberal causes, but it doesn't require doing so to the extent of disregarding realism. From what I've seen, Ali has not belittled the cause of democracy in Iraq, but simply argued that it's not a realistic outcome at this point. That may be right or wrong, but it doesn't seem illiberal to me.

Remember that Bush ran as something of an anti-interventionist.

Yeah, he had a change of heart sometime into his first year. . . wonder why? And what would it take for a Democratic President to do the same, being as they all had the same change of heart, but didn't sustain it for more than about three months.

well, since we didn't blatantly violate them, that's an irrelevant point.

And yes, "screw the Iraqis for the sake of French and Russian profits" is exactly what he said. He just hid behind "international consensus" in saying it. He said:

As to whether Saddam should have been removed, I am glad he was removed. However, the correct thing would have been to remove him using an international consensus.

He admits Saddam should've been removed; but he can't deny that would never happen while Saddam's business partners had veto power, the net result is "screw the Iraqis."

Which is to say that, like another Tom who frequents this forum, I'm a little tired of everyone always accusing the "other" side of every sin in the book, from intellectual dishonesty to outright fascism. Do we have to always be attacking each others' motives?

how can we stop a feud between Sunnis and Shi'ites that has existing for hundreds of years? Point me in the right direction friends and I'll become a "stick it out'er"! Don't be shy.

We don't. That was never our fight. Ours is to help establish a stable government in Iraq based on whatever plurality they can establish. If Sunnis and Shia want to fight, then they're going to do so.

Yeah, I know the argument: No stable gov't if there's fighting. BS, I say. We've got low-level local civil wars in the USA by some estimates, too.

Fair enough.

Tyrone makes a very compelling point, re: 'how do we stop a fued that's hundreds of years old.'

I don't have a good answer beyond what Martin said (i.e. fueds do sometimes end, if given a chance) but I'm still a stick it out'er.

If there was a guarantee that these fueds wouldn't spill over into our lives, I could be convinced to cut and run. It's not a position that I am proud of, it is quite immoral actually, but sometimes, exasperation combined with some political expedience benefits win out. But I think 9/11 proved that position to be untenable over the long term.

So, if we leave now, I just see us returning in response to another attack here at home in 10-20 years or less. And when we return, all of the gains and growing pains over the last 4 years will have been squandered, and we'll start from scratch. Or maybe we won't even do that. Maybe we'll just bomb, bomb, bomb and have given up on the whole nation building thing.

And oh boy, if someone manages to get a nuke or chem attack done on US soil, there is a very good chance the American people will demand a response in kind. I don't want to see that and to me, the best hedge against that is to foster open democratic societies.

If we decide that the ME will forever be a source of murder and dysfunction, why not just blast the whole place now and get it done with?

'how do we stop a fued that's hundreds of years old.'

Well, one method is to put a democracy into place and give it time to take root. Eventually the minority Basques Catholics err Sunni slow down on the bomb throwing and speed up on just voting.

Nobody said it would be easy - although people do like to take some claims out of context to say they did.

Yours,
Wince

The taliban, who we armed and trained, turned against us and attacked. F-them all the way.

We armed and trained the mujahideen, not the Taliban, who arose in the aftermath of Afganistan [in absence of nation-building, mind you] through Saudi funding and Pakistani machinations. But, yes, F them.

It's very hard for me to look at American Muslims, or Muslims in general, or anyone who considers themselves "liberal" or "progressive" or "humanist," who claim to stand for freedom and human rights and then attack everything America has done and tried to do in Iraq over the last four years.

The fact is that the naysayers claimed we weren't really striving for liberation. We were. They claimed we'd install a new puppet dictator. We did not. They claimed that we wouldn't really try to set up a democracy. We did. They claimed there would be no legitimate elections. The Iraqis had three national elections in a row, all certified as legitimate by international observers, not even counting the local elections that were held before that.

They claimed we'd do everything possible to get out of the country "before the next elections"--they claimed that before the 2004 elections and again before the 2006 elections. It didn't happen. Now these same people in many cases are cheering for a Congress that's trying to force us out of Iraq even though the war supporters consistently say "no, that would be morally and strategically wrong."

Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection to acknowledge this.

And today, Exhibit A has joined the comment thread.

Neither does fiction, DMZ, even if it's promulgated by a self-described "reality based" community.

dmz,

you're essentially threadjacking here. nothing in dean's post has anything to do with bush. it doesn't matter what bush's stated reasons for war were or how many laws he's broken since then. the issue is that no self respecting liberal can take a look at a war which (intended or not) has the consequence of liberating a people from a brutal dictator and conclude: "no thanks."

if you want to argue about how the war was conducted, or the (mis)conduct of the bush administration, i am right there with you all the way, brother. but that is not the issue at hand.

If you are gonna fight terrorists, fight them.
If you are gonna liberate people, do it everywhere, not only where AIPAC sends you.

This is a disingenuous hind site argument.

We did not come to Iraq to free people and the jury is still out whether they will benefit or continue to suffer from our unilateralism.

Patriotism ( antithesis of Americaphobia, supposedly ) has more to it than absolutist saluting of the flag and the goon in office.

To be erfectly honest, I have no idea what either Dean or Ali is talking about.

Do you understand now, Aziz? Exhibit A should make the point very clear. No, you were never the sort of person Dean had in mind.

Hasn't Dean debunked the "lied to" line about five hundred times now?

dmz,

I'm trying not to make this about persons, but about attitudes. You are providing a concrete example of what Dean's talking about. Every one of your points has been refuted around here too many times to even count, and yet you're still raising them as if they proved something.

And I'm sorry if I have offended you. But if you can, step back and read your posts and see just how offensive they are to me. Dean has gone out of his way on this blog to say, "Hey, Islamophobes, stop disrespecting Muslims." Well, maybe it's time for some Muslims to stop disrespecting us in return.

All of Dean's points are a concrete examples of what I am talking about: people who refuse to see the war in Iraq for what it is: a total disaster. And a scam. And a lie.

I consider my position the common wisdom, so does the House, so does the Senate. So do the majority of Americans. And the rest of the people in the world.

Bush and some of the GOP and some people on the extreme Right and the Santy Squids are the last hold outs.

This war is unjustified and damaging and every day we pay for a loss of lives, a loss of prestige in the world and for what else?

What are we fighting for? Freedom?
How about freedom from occupation?
Oh, we can't leave?
Why?

Every answer you give to why we can't leave nullifies why we should be there in the first place.

Let's try to be a little more honest with the facts. Entrenched suspension of disbelief is not a valid position: even for a whole blog.

SND said:

Michael, not to put too fine a point on it, I wish that it could be arranged to drop you and your family into a country like Iran, or North Korea, or Russia, where real torture is practiced, and no one is prosecuted for it, so that perhaps the scales would fall from your eyes (while you still had them).

Again, you set a pretty disgustinly low bar when you compare the US to Iran and North Korea. Nice try.

And Martin: This shit was authorized. The people who were prosecuted were prosecuted by the Bush administration as a CYA move. Only an idiot would see otherwise.

Christ....

Let's try to be a little more honest with the facts.

Oh, great. Another person who can't tell the difference between facts and opinion. Oh, and who claims to be reality-based.

Look, dmz, you've stated precious few facts and loads of opinion. This is standard on blogs, since we generally don't have the resources (time, money, staff) necessary to produce something closer to fact. But don't kid yourself. Most of the things you are claiming to know are really matters for the history books, to be written fifty or a hundred years from now, and even then to be subject to periodic revisions. And most of these conclusions would require a startling amount of research including primary sources to learn hte definitive proof, many of which haven't been declassified yet.

People are being honest here. They have an HONEST disagreement of OPINION.

Yours,
Wince

I believe the Bush administration is perpetrating a crime simultaneously on Iraq and Americans and "respecting" other Americans who support a administration that has misspent my tax money, infringes on my rights, lies to me and my representatives in Gov't, reduces my safety to travel in the world, etc. etc.

This is all hokum. Except for the 'I believe' bit. I believe you are being honest. Just incorrect. It's like most rants. Not helpful. Not arguable. And no one learns anything.

Yours,
Wince

dmz, you're never going to understand reciprocity, I can see. You'll demand respect, but not offer it.

#1. This is not a Muslim vs ??? issue.

Read the subject of the post.

#2. I said nothing of respect for neocons (if that is who you are identifying with).

Back to the tape...

The US did not approve a plan to liberate people. There are people who need liberating all over the world. Where do you start? Just with people under tyranny (who happen to be sitting on a sea of oil and next to Israel?)

Here you're either accusing me of trading blood for oil, or being too stupid to know that's going on. Either accusation is disrespectful.

This is BS and scrounging around for ways to make some patriotic case for it is blind and traitorous actually.

No, nothing disrespectful there.

There are a few interest groups that are well served by the war in Iraq and make their money and further their agenda.

So am I part of the interest groups, or one of their dupes? Neither accusation shows any respect.

Denial is not patriotism.

"Denial" is a pretty disrespectful accusation.

Formula for truth: Add the unsubstantiated assertions of 2,3 or 4 staunch ideologues together: voila! Fact!

Accusation of lying: pretty disrespectful.

So all you right-wingers can hunkerdown in your neocon compound and salute the flag and talk freedom and liberty all you want.

Plenty of respect there -- not!

It is all bs and you know it. You just can't bring yourself to publically admit it.

More loads of respect -- not!

You're on the losing end of the issue and the Bush administration and all its people, benefactors and sycophants are coming apart like a house of Iraqi Death Cards.

So I'm a benefactor or a sycophant? Respectful -- not!

you are a candidate for the kind of Heaven's Gate, People's Temple kook organizations that have to totally detach themselves from reality as it crumbles around them until the final koolaid call comes.

Oh, yeah, I'm feeling the respect now!

If you are gonna fight terrorists, fight them.
If you are gonna liberate people, do it everywhere, not only where AIPAC sends you.

Ah, it's all about the Jews! Respectful -- not!

Patriotism ( antithesis of Americaphobia, supposedly ) has more to it than absolutist saluting of the flag and the goon in office.

The respect train continues!

All of Dean's points are a concrete examples of what I am talking about: people who refuse to see the war in Iraq for what it is: a total disaster. And a scam. And a lie.

So we're scammer and liars. Man, what respect is in those terms!

Let's try to be a little more honest with the facts. Entrenched suspension of disbelief is not a valid position: even for a whole blog.

More respect!

Frankly, if you weren't serving as a perfect example of why Dean had to make his post, I suspect he would've yanked your comment account already. You came in with disrespect, and you've gone downhill from there, and never once actually answered any of Dean's arguments.

But I have no doubt that you'll never, ever understand that.

ClareNancy,

In another time, on another topic and thread, I might see it otherwise. But I see it as worth the effort. Judging by comments he has made at Ali's blog, dmz is no troll; but he is a True Believer, as you can see, seemingly impervious to discussion. I'm not giving up on him. At best, he'll hear Dean's message, and think about it. At worst, he'll demonstrate Dean's message. So far, smart money's on demonstrate, but I'm not giving up hope.

Thank you.

You must come from the same school of pseudo rhetoric that the others come from.

And the respect continues!

Clarenancy, try to be a little more compassionate with your conservatism. Eyes open, head pointed up front.

And more respect!

If this thing gets to 100 comments is that some kinda record or something?

This is still going?

the question you need to ask yourself as a liberal is: "disregarding everything about the lead-up to the situation, do i support efforts to liberate and liberalize the iraqi people, or do i abandon them to terrorist elements that seek to control them?"

You are talking idealism Zach, so let's talk idealism.

Let's assume that the Bush Administration is staying in Iraq because they feel some responsibility to finish the job.

The Job is reconstruction. Is it being completed? No.

A huge humanitarian crisis is underway in the region due to the mass exodus from Iraq of all Iraqis who have means. This means that the Americans have not created a democratic utopia, it is a hell where 2 hours of daily electricty is a luxury. Factions kill 100s of people daily.

Why is the country unsafe? Is it our presence or our absence that is creating this hell? Do we have solid proof that the crisis, which is already on our hands for thousands and thousands of lives, would be any worse if we left? If we dealt with players in the region as the Iraq Study Group suggested to resolve this matter for us?

Isn't it clear that everyone in the region is sick of the American occupation and wants us out? The only people who want us around are those terrorized by factional violence.

This is a genii we let out of its bottle. And unfortunately, it cannot be put back in, if we leave, it will be bad, if we stay, it gets worse.

All that is left at the end of the day is the hubris and naivite of the American people who thought you could just plop democracy down on a foreign nation's head by force and they would greet you as liberators with candies and flowers.

Moronic.

We f'dup. All we can do is repair the facilities (which we have also f'dup) and leave with some civil order support in place in case the people need it.

Their army has been destroyed and they are vulnerable and dependent upon the US (read puppet regimes) for protection for decades.

Do we have a duty to stay?
Don't you think we have done enough?

My AIPAC Link is mostly speculation?

Lol. Uh, it is detail about who is getting prosecuted and why.

It also details the story of a general who did not support the war and why.

None so blind.

AIPAC recently got Congress to strike language from a bill that said the president did not have authority in war powers to attack Iran.

No democrat in congress wants this imbecile to be free to attack Iran at will. Only a very powerful lobby has the clout to push congress into this hole.

Not assertion: fact.

This war was never about Iraq, and Iraqis. It is about oil and Israel and control of the region.

To believe otherwise is naive. PAINFULLY naive.

Don't you think we have done enough?

We have certainly done a great deal in Iraq.

To determine whether we have done enough, first we need to ask, what else can we do? If the answer were that nothing else can be done, than yes, we would have done enough.

I'd like to test your general understanding of the history of Iraq wars, would you indulge me with an answer?

My hypothetical question is, if we withdraw from Iraq now and another strongman will emerge and this new strongman invades Kuwait again (just like in 1991), what do you think will happen and what the US role should be?

I really don't know why, for you or for Martin, the debate about the value of staying in Iraq has become so personal.

dmz, I merely cited you as an exhibit of Americaphobia, and you responded by calling me a dehumanizing SOB.

Now please read:

The US did not approve a plan to liberate people. There are people who need liberating all over the world. Where do you start? Just with people under tyranny (who happen to be sitting on a sea of oil and next to Israel?)

You're accusing me of supporting war for oil and being a dupe of Israel.

This is BS and scrounging around for ways to make some patriotic case for it is blind and traitorous actually.

You just called me a traitor.

Denial is not patriotism.

You just accused me of denial.

Formula for truth: Add the unsubstantiated assertions of 2,3 or 4 staunch ideologues together: voila! Fact!

You just accused me of lying.

So all you right-wingers can hunkerdown in your neocon compound and salute the flag and talk freedom and liberty all you want.

You just accused me of mindless jingoism.

It is all bs and you know it. You just can't bring yourself to publically admit it.

You just accused me of lying.

You're on the losing end of the issue and the Bush administration and all its people, benefactors and sycophants are coming apart like a house of Iraqi Death Cards.

You just called me a sycophant.

you are a candidate for the kind of Heaven's Gate, People's Temple kook organizations that have to totally detach themselves from reality as it crumbles around them until the final koolaid call comes.

You just called me a kook cultist.

If you are gonna fight terrorists, fight them.
If you are gonna liberate people, do it everywhere, not only where AIPAC sends you.

You just called me an AIPAC stooge.

Patriotism ( antithesis of Americaphobia, supposedly ) has more to it than absolutist saluting of the flag and the goon in office.

You just accused me of mindless jingoism.

All of Dean's points are a concrete examples of what I am talking about: people who refuse to see the war in Iraq for what it is: a total disaster. And a scam. And a lie.

You just called me a liar.

Let's try to be a little more honest with the facts. Entrenched suspension of disbelief is not a valid position: even for a whole blog.

You just accused me of being dishonest.

Oh, and you called me a dehumanizing SOB.

Now please explain to me -- and use small words, since I'm probably stupid, too -- how "Exhibit A" is personal, but none of your insults is.

Martin

You're accusing me of supporting war for oil and being a dupe of Israel.

If you support the Iraq war, yes. This is what I am saying.

What else can I say? That is what my take on the facts lead to.

There are many people, who, for perfectly patriotic (or paranoid) reasons, believe everything the Bush spin machine feeds them.

I don't spin that way.

You do? Sorry. I think you've been Bushwhacked.