What about Iraq? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

florida0214 · 01-18-2007, 05:57 AM

Let's say that you became president tomorrow. What would you do about Iraq? Understand that no matter what you do you will get bashed in this forum. Please make your answers logical and reasonable.

Thats it. No rules. I will not be critisizing people at all. I not make anyboody feel stupid for any answer they give. I am not that smart anyway. If i give my answer people will likely not answer because then this has become a way to spread my opinion.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. share it. You will not change anything by listing it here, but at least everybody will know that if you are complaining you are doing it becuase you feele that there has been an obvious shortcoming and you think that it can be fixed and here is how it should be done. Thank you.

ratbastid · 01-18-2007, 06:01 AM

The way you've set this up, despite the guise of an open question, no opinion but yours is a valid answer, and if my opinion differs from yours and is therefore invalid, I should just shut up and let the President drag us down into hell.

I'm not playing that game with you. If you're interested in what I think, I'll tell you. What you've posted here, though, is a transparent commercial for your point of view.

florida0214 · 01-18-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The way you've set this up, despite the guise of an open question, no opinion but yours is a valid answer, and if my opinion differs from yours and is therefore invalid, I should just shut up and let the President drag us down into hell.

I'm not playing that game with you. If you're interested in what I think, I'll tell you. What you've posted here, though, is a transparent commercial for your point of view.

Every answer is valid. Anyting that is said in here is opinion. We are not making policy, we are simply discussing. i am entitled to my opinion and you are entitled to yours. I have changed the question so maybe it will help people to respond. I wanna see what people would do. There is no doubt in my mind that I am one of the less intelligent people in the forum so please do not be afraid of me.

The_Jazz · 01-18-2007, 06:38 AM

I cruised by this one the first time, saw that you basically tried to put any respondent on a tee so that you could bash away at them for disagreeing with you and kept on going. At least you've opened this up to allow some dissenting opinions.

That said, if I magically became the President, I would start by maintaining the status quo for a few months since I think that would eventually benefit everyone (except, of course, the poor souls caught up in the violence). Then I would quietly start trying to ressurect the coalition from Gulf War I to act as a peacekeeping force, with particular attention paid to Arab countries, especially the larger ones. Getting cooperation from the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians would be very useful. I'd probably also try to tap the Palestinians to give it an even greater air of legitimacy. Obviously the Europeans would contribute, but the majority of the boots on the ground would be Middle Eastern.

The big problem with this tactic would be who would command it, and it's painfully obvious that an American or European could never try to lead or have any real measure of success if they did. To cover that base, I'd either reach out to the UN (which is problematic in and of itself) or someone like South Africa or Argentina (just to pick a couple) to act as the overall commander.

I'd also try to get the Syrians involved, and possibily the Iranians.

Having co-religionists of the various factions would be a big help, but this would be a very complex coalition that would require a lot of management (for instance, you couldn't station Turkish troops in the north without destabalising Iraqi Kurdistan). American troops would need to continue to be involved, and it would cost a lot of political capital to get the Pentagon to let foreign militaries to command US troops. I wouldn't count on reelection, but I don't want the job in the first place.

florida0214 · 01-18-2007, 06:49 AM

Thats awesome. Do feel that all those countries would or could actualy work together? Middle eastern countries generally dislike each other, but they do have a common dislike.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The UN commands American troops, but it is neither foreign nor American.
Maybe middle eastern countires would jump at the chance to put some of their people into another country. Who knows I guess.

ratbastid · 01-18-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by florida0214

I have changed the question so maybe it will help people to respond.

Thanks for that.

I would pull all but a very small advisory force. I'd leave that force in place to advise the Iraqi police and military, but not to participate in ANY on-the-ground action. I'd supplement that with massive financial and material support for the people.

The thing to remember here is, there IS no good option. The country is going to tear itself apart over the next decade (at least). That's absolutely our fault, and we need to be responsible for that. At But there's absolutely no point having our troops in harm's way. They're not doing any good there.

Rekna · 01-18-2007, 09:01 AM

This isn't a well thought out plan but here are some ideas that I have.

Split Iraq into 3 separate either nations or states. In the case of states we would need some form of government to unite them and provide fair representation. Something similar to our congress without all the fat would do.

US troops would leave all cities and base themselves in rural areas on alert to enter a city if it is needed. The peacekeeping of the cities would be left up to the local Iraqi forces, which would be supplied and trained by US troops.

If cities have no problems then troops around those cities would be moved near cites that have problems.

I'm sure I could add a lot more but I have to get to work soon. The big thing here is the Iraqi forces will not be able to stand on their own until we make them stand on their own and they won't have authority over the people until they earn it from the people. We need to make the Iraqi forces earn their keep and they will not do that with us constantly holding their hand.

Willravel · 01-18-2007, 09:21 AM

Immediate investigations into each and every American company rebuilding Iraq. After confirming they are all cutting corners and cheating, fire them and put the appropriate people on trial. Hire Iraqi firms to rebuild Iraq.

Compact our military presence. All soldiers will be in very large groups in heavily fortified positions. No more BS walking up and down the streets. If there is a disturbance, a shitload of troops are sent to take care of it, and then they come back to their fortified positions. After it's clear that casualties are decreasing, then we stat a withdrawl over the next 8 months. The troops that remain will be stricktly for training Iraqi police.

We apologize to the Iraqi people, we apologize to our allies, we apologize to the UN, and we agree to purchase at a fair price oil from Iraq if they can maintain peace. If they can't get their shit together, we don't buy their oil anymore and we convince as many of our allies as possible to do the same. Give them positive reinforcement.

powerclown · 01-18-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If they can't get their shit together, we don't buy their oil anymore and we convince as many of our allies as possible to do the same. Give them positive reinforcement.

Imagine if scientists found an alternative to the internal combustion engine, that ran on, say, water. The world is no longer reliant on oil, so basically the only natural resource of note left in the middle east is sand. What would the middle east do in their loneliness...with nobody in the world paying attention to them and their oil anymore? Build towering glass castles in the sand? Would all the pockets of jihad in the mountains of waziristan and bajoul likewise dry up? What would these radicals (in bajoul, not berkeley) do with their time if not chanting "death to america" or carving "kill bush" into their foreheads? Would they pick up a book of economics or crop irrigation? Would they start building moviehouses and multiplexes? Would they study the bible and christianity, in earnest? Would they try to incorporate sand into their diets, out of thrift? I would be very interested to see what might come out of the middle east while left to their own devices.

As for Iraq, PARTITION, PARTITION, PARTITION.
You gotta get these people off eachothers throats, right?
For some reason, they don't seem to be interested in establishing peaceful relations.
They seem unusually warlike.
And we don't want ANOTHER genocide on our collective consciences, do we?

DO WE?
(What if....)

Willravel · 01-18-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Imagine if scientists found an alternative to the internal combustion engine, that ran on, say, water. The world is no longer reliant on oil, so basically the only natural resource of note left in the middle east is sand. What would the middle east do in their loneliness...with nobody in the world paying attention to them and their oil anymore? Build towering glass castles in the sand? Would all the pockets of jihad in the mountains of waziristan and bajoul likewise dry up? What would these radicals (in bajoul, not berkeley) do with their time if not chanting "death to america" or carving "kill bush" into their foreheads? Would they pick up a book of economics or crop irrigation? Would they start building moviehouses and multiplexes? Would they study the bible and christianity, in earnest? Would they try to incorporate sand into their diets, out of thrift? I would be very interested to see what might come out of the middle east while left to their own devices.

They would fight, but quickly run out of money. Once they realized that their cheif export was no longer wanted or needed, they would have to adapt. We might see mass migration to a more suitable climate, which could be troublesome, but many would stay because it is their home. If they're smart, they will do everything they can to get in on outsourcing. As the economy in Iraq is mush worse than India, they could undercut their competition and still see their ecomomy grow. I dunno, just thinking outloud.

What do you think?

powerclown · 01-18-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If they're smart, they will do everything they can to get in on outsourcing.

Therein lies one of the most complex and profound problems facing the me. I agree with you 100% that they need to open up their societies and outsource, but of course those you outsource to need to have governments-societies-economies ready and able to absorb the influx of "outsiders". The one thing anathema to tribal societies is the outsider. And of course you can't be in a religious war with them - bad for business.

The first thing that needs to happen, imho, is for people to have more of a say in their lives, more - brace for it - democratic! forms of government. That is priority one (and obstacle one). Second, separation of church and state. Three, once these tenets are stablished, new ideas will flow and your adaptation will occur. Thats where I would start anyway.

The_Jazz · 01-18-2007, 02:11 PM

Yeah, I don't see separation of church and state expanding beyond Turkey anytime soon. However, we're dealing with a strictly theoretical world here, so in a world that no longer needs oil, I think that there are going to be a lot of really serious problems in the short term since that's what 75% of the Middle East survives on. I would immediately expect an incresae in drug trafficking and use along the metoric crash of most governments. I see lots of dust and no settling anytime soon.

Willravel · 01-18-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Therein lies one of the most complex and profound problems facing the me. I agree with you 100% that they need to open up their societies and outsource, but of course those you outsource to need to have governments-societies-economies ready and able to absorb the influx of "outsiders". The one thing anathema to tribal societies is the outsider. And of course you can't be in a religious war with them - bad for business.

It's not the outsiders that influx, but the culture. As soon as an HP call center opens in Bagdad and US callers start to call in, they will suddenly be bombarded with US culture, anything from the MTV generation to the ultra conservative to the ultra liberal to the yuppy, etc. All these new ideas could be seeded. I'd be interested to see if the ME becomes what Asia was 100 years ago, suddenly overrun by Western culture and eventually controled by it.

In the short term, it would be great because it would stabalize the econemy. In the long term we could see the extinction of more unique cultures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The first thing that needs to happen, imho, is for people to have more of a say in their lives, more - brace for it - democratic! forms of government. That is priority one (and obstacle one). Second, separation of church and state. Three, once these tenets are stablished, new ideas will flow and your adaptation will occur. Thats where I would start anyway.

Iraq is quite a way from anything but a theocracy. Once the puppet government is removed (which will happen soon), Iraq will probably look like Iran.

Sectarian fighting is the x-factor in the whole thing. I wish that a promenant Middle Eastern Islamic leader would welcome someone of an other sect, be it Shiite or Sunni to show that the two (barely distunguishable) doctrines of belief can live in harmony.

pai mei · 01-20-2007, 04:01 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...139643041382&q
Ron Paul speaks in Congress about how US tries to maintain the fact that oil is sold in dollars. In 2000 Iraq switched to euros - it was invaded, now Iraqi oil is sold in dollars.
Venezuela had the same ideea - in 2001 there was a coup backed by CIA
Now it's Iran
Ron Paul seems to be a wise man I hope he makes himself heard

loquitur · 01-21-2007, 07:16 AM

If we found a credible non-petroleum source of energy tomorrow, the Arab world would rapidly sink into a state much like most of Africa, but with one difference: it would continue to export violence, at least for a while. Eventually it would peter out. Sad but true. In the long term they'll probably wake up and try to become like Singapore or Hong Kong, or even India, but it will take a while. Right now their culture is seriously dysfunctional - too much belief in conspiracy theories, too little social infrastructure beyond religion and clans.

The situation in Iraq underscores for me the continuing validity of the Powell Doctrine: never go into a war with less than overwhelming force, and be sure to have defined objectives and a clear exit strategy or strategies. Shinseki's original war plan was the correct one: with more troops the US could have sealed the borders, prevented militias from getting arms and put down any insurgency. Our troops would mostly be home already. Iraq would be muddling through imperfectly, but in better shape than it is now. The current planned surge isn't big enough to accomplish what needs to get done and the situation now is probably much more difficult than it otherwise would have been.

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 11:37 AM

Well said...
I agree with the Africa analogy as well.
I wonder what it will take for the cultural switch to a Singapore or India.

filtherton · 01-21-2007, 12:37 PM

I'd have some motherfuckin ninjas go over there and sort that shit out.

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 01:20 PM

A 6-man team of ninjas into Iraq (or 1 Chuck Norris), and Bush gets elected to a 3rd term.

CHUCK NORRIS FACTS
1. Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
2. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
3. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain.
5. There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist.
6. Chuck Norris has two speeds. Walk, and Kill.
7. The leading causes of death in the United States are: 1. Heart Disease 2. Chuck Norris 3. Cancer
8. Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls.
9. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
10. The former USSR quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on satellite.
11. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
12. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.
13. Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
14. Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
15. Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
16. Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting.... CHUCK NORRIS GOES KILLING

host · 01-21-2007, 01:27 PM

powerclown:

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...=la-home-world

At least 27 U.S. troops killed in Iraq over weekend
By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
9:37 AM PST, January 21, 2007

BAGHDAD -- At least 27 U.S. troops were killed in a helicopter crash and insurgent attacks across Iraq over the weekend in one of the deadliest stretches for the American military here in nearly two years.

The surge in fatalities comes just days before President Bush's State of the Union address , which is likely to inject a note of urgency into the debate over his Iraq policy.....

Chimera · 01-21-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by florida0214

Let's say that you became president tomorrow. What would you do about Iraq? Understand that no matter what you do you will get bashed in this forum. Please make your answers logical and reasonable.

Thats it. No rules. I will not be critisizing people at all. I not make anyboody feel stupid for any answer they give. I am not that smart anyway. If i give my answer people will likely not answer because then this has become a way to spread my opinion.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. share it. You will not change anything by listing it here, but at least everybody will know that if you are complaining you are doing it becuase you feele that there has been an obvious shortcoming and you think that it can be fixed and here is how it should be done. Thank you.

I would give the Iraqi people a simple plan

1) We will begin withdrawal in exactly six months.
2) You WILL take over ALL aspects of your own security at that point...Period.
3) Over the next five months, we will restore the infrastructure of your major cities as far as we can. We will invest in said repairs/Upgrades ONE time, if you allow these restorations to be destroyed, they are gone.
4) At the end of this six month period, we wil allow you to request our continued help in restoration of YOUR country. If you decide to ask for our help, it will be voted on by the American People, as to whether we will accept your request.....or not.

These descisions are not up for debate....it is time to grow up and work together, or allow yourselves to destroy everything you now have.

Have a Nice Day.

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 02:09 PM

"War is Cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it.
The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

General William Tecumseh Sherman, 1879

Willravel · 01-21-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

"War is Cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it.
The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

General William Tecumseh Sherman, 1879

You mean William Tecumseh Sherman that was the first to have stressed destruction of infrastructure, targeting of civilians and noncombatants, and was considered by many to be one of the first amoral military leaders in American history?

I'd say he may not be the best person to go to for answers in this one. Also, he could win (unlike our president).

host · 01-21-2007, 03:17 PM

Chimera,

....we've lost 27 more US troops in just the last 3 days. The US invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to it's security, and no threat to the secuirty of it's neighbors. I have posted quotes of that opinion that Iraq was not a military threat, starting with Powell and Tenet in Feb., 2001, Rice in July, 2001, and Cheney on Sept., 16, 2001.

The US removed the head of state of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and disbanded the military and the police. Under Saddam, the social and political "order" imposed by the British in the early 1920's..... i.e., minority sunni rule of the country, had changed from the British installed sunni monarchy to a secular sunni dictator.

The 1920's British arabist expert, Gertrude Bell, who drew the borders of the new "Iraq", considered the political realities of the region. The remnant of the seat of the old Ottoman empire, Turkey, would not tolerate an independent Kurdish state in the north, and the Kurds refused annexation by Turkey. That stalemate has not changed.

The sunni were judged by Bell to be the only Islamic sect in the new Iraqi state who were capable and unencumbered enough by Islamic mullahs religious edicts to entrust with transfer of power from British rule to "home" rule. They also happened to be concentrated in the center of the newly creaed state, near Baghdad, and importantly, sunni rule influenced the sunni Saudis to end their claims on southern border arears of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia has warned the US that they will balance the sunni disadvantage in Iraq, if the US withdraws.

Saddam was tasked, in order to maintain his power and to avoid assassination, with a balancing act that required playing one competing faction against another in Iraq. He minimized the 1200 years of strife between the sunni minority, and the far more numerous shi'a, caused by the assassination of the shi'a imam, Ali, in a mosque in Najif, back in the 700's, by minimizing the influence of islam in Iraqi politics and society. Iraqi women enjoyed the most equality in the Arab world.

Saddam offset religious and familial ties between the shi'a majority in the south and Iraq's neighbor, Iran, via a military rivalry that included an 8 year war. He responded to Kurdish ambitions for independence by brutal repression of their population and politcal leadership. If Saddam did not do this, Turkey would have encroached on Iraq's sovereignty to do it themselves.

The 1920's British partition solution of Iraq did not have to consider the "problem" of the location of since discovered petroleum reserves and the formula for distributing the financial proceeds to the competing ethnic, religious, and political interests. The areas where sunnis are concentrated do not contain oil reserves, but sunnis ruled the country, so this was not the problem that it has become now.

Like it or not....rule of Iraq by Saddam was the closest arrangement to the British designed power balancing act of 85 years ago.

The British design, and the borders that were drawn, brought stability to the region. It was not a "fair" design for the kurds, and certainly not for the shi'a.
The sunnis are now living the consequences of a minority that inherited the authority from the British to rule the country.

Churchill and Bell were sophisticated enough to know that control of the larger shi'a and kurdish populations by the sunnis who comprise only 20 percent of the population and who bore 1200 years of animosity from the 60 percent of Iraqis who are shi'a because of Ali's assassination, and the challenge of keeping Iranian shi'as on the other side of the new border, could only be accomplished by a repressive sunni regime.

Chimera, while Churchill and Bell designed borders and a political power transfer that took into account, and responded to successfully for a suprisingly long time......all of the challenges to stability of competing interests and grievances in the region, and did not have the enormous challenge of equitable distribution of later discovered petroleum reserves to solve, I see nothing in your proposals, or in any of the others posted on this thread, that considers the details of the actual problems to be solved, the interests to be balanced, or the acceptance of responsibility by the fictional future POTUS, for the US administration's sudden destabilization of the region, in the first place.

I do see similar clueless naivete and hubris, to that exhibited by the US administration that wrecked regional stability in the first place.

The only solution that I see that would restore regional stability is installation by the US of a new sunni strongman, protected from the shi'a in Iraq and in Iran, by the US, along with US "control" of kurdish ambitions.

The US would have the option of reducing the military forces required to prop up the "new guy", if it engaged in a pre-emptive campaign to reduce Iran's military dominance in the region.

I see no other "solution" that deals with the reality that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and will all find it neccessary to involve themselves, respectively, to control the kurds, save the sunnis from ethnic cleansing, unite with shi'a southern Iraq, if a US withdrawal occurs. Partition of Iraq is not an option that enhances regional stability, avoids annihilation of the kurds and the sunnis, or checks the ongoing windfall that Bush has created for Iran.

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You mean William Tecumseh Sherman that was the first to have stressed destruction of infrastructure, targeting of civilians and noncombatants, and was considered by many to be one of the first amoral military leaders in American history?

That's not what I mean no.
Does not the quote speak for itself?
So more Americans died today in Iraq. I'm not festive.
Many died on the streets and hospitals of America as well.
Chimera for example seems in favor of genocide and large scale, regional chaos.
I could perhaps be in favor of one but not the other. I'm for separation of tribes.
I sincerely hope this is the last war of embeds.

Willravel · 01-21-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

That's not what I mean no.
Does not the quote speak for itself?

The quote makes clear a message: war sucks. The problem I have with it is the last sentence, "The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.". That's really, really, really bad, and really not true. When war get's crueler, more people suffer and die. Are you suggesting, via the quote, that war can only end when more people die and in worse ways?

Chimera · 01-21-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Chimera,

....we've lost 27 more US troops in just the last 3 days. The US invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to it's security, and no threat to the secuirty of it's neighbors. I have posted quotes of that opinion that Iraq was not a military threat, starting with Powell and Tenet in Feb., 2001, Rice in July, 2001, and Cheney on Sept., 16, 2001.

No Shit Host.....we all know the reality.

The US removed the head of state of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and disbanded the military and the police. Under Saddam, the social and political "order" imposed by the British in the early 1920's..... i.e., minority sunni rule of the country, had changed from the British installed sunni monarchy to a secular sunni dictator.

Again.....this is relatively common knowledge.

The 1920's British arabist expert, Gertrude Bell, who drew the borders of the new "Iraq", considered the political realities of the region. The remnant of the seat of the old Ottoman empire, Turkey, would not tolerate an independent Kurdish state in the north, and the Kurds refused annexation by Turkey. That stalemate has not changed.

And has absolutely no bearing on the current situation MY country finds itself in.

The sunni were judged by Bell to be the only Islamic sect in the new Iraqi state who were capable and unencumbered enough by Islamic mullahs religious edicts to entrust with transfer of power from British rule to "home" rule. They also happened to be concentrated in the center of the newly creaed state, near Baghdad, and importantly, sunni rule influenced the sunni Saudis to end their claims on southern border arears of Iraq.

See above.

Saudi Arabia has warned the US that they will balance the sunni disadvantage in Iraq, if the US withdraws.

And I care what the Saudis think....because?

Saddam was tasked, in order to maintain his power and to avoid assassination, with a balancing act that required playing one competing faction against another in Iraq. He minimized the 1200 years of strife between the sunni minority, and the far more numerous shi'a, caused by the assassination of the shi'a imam, Ali, in a mosque in Najif, back in the 700's, by minimizing the influence of islam in Iraqi politics and society. Iraqi women enjoyed the most equality in the Arab world.

Saddam offset religious and familial ties between the shi'a majority in the south and Iraq's neighbor, Iran, via a military rivalry that included an 8 year war. He responded to Kurdish ambitions for independence by brutal repression of their population and politcal leadership. If Saddam did not do this, Turkey would have encroached on Iraq's sovereignty to do it themselves.

The 1920's British partition solution of Iraq did not have to consider the "problem" of the location of since discovered petroleum reserves and the formula for distributing the financial proceeds to the competing ethnic, religious, and political interests. The areas where sunnis are concentrated do not contain oil reserves, but sunnis ruled the country, so this was not the problem that it has become now.

Like it or not....rule of Iraq by Saddam was the closest arrangement to the British designed power balancing act of 85 years ago.

The British design, and the borders that were drawn, brought stability to the region. It was not a "fair" design for the kurds, and certainly not for the shi'a.
The sunnis are now living the consequences of a minority that inherited the authority from the British to rule the country.

Churchill and Bell were sophisticated enough to know that control of the larger shi'a and kurdish populations by the sunnis who comprise only 20 percent of the population and who bore 1200 years of animosity from the 60 percent of Iraqis who are shi'a because of Ali's assassination, and the challenge of keeping Iranian shi'as on the other side of the new border, could only be accomplished by a repressive sunni regime.

Chimera, while Churchill and Bell designed borders and a political power transfer that took into account, and responded to successfully for a suprisingly long time......all of the challenges to stability of competing interests and grievances in the region, and did not have the enormous challenge of equitable distribution of later discovered petroleum reserves to solve, I see nothing in your proposals, or in any of the others posted on this thread, that considers the details of the actual problems to be solved, the interests to be balanced, or the acceptance of responsibility by the fictional future POTUS, for the US administration's sudden destabilization of the region, in the first place.

I do see similar clueless naivete and hubris, to that exhibited by the US administration that wrecked regional stability in the first place.

The only solution that I see that would restore regional stability is installation by the US of a new sunni strongman, protected from the shi'a in Iraq and in Iran, by the US, along with US "control" of kurdish ambitions.

We have systematically destroyed the machinery of stability, and cannot rebuild it within the next 5-10 yrs.....period. I , as president, would be unwilling to accept this scenario.

The US would have the option of reducing the military forces required to prop up the "new guy", if it engaged in a pre-emptive campaign to reduce Iran's military dominance in the region.

It would allow for "Other" players to become dominant....as My own plan might do.

I see no other "solution" that deals with the reality that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and will all find it neccessary to involve themselves, respectively, to control the kurds, save the sunnis from ethnic cleansing, unite with shi'a southern Iraq, if a US withdrawal occurs. Partition of Iraq is not an option that enhances regional stability, avoids annihilation of the kurds and the sunnis, or checks the ongoing windfall that Bush has created for Iran.

So....you simply wish to allow the staus Quo of the region to continue, and forgo ant chance of change....So Be It.

Fortunately....I am President...not You.

host · 01-21-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

...... I'm for separation of tribes.
I sincerely hope this is the last war of embeds.

Please explain....are you advocating partitioning Iraq, as you did earlier? Turkey will invade a kurdish state that is no longer part of Iraq. The sunnis will not settle for living in a partition that contains no petroleum reserves and does not offer protections from attacks by kurds, iranians, and shi'a....the sunnis have made many enemies....and the southern region of a shi'a partition, the area that contains Iraq's only seaport, is a natural, petroluem rich and religiously aligned, potential new province of iran.

Who would provide the force to discourage interference by turks, iranians, and saudis?

If you refer to press coverage as "embeds", are you advocating a news
"blackout", which would result in all reporting coming from freelancers paid by al Jazeera, or other local news orgs, or a return to the free access that was experienced by the US press in their coverage of Vietnam.

If you advocate restriction of news reporting during wartime, wouldn't you agree that a "freedom loving" US president would allow open access to US reporters in Iraq, soon after declaring that "major combat operations have ended"?

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Are you suggesting, via the quote, that war can only end when more people die and in worse ways?

No.

There was a time when states battled states.
There was a time when uniform fought uniform.
There was a time when classic military doctrine applied to the battlespace.
Classic, in the sense that participants in war adherred to and applied, a formal code of conduct.
Classic, in the sense of the existence of rules of engagement, troop formation, attack/defense theory, intelligence, reconnoissance, etc.
My interpretation of Sherman's quote relates to warfare within these parameters.
When the quickest way to victory was through the complete and utter annhilation of formal, uniformed enemy troops.
It seems to me that, if you must must must go to war, make it as quick and as merciful as possible, for both fighter and civilian.
I understand none of this applies to current day Iraq, anymore unfortunately.
More like being slowly torn to pieces by wild dogs I would imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...

Have you read Biden's plan?
The plan is to share the oil.
There are many important incentives driving this.
Turkish invasion is not a foregone conclusion as you would have it.
Turkey has an immense amount riding on entry into the EU.
Invasion would end those aspirations.
Turkey would likely be isolated for attacking a sovereign nation.
Goodbye Turkish aspirations to be on good terms with the West.
Goodbye entry into the EU.
Goodbye Turkish economy.
Goodbye stability in Turkey.
It is in Turkey's interests to see a stable northern Iraq.

Let military journalists report the news.
I trust them more than I trust a left-leaning MSM at this point.

host · 01-21-2007, 07:55 PM

powerclown,...your solution is to confine war reporting to US military propagandists because the mega-corporate owned US mainstream press is "too liberal" to be allowed to file first person accounts and video coverage from it's own reporters....

My reaction is simply to post that my opinion is too far apart from yours for me to hope that anything can be accomplished by devoting time to posting on this topic......I suspect that your opinion is influenced by the "idea" that the "liberal opposition and it's allies" in the US press "lost" the Vietnam war by tying one of the US military's hands behind it's back, or some such premise.....and I've spent plenty of time rebutting that "stuff" in past threads here....

Do you know any Turks, powerclown? The few who I know who were birn in turkey and emigrated to the US will tell you that the kurds do not only want the area in northern iraq as an independent state. They also comprise a population of 12 million in turkey who want to annex all of southeastern turkey.

There has been no progress since the radio free Europe article from 17 months ago, and reports from 4 months ago show a political battle between the powerful secular turkish military leaders and the pro mulsim government of the turkish prime minister.

The current state of affairs offers no chance for what you hope can happen, as any turk will probably tell you. Politically, the US does not have time for such a dream to come true, and admission into the European commonwealth is not nearly enough of a carrot to put aside the political, ethnic, and religious issues that will make a turkish military move against any newly declared independent kurdish state a foregone conclusion.

Quote:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...4f740e7c5.html
Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Turkey: Government Under Growing Pressure To Meet Kurdish Demands
By Jean-Christophe Peuch

(RFE/RL)
15 August marked the 21st anniversary of the start of Turkey’s Kurdish insurgency. On 15 August 1984, suspected militants from the Marxist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), killed two police officers in twin attacks in the Anatolian villages of Eruh and Semdinli. The killings marked the start of a 15-year armed campaign for Kurdish self-determination. Following a series of military setbacks and the 1999 capture of their leader, Abdullah Ocalan, PKK militants declared a unilateral truce and sought refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. But citing Ankara’s refusal to suspend hostilities, the group in 2004 called off its cease-fire and reportedly resumed attacks against Turkish targets. Regional experts say that while most Kurds would like the PKK to renounce violence, the responsibility for establishing a lasting peace ultimately falls to Ankara.

Prague, 17 August 2005 (RFE/RL) -- Turkish security forces accuse PKK rebels of seeking to rekindle the deadly conflict that claimed some 35,000 lives – mostly civilians -- between 1984 and 1999.

In the past few months, clashes between militants and government forces have been reported in southeast Anatolia, where most of Turkey’s 12 million Kurds live.

....Pressed by the European Union, which it hopes to join within a few years, Ankara has liberalized its legislation with a view to granting Kurds greater cultural and social rights. But most of these legal changes have yet to be implemented.

Turkey has rejected dialogue with the PKK, which it considers a terrorist group. It has also banned several pro-Kurdish parties for allegedly maintaining links with the rebels.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on 12 August made a landmark visit to eastern Anatolia’s main city of Diyarbakir. During the trip, he pledged to solve the Kurdish problems “with more democracy and civil rights.”

Groups close to the PKK described this statement as “significant” but said they wanted to see how it would translate into action.

David Morgan from the Kurdistan Solidarity Committee, a nongovernmental group that lobbies for Kurdish rights in the British parliament, said he is rather skeptical. Citing similar statements made by Turkish leaders in the past, he said there is no guarantee Erdogan’s pledges will have any practical effect.

“Historically, Turkish leaders have gone to Diyarbakir to make such statements," Morgan said. "When Prime Minister Tansu Ciller made statements similar to that [in the mid-1990s], saying that there should a ‘Basque solution’ to Kurdish problems, it led to a further intensification of military action on the part of the Turkish army. So it’s not clear what will happen. I think the Kurdish people in the area are quite concerned that [Erdogan] made that statement; they're not hopeful in that respect. It could be made to address the European audience.”

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for Turkey. And not only because of the approaching 3 October deadline for starting EU accession talks.

PKK officials blame the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK) for recent bomb attacks in Istanbul and Turkey’s sea resorts. They say the TAK is a dissident group that recognizes Ocalan as its leader, but not the authority of the PKK.

Turkish officials in turn say the TAK is just a cover for the PKK.

But McDowall said it is unclear what link exists between the two organizations. He said he believes the Kurdish separatist movement might have split into different subgroups, much as the Irish Republican Army did in the late 1990s.....

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5391880.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 29 September 2006, 11:29 GMT 12:29 UK
Turkish PM rejects ceasefire call
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has rejected a ceasefire call from jailed Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan.

Mr Erdogan said a truce was only possible between two states, describing Ocalan's Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as "a terrorist organisation".

He said the PKK "must lay down its arms" so there could be peace.

His comments follow Ocalan's statement on Thursday in which he urged the PKK to observe an unconditional ceasefire.

"A ceasefire is done between states. It is not something for the terrorist organisation," Mr Erdogan told Turkey's private Samanyolu TV channel.

Mr Erdogan's rejection comes as no surprise, the BBC Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul says.

She says Turkey has always insisted there can be no dialogue with the PKK - a group listed as terrorists in the US and the EU.

Instead, the Turkish government has said it will pursue the Kurdish militant group until it is eliminated or surrenders.

As violent attacks by the PKK have escalated in recent weeks, Turkey has been talking tougher than ever, even threatening military intervention in northern Iraq where the group has its bases, our correspondent says.

'Democratic dialogue'

In a statement from his prison cell, Ocalan said "the PKK should not use weapons unless it is attacked with the aim of annihilation".

He said it was "very important to build a democratic union between Turks and Kurds. With this process, the way to democratic dialogue will be also opened".

Ocalan is serving a life sentence on the prison island of Imrali after being convicted for treason in 1999.

The PKK implemented a five-year unilateral ceasefire after Ocalan's arrest, but resumed armed activities in 2004.

In 1999, the PKK also dropped its demands for an independent Kurdish state within Turkey.

In recent years it has instead been calling for Ankara to open a political dialogue, increase cultural rights for Turkey's Kurds and release imprisoned PKK members, including Ocalan.

But Ankara has ignored all such calls.

More than 30,000 people have died since the PKK took up arms in 1984.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5398842.stm
Monday, 2 October 2006, 15:15 GMT 16:15 UK

Turkey's top general has rejected a unilateral ceasefire by armed Kurdish rebels, vowing to fight on "until not a single armed terrorist is left".

General Yasar Buyukanit, the new chief of military staff, said the PKK must "lay down arms unconditionally and give themselves up".

The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) called the truce last week.

The PKK's conflict with Turkey has claimed more than 30,000 lives since it began in 1984.

A spate of bomb attacks has hit Turkey over the past month, some of them blamed on a group called the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (Tak), regarded as an offshoot of the PKK.

Announcing the ceasefire last week, senior PKK leader Murat Karayilan said he hoped the decision would lead to renewed dialogue with the Turkish authorities.

But earlier ceasefires have been ignored by the Turkish government and have later lapsed.

Secular guardian

Gen Buyukanit also warned of a rising reactionary threat to his country's secular values.

The BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul says the comment was directed at the current government, which has its roots in political Islam.

It follows similar comments on Sunday from the President of Turkey, Ahmet Necdet Sezer.

The government has rejected the complaints.

<b>Turkey's military sees itself as the guardian of the secular state, and has forced four governments from office in five decades, our correspondent says.
</b>
Analysts in Turkey say the powerful military is making its position abundantly clear ahead of presidential elections next May, which it fears may be won by the current Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Secular leaning turks take great pride in describing the check on the emergence of religious fundamentalism that the turkish military has so reliably provided. An independent kurdish state is not negotiable, because non-kurdish turks are convinced that it would not be bounded by turkey's present border with northern Iraq. Turks have convinced themselves that there was no armenian genocide, and official admission that there was is one of many hurdles that a turkish government is required by the European Union to "jump" if turkey hopes to qualify for admission to the union. Instead, turks dismiss the pre-conditions as "excuses" meted out to block turkey's admission to a "christian club". They save face by telling themselves that Europe blocks turkey's inclusion "because they are muslim".

Lizra · 01-21-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Turks have convinced themselves that there was no armenian genocide, and official admission that there was is one of many hurdles that a turkish government is required by the European Union to "jump" if turkey hopes to qualify for admission to the union. Instead, turks dismiss the pre-conditions as "excuses" meted out to block turkey's admission to a "christian club". They save face by telling themselves that Europe blocks turkey's inclusion "because they are muslim".

That is such a disgusting thing to try to pull off. Denying it is almost as bad as when they were actually doing it. I can't believe some Turks think the rest of the world is that stupid....

Why do modern Turks allow this ridiculous denial to continue??? Un-fucking-believable.....

host · 01-21-2007, 08:49 PM

The two turks who I have had frank discussions with seem reasonable, naturalized American citizens in every way, and they have been muslims in name only, until the post 9/11 political climate in the US made them more conscious and concerned about anti-muslim sentiment. As shi'a they do not worship in a mosque, due to a tradition that began in the 8th century when Ali was stabbed in the back of the neck by an assassin named Omar, his head bowed in prayer, in a mosque.

Both of my turkish friends are unwavering in their denial of armenian genocide.
They dismiss it as a post WWI victor's tale against the defeated ottomans. One of these guys gets angry and agitated when the subject is raised.

This news especially bothered both of themL:

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4994434.stm
Thursday, 18 May 2006, 14:37 GMT 15:37 UK

French MPs shelve 'genocide' vote
The French parliament has postponed debate on a bill that would make it a crime to deny that the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 was "genocide".

Turkish officials and businesses had lobbied French MPs to shelve the bill, which relates to a thorny issue still plaguing Turkish-Armenian relations.

Turkey rejects Armenia's claim that the Ottoman Turks killed 1.5m Armenians.

The French Socialist opposition wanted a new law to impose fines in line with those for Holocaust deniers.

Anyone denying that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis in World War II can be fined up to 45,000 euros (£30,600) and be jailed for five years in France.

Armenia says up to 1.5 million Armenians were deported and died at the hands of the Ottoman rulers in World War I. Turkey says a few hundred thousand died in a war which also left many Turks dead.

Diplomatic impact

Ahead of the debate, Turkish MPs had been lobbying their French counterparts, warning of irreparable damage if the bill passed into law.

It was set to be a free vote for French MPs, but President Jacques Chirac said that passing the bill would be a mistake.
Turkey is a leading economic and trade partner... We cannot accept this bill
Philippe Douste-Blazy
French Foreign Minister

Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy agreed, telling the National Assembly: "The Armenian cause is just and should be defended and respected. But the bill you have submitted today would, if passed, be considered as an unfriendly gesture by a large majority of Turks, whether you want this or not."

As the session ran out of time for a vote to take place, there were reportedly angry scenes as MPs and Armenian groups in the public gallery shouted: "Vote! Vote!"

There are some 400,000 people of Armenian descent in France, and the Socialists have been accused of trying to win their favour ahead of next year's presidential election.

Some European Union countries have passed bills recognising the killings as genocide and the European Parliament has backed a non-binding resolution saying Turkey must recognise it as such before it can join the EU.

The French bill will now be shelved until October at the earliest.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6107360.stm

Europe diary: Historical guilt

2 November 2006

BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell talks to Armenians in Turkey and asks why a massacre that took place nearly a century ago, and the question whether it was genocide, is such a sensitive issue in Turkey today.

....Why is modern-day democratic Turkey so sensitive about something that happened nearly 100 years ago in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire? A BBC radio programme wants me to probe the delicate question of what the state's official attitude to the killings says about present-day Turkey.

Q&A: Armenian 'genocide'
Nobody seriously disputes that many thousands of Armenians died in what is now eastern Turkey between 1914 and 1918. Some Turkish historians say 200,000 died, some Armenian historians say it was two million. Turkish writers are still prosecuted for calling it "genocide". But the French parliament has caused outrage in Turkey by voting to make denial that these killings were genocide a crime on a par with holocaust denial......

As long as official turkish admission to armenian genocide is an EU requirement for admission, turkey will balk, and the armenians will pressure the EU to not back down.

The US and UK have no leverage over turkey, and the turkish military has no choice but to invade and occupy any new kurdish state partitioned from Iraq, and the US must come up with a solution that allows withdrawal of US troops from an acceptably and enduringly stable Iraq, by summer, 2008, or 18 months from now, at the latest.

All of these pitfalls were known in 1991, but they were ignored in late 2002 by the US political leadership.

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 08:55 PM

There should be some alternative to propaganda war reporting.
Maybe the public should elect their war reporters based on existing bodies of work.
No more Chomskys or Robertsons with cameras and pens.
Objective, yes. Hysterical, no. Impossible, probably.

Quote:

The US and UK have no leverage over turkey, and the turkish military has no choice but to invade and occupy any new kurdish state partitioned from Iraq

Disagree.
Turkey has an enormous amount to lose from invading a soverign Kurdistan.
Its curious also to think that Europe and the US have no leverage with Turkey. Of course they do.
I'm not one to think that the establishment of a Kurdistan would result in the downfall of Turkey by default.
Turks are more moderate and sophisticated than that.
They are more secular and less racist than many other countries in the region.

Lizra · 01-21-2007, 09:17 PM

host...your friends are too young to actually know what when down.....I wonder how they can be so sure?

The documentary I saw on PBS last fall had much compelling footage and current news reports of the day confirming the Armenian genocide. Today's young Turks didn't do these horrible things....you think they'd want to right the wrongs from the past and move on to better things.

host · 01-21-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

There should be some alternative to propaganda war reporting.
Maybe the public should elect their war reporters based on existing bodies of work.
No more Chomskys or Robertsons with cameras and pens.
Objective, yes. Hysterical, no. Impossible, probably.....

powerclown, your sentiments match uncannily the message of the most prominent conservative propagandist of the last 15 years....why do you suppose that is ????

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III

Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that <b>90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center.</b>

The Future is Bright
Why should conservatives be optimistic about the media? Because our future is bright, but only if we take advantage of it......

.8) Help train the next generation. It is rather meaningless to demand that the media balance their programming by including conservative voices if we don't have a stable of journalists prepared to enter the work force. They certainly will not come out of the major journalism school which, studies show, are even more liberal than what we have at present.....

<h3>.....Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."</h3>

The news and entertainment media will continue to effect the cultural health of America. If we succeed in our mission to restore political balance to this institution, future generations win benefit and thank us. It's worth fighting for, now.

L. Brent Bozell, III is Chairman of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

powerclown, compared to the folks who he mocks and insults in the following column what point was Bozell correct about, compared to the accuracy of the opinions of those he disagreed with?

How much money do you suppose that Saddam spent on WMD from the start of the UN sanctions after the 1991 Gulf war until the US invaded Iraq in 2003?

Quote:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20030227.asp
Hollywood's Geopolitical Geniuses
by L. Brent Bozell III
February 27, 2003

The United States is on the brink of war with Iraq. As Saddam Hussein begins to brace for the whirlwind, he's got few weapons left. One of them is very predictable: Hollywood.

A group called "Artists United to Win Without War" planned a "virtual march" on Washington for February 26, an electric blitz of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails calling for delay, delay, delay - the complete set of Tariq Aziz talking points.

But wait a minute. Just how can one take these "artists" seriously when they give themselves a name like that? Just how does one "win without war"? We accomplished zilch-o with U.N. “enforcement.” Now we’re going to “win” by giving in to more of the same. Kumbaya.

To get the Hollywood campaign going, the "artists" put out 30-second TV ads featuring…themselves. Martin Sheen, NBC's fake president, declares "Don't invade Iraq…Inspections work. War won't." The ad does not include a laugh track. In a different ad campaign, sour-pussed “comedian” Janeane Garofalo informs viewers of a U.N. estimate of half a million casualties "if we invade Iraq." She asks, "Do we have the right to do that to a country that's done nothing to us?"

Celebrity Garofalo has been on news channels everywhere decrying how news channels only want to talk to celebrities instead of real experts. If only she had the decency to abide by her own argument and shut up! Hollywood plasters itself all over the public policy debate and after being picked up by news media, then they slam the press for being shallow.

They’re right.

As the Iraq threat grows more serious, these cultural ambassadors just get sillier. On last week's Sunday "news" shows, while NBC poked at an actual acid-flashback sixties retread, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, CBS and Fox sank into silliness by inviting on celebrity Iraq "experts." Can you imagine being one of the roughly 500 members of Congress who never get invited? If you want to match furrowed brows with Bob Schieffer, it would have been smarter to work first on the sets of "M*A*S*H," or "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

CBS matched savvy National Review editor Rich Lowry with radical-left actors Mike Farrell and Susan Sarandon. This is one week where liberals might have complained about the imbalance to the right, one conservative heavyweight and two leftist lightweights. It was painful to watch, and we were all in trouble when Schieffer began his interview with Farrell by chatting like a smitten fan about how much he loved him as "the other doctor" on "M*A*S*H." I loved that show, too, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to stomp on Farrell's wacky political agenda.

On "Fox News Sunday," Tony Snow was wading warily through the gaseous fog that is Janeane Garofalo's mind. This woman makes Joe Biden look sophisticated. It's apparently riveting TV to match geopolitical wits with the star of "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" as she talks about "Operation Desert Fox." Maybe she’s seen James Mason play Nazi Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in the 1951 movie "Desert Fox." Or maybe she was just thinking about appearing on Fox. Maybe she is a fox. I don’t know.

In yet another appearance on MSNBC, host Mike Barnicle asked Garofalo who was more dangerous, Saddam or President Bush. She claimed "they are both very threatening to world peace and to deny that is to be incredibly naive." Really? Well, sure. “There has been a war on the people of Iraq since 1990. The plan to go into Iraq for hegemony over the region has been in play for a very long time and the ideologues in this administration want to go in."

Spare us. Garofalo here is merely chanting <h3>the mantras of America-loathing crackpots like Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, who spent the 1990s blaming the United States for starving Iraqi children with an embargo, even as Saddam Hussein made food unavailable to his people while he loaded up on weapons manufacturing.</h3>

Giving these "artists" a little room to rant quickly reveals the lie behind their campaign's claim to be a "mainstream voice" for "patriotic Americans." Anyone taking the "artists" seriously must be prepared to deny the truth that the Sheen-Garofalo-Farrell-Sarandon crowd represent a hard-left fringe, decidedly outside the American mainstream on war and peace, and nearly everything else.

I believe the challenges we face are too serious to play jokes on the American people. But then I consider that on the brink of war, we deserve a few laughs to ease the pressure. So I look forward to the next Garofalo interview.

Is the "Robertson" who you referred to in your post, the same CNN "demon" who Bozell is attacking in the following column?

Quote:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20061025.asp
CNN, Stenographer to Terror
by L. Brent Bozell III
October 25, 2006

Our news media have long lectured us that their role is not to be “stenographers to power.” Theirs is the pursuit of truth, we are told. But when it comes to networks like CNN, those ethical rules are crumpled and tossed into the nearest trash bin.

Editorial writers at the Washington Post and elsewhere have raged against the Pentagon placing positive stories in Iraqi newspapers, thus violating the journalistic sacristy of objectivity. But they have no rage at all for CNN placing glorifying publicity from terrorists on a global television network.

On the October 18 edition of “Anderson Cooper 360,” CNN aired a story by reporter Michael Ware, an Australian correspondent renowned for his contacts with terrorist groups. The story showed video filmed by terrorists calling themselves the Islamic Army of Iraq. From the very start, the viewer sees this for what it is: enemy propaganda. The grainy video shows Islamic terrorist snipers time and again shooting and presumably killing American boys.

(CNN, bless its heart, cut the footage just before each bullet found its mark, but not before the sound of the rifle fire that launched it.)

Here’s what CNN also aired, without editorial comment of any sort, as “news”: The translator has the terrorists saying they should wait to shoot the American soldier, since there are innocent “people” around. Later in the report, the shooter claims to be trying to target an American soldier, not Iraqis. Since when have these insurgent murderers cared about killing Iraqi soldiers or civilians? They’ve massacred thousands with remorseless regularity.

The video is sickening. Imagine being the mother or father, sister, brother, wife or child of that American soldier murdered so brutally.

So why did CNN air something that cannot be defended as newsworthy? That video was given to CNN by terrorists in order to demoralize the American people about the hopelessness of Iraq just before midterm elections. And CNN did exactly what the terrorists wanted, and CNN knows it. In his introduction that night, Anderson Cooper said, “insurgents” – never terrorists, mind you, always “insurgents” – were “delivering a deadly message, aiming for a global audience.” CNN is the terrorist’s messenger service, FedEx for the fanatics who want us dead.

It’s part of a long and increasingly shameful history. CNN first came to prominence as a tyrant’s bootlicker in the first Gulf War in 1991, when the network agreed to allow Saddam Hussein to edit its reports in return for preferential access in Baghdad. Once entrenched, the perpetually embarrassing Peter Arnett reported on the Allied bombing of baby-milk factories – that weren’t baby-milk factories. CNN didn’t fire Arnett. They retained him even after his atrocious 1998 CNN-Time documentary asserting that Americans gassed their own soldiers in Laos, another story that fell apart under scrutiny. Sense a trend? CNN seems eager to pounce on stories that make Americans look evil and/or lethally incompetent. Whether they are true is irrelevant.

The story of evil in a foreign land was easily crumpled by CNN in a slavish desire for access. In April 2003, days after Saddam Hussein fell, CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan wrote an op-ed in the New York Times admitting he had scrapped stories from Iraq out of fear of violence from Saddam’s regime. He struggled to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open, but couldn’t seem to report vital news, even news that his own producers were subjected to electroshock torture. His career at CNN didn’t end until he recklessly claimed American soldiers were targeting reporters for assassination in Iraq.

This isn’t even the first occasion of CNN being used as a terrorist sock puppet this year. <b>In July, CNN’s Nic Robertson traveled into a heavily damaged Beirut, Lebanon neighborhood</b> to decry Israel for bombing civilian areas. It also transpired that all along, he was being escorted by and taking instructions from the terrorist organization Hezbollah. The Hezbollah “press officer” even instructed the CNN camera: “Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?” Robertson later claimed Hezbollah had “very, very sophisticated” press operations and the terrorist group “had control of the situation.” Hezbollah had control of CNN.

It’s also not the first terrorist video distributed by Michael Ware. In 2004, when Ware was a Time reporter, he was handed an insurgent videotape of the killing of American contractors in Fallujah. Ware confessed, like Robertson, to losing control of the situation with terrorists: “I certainly go out there and expose myself. I've been to the safe houses. I surrender myself to their control. I've sat in living rooms face-to-face with these men," he said.

He surrenders himself to terrorist control. This from the man who works for CNN – the network whose role is not to be a “stenographer to power.”

powerclown · 01-21-2007, 11:03 PM

I've never heard of Bozell.
I was referring to 'Pat' Robertson as conservative ideologue.
Calm down, I said independent war reporting is a good thing.
It needs to be objective and historically accurate is my point.
Poorly and obviously photoshopped propaganda photos for example.
Biased stories from the field concerning the actions of individual soldiers.
What do we think of the idea of public election of war reporters?
Or bipartisan congressional election of war reporters?
The perception of a war has become about as relevant as the war itself.

loquitur · 01-22-2007, 07:22 AM

Powerclown, I suspect that the net, with its empowerment of individuals, will have a serious disciplinary effect on the entrenched establishment media. It has already started.

I'm unalterably opposed to any government interference in free speech. I'm from the William Douglas/Hugo Black school on this one.

host · 01-22-2007, 04:35 PM

powerclown, this is where we were:

<i>"Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. "</i>

....and just where is it that you would take us? Mr. B. Bozell III, nephew of William F. Buckley Jr., thinks that he knows....

Quote:

.....Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."....

....and if he succeeds, to me it will mean that many of our soldiers have died on the battlefield for.....what ??? ...and, what are we fighting "to uphold", to "preserve", now, if it has come to what Mr. Bozell and, I am concerned, you also, would want the working press in the U.S., to be...

Quote:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8093
John F. Kennedy
153 - Address "The President and the Press" Before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.
April 27th, 1961

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents......

....I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvaZ9...elated&search=

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. <b>Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control.</b> And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security-and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

<b>That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.</b>

On many earlier occasions, I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

<b>I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.</b>

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America-unions and businessmen and public officials at every level--will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I .am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Note: The President spoke at the annual dinner of the Association's Bureau of Advertising held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. His opening words "Mr. Chairman" referred to Palmer Hoyt, Editor and Publisher of the Denver Post, who acted as chairman of the dinner.

powerclown · 01-22-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I suspect that the net, with its empowerment of individuals, will have a serious disciplinary effect on the entrenched establishment media. It has already started.

I'd be interested to hear further thoughts on the matter.

Some of mine:
"Empowerment of individuals", via the Internet.
Depends what your definition of "empower" is.
Or if empowerment is the correct term to begin with.
Some might say the internet disempowers individuals.
Some might say the internet is an inherently divisive medium.
In some aspects, I see the internet informational arena as an ideological prison system.
People enter and are self-segregated based upon political orientation.
In my experience, the internet encourages people to filter their information to an extent impossible in the age of network news/print media.
Therefore, exposure to new or different ideas is potentially minimized.
This "net segregation" could stand in contrast to the theory of individual empowerment.
The internet could possibly be a tool for closing minds instead of opening them.
Something else:
I notice that the old guard of print journalism in America is merging ever more fully into the segregated internet environment.
Major newspapers are becoming glorified, overstaffed, partisan blogs.
Therefore becoming part of the mind-closing experience.
host, I am for a free and open press. Whatever that is these days.

roachboy · 01-23-2007, 08:00 AM

interesting...
i kinda agree with powerclown.

i am not sure that the net empowers or disempowers individuals, of whether individuals, left to themselves, working on their own, really can have power.
i am not wholly sure i understand the sense in which the fact of having access to a range of information sources constitutes power in any political sense--"personal power" in the sense that any consumer has the power to buy skippy or jiff, scott or charmin, sure: but i do not see any relationship between the "power"--or capacity to make purchases--of a consumer and political power. but this gets into an ideological question--concerning the conservative assumption that political and consumer "power" are linked--which may run off the edge of the thread.

for example: diversifying the range of toilet paper options does not necessarily engender any real upset in larger patterns of toilet paper purchase or usage.

on the other hand: there is something interesting and potentially important about being able to cross out of the national boundaries that are assumed to be impermeable by the various elements of the american system of ideological production.

i found myself in paris for the first gulf war--i arrived the day before the shooting starting---i remember that french television created a broadcast stream for cnn, which was up by the end of the second day--and being able to flip into and out of the american graphics and war music--in and out of the range of acceptable debate within the united states as enframed by cnn wwas very interesting--kind of a jolt no less, an accidental demonstration of the extent to which american television "news" outlets (in particular) consistently shape informational streams and the range of acceptable opinion about those streams--this is one of their more insidiuos ideological functions. opinion management, working on the assumption that the audience is locked into a specific media shell, is influenced in some way by american flag graphics and bigwarmusic and very furrowed anchorbrows, and can be pushed via these devices into a more or less uncritical support for whatever military adventure is on at the moment. that situation--the streaming of cnn alongside french television, which was not at all operating in the same way as cnn (at the most basic level, tv does not have the same social status in france as it does in the states--and i think the importance of television and information and communitysource in the states is a HUGE political problem)---was effectively one in which it was hard NOT to develop a critique of how the american press sells the political policies of the administration in power regardless of what administration it is, regardless of what policy it is. but it did not lead you to any particular alternative position. it just made you aware of the extent to which american information is presented in tightly packaged, highly political ways.

i dont think the net provides this kind of experience: perhaps because the dominant medium is print, which is abstract and silent, where war marketing is noisy and full of twitching movement framed with american flag graphics of varying cheese levels. perhaps it is a function of the reversal of information source priorities in the states, where it sometimes appears that print follows television, is shaped by television, both in terms of information presentation (short, snappy, stupid) and ownership--so that (against all reason) print is ancillary to television. all these illusions of objectivity that follow from video footage as over against the distance that writing imposes on events described by its nature: maybe people feel closer to "reality" because they watch footage (highly edited, tightly framed, but no matter---loookit that shit blow up...yee hah) if that is true, then what powerclown argues above would follow: people in the states are not forming their political dispositions mediated by print--they form them around television and to a lesser extent radio--and if that is true, the illusion of immediacy crossed with the no-effort consumption required to take television at all seriously as a nyews source would be of a piece with the rigidty of dispositions....

gotta go.

01-18-2007, 05:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
florida0214 Crazy Location: South Florida	What about Iraq? Let's say that you became president tomorrow. What would you do about Iraq? Understand that no matter what you do you will get bashed in this forum. Please make your answers logical and reasonable. Thats it. No rules. I will not be critisizing people at all. I not make anyboody feel stupid for any answer they give. I am not that smart anyway. If i give my answer people will likely not answer because then this has become a way to spread my opinion. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. share it. You will not change anything by listing it here, but at least everybody will know that if you are complaining you are doing it becuase you feele that there has been an obvious shortcoming and you think that it can be fixed and here is how it should be done. Thank you. __________________ "Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right." Last edited by florida0214; 01-18-2007 at 06:07 AM.. Reason: change in format

01-18-2007, 06:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I cruised by this one the first time, saw that you basically tried to put any respondent on a tee so that you could bash away at them for disagreeing with you and kept on going. At least you've opened this up to allow some dissenting opinions. That said, if I magically became the President, I would start by maintaining the status quo for a few months since I think that would eventually benefit everyone (except, of course, the poor souls caught up in the violence). Then I would quietly start trying to ressurect the coalition from Gulf War I to act as a peacekeeping force, with particular attention paid to Arab countries, especially the larger ones. Getting cooperation from the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians would be very useful. I'd probably also try to tap the Palestinians to give it an even greater air of legitimacy. Obviously the Europeans would contribute, but the majority of the boots on the ground would be Middle Eastern. The big problem with this tactic would be who would command it, and it's painfully obvious that an American or European could never try to lead or have any real measure of success if they did. To cover that base, I'd either reach out to the UN (which is problematic in and of itself) or someone like South Africa or Argentina (just to pick a couple) to act as the overall commander. I'd also try to get the Syrians involved, and possibily the Iranians. Having co-religionists of the various factions would be a big help, but this would be a very complex coalition that would require a lot of management (for instance, you couldn't station Turkish troops in the north without destabalising Iraqi Kurdistan). American troops would need to continue to be involved, and it would cost a lot of political capital to get the Pentagon to let foreign militaries to command US troops. I wouldn't count on reelection, but I don't want the job in the first place. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-18-2007, 06:49 AM	#5 (permalink)
florida0214 Crazy Location: South Florida	Thats awesome. Do feel that all those countries would or could actualy work together? Middle eastern countries generally dislike each other, but they do have a common dislike. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The UN commands American troops, but it is neither foreign nor American. Maybe middle eastern countires would jump at the chance to put some of their people into another country. Who knows I guess. __________________ "Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."

01-18-2007, 02:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Yeah, I don't see separation of church and state expanding beyond Turkey anytime soon. However, we're dealing with a strictly theoretical world here, so in a world that no longer needs oil, I think that there are going to be a lot of really serious problems in the short term since that's what 75% of the Middle East survives on. I would immediately expect an incresae in drug trafficking and use along the metoric crash of most governments. I see lots of dust and no settling anytime soon. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-21-2007, 09:17 PM	#33 (permalink)
Lizra Insane Location: rural Indiana	host...your friends are too young to actually know what when down.....I wonder how they can be so sure? The documentary I saw on PBS last fall had much compelling footage and current news reports of the day confirming the Armenian genocide. Today's young Turks didn't do these horrible things....you think they'd want to right the wrongs from the past and move on to better things. __________________ Happy atheist

01-18-2007, 06:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The way you've set this up, despite the guise of an open question, no opinion but yours is a valid answer, and if my opinion differs from yours and is therefore invalid, I should just shut up and let the President drag us down into hell. I'm not playing that game with you. If you're interested in what I think, I'll tell you. What you've posted here, though, is a transparent commercial for your point of view.

01-18-2007, 09:01 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	This isn't a well thought out plan but here are some ideas that I have. Split Iraq into 3 separate either nations or states. In the case of states we would need some form of government to unite them and provide fair representation. Something similar to our congress without all the fat would do. US troops would leave all cities and base themselves in rural areas on alert to enter a city if it is needed. The peacekeeping of the cities would be left up to the local Iraqi forces, which would be supplied and trained by US troops. If cities have no problems then troops around those cities would be moved near cites that have problems. I'm sure I could add a lot more but I have to get to work soon. The big thing here is the Iraqi forces will not be able to stand on their own until we make them stand on their own and they won't have authority over the people until they earn it from the people. We need to make the Iraqi forces earn their keep and they will not do that with us constantly holding their hand.

01-18-2007, 09:21 AM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Immediate investigations into each and every American company rebuilding Iraq. After confirming they are all cutting corners and cheating, fire them and put the appropriate people on trial. Hire Iraqi firms to rebuild Iraq. Compact our military presence. All soldiers will be in very large groups in heavily fortified positions. No more BS walking up and down the streets. If there is a disturbance, a shitload of troops are sent to take care of it, and then they come back to their fortified positions. After it's clear that casualties are decreasing, then we stat a withdrawl over the next 8 months. The troops that remain will be stricktly for training Iraqi police. We apologize to the Iraqi people, we apologize to our allies, we apologize to the UN, and we agree to purchase at a fair price oil from Iraq if they can maintain peace. If they can't get their shit together, we don't buy their oil anymore and we convince as many of our allies as possible to do the same. Give them positive reinforcement.

01-20-2007, 04:01 PM	#14 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...139643041382&q Ron Paul speaks in Congress about how US tries to maintain the fact that oil is sold in dollars. In 2000 Iraq switched to euros - it was invaded, now Iraqi oil is sold in dollars. Venezuela had the same ideea - in 2001 there was a coup backed by CIA Now it's Iran Ron Paul seems to be a wise man I hope he makes himself heard

01-21-2007, 07:16 AM	#15 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	If we found a credible non-petroleum source of energy tomorrow, the Arab world would rapidly sink into a state much like most of Africa, but with one difference: it would continue to export violence, at least for a while. Eventually it would peter out. Sad but true. In the long term they'll probably wake up and try to become like Singapore or Hong Kong, or even India, but it will take a while. Right now their culture is seriously dysfunctional - too much belief in conspiracy theories, too little social infrastructure beyond religion and clans. The situation in Iraq underscores for me the continuing validity of the Powell Doctrine: never go into a war with less than overwhelming force, and be sure to have defined objectives and a clear exit strategy or strategies. Shinseki's original war plan was the correct one: with more troops the US could have sealed the borders, prevented militias from getting arms and put down any insurgency. Our troops would mostly be home already. Iraq would be muddling through imperfectly, but in better shape than it is now. The current planned surge isn't big enough to accomplish what needs to get done and the situation now is probably much more difficult than it otherwise would have been.

01-21-2007, 11:37 AM	#16 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Well said... I agree with the Africa analogy as well. I wonder what it will take for the cultural switch to a Singapore or India.

01-21-2007, 12:37 PM	#17 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'd have some motherfuckin ninjas go over there and sort that shit out.

01-21-2007, 01:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	A 6-man team of ninjas into Iraq (or 1 Chuck Norris), and Bush gets elected to a 3rd term. CHUCK NORRIS FACTS 1. Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People. 2. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live. 3. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits. 4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain. 5. There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist. 6. Chuck Norris has two speeds. Walk, and Kill. 7. The leading causes of death in the United States are: 1. Heart Disease 2. Chuck Norris 3. Cancer 8. Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls. 9. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris. 10. The former USSR quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on satellite. 11. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down. 12. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris. 13. Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head. 14. Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink. 15. Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is. 16. Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting.... CHUCK NORRIS GOES KILLING

01-21-2007, 02:09 PM	#21 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	"War is Cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." General William Tecumseh Sherman, 1879

01-21-2007, 03:17 PM	#23 (permalink)
host Banned	Chimera, ....we've lost 27 more US troops in just the last 3 days. The US invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to it's security, and no threat to the secuirty of it's neighbors. I have posted quotes of that opinion that Iraq was not a military threat, starting with Powell and Tenet in Feb., 2001, Rice in July, 2001, and Cheney on Sept., 16, 2001. The US removed the head of state of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and disbanded the military and the police. Under Saddam, the social and political "order" imposed by the British in the early 1920's..... i.e., minority sunni rule of the country, had changed from the British installed sunni monarchy to a secular sunni dictator. The 1920's British arabist expert, Gertrude Bell, who drew the borders of the new "Iraq", considered the political realities of the region. The remnant of the seat of the old Ottoman empire, Turkey, would not tolerate an independent Kurdish state in the north, and the Kurds refused annexation by Turkey. That stalemate has not changed. The sunni were judged by Bell to be the only Islamic sect in the new Iraqi state who were capable and unencumbered enough by Islamic mullahs religious edicts to entrust with transfer of power from British rule to "home" rule. They also happened to be concentrated in the center of the newly creaed state, near Baghdad, and importantly, sunni rule influenced the sunni Saudis to end their claims on southern border arears of Iraq. Saudi Arabia has warned the US that they will balance the sunni disadvantage in Iraq, if the US withdraws. Saddam was tasked, in order to maintain his power and to avoid assassination, with a balancing act that required playing one competing faction against another in Iraq. He minimized the 1200 years of strife between the sunni minority, and the far more numerous shi'a, caused by the assassination of the shi'a imam, Ali, in a mosque in Najif, back in the 700's, by minimizing the influence of islam in Iraqi politics and society. Iraqi women enjoyed the most equality in the Arab world. Saddam offset religious and familial ties between the shi'a majority in the south and Iraq's neighbor, Iran, via a military rivalry that included an 8 year war. He responded to Kurdish ambitions for independence by brutal repression of their population and politcal leadership. If Saddam did not do this, Turkey would have encroached on Iraq's sovereignty to do it themselves. The 1920's British partition solution of Iraq did not have to consider the "problem" of the location of since discovered petroleum reserves and the formula for distributing the financial proceeds to the competing ethnic, religious, and political interests. The areas where sunnis are concentrated do not contain oil reserves, but sunnis ruled the country, so this was not the problem that it has become now. Like it or not....rule of Iraq by Saddam was the closest arrangement to the British designed power balancing act of 85 years ago. The British design, and the borders that were drawn, brought stability to the region. It was not a "fair" design for the kurds, and certainly not for the shi'a. The sunnis are now living the consequences of a minority that inherited the authority from the British to rule the country. Churchill and Bell were sophisticated enough to know that control of the larger shi'a and kurdish populations by the sunnis who comprise only 20 percent of the population and who bore 1200 years of animosity from the 60 percent of Iraqis who are shi'a because of Ali's assassination, and the challenge of keeping Iranian shi'as on the other side of the new border, could only be accomplished by a repressive sunni regime. Chimera, while Churchill and Bell designed borders and a political power transfer that took into account, and responded to successfully for a suprisingly long time......all of the challenges to stability of competing interests and grievances in the region, and did not have the enormous challenge of equitable distribution of later discovered petroleum reserves to solve, I see nothing in your proposals, or in any of the others posted on this thread, that considers the details of the actual problems to be solved, the interests to be balanced, or the acceptance of responsibility by the fictional future POTUS, for the US administration's sudden destabilization of the region, in the first place. I do see similar clueless naivete and hubris, to that exhibited by the US administration that wrecked regional stability in the first place. The only solution that I see that would restore regional stability is installation by the US of a new sunni strongman, protected from the shi'a in Iraq and in Iran, by the US, along with US "control" of kurdish ambitions. The US would have the option of reducing the military forces required to prop up the "new guy", if it engaged in a pre-emptive campaign to reduce Iran's military dominance in the region. I see no other "solution" that deals with the reality that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and will all find it neccessary to involve themselves, respectively, to control the kurds, save the sunnis from ethnic cleansing, unite with shi'a southern Iraq, if a US withdrawal occurs. Partition of Iraq is not an option that enhances regional stability, avoids annihilation of the kurds and the sunnis, or checks the ongoing windfall that Bush has created for Iran.

01-21-2007, 11:03 PM	#35 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I've never heard of Bozell. I was referring to 'Pat' Robertson as conservative ideologue. Calm down, I said independent war reporting is a good thing. It needs to be objective and historically accurate is my point. Poorly and obviously photoshopped propaganda photos for example. Biased stories from the field concerning the actions of individual soldiers. What do we think of the idea of public election of war reporters? Or bipartisan congressional election of war reporters? The perception of a war has become about as relevant as the war itself.

01-22-2007, 07:22 AM	#36 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Powerclown, I suspect that the net, with its empowerment of individuals, will have a serious disciplinary effect on the entrenched establishment media. It has already started. I'm unalterably opposed to any government interference in free speech. I'm from the William Douglas/Hugo Black school on this one.

01-23-2007, 08:00 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	interesting... i kinda agree with powerclown. i am not sure that the net empowers or disempowers individuals, of whether individuals, left to themselves, working on their own, really can have power. i am not wholly sure i understand the sense in which the fact of having access to a range of information sources constitutes power in any political sense--"personal power" in the sense that any consumer has the power to buy skippy or jiff, scott or charmin, sure: but i do not see any relationship between the "power"--or capacity to make purchases--of a consumer and political power. but this gets into an ideological question--concerning the conservative assumption that political and consumer "power" are linked--which may run off the edge of the thread. for example: diversifying the range of toilet paper options does not necessarily engender any real upset in larger patterns of toilet paper purchase or usage. on the other hand: there is something interesting and potentially important about being able to cross out of the national boundaries that are assumed to be impermeable by the various elements of the american system of ideological production. i found myself in paris for the first gulf war--i arrived the day before the shooting starting---i remember that french television created a broadcast stream for cnn, which was up by the end of the second day--and being able to flip into and out of the american graphics and war music--in and out of the range of acceptable debate within the united states as enframed by cnn wwas very interesting--kind of a jolt no less, an accidental demonstration of the extent to which american television "news" outlets (in particular) consistently shape informational streams and the range of acceptable opinion about those streams--this is one of their more insidiuos ideological functions. opinion management, working on the assumption that the audience is locked into a specific media shell, is influenced in some way by american flag graphics and bigwarmusic and very furrowed anchorbrows, and can be pushed via these devices into a more or less uncritical support for whatever military adventure is on at the moment. that situation--the streaming of cnn alongside french television, which was not at all operating in the same way as cnn (at the most basic level, tv does not have the same social status in france as it does in the states--and i think the importance of television and information and communitysource in the states is a HUGE political problem)---was effectively one in which it was hard NOT to develop a critique of how the american press sells the political policies of the administration in power regardless of what administration it is, regardless of what policy it is. but it did not lead you to any particular alternative position. it just made you aware of the extent to which american information is presented in tightly packaged, highly political ways. i dont think the net provides this kind of experience: perhaps because the dominant medium is print, which is abstract and silent, where war marketing is noisy and full of twitching movement framed with american flag graphics of varying cheese levels. perhaps it is a function of the reversal of information source priorities in the states, where it sometimes appears that print follows television, is shaped by television, both in terms of information presentation (short, snappy, stupid) and ownership--so that (against all reason) print is ancillary to television. all these illusions of objectivity that follow from video footage as over against the distance that writing imposes on events described by its nature: maybe people feel closer to "reality" because they watch footage (highly edited, tightly framed, but no matter---loookit that shit blow up...yee hah) if that is true, then what powerclown argues above would follow: people in the states are not forming their political dispositions mediated by print--they form them around television and to a lesser extent radio--and if that is true, the illusion of immediacy crossed with the no-effort consumption required to take television at all seriously as a nyews source would be of a piece with the rigidty of dispositions.... gotta go. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite