dagblog - Comments for "Thousands al Sadr Supporters, Burn US Flags in Baghdad"

And his side-kick Medal of

we are stardust — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:02:15 +0000

In reply to Paul Wolfowitz was a sleeper

And his side-kick Medal of Freedom-winner Paul Bremmer.

Paul Wolfowitz was a sleeper

NCD — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:07:51 +0000

In reply to True that. Imperial Life in

Paul Wolfowitz was a sleeper Maoist Red Guard mastermind with a anti-USA grudge?

It was that cunningly

acanuck — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:57:07 +0000

In reply to True that. Imperial Life in

It was that cunningly executed.

True that. Imperial Life in

acanuck — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:55:58 +0000

In reply to Ten Americans who know what

True that. Imperial Life in the Emerald City may be the best textbook on how not to run a country you've just conquered. I sometimes wonder whether leftover Cold War sleeper cells might have plotted the Iraq fiasco as final, belated revenge on America for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Ten Americans who know what

NCD — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:28:16 +0000

In reply to And did you notice they are

Ten Americans who know what they are doing (multi-lingual, experience in the region, and not newbies from Pat Robertson Univ) would probably be more effective on diplomacy and less a focus of protests/violence than 17,990 obnoxious left overs from the days of Tommy Franks, Paul Bremer or The Surge.

And did you notice they are

we are stardust — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:59:42 +0000

In reply to Right. Just that those are

And did you notice they are increasing the Embassy again, and expect a staff to garrison 18,000 there soon? Wonder where the State Dept. soldiers mercenaries live? Or is that another whole count? Scahill says 50,000 mercs match the 50,000 troops.

Guess we'll see how serious Malaki via al Sadr pressure ends up being.

Karzai seems to use those edicts as a feint; contractors are still there aplenty.

Right. Just that those are

acanuck — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:26:27 +0000

In reply to I'm upset that we had 30,000

Right. Just that those are the costs of going in in the first place, not the costs of leaving. Going in was not only wrong, dishonest and illegal, it was strategically naive and politically and economically stupid. Ditto for trying to stay now. As it stands, the massive and overstaffed embassy complex, built while the neocons dreamed of running an Arabian empire from Baghdad, is going to be a source of friction with the Iraqis for decades to come.

I'm upset that we had 30,000

NCD — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 19:46:59 +0000

In reply to You seem upset with the

I'm upset that we had 30,000 casualties, and near 5,000 dead troops (and perhaps a million Iraqi's, and millions more whose lives are ruined) and expended $2-3 trillion or so all in a cause solely concocted on lies to get George W. Bush re-elected as The War President. And to raid the Treasury for the GOP and their war profiteering backers. As a consequence, we exchanged a Iran/Hezbollah opposing Saddam who kept order in Iraq at no cost to us, and replaced him with a death squad running Mullah backed 100% by the radical 'Death to America' bunch that controls Iran.

Its fine with me if we leave the unstable corrupt country of Iraq that we helped create, we should never have invaded to begin with, I just think the consequences and the cost should be on the front pages of the newspapers.

I think one has to accept

Obey — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:58:10 +0000

In reply to You seem upset with the

I think one has to accept that if the US leaves Iraq, it won't be leaving behind a loving ally and BFF. It's pretty understandable that they don't think of the US invasion with much fondness since their country is destroyed, economy in the toilet, and 5% of the population left dead.

The US unease about the nature of the Iraqi government leaves the country in a kind of bind, doesn't it? We won't leave until it looks like anti-american forces won't wield some power, but the longer we stay the more Iraqis will turn to anti-american parties in anger at the US policy of not leaving. So the longer we stay the less we're willing to leave. It's a catch-22 unless we start to get comfortable with the very idea of Iraqi independence and freedom and democracy. Which was the original goal, wasn't it?

(edit - these comments weren't necessarily directed at Acanuck. Though they obviously feed off of his remarks...)

You seem upset with the

acanuck — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:32:25 +0000

In reply to Thousands al Sadr Supporters, Burn US Flags in Baghdad

You seem upset with the position of this "radical anti-American" cleric, NCD. Why? All he is demanding is that the U.S. abide by its signed, binding agreement with the Iraqi government to pull all troops out this year.

Given Robert Gates's obvious reluctance to ever leave Iraq, shouldn't all right-thinking Americans be thanking al-Sadr for applying the kind of pressure that even the president seems unable to muster? As long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense is exempt from the huge budget cuts the rest of the government can expect. That's the bottom line.