And he's only got himself blame for that.Futobingoro said:
As opposed to all the commanders that the Bush administration has fired and whose careers have been ruined because they wouldn't tell Bushco EXACTLY what they wanted to hear? You seem willing to follow whatever feel-good candidate panders to your own sense of privilege and position, and that's just wrong. You are preaching from a position of wealth and power that is unreachable by most US citizens, and if you truly command such a position, you have a responsibility to use it to do some good.cyrusabdollahi said:
I like Charlie Rose too, he used to have a great forum. Still has a good program, don't know half the guest though.cyrusabdollahi said:
Cyrus, the general may be likable, but he is in his position because he is someone that Bush can rely on to spout the party line, despite the reality on the ground in Iraq, and keep running out the clock so Bush can turn over the Iraq problem to his successor. In the meantime, people die, and will keep on dying. How many people must die so that Bush can avoid doing the things that he knows have to be done, including negotiation, political and social reconciliation? These are difficult things under the best of times in a fractious nation, and the Bush administration lacks the talent and skill to engage in this level of diplomacy. His high-ranking officials at State are neocon yes-men, not diplomats.cyrusabdollahi said:
edward said:
You mean Dick Cheney's hand? Oops, sorry that was how Bush was modified. I wonder if Petraeus was modified to accommodate Bush's hand, or if Cheney is ambidextrous.kach22i said:
The guy came to fame with his theoretical work on handling insurgencies. Having been given the opportunity to put his theories into practice it was always certain he wasn't going to debunk his own work by admitting failure which is no doubt why he was chosen for the job in the first place.turbo-1 said:
turbo-1 said:
He said exactly what Bush and his minions have been saying all this time, while they chorused "Wait until General Petraeus' report." to buy more time and let Bush run out the clock. The numbers on violence that Petraeus cited as progress were skewed by the military's interpretation of what is violence. Recently, they decided that if people were killed by car bombs or were shot in the front (as opposed to the back) of the head, their deaths would not be tallied. The general is certainly aware of this sleight of hand. His claims that the surge is working is a lie and he knows it.cyrusabdollahi said:
There should be a diplomatic full-court press going on right now in the Middle East, because we need a regional political effort to stabilize the region. That is not happening. If you think that sending Condi for a photo-op with some Saudis and a couple of Iranians is diplomacy, then Bushco has snowed you, big time. We are embroiled in a civil war touched off by our president and his handlers, and we need ALL the players in the region at the table, and we should not expect to resolve even the simplest problems in weeks or months. Condi is not the War Fairy. She cannot wave her magic wand on a 2-3 day trip and make everything better. She is a neocon political appointee and she does not have credentials as a diplomat.cyrusabdollahi said:
Give up on the "mission"? Iraq cannot be reunited by military force, military tactics, or any other tools available to the military, including partitioning and patrolling the country. Admitting this and urging diplomatic initiatives is the DUTY of the general. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights and guarantee the security of all of us. He did not swear an oath to protect the president from embarrassment or to candy-coat the truth to allow Republicans cover to avoid drawing down troop levels. Petraeus deserves no respect. Far better men than him were driven from their jobs by the neocons because they would not endorse Bush/Cheney's lies. Eventually, they found a compliant puppet (your general) who would play footsie, then they publicly scolded Congress, claiming that those who wished to bring our soldiers home had to wait until General Puppet gave his appraisal of the situation in the fall. Our elected officials timidly agreed to this stalling tactic, knowing that a snow-job was in the works. Every day our soldiers are forced to stay in Iraq is another day that more of them will die. There is NO military objective left in Iraq and Petraeus knows this. He is stalling to buy time for Bushco so that the draw-down, pull-out and diplomatic initiatives will all fall on Bush's sucessor, and that is costing US and Iraqi lives. That is NOT supporting our troops - it is condemning our troops to being targets in an open-ended religious civil war. Apparently you don't have relatives in the active-duty military. I do, and I weigh the actions of our corrupt politicians and their accomplices as if real peoples' lives were in the balance, not just faceless casualty numbers in a news report.cyrusabdollahi said:
turbo-1 said:
"Cut and run"? Why not "setting a surrender date"? You can quote the jingoistic propaganda of the neocons all you like. That does not make them true, or even relevant. It is wrong to kill people (ours or theirs) and it is decidedly wrong to kill people absent a immediate threat from them. The democrats could not bring themselves to force Bushco to set a withdrawal deadline, so they sat back passively and let Bush put up a seemingly inoffensive and charming general and push back any confrontation until after the general had made his assessment - until more months had wasted away and thousands more had been killed.cyrusabdollahi said:
There is NO military solution and NO military role for the US in Iraq, aside from short-term peacekeeping while some responsible people in our government forge a region-wide diplomatic initiative involving all the countries bordering Iraq, and encourage Iraq's neighbors to take on the responsibility of suppressing militias and fostering peaceful re-integration.cyrusabdollahi said:
How many US soldiers do you want to kill for every 1000 barrels of oil? Stealing another country's natural resources is not a reason to attack them and waste the lives or our military forces.cyrusabdollahi said:
Some people are poor, and cannot afford fancy watches, fancy road bikes, and high-priced educations. Often, they see military service as a way to gain technical skills, advance their education, and position themselves for advancement in civilian life, like my cousin and his wife (lifers), my youngest sister's son and his wife (lifers), my cousin's daughter (military law enforcement and national guard) and my niece's husband (also national guard). These people signed up because they thought military service was a calling, and because (despite the low pay and poor benefits) they hoped to come out the other end someday with skills that would let them earn a modest living in civilian life when they retired. They did not sign up to be sitting ducks in a contrived "war" that is sacrificing our young soldiers to the neocon's wet-dream of conquest of the ME and control of their oil reserves. This "war" has nothing to do with the security of the US and its citizens and everything to do with enriching the defense contractors, the oil companies, and their friends. If you want to dismiss the deaths of patriotic American kids because "they signed up", your position is not only short-sighted and cruel, but is enabling of the criminal actions of Bushco. You say that you support Ron Paul, who wants to bring the troops home ASAP. Why? You seem to be really happy with the status-quo.cyrusabdollahi said:
turbo-1 said:
Thousands more were killed. If you don't want to count Iraqi deaths, that's fine, but they're people, too believe it or not, and their lives are just as important as those of our troops.cyrusabdollahi said:
The neighbors of Iraq have a vested interest in seeing Iraq stabilized - unfortunately this US administration has been using the go-it-alone military route instead of engaging in diplomacy. Iran and Syria would gladly sit at the table with the US, but Bush/Cheney do not want to confer any air of legitimacy or partnership on them. Saudi Arabia also would jump into represent their own interests, since they don't want the Shi'ites to gain the upper hand, and Turkey has an interest in keeping the Kurds in check, so they would gladly join any regional negotiations. None of this is daydreaming - it is realistic, and a reasonable person would recognize that.cyrusabdollahi said:
It's easy to demonize others, isn't it?cyrusabdollahi said:
Not everyone, but overwhelmingly the military are recruited from the poor and the lower middle-class. These people didn't sign up to kill people and get killed for no reason. They signed up to defend our country, and their lives are being wasted on a neocon war that was based on lies and deceit. This war is not about defending our country. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, despite the constant conflation by the neocons and their mouthpieces at FOX.cyrusabdollahi said:
I have stated several times that we need to build a regional coalition that will help us stabilize Iraq, so we can withdraw. I never said we should just pull the troops out and leave the place to collapse, so don't put words in my mouth. The problem is that Bush/Cheney will not negotiate with regional players (except perhaps Saudi Arabia), which is the only practical means to cool down the situation. Petraeus could have told Congress that things were going badly, and that the administration must launch a massive diplomatic effort to stabilize the entire region so that we can withdraw. He did not do so, though he knows this is the only way to avoid a wider conflict. If we were to leave Iraq immediately, the Iranians would jump into help the Shi'ites, the Saudi's would jump into help the Sunnis, and it's very likely that Turkey would take advantage of the opportunity to wipe out lots of Kurds. The possibility of a regional war is very real, and European nations whose oil supplies would be threatened might be temped to pick sides, too.cyrusabdollahi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus#2003.E2.80.932004
This is the real key ... and the most frustrating thing about listening to candidates on both sides of the aisle. Iraq is probably going to be fighting a civil war for at least another decade and a plan to handle that scenario just isn't coming from either side. Republicans claim reducing the violence will give the Iraqi government time and space to work things out. Democrats claim removing troops will create the pressure necessary to get the Iraqi government to move. Both ignore the reasons the Iraqi government is unlikely to succeed. None of the groups involved can afford to take the risks necessary to reach a common agreement. That's par for the course. It would take a great Iraqi leader to step up in order to even have a chance, which means even the remote chances are beyond US control.turbo-1 said:
There was no guarantee the military would always ensure troops would spend less than a year in combat with at least two years between deployments, so you have a point. If the military changes their policy to 18 month tours with some troops having only 9 months between tours, then a person in the military just has to deal with it until their commitment is up.cyrusabdollahi said:
turbo-1 said:
You say a lot of "spot-on" things.cyrusabdollahi said:
kach22i said:
Nawwwwwwwwww...Scarborough country maybe (smile).cyrusabdollahi said:You speak as if I am from another country.
Cyrus, all human lives are precious. These people have parents, spouses, children, and they deserve to live in some modicum of peace and security. When you said 300 people had been killed since the beginning of the surge, it was evident that you hold Iraqi lives in no regard. They are the victims of this war, and their lives are on the heads of out government officials that will not pursue all means to ramp down the violence, including talking to and negotiating with people our administration has demonized.cyrusabdollahi said:
Iran has had bad elations with the US because just like now in Iraq, the US imposed regime change on them and set the stage for radical Islamic groups to take over after the Shah was deposed. The US under Eisenhower started Iran's nuclear industry. Moderate groups in Iran have been trying to foster better relations with the US for years, but ultra-conservatives and the Israeli bloc in our government have shot that down.cyrusabdollahi said:
I have stated the obvious. You made the claim that China would grab Iraq's oil and fuel their insurgency with no regard for the consequences. I assume you have some references.cyrusabdollahi said:
The signed up to defend this country. Some of them signed up after 9/11 after Bushco conflated 9/11 and Iraq (the most favorite lie of this administration) and some were hauled back into service because they were members of the National Guard or their reserve time was not up. Since then, even if their reservist obligations have been met, they are prevented from leaving by "stop-loss" regulations. Many of these guys had started small businesses, and have lost their businesses during the repeated deployments, plunging their families into poverty and making them dependent on charity. Nice, huh?cyrusabdollahi said:
You miss the point entirely. The country cannot be stabilized by military occupation and policing patrols. It needs to stabilized by diplomatic initiatives and Bushco refuses to engage in regional diplomacy. Petraeus has said "give us more time", but more time without effective regional diplomacy is simply more killing, and more loss of Iraqi life and US lives. The status quo is not acceptable, since it is simply an extension of the violence, suffering, wounding, and killing. Petraeus gave Bush the cover he needed in Congress to keep killing more Iraqis and more US men and women.cyrusabdollahi said:
Petraeus had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do real good and save lives by pointing out that diplomacy is key, and is largely absent. He squandered that by trading those lives for the chance to save Bush's "policy", which is just keep sacrificing more people until someone sane inhabits the White House. There should be a team of diplomats in a friendly bordering country like Saudi Arabia negotiating around the clock with representatives of the other countries in the region. Why is that not happening?cyrusabdollahi said:
Turbo-1 said:
Slides