A-fucking-men.

Amen.

*proceeds to read the article.*

I long for the day when someone will write a travel article about the unexpected coffee in Baghdad.

Here's just another way the Vietnam analogy falls woefully short. When we left it, the combatants were an endogenous populist movement focused on national independence, and a foreign backed puppet government, supported by apathetic (at best) ARVN troops. The result was that Vietnam gradually tended towards a sort of equilibrium in our absence. No such thing is likely in Iraq. Not only will it tear itself apart, but it's likely to draw in other Shia and Sunni states. This is a no-win situation.

Yes. but a very weary, resigned, sad amen.

Ayyyymen.

My thoughts:
Look, we destabilized a country, so it should not come as surprise that the country is not stable.
I'm glad someone is brave enough to say this. It's a bit sad that I think it's a brave statement to make.

to get the hell out and let what will happen happen.
Well, I don't think the choice has to be between increasing troops and completely withdrawing troops. What happened to diplomacy?

It's always been about the illusion of control.
Amen.

Stop fighting. No fighting, no war.
Well, no war for US. The Iraqis, unfortunately, will continue to fight over the power vacuum we created 5 years ago.

At this point, we have a responsibility to the middle east, a responsibility that no one wants to recognize - no the US, not the UN, and certainly not most of the current middle easter countries. Events that were set in motion over 50 years ago are coming back to haunt us, big time. I don't know if there's a solution.

Thanks for allowing me the pleasure to vent.

But then how will Halliburton make its quarterly profit target? Jon Carroll really needs to think of the bigger picture here.

Keep withdrawing until you see Chicago


A to the Men

Sadly unless Iran disappears and the oil runs out I don't see the occupation ending for at least 40 years.

Amen.

Alas, from his fingers to the floor.

.Keep withdrawing until you see Chicago.

Or Paris, IL.
Or Columbus, TX.
Or Bowden, GA.
Or Winston-Salem, NC.

Amen.

And what happened to diplomacy? Nothing, really. But the thing is, diplomacy and withdrawal are not mutually exclusive. In fact, shuttle diplomacy just might be the way to go. Of course, we'd need an administration that knew actually the meaning of forgotten words like "nuance" and "compromise" and "cooperation."

I'm withdrawing my amen and will keep withdrawing it until I see Chicago. I also reject his "real reality" -- and would happily substitute it with my own, if only I wasn't so damn sleepy.

Well, I don't think the choice has to be between increasing troops and completely withdrawing troops. What happened to diplomacy?

Ironically, the policy the administration has pursued in dealing with North Korea might make the most sense. The aim of the six party talks was to bring all the regional players with a stake in the situation to the table and give them some ownership of the outcomes.

I think he's right about one thing, though: the main reason why more and more American people are against this war is, they don't understand what's happening. Lots of money is being spend and many lives lost, but noone knows, why (and the situation itself isn't really making things easier to understand). They want this to stop because they want things to be clear and simple. The war is not popular because it isn't clear and simple to understand. Columnists like Carroll are popular because they make things easy to understand (although what they say could be wrong or just plain stupid).

What the people who started this war have been very unsuccessful in (they were quite successful in invading and occupying Iraq) is making their point clear. Deep inside, they might know what they want from there, but they've failed to explain in to the American public. They've also failed to explain it to the Iraqi public. They've failed to explain in to the international public. I've no idea why American troops are in Iraq. I know why Estonian troops are in Iraq -- they're there because the Estonian government hopes to profit from this (American aid, etc). This is also why troops from Poland and other countries are there. Them being there is beneficial to America as well. But I've no idea why American troops are in Iraq.

I do have a conspiracy theory, though: maybe the only real aim of the invasion was just that: to destabilize the country (thus also destabilizing the whole region) just enough, at the same time keeping own casualties to a minimum (which is what most of the war money seems to be spent on)?

Yeah, dc. Heck, I listen to NPR every day. I read cnn.com, and sometimes the London Times. I read Bush&co's speechs. I listen to the speeches given by Congress, and even I don't really know why we're in Iraq.

I think a better analogie to Iraq would be Afganistan. Anyone else but me keeping a close eye on the situation with "UN forces" in Afganistan?

even I don't really know why we're in Iraq

Not to be cynical, but this is a political thread ...

Blood and oil; How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches.

100 billion barrels * $50/barrel = $5 trillion.

Biggest prize in play on the planet.

100 billion barrels * $50/barrel = $5 trillion.
*Buys Exxon/Mobil stock*

Well yeah, bigblueroom - this was the pretty obvious reason 3 years ago (hell, even my mom, whom I love, admitted that she voted for bush the second time despite the "War for Oil")...

...gah, this has been a long, bloody 3 years just to protect their profit margins.

AMEN.