hey ETR

[sinikl]

you're always complaining that all the left does is complain, without offering actual alternative plans.  what do you think of this article?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/the-iraq-debatenew-idea_b_23061.html

interesting stuff to me, and at least in the intro, seems pretty balanced to me. i plan to stay tuned for the other plans he describes...

[ErikTheRed]

Ill read it later, Im on my way to the lake.

[sinikl]

Ill read it later, Im on my way to the lake.

have fun. i hope for your sake you don't have a boat.... my dad refers to the bug as a landgoing boat "because a boat is a hole in the water you throw money into" ... i can't imagine having a boat and a VW

[Clint Ormosen]

He has both. 

[ErikTheRed]

what do you think of this article?

Firstly, I think many of his comments are A-typical Democrat. "Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic"? If I had a nickle for everytime I've heard a Dem spout off with that line........thats straight from the Lib playbook. And so is his overall ideology about "Iraq is all our fault, we've made a mess, we shouldnt have gone there in the first place, Bush screwed it all up, the White House lies to us" (which means he's another one who gets the bulk of his info from the mainstream Libmedia), so as far as all that goes he sounds like a textbook Democrat. The one comment that really planted his feet solidly in Liberal concrete was "The war in Iraq is the biggest problem facing America." See, this is what gets me. Dems are so blinded by the war in Iraq, and the evil Republican regime that initiated this conspiracy, that most of them have completely forgotten about America's real #1 concern--- which is the safety and security of our Nation from the many threats facing us currently, including the VERY real and significant threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

His comments about "political, partisan mudsliging" are interesting, but only hold truth if he is aiming those comments at Democrats, who are by far and large the biggest contributers to partisan hatred in this country and within our government.

What do I think of the "plan"? Ill be honest-- I think its a great theory, fun to think about in the realm of "wouldnt it be great if.........". And thats the problem with most Democrat "plans"--- they rely on a significant amount of fantasy, and lend heavily to situations that could VERY likely never happen. Expecting a country divided by hatred and opposing religious theology to just "agree to go to their own corners" and live happily ever after because they get a few bucks from the agreement is downright ridiculous, in my opinion. Its one of those "no duh" plans, but it doesnt have any roots. Here, how about this plan, my plan..............Tell everyone in Iraq to stop fighting and dissagreeing, because its really bad and people are getting hurt and killed. There. How bout that? Sound like a good plan? Of course it sounds like a good plan. And there you have a page from the Liberal playbook, which derives from the false notion that these people, who know NOTHING of Westernized freedoms and only know a life of conflict and hatred and turmoil and corruption, will simply agree to see things our way and do it like we do it. Thats the goal anyway, right? Of course it is.......but its gonna take alot more than an offer of some cash and their own private 1/3 of the country. You see, this plan requires an agreement to cooexist peacefully, separated by their own boundaries. Isnt this the idea of life globally? Isnt this why there are several hundred different countries within the world, all separated by borders and different politics, religions, economies, and ways of life? I believe it is, and this being the case, why then have we ever seen a war? An invasion? An attack from one country to another, across their borders? How can this be, if we're all supposed to just keep to ourselves and maintain the peace from within our own little circles? The "Biden" plan seems to seek whats already globally commonplace, but do it within their country-- in esscence, to divide Iraq into 3 different "states", shall we say, with Baghdad as the "capital". It seeks to say, "OK everyone, now go to your own state and keep quiet. In return, you'll receive a "budget" to spend as you see fit, and you're responsible for your own laws and regulations." Hmmmm, this sounds oddly similar to life here in the states--- a country divided by individual states, responsible for themselves, but with higher, universal sanctioning at the federal level. Wouldnt be great if? Yes, but one fatal flaw-- these are not Americans, they're not familiar with peace and freedom and religious diversity. They will not ascimilate to our ideals simply by telling them, "hey, check this out-- we think its a great idea." Many Iraqis would welcome the idea, obviously-- but its not the agreeable ones we have issue with, now is it? If this simpleton "plan" were to actually work, than I would think this idea should be adopted globally and never again will we have to concern ourselves with terrorism, psychotic rulers of other Nations, invasions or attacks, and we wont need to worry about Iran or North Korea gaining the ability to launch nuclear weapons.......and why should we? I mean, we all have our own peaceful corners of the Earth, right? No need for conflict! We could all disarm our military, dismantle all of our bombs, planes, tanks, and send all of our troops home. Think of the billions of dollars saved on military budgets! And of course, because we'll all just agree to get along!

Id like to think it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand the "Biden Plan" is great in theory, but implemtation lies within the realm of typical Democrat fantasy. I encourage the ideas, but the ideas need to go beyond the obvious. I dont have all the answers either, but it seems perfectly logical to understand that in order to cure the problems in Iraq, the offenders who disrupt any chance of a peaceful Nation need to be eliminated, not told "go to your corner and be a good boy." And in order to eliminate the offenders, war and violance and *EEEEEK*, even death is going to be necessary.

Say you have a quaint, peaceful lilly pond on your property, full of brown trout and frogs and minnows, and everything is fine and dandy. But then, a few pirahna get in there and screw up the peace and tranquility, start eating the minnows and froggies and tearing the brown trout into pieces. Whats your plan? Are you going to have a diplomatic talk with the pirahna and tell them to keep to their side of the pond and leave the other fish alone, in exchange for some nibblets of fish food?

[sinikl]

Firstly, I think many of his comments are A-typical Democrat.

i think you mean typical. atypical means not typical.

i think it's sort of dumb to point out he uses the lingo of the left. you like to do that a lot in political arguments... "look everybody, this guy is a gasp LIBERAL... oogie boogie! eeeevil."   well duh. lefties use lefty catch phrases, and conservatives do the same.  if i had a dollar for every time i'd heard 'war on terra'" or protecting the homeland or freedom blah blah... in the past 5 yrs... you get the point.  you can't knock the guy for using the lexicon of his beliefs. not agree wiith it maybe, but you get no debate points for going "look -- he's a liberal" (well, DUH.)  of course he is, but let's move on.

"Iraq is all our fault, we've made a mess, we shouldnt have gone there in the first place, Bush screwed it all up, the White House lies to us" (which means he's another one who gets the bulk of his info from the mainstream Libmedia), so as far as all that goes he sounds like a textbook Democrat.

again, i didn't post this so you could go "here's Pat Robertson wearing a Kerry mask -- i like this guy!"   it should not be surprising that he says Lefty things.  how bout we argue about that (true, very Dem of him) point -- are we not to blame, at least in some small part, for what's going on in iraq?  was there a civil war before? were there car bombings daily before we got there? can you see how not having stuff like electricity and water (that we blew up) would contribute to hostility to the occupier? 

whether or not you think "they had it coming," (i'm sure you think they did), i think he makes a good point that we are now hated for being the invader and occupier, and not having a clear plan for what we're doing while we're there.  things aren't improving, they're getting worse the longer we stay.  we gotta figure out what our goal is and get somewhere.

The one comment that really planted his feet solidly in Liberal concrete was "The war in Iraq is the biggest problem facing America." See, this is what gets me. Dems are so blinded by the war in Iraq, and the evil Republican regime that initiated this conspiracy, that most of them have completely forgotten about America's real #1 concern--- which is the safety and security of our Nation from the many threats facing us currently, including the VERY real and significant threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

i think his point is that what we're up to over there, while begun with the goal of making us safer,  is now *counterproductive* in terms of achieving your stated goal of more security.  terrorism in iraq is UP since we showed up, not down.

i liked the fact that the guy says "hey, the idea of just whoop! up and leaving is a fantasy."  that is atypical lefty.  we can't just "cut and run" (wow, that's a Fox News byword if i ever heard one). also i was intrigued by the "we need MORE troops there to prevent playing 'whack a mole'" argument (great analogy).

What do I think of the "plan"? Ill be honest-- I think its a great theory, fun to think about in the realm of "wouldnt it be great if.........".

i was kind of not swayed by the "teeth" part of the plan either. play nice or no money tends not to hold water w/ ppl who think of themselves as oppressed -- just look at the colonies versus England... play nice or get punitively taxed! oh no thanks, actually, how bout we just secede.

so on this one you and i kind of agree.

And thats the problem with most Democrat "plans"--- they rely on a significant amount of fantasy ...Of course it sounds like a good plan. And there you have a page from the Liberal playbook, which derives from the false notion that these people, who know NOTHING of Westernized freedoms and only know a life of conflict and hatred and turmoil and corruption, will simply agree to see things our way and do it like we do it.
...

The "Biden" plan seems to seek whats already globally commonplace, but do it within their country-- in esscence, to divide Iraq into 3 different "states", shall we say, with Baghdad as the "capital". It seeks to say, "OK everyone, now go to your own state and keep quiet. In return, you'll receive a "budget" to spend as you see fit, and you're responsible for your own laws and regulations." Hmmmm, this sounds oddly similar to life here in the states--- a country divided by individual states, responsible for themselves, but with higher, universal sanctioning at the federal level. Wouldnt be great if? Yes, but one fatal flaw-- these are not Americans, they're not familiar with peace and freedom and religious diversity. They will not ascimilate to our ideals simply by telling them, "hey, check this out-- we think its a great idea." Many Iraqis would welcome the idea, obviously-- but its not the agreeable ones we have issue with, now is it?

i think this is your best point. it's very rousseau:  we need government because man is imperfect, so we can't base government on what a perfect man or a perfect society would do.  the problem that that leaves you with, however, is that a cynical, pessimistic-about-the-nature-of-man starting point presupposes you to like a pretty harsh, undemocratic government "solution."  screw what the people say, we'll give them what they *really* would want, if they were smart enough to know better, and so on.  if i have to err, i'd rather err on the optimistic side.  but your analysis here is pretty trenchant.

but it's also interesting to me that your argument about the impossibility of spreading freedom and democracy to brutish savage enemy states seems to fly in the face of at least some of the right's justifications for the war.  are you saying you don't buy the Bush administration's propaganda? is freedom not "on the march" anymore? are we not making "the world safe for democracy" anymore?  if not, then why did we invade? wasn't WMD (well, it was, but we backed off that when we didn't find any), it was to promote freedom, i thought. you're saying it wasn't? gasp!


ultimately, i agree that (over)optimism is at the heart of the weaknesses of the plan.  but i think it's somewhat disingenous to point out that "those dang democrats are pie in the sky dreamers" when the logic of the right, which has been employed *in actual fact* (not dreamland) for the past 6 yrs ain't exactly doing too great.  it would seem that your side's "practical, common sense" logic is not paying off too well either.  the guy is a former soldier, and he says he wants more troops there, so i don't think he's necessarily afraid of war and violence -- but maybe guided by a different vision than we're using now.

i liked a timetable for withdrawal, i liked point 5 ("contact group").  i'm suspicious that the "give oil money to the sunnis" will just occasion more scapegoating; remember the Nazi "it's the Jews'fault the Weimar republic screwed you good German folks over! Look at this ridiculous treaty they signed forcing us to pay war reparations!"... replace Jew with Sunni, oil revenue for WWI reparations and you're off to the races.


supposing we were to leave, how would you do it? or do we just stay there forever?

[ErikTheRed]

i think you mean typical. atypical means not typical.

Ooops, right you are........I dont know why the hell I said (typed) that.

i think it's sort of dumb to point out he uses the lingo of the left. you like to do that a lot in political arguments... "look everybody, this guy is a gasp LIBERAL... oogie boogie! eeeevil." well duh. lefties use lefty catch phrases, and conservatives do the same. if i had a dollar for every time i'd heard 'war on terra'" or protecting the homeland or freedom blah blah... in the past 5 yrs... you get the point. you can't knock the guy for using the lexicon of his beliefs. not agree wiith it maybe, but you get no debate points for going "look -- he's a liberal" (well, DUH.) of course he is, but let's move on.

I was only qualifying him as a typical lefty, based on his phrases such as the one about the Titanic. Why cant they come up with something more creative? Something that means the same thing, but said differently? "The war on terror" is what it is, I dont catagorize that as a "catch phrase". Thats like saying "World War 2" is a catch phrase.?. I was only setting the stage, not trying to point out the obvious. And, because its irritating.

whether or not you think "they had it coming," (i'm sure you think they did), i think he makes a good point that we are now hated for being the invader and occupier, and not having a clear plan for what we're doing while we're there. things aren't improving, they're getting worse the longer we stay. we gotta figure out what our goal is and get somewhere.

Before I get into this with arguement about "how we're hated" and all that nonsense, Id like to ask a question........

Where are you getting such information from?

i think his point is that what we're up to over there, while begun with the goal of making us safer, is now *counterproductive* in terms of achieving your stated goal of more security. terrorism in iraq is UP since we showed up, not down.

Again, Id really like to verify the source of this information before I waste time argueing it.

but it's also interesting to me that your argument about the impossibility of spreading freedom and democracy to brutish savage enemy states seems to fly in the face of at least some of the right's justifications for the war. are you saying you don't buy the Bush administration's propaganda? is freedom not "on the march" anymore? are we not making "the world safe for democracy" anymore? if not, then why did we invade? wasn't WMD (well, it was, but we backed off that when we didn't find any), it was to promote freedom, i thought. you're saying it wasn't? gasp!

As I was writing that, I was fairly certain this would come up. I was kinda hoping the difference would be obvious, but maybe it isnt.....so Ill clarify........ the "Biden" approach vs. the "Bush" one.......

The "Biden Plan" suggests we are dealing with reasonable and understanding people who could simply be bartered into a peace agreement, and who will gladly sit and listen to talks about freedom and democracy. Or, maybe if we just ask nicely, they'll comply. Thier idea of "spreading democracy" is talk nice, be nice, play nice, and we'll all live happily ever after because they'll "understand" its the right thing to do. For their cooperation, we'll reward them with some money and some land to call their own. Yes, the idea is to promote peace and stability in the region. Problem is, again, we are not dealing with people who know anything about peace and freedom and democracy-- they only know violence and conflict in order to force those who dissagree into submission, as Saddam did for so many years. There was no "peace" for their citizens before we arrived, unless you consider "scared sh*tless" a form of peace. This region of the world is torn by decades of racial and religious conflict, its the only life they know. Freedom and peace is as foreign to them as their way of life is to us, possibly even more so. The "Bush Plan" seeks to promote peace and freedom as well, but using a much more realistic approach--- serve those who desire peace, fight for those who want to live free from oppression, and promise to eliminate the violence and evil and those who stand against those ideals--- no matter the length of time or the amount of money required--- not because we want to shove our way of life down their throats, but becasue its every human's right to live free from harm and oppression and fear of death. Millions of people over there want freedom and praise their God everyday that we are there fighting for that right. The "insurgents" are who we're fighting against, the minority group who desire conflict and oppression--- not Iraqis as a nation. Talks dont work once things are at this level, its been shown over and over and over again. Hey, why didnt we just politely ask the Japanese to go away and stop bombing Pearl Harbor? Why couldnt we just sit down with Hitler over tea and strumpets to discuss our differences? During the Cold War or the Cuban Missle Crisis, why didnt we invite them all to the White House lawn for some bbq and a nice game of croquet, and solve our issues over a keg of Boston's finest? Diplomacy is our first line of defense..........when that fails, its time for guns, planes, tanks and troops. Further diplomacy shows fear and vulnerability, and thats exactly how terrorists and tyrannical leaders of other violent nations perceive it. You Dems think that because Bush isnt afraid to use the military, automatically he's a war-mongering battle freak just looking for reasons to blow something up. This notion is predisposed by Libs, the original cause or intent is irrelevent. As difficult as it may be for you people to understand, and apparently its quite difficult, war and conflict is sometimes, often times, the only viable option to promote peace and freedom...... as weird as that may sound. Hell man, its how YOU got YOURS, if you'll recall. Freedom isnt free, its not even cheap, and it certainly isnt as easy as just "asking nicely".

ultimately, i agree that (over)optimism is at the heart of the weaknesses of the plan.

Optimism doesnt solve issues, and pessimism only serves to make a possible solution impossible. The key is to be a realist.

 

but i think it's somewhat disingenous to point out that "those dang democrats are pie in the sky dreamers"

When the Dems come up with real, logical, workable ideas that arent "pie in the sky dreams", then Ill stop calling them that. Agreed?

when the logic of the right, which has been employed *in actual fact* (not dreamland) for the past 6 yrs ain't exactly doing too great. it would seem that your side's "practical, common sense" logic is not paying off too well either.

AGAIN I must ask where your information is being derived? Seriously man, I need to know where this info is comming from before I can even begin to argue any of it.........because compared to my understanding, its all outta whack and sounds exactly like the stuff Connie Chung, Dan Rather, and the Associated Press come up with.......which is hardly the news, and a far cry from the truth.

i liked a timetable for withdrawal

What is it with you Libs and this freakish fixation on a "timetable for withdrawl"? How bout, "when the job is done?" You guys seem to reeeeeealy wanna be the cowboys who saved the war and brought our troops home. YAY for the Dems! They ended the war! They saved our troops! Piss on the Iraqis, piss on our mission, and who gives a hairy rats butt about freedom, peace, or stability, just STOP FIGHTING!! "Troop withdrawl" will only serve to satisfy the other screaming, arm-flailing Libs in this country, and will no doubt satisfy their voting constituents, but it wont solve a damn thing overseas. But who cares, thats not the real objective anyway, right? As Ive explained a thousand times before, war isnt good but it serves a purpose. Try focusing alittle more on the "purpose" part and less on the "it isnt good" part.

supposing we were to leave, how would you do it? or do we just stay there forever?

So its "leave now" or "stay there forever"? Theres no middle-ground compromise? Im partial to something like this..........

We'll leave when we're satisfied the Iraqi government and their security forces can handle the issues on their own, without us physically involved. We'll leave when we finish what we went there to do, however that is ultimately accomplished. Is that so ridiculous?

Im all for new ideas and suggestions, regardless of which side of the fence they come from. But those ideas need to be alittle less classic Liberal, meaning, the idea needs to have an actual possibility of working without a one-way ticket to Fantasyland. I dont care if Super Kerry himself or even Ultra-Dyke Billary comes up with the plan, it just needs to work. So far, they got nuthin. Except, that is, for blame, excuses, and finger-pointing about how crappy the job is going now. In reality, it doesnt matter how good or bad the job is--- its Bush in the Oval Office, so the Dems and the Libmedia wont let it be good regardless.