Mr. President, Democratic Leadership: There Is No Such Thing as Iraq

[Ibby]

there are thousands of users, and many many thousands of posts, at Daily Kos. It is impossible to make any kind of blanket statement about the posts there, except that they're of a progressive bent.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh rly? like this little happy bit from Kos?:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/19/18384/0637

Who is lurxst? Is he George Soros? Is he a member of the Huffington Post? Or is he a random guy on the internet who put up a provocative title to attract eyes to his one out of thousands of diaries that scroll down the side of the page?

And more importantly, how was his article received? His tip jar got more than twice as many downvotes as upvotes, and only four people recommended the diary.

What point are you trying to make with that example?

[TheMercenary]

Daily Kos-crap is well know for it's positions on a host of subjects. The backers and supporters of the website are well known. It is far from non-partisan and neutral. I just call it like I see it. But let's not pretend it is something it is not.

[Happy Monkey]

I didn't say it wasn't partisan. And you are pretending it's something it's not.

[Undertoad]

On the topic of the original post,

Joe Biden and the Senate told them to divide Iraq in three and, as a result, today the Iraqi parliament meets to figure out how to best politely tell the US Senate to fuck off.

... the matter does not even require enacting a law because the content of the American resolution flagrantly interfered in Iraq's internal affairs, let alone its violation of the Iraqi constitution.

Qadou noted that the Iraqi constitution guarantees the country's "territorial integrity and national sovereignty," adding the Congress' resolution "can never change Iraq's settled national principles."

He said the U.S. resolution "only aimed to cause Iraq to slide into the pits of a civil war only God knows when it will end."

"It is the duty of all the national powers (in Iraq) to reject such an insolent resolution and to quickly announce their positions in the face of this trivializing with the sovereignty of Iraq," he said.

I guess it is not ironic for the Senate to interfere with the governance of a sovereign nation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I guess it is not ironic for the Senate to interfere with the governance of a sovereign nation.

What sovereign nation? I guess the government in S Vietnam also was sovereign. Nonsense. What they say is political wallpaper to appear sovereign. What they end up doing is only independent when not ordered by the White House.

The Maliki response is a surrogate response from the White House. There is no ongoing solution to Iraq. Even the White House does not want one. White House strategic objective: make sure "Mission Impossible" is not lost on George Jr's watch.

At this point, the only hope Iraq may have for a settlement without overt civil war may simply be sovereignty of the provinces. However that can only happen if insurgent armies want it. The US can only obstruct solutions - not impose one.

Kurdistan is all but separate from Iraq already. Only reason that Kurdistan is not a separate nation is the political cover afforded by a Baghdad government. The only way that Iraq can resolve their differences (aggravated and ignored by the mental midget) may be an overt and deadly civil war. But then nations often must suffer accordingly before any serious form of democracy can take hold. Not that any real democracy is even realistic.

Bottom line point made by Biden - and on this he is 100% correct: Iraq must do something to resolve their problems or be completely abandoned. Currently we have no interest in forcing Iraq to do any solution. Currently, America's only agenda is to make sure "Mission Impossible" is not lost under George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is massively more important than a solution in Iraq or America's interests.

Biden made the mistake of actually demanding a solution. Even the America public has deceived themselves so as to deny the quagmire. Notice then latest need for cash is not $60billion for the next few months. We must now authorize another $200billion in short term emergency spending for an unwinnable war that will already cost $1trillion. As long as the massive resulting recession will occur many years later, then Americans will do exactly what we did 30 years ago in Nam - when another president was concerned for his legacy at the expense of all Americans.

Amazing how so many deny what is really the strategic objective: protect the legacy of George Jr.

[Undertoad]

My definition of "sovereign nation" is...



...it's what the people vote for.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

George W. Bush is clearly working on shrinking that Barnettian Gap, tw. Rumsfeld perhaps even more so, during his time in office. You yourself seem, I think, to consider shrinking the Gap a good thing in principle at least. Am I mistaken here?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

My definition of "sovereign nation" is...
...it's what the people vote for.

They used to be forced to vote for the guy who was already in charge, now they can freely vote for people who aren't in charge.

It's like we made a bigger, more violent, DC.

[DanaC]

@Undertoad: okay, what happens if the people vote to close down future democratic processes and move to a monarchy or theocracy?

[Undertoad]

At that point it becomes an unrepresentative government. There are degrees of how representative a government is, and it would seem that this one becomes much less representative on day one, and slowly even less representative over time after that.

[DanaC]

If a non-representative government is the democratically achieved decision of a people, who are we to say they shouldn't have that form of government?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

My definition of "sovereign nation" is...
...it's what the people vote for.

So their government does not hide out in American protected green zones? So they don't travel with Blackwater security? So transportation is provided by Iraqis? When Americans tell them what to do, then what do they do? Either what the Americans tell them or nothing. The Iraqi government is only the latest version of Ahmad Chalabi. Each version changed when the previous one cannot do enough of what America wants.

At least the S Vietnamese government was protected by Vietnamese - not by Americans. At least the S Vietnamese government - president and parliament - did not hide out in American bases. But that too was an elected and American puppet government.

This current Iraqi government gets respect because so many parties (the Kurds, al Sadr, some Sunnis, etc) need the central government as cover or as a channel to work with their otherwise adversaries. The only reason this Iraqi government can remain in existence is completely dependent on the largest military and financial power to protect and finance it.

Today an Iraqi government official was burned in a car bombing. Who was his security, who extracted him from the burning car, and who arranged to have him flown safely back into the American green zone? Blackwater – paid for by the US government. This Iraqi government is independent of America? Hardly.

[Undertoad]

We don't "have a say" D, but we treat the situation very differently before and after. It's a different situation for a leader who knows there is no end-of-term, and no power to be lost due to bad choices. Whole different chess game.

[DanaC]

*nods* fair point.