http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:23:40 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/11/011259.php#comment-28215 Notice that Mike used quotes around "resistance". I think that's an acknowledgement that motives of the instigators is somewhat questionable. I think we can divide the "resistance" into three groups: former Baathists who want to revive a repressive regime, al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists who want to build a new and ideologically-derived repressive regime, and Iraqi nationalists who don't share the goals of the aforementioned groups but may increasingly see the U.S. as an occupying power. Actually, I think we can lump the first two together and treat them as criminal organizations; them we want to hunt down and eliminate. It's the third group we might want to appease. And setting a deadline is a good way to send the message that we don't intend to stay. The problem here is that we have to be confident enough in our ability to establish order to keep our promise. Setting a date for withdrawal and then not honoring it would look worse than never announcing a deadline at all. I'm not so sure the country isn't ready for elections. In fact, I think they've already held some for mayors and such. But just because the national institutions aren't ready yet, that doesn't mean you can't elect some of the people who will run them. In fact, I'm not sure how unstable the bulk of the country really is; that seems to be one of the issues we're already arguing about. The call to repudiate profits obviously sounds like a dig at the Bush administration. But aside from that, taken just on the merits of the idea itself, does anybody really have objections to it? It sounds to me like it would be a worthwhile good-faith move. ]]> 28215@blogcritics.org Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:23:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/11/011259.php#comment-28207 Unfortunately, Mike's "plan" suggests his divorce from reality and his characterization of antiwar.com as "right-wing" confirms it. Mike actually thinks that these terrorists in Iraq are interested in democratic government? These people have been murdering civilians and aid workers, genius. Stick to the cheap insults and bad satire, Mikey. -- your favorite walking wussbag (yes, Mike recently and quite randomly tarred me with the devastating "walking wussbag" label. I think I'll go cry now). ]]> 28207@blogcritics.org Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:28:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/11/011259.php#comment-28206 Howard, you are correct that there isn't anyone to "appease" here - there are terrorists killing Americans, Iraqis, and international aid workers. They must be found and eliminated. ]]> 28206@blogcritics.org Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:25:32 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/11/011259.php#comment-28184 Well, your first mistake is reading antiwar.com ... your next mistake is believing that the "militant" force care for anything more than death and destruction. This isn't a resistance, it's a fight to bring back the torture chambers. There is no resistance in Iraq. There are only terrorists masquarading and resistance fighters. Until they are all dead, the U.S. would make the worst mistake of its history to pull out. An election before the country has stablized and established the institutions capable of sustaining a democratic, open society, would be worse than a mistake. It would be immoral. Pay reparations for what? Freeing people from Saddam's death chambers? Oh, that's right, Sally ... it's all about the oooooiiiiillll! How stupid of me to forget that. ]]> 28184@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:18:32 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/11/011259.php#comment-28079 Sounds like a plan but this part: "Repudiate all profits earned or to be earned by U.S. corporations" would be the sticking point for the Bush bunch and is why it can never happen with an oil man as Commander In Chief. ]]> 28079@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:59:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/11/011259.php#comment-28061 Here's the plan, baby, brought to you by Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, the right wing anti-war site, as modified by me. Hold elections immediately. It will be difficult, but elections were held in this country during the Civil War, in England during the Nazi air blitz, and in some of the Central American countries during the wars of the 1980s. Immediately. Tomorrow. As soon as they can set up the ballot boxes. Announce a firm deadline for U.S. withdrawal, no exceptions. Along with the elections, this hopefully will take the sails out of the "resistance." People will be less likely to pick up an AK-47 if they feel they will soon have a sovereign democratic government. Pay reparations to an international trust fund administered by NGO's, who will hopefully have some credibility with Iraqis. Repudiate all profits earned or to be earned by U.S. corporations. This profit taking is outraging Iraqis and fueling the resistance. Convene an international conference of donors and countries to draw up a plan for non-U.N. peacekeepers from neutral countries. Again, it will be difficult, but it may succeed if the U.S. repudiates ANY claim to ownership of Iraqi assets. Will all this work? Maybe, maybe not. But unless we try, we are descending into a hell that will destroy what's left of U.S. republican institutions, if it hasn't already. An overbearing and interventionist military, said George Washington, is a threat to the republic. ]]> 28061@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:40:08 EST