"The assholes won the day. It's as simple -- as scarily simple -- as that."

I thought the assholes were the losers who sit around posting defeatist garbage on the internet.

No, you Tard, this article says alot (Thanks for writing this, Steven!) Objectively, one could say that our country might have still ended up going to war had diplomacy been given a real chance, rather than the photo-op diplomacy that really took place. But if we'd taken the time to really analyze the evidence, instead of picking the solution and then filtering out all evidence that was contradictory, we've created an embarrassing mess in the Middle East which will take generations to restore.

As for defeatism, would you prefer that we paint a shiny surface on this pile of dung? Will that really make it smell any better? The assholes are the morons who go on mindlessly waving their flags whenever a politician hits a note of patriotism or nationalism, and who've let American politics be overrun by fundamentalist zealots. Rationality and reason are gone the way of the 8-track, replaced by the "faith-based" community. God help us all.

Shame.

now Justice, be done.

Honor.

Wow, I'd forgotten what an idiot Juan Cole is. Thanks for reminding me. How completely imperceptive of him to come out with this silliness the same week that the Iraqi Parliament held it's first formal session, demonstrating the definitive willingness of all the groups which Cole thinks are splitting apart to work together. How people can take Cole seriously is absolutely incomprehensible.

Dave

Boy, Dave, you sure put Juan Cole in his place. After all, why should we listen to a guy who speaks Arabic, reads news sources in their original languages, maintains contacts in the area and has a thorough knowledge of the sectarian differences now at play? Who needs all that when we've got Dick Cheney telling us everything is okay?

Indeed, why should we listen to someone just because he speaks arabic and reads news sources in arabic when he clearly takes whatever he reads and filters it through absolutely ridiculous assumptions and biases? You think Juan Cole is the only person who can read arabic? You think that news from the middle east is not available in translation?

When what Cole says is directly contrary to factual reports coming out of the region, how seriously can we take what he says? He has a clear and overriding agenda which taints everything he produces. To him America is evil and anything which does not support the failure of America must be untrue. He's a person who starts with a conclusion and then goes looking in the field of facts to find those which support his conclusion, and no conflicting information is allowed into consideration lest it distract from the inevitable course of validating the conclusions which he started with.

Dave

Actually, Cole -- while highly critical of the Bush administration -- has until recently been guardedly optimistic about the outcome in Iraq, with some very significant caveats. Cole sees that the biggest barrier, however, is the ongoing corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war -- starting with the lies that began it and continuing through the lies that sustain it. Since Bush ain't going away for a few years, and he has no intention of firing anyone or changing direction, that's a big barrier.

"When what Cole says is directly contrary to factual reports coming out of the region, how seriously can we take what he says?"

Now you're going to tell us about the schools that are getting painted, right?

The factual reports coming out of the country are of horrific violence on a daily basis, Shia leaders openly declaring their support for Iran if the U.S. attacks, steadily rising influence for Islamist fanatics, torture tactics that have stained America's moral reputation and relentless weakening of our military strength.

A lot of supporters for this war seem to view Bush as Aragorn leading the West against the dark-skinned hordes of the East. I like The Lord of the Rings as much as anybody, but I also leave fantasies in the movie theater, where they belong. There will be no good news coming out of Iraq until we ourselves are out of Iraq.

"He has a clear and overriding agenda which taints everything he produces."

Oh, my Kingdom for a mirror...

The object of the Neocon War on the People of Iraq was to implement a Divide and Conquer program on a Muslim nation and watch it collapse. Such a nation is therefore no threat to Israeli hegemony in the region while the USSA can establish it's permanent military bases there because otherwise the Iraqis would descend into civil war.

It wasn't clear to me in the beginning of this monstrous fiasco that this was in fact the desired outcome of the Neocon's sinister program of social engineering, but now, it's evidently clear that the American Regime is happy with this dreadful state although they, and the lapdog media pundits, feign concern about "civil war" to further confuse the masses of American sheeple.

America's War of Aggression on the People of Iraq is a such a monumental disgrace that apathy has now set in amongst a majority of Americans. Sad. What a fucking waste.

Unfortunately, partition never seems to work well, no matter how appealing. It starts with massive migrations and dislocations, families torn apart, property stolen, etc. And it ends with nationally organized warfare. People have to learn to live together, but to do that they have to give up dreams of domination.

starting with the lies that began it and continuing through the lies that sustain it.

This is symptomatic of the problems Cole and the entire left has in dealing with the Iraq situation. They don't really understand what a lie is, and they don't understand how irrelevant these justifications and excuses really are to the practical reality of dealing with the situation. They see significance to form and words while ignoring the substance and hard facts.

Now you're going to tell us about the schools that are getting painted, right?

No, hadn't even considered it.

The factual reports coming out of the country are of horrific violence on a daily basis, Shia leaders openly declaring their support for Iran if the U.S. attacks, steadily rising influence for Islamist fanatics,

SOME of the factual reports match what you say, but far from all. And that's the problem with Cole. He accepts the negative and ignores or doesn't bother to look for the positive. The fact is that violence is becoming more and more intermittent, the factions have found common ground against the fanatics who are more vocal, but less accepted by the general public, and the Shia who might support Iran under some circumstances also admit that they'd rather deal with a local Iraqi government or peacekeeping-oriented Westenrers.

Dave

Actually, Dave, I and most other people on the left have been able to tell lies from the truth for quite some time -- that's why we're lefties.

A "lie" is when you tell the world that a toothtless secular dictator whose weapons program has been lying in ruins for the better part of a decade is in fact sitting on an arsenal of terror weapons and is this close to getting his hands on nukes.

Another example of a "lie" is when you say there must be immediate military action to depose this dictator before mushroom clouds start popping up all over Europe and North America.

There are also "lies" one tells to oneself. For example, when an invasion that's supposed to protect us from terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons concentrates on securing the offices of the oil ministry while leaving unguarded vast amounts o radioactive wastes and materials suitable for building dirty bombs, it is a "lie" to tell yourself that everything about this operation is exactly as the president presented it.

And when there is a steady accumulation of documentary evidence showing the Bush administration knews its claims about Saddam were a load of garbage, and one chooses to ignore that evidence, that too is "lying" to oneself.

As for the intermittent peace among the factions, that will last until the day the Kurds decide to stop talking and simply take possession of Kirkuk, which they see as the keystone of their independence. Or if the U.S. does try to go after Tehran about its nuclear program, in which case the Shia south will become a second battlefront. It'll be a fine show for Faux News when the Turks and the new Iraqi army try to invade Kurdistan. That's what you get when dry-drunk liars and their neocon handlers try to play Winston Churchill in a region they don't understand.

Dave - * The fact is that violence is becoming more and more intermittent*

the latest Iraq Index does not support this claim

troll

Sorry troll, but the facts do bear me out. So far the death per day ratio for coalition forces this year is the lowest it has been since the war started at 1.81, and the civilian death toll per month is similarly down.

Your brookings report also bears this out. It shows a steady decline in fatalities starting from the high of last spring. Check out page 9.

Dave

if one cherry picks indicators of violence he misses the big picture...I suggest any reader go through the report and consider such evidence as # of attacks/week and overall crime rate etc

even in the chart (pg 10) depicting the # of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of acts of war the trend is nowhere near as straight forward as you claim Dave

troll

Troll, the trends are what they are. Go look at them again. Every month a little less than the one before except for small bumps which average out. Draw a line through the top points on the bar chart and it could only be described as a decline. If I had a stock that graphed like that I'd dump it immediately.

And looking at the overall trends is certainly not cherrypicking. Cherrypicking is pointing at every big violent incident and saying that violence is out of control. I'm just looking at the trends and saying it's gradually getting better overall.

As for the crime rate, it's an interesting figure. Less than 3x as high a rate of crime related death as Washington DC, and there's no insurgency in DC. You might want to compare that rate of homicide in Baghdad (95/100,000) with the rates in other countries, like Sub Saharan Africa at 205 and Latin America at 102.

Dave

Dave - your analysis of the trend lines is incorrect...again I leave it to the readers to 'do the math' for themselves

the 'cherry picking' to which I referred was choosing to look at fatalities alone (#14)

Washington's crime rate is an irrelevant distraction...we are discussing the increase or decrease of violence in Iraq

troll

troll, i can tell a hawk from a handsaw. I'm with you on leaving people to do the math for themselves. I imagine they can figure out that 60 casualties a month is less than 120.

Washington's crime rate is an irrelevant distraction...we are discussing the increase or decrease of violence in Iraq

Ok, well how about the comparison with the homicide rates in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa?

Dave

While Dave was looking for promising trends in Iraq, here's the story told by today's headlines:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Gunmen attacked a police station in the Sunni Muslim heartland north of Baghdad Tuesday, killing at least 17 police officers and a guard at a nearby courthouse while freeing prisoners held at the station, police said."

.....

"The ambush came a day after at least 39 people were killed by insurgents and shadowy sectarian gangs in Iraq. Much of the violence targeted police.

Roadside bombs -- one just a few hundred yards from an Interior Ministry lockup in central Baghdad and one in a farming area near the so-called Triangle of Death south of Baghdad -- killed at least seven police officials and one prisoner Monday."

Today's issue of the New York Times also has a story about how Iraq is the first country to offer off-the-shelf terrorism insurance coverage:

"'Am I worth only five million dinars?' Mr. Said asked wearily, after signing his policy. 'It is not a solution. But Iraqis can be attacked by anyone, just walking on the street: Americans, insurgents, the Iraqi Army.' The payout is not a lot of money, even by Iraqi standards. But in a country where terrorism kills hundreds of people a month and no one can rely on the government or employers to provide for their relatives afterward, it seems to be an idea with a future."

(Why, it sounds just like Scarsdale!)

Oops, I forget to mention this Knight-Ridder story from Sunday:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi police have accused American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

"The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to a police document obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers. The soldiers also burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew up the house, the document said."

Later, Dave. I can see you've got a lot of catching up to do.

Steven;

Good luck trying to reason with this guy. He's one of those who compares traffic fatalities with being killed in combat to support their stand on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"Good luck trying to reason with this guy"

At least your catching on, you can't use reason and logic to counter his arguments, better go back to emotional appeals.

MCH: Subtlety, nuance, nice, like it.

I wouldn't be using that report to support the war. From what I saw things are getting worse.

The chart tracking car bombs is a bit useless in my opinion becuase 1 car bomb that kills 30 people is more dangerous than 5 car bombs that only kill 2 people each. Bombing fatalities and Civilian fatalities are clearly trending upwards according to the charts on page 10 & 11.

Troop fatalities are dropping because insurgents are starting to focuss on secular opposition. Overall insurgent attacks are clearly rising as illustrated on page 22 despite more and more insurgents being jailed or killed, and increasing co-operation by the general public.(page 26)

and what happened to the reconstruction plan. compare europe, japan, south lorea, japan.

basically it went in for rehab, even before the wounds were sticken.

you still expect to build trust, huh?

Steven, do you not understand the basic concept that one incident does not counterract a trend?

Dave

Actually, Dave, that was more than one incident, and I didn't even include the bogus "military operation" called Operation Swarmer.

But you need to keep your lines of argument straight: You were debating the indexes with troll and td. When the incidents we've been seeing demonstrate that the insurgents have thoroughly infiltrated most branches of the Iraqi police and military, and that it is only a matter of time before we see a horrible suicide attack in the Green Zone along the lines of the car-bomb attack in Beirut that caused Reagan to pull out of Lebanon, I find it rather foolish to count individual incidents and crow with triumph. It is not the number of incidents, but the shift in strategy they reveal, that is so disturbing.

I just delineated the nature of "lies" and "lying" for you. Remember?

What's bogus about Operation Swarmer? It's an exercise to give Iraqi forces experience in isolating and apprehending terrorists.

As for your news stories, they're all fine and dandy for what they are, but they just add into the aggregate like anything else. And I don't see anything in the stories you quote which suggests this infiltration of the police and military you bring up.

As for the nature of lies and lying, you'd have to understand them yourself before you could define them for anyone else.

Dave

Yo Dave! Here's a pretty good example of a lie. It came out of King George II's lips just today when Helen Thomas started asking him tough questions:

"I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences ... and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it."

Ain't that rich? Saddam called Bush's bluff and allowed the UN inspectors in. They immediately began to wonder if, in fact, Saddam had any weapons at all. And Bush invaded anyway -- in fact, he seemed to step up the timetable, almost as though he had some worries about nonexistent weapons. The UN pulled the inspectors out when it became clear that Four-Handed George sending in the troops no matter what.

Beautiful!

Well, you've confirmed my theory that you wouldn't know a lie if it bit you on the ass, Steven.

If you recall the events leading up to the Iraq war, Saddam did deny inspectors access to scientists under neutral conditions and wouldn't make records available that were asked for. What Bush said is NOT a lie, it's just a particular way of looking at the events. You may choose a different interpretation. Does that make you a liar? No. More than one conclusion CAN be drawn from the same set of facts.

Dave

Ah yes, "interpretation." If George genuinely believes his bullshit, then it's not a lie, it's an interpretation.

We'll be seeing a lot more of that argument as things get worse in Iraq.

On to the next topic.

It's not a lie no matter how you choose to describe it. Not only does a lie involve intent to deceive, but it also has to be counter to the facts. Since Bush's statement is consistent with the facts it's not a lie.

Dave

Let me put it in even simpler terms for you.

If we have a glass which is filled to the half way mark and you say it is half empty, you are telling the truth. If I say it is half full I am also telling the truth. The facts are the same, but our perspectives on the facts are slightly different. Neither of us is lying.

Why is this simple principle so hard for some people to grasp? Just disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a liar.

Dave

A lie:
"I was not flying there (at Dannelly AFB in 1972) because they didn't have the same kind of planes."
- GW Bush, 2000

The truth:
GW, had he shown up at Dannelly (which his superior officer, Gen. William Turnispeed, has said that he did not), would not have been permitted to fly, having already been permanently grounded for missing a mandatory physical exam.

Brilliantly irrelevant.

Dave