Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Wars are rarely popular at the ballot box, but losing a war is even more unpopular   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

439 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Aug 2006 at 9:42 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



42 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2006-08-15 1:40:19 AM  
What a dick.

Nixon, I mean.
 
2006-08-15 2:15:27 AM  
Bush sr & sonny boy as well as Cheney also fit your discription
 
2006-08-15 8:40:02 AM  
Withdrawing from Iraq now would usher in a new dark period in the U.S., one in which the nation makes clear it is unwilling to confront emerging threats. Leaving Iraq in chaos would leave the U.S. a hobbled nation that would be unable or unwilling to protect its own national security interests.


I think that's total bollocks. Withdrawal from Iraq would usher in a new dark period in Iraq (if we haven't already), not the US. I agree that withdrawing from Iraq now would leave them with chaos, so I oppose withdrawal on that basis alone.
 
2006-08-15 9:16:06 AM  
"That's the beauty of propaganda- it doesn't have any internal logic or integrity to violate."

Jon Stewart
 
2006-08-15 9:49:58 AM  
It's a farking pit that we can't fill with all the money, fuel, soldiers or equipment we have, and stupidly continuing to chuck more and more of our nice things into it will quickly plunge America into an even deeper darkness.

...and things are pretty damned dark already.
 
2006-08-15 9:55:27 AM  
Cheney and his ilk will paint anyone that asks questions or thinks as "anti-american" or "helping the terrorists". That is sick and disgusting.

Cheney is sick and disgusting.
 
2006-08-15 9:58:32 AM  
Dems love underdogs.

Losing = underdogs.

Dem heaven

"I FEEL your pain"
 
2006-08-15 10:00:18 AM  
How can Bush and Cheney claim they know whats best when bush joined the Texas Air Guard to avoid being drafted for Vietnam, and Cheney used a variety of legal loopholes to avoid being drafted and being shipped to South Vietnam in the 1960s?????

bush and cheney are anti-american for being cowrads when their country needed tnem the most. Yet they have the nerve to send others into harms way when they chickened out. Hyprocacy - the motto for Republicans.
 
2006-08-15 10:01:40 AM  
It does not sound too bad over there.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/Taheri_0606.htm (pops)
 
2006-08-15 10:06:46 AM  
Ha ha, cowrads!

/take that, cowrads!
 
2006-08-15 10:07:59 AM  
And if this was a war we could win, that would farking mean something.

Terrorism is a tactic. No matter who you fight, who you hate, who you negotiate with, as long as there is a small handful of crazy people willing to blow something up, terrorism will exist. You can't bomb it to death, you can't occupy it until it stops.
 
2006-08-15 10:21:33 AM  
binnster: I agree that withdrawing from Iraq now would leave them with chaos, so I oppose withdrawal on that basis alone.

Pottery Barn: You broke it, you bought it.

Just at some point you do have to ask yourself, does your continued presence do more harm than good? You can teach a man many, many things; but you cannot teach him how to govern himself. Given that the existing form of government in Iraq is a non-native one, a non-organic one; is it really surprising that the Iraqis themselves are not using (or are taking advantage of) these imposed forms of remediation and conflict resolution, and are instead taking things into their own hands?
 
2006-08-15 10:23:05 AM  
That editorial is a steaming pile of shiate.
 
2006-08-15 10:39:53 AM  
Dear Dick and George
The hole is deep enough! STOP Digging.
 
2006-08-15 10:40:31 AM  
binnster, the problem is that Iraq isn't really that far from chaos now. I mean, mosques are blowing up everywhere, Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, dogs and cats living together, total chaos.

And if a U.S. batallion is caught, the shiat hits the fan, we start going gung ho military on Baghdad, Iran joins in, its Dubya Dubya Eye Eye Eye.

I say we pull out and let them have their civil war, their two-to-six-years of chaos. Then try and come in with humanitarian efforts after one side has prevailed.

Of course, that won't happen 'cuz no one is rational, but in this case, the best way to save millions of lives is to let tens of thousands die. It is sad, but that's the price we paid for farking up the country in the first place.
 
2006-08-15 10:42:08 AM  
The article assumes a whole lot of things about the American people that are not so, and glosses over why the Iraqi war turned into something that Americans want to run away from.
America never had a chance in Iraq, due to the blundering of the politicans. The expert advice from the military, state department and CIA were all ignored; the neocon twits knew it all. Turned out they were wrong, and the experts were right. The same politicans are still running the show. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all, but whatever.
IMHO, the first step to fixing the problem, whether it is to get out or pursue some new policy, would be to remove those whom caused the problem and refuse to fix it.
Cheerleading for them, like this author does by attempting to rationalize that this failure just appeared out of the blue and couldn't be helped, is not a productive or even logical approach to troubleshooting.
 
2006-08-15 10:44:07 AM  
Tad Peculiar: Dear Dick and George
The hole is deep enough! STOP Digging.


No, dig UP, stupid!
 
2006-08-15 10:44:10 AM  
We already won the war; Saddam was deposed three years ago. What we have now is an occupation.

You don't win in an occupation.
 
2006-08-15 10:57:05 AM  
Fart_Machine:

You don't win in an occupation.

Nor can you fight a war against a tactic.
 
2006-08-15 10:57:11 AM  
Pottery Barn: You broke it, you bought it.

Iraq is not farking Pottery Barn.
 
2006-08-15 10:59:44 AM  
That is Pulitzer-caliber work right there. Next you know, the WSJ is gonna reinforce that buy low/sell high is likely the best way to go about trading stocks.
 
2006-08-15 11:01:14 AM  
The author of TFA seems to have missed the point entirely. He bemoans the fact that America withdrew from Vietnam 1n 1975 to watch it collapse under communist control. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that the real problem was not that we withdrew in 1975, the problem was that we got out in 1975 instead of 1965.

As anybody who's ever owned an aging used car knows, ya gotta know when to cut your losses. It's time. It's past time. If we listen to the farkwads at the WSJ we'll be in Iraq forever because we're too bullheaded to admit a mistake.
 
2006-08-15 11:09:03 AM  
Anyone remember the article about some researchers showing that people tend to be more likely to take large risks if they feel they are behind, like those who had some bad stock deals before lunch take bigger risks in the afternoon?

I'm worried that the administration is finally starting to see that their legacy might be the disaster which Iraq is shaping up to be. And the risks it appears they are willing to take to to "catch up" are absolutely terrifying. They seem to have abandoned all hopes of temporary peace and are now trying to force the region into a full scale, all-allies-called-in war where they hope us+our allies will decisively crush all the enemies at once.
Sure, it'd be great if they succeeded but the risks involved are unthinkable. Especially for a leadership with a track record such as theirs.
 
2006-08-15 11:13:22 AM  
I disagree with the first half. Americans love a good war until it looks like we might lose.
 
2006-08-15 11:17:59 AM  
Simplest Quantum Sytem Conceivable:

Anyone remember the article about some researchers showing that people tend to be more likely to take large risks if they feel they are behind, like those who had some bad stock deals before lunch take bigger risks in the afternoon?

I'm worried that the administration is finally starting to see that their legacy might be the disaster which Iraq is shaping up to be. And the risks it appears they are willing to take to to "catch up" are absolutely terrifying. They seem to have abandoned all hopes of temporary peace and are now trying to force the region into a full scale, all-allies-called-in war where they hope us+our allies will decisively crush all the enemies at once.
Sure, it'd be great if they succeeded but the risks involved are unthinkable. Especially for a leadership with a track record such as theirs.


Outstanding observation.
 
2006-08-15 11:28:26 AM  
If you look at Bush career, it seems that he wasn't really successful in anything he did outside being a husband and father. He ran his companies into the ground, he joined the RESERVES and went Awol on that commitment. And then the american people wants him to run our country, and now manage a war? I'd be suprised if Failure wasn't imminent.

The guy is simply NOT a good leader. By all aspects not a good leader. Not charismatic, not well with words, not convincing in his speeches. All the qualities that it takes to be a good leader, he doesn't have them.

So again, why would anyone really expect to win any war ran by this current administration is beyond me.
 
2006-08-15 11:36:04 AM  
 
2006-08-15 11:39:20 AM  
2006-08-15 10:01:40 AM Vetinari


It does not sound too bad over there.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/Taheri_0606.htm (pops)


You Do know your source Has had just few credibility problems right?

Here try this source instead: Bush's hand -picked point man on Iraq, Ambassador Khalizaid who wrote a Secret six page cable to Bush before his visit in May.

The conditions he describes even in Bhagdad, the Capital city, are so shockingly bad, it's hard to see we've made any progress at all.
 
2006-08-15 11:43:17 AM  
Magorn:

The conditions he describes even in Bhagdad, the Capital city, are so shockingly bad, it's hard to see we've made any progress at all.

Or the recent article in Time, that was a very enlightening.
 
2006-08-15 11:44:28 AM  
By the way those that DO support the president might be able to clear something up for me:

Are we still "staying the Course" or are we now supposed to "adapt and win"?

Cause adpating , even to win, sounds like we were doing something wrong back when we were doing all that course staying, but since I know the I know the president is infalliable....
 
2006-08-15 11:58:20 AM  
IlGreven

I say we pull out and let them have their civil war, their two-to-six-years of chaos. Then try and come in with humanitarian efforts after one side has prevailed.



The problem I see with that scenario is that the Sunni minority would be massacred, and that would make it likely that Saudi, Syria and random Sunnis across the middle-east would jump in; which of course means Iran would join in too.
 
2006-08-15 12:03:22 PM  
Yeah we'd sure like to continue the proven losing streak we already have with this current administration.
 
2006-08-15 12:05:27 PM  
GLASS PARKING LOT
GLASS PARKING LOT
GLASS PARKING LOT
GLASS PARKING LOT
GLASS PARKING LOT
 
2006-08-15 12:20:37 PM  
2006-08-15 11:36:04 AM uh_clem
What we are witnessing (through rips in the curtain of official secrecy) may be an example of what the Germans call the flucht nach vorne - the "flight forward."

It doesn't even seem to be all that secretive. They are constantly describing the conflict in public speeches in ways like "birthpangs of a new Middle East" and an "opportunity."
I seriously hope this gets no further than wishful thinking.
 
2006-08-15 12:38:28 PM  
The concept of a NEW middle-east is wishful thinking combined with the vacuousness of a typical marketing campaign. As if it's a box of detergent and by putting the word "NEW!" on the label people will forget the old nasty detergent.

Cluetime: this shiat has been going on in the middle east for several thousand years (probably longer, they just didn't know how to write before then, so we don't know what they were doing). The ideas that American Know How (TM) can come in and solve the problem is six months is the most myopic self-centered idea imaginable. Rebranding it as "NEW!" is just more reality-denying marketing spin from the group that's given us so much reality-denying marketing spin that we're dizzy. And if they actually believe their own reality-denying marketing spin we're in a heap of trouble.
 
2006-08-15 12:38:47 PM  
I could paint my bathroom with the amount of glossing over going on in that article.
 
2006-08-15 1:12:11 PM  
How about lying the country into a war and then losing it. And promising to do it again if you have the chance.
 
2006-08-15 1:18:45 PM  
binnster I agree that withdrawing from Iraq now would leave them with chaos

Iraq is already in chaos, because Rummy didn't send in enough troops to secure the country after the invasion. We needed to send in at least 350,000 troops, that PLUS the Iraqi Army and Police would have been the minimum. (That's according to Gen. Batiste, who commanded the 1st ID in Iraq.)

Stopping the chaos would require a massive new influx of troops. If we needed 350,000 to prevent the chaos, we would need much more to stop it, maybe 500,000?

So binnster, do you want to send in that many troops? Only 4% of the country supports sending more troops. Even Bush isn't talking about sending more. And we couldn't send that many troops even if there was the will to do so, we can barely sustain the deployment we have now.

Bottom line is: Bush lost the war because he didn't send in enough troops to win, and that is not going to change. The war is lost.
 
2006-08-15 1:23:18 PM  
BTW I don't like the idea of losing the war and leaving Iraq in chaos. If I were dictator, I would draft an army of 3 million soldiers and send 500,000 more troops into Iraq. It's the only way to win now. But there's no will to do that.

The neocons sold Bush on the idea that the war would be easy because we would be greeted as liberators. In reality, if we were going to win the war, Bush should have started drafting soldiers right after 9/11 and tripled the size of the Army. But Cheney and Rummy said we would win easily with the Army we happened to have, which was not designed or prepared to invade and occupy a large country like Iraq.

Total incompetence.
 
2006-08-15 1:35:44 PM  
Terrible article. Terrible Administration. Terrible logic.

Stop half-assing things. If you're gonna go in and "liberate" a country, you'd better not leave it with the worst of two worlds.

And it's too late to pull out and not have the entire Middle East become a bloodbath. Shove more troops in and contain this shiat.

Farking politicians...
 
2006-08-15 2:57:19 PM  
What you get when you elect a president because the other guy was too smart and boring: invading Iraq without knowing the difference between the Sunni and Shia.

I say cut it up. Sunnis, Kurds and Shia. If the Shia want to join Iran, we can use that in negotiating with Iran's nuclear program (ie "we'll let you take them if you cut it out"). Sunnis will probably migrate to Saudi Arabia and not leave much of a nation state behind, and leave the Kurds to duke it out with Turkey.

Best scenario at this point.
 
2006-08-16 9:33:50 AM  
grytpype-thynne - The draft is tantamount to slavery. I will die before I see paunchy, besuited, idiot tyrants turn my countrymen into slaves.

If you have trouble finding enough bodies or popular support to properly prosecute your war, why, that's an excellent sign that your war is stupid and unnecessary... and that every life lost to it represents a hideous crime against humanity.

We cannot help the people of Iraq, at least, not by occupying their country. The overwhelming majority of them want us out. They distrust and dislike us. They have good reason to.

What we can do is severely punish those who farked their country up for no good reason at all; in fact, we owe it to Iraq. We owe it to every family, Iraqi, American or otherwise that lost a loved one to this misbegotten abortion of an imperialist adventure.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.