John McCain and Iraq: misleading the country, or just stupid?

[Grimmlok]

Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee and party standard-bearer, recently suggested that if the US withdraws troops from Iraq, al Qaida would literally take over the country: "[i]f we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen . . . I will not surrender to al-Qaida." This is, of course, completely ridiculous, and Joe Klein rightly calls out McCain, saying:

They'd be taking a country? Last time I checked, Iraq has a Shi'ite majority. McCain thinks the Shi'ites -- the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps (and yes, the Iranians) -- would allow a small group of Sunni extremists to take over? In fact, as noted above, the vast majority of indigenous Iraqi Sunnis aren't too thrilled about the AQI presence in their country, either.

That's all absolutely right. Joe then goes on to say, though, "The sadness here is that McCain knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region. But I suspect he's overplaying his Iraq hand in order to win favor with the wingnuts in his party."

That may be true. But it also may very well be true that McCain doesn't know any better. I don't know the Senator, and can't guess at his inner knowledge of Middle East political and religious intricacies, but considering his evident lack of intellectual curiosity on the economy, health care, science, and a whole host of other issues, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he has an understanding of the *military* but not any sophisticated *Middle East foreign policy* knowledge. This isn't a knock on Joe -- he was the only major media figure I saw to make the point that McCain is wrong, but if McCain says this is what he thinks, I'm sort of inclined to take him at his word. And if Mike Huckabee -- or, of course, a Democrat -- were to demonstrate such a lack of basic knowledge, it would be viewed as a huge gaffe. Because, y'know, it is.

AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

I'm voting for stupid.

[tkdgirl]

McCain is right. Sorry, Grimm. If we up and leave Iraq in January 2009 as Hillary proposes, then I guarantee you we'll be back AGAIN in less than three years.

Regardless of how you feel about the war, the decisions that went into it, etc., let the troops finish their jobs- which includes continual training of the Iraq military to fend off terrorists such as AQ. Pretty amazing that even Angelina Jolie can understand that.

Instead of pulling out fully, replace US troops gradually with UN Peacekeeping forces, and keep them in place until the Iraqi government can maintain full control, especially their military.

[Grimmlok]

Did you even read the article? lol

He's not right, there is no way the shi'ite majority or Iran would allow it to happen. Sunnis are outnumbered 5 to 1. How in the name of hell can an "Al Qaeda" takeover happen in that environment? Seriously, I want to hear the logic on this one. Also, the whole "Al qaeda" in Iraq thing is mostly bunk.. out of all the attacks, bombings, only about 2% is attributed to Al Qaeda, the rest is generic ethnic/tribal/religious bullshit from the indigenous population fighting itself. That's also a fact, but of course the nutsos in power love to thump the "OMG AL QAEDA IZ RESPONSIBLE 4 EVERYTIN!" crap because it makes a handy soundbite.

Secondly, the only reason for the "surge" being there in the first place is to provide the fractured Iraqi government "breathing room" for "political reconciliation". That hasn't happened, nor does it show any sign of happening. In fact, it's more divided now than before. They aren't interested in running their own country, they're interested in tribal superiority. The surge has failed in its purpose.

Nothing in that country will ever get done, it will eventually fracture along tribal and ethnic/religious lines and tear itself apart for the oil revenue. The only way it was ever, EVER held together was by force. Iraq isn't even a real country in the sense that it naturally evolved.. it was stitched together by colonial britain.

[tkdgirl]

Iran? Since when do they get a say as to what happens in Iraq? LOL. Regardless of the chumy chum visit by Ahimanutjob, Iraqis HATE Iran. That feud runs very deep and very dirty. In fact, I would venture Iran would LOVE AQ to take over Iraq because it gives them more influence and power in the region. Iran would love nothing more than for the US to leave Iraq.

As for the surge, hell, even nutjob Murtha agreed its working. Regardless of the reasons 'why' you think the surge happened, it has greatly reduced the number of bombings, etc. and is allowing people's lives return to normal (whatever that is for them).

Whether or not anything gets done in that country remains to be seen. But tell me, would it be easier to work toward building a coalition government within Iraq while fighting insurgents or not?

[Grimmlok]

Originally Posted by tkdgirl

Iran? Since when do they get a say as to what happens in Iraq? LOL.

.. are you serious? Iran is a Shi'ite nation. The Iraqi Shi'ite majority has no problem with Iran.. the only reason Iran and Iraq fought in the 80's was because the minority Sunnis, Saddam Hussein being one, controlled the country through his dictatorship.

Regardless of the chumy chum visit by Ahimanutjob, Iraqis HATE Iran. That feud runs very deep and very dirty. In fact, I would venture Iran would LOVE AQ to take over Iraq because it gives them more influence and power in the region. Iran would love nothing more than for the US to leave Iraq.

No, it really doesn't. The onyl feud existed because some 5% of the population controlled the entire nation through brute force. Al Qaeda is a Sunni run and staffed organization, topped with Wahabist Sunni Saudis. There's no way in hell Iran would let them get anywhere near any kind of power in Iraq because the second Iran tried to exert its influence they would be facing resistance. It's in Iran's best interests for Al Qaeda to never gain a foothold for the Sunnis to rally to, thus it's actually in Iran's best interests for the US to remain in Iraq, controlling the Sunnis and their crazy leaders like Moqtada Al Sadre so they don't forge an alliance with the tiny Al Qaeda membership in the country. That's why the US is so keen on keeping the damn Sunnis happy, almost at th expense of the Shi'ite majority. They're up shti creek on that issue.

As for the surge, hell, even nutjob Murtha agreed its working. Regardless of the reasons 'why' you think the surge happened, it has greatly reduced the number of bombings, etc. and is allowing people's lives return to normal (whatever that is for them).

Go read the mission statement for the surge. It's prime directive has failed. only 3 of the 'benchmarks' set up a year and a half ago have been realized in the timeframe given. That's failure. Violence has gone down, which is good but the intended result is still a complete failure. It is not my 'opinion', it is fact written into the mission description itself.

Whether or not anything gets done in that country remains to be seen. But tell me, would it be easier to work toward building a coalition government within Iraq while fighting insurgents or not?

There is no choice but to fight them, but the choice is one of default. The character of the nation and the indigenous population means the only way it is held together is by force. That's just reality. It's been reality for over 100 years. It's a no win scenario.

[tkdgirl]

Grimm, I just don't agree with you. We need to stay and finish the job or we'll be back again to a problem 10 times worse.

[Grimmlok]

Yes, I know you don't agree despite the reality laid out, despite numerous government agencies all saying the same thing about the conditions on the ground (not the executive branch of course, they simply pretend those agencies never say anything and continue on with their merry brand of delusion). How that happens mystifies me. It's like denial or something.

In the end, there IS no "getting the job done'. The job will never be done. That's the end result. The US is already 3/4 completing a number of military "
superbases" in the country, so there will be a large US presence to safeguard all the oil that, amazingly, is to go to US oil conglomerates in perpetuity.

[witchcurlgirl]

Originally Posted by tkdgirl

McCain is right. Sorry, Grimm. If we up and leave Iraq in January 2009 as Hillary proposes, then I guarantee you we'll be back AGAIN in less than three years.

Regardless of how you feel about the war, the decisions that went into it, etc., let the troops finish their jobs- which includes continual training of the Iraq military to fend off terrorists such as AQ. Pretty amazing that even Angelina Jolie can understand that.

Instead of pulling out fully, replace US troops gradually with UN Peacekeeping forces, and keep them in place until the Iraqi government can maintain full control, especially their military.

Why should this become the UN's problem?

The US President defied the UN, acted illegally outside of the UN charter in Iraq, so why should the UN send troops?

The US didn't give a shit about the UN when it invaded Iraq, so it's pretty ridiculous for them to seek assistance from the UN troops now.

[Grimmlok]

That too, it pisses me off that the US derides the UN and "old europe" when the UN and Old Europe fucking knew better.

[Just Kill Me]

Oh goodness... I just couldn't stay away...
Here's what needs to happen; the US needs to pull out, we need to let Iraq have a civil war or whatever... let all hell break loose (even more so than now) and then the entire world will be stunned by the atrocities (does the world really care? yes, as long as there is money to be made an example would be that whole mess in the balkans; we took our sweet time there)... so anyway once the world is in shock and awe of the civil war and suicide bombings and pictures of dead & injured children THEN the UN will go in...
You know what would have been interesting? If the UN policed our asses (US) and when we started stepping on Hussein's toes (I'm not up for a debate on what a bastard he was) that would have been interesting. I still don't understand why no one else was like "Hey, wtf are you doing???? You can't just go in there!" Why didn't anyone put our military in check? That still has me puzzled.
Another thing is this; why the fuck do we care if Iraq goes apeshit anyway??? We don't want to pull another angry abandoned Osama Afghanistan mess that and that oil. Seriously, some of the same people who keep spouting the crap about "staying the course" because your retarded fearless leader said it and you also bitch about illegal immigration with a tone quite lacking in sympathy or empathy; where is that same attitude regarding Iraq. We shouldn't "help" Iraq just like we shouldn't be using our taxes to pay for illegal immigrants... There's a good comparison in there somewhere you just have to be as hungover as I am to get it.

[witchcurlgirl]

Originally Posted by Just Kill Me

Oh goodness... I just couldn't stay away...
Here's what needs to happen; the US needs to pull out, we need to let Iraq have a civil war or whatever... let all hell break loose (even more so than now) and then the entire world will be stunned by the atrocities (does the world really care? yes, as long as there is money to be made an example would be that whole mess in the balkans; we took our sweet time there)... so anyway once the world is in shock and awe of the civil war and suicide bombings and pictures of dead & injured children THEN the UN will go in...
You know what would have been interesting? If the UN policed our asses (US) and when we started stepping on Hussein's toes (I'm not up for a debate on what a bastard he was) that would have been interesting. I still don't understand why no one else was like "Hey, wtf are you doing???? You can't just go in there!" Why didn't anyone put our military in check? That still has me puzzled.

The UN did what it could, it followed international law. They had security council meetings, and the US defied the UN, claiming it had the right to "pre-emptive self defense" in this case.


The UN does not have the manpower to put troops in the field up against the US forces to try to stop the invasion of Iraq. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were Pakistan(10,173 troops), Bangladesh(9,675), India (9,471), Nepal (3,626), Jordan (3,564), Uruguay (2,583), Italy(2,539), Ghana, Nigeria and France

[tkdgirl]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

Why should this become the UN's problem?

The US President defied the UN, acted illegally outside of the UN charter in Iraq, so why should the UN send troops?

The US didn't give a shit about the UN when it invaded Iraq, so it's pretty ridiculous for them to seek assistance from the UN troops now.

If the UN had done its job in the first place, and enforced its own laws when Saddam broke them, we wouldn't be where we are today. But no, they just sat around, going back and forth with the inspectors, yada yada yada....

The UN is a fucking joke. The US needs to get out of the UN,.

[Grimmlok]

The UN also had its weapon inspectors in Iraq while retard Dubbya was building up his army outside the borders, and the inspectors repeatedly told him there were no weapons, plans for weapons, or the facilities for weapons.

Saddam WAS policed, he had no weapons, he had no capability of making any, and tha's what the UN told the US. That was their mandate. 2 "no fly zones" and continued weapons inspections. That's what they were doing.

The US ignored them and invaded anyway because, as we all know, the invasion was premised on a bunch of lies. Don't pawn off that bullshit on the UN. Despite the rest of the planet, and the weapons inspectors telling the US otherwise they went in anyway.

This ridiculous historical revisionism is starting to piss me off. It's like those idiots that sit there and tell you "Bush tried diplomacy, but it didn't work, so he had to invade!" which is absolute nonsense, considering Bush's "diplomacy" window was the time it took to build up hundreds of billions of US forces and equipment on the border staging area for invasion.

It wouldn't have mattered wtf Saddam said or did, or what the UN said or did, NOBODY MOVES HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF MEN AND EQUIPMENT FOR A WAR AND THEN SENDS THEM BACK HOME WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING.

Effing retarded

[nycgirl]

Bush did defy the UN because he doesn't care how his actions effect the rest of the world or our country. Bottom line is we need to start bringing troops home. These are peoples children dying every day.

[Just Kill Me]

I would like to see the UN give us a spanking.

The US needs to get out of the UN? Why do that when we can look like we play nice while telling the rest of the world to suck it with our actions.