Enough, already of "we broke it, we bought it"

[Minstrel Boy]

America didn't chip a plate. America smart-bombed the china shop.

There are tens of thousands of people dead already in this goddamn horror show, and it's quite probable that tens of thousands more will soon join them.

Iraq's been stripped of its economic sovereignty, and Iraqi lives have never been cheaper. More than a dozen permanent bases are being constructed to turn Iraq into America's Middle East launching pad. And the trumped-up "civil war" will lead to the tribal division that's part of the neocon's dream of an Arab world of pacified bantustans.

Yet, "we have to finish what we started"? And it's here I get to read this bullshit.

[bluestateguy]

1. A distinction must be made

I want us to pull the troops out ASAP (I'd do it in 6 months), but if we were to do that and then tell Iraqis that they were now on their own, I think that would rub a lot of them the wrong way. We own them money for reconstruction, but I think they should control the appropriations of the money and we should only do what they ask of us by way of reconstruction.

[Minstrel Boy]

5. Six months plus $$$ for reparations

sounds reasonable.

And it's too bad, because I don't see any US military leaving volitionally, regardless of whoever's the nominal Commander in Chief. Even with the insurgency, Iraq is a strategic and irresistable prize.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Very good point.

The only thing I didn't like: Kerry's "90% of casualities, 90% of costs." It doesn't take the Iraqi burden into consideration.

[jdj]

3. I had to look this up

Bantustan
- definition, meaning, explanation & information in free-definition.com -


Bantustan or Bantustans is the disparaging term that refers to the tribal of South African native black Africans. These homelands were given to blacks by the white Apartheid rulers of the Republic of South Africa and were designated to become independent states under a grand plan called "Separate Development" which would have granted independence to blacks in these newly created tribal states. Bantu means "people" in the Bantu languages spoken in Southern Africa. There were to be about ten Bantustan-Homelands. These small, quasi-sovereign nations were established under the 1951 Bantu Authorities Act.

The founders and implementers of the Apartheid doctrine pushed the idea of Bantustans vigorously, but they never gained the recognition of the international community, and were mostly despised by South Africa's Blacks. They were unpopular because of a number of reasons:


The boundaries of the Bantustans were drawn to exclude economically valuable land.
The large number of reassigned citizens combined with the small area allocated to the Bantustans meant that the citizen to land ratio was severely disproportionate to that of South Africa.
Becoming citizens of the new territories meant losing citizenship of South Africa, where the majority of candidates for reassignment of citizenship lived and worked. This would cause them to lose what few rights and privileges they had as citizens of South Africa.


from free-definition.com

[PretzelWarrior]

4. point by Kerry is valid though. WE OWE IT TO IRAQIS

to apologize for the horror. to fix their infrastructure. and to get the hell out.

when we find some sick sh!ts around the world who want to blow up AMericans or Brits or anyone else because they want to make a statement...we must seek them out and destroy them

but I know Kerry will work to help the world recover from Bush the worst alcoholic abusive cowboy king the democratic world has ever known.

[MostlyLurks]

6. I agree.

I hate the fact that we're in Iraq, that we've killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, that we've opened up the country to instability...

That said, pulling out and leaving the people to basically fend for themselves is, in my opinion, as irresponsible (possibly more) as invading was in the first place. It's a sure method to introduce even more chaos into the country.

As for Kerry's "You break it, you bought it" line, it perfectly sums up, to those who didn't "get it" already, how he could simultaneously argue that the war is wrong and yet he doesn't want to summarily abandon Iraq. It thought it was great move in the direction of the "clear and forceful" soundbite that so many of us here have been yelling about since he got the nom.

This, of course, is all just my opinion.

Mostly.

[Eloriel]

7. It would be irresponsible IF

our staying would make things somehow work out. I'm not so sure that's true or can be made true. I've been against just leaving, but I keep looking and I don't see an exit strategy that works or could work. I don't know if Kerry will be able to pull it off or not.

We eventually had to just leave Vietnam. Guerilla wars cannot be won absent genocide, say military historians.

So I'm not so sure anymore that just leaving would be the wrong thing to do.

[Dangerman]

8. Agreed.

Iraq is not worth it.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. You won't get any arguments from me

our continued presence in Iraq will only rub salt in an already probably mortal wound.

[pinniped]

10. Saw some stupid idiot on the afternoon newz...

say, "I wish they would just get over it over it saying he lied...blah...blah...blah".

This coming from a moran probably still mad at Clenis.

[Jacobin]

11. "We invaded it, we're getting our asses run out on a rail"

That's more realistic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The longer we stay the more we break.

All this blather about "fixing it", is just that. All we're managing to do is make the situation worse and provide more recruits for al-Queyda and all the other groups. Every time we bomb a "terrorist hangout" we kill civilians and piss off more people.

The "security" offered by an Iraqi force of collaborators, probably well salted with AQ, is the same as that as offered by Petain and the French Milice, and will crumble as soon as they aren't backed by American tanks and planes.

The way to "fix" it, is to get out and turn it over to the UN and the Iraqis with only materiel/monetary support from us - controlled by the UN or Iraqis.

The so called "war" is lost. Time to pick up all the military toys and get out.

[Selwynn]

13. Read my "spin" and tell me what you think....

Ok,

I *DO* agree in the "you break it, you buy it" principle. If you ravage a sovereign nation in an illegal war, you are responsible and accountable to make it right.

The question is, what does "make it right" mean and how do we "make it right?" Well, I believe that make it right means rebuild what has been destroyed and return stability to what has been ravaged. But on the question of how we do that, I believe that our continuing occupying presence in Iraq is making things *worse* not making things *right* (I've debated this in my mind for a while.)

The United States should still face the financial costs of its actions - otherwise there is no deterrent for its future aggression. It should still face the costs of rebuilding, still face the cost of implementing democracy and recreating security there. But it should cease to be the unilateral occupying force in Iraq, the UN should be empowered to come in, the world should be coaxed into fixing a humanitarian disaster, and US troops numbers on the ground in Iraq should be drastically reduced, though US Representatives and/or troops should STILL be involved in the rebuilding effort - under the UN and the international communities leadership, not the US's off the "line" and outside of Iraq (i.e. working with transporting materials and supplies, working with non-military contractors and engineers, etc.

Would you agree with the general gist, if not the specifics of that spin?

I believe we ought to be held accountable and responsible for what we have done - that's where the you break it you buy it metaphor comes in for me. I don't think that means a sustained unilateral military occupying force, because I'm not sure that helps.

Thoughts?

[H2O Man]

14. That raises a couple of questions .....

I think that we all agree that the Bush administration lacks the ability to do any positive deed in the Middle East. In fact, I'll take it a step farther, and say they lack the moral capacity to do any positive works in the United States. But does it follow that the United States lacks the ability to do any good in the Middle East?

I'm certainly not trying to change anyone's mind on this. We all have the right to our own opinions. But I think that we too often overlook the resources we have in America.

There was for example, a huge difference between the Reagan-Bush1 administration having Oliver North trying to deal weapons for hostages, and having the Rev. Jesse Jackson bringing hostages home. That's the difference between shit and sugar, in my view.

The USA has relationships with all of the Middle Eastern countries, in some way or another, and that doesn't need to be a negative. In order to help resolve the problems Bush has created, and repair what things we possibly could, we need to take the regional view that Kerry advocated last night.

For obvious example, work towards a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestian conflict. Then try to deal with Iran. This includes recognizing that there is an unacceptable risk of nuclear war, with as many nations in that area having those and other WMDs. If we were to take a progressive approach in those two areas, the other nations are far more likely to take a more active role .... and then by the very nature, our country will not be considered an evil empire.

Our options are not simply variations on kill the Iraqi's, or pack our bags. America has the potential to be an agent of positive change in the world.

[enki23]

15. we do need to help fix our problem, if we can

and to begin that process, we need to back out of our controlling role in it. americans no longer have credibility as "liberators, not occupiers" in iraq. that much is clear. we need to get more international support, so we can back the hell out. we need to dismantle the current puppet government. our hand-picked "prime minister" needs to be sacked, and sent back into exile like chalabi. anyone we've touched, in fact, is probably radioactive now. we need the UN to come in, and we need it badly. and to get that to happen, we will have to make *many* concessions. we'll have to give up control, we'll have to bribe nations, and cajole others. we'll have to continue to pay for most of this mess, while we let others do the cleanup.

or so it seems to me, an armchair quarterback.

whether that *can* happen or not remains to be seen. certainly not under the current administration. that much is obvious to anyone who isn't a hopeless fool. whether kerry could actually do it or not is questionable as well. iraq seems, to this pessimist, to be a lost cause. civil war in iraq seems to be all but inevitable if we leave. more of the same from the past few months, and worse, seems to be all but inevitable if we stay.

and how *do* you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?

one thing is clear. this is bush's fault, and that of the neocon cabal who brought him to the dance. they should be branded (metaphorically, not physically) as political pariahs, and relegated to fox news commentator positions for the rest of their failed lives. that is, if we can't find enough dirt on them to prosecute them for war crimes first.