" The Real McCain "

[Zzarchov]

And this surge nonsense. This war has been on for 5 years. Sooner or later things settle just from attrition and time. Hell there is peace in Germany, does that mean Hitler had it right? Did the surge work to bring peace to Vietnam? It's a dumb war and it should've ended years ago, and shouldn't have started in the first place. The end does not justify the means.

Actually surges did win in Vietnam. Lets not forget that after the tet offensive finally broke the back of the NVA, and the NVA attrocities finally started unifying South Korea that the Ho Chi was sending out peace feelers.

That stopped when America just up and left due to media portrayal of the place as some doped up suicide cult of American youth getting hammered by the undefeatable NVA.

The Vietnam analogy really re-inforces the point that you will infact win a war where even against an insurgency your casualty response rate is hundreds to one.

There seems to be this myth that there is an endless stream of people willing to die to remove oppression from their country.

But the fact that the majority of this planet is run by oppressive regimes really puts paid to that Idea.


Of course the Surge is winning, an Insurgency is alot like crime. Add more cops to the Area, Crime rate drops down. Its not rocket science or some bold plan, its basic concepts.

Its up there with plans like "If we give our soldiers better armour, fewer will die" .

 

[jimmoyer]

Good post Zzarchov.

The surge being successful does not justify either war, but your point about the efficacy of the surge certainly knocked down a few myths, especially the one that claims "there is an endless stream of people willing to die to remove oppression from their country."

 

[Praxius]

Good post Zzarchov.

The surge being successful does not justify either war, but your point about the efficacy of the surge certainly knocked down a few myths, especially the one that claims "there is an endless stream of people willing to die to remove oppression from their country."

If you want to remove the oppression, remove the country that invaded and is currently oppressing them and who created the situation in the first place. Until the US leaves Iraq and leaves it in their own hands to run the country as they see fit, be that a democracy, or an islamic state, that is their business to do so, not the US's.

Basically all I see it as is the US saying "Hey, yes, you're welcome for us removing your leader, now we're giving you guys the freedom of democracy and the right to decide for yourselves how you want to run your country...... but here's how we want you guys to set it up..... oh and we're not leaving until things are working the way we want them to. Enjoy."

But then we have people in the US claiming that "Oh, if we leave now, there will be total war, more people will be dying, and we might not be able to keep a democracy there."

Yet, wasn't it the US who fought against England for their own independance.... then once they got it, they went into a Civil War as well to kill each other off due to conflicting ideals?

Eventually the US figured themselves out... for the most part.... but now the US is trying to baby-step Iraqis and trying to parent their entire country into how they want it to run, worrying that they don't have the brain power to do so on their own..... even though the US and many other countries did in the past.

 

[scratch]

If you want to remove the oppression, remove the country that invaded and is currently oppressing them and who created the situation in the first place. Until the US leaves Iraq and leaves it in their own hands to run the country as they see fit, be that a democracy, or an islamic state, that is their business to do so, not the US's.

Basically all I see it as is the US saying "Hey, yes, you're welcome for us removing your leader, now we're giving you guys the freedom of democracy and the right to decide for yourselves how you want to run your country...... but here's how we want you guys to set it up..... oh and we're not leaving until things are working the way we want them to. Enjoy."

Should be a front page headline somewhere!

 

[Zzarchov]

Yet, wasn't it the US who fought against England for their own independance.... then once they got it, they went into a Civil War as well to kill each other off due to conflicting ideals?

Yep, some 80 years later. If Iraq was going to go into a civil war some 80 years later I don't think the US would care either.

Of course the more important point is, Iraq was in a civil war BEFORE the US got involved, even the first time.

The Kurds aren't autonomous because Saddam was such a nice guy. They were involved in a civil war, which is what you call it when one group rejects the authority of the governning body and they fight about it.

Eventually the US figured themselves out... for the most part.... but now the US is trying to baby-step Iraqis and trying to parent their entire country into how they want it to run, worrying that they don't have the brain power to do so on their own..... even though the US and many other countries did in the past.

The thing with democracies is they fail more often than succeed. The hands off approach was tried in WWI which lead to bloodshed, then the unstable wiemar republic, then the third reich. So they next time the US took a more hands on approach..and it worked.

Now maybe it was just a fluke and US internvention or lack thereof had no impact in either case. But no sense risking more than you have to.

 

[talloola]

Yet, wasn't it the US who fought against England for their own independance.... then once they got it, they went into a Civil War as well to kill each other off due to conflicting ideals?

Eventually the US figured themselves out... for the most part.... but now the US is trying to baby-step Iraqis and trying to parent their entire country into how they want it to run, worrying that they don't have the brain power to do so on their own..... even though the US and many other countries did in the past.

Excellent point, let them now struggle on 'their' own, and figure it out too.

 

[normbc9]

The Real McCain

One thing all US politicos have in common is that if BS was brass they'd own a big symphony orchestra. We sure are seeing that fact right now in the daily media.

 

[jimmoyer]

Again good post, Zzarchov.

Let us hope Iraq rises out of the ashes (many are responsible for those ashes from Saddam to the USA to Iraq's own people to the culture and ethnic hatred).

Less interesting is this wish for Iraq to succeed.

It's more fashionable to focus on any USA stupidity or evil. That's infinitely more interesting than Iraq succeeding.

 

[scratch]

Again good post, Zzarchov.

Let us hope Iraq rises out of the ashes (many are responsible for those ashes from Saddam to the USA to Iraq's own people to the culture and ethnic hatred).

Less interesting is this wish for Iraq to succeed.

It's more fashionable to focus on any USA stupidity or evil. That's infinitely more interesting than Iraq succeeding.

Iraq has always been tribal and always will be. Regardless of 'Roo stupidity. This idiocy has gone on long enough, let them sort it out.

 

[jimmoyer]

Scratch, we're outsiders. We don't know crap.

Tribal ? What does that mean to you ?

Something less evolved ?

The Iraqis have a great professional culture. They got the ability to succeed.
It is too bad we were not treated to the thousands of stories of 1000s of heroes, of people lining up to be a policeman after a bombing, of people lining up to vote after a bombing.

I suggest they are made of tougher stock and in many cases they are made of greater heroic and moral intelligence than most of us cyber voyeurs with soft hands yanking on a flaccid member.

The world cares less for their success than the more interesting issue of American stupidity and bumbling.

 

[Praxius]

Again good post, Zzarchov.

Let us hope Iraq rises out of the ashes (many are responsible for those ashes from Saddam to the USA to Iraq's own people to the culture and ethnic hatred).

Less interesting is this wish for Iraq to succeed.

It's more fashionable to focus on any USA stupidity or evil. That's infinitely more interesting than Iraq succeeding.

I want them to succeed in their own way, their own path, their own dreams.... and that's not going to happen so long as the US continues with it's evil and stupidity..... that's why everybody claims the US is evil and stupid in the first place.... because of Iraq being invaded, Iraq being occupied, Iraq being destroyed, and of the US refusing to see common sense and the lesser of two or several evils in decision making and getting the hell out of there and leaving them alone.

The majority of the world wants the US out of there, the people in Iraq even want the US out of their country and off their "Holy Lands" and yet, everybody seems to be wrong, and Staying the course seems to be the way to go.

Go where?

 

[Praxius]

Scratch, we're outsiders. We don't know crap.

Tribal ? What does that mean to you ?

Something less evolved ?

Has nothing to do with evolved or not, it's the way in which they deal with their society. Personally I think Capitalism is primitive and corrupt, but there ya go.

The Iraqis have a great professional culture. They got the ability to succeed.
It is too bad we were not treated to the thousands of stories of 1000s of heroes, of people lining up to be a policeman after a bombing, of people lining up to vote after a bombing.

I hear plenty of those people.... but view the overal spectrum and figure out why those police are being bombed in the first place. No money, no food, they need income for their families, they go and work the jobs they need to..... all the while insurgents feel they're working for the West, prolonging the US's occupation of their country, considder them traitors, and they are killed. Pretty straight forward if you ask me. Remove the US from their country, the levels of mistrust between the tribes and political groups will reduce, and chances are they might just be able to hash something out for themselves.

I suggest they are made of tougher stock and in many cases they are made of greater heroic and moral intelligence than most of us cyber voyeurs with soft hands yanking on a flaccid member.

Perhaps.... but what does that matter in my everyday life? A few years ago, these people risking their lives for a small paycheque used to have their own businesses, their own peaceful jobs, nobody was blowing anybody up in the streets, kids were playing on those same streets, and generally, people were happy..... there was no war.

Then suddenly comes Bush and the Americans..... blaming the Iraqis and Saddam of having WMD.... blew the hell out of their country, turned their entire lives upsidedown.... and now this is what they all have to look forward to.

Yeah, I'm proud all right :-? That police officer probably doesn't have half a family left by now.

The world cares less for their success than the more interesting issue of American stupidity and bumbling.

I disagree. The reason why they have less succuss is because of forign interference with forign objectives continually undermining their attempts.

 

[jimmoyer]

I hear plenty of those people.... but view the overal spectrum and figure out why those police are being bombed in the first place. No money, no food, they need income for their families, they go and work the jobs they need to..... all the while insurgents feel they're working for the West, prolonging the US's occupation of their country, considder them traitors, and they are killed. Pretty straight forward if you ask me. Remove the US from their country, the levels of mistrust between the tribes and political groups will reduce, and chances are they might just be able to hash something out for themselves.
---------------------------------------------Praxius-----------------------------------

Insurgents feel they're working for the West ???

What a way to lessen the bravery by saying Sunnis were desperate for the money as they lined up to be policeman after a bombing of police headquarters. Not everyone who was desperate volunteered. What of the bravery of those who stepped over dead bodies from a recent bombing to go inside a building to vote ?

Oh, all the violence is only because of US occupation ??? Simplistic. Let's take a look at recent history. Remember Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia ? The Croatians long had the rep of being Nazi sympathizers. The Slovenians never felt they belonged in the Balkans. The Serbians were sure of their manifest destiny to rule. When Tito died, the ethnic divisions long squelched by this strong man came to the fore, just as it did when the strong man Saddam was toppled.

The shia longed to have its majority in power, forever having hated the Sunni minority that ruled. Very similar to the Serbian hegemony under Tito in Yugoslavia. Many parallels. Your understanding of the repression the strong man leader took to quell any outburst of long standing ethnic and religious hatred seems to be less of a fashionable reason for you to use. You're in the zeitgeist, firmly planted.

Please resume your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Praxius]

Insurgents feel they're working for the West ???

Close, but no.... Isugents feel the current government and other parties are doing this, not themselves, that would just be silly.

What a way to lessen the bravery by saying Sunnis were desperate for the money as they lined up to be policeman after a bombing of police headquarters.

Them's the breaks.

Not everyone who was desperate volunteered. What of the bravery of those who stepped over dead bodies from a recent bombing to go inside a building to vote ?

I dunno, present an example of this happening and I can give you a proper response.

Oh, all the violence is only because of US occupation ??? Simplistic.

Indeed it is... was it like this before the US came to their country? Nope.

Let's take a look at recent history.

Sure.....

Remember Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia ? The Croatians long had the rep of being Nazi sympathizers. The Slovenians never felt they belonged in the Balkans. The Serbians were sure of their manifest destiny to rule. When Tito died, the ethnic divisions long squelched by this strong man came to the fore, just as it did when the strong man Saddam was toppled.

And you think the US alone knows hot to handle this situation? Clearly it doesn't.

The shia longed to have its majority in power, forever having hated the Sunni minority that ruled. Very similar to the Serbian hegemony under Tito in Yugoslavia. Many parallels. Your understanding of the repression the strong man leader took to quell any outburst of long standing ethnic and religious hatred seems to be less of a fashionable reason for you to use. You're in the zeitgeist, firmly planted.

Wrong... I don't honestly give two rat hoots what the US's opinion or any other country's opinion is on the situation.... have you actually listened to any actual Iraqis explaining their views on the situation? They long for the old Saddam days, because then they at least could still walk on the streets without fear of random attacks or bombings, their economy is just starting to get close to the way it was prior to the US invasion, food and supplies, as well as fresh water and energy are more difficult to get then it ever was under Saddam's rule..... and when you have Iraqis claiming that life was far better under Saddam's rule..... that's certainly telling you something about its current state of affairs.... and that's dismal.

Added:

Opinion Polls in Iraq
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/INFO/55

(10 Sept 2007)
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.

Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'. Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago. Nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified. This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia. Growing disparity between Shia and Sunni satisfaction levels.

Poll of 2,212 people conducted from 25 February to 5 March 2007, in all 18 provinces. Covered political, security and economic questions. This is the 3rd such poll since 2003, allowing some comparison across time.

• perception of overall decline in quality of life since 2007
• shows much less optimism about the future than 2004 or 2005 (32% expected that in a year's time things would be somewhat worse or much worse, compared to 12% in 2005 and 6% in 2004; only 35% thought they would be much or somewhat better, compared to 64% in 2005 and 71% in 2004)
• shows polarising opinion about the US-led invasion, with more believing it to have been either absolutely right or absolutely wrong than in 2005 or 2004
• reports declining quality/availability of electricity supply, water, fuel, education, local government and medical care
• still majority (58%) support for "One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad", although declining since 2005 (70%) and 2004 (79%)
• a majority believe that the surge of US troops in Anbar and Baghdad will worsen security (49%) or have no effect (22%)
• 17% said an immediate family member had been harmed by the violence
• only 14% reported that Shiites and Sunnis living in their neighbourhood had separated to separate neighbourhoods (37% said their neighbourhood remained mixed; 47% that their neighbourhood had never been mixed)

 

[Colpy]

The real McCain?

Take a look at last week's TIME magazine, all those that think McCain is McBush.........the two really don't like each other. In, McCain and Bush fought a nasty campaign against each other, McCain has repeatedly resisted Bush's agenda in Congress, McCain was heard to say to Bush when Bush took his arm and claimed to know nothing about smears against McCain : "Don't BS me, and get your @#$%^& hands off me"

Yep

Buddies.

McCain was one of 4 senators the Democrats thought they could convert......and John Kerry desperately wanted McCain to be his VP running mate........McCain turned him down because "He didn't think (Kerry) was up to the job".

Who can work with both sides?

You add these things to McCain's proven strength of character, and the conclusion is obvious, at least to me:

McCain the man.

 

[#juan]

WASHINGTON, July 22 (UPI) -- A string of verbal gaffes committed by likely Republican U.S. presidential nominee John McCain is raising questions about his age, observers say. If elected, McCain would begin his presidency at age 72, the oldest ever for a presidential first term. After three weeks of mistakes, such as saying "Iraq" when he apparently meant "Afghanistan" on Monday, observers are wondering if he still has the mental acuity for the job, The Politico reported Wednesday.
The political Web site said voters will compare McCain to their own relatives and will be watching closely for signs of old age impairment, even though there are plenty of examples of men in their 70s who are as physically and mentally fit as ever.
Late-night U.S. comedians have already turned McCain's gaffes into joke fodder. The Politico said CBS's David Letterman elicits laughs any time he says the words "McCain" and "nap" in the same

 

[talloola]

The real McCain?

Take a look at last week's TIME magazine, all those that think McCain is McBush.........the two really don't like each other. In, McCain and Bush fought a nasty campaign against each other, McCain has repeatedly resisted Bush's agenda in Congress, McCain was heard to say to Bush when Bush took his arm and claimed to know nothing about smears against McCain : "Don't BS me, and get your @#$%^& hands off me"

Yep

Buddies.

McCain was one of 4 senators the Democrats thought they could convert......and John Kerry desperately wanted McCain to be his VP running mate........McCain turned him down because "He didn't think (Kerry) was up to the job".

Who can work with both sides?

You add these things to McCain's proven strength of character, and the conclusion is obvious, at least to me:

McCain the man.

If he happened to serve 8 years, he would be 80 when finished, that is disgusting, as
they push everyone else out of the workplace at 65, and allow politicians to hang
around as though they owned the place. He is too old now, bring in the more
youthful, and people with a solid vision of the future, he is cemented in the past,
and not the future.
That thing about Kerry wanting him desperately to join him, is 'bull,' and the explanation
of why he didn't want to is also' bull.' Sounds like another fox network story.
I remember the gossip on fox about the two joining, and it was just that, gossip and rumour.

 

[Colpy]

If he happened to serve 8 years, he would be 80 when finished, that is disgusting, as
they push everyone else out of the workplace at 65, and allow politicians to hang
around as though they owned the place. He is too old now, bring in the more
youthful, and people with a solid vision of the future, he is cemented in the past,
and not the future.
That thing about Kerry wanting him desperately to join him, is 'bull,' and the explanation
of why he didn't want to is also' bull.' Sounds like another fox network story.
I remember the gossip on fox about the two joining, and it was just that, gossip and rumour.

From TIME magazine, July 28, 2008 edition, page 15

In the Spring of 2004, John Kerry secretly urged his fellow Vietnam vet to join him in a unity ticket. It was, to put it mildly, a full-court press: Kerry offered to make McCain both Vice President and Secretary of Defense and to give him control of foreign policy. Kerry lobbied McCain's wife Cindy, and even enlisted the help of Warren Beatty, with whom McCain had become friendly..........

I'll think you'll agree TIMe is hardly a Republican right-wing mouth-piece.....

Did you think I pulled this stuff out of my arse?

 

[Kreskin]

The real McCain?

Take a look at last week's TIME magazine, all those that think McCain is McBush.........the two really don't like each other. In, McCain and Bush fought a nasty campaign against each other, McCain has repeatedly resisted Bush's agenda in Congress, McCain was heard to say to Bush when Bush took his arm and claimed to know nothing about smears against McCain : "Don't BS me, and get your @#$%^& hands off me"

Yep

Buddies.

McCain was one of 4 senators the Democrats thought they could convert......and John Kerry desperately wanted McCain to be his VP running mate........McCain turned him down because "He didn't think (Kerry) was up to the job".

Who can work with both sides?

You add these things to McCain's proven strength of character, and the conclusion is obvious, at least to me:

McCain the man.

Kerry would've been a far better President than Bush. Not up for it, what nonsense. A half-trained monkey would've done just as well as who McCain thought was up for the job.

 

[jimmoyer]

Of course you might add that Kerry had seriously requested McCain to be his running mate
on a back channel that became very public knowledge by all the staffers to both camps.

You'll be seeing a published story on it by at least several staffers. In fact it hit the newspapers at the time.