Funny!
I really respect Americans today.
For 6 years we had people trying to be more royal than the king, trying to justify every action the US does, only to be left out by Americans who realized today that things have been going in the wrong way for a long time.
Wow!
And…so long, suckers!!
posted by TB at
2:00 PM
17 Comments:
We are probably going to withdraw from Iraq now. I wonder what that will mean for Iraq.
By
Anonymous, at
November 08, 2006 10:00 PM
Couldn't agree more Toman bay.
Jeez Tommy, don't you have a minimum amount of common sense to realize when it's time to take a hike? Please stop the childish sloganeering, and also stop pretending that you give a bit about Iraq or the Iraquis.
By
Anonymous, at
November 09, 2006 12:46 AM
You realize that this happened so that they can withdraw from Iraq and then, when things get even worse and the US is blamed for leaving too soon, the republicans can point fingers at the democrats.
By
Um Haleema, at
November 09, 2006 6:10 AM
Yeah,now maybe we can stop pissing away billions on Egypt every year. The money is obviously being used to create morons.
By
Anonymous, at
November 09, 2006 7:15 AM
Geez Tommy, don't you have a minimum amount of common sense to realize when it's time to take a hike? Please stop the childish sloganeering, and also stop pretending that you give a bit about Iraq or the Iraquis.
I said I wondered what might ultimately occur in Iraq when we are gone. That is hardly a slogan, dumbass.
I'm not at all certain what will happen in Iraq after we depart. Will this sort of low-level scuffle continue? Will it blow up into a full-fledged civil war? Will things somehow manage to calm down? Maybe the factions will tire of the fighting and reach some sort of amicable resolution. The Iraqi people might surprise us still.
If it explodes, who will get the best of it? I would think the Shiites would and they will probably have plenty of support from Iran, but the Sunnis are pretty tenacious. Who might come to the Sunnis' aid? With Syria and Iran buddying up lately, I wouldn't think they would covertly back opposing sides. Could Saudi Arabia or other Sunni states back the Iraqi Sunnis?
The Kurds look set for independence. How exactly might that come about? If the Kurds declare independence, will the Turks attempt to invade a newly independent Kurdistan at some point?
Lots of things to ponder.
In any event, the neo-con project of bringing democracy to the Arab world appears to be dead in the water. Paleo-cons, like myself, have generally been skeptical that democracy can actually be achieved in Islamic countries regardless of what we do. (I would have loved to have been proven wrong, though.) Things like Sharia just are not compatible with democracy. Maybe a very secularized Muslim society can sustain democracy, but I don't see how anyone can prevent the resurgence of fundamentalism from time to time. Certainly, the long-term trend throughout the Muslim world is towards greater fundamentalism. Arabs just a few generations ago were far more secular than they are today.
Liberals pay lip-service to human rights and such but really don't give a shit about the Arab world and Democratic leaders will simply go back to an agenda of promoting "stability in the Middle East." They are too timid to act aggressively. The neo-conservatives just lost their last, best argument for democracy in the Middle East. Lebanon's possibly faltering democracy and the election of a terrorist organization in the Palestinian territories are two more embarrassing blows for that crowd.
I think the United States will probably move further towards the traditional Arabist position of so many at the State Department. "Stability" will remain entrenched as the key word for now on in Middle Eastern relations. That will probably mean more support for Mubarak, more for the Jordanian royals, and more for the Saudis.
By
Anonymous, at
November 09, 2006 8:51 AM
Nothing will happen in Iraq!
it is that simple...Bush (foolishly, and naively!) declared that he is still commander in chief, and he'll control what happens in Iraq!
So instead of convincing the people that the declining situation in Iraq over the next 2 years is democrats fault, and ultimately having a republican win in 08, he actually took the blame for the next 2 years right from the start. And lets be practical: there is nothing he can do in the next 2 years that he couldn't have done in the last 3.
Expect maybe appease Iran and Syria. What does that mean? yeah, you guessed it.. more conservative frustration from the republican party, and more votes for democrats!
It's so amusing watching this guy work!
By
TB, at
November 09, 2006 1:25 PM
Tomanbay,
You apparently don't understand how it works. The Democrats hold the purse strings for the war whether Bush is commander-in-chief or not. (Bush can't relinquish that as you seem to be suggesting, BTW, that is part of his constitutional mandate as president; every American president is de facto commander-in-chief). They can start to defund the war and thus force a withdrawal and some Dems are already suggesting that will be in the works.
By
Anonymous, at
November 10, 2006 1:00 AM
no way!
i understand they can control war finance, but I don't think they'd be foolish enough to leave the troops there without enough funding, that would be political suicide. So, if Bush didn't withdraw the troops, they'll continue funding...they might even play up this by saying that although we are against the war, we're funding it only for "our men and women over there". Played right, this could be even a bigger advantage for them...
By
TB, at
November 10, 2006 2:36 PM
Yeah withdrawing right now would be a EXTREAMLY stupid move for the US to make.
By
1, at
November 10, 2006 2:46 PM
The problem is not that Bush and the Democrats do not agree on withdrawing.. they do every body does. the real problem is that no one knows how to do it.
the Democrats used the war during the election to show that the current administration is wrong; however no one knows how to pull out.
Bush did admit that his policy is not working; that is why Donald Rumsfield was kicked out. moreover, in the last month Bush was pressuring to withdraw where as Nori Al Malaky refused his plans; i.e. the Democrats will not have the magical recipe, and every body acknowledges it.
By
fdsmars, at
November 10, 2006 11:28 PM
i understand they can control war finance, but I don't think they'd be foolish enough to leave the troops there without enough funding, that would be political suicide.
You have a very weak understanding of the political scene in the US, Tomanbay. I can't blame you. I don't claim to have a good gauge of how things work in Egypt since it isn't my country, either. Sandmonkey is the same way sometimes. For example, he took seriously Andrew Sullivan's theory that Joe Lieberman could defect to the Republicans since he was ousted from the Democratic Party. Anyone who follows politics closely knows how extremely unlikely that would be. It simply won't happen. All these sort of things look more plausible at a distance, when you are from another country, and don't have a good grasp of the dynamics.
What you have to understand, Tomanbay, is that the Dems are in hoc to that rather substantial portion of their base that demands withdrawal and makes Iraq the single most important issue. That same faction of the party just ousted Lieberman from the party for being too agreeable to the Bush administration in his approach to Iraq. The Democrats who were elected are very aware that it could be them next time.
Things won't work the way you are thinking. The Democrats cannot simply sit on this issue, whine, and do nothing. For the Democrats, it is payoff time. The base is expecting the Democrats to challenge Bush vigorously and change the course of Bush's policies with all their power. Not doing something about Iraq would be political suicide: they would be slapping their constituents in the face. They cannot and will not do that.
That leaves the Democrats with two options: they could cut and run as quickly as possible or they can gradually draw down military forces in Iraq.
The cut and run option may not look very good, but the phased withdrawal has its disadvantages also. The Democrats will be hard-pressed to explain why, if they believe that Iraq is a lost cause, we are not withdrawing our forces as soon as possible. A gradual draw down suggests that Iraq is somehow tenable. Democrats will have to take the defensive and explain what they have in mind for Iraq if they do that; they will have to actually have some sort of plan. Furthermore, if the withdrawal moves too slowly then the Democrat's base will be angered by their leadership's seeming inaction. The Democrats are going to have to explain their choices regardless of what they do.
By
Anonymous, at
November 13, 2006 8:15 AM
Lots of guessing and bickering - here my 2 bits worth: the U.S will be out, Iraq will be the battlefield for control between sunnis & shiaa and we will all watch and analyze who is supporting who and sneaking in weapons for which side. israel will supply the sunni's while iran will supply the shiaa. Once the iraqi population is self obliterated, Iran will walk in and declare it part of their country based on historical heritage. The US and Israel will attack Iran ..... and probably drop the first nuclear device in the middle east ... we will all watch and analyze ...
tah tah folks, the Illusionist
By
Anonymous, at
November 17, 2006 11:24 AM
hey TB, just wanted to say welcome back! Great to read your stuff once again!
By
Anonymous, at
November 20, 2006 2:58 PM
Are you done with blogging khalas?
By
Seneferu, at
February 15, 2007 5:14 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Seneferu, at
February 16, 2007 5:29 PM
Tomanbay, come back!!!
By
Anonymous, at
May 14, 2007 2:02 PM
Thank you for sharing with us his thoughts!
By
Frank, at
November 08, 2011 1:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home