Letters to the Editor
-
@WT
When we go, we go. What happens after that isn't ours to decide, or even really to broker, absent the agreement of the other interested parties.
It may not be ours to decide, it certainly isn't absent agreement of other interested parties. It is required that we have that agreement. In writing and signed and ratified.
Even if we decided to outright surrender, or bomb the place into oblivion, we would be required to broker and negotiate the terms. We are an occupying power. We are responsible for medical services, return and accounting of deceased, return of refugees, relief operations, prosecution of war crimes, return of prisoners, civil defense, and internal security for up to a year after we leave. Those are the rules. In 194 countries. And our country is the one that signed that agreement with a John Hancock sized signature. What happens afterward is our responsibility. Which makes it an even worse mess than most people imagine.
-
Data
It's obvious that they, like Rove, have THE data.
-
Ondelette
Those are the rules. In 194 countries. And our country is the one that signed that agreement with a John Hancock sized signature. What happens afterward is our responsibility. Which makes it an even worse mess than most people imagine.
-- ondelette
I don't see what that "agreement" has to do with how bad or not bad the mess might or might not be or become to be. Has anyone held our feet to the fire in all this time we've been destroying the place, and breaking international rules and regulations right and left? No, so don't you maybe think everybody in the International Community might be glad to see us make the first mini step towards sanity in Iraq? Which would be our making real and concrete moves towards getting out as soon as possible.
-
@Kitt
I don't see what that "agreement" has to do with how bad or not bad the mess might or might not be or become to be. Has anyone held our feet to the fire in all this time we've been destroying the place, and breaking international rules and regulations right and left? No, so don't you maybe think everybody in the International Community might be glad to see us make the first mini step towards sanity in Iraq? Which would be our making real and concrete moves towards getting out as soon as possible.
What that agreement has to do with the mess is that we shouldn't shred it on the way out the door. Our feet have been held to the fire, more than one country has justified breaking those rules based on our behavior, and will ignore us about breaking them in the future. Don't I think that the International Community might be glad to have us start walking in the general direction of sanity? Yes. Would that include making real and concrete moves towards getting out as soon as possible? That's what I was talking about.
Until a consensus is built in the Congress and the military that leaving is what we need to do, we ain't goin' nowhere. And until you can convince at least 66 senators and 290 congresspeople that they won't go to sleep at night dreaming of burning at the stake for unleashing an ungodly horror on the world, you don't have the consensus. We agree the White House can be written off. 66+290 need to know it will work out alright. I thought maybe a concrete plan, maybe you have a better idea. That's fine, but consensus is the operative word when you need that many votes.
Like I said, the other way out is straight through the fire. It requires negotiating with a sworn enemy, it requires admission of grave breaches. But I think it is the right thing to do, because I think it means spilling less blood. Do you think spilling less blood will be a convincing argument for doing it? I am honestly asking this, I sincerely don't really know.
-
Nope. It's Evil Twin Time
William Zeallor:
Data
It's obvious that they, like Rove, have THE data.
Only seemingly. What they really have is Data's evil twin, Lore:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Lore
-
Sadly, no
And until you can convince at least 66 senators and 290 congresspeople that they won't go to sleep at night dreaming of burning at the stake for unleashing an ungodly horror on the world, you don't have the consensus. -- ondelette
If they aren't already having those nightmares, they never will. Being responsible for cleaning up the mess we created is no justification whatever for continuing the occupation. Period.
And, as I've said, we've already demonstrated our incompetence; insisting that others would be even more incompetent is self-serving at best.
-
Ondelette
We agree the White House can be written off. 66+290 need to know it will work out alright. I thought maybe a concrete plan, maybe you have a better idea. That's fine, but consensus is the operative word when you need that many votes.
Like I said, the other way out is straight through the fire. It requires negotiating with a sworn enemy, it requires admission of grave breaches. But I think it is the right thing to do, because I think it means spilling less blood. Do you think spilling less blood will be a convincing argument for doing it? I am honestly asking this, I sincerely don't really know.
There have already been concrete plans submitted. That doesn't do any good if the administration and the Republicans are corrupt, and many of the Democrats are either corrupt, stupid or in need of a spine.
You keep coming back with the same argument. I don't know why you think it sounds any different the third time as it did the first time.
Also, I told you and others that "spilling less blood" is nothing but a guess on everyones' part no matter how we go about leaving or staying. That argument is the equivalent of what will happen if I drop acid and go to the beach for the afternoon. I might not make it to the beach. And if I do make it to the beach, I might not know that I'm at the beach while I'm there. Because I am, after all, on acid It's all too unpredictable to pretend that a prediction can be made. All you can do is drop, and then hope for a good day, and that you survive that day to carry on to another day.