Letters to the Editor
-
re: Kitt
Pardon, but I would like to offer a reply to your statement:
"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,..."
Kofi Annan, the previous Secretary General of the United Nations, said the Iraq invasion (&, I believe, occupation) was illegal. Flat out. Obviously, with President Bush and Amb. Bolton at the helm of our ship of state, thats about all he, or anyone else, can say, or do, about the matter. Unfortunately.
In fact, I believe a strong case could be made that the Iraq 'war' (coup/overthrow, is more accurate) is illegal based on our 'own' laws, governing U.S. international treaties, because the war is essentially a unilateral action in direct conflict with our stated and sworn obligations to our international treaties.
regards,
bah.
-
Sadly, yes
Might I remind you, that I'm not the one who needs to be convinced that we need to leave as soon as possible. I'm only the one that needs to be convinced we're going to magically convince the people who will order the troops out by calling them corrupt scoundrels, ignoring their greatest fears, and calling them liars.
We do need to hand off our occupation to someone in an orderly fashion. Who would you like to negotiate with? It needs to be done before the hand-off, not after.
We can do all this as rapidly as you like, I like rapidly. In fact, I like yesterday. It isn't irrelevant just because the President is a crook, it's rule of law.
-
bahhummingbug
I don't disagree. But that isn't 'holding our feet to the fire' since we - or our disgusting current government - treated them like so many doggies in the window making with their sad eyes and cute faces vying for attention.
-
Nothing wrong with fluffy puppies, kitt.
It is my opinion that the Bush Adm. , particually Mr. Bolton, treated them - the U.N. and entire international community - with utter contempt.
This is a real problem. Then and now.
regards,
bah.
-
Ondelette
I've not said that it is irrelevant. I've said that relevancy doesn't move mountains. Moving mountains is what we need. Relevancy is just a tool. A good one, mind you, but as about as useful as 'We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here'. How nice it must be to hear that if you are an Iraqi child. Or an Iraqi of any age. Or any of us who find it to be a reprehensible statement.
To address the specifics of your ongoing question: If we get out, the least of our problems, the least of the world's concerns, will be how and when we finally got out. They will all celebrate today, tomorrow and into the future. In spite of all the reinventing history that the Republicans will partake in with their Wingnut Welfare for years on into the future.
If someone in the international community wants to make a case that we broke laws in the way we got out...So be it. They'd probably have a strong case and we'd probably end up paying another multi billions in fines and restitution. I'll bite that bullet. We deserved it.
-
Bah
It is my opinion that the Bush Adm. , particually Mr. Bolton, treated them - the U.N. and entire international community - with utter contempt.
This is a real problem. Then and now.
regards,
bah.
-- bahhummingbug
I agree. If you thought I didn't then I guess I scrambled my comment.
-
A spade is a spade is a spade
I'm only the one that needs to be convinced we're going to magically convince the people who will order the troops out by calling them corrupt scoundrels, ignoring their greatest fears, and calling them liars. -- ondelette
They are what they are. If they won't do it unless we call them all sweetie-pies, I guess they'll just have to be replaced with someone who will. However long it takes, however nasty it gets. If we don't, they'll just do the same thing somewhere else.
This won't convince you, I'm sure, but I suspect that events will.
-
It was your 'doggy in the window' analogy that confused me, Kitt.
You realize, Rove rips the heads off small animals ... in his spare time!
!,
bah.
-
Glen Greenwald
For the Bush/Republican War to continue today,
Three more soldiers with thier lives will pay.
Is the Surge Working?
U.S. troop deaths - March/August 2006 - 345
March/August 2007 - 574
("The Surge")
-
Typo
Made a typo there. I meant to write their there, but they're both easy to mistype. They're there now, so there you go.
-
Okay, I knew it wasn't convincing to you guys
To address the specifics of your ongoing question: If we get out, the least of our problems, the least of the world's concerns, will be how and when we finally got out.
Yeah, after the decision has been made and we start getting out, probably the whole rest of the world won't give a good god damn what the specifics were. Unless a blood bath does ensue. Then it will be up to all the people who said it didn't matter how we got out to explain that we couldn't have done any better than that. God help 'em if there was a way, and they didn't pay attention to it, 'cause it'll look just like invading and finding no weapons. And it will put the crazies back in the driver's seat in less than 20 years. And with Geneva not just quaint, but null and void.
They are what they are. If they won't do it unless we call them all sweetie-pies, I guess they'll just have to be replaced with someone who will.
Yeah, from the endless pool of congresspeople and senators that want to get out of Iraq now, which right now looks like an empty mud puddle.
Look. Petraeus is acting like a project manager. He's asking for what the people under him tell him they need for a successful outcome, he's portraying his project in the best possible light, and he's moving heaven and earth to make sure the project continues until the product ships. Those aren't the actions of a loyal Bushie, those are the actions of someone who believes he's a damn good problem solver and supports his direct reports. The proper actions of his Congressional managers would be to give him the problem they want solved, and tell him he has a green light to solve it. They should ask him to get us out of Iraq ASAP with as little bloodshed as possible, and if he says he needs negotiators in ten foreign capitals, and cash to buy public works projects and armor thick as a bank safe then they should give him negotiators in ten foreign capitals and cash to buy public works projects and armor thick as a bank safe -- and tell him the withdrawal is due in 6 months with no extensions.
On BBC News this evening they reported about Petraeus and Crocker testifying. They finished up by saying that the policy they advocated would likely get adopted, since the Democrats in Congress who advocated ending the war more quickly had "neither the votes to force an end to the fighting, nor an alternative plan of their own."
Looks like the anti-war scheme, which consisted in putting all of the eggs in the basket of pre-emptively trying to prove that Petraeus was such a congenital liar that no one should even listen when he spoke, didn't work.
'Member how some of us knew there weren't any WMD before we invaded? Some of us knew the Petraeus = liar scheme wouldn't work before it came down too. I try not to let loose too often on this comment line on this subject, because I know my point of view isn't that popular here, and I have a lot of respect for the commenters here. But some of us knew.
Over the last 50 years, we've screwed up every relationship we've had from the Nile to the Irawaddy. Getting out of Iraq isn't the whole problem, so I contend that it does matter how we do things -- or we'll pay for it for the next 100.