Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WP:Joe Lieberman: Why We Need More Troops In Iraq


Ax

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html

"As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too little, too late. In order to secure Iraq, you have to have Iraqis take control of the country. In order to do that, Iraqis have to feel like they are building their own future. It's hard when a foreign army occupies your cities and towns and has written a constitution in their image, selling off national resources to friendly American corporations. Raiding your houses. Ravishing your cultural and historical landscape. Telling you what kind of government you should have. Once again, the United States reaps off the backs of many the riches of the few.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Conversational knowledge and personal opinion. Also, his political leanings. What else would it be based upon?

antisemitism. . .your statement sounds a lot like anti-Jewish propaganda. Not saying you meant it to sound like that but there is little difference in your wording and the wording coming from Hammas for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Joe Lieberman 100%. Here's the deal. There is no doubt in most people's mind that Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction(by mass destruction, we're talking about nuclear weapons, not Sarin or Mustard gas, which we knew Iraq possessed since their war against Iran. Heck, we were supporting Iraq back then because Iran, being a bigger country, was perceived to be a bully. Remember, this all happened when Republicans were in control of the White House). So in essence, yes, Bush made a huge error, and what's hilarious is that Americans reelected him because they still believe him.

But anywho, If we leave Iraq in its current state, it will turn into a pro-Iranian theocracy. While we went to Afghanistan primarily to hunt down Osama Bin Laden, we also went there to oust the Taliban regime. Now why would we want Iraq to have a highly conservative theocratic government given that it's not in our best interest? So, shouldn't we fix the Iraq mess? Yes, there needs to be a viable democracy in Iraq. If not, we're in a whole lot of trouble. Israel will have its hands full.

All Bush's fault. The bottomline is that Saddam hussein was a secularist. A madman? Yes, certainly. But his cabinet had Christians and Shiahs alike. He kept the religious zealots in check, you see. We have an even bigger problem now. If we don't fix Iraq, it's gonna be a huge disaster. Means more terrorist attacks against America and Israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30k isn't go to do it though. We've been trying to do this **** half-ass from the start. If you want to escalate the war and win it then go and reinstitute the draft and do it right. Even then I'm not sure we can "win" because like I said regardless of what happens Iran is going to end up the ultimate winner. Oh and in the meantime we're going to end up losing Afghanistan.

Edit: and I love this whole "spread democracy" stuff. I heard someone talking the other day, I forget who it was, but they said if the majority of the world hates the US and they can then elect their own leaders don't ya think they're going to elect people who have similar sentiments towards the US? *cough*Hamas*cough*

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pro-Israel lobby probably has less influence on Lieberman than other Democrats or Republicans because it is harder to paint a Jew as anti-Israel or anti-semitic as a gentile.

Also,

The idea that 40-50k troops now will do anything other than cost us more is ludicrous. Lieberman is horribly wrong. It is time to cut our losses and run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although i tend to agree that more troops are needed, just don't ask me to partake. If the government goes to that draft, I know I'm in the safe zone since I already served and got the hell out. Just don't ask me to contribute anymore than the taxes I pay. Besides, nobody forced the soldiers to enlist, so it's their fault they're there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jumbpwn3d. :laugh:

Ok..fine. Let me restate.

1) Joseph Lieberman is a fine American and a public servant with a formidable record of congressional attendance and participation. But, his support of Pro-Israeli policies is well-documented and, quite frankly, need not be apologized for. He is what he is.

http://democracyrising.us/content/view/375/151/

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/index-kba.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lieberman.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/joe-liebermans-loyalties_b_24480.html

None of these links are overtly damning or inflammatory, they simply explore what is widely known.

2) Israel is now, and has always been, firmly in support of military aid and assistance from the US - in peace or in war. Can anyone define, for my benefit, a significant period of recent history when Israel eschewed US miltary technology and hardware? Can anyone define, for my benefit, a significant period of recent history when the Israeli lobbyists actively decreased/limited their considerable political influence in this country?

My Original Post

Lieberman does whatever the Israeli lobby tells him to. And, yeah, Israel is always in favor of more US troops in the middle east.

Bold, Tactless, Confrontational...sure, that and more.

But...Inaccurate, Rectal, Anti-Semetic?!?

Fine. Lieberman calls for 50K more troops and I point out that he speaks for the Israeli lobbies. If Byrd takes the plate for "Big Coal" and I point out that the Coal lobby is part of this, do you all accuse me hating West Virginia and/or coal miners?

Someone please tell me what I said that was so crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Lieberman. We're in a war for far much more than Iraq, but we've boiled it down to nothing BUT Iraq in terms of our perception of it.

He's also correct in saying they understand this much more than we do. To think that our enemies will allow us to end all this by simply walking away is ridiculous.

All we will do by walking away is humiliate ourselves, weaken ourselves, and strengthen the resolve and standing of our enemies.

we've terribly mismanaged this war, but the necessity of stopping radical Islamic terrorism still exists, and won't go away by us simply turning tail. There's no question Rumsfeld has botched this badly, but a solution other than quitting needs to be found.

Playing "peacekeeper' never works. Peacekeeper= target. To win a war you must go on the offensive, take the fight to the enemy and keep it in his lap. We don't do that.

As someone else said, it's not gong to get better in Iraq til Iraq can stand on it's own feet, and that it's practically impossible to do while an occupying army is in town. It's got to be triple-hard for them to do it when this occupying army is in a purely defensive posture.

It would be nice if everyone could just shake hands and go home, but reality is a whole other beast.

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be nice if everyone could just shake hands and go home, but reality is a whole other beast.

~Bang

Before shaking hands, maybe we could just start by not labeling as "anti-semetic" or "extremist" or "zionist" those who disagree with us politically. Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before shaking hands, maybe we could just start by not labeling as "anti-semetic" or "extremist" or "zionist" those who disagree with us politically. Just sayin'.

In terms of the war, I don't think dialogue between the US, Israel, Iran and Syria is going to fix anything. Not yet at least. In regard to Iran, we just saw in their election that the people are not happy with the way Aminidejad is running things, and voted in his opposition party. I think we can wait him out, if that makes sense. Many of their people are similar to our people, they don't want all this either. Syria,, i think they're just crazy at the top, and that isn't going to change. I don't think they want peace. (Well, THEY have peace,, they export war to their neighbors. It's probably very profitable.)

In regard to the specific point you're making, I agree. If dialogue is to be used to settle differences there should be a modicum of individual respect that should be given, otherwise the discussion has no chance.

Remember that when you're taking personal shots at me.

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

mboyd, noone is suggesting that Leiberman is not a proponent of the war in Iraq. And the opinions expressed in those links certainly back that up.

It's the "Lieberman does whatever the Israeli lobby tells him to" that I question. The links you've provided offer nothing in support of that position. You did not say he speaks for the Israeli lobby. You said he does whatever they tell him to.

Do you not see the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was originally pointed out by Glenn Greenwald

here . I won't post the whole text, but it basically points out that the position Leiberman is taking in his Op-Ed piece is almost verbatim what the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs said back in January of 2002.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just think we need to be real careful in this Iran debate to separate what is in the US best interest and what's in Israel's best interest, and look carefully at where they coincide and where they conflict.

IMO, Leiberman does a pretty lousy job in his piece at distinguising between all of the parties he's talking about. Generalizations and sloganeering are no help at all, Joe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of the war, I don't think dialogue between the US, Israel, Iran and Syria is going to fix anything. Not yet at least. In regard to Iran, we just saw in their election that the people are not happy with the way Aminidejad is running things, and voted in his opposition party. I think we can wait him out, if that makes sense. Many of their people are similar to our people, they don't want all this either. Syria,, i think they're just crazy at the top, and that isn't going to change. I don't think they want peace. (Well, THEY have peace,, they export war to their neighbors. It's probably very profitable.)

In regard to the specific point you're making, I agree. If dialogue is to be used to settle differences there should be a modicum of individual respect that should be given, otherwise the discussion has no chance.

Remember that when you're taking personal shots at me.

~Bang

Duly and respectfully noted. Additionally, I offer my apology for taking shots at your livelihood, your web-toons are actually quite good, and extend to you and yours best wishes for the new year.

:cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Duly and respectfully noted. Additionally, I offer my apology for taking shots at your livelihood, your web-toons are actually quite good, and extend to you and yours best wishes for the new year.

:cheers:

Thanks :) Same to you and yours.

:cheers:

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites
mboyd, noone is suggesting that Leiberman is not a proponent of the war in Iraq. And the opinions expressed in those links certainly back that up.

It's the "Lieberman does whatever the Israeli lobby tells him to" that I question. The links you've provided offer nothing in support of that position. You did not say he speaks for the Israeli lobby. You said he does whatever they tell him to.

Do you not see the difference?

1) See Flashback's link.

2) Do some research on your own.

3) Offer "facts" that demonstrate Lieberman calling for policy at odds with Israel's position, at any time, ever.

4) Apologize for insinuating that my comments were Anti-Semetic in origin, or at least admit that my original post was a reasonable and defensible statement based in fact, if poorly worded.

5) Have a happy new year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...