Hilarious. Basso posts an article and NONE of the liberals could respond with anything of substance. NOT ONE. The liberals have been silenced in this thread.
I guess the article touched a nerve among the dead-enders. As it should. That you would immediately leap to the histrionic conclusion that the article is trying to tarnish veterans is absurd. We know war does horrible things to good people. That's why all but the deranged are so loathe to engage in one and all but the delusional are so gung-ho to continue one that will accomplish nothing at best. I think a more apt question basso, is whether you love Bush so much that you are willing to suspend reality. Since you're willing to turn your back on the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, I don't think I'm out on a limb when I answer that question in the affirmative.
basso it is VERY brave and VERY altruistic for you to stick up for troops like this over the internet. BRAVO!
The recent history of Iraq contradicts this as our invasion indirectly led to tribal based slaughter and even with improved security no serious moves towards tribal reconciliation have been made by the Iraqis. Regime change has exasperated tribal tensions. There is one thing I will agree with the article on though, that the Arabs haven't done enough to help their own cause. Unfortunately though I don't believe we helped them through our support of military strongmen and rich sheiks. its seems even less likely that now occupation and democracy at the point of a gun will lead to change.
Does Bush really know what Legacy means ? Watch this interview to find out <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FLhQHeyOrnY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FLhQHeyOrnY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
basso: I am not a liberal. I cannot recall voting for a Deomcrat for any office of consequence. Even still, I find the article that you posted laughable. Bush is going to leave a legacy in the Middle East? He is making trips over there in the last few months he is in office in order to further this legacy? That sounds oddly similar to what Clinton did in the last year of his term. Any President who has had difficulties in their term would be well advised to conference in that region with an eye to making things better, because that would be instant legacy, just add water. As for a legacy due to Iraq. Most of what we have done over there will be rendered irrelevant after the civil war that will erupt about a half-hour after the last of our troops leaves the country. Yes, we removed Saddam, and that is a good thing. The problem that looms now is whether the next ruler following civil war will be any better. I voted for Bush...twice. He has not handled the execution of this war well, and he has been anything but conservative in his spending policies. I hope that Huckabee, Romney, or McCain can do better. This is assuming that whoever gets the nomination wins the general election.
wrong. [rquoter]Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Key Benchmark De-Baathification Law Saturday , January 12, 2008 AP ADVERTISEMENT BAGHDAD — Iraq's parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of thousands of former supporters of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to government jobs, a key benchmark sought by the United States as a step toward easing sectarian tensions. The bill, approved by a unanimous show of hands on each of its 30 clauses, is the first piece of major U.S.-backed legislation approved by the 275-seat parliament. Other benchmarks languish, including legislation to divide the country's vast oil wealth, constitutional amendments demanded by minority Sunni Arabs and a bill spelling out rules for local elections. The bill approved Saturday, titled the Accountability and Justice law, seeks to relax restrictions on the rights of members of the now-dissolved Baath party to fill government posts. It is also designed to reinstate thousands of Baathists dismissed from government jobs after the 2003 U.S. invasion — a decision that deepened sectarian tensions between Iraq's majority Shiites and the once-dominant Sunni Arabs, who believed the firings targeted their community. The strict implementation of so-called de-Baathification rules also meant that many senior bureaucrats who knew how to run ministries, university departments and state companies ended up unemployed in a country where 35 years of Baath party rule and extensive government involvement in the economy had left tens of thousands of party members in key positions. That, coupled with the disbanding of the Iraqi army, threw tens of thousands of people out of work at a critical time in Iraq's history and fueled the burgeoning Sunni insurgency. Traveling with President Bush in Manama, Bahrain, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the legislation, coupled with a pension measure approved by the parliament, "is important especially not just for the Iraqis but it shows the American people that our troops and Americans that are there working hard to help them get this to the point, are doing the job, they are fulfilling their mission. It also shows the region that they should have some confidence in what is happening in Iraq." The Bush administration initially promoted de-Baathification but later claimed that Iraqi authorities went beyond even what the Americans had contemplated to keep Saddam's supporters out of important jobs. With the Sunni insurgency raging and political leaders making little progress in reconciling Iraq's Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities, the Americans switched positions and urged the dismantling of de-Baathification laws. Later, enacting and implementing legislation reinstating the fired Baath supporters became one of 18 so-called benchmark issues the U.S. sought as measures for progress in national reconciliation. The legislation can become law only when approved by Iraq's presidential council. The council, comprised of Iraq's president and two vice presidents, is expected to ratify the measure. The draft law approved Saturday is not a blanket approval for all former Baathists to take government jobs. The law will allow low-ranking Baathists not involved in past crimes against Iraqis to go back to their jobs. High-ranking Baathists will be sent to compulsory retirement and those involved in crimes will stand trial, though their families will still have the right to pension. The Baathists who were members in Saddam's security agencies must retire — except for members of Fidayeen Saddam, a feared militia formed by Saddam's eldest son, Oday. They will be entitled to nothing. Inside parliament, when the Kurdish lawmakers raised their hands in favor of the article that the members of Saddam's security bodies should be sent to compulsory retirement, the Sunni Arab parliament speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, told the Kurds: "Now you raise your hands in favor of sending Saddam's security men to retirement, while earlier you reinstated the Kurds who collaborated with or worked for Saddam to government jobs in Kurdistan." Al-Mashhadani spoke of "donkeys," a term used by Kurds to describe the Kurdish people who used to collaborate with Saddam. They were pardoned by Kurdistan officials after 2003 war. "Are your donkeys better than our donkeys?" al-Mashhadani asked, referring to Kurds who used to work for Saddam's security operations. [/rquoter]
not saying there is no progress. i just have to point out that allowing former baath party members to work in the governemnt seems like the easiest step when compared oil revenues and constitutional amendments.
I'll one up you. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oLxqhe6lckk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oLxqhe6lckk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Agreed. Also where are the moves towards integrating the armed forces and police? The US strategy of late has been to largely accept tribal divisions and to encourage local tribes to provide for their own defense rather than develop a national defense force. While this has proven affective for providing security its the opposite of what the original op-ed claims of having the Iraqis over come tribalism.
Also I don't know if you read through the article because it doesn't really paint a great picture of overcoming tribal animosity.
