Originally Posted by dmz
No, not arguing in front of the kids is not "horseshit."
That would, I think, be a very mature and responsible way of handling the situation. The only thing that it requires is sufficient unity amongst the Democrats to effect it. Obstructing it is one of the most deeply rooted principles of Democrat ideology that I've ever observed: Tolerance of dissent and a hesitation to tout unity as the prime virtue of the group. Hence, Dems seem to me to tend to have much broader... um... damn. whatever the word meaning 'ideas' that would be appropriate in this context is.
On the other hand, it is, I think, bad for the citizens of the us for our rulers, who are supposed to represent us, to avoid the public forum. It's good to voice all ideas (yes, all, left, right, center, upside down, and hyper-dimensional).
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman
Sad isn't it? Look at the casualty number above that coffin.
Ok, here's an insight from an OIF vet: The number of DEAD absolutely pales in comparison to the number who have been wounded or maimed. Technically, we refer to any injury (including death) which removes a soldier from immediate duty. This can range from a guy who got a back injury when the truck he was riding in rolled over on him and had to stay the night in the hospital, to the guy who got crushed to death by the same truck. If I recall correctly (there's a good chance I don't, so someone look this up) back in the Fall of '04, when the number dead was around 800 (I think), the best estimates of soldiers medically evacuated from Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan too) was around 6,000. Also, isn't that number on the butter low? I thought it had gone over 2,000 already....
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah
...and I'm entitled to shout at the top of my voice about this clusterfuck.
Heh, clusterfuck. I love that word. I've rarely found shouting to be an effective method of convincing people of anything though.
Originally Posted by dmz
Iraq is essentially going to have to bought, in blood, from Iran and no one wants to hear it. The failure is Bush's and he'll have to eat it, but the problem is systemic -- from bad intel, to a dismissive attitudes of religion as it bears on the ME, to thinking that waving Maslow's hierarchy of needs in Baghdad will solve our problems, and will democracy into existence.
I've heard it said, and it seems accurate when I think about it, that no country has ever, or will ever, establish a stable and just government through of the involvement of other nations, and that action by the citizens of that country, usually in the form of a civil war, is necessary to effect the change.
I suspect that eventually the majority of Iraqis, who are suffering the brunt of the violence, will have to stand up as a group and take control of the extremist groups who are causing all the chaos. And I bet that they will do it largely without outside help. They need to take responsibility for their own security, and take action against the common enemy. A People United against a common foe is a force of incredible power.
The day will come, I think, when the Iraqis will see small groups of insurgents preparing to attack, and they will pull out their own weapons and attack those who would do murder.
The leader of such a united movement, I expect, will be a religious one, rather than a political one.