It will be interesting to hear your take when the Kurds get serious about controlling a piece of the oil trade, about getting their independence, and taking part of Turkey too.

Heh.

Quite the crystal ball you have there, tubby. Get that for Christmas? Is it the Juan Cole model or the Noam Chomsky Deluxe?

It will be interesting to hear your take, Tubino, the next time any positive news from Iraq is reported.

Oh wait, not it won't.

Don't save the Kurds!

Kurds are bad and will make the world worse with their Democracy and tourism and open trade practices and possible-future independent statehood where they won't be an oppressed minority anymore.

Helping Kurds is BAD.

If Kurds have freedom, they might USE it!

Damn you Bush, Kurd-loving son of a bitch!

I can't help it lauraw, they're jest so goddamned cute.

Crystal ball?!? You’re joking, right?

The Kurds have been quite open about their longterm designs, to the point where they succeeded in getting concessions in the writing of the Constitution.

The point I made here at the time of the constitution was that it contained the seeds for a real showdown of secession-civil war proportions. It isn’t much of an exaggeration to say that for the Kurds to get the self-determination, self-rule and freedom they want will mean the breakup of Iraq.

American soldiers are fighting and dying to make a unified Iraq.

You cheer the Kurds today – and I too am for self-determination of the Kurds. But do you realize the likely consequences of Kurdish autonomy? That’s the point I wanted to make.

I thought there was some real merit in certain proposals to encourage the breakup of Iraq, but the more one looks, the more likely it is that it would have led to a lot of very violent ethnic cleansing, no matter where the borders were.

I was against the invasion from the very beginning, because it was obvious that the Bush admin was sugar-coating the realities.

Now I seriously doubt that having the UN deal with it could have ever turned out worse.

lauraw, why are against the unified Iraq that US troops are fighting for?

Why do you hate America?

As long as they are allies who don't harbor or breed terrorists, I really couldn't give a flying fuck how many pieces they make of themselves, tubino.

Its all about the U.S.A. to me.

If Iraq wants to keep the Kurds with them, they better treat them nicer, because that is one of the nicest patches of land they have in that whole ugly godforsaken country.

American soldiers are fighting and dying to make a unified Iraq.

No they're not, tubby. They are fighting to protect America. In the process they have liberated more then 35 million people. Freed them from the yoke of bondage to totalitarian governments. I know you don't see any merit in that but you can bet your bottom dollar those 35 million people see the merit in it.

IOW:
Realpolitik is OUT.
Anti-totalitarianism is IN.

And you should be with that program, tubino, no matter who the president is.

Think Domino Theory. But add islamofascism.

American soldiers are fighting and dying to make a unified Iraq.

No, that is wrong- BUT...

Can somebody who is better at searching than me, please find tubby's earlier comments as to why we are in Iraq?

Please?

For some reason I don't think he made our troops out as such altruists in the past.

It will be interesting to hear your take when the Kurds get serious about controlling a piece of the oil trade, about getting their independence, and taking part of Turkey too.

Heh.

Yeah, it sure would be a horrible thing for a people who reside upon the land above the oil to demand a piece of the oil trade...

...and as for Turkey, well, f' 'em. 'Sides, we'll direct them into stirring up trouble in Kurdish Iran first.

For some reason I don't think he made our troops out as such altruists in the past.

You mean the "fucking military" that he so respects?

there is no doubt that the Kurds want independence from Iraq and considering what they have been through in the last 20 yrs, one can hardly blame them.

But they are the forward thinking kind of people we need to lead the middle east into the modern world. Let's hope they consider carefully their role in the democracy that is now Iraq.

You mean the "fucking military" that he so respects?

Ahhh, yes, that's part of it.

The 'fucking military' that is "fighting and dying to make a unified Iraq."

Jeez.
Sounds almost incongruent, doesn't it?

Maybe "fucking military" was in reference to the following:

"Because the troops are no longer allowed access to booze or prostitutes in the war zone, and about fifteen percent of the troops are female, there is a lot of sexual activity among the troops. This is largely against the regulations. But enforcing a ban on consensual sex is seen as counter-productive, and the hanky-panky is tolerated. For the moment."

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20051226.aspx

For some reason I don't think he made our troops out as such altruists in the past.

Nooooooooooo. He really respects our fucking military. He said so. Many times after he ignored his FM comment some weeks ago.

Honesty. Integrity. Selective recall. You just keep talking past the statements you made that reveal your true self, and hey, people forget what you said when you had a few too many shots of truth serum.

Continuing the name search: how about TubFMino? Or did I try that already?

goeff and others, about the "fucking military":

Many weeks ago I countered some claim of yours by pointing out that it was contradicteed by the US military.

Every time I refute someone's argument here, there is a chorus of morons who on cue chant that my sources are all wild-eyed leftists. Since my source was the US military, I thought I should emphasize that the source was in fact, the US military. I tried to make it memorable by pointing out that the source was not some proto-crypto-retro-Leninist group, but the fucking military (I don't recall the argument, but I think it was a pessimistic account of Iraq? something where the source being military was an important point.)

Apparently I succeeded in making it memorable, as you all remember the phrase, though have forgotten the context.

So, apparently geoff has aligned himself squarely with the illiterate bunch. Whatever.

Lauraw declares, Realpolitik is OUT.
Anti-totalitarianism is IN.

This of course is completely contradicted by Laura herself:

As long as they are allies who don't harbor or breed terrorists, I really couldn't give a flying fuck how many pieces they make of themselves, tubino.

Its all about the U.S.A. to me.

Laura, sugarplum, sweetie..., that is the definition of realpolitik. As Kissinger put it (and he ought to know!), foreign policy is not missionary work, and in realpolitik, if protecting the US interests means installing totalitarian leaders

Then, of course, others chime in about the fine missionary work the US is doing.

ace ignores that the oil rights belonging to a province is not a workable model, normally.

Those on the left in this country have steadily and staunchly opposed the installation and support of totalitarian leaders by the right. Check out Christopher Hitchens' Trial of Henry Kissinger (book or DVD) for a reminder of the left on realpolitik. That was before Hitchens converted, of course, and it is exactly on this point of realpolitik that Hitchens has most changed, as became clear in an exchange I witnessed earlier this year.

The current administration still supports all sorts of strong-arm anti-democracy types, for realpolitk reasons. It only uses the counter-argument for convenience, when it wants to pull in more support.

The US gaming of the system in Iraq (from replacing Garner with Bremer, thus delaying elections, to passing all kinds of laws without popular support, to secretly using our tax money to manipulate the media) has NOT been solidly pro-democratic, either in intent or means.

If you think that the Bush administration's secrecy, unprecedented assertion of executive power, media manipulation, crony capitalism and political racketeering are all hallmarks of its unending passion for countering totalitarianism and protecting the US,...

you've got a LOT of explaining to do.

Oops, unfinished sentence above:

if protecting the US interests means installing totalitarian leaders...

or letting a country fall into civil war and dissension, then in realipolitik that's okay. It's all about the USA.

What I actually LIKED about Bush's WORDS a year or two ago was the apparent recognition that when the US supports a totalitarian leader for STABILITY, it is ignoring the fact that totalitarian rule is always unstable. IOW, the REAL part of old-school realpolitik is often deluded, because real stability is founded in democracy. So when Bush claimed that he was not going to repeat the mistakes of the past, part of me cheered, while the cynical part of me thought, he has no idea what he is talking about, and his actions are already contradicting his words.

But I still believe that it is in the best interests of the US in the long term to foster democracies around the world.
And I still believe that this administration will NOT be pleased that a record turnout in Bolivia elected a coca farmer there who ran on an anti-US platform. Plenty in Central and South America have had their fill of US policy, and have the records to prove it. Populism in SA is likely to align with anti-US forces, because poverty has increased where US control has been strongest.

The pattern of US intervention in SA is NOT to create new Costa Rica's, folks.

Do I think some neocons would prefer a totalitarian ruler over democratically-elected Hugo Chavez? Yes.

Don't you?

I grow tired of two things. One is the notion that just because a military action supports our interest then it makes somehow less noble. Like there is something wrong with wanting to support U.S. interests around the world.

2nd thing. One can easily and sarcastically dismiss the "missionary" work of the U.S. all they wish, since it supports their politics, but the truth of the matter is that we are building schools, hospitals, providing food and shelter, you know...missionary work type things.

Spin all you wish tubino, and we shall as well, but things are going in the right direction in Iraq and the middle east right now. Tides are turning. And you guys, well you hate that.

And that, my lefty friend, is the saddest thing of all.

Since my source was the US military, I thought I should emphasize that the source was in fact, the US military.

And as I pointed out when you used the same reference a week earlier (a pessimistic reference to Afghanistan, since I do remember the context), you cherry-picked the quote. Two paragraphs later they quote an officer saying that it's pretty much business as usual.

And as far as your "fucking military" comment - you chose to align yourself with illiterates first, it seems. It would *never* occur to anyone on this site to refer to the "fucking military." Just does not enter into the lexicon. And I found it personally insulting, because I, my wife, my father, her father, her brother, and two of our brothers-in-law all served or are serving in the "fucking military."

And you think it's amusing.

But let's try a different tack. Would you find it objectionable if I said: "Your fucking wife is on the phone?" Just for emphasis, of course. "Your fucking mother baked some cookies?"

I think you'd properly suspect that I have issues with the subject in those sentences. And if you called me on it, I certainly wouldn't defend the usage. I think it's quite clear where you stand, and it's an ugly position.

geoff, try this, if you want to be honest, instead of merely trying to change the subject from where I'm pointing to a discussion of my pointing hand.

Imagine I say that my kid is the star of his soccer team, and scored more goals than all the other kids combined. You happen to know otherwise, and the topic even came up with you discussed it with my wife. You say that, contrary to my claims, Justin and Brennan each scored more than my kid. I continue to insist on my version of the truth, claiming you are just continuing to be biased against my kid. You retort that your source is my own fucking wife, whose word I might want to take seriously. That's a clear use for emphasis.

You might want to believe the claims of your own fucking military in Afghanistan, instead of some sugar-coated version from some reporter who never set foot there. See how that works?

I don't any of this amusing, and certainly not your own skepticism about the claims made by your own military. Maybe, just maybe, the pessimistic accounts from Afghanistan, where suicide bombings are beginning to appear, and where the Taliban is making a resurgence, have some basis in truth. Maybe you should consider believing your own fucking military about its military matters -- especially when it is delivering news that it would not deliver for PR purposes.

Back on topic, fascinating though my rhetorical skills apparently are to you all.

Though more attention has been focused on the ethnic makeup of the government, the American military is very sensitive to the perception that the Iraqi forces have few Sunni Arabs, especially in the north, where Kurdish officials have made plain their desire to expand their territory into Sunni Arab and Turkmen regions. To many American commanders, a proportionate representation of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish soldiers is vital to Iraq’s long-term stability and cohesion.

But on that score, there still appears to be a way to go, according to the numbers from the special election tally.

Instead of a crystal ball, I just looked at this piece in today's NYT. And before someone jumps in with a smart-aleck comment about my dependence on reporters not on site, read the names of the 4 reporters who contributed to the piece.

The "missionary work" comment was incomplete. I could have said "nation-building", as this administration was against it before it was for it. As I've made clear many times, I think Kissinger is a war criminal, and so it is obvious I don't share his view of foreign policy. The missionary work comment was just to point out that even in the limited number of comments here, there is serious dissension among you about the US role in Iraq.

Lauraw claims it isn't realpolitik, but then declares it is. (Or maybe I have the order reversed) Others seem much more eager to declare the US role is nation-building, or what Kissinger dismissed as missionary work.

I actually beleive the old lefty slogan that there will not be peace until there is justice, and in the case of Iraq, justice is a long long ways away.

I never trusted this admin to follow through in Iraq, and unfortunately I was right.

You say things are going well in Iraq, but you can look at the benchmarks of oil, electricity production, and much more to see a bigger picture that shows decline in many key areas.

This thread shows the contradiction of supporting Kurdish autonomy while ignoring the forces pulling the country apart. That the country will even stay together is not yet clear. And you can read a quote from Colin Powell -- sorry, I meant fucking Colin Powell! -- a day or two ago on that if you want.

Apparently I succeeded in making it memorable, as you all remember the phrase, though have forgotten the context.

All you did was put yourself in context.

fascinating though my rhetorical skills apparently are to you all.

a guy who drones on about the same crap is a lot of things. fascinating isn't one of them.

Why feed this fuck? This is the typical goal-post moving lefty troll. Six weeks ago it was Iraq is a disaster and we're losing. Now it's We're not winning properly. He's not worth the bitchslap.

Don't feed it.

Can't it at least get its own blog?

fascinating though my rhetorical skills apparently are to you all.

Despicable, not fascinating. Your example was not compelling - the "fucking wife" comment remains exemplary of hostility, and by rights would earn me a punch in the nose.

geoff, try this, if you want to be honest, instead of merely trying to change the subject from where I'm pointing to a discussion of my pointing hand.

As I said elsewhere, I'm no longer responding to any of your 'points.' I feel no compulsion to be 'honest,' nor do I care if the subject is changed.

Laura, sugarplum, sweetie..., that is the definition of realpolitik.

Wrong, you are assuming that I don't care if any of the pieces are ruled by tyrannical regimes.

It is the democratic part that counts, not how many nations they end up becoming.

Democratic countries are peaceful countries.

Shorter tubino:

I hope the Kurds succeed in their quest for freedom, but the way the Constitution is written, it will mean the breakup of Iraq if they succeed. And they probably will succeed.

The breakup of Iraq is not likely to lead to democratic friends of the US in what remains of Iraq.

I already agreed, many many times, that democratic countries are more stable. The evidence is overwhelming. That's why I lamented the anti-dem efforts made by the US, and not yet refuted by any of you.

All you can manage is to talk about is my choice of words (one word, actually) in a post from weeks ago. What a wacky bunch.

And is there anyone more *SENSITIVE* than a righwinger? The way you carry on when anyone gives you what you dish out all the time. Incredible.

Poor babies.

Wrong, you are assuming that I don't care if any of the pieces are ruled by tyrannical regimes.

I'm assuming that you're assuming that a breakup of Iraq will lead to a net gain in peaceful democratic control of regions over there, and I don't believe that is likely. Can you give me an optimistic scenario for the rest of Iraq if the Kurdish region pulls away?

Do you think the rest of Iraq will allow that to happen peacefully? Do you think the borders will be in dispute?

Do you think that strengthening Iran with a SCIRI-controlled region is success for the US? Is power to the Axis of Evil countries the new VICTORY?

This is the typical goal-post moving lefty troll.

Goal-post moving: an unstable Iraq with regions that want to break off, and with a major region, SCIRI-controlled, closely allied to Iran's theocratic rule and violently opposed by the Sunnis, now means US VICTORY!?!