The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

A bit of hyperbole never hurt anyone but the hyperbolist. Just give him rope.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Relativist bastard. Stay away from my moral compass.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I don't chalk it up to ineptness as much as, if you give a bunch of reasons, and one in particular seems to garner lots of agreement, you end up talking about that one. Remember, there was widespread agreement at that time that the WMD potential was worrisome enough to justify this. Kerry even said so.

Whole 'nuther debate, for another day, I guess.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

Heh. Compass.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Interesting technique.

Why Planting Stories in the Iraqi Press Is Bad
 

You're putting the cart before the horse here. You say it's okay to kill insurgents in order to keep them from killing our troops. If we didn't have troops there, then we wouldn't need to kill the insurgents to protect the troops.

You also say that it's okay to kill insurgents to keep them from killing innocent people. But the insurgents are killing people because we attacked them. They didn't invade the US.

I agree that it's wrong to kill innocents. Especially when the killing is for no other purpose than to instill terror. But the insurgents aren't killing just to instill terror. They are killing because people are trying to kill them. That's what a war is. Both sides have to fight, otherwise it's just a massacre.

The question for me is, if they are prepared to fight until the last man standing, is it morally right to stay there until we kill them all? If it is, then how does that differ from a massacre, other than their getting a few good licks in before they die? If it isn't morally right to kill them all, then at what point do we say "enough?"

And by the way, how does what you have said in this post differ from "it's okay to kill them because they don't look at the situation the same way I do?" You can't say you're killing in self-defense, because we're the aggressors. You can't say that we're killing in defense of others, because we toppled Saddam and created the Iraqi Army and Police force that is trying to kill the insurgents, so, again, that killing is the result of our aggression.

Like you said, morality isn't simple. That's why you have to allow free debate.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You can recast it as you will. You are still arguing the administration allowed someone else to frame the debate, something the bush administration did not do in the debate on tax cuts, reforming Social Security (esp. privatization), the Kyoto Accord, the need to drill in ANWR, the torture debate, etc., etc., etc.

You have an unhealthy obsession with that man. Soon you will be spraying Photoshops of Kerry all over this board, and no one wants that. Seek help while there's still time.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I could never fill those shoes. I leave that to the absent master.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

He figures that it's payback for all of the snide remarks he heard about Alf Landon at the DFL/Grange meetings in 1937.

FYI
 

Which Party will win the Presidency in 2008?
Republicans -115
Democrats -115

Will former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann announce his intention to run for Governor of Pennsylvania? Swann must publicly announce his intention to run for Governor of PA for yes wagers to be graded as a win.
Yes -140
No EVEN

Will the United States relinquish its control of the Internet to the United Nations by December 31, 2006?
Yes +400

Will Tom DeLay be found guilty on money laundering charges?
Yes -130
No -110

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Roosevelt lied!

Crops died!

What to do
 

Does anyone have any interest in talking about what to do in Iraq, without resort to issues of why we are in Iraq or what we should or shouldn't be talking about?

My view, still in formation, is this: disengagement in the short term is not an option, because we have set in motion a chain of events that heavily depends on our presence for a modicum of stability.

However, there are several dangers to continued engagement on the same terms, including most importantly being drawn into a potential civil war. The worst case scenario for me in Iraq is a three way war between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds with shifting alliances and us being perceived as taking sides. I believe that there is a significant danger that the new, ostensibly democratic regime will have many pressures on it to become more autocratic as it tries to fend off civil war.

I think we should be considering encouraging a plebiscite on separation with the idea being that Iraqis would make their own decision, and would either decide to stay together, steeling thunder from those advocating civil war, or decide to part, eliminating the necessity for a war to force a parting. Right now, the Sunnis will continue to have emotional appeal for the notion that they have been shut out and need to force their voice through military means if necessary.

I also think we should be looking for increased internationalization even if it means compromising control over what may go on militarily, politically and economically in the country - even if moving towards a fully Iraqi police force is a long shot, replacing some of our troops with forces from elsewhere in the region (Pakistan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?) is essential, and needs to be a first level diplomatic goal. The fact that other countries are pulling troops rather than replacing ours is not a good sign, and we need a renewed push in this area.

Finally, I'm not sure traditional military units are appropriate for this action in its current form; Iraq needs internal police structures more than military structures, and one of te great ongoing tragedies in developing countries historically has been the use of military rather than police to maintain order. I think we should be reviewing creative solutions for replacing traditional military units with police volunteers.

And I would judge our political leaders a year from now on success based on whether they are able to diversify the forces in Iraq, bringing home significant traditional military forces and shifting the burden in Iraq to other countries and to other types of forces. Not because I want our troops home (though I do), but because I believe this disengagement will lead to more long term stability. I would also judge them based on whether or not there is one or more governments in Iraq that are stable and have legitimacy, and on whether any remaining terrorist attacks are focused on us as occupiers or on other ethnic groups as virtually inevitable ethnic strife.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

The SSA is an inefficient expenditure of blood and treasure!

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I was thinking more along the lines of "even Alf Landon agreed back then that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Of course, he also said [snicker] that the FDIC was creeping Bolshivism."

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Wasn't it you who accused Roosevelt of being in league with the radical Hollywood left led by Cecil B. DeMille and financed secretly by Meyer Lansky? I think I read that in my high school history textbook, but admittedly that was some time ago.