Things Come Undone @ 245

cinnamonape@ 242 Leaving any troops behind in Iraq is for me the same as keeping the war going I’ll try attacking this point more in the future.

…
We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.
…
So a brigade in the country- up to 5000 troops…to protect the embassy and “humanitarian” missions (reconstruction).
…
If the embassy requires 5000 men imagine how large this force would be.

Um, 5,000 probably.

It’s a big embassy. Our biggest in the world.

BTW, would you specifically argue we should remove every single troop from the area of Iraq and all bordering countries?

How responsible would that be?

…
I think all the front-runners, including Edwards, deserve criticism on issues like Iraq, Iran and Israeli-Palestinian policy issues.

Edwards, for example, wants to pull out all combat troops but leave a substantial number in Kuwait…to attack Al Qaida over the border and to prevent ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence.

I hate to say that this actually means that Edwards is going to keep combat troops in Iraq.

Not necessarily. Your statement indicates you KNOW what’s going to happen. You don’t.

Because there is no way that any practical operations can go on that would effectively deal with al Qaida without establishing forward bases in Iraq.

It has yet to be seen, despite your feeling of certainty, that al Qaeda types would stay in Iraq once US troops pull out. If they’re there to fight us, then they’ll leave too. If they’re there to try and take over Iraq, then the locals would likely take care of them.

You’re assuming too much, IMO.

…

So in reality, there is not gonna be much distinction between Edwards and Hillary’s and Obama’s plans.

I guess if you make assumptions the right way, then all the differences can be taken out of the picture, then everything is the same. Black is the same as White if you just pronounce them in French as blanc and noir (both mean ‘no color’) — all the same.

If they really want all US troops out hey have to stop holding the Iraqi militaries hand and simply say…”it’s now your game”.

That’s pretty much what Edwards and all the REAL anti-war crowd want to do. It’s not entirely clear what Hillary wants because she does her triangulation waffling thing and leaves everybody confused.

And both Edwards and Hillary have repeatedly used sabre-rattling against Iran,

What sabre did Edwards rattle? All I recall him saying is that Iran supports terrorists, is a destabilizing force in the Middle East and must be dealt and not ignored.

and Edwards indicates that he will do nothing to pressure Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria, or anyone else.

Do you mean to say he hasn’t indictated he would do those things?

There’s a big difference between saying someone has indicated something and saying someone hasn’t indicated he wouldn’t do something.

But the problem is, people don’t get elected doing that, and I don’t give a shit WHO you are.

They get elected by saying, or implying, or just aurally emanating the idea(*g*) to the voters:

“I can fix this.” and then, convincing them of it.

To his credit, Edwards isn’t claiming THAT. Like the other democrats, he understands that making Iraq safe for the Fortune 500, is off the table; but I think and hope that this year, there is a yearning in americans to have SOMEONE speak the truth, even if it’s unpleasant.

That, to me, would be leadership. Let’s see if anyone has the courage to do it.

BTW, what’s your choice for a plan to get us out? And I’m not asking that with a big dose of snark attached to it; I’m just looking to see if anyone has an idea that will work to reduce the likelihood of even bloodier chaos than we see now, when we do start to bring the troops home.

Because, IF Edwards, or anyone else, pulls 50,000 troops out, it will mean that most of the rest of the coalition of the rented, especially, the Brits, the Poles, and the Aussies, will not let the door hit THEM in the ass as they hustle through it.

It will also mean that the lid will be at least partially off in Mosul, Fallujah, or Ramadi, and some other “pacified” places, and when that happens, I don’t see any indication whatsoever that the “gains” can be sustained.

Seriously, what do you think?

cinnamonape@ 242 Leaving any troops behind in Iraq is for me the same as keeping the war going I’ll try attacking this point more in the future.

What about in Kuwait?

Here’s some little known caveats in Edwards plan.

We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months. We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.

Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.

Take Additional Steps to Stabilize Iraq
Edwards believes we should intensify U.S. efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

So a brigade in the country- up to 5000 troops…to protect the embassy and “humanitarian” missions (reconstruction).
A rapid-strike force just across the border in Kuwait with sufficient forces to “to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war”. If the embassy requires 5000 men imagine how large this force would be.

And then there will also be an unstated number of military “trainers”…apparently an increase in those to speed up the training of the police and Iraqi Defense Forces.

Establishment Politics in “Rebel’s Clothing:” Corporate Power, Populist Pandering, and the Ironies of Identity in the Democratic Presidential Race
2008 Campaign Report
by Paul Street

It was very thought provoking

In fact, I suspect that Lou Dobbs knows this, and if he jumps in, he could pull enough pissed-off independents and angry democrats, plus some hate-mongering conservatives who like his racist immigration rants, to throw the election to Giuliani.

It would be the biggest kick in the ‘nads to george bush and the GOP that anyone could deliver. :o)

AP @ 71

Average salary of Hollywood writers is $200,000. Average salary of American family is $48000.

They are not hurting…

Half of WGA members make less than $5000 a year.

It’s not whether they are hurting, it’s whether they are being paid for their work. Which they are not. Having been told twenty years ago that the digital era was too new to set their royalties (”we’ll be bankrupt” screamed the owners) now they are told the royalties were set twenty years ago and be happy with it.

No one is paid royalties for web-isodes, since they are “promotions” even though ads are sold alongside them.

Please do some homework instead of reading right-wing talking points, AP. You’ll learn the difference between “average” and “median” right off the bat.

Thanks for the post Teddy. And thanks for correcting the misinformation out there.

As we all know when candidates go anywhere they bring media with them. John Edwards knows this and chose to bring the media to the WGA strike. The WGA needs as much publicity as possible so it saddens me that the other candidates have desserted them. I hope they step up to the plate and show that they too will back American workers in the fight against corporate greed. As a Democrat I want to see all of our candidates walking the picket line so that the WGA strike gets the coverage it deserves. I know they are busy with their campaigns but standing up for workers is important. Where are they?