Siesta time in Iraq
Friday July 13, 2007
This [deleted barnyard epithet] burns me up: WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Friday appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress...
Filed Under: War
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
They (Iraqi officials) need time to flee the country before the civil war really gets going.
Bush oughta be telling Maliki,
"Tell you what."
"You can have the WHOLE month of August off."
"When you get back in September, we'll be all packed up and gone."
"Only reason to take a vacation is that all the work that needs to be done is done, right?"
I think President Bush and his entire administration should spend
August in Baghdad and not come home until we bring the last of our troops out of there. GWB should be on the last helicopter out.
My really sting if you voted for George Bush.
Doubly so if you were conned twice. This won't stop until it is Republicans calling for his impeachment.
I just listened to McLehrer on NPR, and they had a panel of Iraqis discussing all this. Not one of these men suggested that Iraqis take any responsibility for their own country. The majority of them said, in effect, if the Americans leave, there will be no one to protect the people.
Hey, how about running your own country without "help" from halfway round the world?
I agree with Rod here, obviously. I mean, I'm sorry, I think that trying to liberate Iraq from Saddam really, sincerely was a noble effort, but you know what? We can't save them; you can jump in a lake to save someone who's drowning, but if they refuse to take the lifesaver, well, what can you do?
Saddam may have been evil, but he knew how to control the broiling storm that was beneath him; the Iraqi government is not. Like I said, I think the idea of freeing an enslaved country was a noble idea, but it was not a wise one. Traditionally, the U.S. has overthrown one dictator and just replaced him with another who was pro-U.S.; I hate to say it, but that might be the wisest thing we can do at the moment, because otherwise...
God bless.
"Hey, how about running your own country without "help" from halfway round the world."
It seems to me they were doing just that before you gave them the wonderful gift of American exceptionalism.
"We can't save them; you can jump in a lake to save someone who's drowning, but if they refuse to take the lifesaver, well, what can you do?"
You could have not pushed them into the lake in the first place.
Bring'em home. NOW. If the Iraqis don't care, why should we? And why should 1 more American have to give blood for as thoughtless a bunch as this?
We all say we're staying in Iraq for the Iraqis, but I think that's hardly the case.
You're right, they shown they don't deserve the blood we have spilled for them.
Unfortunately, our rush into ill-defended, unprincipled, poorly-planned war has left us with few options. We're not staying in Iraq to help Iraqis now, we're staying because we've so destabilized the country that if we leave, the ensuing power vacuum would throw the middle east into chaos.
". . .we're staying because we've so destabilized the country that if we leave, the ensuing power vacuum would throw the middle east into chaos."
Sounds good - may even be true. But it is NOT the reason. Check the stock price of Shell, CVX, BP, COP, Exxon. THAT's why we are staying - and will stay.
Yep.
But thank goodness George Bush is in charge instead of some French speaking smartypants.
IIRC, the August vacation doesn't make much difference anyway. I understand the parliament has a hard time coming up with a quorum on days it is up and running.
Kim M
"We're not staying in Iraq to help Iraqis now, we're staying because we've so destabilized the country that if we leave, the ensuing power vacuum would throw the middle east into chaos."
If we stay, it will be chaos. If we go, tommorrow or a decade or 7 from now, it will be chaos. Does anything matter more now than simply seeing no more Americans die?
The Onion had a piece a few months back about such ME chaos. And it basically was exactly that-chaos, and blah, blah, blah. same stuff, different day, over and over. Buy the oil if we must, but let's go home.
>Seriously, somebody tell me again why our soldiers are fighting and dying for this no-count government?
Because of Iraq's oil and strategic location in the Middle East.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.