The Today team were a lot more chipper reporting from the US this morning than they were in 2004.
The question is : Ms Pelosi has said that "we will stand by Iraq, but we'll do it differently". What does this mean ?
I'd love it if she meant - 'we'll send another 250,000 troops and hunker down for the long haul'. I've got a horrible feeling she meant 'we'll get out just as soon as we've found a way to make it seem OK'. The Iraqi leadership must be worried men tonight.
BBC Radio had a reporter trawling various political functions in Washington last night. At a Republican bash one gloomy activist said 'If you enjoyed seeing the helicopters scraping the last Americans off the roof of the Saigon Embassy, you'll be able to see it all again soon. A Democratic Congress will starve the military of funding, compelling them to leave by end 2007'.
If America gets out of Iraq and leaves it in chaos, 'twill be a defeat. But the consequences of that defeat will be felt in Europe long before they're felt in the US.
UPDATE - Paul Belien puts it more elegantly :
However, the current American elections are relevant for Europe, too. If they lead to the American withdrawal from Iraq, Europe will face a widespread intifada. The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I've got a horrible feeling she meant 'we'll get out just as soon as we've found a way to make it seem OK'.
Why would they wait that long?
They think it's not their problem, so that makes it OK if they blow it off. Or something. God knows. They're not adults. They don't understand.
The only thing is, the droolers like Pelosi aren't the whole Democratic party. She and Rangel figure they've got the reins of power and it's time to act like drunk teenagers with the car keys, but not all Democrats in Congress are that stupid, and not all of them have constituencies that stupid. I hope.
But yeah, bottom line, we're hosed. These fools are going to put their party in a very, very deep hole for 2008, but they'll do it by fucking up the country, so that's no consolation at all.
The US has not been defeated in Iraq. True, it has not won either but failure to win is not the same as defeat.
The problem is the west lacks the will to take the action required to win decisively. Consequently an early American withdrawal may be better in the long term because Islamists risk becoming overconfident. The reality is that we haven't been hurt enough to generate the will to do what is necessary to win.
If America gets out of Iraq and leaves it in chaos, 'twill be a defeat.
Well whatever happens just make sure that you blame the Democrats, instead of Rummy and the Reps whose idiotic idea the whole unwinnable mess was.
So Larry, you wish Saddam was still in there today, seeing the US hobbling itself in this election? You think he would just sit tight and behave himself if he realised no one will now do anything to stop him, do you?
And AQ Khan's Islamic nuclear export network from Pakistan, which we only found out about when Gaddafi turn it over after seeing what happened to Saddam, pretty insignificant eh?
After all, what's a few stray nuclear weapons and a mad dictator bent on messianic conquest, when stopping them incurs a risk of creating a mess, (yes and a humanitarian disaster, which nukes and dictators never ever incur).
Hi from Australia. We'll take anyone who can still think for themselves. Looks like we're going to need all we can get.
UPDATE - Paul Belien puts it more elegantly :
However, the current American elections are relevant for Europe, too. If they lead to the American withdrawal from Iraq, Europe will face a widespread intifada. The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West ...
Ah yes, elegant in the gibbering sense of the word.
Post a Comment