Musharaff barricaded Bhutto in her house yesterday. Not a very promising development.

Rimbaud III wrote:hinterlands

With use of the word 'hinterlands', along with the Chuck Close self portrait avatar, I've officially got a man-crush on Rimbaud III.

Andrew. wrote:The U.S. Commander-in-Chief:

You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time, so I had a very frank discussion with him. (link)

ROFL. He's so fucking stupid.

All politics aside, and purely in terms of the aesthetics of spectacle...

The image of crowds of lawyers in black suits doing battle with riot police is one of the more surreal things I've seen on TV lately.

Rick Reuben wrote:

galanter wrote:The image of crowds of lawyers in black suits doing battle with riot police is one of the more surreal things I've seen on TV lately.

uh huh

rick reuben 11-6-07 wrote:Musharraf keeps bleating that he's under seige by Islamic militants and all I see are a bunch of lawyers in suits getting clubbed and thrown in paddy wagons.

Care to announce your current level of support for Musharraf? Care to explain why, if America is supposedly bringing democracy to Iraq, why don't the Pakistanis think that our guy in Pakistan has any use for democracy or civil rights? How is it that our 'freedom building' missions are so misunderstood by the people who have to live through them?

It looks as though Bhutto is about to be our 'guy' in Pakistan next...at least to me.

Bob, I mean Rick, from now on when you misquote me please include complete citations.

During its rise to power the Khmer Rouge insurgency was supported by North Vietnam. Reasonable people can disagree about the hypotheticals, but one view is that US withdrawal from the region left a power vacuum that allowed Pol Pot and company a free and bloody hand. Their killing was only stopped when Vietnam got tired of incursions on its border and filled the power vacuum defeating its former ally.

That's what I had in mind. Nevertheless Ricky Bobby seems to be right on this one, although depending on who you believe and the time interval that is considered the pre and post-war numbers are close, or the pre-war numbers greater by a factor 2-3.

So OK, my historical mistake. But it's millions dead in every direction.

But this doesn't diminish in any way my primary point that withdrawing from Iraq too quickly could create a power vacuum that could end in death for millions. Those advocating a quick withdrawal should feel obliged to present a plan that will prevent that from happening.

I found this page with pretty good citations that spells out the mass death tolls for the 20th century. It makes for depressing reading. Look it over and decide for yourself whether more or less, or earlier or later, intervention would have saved lives.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

(This is just the first page...don't miss the others...)

galanter wrote:
So OK, my historical mistake. But it's millions dead in every direction.

So millions die if the west stays or millions could die if we leave.

Out of those two options why pick the one where we know millions are dying under 'our' occupation at the cost of many of 'our' own troops and the wasting of billions that could have been spent on feeding people, or cancer research or space travel?

We know we caused the mess
We know millions are dying amidst the mess we made
We don't know millions more will die if we left

More people are dying violent deaths in Iraq now than under Saddam.
By what criteria are you suggesting they are better off now than then?

I tell you part of the plan I'd put into action that could help the people if Iraq once we pull out. Get the leaders of the countries who illegally ruined theirs put them on trial and send them to rot in a prison for a very long time.

galanter wrote:I found this page with pretty good citations that spells out the mass death tolls for the 20th century. It makes for depressing reading. Look it over and decide for yourself whether more or less, or earlier or later, intervention would have saved lives.

Do you know the methods used to calculate these statistics? Surely some of them should be disputed or are you just accepting them all at face value cause they don't make your stance uncomfortable?

I think another big psychological reason is that the inevitable chaos after a U.S. pullout will result in a massive amount of guilt for anyone who ever supported this war. While U.S. troops are there, these supporters can fool themselves into thinking, "At we're trying something to secure the country," but the moment U.S. troops are gone and the resulting violent civil strife begins to shake itself out, the feeling of "What have we done?" can no longer be avoided and will stare them directly in the face.

It's like there's an infected, self-inflicted wound. War supporters would rather leave the band-aid on and pretend the festering isn't getting worse, rationalizing that the band-aid is at least some form of medicine. The truth is that you have to rip the band-aid off quickly and see the ugly infection before you know what the hell needs to be done to heal it.

Hey Bob, why don't you post what *everyone* "thinks" and "says" about *everything*. It will save us all a lot of time and effort, and at the same time safeguard your paranoid, delusional, little private world from intrusive reality.

Earwicker, when I said millions in each direction I meant the Vietnam War and Khmer Rouge aftermath both are measured in millions of deaths.

I didn't mean to imply that I think if the US stays in Iraq the cost will be millions of lives. I'd like to see that prevented. And I'm sure you would too. From what I've heard most Iraqis are as worried about the result of a very fast pullout as I am.

The intent is to create enough security breathing room that a local political solution can be agreed upon. The events of the last 6 months make that more likely to happen. By that I not only include the chart data I posted elsewhere, but also the swing in the Sunni community against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the various militia stand downs in the Shiite communities.

What I found impressive about the link I posted is that the fellow doing the work included citations one can confirm, AND he uses multiple sources of conflicting estimates and tries to make sense of them. By no means have I gone over it with a fine comb verifying this and that estimate. But it seems to be me the approach is a good one, and provides many references for those who would like to research further.

And FWIW I point it out because it showed I was wrong on the Vietnam numbers, not because it supported my numbers. For a liar I'm usually quick to admit when I'm wrong if presented good contradictory evidence.

Some quick and dirty history by Mr. Palast. I like Mr. Palast...