Charlie Rose

tartufe  07/24/2009 02:02 AM Report

whoops - Freudian slip? Make that Osama's son pls. Besides Obama only has daughters. A phonetic Malaprop.

tartufe  07/24/2009 01:55 AM Report

phalanx - a Stockholm syndrome victim? The chain of command starts with the President as Commander-in-Chief, and he was far from "silent pre-invasion on this issue." He was preemptive pre-invasion and during. Us "arm-chair generals" were proudly and boastfully shown over-and-over our "shock-and-awe," and shown our troops watch as they let looters plunder their national treasures.

The Sunni's and Shia's have been killing and maiming each other for centuries and will continue when we leave, whether by 2012 or 2112.

Maliki as much as verified sshaler tonight on The Newshour. He essentially has told Obama to get stuffed.

No offense to you and all who have been EXPLOITED by the MI oligarchy to sustain this (and Af-Pak) conflict for fun, profit and Post Toasties, but the 4,500 in Iraq - as the 45,000 in Vietnam - were and are sad victims. Victims with the same root cause as the victims of the current economic crisis - EGREGIOUS GREED!

Our mindless intervention will merely trade a Sunni dictator (Sadam) for a Shia (Maliki) - with the minus factor of Shia Iran thankful for our failed misadventure.

We're an arrogant nation run by a ship of puerile fools. Our recent boast that we killed Obama's son with drone missiles proves the point. Even if it were verified and verifiable - SO WHAT? Just assures long-term enmity. So another Pashtun picks up his AK-47, with that much more determination. We're creating a net gain in enemies - DAILY.

phalanx  07/23/2009 10:30 PM Report

I’ve done three tours in the sandbox and I take great issue of being accused of murdering “women and children” or that we somehow are guilty for all the things that have gone wrong over there. The military didn’t make the decision to go into Iraq it was the president and the congress, which stood silent for the most part pre-invasion on this issue. Our biggest failure post invasion was not recognizing that warfare had fundamentally changed to a very unconventional nature and not having enough resources to secure the population early on and disbanding the Iraqi army (political decision not military). All the previously mentioned factors led to the sectarian strife in which most of the countries destruction occurred (caused by jihadis and iraqis by the most part). I don’t know where sshler gets his information or some of the other “arm chair generals” but having experienced this conflict on the ground and interacted with Iraqis of various backgrounds I can make a few observations: an iraqs perception of Americans will change on a daily bases from love to hate several times a day and most of the time the things that we got blamed for were usually the Iraqis fault, due to Iraqi governmental incompetence, cowardice and corruption. Ironically the Iraqis trust us more then their own government organizations to get things done because we are the only authority available at the scene for the most part and impartial to all their various differences. Oh and the Iraqis didn’t mind the fact that Sadam’s regime was gone except for the Sunnis in the triangle based on my humble experiance for all it's worth.

tartufe  07/22/2009 11:39 AM Report

sshaler - EXACTLY! We're fed so full of conventional bs orthodoxy on a daily basis we feel malnurished without it. We'll murder your women and children (a la drone fired missiles killing civilians in Pak.) and then demand that you like it. Then feel put upon if you don't. And who knows, maybe a sectarian Iraq needed a Sadam-like tyrant. At least their infrastructure was better. Our arrogance is only exceeded by our hubris.

Also refreshing to hear concern over Iraqi deaths. Our self-indulgent references to Vietnam and Iraq are always couched in terms of American deaths, never the millions on the receiving end of our 'salvation.'

Go long in Lockheed and Boeing.

sshaler  07/22/2009 02:52 AM Report

I'm truly sad to hear Mr. Hill's attempts to put a glossy shine on a tragic situation. I lived in Baghdad for 6 months at the beginning of the US occupation and, even though I left in 2004, I still get almost daily emails from Iraqis and Iraqi groups. I have yet to know or hear from one Iraqi who is grateful to the US for invading and occupying Iraq. I knew a couple of Iraqis who were grateful and many who were willing to give the US a chance to offer Iraqis a better world at the beginning of the occupation but they all changed their minds years ago. Their lives are in tatters and so is their beloved country. All the opinion polls I've seen out of Iraq clearly show that Iraqis are not glad they've been occupied and they have wanted the US to leave for years. Who cooks up the opinion polls referred to by Mr. Hill?

With over a million Iraqis slain and over 4 million displaced in a county of 26 million that was half children in 2003, who does Mr. Hill believe is left to fight. No wonder the fighting is subsiding.

One of the most depressing things about listening to Mr. Hill's spinning wheel turning is that he must assume that the public is uninformed enough to believe him. The most depressing part is that he's probably right.

tartufe  07/21/2009 10:45 PM Report

My bias worked to make this guy just another functionary hired to perpetuate the conventional orthodoxy, the inexorable US of A arrogance. The juggernaut of the MI Oligarch. The incredible exertion and chest-thumping of the so-called limitation of the exotic fighter plane to some 180+ was hailed as some kind of relieved victory. The energy and political capital used to this strange limitation exposed just how strong the MI Oligarch is and the power and influence on our system. Far from democratic.

Even if peace were to break out in Iraq and AF-Pak, this power structure has to have conflict or possible conflicts in the offing and in the national media at all times. Hillary's doing her part by touting N. Korea and Myamar connections. Iran always a good standby.

Obama is impotent. The media calling Af-Pak as NOW being Obama's war is exactly the mythical formula the MI Oligarch wants. He (Obama) doubtless found out early that he may as well accept the 'myth' as it made him look less impotent. The financial bailouts were equally beyond his control.

Puppetry! Strings for sale. Small-change need not apply.

REMant  07/21/2009 01:25 PM Report

Sounds great, but who really knows if they will want, or feel a need, to be a single unified country or whether the oil, the ethnic, sectarian and foreign situations will make things go in the opposite direction. The situation might be compared with our own in 1783 and even throughout the revolutionary period. Why for instance should the South have joined with the North? Or the West with the East? Why independence from the British? All of these things caused tensions through the next century, some having extreme repercussions. Think of how many wars have been fought over the issue in Great Britain. Did Czechoslavakia or Yugoslavia remain nations after they were forced together? Has the Soviet Union? On the other hand, what has made Spain, Italy, France and Germany remain united?