If I go back to Illinois, I'm going back in the sense that Rambo "went back" to Vietnam.
Made In America
From Scottish Parts
Iraq Vs. The Left
2:32 pm, 1/31/05
One of the suicide bombers from yesterday appears to have been a child in a wheelchair with Down's Syndrome. Such a sense of compassion for the weak they have. Meanwhile, one of Michelle Malkin's readers asks:
Why don't we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren't they protecting Iraq now?The answer, of course, is because the "peace-loving human shields" are delusional pro-tyrant horse's asses.
 |
In Australia, Margo Kingston bleats that there's no way to "know" if the election was free of "corruption", a question she would never have asked had Kerry won the Presidency, and an anti-war cartoonist sees humor in the murder of Iraqi voters. (Hey, why should he care? They're just Arabs.)
Known idiot Oliver Willis pre-determined the election would be a failure and has nothing else to say about that, instead using election day to wail about people looking funny at Iran and using today, incredibly, to bitterly try to compare Iraqi elections to Vietnam. I'm not kidding.
The New York Times pushes positive passages out of their story, actually changing the story to make it suitably negative as the day wears on. Arthur Chrenkoff has a new Good News from Iraq post up, while an Instapundit reader observes that MSNBC, lacking any horror in Iraq, has now decided to talk about Michael Jackson. Medienkritik notes that even the Arab press was more positive about the elections than the German press.
Then there's the lovable folks over at Democratic Underground, who now figure that the media's complete and utterly BS doom and gloom predictions for the election were a Bushitler disinformation plot.
All we've heard the past few weeks was how bad the violence was going to be, how Iraqi turnout was in question, how much of a disaster this was going to be, et al. In other words, we were lured into believing this was going to be a mess, but the reality is it wasn't so bad. There was violence, but there was also a huge voter turnout ... These guys are adept at making us believe that all will be a disaster, but when the reality shows itself to be not-that-bad, they look better in the aftermath than they deserve.Actually, we just look correct. You guys look like kooks in the aftermath. Maybe you should try actually questioning the media, instead of just playing at it, sitting in your dorms and whining about "corporate news". Other wonderful "thoughts" from DU:
"I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all."Adorable.
"Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?"
"I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit."
"Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself."
"Becuase if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed."
"they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election."
As I (and many, many others) have said before, the core sentiment behind the anti-war movement, and indeed the left, is not pacifism, it's nihilism: An unbridled hatred for all human achievement, and the underlying desire to sabotage it and see it fail. Without that, there would be no leadership for the useful idiots who actually think they're making the world better by siding with them.
They're just a bunch of losers.
at 03:33 PM, 1/31/05
Re: the human shields. I saw one of the lefties justify no one wanting to be one posted on another site. He said that the US Military would probably refrain from bombing sites with civilians, but the terrorists probably wouldnt. I dont know if he is aware of the irony.
Re: the human shields. I saw one of the lefties justify no one wanting to be one posted on another site. He said that the US Military would probably refrain from bombing sites with civilians, but the terrorists probably wouldnt. I dont know if he is aware of the irony.
at 03:33 PM, 1/31/05
The core sentiment behind the left is nihilism? Spare me your one size fits all analysis. As much as I oppose the war, I'd love nothing more than to see this enterprise be a success and for our troops to come home. Just because one thinks the war was based on lies and deceit--and say what you will, the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to Iraq--doesn't mean I hope Iraq collapses and burns. The United States now owes Iraq its best effort to work to restore that country. But simply observing that an election was held (under heavy military protection) isn't enough evidence to make me even begin to think that this enterprise is a success.
But it is so much more fun to call people names than to even think there might be some truth in what they say isn't it?
The core sentiment behind the left is nihilism? Spare me your one size fits all analysis. As much as I oppose the war, I'd love nothing more than to see this enterprise be a success and for our troops to come home. Just because one thinks the war was based on lies and deceit--and say what you will, the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to Iraq--doesn't mean I hope Iraq collapses and burns. The United States now owes Iraq its best effort to work to restore that country. But simply observing that an election was held (under heavy military protection) isn't enough evidence to make me even begin to think that this enterprise is a success.
But it is so much more fun to call people names than to even think there might be some truth in what they say isn't it?
at 03:47 PM, 1/31/05
Hey Charles:
Like Glenn Reynolds says: silence your nihilists and the true message of the Silent But Rational Democratic Majority will once again be audible.
The enterprise is a success thus far, though it has a long and very bumpy road ahead. Thank you for keeping an open mind and helping pull the dialogue back to the center with useful criticism.
Hey Charles:
Like Glenn Reynolds says: silence your nihilists and the true message of the Silent But Rational Democratic Majority will once again be audible.
The enterprise is a success thus far, though it has a long and very bumpy road ahead. Thank you for keeping an open mind and helping pull the dialogue back to the center with useful criticism.
at 03:48 PM, 1/31/05
re: Charles Foster Kane
"Just because one thinks the war was based on lies and deceit"
Lies and deceit coming from the intelligence community in the world at large, including much information which was garnered by Tenet and the CIA during Clinton's admin and continued by the same under Bush. Every country with intelligence on pre-war Iraq thought Saddam had WMD...but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your point(?).
So yes, until we see differently, I'll happily paint the left with a wide brush. If there are liberals in this country besides yourself that really do want success in Iraq, I haven't seen OR heard from them. What I do hear however, is the same anti-Americanism that comes from Europe.
"...the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to Iraq"
Change that statement to "the American Left never would have gone..." Freedom for me but not for thou? I was under the impression that all lefties wanted to share the wealth; seems that it's limited only to material wealth, eh?
re: Charles Foster Kane
"Just because one thinks the war was based on lies and deceit"
Lies and deceit coming from the intelligence community in the world at large, including much information which was garnered by Tenet and the CIA during Clinton's admin and continued by the same under Bush. Every country with intelligence on pre-war Iraq thought Saddam had WMD...but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your point(?).
So yes, until we see differently, I'll happily paint the left with a wide brush. If there are liberals in this country besides yourself that really do want success in Iraq, I haven't seen OR heard from them. What I do hear however, is the same anti-Americanism that comes from Europe.
"...the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to Iraq"
Change that statement to "the American Left never would have gone..." Freedom for me but not for thou? I was under the impression that all lefties wanted to share the wealth; seems that it's limited only to material wealth, eh?
Casey Tompkins at 03:56 PM, 1/31/05
Well, gee Charles; maybe if you presented an accurate picture of the pre-war situation, you might be taken more seriously. Oh, well, at least you didn't recycle the old whine that the war was over WMDs.
I see I must repeat, yet again, that the Bush administration had multiple, overlapping reasons for the invasion. Different audiences were subject to different focii; hence in the UN we emphasized WMDs, and so on.
Overall strategic objective: eliminate or deny access to countries where terrorists could securely base themselves, providing a location for financing, training, and recuperation
Such elimination works when either a country refuses access and support voluntarily (Pakistan), or is induced to do so. The latter can be seen in Iraq (where we deposed the Hussein regime), and in Libya, where Qaddafi finally grew a clue.
It is self-evident that merely removing the Baathists from power would prove to be a temporary expedient. One therefore needs to develop a survivable government which would natively resist the support of terror groups. It is nearly an axiom that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, so attempting the creating of a democratic Iraq government makes sense. This supports our overall strategic objective.
But there's another way to significantly impair the islamofascists: eliminate their recruit base. This can be done demonstrating that it is possible for Arab countries to free and self-governing.
So you see, this is just one element of the "War on Terror." (which should really be called the war on islamofascism, but that's not nearly as catchy)
The Bush administration had repeatedly explained the multiple, overlapping threads of their overall objective, but it helps if the audience actually listens, and engages in serious historical and military analysis, instead of arguing over who was called what name how many times.
Well, gee Charles; maybe if you presented an accurate picture of the pre-war situation, you might be taken more seriously. Oh, well, at least you didn't recycle the old whine that the war was over WMDs.
I see I must repeat, yet again, that the Bush administration had multiple, overlapping reasons for the invasion. Different audiences were subject to different focii; hence in the UN we emphasized WMDs, and so on.
Overall strategic objective: eliminate or deny access to countries where terrorists could securely base themselves, providing a location for financing, training, and recuperation
Such elimination works when either a country refuses access and support voluntarily (Pakistan), or is induced to do so. The latter can be seen in Iraq (where we deposed the Hussein regime), and in Libya, where Qaddafi finally grew a clue.
It is self-evident that merely removing the Baathists from power would prove to be a temporary expedient. One therefore needs to develop a survivable government which would natively resist the support of terror groups. It is nearly an axiom that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, so attempting the creating of a democratic Iraq government makes sense. This supports our overall strategic objective.
But there's another way to significantly impair the islamofascists: eliminate their recruit base. This can be done demonstrating that it is possible for Arab countries to free and self-governing.
So you see, this is just one element of the "War on Terror." (which should really be called the war on islamofascism, but that's not nearly as catchy)
The Bush administration had repeatedly explained the multiple, overlapping threads of their overall objective, but it helps if the audience actually listens, and engages in serious historical and military analysis, instead of arguing over who was called what name how many times.
Aaron at 04:03 PM, 1/31/05
Well gee, Charles, if you read what I actually wrote, I didn't call you a nihilist, I called you a useful idiot.
The simple fact is that the organizing forces behind the anti-war movement include domestic terrorist fronts like International ANSWER that celebrated the slaughter at Tiananmen. These people aren't even leftists, and they're sure not pacifists. They're only against war when it's being done to fight totalitarianism, and that's a fact.
Without them, people like you, who actually may want things to go well for the good of all involved, would never participate in their occasional fits of ski-masked looting in downtown San Francisco. There would be no "anti-war" radical movement, but rather a reasoned debate. Unfortunately, no such debate can take place, because the anti-war movement, as it exists today, is led by black bloc nutjobs, largely the same vein of idiots who took over the anti-Vietnam movement and led us to abandon SE Asia to one of the darkest genocides of the last century after we pulled out. The blood of millions of innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese is on their hands, and incredibly, they appear to want Iraqi blood, as well.
Of course, maybe it's easier for you to misread for your convenience, ignore the evidence, and apply a one-size-fits-all analysis, than it is to consider that there might actually be some truth in what I say.
Well gee, Charles, if you read what I actually wrote, I didn't call you a nihilist, I called you a useful idiot.
The simple fact is that the organizing forces behind the anti-war movement include domestic terrorist fronts like International ANSWER that celebrated the slaughter at Tiananmen. These people aren't even leftists, and they're sure not pacifists. They're only against war when it's being done to fight totalitarianism, and that's a fact.
Without them, people like you, who actually may want things to go well for the good of all involved, would never participate in their occasional fits of ski-masked looting in downtown San Francisco. There would be no "anti-war" radical movement, but rather a reasoned debate. Unfortunately, no such debate can take place, because the anti-war movement, as it exists today, is led by black bloc nutjobs, largely the same vein of idiots who took over the anti-Vietnam movement and led us to abandon SE Asia to one of the darkest genocides of the last century after we pulled out. The blood of millions of innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese is on their hands, and incredibly, they appear to want Iraqi blood, as well.
Of course, maybe it's easier for you to misread for your convenience, ignore the evidence, and apply a one-size-fits-all analysis, than it is to consider that there might actually be some truth in what I say.
the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to IraqI'm disinclined to agree: The American public spent 12 years wondering why we *didn't* blow Saddam off the map and reform Iraq, and so far, I haven't seen anyone clearly refute the idea that Bush Sr. lost his reelection bid because he didn't take Baghdad and finish the job.
at 04:09 PM, 1/31/05
Charles Foster Kane:
"The core sentiment behind the left is nihilism? Spare me your one size fits all analysis."
"and say what you will, the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to Iraq"
Why don't you spare us your hypocracy?
Charles Foster Kane:
"The core sentiment behind the left is nihilism? Spare me your one size fits all analysis."
"and say what you will, the American public never would have gone along with this war if the rationale were solely bringing democracy to Iraq"
Why don't you spare us your hypocracy?
at 04:24 PM, 1/31/05
I haven't seen anyone clearly refute the idea that Bush Sr. lost his reelection bid because he didn't take Baghdad
I remember Bill Clinton making a speech on this very point during the '92 campaign: "If they're such foreign policy geniuses, how come Saddam's still in power?"
As for you, Charles Foster Kane, go play with your snow globe.
I haven't seen anyone clearly refute the idea that Bush Sr. lost his reelection bid because he didn't take Baghdad
I remember Bill Clinton making a speech on this very point during the '92 campaign: "If they're such foreign policy geniuses, how come Saddam's still in power?"
As for you, Charles Foster Kane, go play with your snow globe.
at 04:32 PM, 1/31/05
Go play with Rosebud.
Go play with Rosebud.
at 04:41 PM, 1/31/05
Charles; give a quick read-through of the Iraqi Liberation (!) Act, 1998, passed by both houses and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Then go wipe your ass with your imaginary newspaper.
Charles; give a quick read-through of the Iraqi Liberation (!) Act, 1998, passed by both houses and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Then go wipe your ass with your imaginary newspaper.
Aaron at 04:53 PM, 1/31/05
Oliver: Did you, or did you not, invoke the V word to demean the Iraqi elections?
*splat*
Oliver: Did you, or did you not, invoke the V word to demean the Iraqi elections?
*splat*
at 05:18 PM, 1/31/05
"Unfortunately, no such debate can take place, because the anti-war movement, as it exists today, is led by black bloc nutjobs,"
Well, there are nutjobs aplenty on both sides. We've got our ANSWERs, you've got your Hannitys and Coulters.
But Charles is absolutely correct: if the proposition had been put before the American people to spend 1,500+ American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, 200+ billion dollars (yeah I know, but we'll get there), and trash our reputation in the world community, solely to depose a tinpot dictator in a broken down country, and have some elections, it would have never sold. I also seem to recall Dubya saying that an Islamic theocracy in Iraq would be unacceptable. Well, I got bad news for ya...
The sanctions worked. We didn't have to go, we chose to go.
"Unfortunately, no such debate can take place, because the anti-war movement, as it exists today, is led by black bloc nutjobs,"
Well, there are nutjobs aplenty on both sides. We've got our ANSWERs, you've got your Hannitys and Coulters.
But Charles is absolutely correct: if the proposition had been put before the American people to spend 1,500+ American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, 200+ billion dollars (yeah I know, but we'll get there), and trash our reputation in the world community, solely to depose a tinpot dictator in a broken down country, and have some elections, it would have never sold. I also seem to recall Dubya saying that an Islamic theocracy in Iraq would be unacceptable. Well, I got bad news for ya...
The sanctions worked. We didn't have to go, we chose to go.
at 05:25 PM, 1/31/05
The sanctions worked how......?? Oh, they lined the pockets of your hero kofi and his kid.
The sanctions worked how......?? Oh, they lined the pockets of your hero kofi and his kid.
Aaron at 05:43 PM, 1/31/05
We've got our ANSWERs, you've got your Hannitys and Coulters.I wasn't aware Hannity and Coulter were cheerleaders for mass murder, or organizing arson and looting. You seem to equate violent genocidal nutbars on your side with those who merely disagree with you on the other.
if the proposition had been put before the American people to spend 1,500+ American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, 200+ billion dollars (yeah I know, but we'll get there), and trash our reputation in the world communityConsidering that the scare-mongers predicted far, far, worse, that none of those things came true, that was we got was loosely in line with what most people expected, that a great many people have *relished* telling the "world community" (whatever that even means) to stick it, and that American casualties have been absolutely miniscule (media covevrage not withstanding), I'd say you're skating on pretty thin theoretical ice there.
I also seem to recall Dubya saying that an Islamic theocracy in Iraq would be unacceptable. Well, I got bad news for ya...I wasn't aware the results were in, there, bud. You may want to take a look at the actual election rosters and get a grip.
The sanctions worked.The sanctions murdered a half million Iraqi civilians, mostly children, and enriched Kofi, the Euros, Saddam, and the rest of the UN organized crime syndicate by billions. What the hell are you talking about?
at 05:55 PM, 1/31/05
The sanctions worked how......?? Oh, they lined the pockets of your hero kofi and his kid.
Hey.....mebbe they got that missing 9 billion? And......sorry, but I meant to write "inspections", not sanctions. My bad.
that American casualties have been absolutely miniscule (media covevrage not withstanding), I'd say you're skating on pretty thin theoretical ice there.
There are some American and Iraqi families that might have a different view.
I wasn't aware the results were in, there, bud
Nope they're not. I'm speculating, but I'd lay money that you'll see an Islamist gov't within 2 years. How does that help us?
The sanctions worked how......?? Oh, they lined the pockets of your hero kofi and his kid.
Hey.....mebbe they got that missing 9 billion? And......sorry, but I meant to write "inspections", not sanctions. My bad.
that American casualties have been absolutely miniscule (media covevrage not withstanding), I'd say you're skating on pretty thin theoretical ice there.
There are some American and Iraqi families that might have a different view.
I wasn't aware the results were in, there, bud
Nope they're not. I'm speculating, but I'd lay money that you'll see an Islamist gov't within 2 years. How does that help us?
Aaron at 06:03 PM, 1/31/05
There are some American and Iraqi families that might have a different view.Well, you can use the opinions of people with a rather obvious conflict of interest, of you can crack open a book and actually use, you know, facts.
I'm speculating, but I'd lay money that you'll see an Islamist gov't within 2 years. How does that help us?I'd lay money against you, but let's face it: My odds of collecting are about zip.
at 06:07 PM, 1/31/05
Look, I'm not here to troll your site, and I'm not into vitriol. I like discussion.
But I'm curious: what do you do with someone like Pat Buchanan, whom I've always admired (I often disagree with him, but he's the true No Spin Zone), when he says that Bush just gave us "an inaugural recipe for endless war"? Is Pat out of date? No longer relevant?
I was going to link to the article on his web site, but it's down for some reason.
Look, I'm not here to troll your site, and I'm not into vitriol. I like discussion.
But I'm curious: what do you do with someone like Pat Buchanan, whom I've always admired (I often disagree with him, but he's the true No Spin Zone), when he says that Bush just gave us "an inaugural recipe for endless war"? Is Pat out of date? No longer relevant?
I was going to link to the article on his web site, but it's down for some reason.
at 06:10 PM, 1/31/05
Fair enough, Aaron, but if an Islamist gov't emerges, which I think is likely, is that a success?
Fair enough, Aaron, but if an Islamist gov't emerges, which I think is likely, is that a success?
Aaron at 06:23 PM, 1/31/05
The same concept was once prevalent in Islamic rule, when it was actually relatively tolerant and progressive, considering the era. There's no doubt that Iraqi government will be inspired by Islamic values, and run by Muslims. That is, however, a far cry from Islamist government, like you see in Iran, which isn't even popular *in Iran* anymore.
Islamism, as a modern ideology, was an experiment in applying European fascism as a solution to Islamic problems. Terrorism is the byproduct of that, the noxious gas released as it decays, and you're going to see democracy creep out of Iraq, not Islamic fundamentalism creep in. That's the whole point of the exercise.
what do you do with someone like Pat Buchanan, whom I've always admired (I often disagree with him, but he's the true No Spin Zone), when he says that Bush just gave us "an inaugural recipe for endless war"? Is Pat out of date? No longer relevant?There's nothing wrong with admiring Pat Buchanan, persay, but I wouldn't say he's ever been a, uh, ideological juggernaut in American politics. Good for him and his opinion, I simply think he's wrong.
if an Islamist gov't emerges, which I think is likely, is that a successIt depends on your definition of "Islamist". Some people confuse "Islamist" with "Islamic". I don't think anyone would disagree that American, Canadian, British governing principles are first and foremost Christian in origin, and that you can have a government that identifies with a religiously inspired set of values without trampling on those who don't adhere to those values.
The same concept was once prevalent in Islamic rule, when it was actually relatively tolerant and progressive, considering the era. There's no doubt that Iraqi government will be inspired by Islamic values, and run by Muslims. That is, however, a far cry from Islamist government, like you see in Iran, which isn't even popular *in Iran* anymore.
Islamism, as a modern ideology, was an experiment in applying European fascism as a solution to Islamic problems. Terrorism is the byproduct of that, the noxious gas released as it decays, and you're going to see democracy creep out of Iraq, not Islamic fundamentalism creep in. That's the whole point of the exercise.
Jason Kallini at 08:31 PM, 1/31/05
"More feces flinging. Is that all you guys can do nowadays?"
That's hillarious, coming from Oliver the Grouch.
Hey, Ollie, still bitching about Michelle Malkin for not toeing her racial lines?
The reason you're smelling shit, Ollie, is because we're rubbing your faces in the mess you refused to clean up.
It's dirty work freeing two nations, and we've got some crap on our hands. But we're proud of our successes, and your failures. Deal with it, big boy.
You'll get your turn to gloat when some terrorist blows up another bus full of Jewish children.
As far as whether or not America would have gone to war "merely" to bring freedom to twenty five million people--well, I must say the America I know would be, and was, fully behind that venture.
We knew that was one of the effects of going over there, and we supported it. Idiot. Since your side is also that of moral equivalence, I guess it wasn't worth the tens of thousands of American lives to end the slaughter of Jews and other undesirables in WWII, or to help stop the spread of Nazism across the face of Europe.
Many families were broken in that war, too. I still think it was worth it . . .
. . . which leads to Iraq's looming theocracy.
Despite all the trials and tribulations of post-war Germany and Japan, I think we can agree that neither country is a theocracy, and for the most part have managed quite well. The US has pulled off the most successful examples of nation re-building and democracy building ever (and still unmatched by the UN). With all of that experience behind us, with lessons learned; with a country in much better shape; with all of our advanced technology and buying power to help us; with a very willing populace who wants our help with freedom, what is your basis for assuming a total theocracy within two years?
Because it hasn't been done before? It hadn't happened earlier in Japan, and the one attempt at Democracy earlier in Germany had been such an abysmal failure that it was assumed those crazy huns couldn't manage it themselves.
You want reasoned discussion? That's great. Because I want to know the actual reasons why democracy either won't or can't work in the Middle East. Israel has managed it.
"More feces flinging. Is that all you guys can do nowadays?"
That's hillarious, coming from Oliver the Grouch.
Hey, Ollie, still bitching about Michelle Malkin for not toeing her racial lines?
The reason you're smelling shit, Ollie, is because we're rubbing your faces in the mess you refused to clean up.
It's dirty work freeing two nations, and we've got some crap on our hands. But we're proud of our successes, and your failures. Deal with it, big boy.
You'll get your turn to gloat when some terrorist blows up another bus full of Jewish children.
As far as whether or not America would have gone to war "merely" to bring freedom to twenty five million people--well, I must say the America I know would be, and was, fully behind that venture.
We knew that was one of the effects of going over there, and we supported it. Idiot. Since your side is also that of moral equivalence, I guess it wasn't worth the tens of thousands of American lives to end the slaughter of Jews and other undesirables in WWII, or to help stop the spread of Nazism across the face of Europe.
Many families were broken in that war, too. I still think it was worth it . . .
. . . which leads to Iraq's looming theocracy.
Despite all the trials and tribulations of post-war Germany and Japan, I think we can agree that neither country is a theocracy, and for the most part have managed quite well. The US has pulled off the most successful examples of nation re-building and democracy building ever (and still unmatched by the UN). With all of that experience behind us, with lessons learned; with a country in much better shape; with all of our advanced technology and buying power to help us; with a very willing populace who wants our help with freedom, what is your basis for assuming a total theocracy within two years?
Because it hasn't been done before? It hadn't happened earlier in Japan, and the one attempt at Democracy earlier in Germany had been such an abysmal failure that it was assumed those crazy huns couldn't manage it themselves.
You want reasoned discussion? That's great. Because I want to know the actual reasons why democracy either won't or can't work in the Middle East. Israel has managed it.
Scott Lawton at 08:48 PM, 1/31/05
Jumping in: I think Pat Buchanan is way out of date, and I'm quite happy that he has a marginal influence on the center/right. His isolationism and protectionism seem to go hand in hand, and I think both are demonstrably wrong.
Was supporting democracy in Germany and Japan a recipe for endless war? No, it was exactly the opposite. Democracy sure isn't perfect (and in many ways should be viewed as a means to freedom not an end in itself), but it greatly reduces war.
Other points: Saddam jerked our chain for 10+ years on inspections (including kicking them out for 2? years). The only reason the inspectors got back in was due to US troops on the border -- and Saddam still jerked our chain. As others have said, Saddam himself was a WMD. Just as he tried to assasinate Bush Sr., he surely was pursuing ways to do grave harm to American lives. It was a mistake to let him stay in power the first time around, and a further mistake to let him jerk us around for a decade. 9/11 showed us that such mistakes could be deadly right here at home. THAT's why we went to Iraq. The world changed.
Progressives should be thrilled at the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the huge advances in women's rights. And, some are, e.g. Roger Simon and Michael Totten. Advancing freedom and democracy should be an issue that spans left and right. When George Bush stands up for ideals that Liberals have supposedly been in favor of historically, and is sneered at for being a "divider", why should anyone take left/liberals seriously???
Jumping in: I think Pat Buchanan is way out of date, and I'm quite happy that he has a marginal influence on the center/right. His isolationism and protectionism seem to go hand in hand, and I think both are demonstrably wrong.
Was supporting democracy in Germany and Japan a recipe for endless war? No, it was exactly the opposite. Democracy sure isn't perfect (and in many ways should be viewed as a means to freedom not an end in itself), but it greatly reduces war.
Other points: Saddam jerked our chain for 10+ years on inspections (including kicking them out for 2? years). The only reason the inspectors got back in was due to US troops on the border -- and Saddam still jerked our chain. As others have said, Saddam himself was a WMD. Just as he tried to assasinate Bush Sr., he surely was pursuing ways to do grave harm to American lives. It was a mistake to let him stay in power the first time around, and a further mistake to let him jerk us around for a decade. 9/11 showed us that such mistakes could be deadly right here at home. THAT's why we went to Iraq. The world changed.
Progressives should be thrilled at the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the huge advances in women's rights. And, some are, e.g. Roger Simon and Michael Totten. Advancing freedom and democracy should be an issue that spans left and right. When George Bush stands up for ideals that Liberals have supposedly been in favor of historically, and is sneered at for being a "divider", why should anyone take left/liberals seriously???
at 09:21 PM, 1/31/05
First of all, comparing the threat from Iraq to the threats faced during WWII doesn't hold water, so the "you libs would have let the Jews die in WWII" argument doesn't cut it.
As far as whether or not America would have gone to war "merely" to bring freedom to twenty five million people--well, I must say the America I know would be, and was, fully behind that venture.
The nation is deeply split about "that venture", and in fact Bush has been polling at <50% on it.
Just as he tried to assasinate Bush Sr., he surely was pursuing ways to do grave harm to American lives.
The world is full of bad guys pursuing ways to harm Americans. You can say Saddam was "surely" doing so, but I've seen little convincing evidence.
Anyway, where is the next country of 25 million waiting to be liberated? Saudi? Turkmenistan? Pakistan? Is this really our roll: bring democracy to all the world? Do you really think we possess the bodies and the treasure to pull it off?
How about, as Buchanan suggests, trying to understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?
I find it amazing that those who fly the conservative flag have, in fact, totally redefined the meaning of conservatism. Hell, I'm an old leftie from way back, but in many ways, I'm more conservative, in the classic definition, that many of you. Funny, init?
First of all, comparing the threat from Iraq to the threats faced during WWII doesn't hold water, so the "you libs would have let the Jews die in WWII" argument doesn't cut it.
As far as whether or not America would have gone to war "merely" to bring freedom to twenty five million people--well, I must say the America I know would be, and was, fully behind that venture.
The nation is deeply split about "that venture", and in fact Bush has been polling at <50% on it.
Just as he tried to assasinate Bush Sr., he surely was pursuing ways to do grave harm to American lives.
The world is full of bad guys pursuing ways to harm Americans. You can say Saddam was "surely" doing so, but I've seen little convincing evidence.
Anyway, where is the next country of 25 million waiting to be liberated? Saudi? Turkmenistan? Pakistan? Is this really our roll: bring democracy to all the world? Do you really think we possess the bodies and the treasure to pull it off?
How about, as Buchanan suggests, trying to understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?
I find it amazing that those who fly the conservative flag have, in fact, totally redefined the meaning of conservatism. Hell, I'm an old leftie from way back, but in many ways, I'm more conservative, in the classic definition, that many of you. Funny, init?
Aaron at 09:41 PM, 1/31/05
Or did you mean "unemployment", since all the terrorists are barefoot poor medical students and construction moguls?
Anyway, where is the next country of 25 million waiting to be liberated?Iran.
Do you really think we possess the bodies and the treasure to pull it off?Funny how it works, but our one war in Iraq has launched a drive for massive reform in every single neighboring country. Cool, huh?
How about, as Buchanan suggests, trying to understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?Crushing censorship, human slavery, and extremism in government? Couldn't be that, since *that's what we're fixing*.
Or did you mean "unemployment", since all the terrorists are barefoot poor medical students and construction moguls?
at 09:42 PM, 1/31/05
If 1500 American servicemen had been willing to sacrifice their lives in 1938 to interdict the rise of Nazism, Doug, 500,000 American and allied troops would still be alive and 6 million Jews would have descendants.
If 1500 American servicemen had been willing to sacrifice their lives in 1938 to interdict the rise of Nazism, Doug, 500,000 American and allied troops would still be alive and 6 million Jews would have descendants.
at 10:03 PM, 1/31/05
If 1500 American servicemen had been willing to sacrifice their lives in 1938 to interdict the rise of Nazism, Doug, 500,000 American and allied troops would still be alive and 6 million Jews would have descendants.
That's a huge "if", Leah. But I'll stick to my point that comparing the threat of Saddam to the threat of a man who invaded Poland, Norway, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and bombed England, just doesn't meet the test of history.
No, Aaron, the causes of terrorism that Buchanan spoke of were those that he gleaned from reading Bin Laden's fatwa of 1998: American troops on holy ground in the Mideast, the sanctions against Iraq, and a fair deal for the Palestinians. As he pointed out, the whole "they hate us for our freedom" tact is a red herring. They have very specific issues with us.
If 1500 American servicemen had been willing to sacrifice their lives in 1938 to interdict the rise of Nazism, Doug, 500,000 American and allied troops would still be alive and 6 million Jews would have descendants.
That's a huge "if", Leah. But I'll stick to my point that comparing the threat of Saddam to the threat of a man who invaded Poland, Norway, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and bombed England, just doesn't meet the test of history.
No, Aaron, the causes of terrorism that Buchanan spoke of were those that he gleaned from reading Bin Laden's fatwa of 1998: American troops on holy ground in the Mideast, the sanctions against Iraq, and a fair deal for the Palestinians. As he pointed out, the whole "they hate us for our freedom" tact is a red herring. They have very specific issues with us.
Christopher Kallini at 10:08 PM, 1/31/05
Obviously, the Left doesn't believe that totalitarian states in the Middle East have anything to do with the cause of terrorism.
Faced with that "logic", how can you rationally debate their position? It's a lost cause from the start.
Obviously, the Left doesn't believe that totalitarian states in the Middle East have anything to do with the cause of terrorism.
Faced with that "logic", how can you rationally debate their position? It's a lost cause from the start.
Casey Tompkins at 10:11 PM, 1/31/05
That's because today's lefties are the new reactionaries. Thanks for the confession, Doug! Heh.
That is an old leftie trick, though; the old "all or nothing" ploy. In this case, if we can't liberate all countries, we should liberate none. Point being that there were specific strategic movtivations -as I explained above- underlying the decision to invade Iraq.
I'm not trying to defend a comparison between the current WOT and WW2, but just saying "that isn't so" doesn't make it true. You might want to consider actually providing an argument to support that bald statement. Another typical leftie stunt: argument by proclamation.
There's only one poll that counts: the one on November 2, and for the slow of mind out there, Bush won that one. So much for the lack of support for the war. Or are you going to about-face and now claim that the election wasn't a referendum on Bush's foreigh policy?
Buchanan is an idiot, and thank God he's just a fringe player these days. You want to "understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?" Well, that's a pretty tall order for all terrorism. Let's stick with islamofacism.
One of the reasons that "islamofacism" is an apt term for the current movement is that there are elements to be found in both. One of the reasons National Socialism became so popular in Germany was was that so many educated young men had no way to get a real job, nor could the start or support a family. Sound familiar? Another problem: the young men were frustrated with the loss of "national greatness" and the futile efforts of an effete government. Does that ring a bell? There are other parallels, but those do to start. Basically, more than a few of the young men who join islamofascist movements are affected by such influences
Another element in the islsmofascist movement is that most Islamic/Arab governments are corrupt, medieval, theocratic kleptocracies.
I repeat: I touched on all this in my previous post. Creating a free and prosperous Iraq damn near cuts the Gordian knot. A representative government, operating by the rule of law tends provide an environment where the young men mentioned above actually have real social and economic opportunities. Participation in a representative government helps channel dissatisfaction into healthy, productive politics, instead of terrorism. Finally a free and prosperous Arab country will stand as living proof that that part of the world isn't doomed to poverty and despair.
Now you have your explanation of "the causes of terrorism." You're welcome. No, don't thank me, I'm a giver. :) Oh, and look at this, it's an outline on how to improve things as well. Damn, I even impress myself. Heh.
Seriously, That's the Bush plan. Which (I repeat) I already pointed out above.
Are there any other questions?
Oh, yes, the "islamic/islamist government" bogeyman. Um, no. That's fairly clear, if you took any time examing the country, the people, and Shia beliefs.
The Shia clerics tend to avoid getting involved with government, as compared to Sunnis. And yes, the Iran government is Shia, and I'm sure Iraq just can't wait to emulate their old enemies, the Persians, especially after all the help the Irani government has been giving terrorists in Iraq. Not to mention the sterling example Iran sets for free and democratic Muslim states. Yeah...
For those not paying attention, Iraq has been a secular country for quite a while. You can thank Hussein for that, since he murdered anyone who would have threatened his rule, which included clerics.
Also you might have noticed that al-Sistani has explicitly rejected direct clerical participation in the new goverment.
So there are a fair number of indicators which point to the conclusion that an "islamic/islamist" government is a rather low-order probability.
Of course, we aren't there yet. Unlike the war-supporters who are just so gung-ho about the whole thing, I recognize that this venture is both high-profit and high-risk. But then you could say the same thing about (oh...) Eisenhower's decision to go forward with the Normandy invasion on the evening of June 5. It was by no means a sure thing.
Now if y'all on the "anti" side would try to act more like honest skeptics, instead of a group of yahoos who are more excited about scoring points on little details about whether the invasion was "legal" or not and yodelling "Bushitler" at the drop of a hat, we might have a productive dialog on foreign policy. Right now all you're doing is giving the pro-war side cheap targets, easily shot down.
Here's one example of an issue which is rarely raised: the great degree of corruption in Iraq, and the different views which Iraqis (even honest ones) and Americans hold on the topic. This could be tricky.
Another one: how long before people realize that the UN, as it exists today, is nothing more than a clearing house for international corruption? (ok, there's a couple of bureaus which do good work, but not many) Do we abolish the thing, reform it, or ignore it? Secretary of State Rice recently issued an email which mentioned "the community of democracies" several times. Is a new international organization in the works? Hmmm.
That's because today's lefties are the new reactionaries. Thanks for the confession, Doug! Heh.
That is an old leftie trick, though; the old "all or nothing" ploy. In this case, if we can't liberate all countries, we should liberate none. Point being that there were specific strategic movtivations -as I explained above- underlying the decision to invade Iraq.
I'm not trying to defend a comparison between the current WOT and WW2, but just saying "that isn't so" doesn't make it true. You might want to consider actually providing an argument to support that bald statement. Another typical leftie stunt: argument by proclamation.
There's only one poll that counts: the one on November 2, and for the slow of mind out there, Bush won that one. So much for the lack of support for the war. Or are you going to about-face and now claim that the election wasn't a referendum on Bush's foreigh policy?
Buchanan is an idiot, and thank God he's just a fringe player these days. You want to "understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?" Well, that's a pretty tall order for all terrorism. Let's stick with islamofacism.
One of the reasons that "islamofacism" is an apt term for the current movement is that there are elements to be found in both. One of the reasons National Socialism became so popular in Germany was was that so many educated young men had no way to get a real job, nor could the start or support a family. Sound familiar? Another problem: the young men were frustrated with the loss of "national greatness" and the futile efforts of an effete government. Does that ring a bell? There are other parallels, but those do to start. Basically, more than a few of the young men who join islamofascist movements are affected by such influences
Another element in the islsmofascist movement is that most Islamic/Arab governments are corrupt, medieval, theocratic kleptocracies.
I repeat: I touched on all this in my previous post. Creating a free and prosperous Iraq damn near cuts the Gordian knot. A representative government, operating by the rule of law tends provide an environment where the young men mentioned above actually have real social and economic opportunities. Participation in a representative government helps channel dissatisfaction into healthy, productive politics, instead of terrorism. Finally a free and prosperous Arab country will stand as living proof that that part of the world isn't doomed to poverty and despair.
Now you have your explanation of "the causes of terrorism." You're welcome. No, don't thank me, I'm a giver. :) Oh, and look at this, it's an outline on how to improve things as well. Damn, I even impress myself. Heh.
Seriously, That's the Bush plan. Which (I repeat) I already pointed out above.
Are there any other questions?
Oh, yes, the "islamic/islamist government" bogeyman. Um, no. That's fairly clear, if you took any time examing the country, the people, and Shia beliefs.
The Shia clerics tend to avoid getting involved with government, as compared to Sunnis. And yes, the Iran government is Shia, and I'm sure Iraq just can't wait to emulate their old enemies, the Persians, especially after all the help the Irani government has been giving terrorists in Iraq. Not to mention the sterling example Iran sets for free and democratic Muslim states. Yeah...
For those not paying attention, Iraq has been a secular country for quite a while. You can thank Hussein for that, since he murdered anyone who would have threatened his rule, which included clerics.
Also you might have noticed that al-Sistani has explicitly rejected direct clerical participation in the new goverment.
So there are a fair number of indicators which point to the conclusion that an "islamic/islamist" government is a rather low-order probability.
Of course, we aren't there yet. Unlike the war-supporters who are just so gung-ho about the whole thing, I recognize that this venture is both high-profit and high-risk. But then you could say the same thing about (oh...) Eisenhower's decision to go forward with the Normandy invasion on the evening of June 5. It was by no means a sure thing.
Now if y'all on the "anti" side would try to act more like honest skeptics, instead of a group of yahoos who are more excited about scoring points on little details about whether the invasion was "legal" or not and yodelling "Bushitler" at the drop of a hat, we might have a productive dialog on foreign policy. Right now all you're doing is giving the pro-war side cheap targets, easily shot down.
Here's one example of an issue which is rarely raised: the great degree of corruption in Iraq, and the different views which Iraqis (even honest ones) and Americans hold on the topic. This could be tricky.
Another one: how long before people realize that the UN, as it exists today, is nothing more than a clearing house for international corruption? (ok, there's a couple of bureaus which do good work, but not many) Do we abolish the thing, reform it, or ignore it? Secretary of State Rice recently issued an email which mentioned "the community of democracies" several times. Is a new international organization in the works? Hmmm.
Kevin at 10:15 PM, 1/31/05
First of all, comparing the threat from Iraq to the threats faced during WWII doesn't hold water, so the "you libs would have let the Jews die in WWII" argument doesn't cut it.
Considering the Islamist mindset of "blame everything that goes wrong in our country on the Jews" has it's orgins with Hitler, I would say it does, in fact, "cut it." Shall I provide even more examples of how the two threats compare rather than contrast with one another?
The nation is deeply split about "that venture", and in fact Bush has been polling at <50% on it.
Depending on which poll you cite, his approval rating for the Iraq War ranges from the mid-50's to the high-40's. When it comes to something as complicated as one's performance in prosecuting a war, which is, in and of itself, an extremely complex excercise, I tend to take poll numbers with a rather large grain of salt. For me, the most important poll on Bush's handling of the Iraq conflict was held on Election Day. The President ran on his record, which did include his Iraq policy, and guess what? He won.
The world is full of bad guys pursuing ways to harm Americans. You can say Saddam was "surely" doing so, but I've seen little convincing evidence.
Shooting at American planes patrolling the UN-mandated no-fly zones. The aforementioned assassination plot of a former President of the United States, were all de facto acts of war committed by Saddam Hussein against the United States. Both of those cases are well known, and indeed have been well documented over the years.
Anyway, where is the next country of 25 million waiting to be liberated? Saudi? Turkmenistan? Pakistan?
What would be your criteria for liberation? Population? Level of political freedom, or lack thereof? Only countries in Southwest Asia? What?
Is this really our roll: bring democracy to all the world?
No. You're being disingenuous and starting to build a strawman as well.
Do you really think we possess the bodies and the treasure to pull it off?
Strawman building continuing...
How about, as Buchanan suggests, trying to understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?
That root cause would be totalitarian states, which provide very little in the way of personal liberty and freedom to their citzenery. It's a tried and true fact of history, free, open and liberal societies do not invade their neighbors. Free, open, and liberal societies do not throw their citizens into wood chippers. Free, open, and liberal societies do not blame all their problems on the Jew and the United States. And Buchanan is an anti-Semitic reactionary of the worst kind, who no one on the mainstream right takes seriously anymore.
I find it amazing that those who fly the conservative flag have, in fact, totally redefined the meaning of conservatism.
Redefined it in what way? Aaron (Mr. Free Will himself) is for a smaller federal government. Less government regulation. Pro Social Security reform. Supports school vouchers. Pro national security. And pro-2nd Amendment (pro Bill of Rights, period actually). The same can be said for every regular commenter here as well (in my case semi-regular commenter). That is by no means a comprehensive list, but every single one of those items can be termed as being conservative.
Hell, I'm an old leftie from way back, but in many ways, I'm more conservative, in the classic definition, that many of you. Funny, init?
More sad than funny, actually. Sad in the sense you cannot see that after 9/11 the world changed. We were hit, hard. 3,000 people died. And in a post 9/11 world leaving a terrorist supporting, anti-American, genocidal dictator in power was no longer a safe or sane option.
First of all, comparing the threat from Iraq to the threats faced during WWII doesn't hold water, so the "you libs would have let the Jews die in WWII" argument doesn't cut it.
Considering the Islamist mindset of "blame everything that goes wrong in our country on the Jews" has it's orgins with Hitler, I would say it does, in fact, "cut it." Shall I provide even more examples of how the two threats compare rather than contrast with one another?
The nation is deeply split about "that venture", and in fact Bush has been polling at <50% on it.
Depending on which poll you cite, his approval rating for the Iraq War ranges from the mid-50's to the high-40's. When it comes to something as complicated as one's performance in prosecuting a war, which is, in and of itself, an extremely complex excercise, I tend to take poll numbers with a rather large grain of salt. For me, the most important poll on Bush's handling of the Iraq conflict was held on Election Day. The President ran on his record, which did include his Iraq policy, and guess what? He won.
The world is full of bad guys pursuing ways to harm Americans. You can say Saddam was "surely" doing so, but I've seen little convincing evidence.
Shooting at American planes patrolling the UN-mandated no-fly zones. The aforementioned assassination plot of a former President of the United States, were all de facto acts of war committed by Saddam Hussein against the United States. Both of those cases are well known, and indeed have been well documented over the years.
Anyway, where is the next country of 25 million waiting to be liberated? Saudi? Turkmenistan? Pakistan?
What would be your criteria for liberation? Population? Level of political freedom, or lack thereof? Only countries in Southwest Asia? What?
Is this really our roll: bring democracy to all the world?
No. You're being disingenuous and starting to build a strawman as well.
Do you really think we possess the bodies and the treasure to pull it off?
Strawman building continuing...
How about, as Buchanan suggests, trying to understand and eliminate the causes of terrorism?
That root cause would be totalitarian states, which provide very little in the way of personal liberty and freedom to their citzenery. It's a tried and true fact of history, free, open and liberal societies do not invade their neighbors. Free, open, and liberal societies do not throw their citizens into wood chippers. Free, open, and liberal societies do not blame all their problems on the Jew and the United States. And Buchanan is an anti-Semitic reactionary of the worst kind, who no one on the mainstream right takes seriously anymore.
I find it amazing that those who fly the conservative flag have, in fact, totally redefined the meaning of conservatism.
Redefined it in what way? Aaron (Mr. Free Will himself) is for a smaller federal government. Less government regulation. Pro Social Security reform. Supports school vouchers. Pro national security. And pro-2nd Amendment (pro Bill of Rights, period actually). The same can be said for every regular commenter here as well (in my case semi-regular commenter). That is by no means a comprehensive list, but every single one of those items can be termed as being conservative.
Hell, I'm an old leftie from way back, but in many ways, I'm more conservative, in the classic definition, that many of you. Funny, init?
More sad than funny, actually. Sad in the sense you cannot see that after 9/11 the world changed. We were hit, hard. 3,000 people died. And in a post 9/11 world leaving a terrorist supporting, anti-American, genocidal dictator in power was no longer a safe or sane option.
at 10:28 PM, 1/31/05
Doug: We've seen the sacrifice I referred to in this war; Saddam sat at the nexus of the weapons marketplace (ref: Kay & Duelfur reports; 17 resolutions previous to UN 1441); implementing the Iraqi Liberation Act was the right move. WW2 was reactionary and much more costly in human terms.
Doug: We've seen the sacrifice I referred to in this war; Saddam sat at the nexus of the weapons marketplace (ref: Kay & Duelfur reports; 17 resolutions previous to UN 1441); implementing the Iraqi Liberation Act was the right move. WW2 was reactionary and much more costly in human terms.
Robert Crawford at 10:33 PM, 1/31/05
As he pointed out, the whole "they hate us for our freedom" tact is a red herring.
Have you read Zarqawi's recent rants/threats about the elections? He hates free speech -- because it lets you blaspheme. He hates democracy -- because it lets you institute a law other than "God's law" and can give people freedom to chose their religion.
Sounds like he hates our freedom to me.
As he pointed out, the whole "they hate us for our freedom" tact is a red herring.
Have you read Zarqawi's recent rants/threats about the elections? He hates free speech -- because it lets you blaspheme. He hates democracy -- because it lets you institute a law other than "God's law" and can give people freedom to chose their religion.
Sounds like he hates our freedom to me.
at 10:37 PM, 1/31/05
"These guys are adept at making us believe that all will be a disaster, but when the reality shows itself to be not-that-bad, they look better in the aftermath than they deserve."
Just when I think the left can't possibly get any loonier, they do. They've been knocking Bush and the War on Terror all along, but obviosly Rove and Bush that have maneuvered them into doing so. Anything that makes Bush look good is a Bush lie, including criticism!
I'm speechless.
What is wrong with them? Paranoia? Who's been shoring up these fixed delusions?
How do you argue with people like this?
I guess you can't. You can only ignore what they say, but watch them to see if they act out based on their delusions.
It's really like some loony cult.
The sooner the Democrats complete their self-destruction, the better. Then another, more reasonable party can form that can compete with us Republicans (because I believe a democracy requires at least 2 parties to function well).
"These guys are adept at making us believe that all will be a disaster, but when the reality shows itself to be not-that-bad, they look better in the aftermath than they deserve."
Just when I think the left can't possibly get any loonier, they do. They've been knocking Bush and the War on Terror all along, but obviosly Rove and Bush that have maneuvered them into doing so. Anything that makes Bush look good is a Bush lie, including criticism!
I'm speechless.
What is wrong with them? Paranoia? Who's been shoring up these fixed delusions?
How do you argue with people like this?
I guess you can't. You can only ignore what they say, but watch them to see if they act out based on their delusions.
It's really like some loony cult.
The sooner the Democrats complete their self-destruction, the better. Then another, more reasonable party can form that can compete with us Republicans (because I believe a democracy requires at least 2 parties to function well).
at 12:14 AM, 2/1/05
"The sooner the Democrats complete their self-destruction, the better."
Absolutely. Any party that lets itself be beaten by a "chimp" isn't a party worth having.
"splat"
"The sooner the Democrats complete their self-destruction, the better."
Absolutely. Any party that lets itself be beaten by a "chimp" isn't a party worth having.
"splat"
at 12:29 AM, 2/1/05
I heartily agree with Leah. Germany started out taking territory from neighboring states, claiming it was simply exercising it's right to reclaim what belonged to it and promised they had no intent on further aggression. (In retrospect it is almost laughable that people believed it. But only "almost" because too many people died as a result.) Countries like France that ignored treaties of mutual self-defense watched it happen. Saddam likewise put claims on Kuwait, after a long and gruesome war with Iran. Yes, after the humbling of the 4th largest army in the world in Gulf War I Iraq did not pose a threat in the traditional sense that Nazi Germany did. Put the point is, in 2005 you don't have to. In 1938-45 to bring violence of any significance to Europe and (especially) the US required a massive movement of troops and weapons. Today that is not the case.
Fundamentally one needs to ask the question if it is possible to conduct foreign affairs without ever resorting to armed conflict. (Is it possible for the police to enforce the law without carrying guns?) If one answers yes, then you are ignoring history or you don't mind being governed by tyrants. If one answers no, then the question is judging when armed conflict seems inevitable, and when is the best time to fight.
Trying to keep a 'peace' at all costs ends up in a greater disaster. Cancer is best treated when it is small and in early stages. Tyrants are a cancer to humanity and likewise are best dealt with as early as feasible.
I have yet to hear a worthwhile suggestion to what we should have done with Saddam instead of what we did. One needs to take into consideration that he had defied the UN for over 10 years, and even subverted it for his own uses. Countries that were supposed to be allies in keeping him contained were supplying him with arms and helping to finance the rebuilding of his arsenal. Meanwhile, we were left to enforce the containment and needed to keep troops in the Middle East, such as in Saudi Arabia, which was purported to be a major provocation for the terrorists. Everyone in the world thought he had WMD's. Even if we didn't find the caches as expected: 1) he and his sons were WMD'S; 2) any reading of the reports of the Iraqi Survey Group past the headline of "no stockpiles found" make it clear he would be a threat as long as he was in power; and 3) with all of the months of stalling by the UN (thank you France) who knows where they may be (hello Syria). I think the situation was a huge tactical blunder on the part of Saddam and most of the rest of the world. Nobody thought that President Bush would actually follow through on his stated purpose. Just like the child who learns to do as he pleases because the parent always says, "No, no" but never does anything, so Saddam had learned (he thought) he could wiggle his way to accomplish what he wanted. My goodness, a leader who doesn't make a threat but keeps a promise, no wonder so many do not know what to make of him!! (One simply needs to know baseball. If you are facing a pitcher who throws 98 mph fastballs by you, don't be surprised when he throws fastballs.)
What is meant when one refers to "Vietnam"? Does one mean a deployment of US troops with a terrible battle plan that didn't succeed? Does one mean a war that the US "lost" at the Tet Offensive? (Because we didn't. It was a bloody mess, but much moreso for the Viet Cong- they just had better PR in the US than the US did.) Or do you mean that the US would let diplomates get Nobel Peace Prizes for an agreement that would not be kept, leading to the deaths of many in Vietnam and the Killing Fields of Cambodia? The latter is what all of our enemies around the world want to think of when they hear that. (What would John think of his younger brother's spin on all of this?) I do not believe we went to war for trivial reasons and lost over 1,000 men and women for something worthless. I think we went to war and some 1,000 plus were willing to pay the price to try to prevent 10,000's needing to pay it later. Perhaps there was another way, but I haven't seen it. (The other way would have been for France and the UN and others to have been serious about demanding that Saddam stop his rule of terror. he had invaded a neighbor, lost the battle, and was spared on the promise of good behaviour. He broke his promise and should have been disciplined years ago.)
I heartily agree with Leah. Germany started out taking territory from neighboring states, claiming it was simply exercising it's right to reclaim what belonged to it and promised they had no intent on further aggression. (In retrospect it is almost laughable that people believed it. But only "almost" because too many people died as a result.) Countries like France that ignored treaties of mutual self-defense watched it happen. Saddam likewise put claims on Kuwait, after a long and gruesome war with Iran. Yes, after the humbling of the 4th largest army in the world in Gulf War I Iraq did not pose a threat in the traditional sense that Nazi Germany did. Put the point is, in 2005 you don't have to. In 1938-45 to bring violence of any significance to Europe and (especially) the US required a massive movement of troops and weapons. Today that is not the case.
Fundamentally one needs to ask the question if it is possible to conduct foreign affairs without ever resorting to armed conflict. (Is it possible for the police to enforce the law without carrying guns?) If one answers yes, then you are ignoring history or you don't mind being governed by tyrants. If one answers no, then the question is judging when armed conflict seems inevitable, and when is the best time to fight.
Trying to keep a 'peace' at all costs ends up in a greater disaster. Cancer is best treated when it is small and in early stages. Tyrants are a cancer to humanity and likewise are best dealt with as early as feasible.
I have yet to hear a worthwhile suggestion to what we should have done with Saddam instead of what we did. One needs to take into consideration that he had defied the UN for over 10 years, and even subverted it for his own uses. Countries that were supposed to be allies in keeping him contained were supplying him with arms and helping to finance the rebuilding of his arsenal. Meanwhile, we were left to enforce the containment and needed to keep troops in the Middle East, such as in Saudi Arabia, which was purported to be a major provocation for the terrorists. Everyone in the world thought he had WMD's. Even if we didn't find the caches as expected: 1) he and his sons were WMD'S; 2) any reading of the reports of the Iraqi Survey Group past the headline of "no stockpiles found" make it clear he would be a threat as long as he was in power; and 3) with all of the months of stalling by the UN (thank you France) who knows where they may be (hello Syria). I think the situation was a huge tactical blunder on the part of Saddam and most of the rest of the world. Nobody thought that President Bush would actually follow through on his stated purpose. Just like the child who learns to do as he pleases because the parent always says, "No, no" but never does anything, so Saddam had learned (he thought) he could wiggle his way to accomplish what he wanted. My goodness, a leader who doesn't make a threat but keeps a promise, no wonder so many do not know what to make of him!! (One simply needs to know baseball. If you are facing a pitcher who throws 98 mph fastballs by you, don't be surprised when he throws fastballs.)
What is meant when one refers to "Vietnam"? Does one mean a deployment of US troops with a terrible battle plan that didn't succeed? Does one mean a war that the US "lost" at the Tet Offensive? (Because we didn't. It was a bloody mess, but much moreso for the Viet Cong- they just had better PR in the US than the US did.) Or do you mean that the US would let diplomates get Nobel Peace Prizes for an agreement that would not be kept, leading to the deaths of many in Vietnam and the Killing Fields of Cambodia? The latter is what all of our enemies around the world want to think of when they hear that. (What would John think of his younger brother's spin on all of this?) I do not believe we went to war for trivial reasons and lost over 1,000 men and women for something worthless. I think we went to war and some 1,000 plus were willing to pay the price to try to prevent 10,000's needing to pay it later. Perhaps there was another way, but I haven't seen it. (The other way would have been for France and the UN and others to have been serious about demanding that Saddam stop his rule of terror. he had invaded a neighbor, lost the battle, and was spared on the promise of good behaviour. He broke his promise and should have been disciplined years ago.)
at 12:43 AM, 2/1/05
the question on missing shields?
that shows how stupid you really are!
the question on missing shields?
that shows how stupid you really are!
at 11:41 AM, 2/1/05
Post 9/11 there is one statement to run this country by
America First!!
Post 9/11 there is one statement to run this country by
America First!!
Abdullah al-Libi at 12:16 PM, 2/1/05
I'm surprised nobody commented on the Michael Moore wanna-be with the sign.
So here goes: "The fat b*st*rd with the sign really needs somebody to shove it up his *** and turn him into a popsicle."
I'm surprised nobody commented on the Michael Moore wanna-be with the sign.
So here goes: "The fat b*st*rd with the sign really needs somebody to shove it up his *** and turn him into a popsicle."
Dan Kauffman at 07:04 AM, 2/2/05
Doug in Alabama at 08:21 PM, 1/31/05
First of all, comparing the threat from Iraq to the threats faced during WWII doesn't hold water, so the "you libs would have let the Jews die in WWII" argument doesn't cut it
********************************************
But that is EXACTLY what America and other Nations did, isn't it?
There was a very large disinterest in giving sanctuary to Jews until AFTER 6 million of them were dead and there was also a very large Peace at any Price movement.
Doug in Alabama at 08:21 PM, 1/31/05
First of all, comparing the threat from Iraq to the threats faced during WWII doesn't hold water, so the "you libs would have let the Jews die in WWII" argument doesn't cut it
********************************************
But that is EXACTLY what America and other Nations did, isn't it?
There was a very large disinterest in giving sanctuary to Jews until AFTER 6 million of them were dead and there was also a very large Peace at any Price movement.
Jason Kallini at 11:18 AM, 2/2/05
Doug, comparing the untold slaughter of innocents with in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iran (among others) by extremist Islamics over the past twenty years with the slaughter of innocents in Europe sixty years ago is extremely important, and there is also much to compare.
To simply dismiss that is ludicrous on your part.
I can point out thosands of polls in the last three years that show support for our war effort from as little as twenty-five percent to as high as eighty percent. You simply choose one fairly current one that suits your purpose, and propose it here as law, despite the fact that Bush won reelection almost solely on his foreign policy.
And the fact that he was not Kerry. But that's an easy platform to run on.
And you yourself have made the audacious claim that Iraq will be an extremist theocracy in two years, and yet have presented no evidence or reasoning in two days as to why this will be. Even after I asked you for some specifics.
For someone who claims to want a reasoned debate, you're falling far short.
Immediate dismissal of contrary claims, and a lack of evidence to support your own. "Funny, innit?"
Doug, comparing the untold slaughter of innocents with in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iran (among others) by extremist Islamics over the past twenty years with the slaughter of innocents in Europe sixty years ago is extremely important, and there is also much to compare.
To simply dismiss that is ludicrous on your part.
I can point out thosands of polls in the last three years that show support for our war effort from as little as twenty-five percent to as high as eighty percent. You simply choose one fairly current one that suits your purpose, and propose it here as law, despite the fact that Bush won reelection almost solely on his foreign policy.
And the fact that he was not Kerry. But that's an easy platform to run on.
And you yourself have made the audacious claim that Iraq will be an extremist theocracy in two years, and yet have presented no evidence or reasoning in two days as to why this will be. Even after I asked you for some specifics.
For someone who claims to want a reasoned debate, you're falling far short.
Immediate dismissal of contrary claims, and a lack of evidence to support your own. "Funny, innit?"
at 02:32 AM, 2/3/05
I'm finding the reading here very enjoyable. Thank you to all the intelligent posters for the conservative viewpoints displayed here. It is rare that I find a forum where I feel no need to interject commentary. It is already displayed! Carry on....
I'm finding the reading here very enjoyable. Thank you to all the intelligent posters for the conservative viewpoints displayed here. It is rare that I find a forum where I feel no need to interject commentary. It is already displayed! Carry on....
at 03:21 AM, 6/8/06
at 10:40 PM, 6/26/06
daxian at 01:56 AM, 6/28/06
two thumbs up!!! EQ2 Platinum|EverQuest 2 PlatinumDDO Platinum|Dungeons and Dragons Online PlatinumL2 Adena|Lineage 2 Adena FFXI Gil|Final Fantasy XI Gilchinese clothing|chinese dress air bed manufacturerwater sports towablecamping gear and equipmentoutdoor camping equipmentcovering machine covering machine roll forming roll forming tubetube pinball machine
two thumbs up!!! EQ2 Platinum|EverQuest 2 PlatinumDDO Platinum|Dungeons and Dragons Online PlatinumL2 Adena|Lineage 2 Adena FFXI Gil|Final Fantasy XI Gilchinese clothing|chinese dress air bed manufacturerwater sports towablecamping gear and equipmentoutdoor camping equipmentcovering machine covering machine roll forming roll forming tubetube pinball machine
at 02:37 AM, 6/28/06
A0ea3w6oVq at 02:07 PM, 7/5/06
iixq DA2yh18
MmKDpNa
J2S28Z
n4LDNpH4
3WLIFVt
yXzI5k9D2
8w5gz GQuLEw98Y13 LECqxl Iq8ouiApbEyOdUU2e F5AlGGZLH0 Tun5p adjXD9X42NfmH
qLNbx
KdMBbrhGP
MHxEty8mB7
6nNRJQcYxaX
VvjSw
CrsQJkK
iixq DA2yh18
MmKDpNa
J2S28Z
n4LDNpH4
3WLIFVt
yXzI5k9D2
8w5gz GQuLEw98Y13 LECqxl Iq8ouiApbEyOdUU2e F5AlGGZLH0 Tun5p adjXD9X42NfmH
qLNbx
KdMBbrhGP
MHxEty8mB7
6nNRJQcYxaX
VvjSw
CrsQJkK
at 11:56 PM, 7/10/06
at 11:27 PM, 7/14/06
problem with zetia at 09:02 PM, 7/23/06
<scription-drug-zetia.html">prescription drug zetia</a>
problem tooth zetia
problem with zetia
seizure zetia
zetia 10 mg
zetia 10mg
zetia and hair loss
zetia cholesterol medicine
zetia dosage
zetia ezetimibe tablet
<scription-drug-zetia.html">prescription drug zetia</a>
problem tooth zetia
problem with zetia
seizure zetia
zetia 10 mg
zetia 10mg
zetia and hair loss
zetia cholesterol medicine
zetia dosage
zetia ezetimibe tablet
at 04:14 AM, 7/24/06
free hosting unlimited web space at 08:55 PM, 7/28/06
free web space hosting
free web hosting site builder
free hosting unlimited web space
ads free hosting web without
free hosting image web
free web site building hosting
free ecommerce web hosting
free web hosting mysql
free web hosting provider
100mb free web hosting
free web space hosting
free web hosting site builder
free hosting unlimited web space
ads free hosting web without
free hosting image web
free web site building hosting
free ecommerce web hosting
free web hosting mysql
free web hosting provider
100mb free web hosting
buy play station 2 game at 02:50 AM, 8/1/06
star war play station 2 game
play station 2 game rating
buy play station 2 game
play station 2 video game review
friend game play station
backup play station 2 game
play station 2 poker game
play station 2 game guide
play station 2 game game
upcoming play station 2 game
star war play station 2 game
play station 2 game rating
buy play station 2 game
play station 2 video game review
friend game play station
backup play station 2 game
play station 2 poker game
play station 2 game guide
play station 2 game game
upcoming play station 2 game
at 07:58 AM, 8/14/06
seopils.com
seopils.com
at 07:53 AM, 8/25/06
levitra at 06:05 AM, 8/28/06
The immeasurable trust you bestow on http://www.levitrabliss.com levitra is justified as the drug is one among the hottest erectile dysfunction medicines sufficiently capable of eliminating the menace know as male erectile dysfunction. But in line with other anti-impotency drugs, http://www.levitrabliss.com cheap levitra also possesses side-effects which you must carefully avoid in order to minimize repercussion from the drug. But what are those side-effects and how to avoid them? An entire gamut of information on these facts can be accessed at levitrabliss.com and you can also order Levitra from the same. Buy Levitra from us and administer it to your system according to the instructions of your physician. If you http://www.levitrabliss.com buy levitra online your life would take a drastic turn, I tell you and erectile dysfunction would be a thing of the past.
The immeasurable trust you bestow on http://www.levitrabliss.com levitra is justified as the drug is one among the hottest erectile dysfunction medicines sufficiently capable of eliminating the menace know as male erectile dysfunction. But in line with other anti-impotency drugs, http://www.levitrabliss.com cheap levitra also possesses side-effects which you must carefully avoid in order to minimize repercussion from the drug. But what are those side-effects and how to avoid them? An entire gamut of information on these facts can be accessed at levitrabliss.com and you can also order Levitra from the same. Buy Levitra from us and administer it to your system according to the instructions of your physician. If you http://www.levitrabliss.com buy levitra online your life would take a drastic turn, I tell you and erectile dysfunction would be a thing of the past.
chantix at 07:22 AM, 8/29/06
The new Chantix is a revolutionary anti-smoking medicine that has made quit smoking easy. The smoker,after taking chantix, dislikes the effects of nicotine and thereby does not feel the cravings for a smoke. The process of Smoking cessation is not a rigorous course of action any more. You just need to buy chantix and enjoy a nicotine free life. You will see how everything changes positively after you stop smoking. The positive effects will show in every sphere of your life.
The new Chantix is a revolutionary anti-smoking medicine that has made quit smoking easy. The smoker,after taking chantix, dislikes the effects of nicotine and thereby does not feel the cravings for a smoke. The process of Smoking cessation is not a rigorous course of action any more. You just need to buy chantix and enjoy a nicotine free life. You will see how everything changes positively after you stop smoking. The positive effects will show in every sphere of your life.
at 09:09 PM, 9/4/06
at 09:11 PM, 9/4/06
Comment Policy: Irrelevant or obscene posts, including ad hominem attacks, SPAM, crazed ranting, and threats of violence may be removed at the owner of this site's discretion.
