Monday, September 17, 2007
|
|
Iraq the Model
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
11:03 AM
|
As I’ve mentioned several times here, I begin each day by checking out the website Icasualties.org. Even though I just spent the past weekend vacationing on the Cape - purchasing fudge, shopping for candles and shooting a 37 on the back nine - I maintained that part of my regular routine. Icasualties.org tracks each individual act of violence in Iraq. Run by lefties, it’s a comprehensive repository of every piece of bad news that comes from Iraq. If a U.S. soldier commits suicide, Icasualties.org has it. A bicycle bomber kills five people – same thing.
If you check out the site every day, you become sensitive to trends before they manifest themselves in cumulative numbers. But it’s the numbers that matters most. Icasualties.org gives a ruthless, comprehensive, unemotional accounting of the situation in Iraq. I’d like to think that every person who pontificates on Iraq is familiar with the site’s data. I’d love to believe that our Democratic congressmen and women know what those numbers are, even while they aim to please Moveon.org and Code Pink out of political necessity. I’d also like to believe that I’ll shoot 37 on every back 9 from now on.
So what do the number say? As Jules Crittenden points out, Al Qaeda in Iraq is promising yet another Tet With a Turban. There was going to be one before the surge. There was going to be one before Petraeus came to Washington. And now there’s going to be one to help the Iraqis ring in Ramadan.
But the numbers? Therein lies the real story. At the height of pre-surge anarchy, Iraq suffered roughly 3,000 civilian deaths a month because of what we’ll call the civil war. Over the previous few months, the surge reduced the monthly butcher’s bill to around 1500 civilians a month, a statistical reality that complemented the anecdotal data brought back by the Michael Yons, Bill Roggios, Jeff Emmanuels, and Bill Ardolinos of the world.
The numbers are still improving. The last half of August was by Iraqi standards markedly superior to any time span since the civil war began. In September, that trend has continued. So far this month, 406 Iraqi civilians and security force members have died as a result of the civil war. This puts September roughly on a pace to see 700 Iraqi casualties. That’s fewer than 25% the pre-surge level of violence and will be the least since Icaualties.org started tracking this statistic in January ’06.
IT’S TRUE THAT WITHOUT SOME SORT OF political reconciliation, these gains are for naught. Unless the Iraqis prove themselves capable of producing a government worthy of the sacrifices we’ve made, then everything we’ve done since the fall of Saddam will have turned out to be a waste of blood and treasure. The glib line that we should have toppled Saddam then left, leaving behind only a copy of the Federalist Papers in our wake will have more than a shred of truth to it.
Is there hope for political progress in Iraq? Some people point to the nation’s differing ethnicities and Yugoslavia-like birth circumstances to suggest that there’s no real country there, and that the best course is to partition Iraq into three separate countries – a Sunni entity, a Shiite one and of course Kurdistan.
The people like Joe Biden who suggest such a course misunderstand the stakes in Iraq. But come now – when has Joe Biden ever understood anything? In all of history, only one country has come together not because of ethnicity or border conditions but because of shared ideals. That country is of course the United States. The goal of the Iraq war is to add a second country to this exclusive club. If Iraq were partitioned along ethnic lines, it would represent a complete lack of ideological progress in the Middle East. We know homogenous Islamic states can have relative peace and (thanks to their oil supplies) relative prosperity. But woe to the women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians and other assorted infidels who might wander into those countries’ path.
Iraq, if we win, will be different. It will be the first time an Islamic country has coalesced around ideas rather than ethnicity. What are the ideals that the new Iraq will have? Well, they won’t look precisely American. But by regional standards, they will set new marks for progress. Right now, unelected dictators rule over most Middle Eastern countries. Where the people elect the leaders, the picture is even worse. In Iran, the government has been promising genocide and conquest for almost thirty years. In “Palestine”, the popularly elected Hamas is cut from the same cloth. In other words, the ideals that animate the Middle East’s Islamic countries are as follows – kill the infidels, kill the apostates, establish the Caliphate, and whine to the U.N.
Can Iraq and the Iraqis rally around a different set of ideals, one that features enough democracy, tolerance and modernity that we don’t have to worry about Iraqis crashing airliners into buildings? We all better hope so.
Last week, Hugh spoke with our go-to radical Islam expert Walid Phares. If you want to increase your knowledge of our current struggle ten-fold in the next two weeks, read Doctor Phares’ books “Future Jihad” and “The War of Ideas”. As the latter title suggests, the global struggle we’re in right now is ultimately a war of ideas. Either we get the world’s Islamic population to buy into the notion that co-existing with “the other” (namely us) beats cutting off our heads to use as polo balls, or ultimately the war won’t be one just of ideas.
More than anything else, Iraq is ground zero in the current war of ideas. If the Iraqis decide to edge away from modernity and instead embrace genocide and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, it will serve as a clear signal that the war of ideas is lost and that a real war is inevitable. If, however, democracy and tolerance can take root in Iraq, then quite literally it can happen anywhere.
Partly for its difficulties, the Iraq war is providing a blueprint for winning the war of ideas. That of course assumes we win in Iraq and something resembling a modern, peaceful nation arises from the enormous American and Iraqi sacrifices made to date. If we lose, then those who claim to so piously desire peace will really have something to weep about.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
|
4) I find your contempt for the military appalling. Again, several of my friend and colleagues who have served in Iraq .do not see the mission as impossible. They believe in what they are doing and that is buying time for the political process to work. That is not, as you say, impossible. It is irresponsible and naive to think that you can build a functioning Replublic after decades of dictatorships. Our own history proves this. A failed government, Articles of Confederations, and a civil war are just two example of the turbulence we endured. I recommend reading about our history and how we continue to have threats to our freedoms, i.e.McCain-Feingold, and Fairness Doctrine
Your last comments show that YES YOU DO blame the US when others hate our freedoms and liberties.
Good night, Commrade
|
|
3) Secretary Rumsfeld addressed this leftist lie many times. But, like all lies from the left, the never die. The US defeated the Saddam Hussein's military FASTER than any one, even the "experts" thought possible. Everyone admits that, like in EVERY WAR EVER FOUGHT, mistakes were made. The enemy developed a tactic that was not planned for and identified a weakness in our HMMMVs. The soldiers, like US soldiers have done in EVERY WAR we fought, adapted their equipment to the sitiuation. And the command quickly implemented plans to improve our vehicles.
The second part completely reveals your illogic by writing, "continues to undermine them by refusing to give them the rest they need in order to continue their service" You are now contradicting the very position the Left supports. So, I am sorry to disappoint you. When General Petraeus present his plan of using reinforcements, i.e. the "surge", he received unanimous consent from the Senate. The President consented to his request and gave him the needed troops to carry out his plan. It was the Left, MORE PROOF, which immediately undermined the strategy. Senator Reid announced that Iraq was lost, and that the "surge" would not work. Time and Time again the Left demands troop reduction or complete with draw, which goes against the advice of our commanders. Thank you for playing. GAME OVER.
|
|
1) We did not weaken the US influence in the world by upsetting the "International community" which is nothing more than dicatorial tyrants ranting about US policies that actually promote liberty in thier countries. Leftist media sources would rather the US cave to threats from tyrants than to stand up to them. It did not work for Chamberlain and De Gaulle and it will not work today. So upsetting pacifist does not weaken the US. A recent survey discussed on the Michael Meved show disprooves your fantasy about the world hating the US.
2) You show your ignorance and contempt for the brave Iraqis who are fighting next to our forces in Iraq. Several of the later are my friends and acquaintances. I find it hard to beleive your pool results. That obviously explains why Anbar Province, a province that was declared lost, has turned against al-Queada and is NOW heldping the US and central Iraqi Government rid the area of the terrorist. But I guess you beleive MoveOn.org and the rest of the Leftist, Pelosi and Reid, BOTH of whom said that they will not listen to, or believe anything General Petraues reports. More PROOF of their anti-American actions. This is what you on the left consider "supporting the troops."
|
|
DVangura has presented us with what s/he believes to be a clear definition of what it is to be anti-American. Therefore, using his/her detailed definition, we can definitely conclude that President Bush is anti-American because:
1) He has weakened the influence of America in the world because there can be no doubt that most of the world's countries distrust us more now than ever before specifically because of his policies.
2) He has provided arms and money to people in Iraq who then used them to kill our soldiers. What's worse, because he does not understand Iraq at all (for instance, 100% -- I'm not kidding -- of respondents to a recent poll in Anbar, which Bush claims is an American "success", believe that we are a greater danger to them than Al Queda and want us out) he continues to provide arms and money to people who will use them against us.
3) Did not provided our troops with the armor they needed (it was left to private sources), and he continues to undermine them by refusing to give them the rest they need in order to continue their service.
4) Has given our soldiers an impossible mission. Their "success", as Bush defines it, is entirely dependent upon what the Iraqi government does, which our troops cannot control. What's worse is that the Iraqi people do not want to do what Bush wants them to do, i.e., form a united Iraq.
But as for DVangura's vague charges against Pelosi and Reid, s/he provides no evidence at all.
I don't blame my country for our problems. I blame YOU, DVangura. You helped put a dangerously incompentent, dishonest, and greedy idiot in the White House who not only threatens our freedoms directly but also weakens us and increases the danger to our country from others. And it is my duty as an American to make sure that never happens again.
|
|
When the very nature of Islam calls for its followers to convert, kill, or enslave infidels, and the VAST majority of the middle east celebrated the attacks of 9/11 and the loss of the Space Shuttle, and rioted at the publications of the Mohamed cartoons you are not talking about a “few thousand jihadist.” Conservative estimates put the percentage of “radical” Muslims at 10%. Ten percent of 1 billion is ONE HUNDRED MILLION!! Survey after survey reveals that significant numbers of “moderate” Muslims believe suicide attacks in the defense of Islam are acceptable, that Sharia law should apply to everyone and replace our laws of tolerance, and that honor killing are justified.
The Koran verse of conversion by the sword abrogates all previous verses of peace. The Koran states that it is the duty of Muslims to kill Jews, especially in the end of times when the trees and the rocks will call out, “There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.”
So, when a culture will not live in peace with you, and will continually seek to undermine your country from within while attacking it violently from without, what do you suggest is done in that situation?
|
|
You are anti-American when you 1) take positions that weaken the influence of America in the world, 2) support dictators who call for the down fall of America, i.e. the Lefts’ (Pelosi and Reid) support of Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 3) Support those on the left who openly snub the president while meeting the above and cowtowing to them like good dhimis, 4) Claim to “support” the troops while actively working against their mission and thus increasing the danger to their life, 5) Blame your country first and foremost when people who hate freedom attack the US instead of the emeny. So yes, you are anti-American when you support leftist views. Compare Senator Leiberman to Senator Reid or Rep Pelosi and you see the difference between a traditional JFK LIBERAL Democrat and a the modern LEFTIST Democrat.
|
|
"Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima"
No, if he's being serious, he's suggesting that we go across the Middle East anihilating up to a billion innocent lives to kill a few thousand jihadists.
|
|
"There is a military solution to this situation, but the politicians and the anti-american left don't want to admit it."
DVangura: So I'm anti-American because I don't want to waste American lives waiting for the Iraqis to do something that they don't want to do, such as form a united Iraq? Or am I anti-American because I think our military should be going after Al Queda as it spreads across the world, now in numbers greater than they had before 9/11? Or am I anti-American because I don't think we should break our military, as many generals and even Republicans admit is a danger? Or am I anti-American because I think we should get our eyes back on the ball by making sure that we actually bury the Taliban this time? Or am I anti-American because I don't want us aggravating the situation in Iraq by our very presence, which is what Bush's own National Intelligence Estimates say we're doing? Or am I anti-American because I think that Osama bin Laden is the worst mass murderer in American history and should be stopped by any means necessary instead of considering him to be just an unimportant symbol not worth chasing?
To call me anti-American because I favor political views on the left convinces me that you don't know what America is. With your suggestion that nuclear war or killing tens of thousands of non-combatant men, women, and children might be a good thing, I think that you represents the worst that humanity has to offer, and we must protect ourselves from the likes of you.
|
|
To quote the article, "Either we get the world’s Islamic population to buy into the notion that co-existing with “the other” (namely us) beats cutting off our heads to use as polo balls, or ultimately the war won’t be one just of ideas."
There is a military solution to this situation, but the politicians and the anti-american left don't want to admit it. The quote above pretty much gives us are options. Either there is a birth of a new Islamic philosophy in Iraq, or we kill all of themm, or they kill of of us. I personally prefer the former option.
This great country knew how to fight a war before. Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima come to mind.
|
|
Sorry, that should have been Barnett, not Hewitt. I apologize for not proofreading my post.
|
|
Hewitt says "At the height of pre-surge anarchy, Iraq suffered roughly 3,000 civilian deaths a month".
Well, I went to icasualties.org to see for myself. It says no such thing. Here are the actual numbers:
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Aug-07 1674
Jul-07 1690
Jun-07 1345
May-07 1980
Apr-07 1821
Mar-07 2977
Feb-07 3014
Jan-07 1802
Dec-06 1752
Nov-06 1864
Oct-06 1539
Sep-06 3539
Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
A second order polynomial analysis of the figures shows that the number of deaths per month began trending downward well before the surge. In addition, with an average number of deaths per month of 1747, the August 07 figure is not far from that. With a standard deviation over those months of 801 deaths, Hewitt's use of the figures becomes meaningless -- and dishonest.
|
|
"get back to us when OUR country is occupied and on the brink of collapse - then MAYBE the comparison is apt..."
Well, considering the state of the economy, the free-falling dollar and the credit crunch, irresponsible spending policies of the last 40 years, and looming bills coming due on the Ponzi Social Security scheme, Congress still took a vacation.
President takes a lot of 'em too.
Politicians are irresponsible scum regardless of the color of their skin, the God they pray to, or the language they speak. |
|
Neo: We are doing the surge in order to buy time for the Iraqis to put together a functioning government. They have frittered away that time at the cost of American lives.
We don't have enough troops to maintain the surge past next spring. If the Maliki goverenment is in as sad shape then, as now, what happens next?
We have a functioning Congress, although that is sometime debatable. |
|
August,too.And,it wasn't even 140 in the shade in WashDC.Your point being...?
Kossack:You're kidding,Right? |
|
With all due respect, you belittle the concept of hope for these Iraqis who truly do want for a better life, one they envision as being free to conduct themselves with a notion other than that dictated by a tyrannical regime.
For everything that you have said, you simply ignore, deny, repudiate, eschew, gloss over, fail to address the HOPE that so many hold who have never held it before.
To say that this failure of yours is sad does not express it clear enough, loud enough, redundantly enough................................................................Is this teh reason we went there? Nope. But for you to fail to acknowledge this----to say with such ease that, "It would be nice to be able to say we have accomplished SOMETHING other than the deaths of Saddam and his spawn...BUT WE HAVEN'T", is weak, is myopic, is the voice of narrow mindedness.
I feel sorry for you to speak in such absolutes. It reminds me of the media our country is so often subjected to. It gives pause to the plethora of classrooms in learning institutions which spew that same tired absolutism.
Get well soon, sir, for you are not. Not yet. |
|
So what expensive vacations have you taken throughout this war?
It really does not come down to whether others on this site are dissatisfied with Iraqi politicians taking vacation time at the end of this summer, now does it?
What really matters is how pissed you are; at teh war, at Bush, at conservatives---let's see, that just about covers it. Yeah, we read you loud and clear.
Mark Foley sends some explicit emails to a page boy and you and the Libs get short circuited. Some Senator from Idaho "taps" his toes and waves a hand under a restroom stall, and your Lefty, progessive, socialist friends come unglued. Scooter Libby basically "got off scot free" according to you and your buddies. Anything conservative is tantamount to vile----including this war and the Iraqi politicians who are associated with it.
However,
Richard Armitage and his shenanigans gets nary a "sniff" from you.
Harry Reid and his failure to claim $$$millions in profits gets a nada de nada.
William Jefferson and his "frozen assets" do not receive so much as an icy stare from you and other lefties here and throughout the country.
Sandy Berger? Steals classified documents from a federal facility; So what, who gives a crap.
Last week 11 democrats from the great state of New Jersey got arrested---including the Mayor of Passaic and other high officials----you probably did not even hear about it, and, that over 200 democrats have been arrested in that same state in just the past few years-----No Biggie! Change the subject!
It's all about the party of corruption-----the republicans, the conservatives, and those damnable Iraqi officials who are associated with aforementioned.
You don't give a crap about those Iraqi officials. Except, of couorse, that they are tied in with this Boooooosh war. Your drumbeat is always the same----just the lyric which adds and deletes names as needed. |
|
So what have you done throughout this war?
It really does not come down to whether others on this site are dissatisfied with Iraqi politicians taking vacation time at the end of this summer, now does it?
What really matters is how pissed you are; at teh war, at Bush, at conservatives---let's see, that just about covers it. Yeah, we read you loud and clear.
Mark Foley sends some explicit emails to a page boy and you and the Libs get short circuited. Some Senator from Idaho "taps" his toes and waves a hand under a restroom stall, and your Lefty, progessive, socialist friends come unglued. Scooter Libby basically "got off scot free" according to you and your buddies. Anything conservative is tantamount to vile----including this war and the Iraqi politicians who are associated with it.
However,
Richard Armitage and his shenanigans gets nary a "sniff" from you.
Harry Reid and his failure to claim $$$millions in profits gets a nada de nada.
William Jefferson and his "frozen assets" do not receive so much as an icy stare from you and other lefties here and throughout the country.
Sandy Berger? Steals classified documents from a federal facility; So what, who gives a crap.
Last week 11 democrats from the great state of New Jersey got arrested---including the Mayor of Passaic and other high officials----you probably did not even hear about it, and, that over 200 democrats have been arrested in that same state in just the past few years-----No Biggie! Change the subject!
It's all about the party of corruption-----the republicans, the conservatives, and those damnable Iraqi officials who are associated with aforementioned.
You don't give a crap about those Iraqi officials. Except, of couorse, that they are tied in with this Boooooosh war. Your drumbeat is always the same----just the lyric which adds and deletes names as needed. |
|
Unusually heavy need for KosRoach Spray today.
Don't ANY of you bozos love Baseball??
Football...There's no football in Baseball!
How can you be Righties if you don't LOVE Baseball??
OK...Time for my OxyClinton Dosage.
|
|
...Kill the Dark Age Fascist Butchers and enemies of Freedom & Civilization.Kill them until they quit the field.Break LOTS of their stuff...Damn..
Unlike most armies,they don't have much"stuff"..
...Just awhole lot of assasins and "Martyrs" strapped with explosives.Oh,and a willingness to slaughter helpless civilians,usually of the Muslim variety.So,to repeat,KILL the Islamist Jihadist Sewage.One reason I like this Prez.He keeps thing real clear--morally and strategery... err..tegiCally.
GOT IT?? |
|
icasuaulites has 84 dead American soldiers for August, the month the Iraq legislature was on vacation. Some American mom and brought her son or daughter up so they could die while Arabs went on vacation.
Everybody OK with that?
I'm not. |
|
The posibilities are endless. Picture the headlines:
The Karbala Karbombers blew out the Fallujah Foofighters today....
The Ba 'qubah Shoebombers tripped up the Baghdad Bombardiers.....
Not to mention the play-by-play: And there's a hand off on the field... (okay, that's a litle sick....). |
|
Karbala "Car bombers"
Kirkuk "Kick-your-AlAshbars"
Okay, that about rounds out the NFL "Middle East Division". What to do for the much reviled "West" Division? |
|
|
Tikrit "Tick-Tick-Tickers" (when they score the whole crowd explodes in a thunderous roar of elation). |
|
Still more Iraqi NFL possibilities...
Ba' qubah "shoe ba bombers" |
|
|
So, what would you call them, The Baghdad Bombardiers? Fallujah fu fighters? Anbar Province Anhialators? Ar Ramadi "Rams"-it-down-your-throaties? Al Kut "Your Head's Off" (who the hell is Al anyway?) |
|
If we kill al Qaeda. If we eliminate al Qaeda from Iraq then we win.
If we win then the Kurds and the Shiites and the Sunnis will form a political union based on ideas. It will be only the second time in history that has occurred… or so we are told.
But Gen. Jones says that is back-assward. You have to win the political goals before you can end the violence. Death tolls count for nothing; it is the politics in Baghdad that is important. That was what the surge was all about. Give the government precious time. Buy that time with American blood and American treasure. The precious time was to allow the government to form that union and meet those benchmarks. They promised they would.
Who knew they would go on vacation instead. For a month.
I want to believe that if we just surge a little longer then the Iraqi government will find wisdom and strength. Six months, just once more. I want to believe that if we do the fighting for the Iraqis then they will find that national identity.
I want to believe. I want to suspend my disbelief. I simply can’t.
|
|
"gator"?
How 'bout them Gators, huh! 59-20 over the Vols!
And speakin of Patriots, maybe we oughta put Bill Bellichick in charge of monitoring those Al Qaeda guys ... uhhh, no, on second thought, he got caught.
Ooops, sorry, Joe ... since the train left the tracks, might as well do some donuts and have some fun, huh!
|
|
When was your last vacation....? ;-)
Seriously, when you think about it, that's not a bad idea: They have no NFL to distract them from their evil bastardization of their religion.
Let's get some NFL franchises in Baghdad, Anbar, etc.
Then we'll see some real Patriots win battles with bombs and blitzes and breakouts.....
What a concept....! |
|
why should it matter whether the Iraqis have the game plans of the New Englan Patriots? I mean, they have no idea what American football is----Oh, I see, you are scurrilously attempting to impose your idea of entertainment upon another nation. Wow, how arrogant is that, you deranged neo con, you.
(said entirely with tongue-firmly-in-cheek). If my humor ever degrades to that of "Dread's", please put me outta my misery. Oh, it already has. Ouch, that's lower than a gator's belly in a gutter pipe (please pardon the, Dan Ratherism). |
|
|
Now it's completely off the tracks. |
|
|
U.S. Attorneys are way too busy with vital things like locking up the Border Patrol. |
|
of speech, etc., they apparently overlooked 18 USC Section 2388 -- Activities affecting armed forces during war
( a ) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
( b ) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection ( a ) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection ( a ).
( c ) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
( d ) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.
That's a lot more serious now, eh hayseed? ATTEMPTING to hinder military recruiters in time of war can get you 20 years as somebody's girlfriend...
And you had all better be damned glad we have not had any US Attorneys willing to use Chapter 115 for political ends... Some sections do carry the death penalty in time of war...
This is beyond politics. |
|
|
It is like the Polar Express scene where the engine and cars hit the frozen lake and skid out of control. What were we talking about anyway? I forgot. |
|
Right back at you with pharmaceutical recommendation.
Please SHOW ME where I have provided any support for big government-----or "government worshipping", as you say.
I have many times exhibited skepticism for government---except you were'nt listening.
I have also "weighed" the consequences of FISA and that pesky old Patriot law and come down on the side of reinforcing them so as to better ensure results in this era we find ourselvesd in----if you consider that "government worshipping"---so be it. Otherwise, SHOW ME all of this so called "worshipping".
Your humor is anything but----even more reason for you to adjust your meds. |
|
Brian, the difference being that the military is a legitimate function of government under the Constitution, (and while I know there’s been some judicial butchery of that document that pretty much gives Congress carte blanche to do anything it wants) I don’t think the under the original intent of the document, that the same can be said of foreign aid and domestic ‘charity’ programs.
|
|
...to have the plans. If you have them, the enemy has them. If the enemy has them, that makes it very much harder to win. Just ask any opponent of the New England Patriots.
|
|
....keep insisting that they should know what Bush's plan is? What makes you think you have some God-given right to know....? Are you that spoiled by the NY Times publishing everything they can get their grubby little hands on....?
This is a war dummies....! The simple fact is you're not SUPPOSED
|
|
The mistakes of Brezhnev are being repeated by Bush, who - when asked about the date of his withdrawing of forces from Iraq - said in effect that the withdrawal will not be during his reign, but rather, during the reign of the one who succeeds him. And the significance of these words is not hidden."
|
|
Invented a new word above. :-)
Heard a new painkiller today: Oxy-Clinton...
It's said to suppress nausea and rage at Lady MacClinton. |
|
athingortwo, we can debate hypothetical scenarios regarding the necessity of US intervention and nation building post-WWII all day long. I'll just make a few comments and leave you with the final word.
I think our cooperation with the Soviets was a mistake that had bad consequences for Eastern Europe and Germany.
The merits of the Marshall Plan, despite the general assumption of success, are not inarguable. There were other economic factors that contributed to growth in Western Europe that had nothing to do with the Plan.
And I still find it amusing that small government conservatives champion U.S. central planning when it comes to other people's nations.
I like Pat, but he's wrong. Isolation implies tariffs, protectionist economic policies. I think those are poison. Free trade makes everyone better off.
clarityseeker, take a Prozac, would you?
roc, yeah, that's why I'm more disappointed by the government-worshipping "conservatives" around here than I am by the Daily Kos kids.
|
|
..the torch...errr...bludgeon: Dread--B A D !
There,I've said it.
Anybody else amused by LeP actually putting an accurate worth on his 3 heartrending paragraphs above?(2:47pm)
Warren Smalley(1:12pm): many,Many thanks for assuring us of Feckless Harry Reid's ONE MILLION DEAD accuracy.Appreciate it,Bro.Note:Adjust the Vicadin dosage.
roc(2:59pm):Are you sure it wasn't Code Pink they were'pooling'to?
Earth to Lefty Defenders of Saddam's Sensitive Regime:The last count I saw on mass death pits uncovered post invasion was near 400.That was at least 2 years ago.Thank you for defending the worst mid-East butcher since Saladin.Yep,they were much better off.The Moral Slime Pit which the modern American Left inhabits just gets worse. And,thanks for that reminder,as well. Anybody remember those bygone days when the Left at least CLAIMED to be anti-fascist??Now,you won't find any(EEEeeeeeeeeekkkKK!!)Hatred sexpressed for the Fascist Butcher of thousands of American Innocents,Osama bin Laden...much less the Baathist Fascist Saddam.They are--Bless Them--very busy defending the hydes of the Persian Mullahs & their fronman,Akmedpatooey.Ya gotta luv the Leftoid Nutters.OR...NOT.
|
|
for not understanding, interpreting your "style" of, "humor"?
Really, if you call that humor, I am hardpressed to see it. Don't quit your day job for any comedy pursuits... |
|
Two points:
1. There's a difference between charity and foreign aid.
Asking Americans to donate money, time, labor and resources for rebuilding and relief is charity.
Telling Americans that we will be sending their tax dollars overseas to various functionaries for these purposes is something entirely different.
2. I have a familial love and obligation for my father. I don't have that for soulless bureaucratic institutions that chose to devastate their lands twice in the course of 30 years. |
|
|
|
I'll address your post by reminding you that the last Osama Bin Laden tape couldn't have agreed with your position more.
That said, I'm trying to decide which side I dislike more. The left or the Buchanan libertarians.
I guess since I dislike Cops who are crooks more than I dislike crooks who are crooks, logical reasoning tells me, to be consistent, I should dislike Buchanan libertarians more. Okay, I'll go with that. |
|
initially thought I was debating with a knee-jerk Bush Deranged Clintonista ... nope, apparently Dread is more of a mind with Pat Buchanan and the Libertarian/Isolationist/Survivalist wing of the, what, well, I can't think of any serious political group that thinks along those lines.
Sorry about that, Dread.
Won't waste any more of our time on this discussion.
By the way, roc ingersol - "give soap a chance" is a funny line to use for the ANSWER wackos, although it's not a serious retort to a serious, but wacko, group. They're the guys who wished Stalin had won. They're worse than Nazis, because Stalin killed about double the number of innocents that Hitler killed. |
|
Dread - read and quoted your statement word for word, verbatim, whole sentences and all that you used.
As for the occupation of Japan being "obscenely expensive" ... can't say as I've ever heard that one before ... but expensive compared to what? I have no idea what the cost was (bet you don't either), but what would it have cost if the Soviets had occupied and taken over Japan, and then eventually the entire Pacific Rim? How about an American defeat by the Soviets in the Cold War ... is that a price you'd rather pay? Considering that WWII and the Cold War and its aftermath left the USA as the world's strongest economic power and, eventually, it's only military superpower, it would seem that whatever we spent in Japan and Europe and Korea must have been chump change.
You cannot argue that the Marshall plan somehow "caused" the brutal Soviet occupation of East Europe - that was a necessary byproduct of the anti-Nazi alliance and Soviet power. That's actually a really perverse argument for you to make, Dread, seeing as how the result of the Marshall Plan was the obvious economic and military supremacy of the West, which ultimately resulted in the reunification of Germany, the defeat of the Soviets, and the newfound freedoms that range throughout most of what used to be the Warsaw Pact.
One can argue that the Europeans screwed things up quite a bit in the 20th century, so why should it be up to the US to bail them out?
Well, all I can say is that if we hadn't done that, America would soon have been all alone in the world, facing the dual-hegemonies of Fascism and Communism. I mean, really, if you seriously believe this point is arguable, then you really ought to vote for Ron Paul or go live in a survivalist shack in Alaska or the Australian outback or something.
As for Korea, having troops there is not a failure. What, would you rather that Kim have HIS troops there? That would be peachy, wouldn't it!
|
|
“Please help me understand?”
Gladly.
“Praytell, why is it that conservatives suffer from, what you call, "Clinton Derangement Syndrome", when indeed it is liberals, Leftists, progressives, socialists, victocrats who are clamoring for the reincarnation of the Clintons through Mrs. Clinton. “
Simply put, oh so serious one, it was a joke about your routine habit of dismissing criticism about His Holiness George Bush as “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, and how, even now, nearly 7 years after he’s left office, Clinton can still inspire a paragraph of barely controlled vitriol from conservatives.
In short, my friend, stop taking yourself so bloody seriously.
“You project this "syndrome" on conservatives when it is you who are offering up memories and reincarnations of that era.”
No. I said that our government was inept, inefficient, wasteful, often cruel, and generally uncaring and oblivious to the consequences of its polices. I said nothing about Bill. You can thank athingortwo for jumping to the conclusion that I was somehow limiting my disgust of the government to its current occupants.
The only redeeming feature to Clinton’s presidency was an opposition congress that thoroughly hated him enough to keep him from doing much harm. I wish Bush had had that from day one.
“It simply does not square. Conservatives are not asking America to reconsider the Clinton "models"-----YOU ARE. Now that would seem a true representation of what you call, "derangement"”
Do you folks actually read? Where did I say I want the Clinton model? Please quote me.
“Dread-------I really look forward to your feedback on this query------however, I hold out little hope that you can focus enough to provide us with cogent explanation.”
It’s really funny that you’re mocking my ability to think when you have somehow managed to pull a conclusion from my past posts that have no basis in anything I’ve written on this thread.
|
|
I wonder if Dread, Brian and MikeLeP carpooled to the Answer protest in DC. Compare and contrast the protesters and the counter protesters. You can judge a person by the company he keeps.
All we are saying is 'give soap a chance'. |
|
"Hence, the model for our government in regard to nation building should be simple: We don't do that."
Do you really have trouble reading full sentences. The above statement is one expressing what SHOULD be. Not what has been.
The occupation and rebuilding of Japan was obscenely expensive. And in that case, we have a broken populace, kept the existing authority figure in place, and embarked first and foremost on meeting the people's immediate need: food.
Don't even mention German occupation that resulted in a third of that nation getting sentenced to the tender mercies of the Soviets.
Why it was our place to fund the rest of Europe's reconstruction is a question I'd like answered. They started the bloody war twice, why should the U.S. taxpayer foot the massive bill to bail them out?
As for South Korea, you think THAT should be held up as a model of good government policy and efficiency? A place where we've kept troops for sixty YEARS? |
|
Earth to Dread------you there?
Mrs. Bill Clinton tried to ramrod a socialized healthcare model down America's throat in the first 100 days of thei rfirst administration. That was in early 1993.
Now we are in 2007, listening to you speak of "Clinton derangement syndrome". Perhaps I misunderstand you----are you inferring that you suffer from this "syndrome" for your fixation on a socialization plan which is dismal in its reality of what it promises. |
|
You wanna compare death rates before and after the US invasion to take out Saddam Hussein?
OK, in the four and a half years since Saddam was taken out, the total Iraqi death toll has been something like 150,000, give or take, mostly inflicted by Iraqis and Al Qaeda suicide bombers. Today the monthly death toll is down to something under a thousand a month.
Saddam caused the violent deaths of over a million people just in the Iran-Iraq war alone. You say those causualties were just professional soldiers? Nope, hundreds of thousands of those killed were adolescents and even young boys under the age of 10 who served as canon fodder in the truest sense of the term.
Saddam murdered something like 300,000 Iraqi civilians alone in the aftermath of the Gulf War. He also killed an indeterminate, but well into the many hundreds of thousands, of his people in his campaign to control the Kurds and Shiites in the 1970s and 1980s - the crimes of which he was convicted (at least, for a very small slice of the total death toll) that constituted the basis of his recent neck-stretching.
The reason we knew Saddam had chemical weapons was that he actually used them to kill thousands of his own Kurd citizens.
Plus as recently as 2000-2002, Saddam committed genocide on the "Marsh Arabs" in the lower Euphrates river valley - he literally flooded out tens of thousands of historic homeland marshes, killing thousands of the inhabitants because they stood in the way of his redevelopment program.
Not to mention, of course, that throughout the entire Oil for Food scandal, Saddam enriched his family by siphoning off billions via starving thousands of Iraqi children.
Not to mention the childrens prisons, the plastic shredders he used for "reeducation" and so on and so on - all while the libs were proclaiming that Saddam was "contained".
|
|
Please help me understand?
Praytell, why is it that conservatives suffer from, what you call, "Clinton Derangement Syndrome", when indeed it is liberals, Leftists, progressives, socialists, victocrats who are clamoring for the reincarnation of the Clintons through Mrs. Clinton.
You project this "syndrome" on conservatives when it is you who are offering up memories and reincarnations of that era.
It simply does not square. Conservatives are not asking America to reconsider the Clinton "models"-----YOU ARE. Now that would seem a true representation of what you call, "derangement"
Although, I love the verbiage. It is so reminiscent of another moniker you placed on conservatives a decade ago----"Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy".
One final "Dread"-ful, and coherent thought. Aside from your taking control of our congress last year---we have little frame of reference for Liberal leadership other than the last go around with democrat leadership----which was the Clintons----and now you are inviting them back-----so we are compelled to use them as the very backdrop of our reference points.
Dread-------I really look forward to your feedback on this query------however, I hold out little hope that you can focus enough to provide us with cogent explanation.
Nonetheless, we are all patiently waiting.... |
|
as to cite any facts of the history of Democratic Party "good government".
It's just so darned deranged, me bad.
Of course, the likely Democratic Party nominee is running a campaign based entirely upon her "experience" in the White House .. said experience consisting of her participation in the very things I cited in my deranged caterwauling above.
As to the specifics of your assertion that "we don't do" nation-building, aren't you forgetting a few inconvenient facts of history? Like, the fact that the USA rebuilt western Europe under the Marshall Plan, and likewise Japan under the American occupation, actions that essentially enabled America to ultimately defeat Soviet communism? If it weren't for that nation-building effort, we'd almost certainly be enslaved now in one or another Soviet gulag, or converted to nuked cinders.
Or perhaps you're forgetting the fact that the US helped the South Koreans build their nation after the 1954 Armistice, turning it into the strongest economic power and democracy in mainland Asia, and whose success has continuously frustrated the dictatorship and threats of North Korea for two generations.
Actually, the US does nation-building better than any other people in the world. We should not do it unless it is in America's clear strategic interest to do so. In the case of Iraq, this strategic patch of desert sand sitting astride the world's principal oil reserves serves a critical role in holding back the hegemonic efforts of Iran and Al Qaeda in the Middle East. If Iran and AQ were to succeed in making Iraq their oyster, the entire world will be at their mercy, both economically, and from a security standpoing.
It doesn't take a Condi Rice to figure that one out.
|
|
You're right about one thing - winning the global war on terror is ultimately a war of ideas. Problem is - you can't win a war of ideas by forcing yours down someone else's throat. When that happens, the unwitting receiver tends to spit up the forced meal.
If we're smart enough to agree on the cure, do we not have the capability to understand basic human nature? The forced democracy is not going to work with these folks. We need a new game plan to win this war - one based on the principles set forth by the founders of our country. |
|
NeoConScum, JTB-in-Texas, it's your turn to body slam Dread and Brian and (should he appear again) good'ol Brob.
Ed - you're right, we're not just fighting over ideas alone. We're very practically engaged in killing the killers who would otherwise be over here in America killing us in our beds, our offices, and our shopping malls.
Ideas do matter, though. Ideas can have radical consequences.
"Mere ideas" like radical Islamism, Imperialism, Communism, and Fascism caused the violent deaths of over a hundred and forty million people in the last century. Not to mention the forced imprisonment and theft of property of hundreds of millions more.
The "American idea" is one of individual freedom, self-determination, self-expression, and economic creativity. That's an idea worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for. Well over a million Americans have done just that over the last 231 years.
And the fight over ideas is also a big part of the reason for the recent deaths of those 3,700 volunteers who knowingly put their lives on the line to protect us and the American idea ... men and women who were preceded in death by 3,000 unknowing and innocent civilians in a period of about one hour on the morning of 9/11/01. |
|
Hello there.
Wow. Sounds like someone still has Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
But, please note, before you embark on your further that I said 'our government's ineptitude, incompetence and waste.' Not 'the Republican's government' or 'the Democrat's government'.
Government is big, massive, inefficient, wasteful, often cruel, almost always inept at what it does, and glacially slow to change established policy when confronted with its own miserable failure.
That is, Government is the problem, not the solution.
Ergo, I don't think there should be a 'model' for nation building, because I certainly do not trust the government under any party to do it any better.
Hence, the model for our government in regard to nation building should be simple: We don't do that.
|
|
You wrote:
"Iraq is a model of our government's ineptitude, incompetence and waste.
If this is the way you want to hold up as an example for future wars, then God help the USA."
Oh, then, by all means, let's use the USA Democratic Party model of governance ... let's see, total Dem control resulted in NYC, which was unlivable until Rudy cleaned house ...
Oh yeah, the Dems gave us New Orleans, the true model of democratic efficiency, public respect for law and order, and total lack of corruption and vice.
And then there's the Bill/Hillary Clinton model ... i.e., the one where Billybob inserting his wanker in the mouth of a fat ugly intern (to make himself forget his shrewish, fat-thighed harpy of a wife) while conducting foreign policy with the world's most successful terrorist (Arafat) over the phone; and ignoring the first World Trade Center bombing (carried out by Arab Sheiks connected to Saddam Hussein); ignoring an attempted assassination of a former US President; ignoring the bombing of two US Embassies and a US warship by OBL; and ignoring the proposals of your own national security experts to go after OBL - because, y'know, you've got Midnight Basketball, gays in the military, sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom, selling our military technology to the Red Chinese, and nationalizing our health care system to deal with, and "tut tut ... there just isn't any time left in the day to deal with any silly stuff like acts of war and such".
Yes, THAT's the model of efficient and effective governance that America so longs for these days.
|
|
Somehow I never actually took this cheering to forcibly shut down, imprison, or kill your political opponents seriously.
You guys would really love it if Bush declared martial law and arrested the Congress, wouldn't you?
|
|
|
will the new USAG and the DOJ start prosecuting people for violations of 18 USC Chapter 115? |
|
tion did we stop fighting over ideas? How soon did we stop killing each other? Does the US Civil War count? What about the killings of whites by blacks and blacks by ehites that continue to this day?
Have you seen the FBI's latest murder rates in the USA?
|
|
The drop in sectarian murders and Al Qaeda suicide bombings in Iraq of late is a wonderful success story. The numbers will likely bounce around a bit from month to month, but the trend line is definitely going in the right direction.
Dean, however, is a little off with his insistence on full Iraqi political reconciliation as a condition of American political support. That's just an echo of the standard Dem/MSM meme.
I dunno, I barely give a hoot about what the voters in IA or NH think about anything, despite Dean's best efforts to convince us all that the "IA/NH mind meld" is underway, and like robots, the other 98% of American voters will fall blindly into line to support whomever the maple syrup guys and hog farmers tell us to vote for.
So if 98% of Americans don't care very much about the political leanings of IA hog farmers, then why on earth would we give a hoot about Iraqi political reconciliation, and hurt feelings and thousand-year old grudges and such out there in the deserts of Iraq?
I think that the only things Americans care much about, as far as "reconciliation" goes, is getting the spectacular suicide bombings off the front page and getting the American casualty lists trimmed down to no more than what we see now in Afghanistan (which nobody's wailing about). |
|
"More than anything else, Iraq is ground zero in the current war of ideas. If the Iraqis decide to edge away from modernity and instead embrace genocide and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, it will serve as a clear signal that the war of ideas is lost and that a real war is inevitable."
So you are saying our current activity in Iraq is not a real war, but just a clash of ideas? I have serious doubts that the parents of the over 3,700 dead American "ideas" would agree with you.
|
|
Iraq is a model of our government's ineptitude, incompetence and waste.
If this is the way you want to hold up as an example for future wars, then God help the USA. |
|
Perhaps civilian Iraqi deaths are declining due to successfully "cleansed" neighborhoods. Just because a neighborhood is "quiet" in Iraq doesn't mean its peaceful in a meaningful way. If the Crips successfully control all of south L.A. and banish the Bloods, it wouldn't mean south L.A. becomes "peaceful."
Another number we could use to gage "success" in Iraq would be the number of refugees, both internal and external, trying to leave their homes in Iraq. Syria just closed its border, and that might increase the number of Iraqis fleeing to northern Iraq.
Also, you use a throwaway line worrying that "women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians and other assorted infidels who might wander into those countries’ path" are in danger should Iraq become religiously homogeneous. For anyone who knows about the sad, tragic fate of Iraq's gay and Christian communities going on TODAY, the ignorance of your line will speak for itself.
As for dredging up the "Iraq the Model" idea -- I think the number of blood, treasure, suffering and general disorder this war has wrecked upon Iraq might indicate that Iraq is only a model of what NOT to do when you're conducting a "war of liberation."
What we're doing now is basically cleaning up our own mess.
Quit declaring victory all the time, Dean. This isn't a Pats game. Sit down and pay attention. Like the rest of us.
http://www.themechanicaleye.com
DU
|
|
Dean wrote:'IT’S TRUE THAT WITHOUT SOME SORT OF political reconciliation, these gains are for naught.'
And there is none, nada, zero movement towards that goal. How long are we going to wait? Until it takes is the usual answer. At what cost in US blood and lives? Sure, I would like Iraq to become a US type nation not based on religion or tribalism, but its just not happening. Decrease in violence does not result in political unification.
Bush can play out the game until he leaves office, then the next election will be a referendum on what to do in Iraq, which is as it should be. |
|
good health to play golf.
Now quit playing on the putting green and start supporting Hunter...
;-) |
|
|
I saw a "Biden for President 2008" yard sign this morning. Really. Nice to start the day off with a good belly-laugh. |
|
because it is NOT JFK's/LBJ's model!
GWB tossed this model out the window upon realizing the 9/11 attacks and what he would need to do to fight this new enemy.
In the JFK/LBJ model, which is SO similar to the FDR/Truman model: raze the place and build the democracy from the dust. This didn't work in SE Asia, and it won't work in the Middle East.
The Dim plan was to utilize all the deaths in Afghanistan as Iran rolled into Kabul YEARS after the U.S. turned on the lights, and the Taliban scattered like roaches. Hitlary was going to use the civilian death toll in Afghanistan to light her path to desk in the Oval Office.
Bush realized this BEFORE the dims knew about it and he stuck his fingers into their eyes! |
|
According to icasualties (http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx) In 2005, 06 and so far in 07 there have been just 44,222 Iraqi deaths. That means that in order for us there to have been 1,000,000 deaths in iraq since the war began we would have had to kill 477,889 Iraqi's per year in the first two years of the war. Or to put that in perspective, that is 43,444 per month (22 months since the war didn't start till March) or about 1,437 per day.
Nice try Harry, but you are quoting a poll as fact and everybody knows that isn't right. |
|
|
I will forever now call Dems, the Nasty-crats. Reid and his million killed, Hillary and her "suspension of willful disbeleif", and then John Murtha, the hysteronic Representative of Pennsylvania, was spewing his venom on C-span this a.m. I had the t.v. muted so I could just watch the hate and villanous facial expressions. Someone needs to Youtube these guys with their words printed on the bottom to music that decribes their treachery for political ads next year. It will be better than swifboating, it will be jet skiing, to victory! |
|
You speak clearly with regards to the "ideals" of Iraqis. You address their desires, as to whether they want to "edge away from modernity" or approach a new set of, democratic, directions.
BUT, you get ahead of yourself. You have not even broached the LEFT in our own country. You've not given any space to whether that vociferous contingent in our country desire to separate themselves from Iran's leader, Syria's leader and interests which run entirely counter to our presence in the Middle East.
Bottom Line:
With Harry Reid "fueling the fire" of incoherence with his assessment of "casualty" numbers, one cannot expect any semblance of understanding from progressives in the U.S.
With Dennis Kucinich recently returning from his "diplomacy" trip to Syria where he personally "negotiated" with that country's leader, he foments an incredible ignorance from the Left. Who knows, he may very well have endorsed Syria's nuclear cache just before the Israeli's blew it up. He could have patted Assad on the back in conveying to him that those nuclear warheads were fully supported by Kucinich's party, Kucinich's ideology, Kucinich's constituency.
Whew....simply mindboggling is the message coming from the Larry, Curly, and Moe party in our United States. It would seem we would need to rein in the Harry Reid's, Denny Kucinich's, Nancy Pelosi's before we expect similarly clear directions from the Iraqi's with respect to whether they want to emerge from medieval mentalities. |
|
..prior to the sure-to-come infestation of Dean Hating KosVermin with wild and sordid tales of what a bootlick Barnett is.
THANK YOU,Dean,for the level headed facts on the ground posted.I agree totally that Iraq is Ground Zero for what's at stake and what's to come.We must continue killing Radical Jihadists and insuring freedom.Not a difficult concept to grasp,one would think...BUT excruciatingly complex for the Leftoid Bush/America Haters. |
|
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Less than 80,000!
Now that seems low. The MSM makes things seem so hopeless and sad, but even if the numbers are twice that or even three times that, they sure as heck aren't 1,000,000. |
|
Dean gives a level headed, no BS view of what is going on.
By the way Dean, given Senator Reid's serious announcement of 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq since we invaded, how does that square with Icasualties.org's numbers? |
|
|
|