My Take
I've not had time to read all the comments carefully, but this thought crosses my mind after skimming what various commenters have said:
The right views victory in Iraq as important for presenting a strong face to the enemy. Hence, the right is averse to withdrawal, which smells like appeasement. Time and again, history has shown that appeasing an enemy serves merely to embolden that enemy. Case in point, of course--dealing with Hitler in the 1930's.
Also, some on the right feel that a stable Iraq will lead to stability in the Middle East. Additionally, some of the right feel that regime change in Iraq can serve as a model for other Middle Eastern countries.
The left, on the other hand, sees the American presence in Iraq as the problem in the Middle East. Were the United States to withdraw, the Middle East would settle down. What historical examples can the left offer to substantiate their position? Or is the situation so unique as not to offer examples?
In sum, the right believes that the costs of staying far outweigh the costs of withdrawal. The left, of course, believes the opposite.
Perhaps the above is simplistic and a misinterpretation of the discussion which has been going on here in my absence. Feel free to correct me.
[Hat-tip to The City Troll for giving me the idea of transferring one of my comments]
posted by Always On Watch @ 11/15/2006 07:18:00 AM
72 comments
72 Comments:
Always:
In my opinion, the US and the UK shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, since it isn't possible to bring democracy to the Middle East (for all the reasons I have mentioned before).
There is no doubt that this exercise in futiity has emboldened the jihadists. This is not the cause of the problem, but the jihadists are using it as an excuse to further their cause.
Al-Qaeda want this to be the US's second 'Vietnam'. They have openly said so.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think that the US and the UK are not going to be able to achieve their objectives there. The country is on the brink of civil war. Even Blair has admitted that. We see carnage and mayhem in Iraq now on a daily basis.
Staying there for the long-term is not an option. The US administration and the UK government know this to be true; so they want a strategy to get out. They have got themselves into a fix. And it is a fix of their own making.
The left do see the US presence in Iraq as a part of the problem, and, much as I hate to admit that too, it is so.
Appeasement is never good. But unfortunately, any chance of 'winning' in Iraq has now been blown. A country should never get itself embroiled in a war unless it is prepared to take the ruthless steps to win it, and quickly.
Going into Iraq was never going to solve the "terrorist" problem, because Iraq was never the main sponsor of terrorism. Iran and Syria, by contrast, have been, and still are.
Now there is talk of the US and the UK going to Syria and Iran, cap in hand, for their assistance to bring stability to the country. Now that is appeasement if ever there was any! To Iran, of all countries, when Iran is one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism (the jihad), and when it is on the verge of developing the nuclear bomb!
This little escapade is destined to end in failure, as far as I can see. Now it is a question of damage limitation, not of winning, since democracy has not been brought to the region, and never will be, and "Islamic terrorism" has not been made any less potent.
The whole thing is a mess!
Excellent article, fellow Blogger!
And a hat tip from a philosopher-journalist:
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2006/11/pajama-intellectuals-of-blogsphere.html
Liberals have been committing political malpractice under the guise of "scientific doctors" and guiders of UN diplomacy for going on 50 now years in Sudan. Sudan has had only 4-5 years peace in that entire time. The last remnants of opposition to Islamic expansionism are now being swept up and exterminated in Darfur.
The Christians there were literally killed with liberal kindness.
Its' time NOW to end the stupidity.
What historical examples can the left offer to substantiate their position? ..none whatsover. But, it seems true that the A-rabs will never be able to abide a democracy and due to our semi appeasement and half hearted attempts to win this war....we are doomed.
Well stated! And Mike is right, we should never have gone in unless we were prepared to execute war! We went in pussyfooted, it never works. We are on the road to Hell on Earth. Thanks to leftistas and their philosophies.
We are soft and squeamish! Useless for maintaining our freedoms and safety.
tmw
My response can be found at my blog. This dialogue is both timely and much needed. Thank you AOW for your inspiration.
Semper Fi
In their quest for power, the left has emboldened the enemies with their antics. They think they can appease our enemies. They will soon see their folly.
I fully believe that because of the appeasement that runs rampant nowadays, my kids (and probably their kids) will have the mantle of the "next greatest generation" thrust upon them, in that they will be forced to clean up the atrocious mess that we've allowed to happen, lest they fall into dhimmitude.
Diplomacy appeared to work in the case of Libya. Generally, it succeeds better from a position of strength, but factors such as economic benefit and nationalism bear also.
http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/june_2005/6_05_1.html
offers an Army officer's analysis
on one unsuccessful mid-east operation, the French 12 year Algerian fiasco. He compares and contrasts it with the Brits in N
Ireland. Based on Colin Powell's
"you break it, you own it" observation, meaningful diplomacy
has been pre-empted by what, ironically is a pre-emptive war.
The Democrats ran on a single platform..to get us out of Iraq. Now that they have control of the Congress and the purse strings, Bush will be forced to compromise. Look for a centrist coalition of Democrats and Republicans that pledges a withdrawal from Iraq but without any timetables.
Farmer John couldn't be more correct about the situation in Sudan. Christians and animist are being slaughtered. The situation is probably too far along to do anything about now.
In Somalia, a country that is 100% Muslim, there is widespread slaughter as moderate Muslims are being killed while a more extremist Taliban style régime takes over.
Only Ethiopia has tried to stop the carnage.
Where is the outrage from other Islamic countries as Muslims are being slaughtered?
Even CAIR has refused comment.
It's clear which side there on.
Getting a little vulgar again, huh Ducky... You seem to do that more and more frequently!
AOW: Off topic, but please watch Exposed tonight if you're able to!
The Left wants a stable Iraq all right... dominated by IRAN.
And they're just about ready to get it.
I mean, Gen. Wes Clark's main political strategist is an Iranian, for G_d's sake.
...and not one of those friendly types either. He launders money to Clark & the DNC from the mullahs by the wheelbarrowful through IAPAC.
You missed one important factor, AOW. Many of us on the right are upset about the war because we refuse to fight it full out. Until we radically alter the mission from "winning hearts and minds" to total destruction followed by unconditional surrender this war will just be a big waste of time, money and lives.
Your summary is good AOW. I happen to disagree with both of them. The right thinks Arabs will respond to our generosity “the way they are” but after 50 years of such generosity there’s no proof of this. The left thinks Arabs are just fine if we left them alone … any comment needed?
My view is that we are generous and honorable but not always prudent. We can achieve modest goals but in the end the problem is their return to a vigorous practice of the Islamic religion. That’s not something we can change but we can be prepared. It’s more important to establish a deterrent rather than try to change sand into gold. Bush never understood the problem; he still doesn't. But neither do the Dems.
A good article on jihad watch points out that a group study group at West Point realized that it isn’t just a few that are the problem; it’s a return to the original practice of Islam (i.e. Salafi) and it’s embraced by the majority. As I said ... it's called an Islamic Revival among Muslims but our leaders keep trying to telling us that its just a few fanatics that hijacked a religion.
Jason,
The right thinks Arabs will respond to our generosity “the way they are” but after 50 years of such generosity there’s no proof of this. The left thinks Arabs are just fine if we left them alone....
Bush never understood the problem; he still doesn't. But neither do the Dems.
I happen to agree with those points. Both the right and the left are guilty of "simplisticness" [coined word?] when it comes to dealing with Islam.
When I posted my quick summary, I was doing so in response to the discussion which had been proceeding here at the previous article.
Duck,
Maybe I've missed in this deluge of comments exactly what you perceive is the solution. I'm not being snide--I'm asking in all seriousness.
It looks as if we're about to see if those to the left of center--some of them far to the left--are going to get their chance to try their solution.
I certainly hope you're wrong regarding your last comment, AOW, because we know it won't work. I, for one, didn't fall off a turnip truck yesterday and neither did the majority of people in here.
In my opinion, no one in the higher level of our government is taking this seriously enough. The Left certainly isn't, but neither have the Republicans. If they had of, our borders would not still be the problem they are, for one thing. Bush has to fight tooth and nail in order to tape telephone conversations between suspected terrorists; *sigh* I could go on and on, but you already know all of this. I think the bottom line is far too many Americans are ignorant of the threat.
Five months after Operation: Iraqi Freedom began (August 2003), Democrats were crying about the need to send troops to Liberia.
Give it rest, Ducky, you clueless moron.
The patriotic moderate sees the best solution. Put the far left like Ducky in Iraq. Let their allies decide how to dispose of them.
Let Ducky become the new Tom Fox who was sold out by the twenty Pseudostinians who sold him out for cash. The US military is not to lift one finger to help Ducky. The removal of a parasitic disloyal seditious element will improve Iraq and keep the jihadis beheading program running.
What part of destroying the islamic menace doesn't brain dead Duck comprehend? I don't think I stuttered, so let's assume he's as stupid as he appears.
For you, dimwit:
Islamic vermin are the bad guys. Those who reject the bloodthirsty cultists are the good guys. We make it clear by destroying all the bad guys homes, holy buildings and families that being on the side of the bad guys is a bad idea. War ends when bad guys are utterly crushed and the good guys are safely in power.
Got it, imbecile?
but only if you get a copy of the videos of Beamish jacking off in joyous delirium.
As opposed to what Dukkky watching you jack off to the police massacre in the Battleship Potemkin or when they trot Castro out to feed him some pudding?
I am sorry to display my ignorance, but would someone kindly tell me who "Chucklenuts" is? As you know, I live the other side of the Pond; so the term is unfamiliar to me?
Mr Ducky seems to use it in each and every comment he posts. Not knowing who "Chucklenut" is puts me at a distinct disadvantage. I mean it makes it difficult for me to truly understand how profound Mr Ducky is being.
"Chucklenuts" is Ducky's term of endearment for our President Bush.
Any time you hear Ducky say something nonsensical, (which is most of the time) you can safely assume it is a puerile attack against conservatives in general.
Mark
Duck like to use Chucklenuts, Chimpy and the Dauphin to reffer to Bush. He is also fond of not so subtle Joo/Nazi comparisons. He is also quite fond of calling Condi Rice Aunt Jemmimah. He thinks that is okay because Harry Belacommie does it.
Do not get him started on Renoir or obscure films nobody watches. He is probably looking for the Marxist message in Blue Velvet.
Brooke & Beakerkin:
Thank you for 'enlightening' me. Now, as you will appreciate, I have a far better chance of understanding Mr Ducky's profound, intellectual messages to us in this forum.
Soroush Shehabi of the Iranian American PAC is Wes Clark's Sr. Political Advisor. You hate Chalabi because he's a capitalist, and not a commie stooge.
When the mullah's took over Iran in '79, they were teamed with university students...mostly commies. After the embassy was stormed, the mullahs double-crossed the commies and took over Iran... but they are still friends (thru the French Connection). You dhimmi's & commies love all things French & you won't do anything to help our country unless it's simmered in garlic. Iran's commies and mullahs launder their money to the DNC through IAPAC. The DNC is too stupid to see the mullahs pulling the strings. All they see are their commie front-men.
There ducky... quack-quack!
Why don't you call up your old Iranian director buddy Abbas Kiarostami for verification... or is he too busy directing some new commie films to present to the French elite at Cannes next year?
The Dhimmicrats will only help America if they can install a commie satellite state beholding to France in Iran. And if that fails, they simply turn it back over to the totalitarian mullahs for a coupla more years, and blame Bush for tryin'...
France profits... either way.
He had to be born in the USA ducky... remember... no FOREIGN contributions allowed in US campaigns! I know that ever since Clinton burned-thru those laws raising Chinese $ in '92, you have a hard time remembering the law... but they do. Of course, there are LOTS of ways to end-run those hard-money restrictions since McCain-Feingold...but that's a topic for a different post.
...and for who to kill, the answer is both. Only w/the Shi'a, if they aren't part of the Khomeini/Khameini faction (velayat al faqih-ists) leave 'em be.
You always want b&w, don't you ducky? Try thinking in colors for a change.
...and the cultural climate in this country has never been richer. I mean, even the poorest welfare queens can afford to spend money for movie tickets to see WHATEVER they want to see. You PBS/BBC elitists need to start paying for your own TV shows.
Please mr. ducky... just because Haghighi's old man, the "Photo-king of the Iranian Revolution" kicked the bucket a coupla years back and he's a third generation pinko (related to half the mullah's in Iran) doesn't mean he can make a decent film. I mean, I know you dhimmicrats are into the nepotism thing, but please... some of us prefer directors of merit vice nepotistic directors of correct politics...
Ooops my bad...musta been the uncle on Mom's side. His old man was a film hack who married the daughter of a film hack.
It's kinda like Hollywood today. Actors don't get parts anymore. All the Producers do these days is type-cast the children of lefty celebs...
In Iran... film making is still a family business... and it helps to have mullahs in the family.
Borat is a cheap, vulgar rip off of Kaufman?
More likely, it's a rip-off of Kaufman, who was plenty cheap and vulgar all on his own.
Dukkky speaking of butts keep talking out yer pie hole.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So in other words ducky...the entire democratic campaign was a fraud. They claimed to get us out of Iraq but now you say they aren't willing to take on that responsibility. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.
Schisms are already developing in the Democratic House of Representatives.
Pelosi has already suffered her first defeat by supporting "Conservative" John Murtha.
This actually bodes well as it would be hard to hammer the "culture of corruption" with an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam trial.
Murtha is just a slightly smarter crook than the rest of those convicted.
And since you're in such a generous mood, thank you for Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Murtha and Reid. Talk about brain-dead. The Democrats couldn't have given us a better start for 2008.
I previously resisted calling you anti-semetic in the past ducky. I had hoped that your anti-Israel stance was of a political nature but the more I see, I am led to believe it's much more personal. Fascism isn't fashionable anymore...well except in Iran.
Okay ducky... I finally really do surrender in the WoT. It IS time to get out. The US military has adopted an eighteenth century European warfighting strategy that is gonna get their asses handed to them at Lexington & Concord. I saw the trailer for the ISG Report. It's guaranteed to loose billions at the Box Office. Dollars and wasted lives.
I have seen the light, my mujtahid, and will follow your Divine guidance.
Dukkky said ...it's hardball and...you swallowed
Leave your sex life out of this Dukkky.
FJ,
IMOTEP....IMOTEP..okay Dukkky what movie is that from?
Ducky,
No Article 7 UN Resolution [the kind that is binding and military force is authorized to implement if necessary] has ever been passed on Israel.
Really now, Ducky. Are you ever going to even accidently sound like you know what the hell you're talking about?
Dukkky,
you go girl and don't come back
FJ has a good point: The US military has adopted an eighteenth century European war fighting strategy ....
Of course, in the 18th century, Europeans fought wars by the rule book. Even if those rules were arbitrary they were seen as the proper fighting methods of a gentleman. The British would wear Red Coats, etc.
Washington tailored the rules to the battle and more importantly, the enemy. It is instructive to note that Washington fought the Iroquois, whom he viewed as savage, differently than the British, whom he viewed as civilized. With regard to the Iroquois, Washington ordered and supported a scorched-earth policy.
Historically, one holds back from using harsh means until the enemy does. The Allies in WWI only used chemical weapons to kill the Germans after the Germans first used chemical weapons as a tool of death. The Germans made a lethal mistake in crossing that line because the wind generally blows from West to East and that gives an advantage to the Allies. They Germans didn’t make that mistake again in WWII. But here they thought their air advantage would enable them to bomb British cities without retaliation. Once again, the British were freed from the moral constraints of bombing civilians after the Germans paved the way.
Today we see something unprecedented. We are clinging to a notion that we must maintain civilized rules in the face of a savage enemy. This is ahistorical. No, it doesn’t mean that you must use the same means but the moral constraint is no longer present. The means have to be adjusted to the nature of the enemy.
When Iranian operatives (Hezbollah) deliberately target civilians in Israel from Lebanon, there is no good reason for Israelis to drop leaflets and allow Hezbollah the advantage of leaving. Nor does Israel have to take care to avoid the civilians that Arabs used as shields while they purposely target Israeli families. Again, this is unprecedented in the history of warfare.
When Napoleon reached Palestine he sent messengers to negotiate with an Arab stronghold. When the Arabs beheaded the messengers and put the heads on poles, Napoleon’s well-trained 18th century troops deviated from accepted practice and killed every man, woman, and child in that town.
There is no reason to maintain 18th century niceties when fighting a 7th century enemy.
Ducky says we’re safer now.
Yes, you said: "The paranoid nonsense is over ... No new military adventures ... Christmas came early this year ... What we are going to have is a return to level headed thought and an exit of folks like Pipes and the huckster at jihadwatch ..."
Parnoid means we imagine threats that don't exist. Thus you don't believe in the threat of terrorists. You must mean we are safer now since we did have one on 9/11.
Hate to contradict you ducky but Mexico rejected Chavez's leftist candidate.
In his home country, he has given away millions to help insure his reelection. Big difference between playing on people's poverty and actually believing his leftist mantras. Latest polls show he is leading by only 6% and that is after TV stations aired a segment in which his oil minister threatened people's employment if they didn't reelected Chavez.
How did Chavez respond?
President Hugo Chávez warned Friday against closing TV channels that disseminate hatred messages and repudiation of authorities during the presidential election of December 3rd, AP reported.
"Any TV channel ready to air messages related to terrorism, hatred, war, or urging people to disregard the authorities, will be closed," Chávez declared during a rally in Margarita island.
Chávez complained about "new plots" to disturb the next balloting where he is running for re-election.
Does that sound like he is winning "the hearts and minds" of his people.
In 2010..he plans on doing away with democracy and establishing himself as dictator for life.
Nice hero ducky.
Ducky
You can not reinvent the wheel and all these Marxist goons in Latin America will fail. People will starve and you hypocrites will not say a word about helicopter massacres of Indians by Ortega. Where are the German Commies demanding prosecution of Ortega for Genocide. Yes panties on the head, naked twister and Commie morons playing chicken with bull dozers are priorities.
In the words of Kuhnkat HAHAHA YOU MORON!!!! That feels so soothing.
Recyling failures and blaming the USA for hare brained Ponzi scheemes doesn't cut it.
Mark my words Civil War in the PA breaks out soon. Fatah Commies vs Jihadist and the Commies are finnished. I hope Hamas strings up Western ISM members in the process.
The thesis of this post by AOW makes total sense.
The left and right wingers have yet to come up with common ground on Iraq.
One is right and the other is wrong. Frankly, I am sick and tired of the bickering.
When will the parties of our political process come together and engage as one in the biggest battle of our lives?
Furthermore, Ducky is wrong when he banters on that we're all paranoid. Sorry, bullshit on that. If you think the Islamic threat is all in our heads, you're wrong by a long shot.
Steve,
The left and right wingers have yet to come up with common ground on Iraq.
One is right and the other is wrong. Frankly, I am sick and tired of the bickering.
When will the parties of our political process come together and engage as one in the biggest battle of our lives?
Thanks for saying that!
As time has allowed, I've been reading the comments posted here in the dust-rolling which has been going on since I posted my short essay. As far as I can tell, there is no common ground on this issue. Therefore, even a minimum of unity appears impossible.
When the next attack comes, the left will blame the right, and the right will blame the left. And the left will continue to contend that the attack is purely the result of the present foreign policy. The chasm will widen, and our nation will become even more divided. Not a good outlook for America's future, is it?
Duck,
Bush fought two wars in the East -- Iran won both.
Very possible.
Do you gain satisfaction from that? Have you been hoping for that result? From some of your comments, it seems so to me. I'm sure that you'll correct me if I've misinterpreted what you've been saying in several of your comments.
Just musing here....Sometimes I wonder just what kind of mess we'd be in now if Gore had been President on 9/11. I don't see that he'd have done any better, but I don't have a crystal ball to consult.
I've never had much use for politics, and I see both the right and the left more concerned about politics than about America's future. Call me "Cynic."
Duck,
The Dauphin attempted a coup and screwed it up. He worked that magic of his --- make a bad situation worse. Damn, he surely has that down, doesn't he?
The above might be said about many a President from either party.
Well, we'll see if this new Congress works the magic some of the candidates campaigned on.
Jason,
Right on. The Muslims today have the same primitive tribalist mentality they had for many generations before the establishment of Islam, which served primarily to codify them and grant them the moral sanction of a religion. Otherwise, the enemy remains unchanged.
Because of altruism and it's "Just War Theory" offspring (which declares that the lives of the enemy are just as valuable as ours, among many other obscene things, we continue to ascribe to the Muslims a set of values that has taken us over 2300 years to discover, study, and develop. Islam has sprung, almost untouched by the philosophers who gave us our own foundation, from a primitive group of desert warrior tribes who lived by raiding, kidnapping, revenge/avenge killing, and stealing, and nothing has changed, except that the tribes have grown in size and diminished in number (Sunni, Shia and Infidel, primarily).
Yet somehow, Our Leader seems to think that because Islam worships a single god elevated to supreme status from among the tribal pantheon, that we and they have much in common; he dresses that wolf in his own sheep's clothing, failing utterly to see the differences. Unfortunately, Our Leader has allowed his religion to be Islam's "shield of invisibility." He failed in the beginning, and has continued to fail, to understand the fundamental nature of Islam, and why we will continue to fight the "Fourteen Hundred Year War" until either we or Islam has disappeared from the face of the earth.
And for some reason, even though the enemy was NEVERR a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and has NEVER agreed to its terms or acted consistent with them to this very day, we continue to act as if he (the enemy) has done so, and we continue to act as if it's a smart thing to do.
Mark, you said, "...any chance of 'winning' in Iraq has now been blown."
Mark (and everyone here who thinks we have blown our opportunity), while I agree that we WILL not pursue victory at this time, it isn't due to inability, it is due to lack of will.
Had we not followed the moronic and immoral precepts of the "Just War Theory" now being taught at our universities and war colleges (in short, the "Just War Theory" is the "Politically Correct Way to Fight a War"), we would have:
1) Followed the brilliant military victory with the establishment of a military governor, a la MacArthur.
2) We would have imposed strict martial law for as long as necessary. For starters, looters would have been shot on sight.
3) We would have done something that is to Bush the unthinkable, and that is, we would have secured the borders of Iraq - it isn't hard, especially against a militarily incompetent enemy such as Syria and (despite all the rhetoric) Iran.
Let me take a moment here to describe the primitive method that remains amazingly effective today; it's the old ditch-and-berm trick used by the ancient Celts and, just a short few years ago, by the Moroccans defending themselves against the Algerian terrorists. The Algerian terrorists were stopped in their tracks, and are rarely heard from now - at least in Morocco. France, yes; Morocco, no.
Only aircraft can breach the ancient ditch/berm trick, and the enemy doesn't have the planes or the skilled pilots (not even the Iranians, who are better than most in the region).
Borders too long to protect? Nonsense. Our Leader says this only because if we protected Iraq's borders, he would be asked why he doesn't protect our own, and heaven forbid he should give up his North American Union ambitions by doing THAT!
Here's the way it's done:
First, loosen the soil with protracted bombing (which discourages border crossings during the initial construction process).
Second, dig out the loosened soil with the usual heavy machinery, including the kind used at open pit mining operations etc. to form a deep, wide ditch.
Third, pile up the loosened soil on the defenders' side into a massive berm, which is far above the enemy's side of the ditch.
Fourth, boobie-trap the hell out of the base of the ditch, in addition to placing advanced detection devices in it.
Fifth, the berm on the defenders' side of the ditch is merely part of a well fortified series of bunkers etc. with weapons, detection devices, communications, etc.
The construction of such an advanced berm/ditch system would create the conditions necessary to accomplish our goals inside the conquered territory.
Let's continue with the list of "should have dones":
4) Members of the Iraqi armed forces (who had been made certain promises during the invasion, promises which were not kept by the subsequent incompetent civilian governors) should have been rounded up, and little by little assigned under armed guard to the repair of the infrastructure, especially the oil (source of income).
6) Keep a close watch on all the clerics and mosques, and arrest all those who engage in the promotion of terrorism and other "oppositional behavior."
7) A strong propoganda (from the Latin for "to propogate," not "to brain wash") and educational program should have been established immediately to try to bring the Iraqis up to speed. After all, they have over 2300 years of missed opportunity to make up for.
8) The establishment of strong courses in the schools, from K-university, teaching the principles of the Enlightenment and where they came from.
(Yeah, yeah - hell, we can't even do that in our own schools. I can dream, can't I?)
9) Encourage - nay, demand - vigorous economic development of the sort that will enable them to see and experience what a better philosophy can do for their quality of life. This will help loosen the grip of the promise of relief from the misery imposed by Islamic philosophy which is gained by going to "Paradise." They would have something to live for, rather than to die for.
Well, I could go on, but you catch my drift.
CONCLUSION: Our obscenely immoral approach to the current problem will ultimately be reversed, whether by a rational government obeying its Constitutional mandate to protect our rights, or by us as individuals who have too much common sense to present ourselves to the enemy and say "OK, how high should I jump?"
I think that this applies to quite a few Europeans as well as to the "New Worldies;" after all the Enlightenment was the brain child of British (and to a far lesser extent, Continental) thinkers, and I can't believe that everything we gained will go down the Islamic sewer.
Sometimes I wonder just what kind of mess we'd be in now if Gore had been President on 9/11.
Since regime change was the Clinton Gore policy for Iraq, Bush has given us an example of what the result looks like. It was Bush who ran on a platform against nations-building but in the spirit of “United We Stand” (remember that post 911 slogan) Bush chose Iraq as the second front with full confidence that the Clinton democrats would be behind him. Clinton’s man at the CIA said is was a slam dunk. The Dems were behind the policy until the Deaniacs appeared. At that point despite their votes for the war, they stabbed Bush in the back … lend by “Benedict Arnold” Kerry.
Despite Ducky’s paranoia, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer were against nations-building in Iraq. Ducky can’t keep the score because he’s upset about the Clinton-Gore policy of trying to “win hearts and minds” and wants to disown what was a bipartisan policy. I’m furious because Bush talked tough but acted like a Democrat. And now “toughness” looks like it failed when it was never tried. There’s nothing worse that a cause betrayed by one’s general (or commander-in-chief.) (After I wrote his Cubed has illustrated what "toughness" looks like ... see the above.)
Let’s remember that Bush ran as a moderate almost matching Gore’s domestic spending dollar for dollar. He’s not nor has he ever been a conservative. We all understandably recoiled at the new Kerry-crats who seized the party in 2004 but in 2000 there wasn’t much of a difference. Personally, perhaps, but policy no.
Well, we certainly didn't win the war, but I think we deserve some kind of worldwide recognition in future Islamic History texts... perhaps a Miss Congeniality Award?
Ducky
What is the muder rate in Uncle Hugos house of hell? The Venezuelans will ditch Hugo if the oil prices keep dipping.
He is also helped by Commie obstructionism of all domestic drilling. The Commie's keep the gas prices high with their Green allies and then spin fables about the oil industry. However, if one passed Eco1001 communism doesn't work never have and never will.
I can not wait until the Great French barbeque. All the Musies that the Eurotrash pat on the head and pass the welfare checks will trash the place. It seems socialist Ponzi scheemes and a
geek Chourus of assine hypocrisy about fake indigenous people and bad Joo er zionist only goes so far.
Listen to Pappas People with jobs who own their own homes do not riot. Liberterianism in action would have saved Europe. However Eurotash socialist keep failing to reinvent the wheel with broken Ponzi scheemes.
Ducky
What is the muder rate in Uncle Hugos house of hell? The Venezuelans will ditch Hugo if the oil prices keep dipping.
He is also helped by Commie obstructionism of all domestic drilling. The Commie's keep the gas prices high with their Green allies and then spin fables about the oil industry. However, if one passed Eco1001 communism doesn't work never have and never will.
I can not wait until the Great French barbeque. All the Musies that the Eurotrash pat on the head and pass the welfare checks will trash the place. It seems socialist Ponzi scheemes and a
geek Chourus of assine hypocrisy about fake indigenous people and bad Joo er zionist only goes so far.
Listen to Pappas People with jobs who own their own homes do not riot. Liberterianism in action would have saved Europe. However Eurotash socialist keep failing to reinvent the wheel with broken Ponzi scheemes.
But my marja... I thought you kept the Randoids around because your cream could not get rid of them? But perhaps I speak too indiscreetly in the presence of these infidels. May the udders of their goats yield them no milk! Allah be praised!
I think I'll go back to the harem now to join the rest of the ladies...
...with your permission, my marja?
Sometimes I wonder just what kind of mess we'd be in now if Gore had been President on 9/11.
That's easy to answer.
The FBI would still today be petitioning the Taliban in Afghanistan to turn over Osama Bin Laden for questioning.
The UN oil-for-food scam in Iraq would still be funding Al Qaeda front charities.
Occasionally when the press gets rough on Gore, he'd launch airstrikes on random nations for no apparent reason.
aow - steve is going to see elie weisel this evening at church! he's going to put a post up about it. i cannot wait!
Mr. Beamish & Jason,
Just to clarify....When I said, Sometimes I wonder just what kind of mess we'd be in now if Gore had been President on 9/11, I was not implying that I had any more faith in a different administration.
Cubed,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Yet somehow, Our Leader seems to think that because Islam worships a single god elevated to supreme status from among the tribal pantheon, that we and they have much in common; he dresses that wolf in his own sheep's clothing, failing utterly to see the differences. Unfortunately, Our Leader has allowed his religion to be Islam's "shield of invisibility."
Classes in comparative religiou teach exactly what you've mentioned. Bush swallowed that hot--hook, line, and sinker. At least, that's my opinion. I'm also guessing that the various churches he has attended have taught him the same, namely that all religions speak to what's good in man. Has he bothered to watch the documentary Islam: What the West Needs to Know. I highly doubt it.
I can't believe that everything we gained will go down the Islamic sewer.
Not completely down the sewer, but close, I think.
Recently, my world history class began a short study of the Byzantine Empire. My students couldn't help but notice the parallels between what led up to that fall and what's going on in the world today: get away from core values and combine that trend with government's corruption and general laziness, and the nation becomes fatally vulnerable to attack from without.
Storm,
the party in control of the White house traditional loses seats in off years. Incidentally for most of his Presidency Bush broke that tradition.
Good point!
Meanwhile, the Republican Party is doing THIS, as explicated at Bidinotto's Blog. Ugh!
Anybody ere speak jive...
Duhkkky opened his beak again.
Mr. Beamish,
Yes, on all counts.
In my mind's eye, I can still see our Congress fleeing Capitol Hill on 9/11. Nothing like fear and the desire to save one's own butt to unite politicians.
You've got it right, AOW. They are hypocrits. Just like John Edwards making bad-mouthing Wal-Mart his campaign while he pushes his new book ... then he sends his lacky out to Wal-Mart to buy the new PlayStation.
AOW,
Nothing has ever sickened me to my soul more than the sight of Democrat congressmen on the day after 9/11 singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps.
well beamish if you hate the military or using force you might as well sing...nothing else they do would repel boarders
Mr. Beamish,
Nothing has ever sickened me to my soul more than the sight of Democrat congressmen on the day after 9/11 singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps.
The old appeal-to-the-people and staged, with an element of fear too.
Debbie,
I've been seeing more of Edwards on TV lately. He's flashing his I'm-a-cutie smile these days, so I guess that he doesn't have time to do his own shopping.
To my eyes, Democrats singing "God Bless America" in the wake of 8 years of Al Qaeda attacks on Americans culminating in 9/11 is the equivalent of Hitler showing up at a bar mitzvah to shake hands and say "no hard feelings, okay?"
Post a Comment
<< Home