Wednesday, November 15, 2006

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]

101 Comments:

At 11/15/2006 8:43 AM, Blogger Storm said...

I would only add the Left believes Diplomacy will work. You all are better students of history than I. I can not think of a single example were diplomacy actually has worked as a permanent solution to a problem. Remember it was and is the Left that also believes sanctions work. The only way sanctions work is if the target has a blockade around it otherwise someone will trade with the sanctioned ccountry and a blockade is basically what that's right military force. Do not believe me try blockading North Korea.

 
At 11/15/2006 9:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

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!

 
At 11/15/2006 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent article, fellow Blogger!

And a hat tip from a philosopher-journalist:

http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2006/11/pajama-intellectuals-of-blogsphere.html

 
At 11/15/2006 10:36 AM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 11:11 AM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 11:25 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

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

 
At 11/15/2006 11:34 AM, Anonymous Mustang said...

My response can be found at my blog. This dialogue is both timely and much needed. Thank you AOW for your inspiration.

Semper Fi

 
At 11/15/2006 12:35 PM, Blogger cube said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 1:24 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 1:53 PM, Blogger BB-Idaho said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 2:14 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 2:35 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

I have to disagree completely, AOW. The left sees our presence in Iraq as aggravating a problem but not THE problem.

The failure of this administration to have any idea of the possible repurcussions of occupying Iraq is disastrous. The bought Ahmed Chalabi's line and Chcuklenuts and Condominium Rice really though it was over when he did the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing.

What the left sees as a big part of the problem is the shallowness of right wingers who think some military force and a fairy tale about "freedom and democracy" will "fix" the middle east. You aren't going to "fix" all that with cliches.

Cliches is all we get. A favorite of the right is to bring up Hitler and the 1930's, a time when we were as isolationist a nation as you will find and took no notice of Hitler. It's a poor example.

The left doesn't want a stable iraq? Are you delirious? What we don't want is having the situation handled by bumblers who think a military can solve most foreign policy problems. Those people are incredibly dangerous and need to be kept away from sharp items.

And since this is a right wing religious board in a sense I think it is incredibly dishonest not to mention Israel and the inability of the evangelical crowd to understand why some aren't in a mood to cater to Israel or view them as an ally.

As for historical precedent...well in the 90's there was a democratic movement building in Iran and the coutry wasn't in the throes of nationalism. "The axis of evil" nonsense ended all that.

I will also say that Iraq wasn't the complete shambles it is now ... if you are going to say that contemporary iraq is a positive model for "regime change" then you are simply naive and unwilling to listen or observe.

You are correct in stating that the cost of a further extended stay has a higher potential negative cost than positive.

 
At 11/15/2006 2:40 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

American Crusader, let me remind you of something tha isn't going to happen. We are not going to let the right make it our responsibility to get out.

We ran on a platform of changing policy. If the right had won the election then Chcuklenuts and the retard Secretary of State and the arse in charge at Secretary of Defense would be free to continue screwing up. Thanks for those three, by the way.

We ain't holding the bag. All the little punk Sun Tsu's and von Clausewitz's on the right have been shooting of their damn mouths. The election results stated "Do something or have your neocon policy kicked to the freaking curb where it belongs".

The militarist dinosaurs have been told to put up or shut up with the "Freedom isn't Free" nonsense.

 
At 11/15/2006 3:16 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

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!

 
At 11/15/2006 3:19 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 3:21 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

...and not one of those friendly types either. He launders money to Clark & the DNC from the mullahs by the wheelbarrowful through IAPAC.

 
At 11/15/2006 3:41 PM, Blogger Patty said...

It appears to me you are correct.

Blessings.

 
At 11/15/2006 4:16 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Ahmed Chalabi is advising Clarke as well as the Bush team?

Please expound, Farmer.

Remember, we got into this mess to a large extent because The Dauphin got suckered by an Iranian operative. I notice that you folks don't talk much about Chalabi.

When the statue of Saddam was toppled and the real photos of the small crowd were being circulated with close ups identifying Chalabi's militia you just tripped along in your little "Mission Accomplished" dream world.

 
At 11/15/2006 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 4:39 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Unconditional surrender to whom?

It's a civil war you demented thug.

So let me guess. If I ask whether we should start killing Sunnis or Shi'a your answer is both but only if you get a copy of the videos of Beamish jacking off in joyous delirium.

You sure do have the moral high ground.

 
At 11/15/2006 5:01 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 5:11 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 5:39 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 5:41 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 8:03 PM, Blogger Gayle said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 8:41 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 9:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 11/15/2006 9:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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?

 
At 11/16/2006 12:16 AM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

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?

 
At 11/16/2006 10:10 AM, Blogger Mark said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 11:13 AM, Blogger Brooke said...

"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.

 
At 11/16/2006 11:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 11:22 AM, Blogger Mark said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 12:27 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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!

 
At 11/16/2006 12:32 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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?

 
At 11/16/2006 12:34 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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'...

 
At 11/16/2006 12:36 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

France profits... either way.

 
At 11/16/2006 1:19 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Farmer get hip, Mani Haghighi is the "in" director at the moment. Try to get hold of "Men at Work". Excellent comedy.

... meanwhile the American film industry gives us "Borat". A cheap, vulgar rip-off of an Andy Kaufman routine I saw him doing in a hole-in-the-wall on Massachusetts Ave. and Beacon St back when he was at grahm Junior College.

Farmer, Shehabi was born in Kansas. hardly in the Chalabi class.

Well, check back in when we've killed enough Sunnis...or are we killing Shi'a? I get confused but Iran thanks the right wing for screwing things up so badly.

Really, you should do your bit to improve the cultural climate in this country. After a decade of Rethug control it's gone completely to hell.

 
At 11/16/2006 1:42 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 1:56 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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...

 
At 11/16/2006 2:10 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 2:17 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 2:25 PM, Blogger kev said...

daffy--with all your hatred and name-calling, you make as much sense in your posts as pelosi when she claims to want to clean up, but supports that thug murtha. All you do is use this as an opportunity to rain your hatred down on those who oppose your viewpoints. But you're wrong about one thing (I made a joke). It is on you, now. You claim we're all wrong, so now do it right, and I mean right, or you'll be right back out on your asses where you belong. You call my president names while you have the boy president, more interested in having sex from subordinates, in my house, and others, than in doing his job. He was caught with his pants down in so many ways. You have carter, the most inept president in modern history, who brought this country to its financial knees. You have johnson who escalated the war in vietnam (and then ran away from it), for which you hateful beings want to blame nixon, and you have kennedy, who got us into vietnam in the first place. So "chucklenuts" may be more aptly applied elsewhere.

 
At 11/16/2006 2:38 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Now kev, stop with the talking points. it's a little more complicated than you understand.

Carter should have acted sooner. he had nothing but bad options. His appointement of Paul Volker was the move which put the brakes on inflation. No, he wasn't a great president. A damn good man but to much of a detail guy to be prez.

So please remember that Eisenhower was the one who took over for the French and started a terror bombing campaign in Saigon... or are you so dumb that you think Arabs developed terror bombing as a weapon?

Now as for Johnson, I think we have to go back to some of the idiocy of Eisenhower and JFK. Eisenhower with his terrorist bombing campaign in the South and JFK with his belief that we could install a Roman Catholic from Jersey as president of Vietnam and then chasing him down in the seweres like something out of The Third Man.
I give Johnson credit for wanting to end it. He saw it was a pointless exercise.... sort of like Ronnie Raygun when he showed has butt at the Beirut airport. There was a real man.

 
At 11/16/2006 2:44 PM, Blogger Storm said...

Ok BB-Idaho, I guess I will give you Libya. However, Liyba did receive a few missiles curtesy of Reagan and Libya only came around shortly after we started things in Afghanistan and Iraq so I think this entrant as an example where diplomacy worked is weak to say the least. Besides as you pointed out, the realitive strengths of the parties involved had more to do with the negotiations than any real diplomacy.

Ducky ducky ducky

Fellow students of current events consider that perhaps we should not have stayed in Iraq to this I will agree with Ducky. However, to suggest we should have went on to Iran or Syria and bypassed the Iraq question is to be bereft of any intelligence. Let me take you bakc to a time when a country failed to adhere to 17 UN resolutions. Now I am no fan of the UN infact I think the US should just walk way from this inept and corrupt organization but if we and world expect it to work and succeed then countries have to be made to honor its resolutions. Simply moving on and leaving Iraq would have been to admit the organization is without merit and useless. Invasion was approriate however we should have stayed out of the nation building business.

 
At 11/16/2006 2:48 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Failed to adhere to 17 UN resolutions?

You talking about Israel?

 
At 11/16/2006 3:41 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

Dukkky speaking of butts keep talking out yer pie hole.

 
At 11/16/2006 3:47 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11/16/2006 3:50 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 3:53 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 3:56 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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.

 
At 11/16/2006 4:07 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

Idiots think they'll win the 1776 Revolution if they can only capture Philadelphia...

 
At 11/16/2006 4:31 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

No AC, it's not a fraud, it's hardball. Had a few years of Rove et. al. playing to America's basest instincts.

Now it's time to put the pressure on Bushy and company to deliver. This clown has been moving his mouth long enough. Put up or take a freakin' dixie. That includes John "More Troops" McCain and Condominium Rice and the rest of the rethug jerks who were strutting and talking so damn loud.

They lied and you swallowed. Payback time.

 
At 11/16/2006 5:30 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

I have seen the light, my mujtahid, and will follow your Divine guidance.

 
At 11/16/2006 6:18 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

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?

 
At 11/16/2006 6:39 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

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?

 
At 11/16/2006 7:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody should take the Duck seriously.
Lets see the Soviet Union ronds up Muslims ( and others) places them on cattle cars and relocates them to Siberia to die. Israel should use historic Marxist tactics like planned starvation and mass relocation.

In other words the Duck is full of BS. How many ethynically cleansed Arab states are there 22. There is no such thing as a Palestinian and Arabs allready posses a wealth of stolen real estate.

 
At 11/16/2006 11:56 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

Dukkky,

you go girl and don't come back

 
At 11/17/2006 8:19 AM, Blogger kev said...

duck you're so full of crap your eyes are brown. Just because you say it doesn't make it fact. And I won't fail to note your obvious bigotry toward Roman Catholics, even though you like to accuse everyone here of hatred of muslims. By the way, I also disagree that carter is a damn good man. He's a self-centered old socialist doing and saying whatever it takes to try to reconcile a long lost legacy. I do agree he should have acted sooner--by resigning when it was obvious he had no business being president! I find it interesting that you always go back to a Republican to excuse the failures of democrats, yet you give a pass to clinton who obviously, at least to those who have eyes and ears and functioning minds, had a big hand in causing what Bush had to deal with.

 
At 11/17/2006 9:50 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 10:26 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Oh no AC, the campaign was far from a fraud. However, what WILL NOT happen is the Dems winding up holding the bag.

The whole Reagan era is ended, the maniacs are finally out, even Milton Freidman died, the nightmare that began in the eighties is FINALLY over.

And I really believe it is. Even if the Republicans took over again in 2008, it won't be anything like it was. Nobody is going to back the insanity of "tax cuts for more income" again, nobody is going to push for 'more money for the rich" while the middle class is still flat and out, nobody is going to pull any of the crap that was trickled down so slowly until Bush decided to simply dump the whole outhouse on our collective heads all at once.

No new military adventures, the US military will be rebuilding for YEARS to undo the damage this bunch of cranks have done.

And no matter who is in Congress or the White House, the energy mess will be on the table, the wage problem will be on the table, the carbon emissions will be tied to the energy solutions, and it will all be addressed in some way - maybe not a way we'll all like or prefer, but these matters actually will be a national priority, not shuffled off to the side while a chorus of trained seals bark out "junk science, junk science, junk science".

I'll bet that very phrase has seen the end of its life.

Limbaugh saw all this the very day of the election. Of course he isn't going to "carry water" any longer, the team broke up and disbanded, he's got nobody to carry water for!

It's over. Screw the Congressional infighting over how many days longer to stay in Iraq, THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER!!

Have a drink to celebrate, Christmas came early this year! Go have some fun and quit worrying.

Wheeeee!

Now you will also notice that The Dauphin was in Vietnam (ironic, no?) saying that the lesson we should have learned was "Don't Quit". He's talking about more troops in Iraq and making a major thrust to "defeat" the insurgency. Look, he did that in Baghdad a few months ago and the violence pegged the needle as well as maxing American casualties.

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. The paranoid nonsense is over and you have to accept that you are in a small minority who see any benefit in this silliness.

 
At 11/17/2006 10:32 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Ducky says we’re safer now.

 
At 11/17/2006 10:39 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

No Jason, if you have been paying attention I have said that the carpetbaggers are gone. You are left with a Republican party with Trent Lott as a leader.

No more Terri Schiavo insanity.

No more "tinkle down" economics.

No more dumb misuse of troops.

No more ignoring environmental issues.

If you have a reasoned response I'd like to hear it.

 
At 11/17/2006 10:42 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 10:46 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Get a grip, there are always threats of violence. Don't start with the straw man nonsense.

Iraq was no threat. The threats that are developing in Iran and North Korea have been greatly aggravated by this administration and his little cadre of Sun Tzu's like yourself.

 
At 11/17/2006 10:59 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

"greatly aggravated"

Here we have it: there are no threats unless we make these fine people angry at us. Sure, Ducky, sure. It’s all our fault and with the Dems in control of congress everyone will love us.

As usual, the left will blame America every time. Muslims are killing Buddhist monks in Thailand, Hindus in India, Russians in Chechnya, Jews in Israel, Brits in London, Americans in New York, Aussies in Bali … all those people picking on the poor Muslims. Sure, sure. We can trust them with nukes, right Ducky?

 
At 11/17/2006 11:45 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Jason, has anyone given you a run down of Chechen history? The fight goes back a couple hundred years and the Chechen and Ingush experience under Stalin resulted in a genocide that wiped out about 75% of the population. So they are supposed to love Russians? Are you a complete fool?

Jews are killed in Israel. Oh yes, the jews in israel also have perfectly clean hands. Somehow if a muslim is involved in a conflict they are immediately responsible for the conflict.

And there are no militant Hindu organizations doing any killing. hat's for sure. I'm surprised you haven't blamed muslims for the problems in Sri Lanka.

Yes there were bombings in Bali and London and Madrid. There have been bombings in America totally unrelated to Islam.

A film director is killed in the Netherlands and you want muslims exterminated but if a thumper kills an abortion clinic employee you don't call for the mass exporting of Southern Baptists.

Maybe you can blame muslims for the Colombian civil war or Congo? Eh, Jason?

Get a freakin' clue Jason. pakistan has nukes. The genie is out of the bottle. Meanwhile your supposed "logic" of pointing to conflicts where muslims are involved and attributing it to Islam is hardly the life of the mind that your goddess would praise.

You hate muslims. You can't imagine a foreign policy that doesn't center on massive military force and you lost.

You're a dinosaur Jason.

 
At 11/17/2006 12:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets see about who is the Dinosaur

An anti-semite whose fusion of the worst elements of Father Couglin and Groucho Marxism is pointing the finger in the air. Ducky and those like him are creating more neocons as we speak. It seems Jews do not like the neonazi drumbeat and Stalinistic show trial hystrionics. Even Comwad Col Bernie Sanders is measured about what he says about Israel off campuses.

The competition from India and China as well as higher Ed via the internet will make your kind a relic. The days when societal parasites could attempt to brainwash a generation with worthless material Marx, Chomsky, Fanon, Menchu and Finkelstein are finished. As parents start to send their kids and pay for these E Universities the game of far left theft ends. Some of you former scholars will have to flip burgers but you were killed by your own excesses.

The rise of E Universities will prove more receptive to liberterians. As gas prices soar people will want to string up Commie agitators for idiocies like holding up ANWAR and the creation of new refineries. These new refineries just happen to create jobs that pay well but American families are less important than directionally challenged Caribou.

Marxism is dead and Zimbabwe the people are starving in a country that exported food. Kim Jong Mentally ill provides a great cover boy for a broken system starve your people to liberate them. Thirty plus years of repression aided and fomented by Gomer Kerry and the drug infested left is a great legacy as well as Killing Fields. When we pull out of Iraq the killing will continue and you will have more dead Muslims than ever. Way to go Comwads, but Iraqis killing Iraqis is just how that part of the world pperates. There never was an Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, but this is what happens when know it all create failed states in an Anglo- French treaty.

The Pseudostinians will have a Civil war and the left will blame Israel. Meanwhile Europe is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a world run by the USA, India, China and perhaps a Russian strongman. The socialist ponzi games will collapse as welfare states can not support economies where jobs are not created. The Muslim masses will riot again but it will be your kind that will be the first to go. Empty words and failed Euroversions of affirmative action will not stem the masses. Your paternalistic treatment of Muslims who are granted a welfare check and told not to wreck the country is a failure. People with jobs do not riot, but one would have to pass ECO 1001 to know that.

In the words of Kuhnkat HAHAHAHAHAHA you Marxist Moron. Going through life lazy, stupid and advocating class genocide is a wasted life.

BEAMISH IN 08, 12 and on MT Rushmore in 16.

 
At 11/17/2006 12:42 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Well let's take a look at that beak. Although the way you throw around the word Marxist and can't seem to stay with a though for very long is tough to decipher, I'll give you a benefit of the doubt.

Now let's take a look at a region that has always been under American control. Central and South America.
That Chavex has been a pain in the rear and what does Bush try to do? He tries to stage a coup. Now, like everything else he does, he fails. Big time. Complete screw up.
So now we have Ortega back, most of South America is hard left and Mexico is flipping the digit. Hardly a failure of the hard left there.

Then we have China. The Communist government is dictating our policy towards North Korea if you haven't noticed. We will hold direct talks with the North. Now just what talks to a nuclear country about not possessing nukes are going to do remains to be seen. Bottom line: Our power in Asia is very, very limited.

I'm reminded that when St. Ronnie Raygun single handedly destroyed the Soviet Union he was going to oversee the new American century. Damn, if he could single handededly destroy the Soviet Union (big laugh sign is up, Beak) then why haven't the neocons had any success since? Russia is off the reservation again if you haven't noticed.

And that brings us to the middle east where we have been pretty much able to kick everyone around with the IDF running shotgun. Darn if that damn fool hasn't screwed up so badly in iraq that we are going to have to call on Syria and iran to help us sort this out (and remember we have let things go to hell in Afghanistan).

Now after you toss off the compulsory anti-semite charges it will do well to remember that Israel is failing in the territories and it failed badly in Lebanon. I would be upset since there is clearly going to be a change of tune. Myself, I think the Saudi plan is going to start going through.

Just six years and your boy has really done a number. Of course many of these changes were inevitable. The struggle continues despite your squaking but it could have been done in a way that allowed us to prosper. Instead we are just a broke down war machine listening to an assortment of ex military dinosaurs who can't delivered and didn't for the entire second half of the 20th century.

 
At 11/17/2006 12:46 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Thanks, Ducky, I wanted to see if you’d be an apologist for Islamic aggression in each of those cases and I wasn’t disappointed. Oh, yes, I can read your “code” about the victims of Muslim savagery not having “perfectly clean hands.” The trivial truism hides your sympathy for the Islamic savages. It always starts with “we’re not perfect” and ends with “we’re the problem in the world.”

Oh, yes, and when Dr. “Evil” Khan gives terrorists the bomb (before or after a fundamentalist takeover of Pakistan) you’ll no doubt blame it on our “tough” policy of trying to build democracies, protecting Muslims in the Balkans, helping Afghans get rid of the USSR, helping Egypt get back the Sinai, backing Nasser in the Suez, and holding back Israel. Damn we really are tough … not.

 
At 11/17/2006 2:17 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 2:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 2:29 PM, Blogger Steve Harkonnen said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 2:34 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

American Crusader, I don't consider Chavez a hero. I do have sufficiently clear sight to understand that he is a player in Central and South America.

He did help Ortega regain power in Nicaragua and if he didn't topple the Mexican oligarchy, well neither have we.

Fact remains that 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?

 
At 11/17/2006 2:39 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Steve, ain't gonna be any common ground. What you will see is the doctrine of logical consequences in play.

We will have to talk to Syria and Iran. You can't very well say that we have more influence in iraq than Iran.

This president put his faith in overwhelming military power and though it was over when he did his "Mission Accomplished" photo-op.

Well, it wasn't and we look for the best outcome possible right now which is more than likely going to strengthen Iran. Bush fought two wars in the East -- Iran won both.

Although we still might be able to salvage Afghanistan but time is running out there also.

 
At 11/17/2006 2:40 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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?

 
At 11/17/2006 2:54 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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."

 
At 11/17/2006 2:56 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 3:02 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 3:13 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 3:27 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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?

 
At 11/17/2006 3:44 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Well cube, we'll keep that in mind the next time we invade a country that hasn't endangered us in any way but let's get back to the present.

Are we going to sit around spending money hand over fist, watching two or three kids get killed every day and accomplish absolutely nothing?

For better or worse we are in a situation where we can't do squat without the assistance of the other states in the region. Maybe we should get the Saudis to kick in a little dough. After all, you paid $3 and up for gas and helped fill their coffers (Iran's also).

Of course we could just kill our enemys but Randoids make me chcukle so I say keep them around as court jesters.

Meanwhile after youg George worked his magivc the adults have a tough problem on their hands. He's going to make one more big military push, get a lot of people killed for no reason and then the militarists will get out of the way.

 
At 11/17/2006 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 4:01 PM, Blogger Farmer John said...

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?

 
At 11/17/2006 4:33 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 5:48 PM, Blogger nanc said...

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!

 
At 11/17/2006 6:46 PM, Blogger Storm said...

"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. "

Not really unprecedented, the only correlation between Iraq and Vietnam is the liberals that caused us to fight with our hands behind our backs. Now the same thing is happening all over again in Iraq and the result is the same we embolden our enemies and now we stand ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 
At 11/17/2006 6:57 PM, Blogger Storm said...

Ducky I find you humorous. I do applaud your will to stand there and dispense your nonsense. clap clap clap.

Now seriously you do not think the Demos actually won anything do you? On what agenda? No Ducky Reps lost because we Conservatives wanted them to lose. They failed to live up to the contract with America 1994. We did not vote and thereby allowed Demos to win. Besides take a look at history, the party in control of the White house traditional loses seats in off years. Incidentally for most of his Presidency Bush broke that tradition.

As for the 17 UN Resolutions...you do know what a UN resolution is, right? Ok now there were 17 different ones some that banned the type of rockets we know Sadamm had, some that banned troop build ups, some that called for inspections, and some that authorized force if he did not comply.

 
At 11/17/2006 8:26 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 9:38 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/17/2006 9:42 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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!

 
At 11/17/2006 11:48 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

AOW,

It'll get much worse.

It has to.

The upshot is, when America is hit again by terrorists, and it will be, Democrats will fly to the right to stand with the vanguard, and folk like you and me will kick them in their bitch ass opportunistic faces.

 
At 11/18/2006 12:48 AM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

Anybody ere speak jive...


Duhkkky opened his beak again.

 
At 11/18/2006 7:49 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/18/2006 1:49 PM, Anonymous Debbie said...

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.

 
At 11/18/2006 4:40 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

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.

 
At 11/18/2006 6:18 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

well beamish if you hate the military or using force you might as well sing...nothing else they do would repel boarders

 
At 11/19/2006 6:31 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/19/2006 6:33 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

 
At 11/19/2006 11:37 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

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

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home