August 24, 2005
More Bush Non-Sense
The President is hitting the airwaves with the most stupid and illogical statements yet. Let’s examine a few.
1) President Bush said on Wednesday terrorists had converged on Iraq. Duh! Is this news? Did this just happen? Is anyone briefing the President on the fact that terrorists have been coming into Iraq since we declared Victory there? Now, Mr. President, have all the terrorists converged on Iraq? Is it a convention? Apparently not, since London has some terrorists who decided not to show up in Iraq.
Turkey has a few who decided not to attend. Egypt has quite a few who aren't converging. Malaysian terrorists apparently declined the invitation. Austrailia is on to a few who chose not to come. And our own government says there are cells here in the USA who apparently have not been drawn like moths to flame to the convergence on Iraq.
So, Mr. President, is it possible that the number of terrorists who have converged on Iraq over the last couple years, have been drawn by the largest US military target to be found in a single location? Could it be sir, that your insistence on putting our troops there is precisely what has drawn some terrorists there to make bomb fodder of our fathers, sons, brothers, sisters, moms, and daughters? I apologize, Mr. President. That was too complex a question for you. I understand.
2) Also on Wednesday, the President said pulling U.S.troops out of Iraq would only "embolden" the terrorists. Embolden them how, sir? Can they blow themselves up in our faces with even more fervor? How could they be even more bold, Mr. President? Are you afraid they may converge in a basement somewhere, break out the champagne and celebrate our leaving? Is that what you mean by embolden, Mr. President? If so, sir, ship them the champagne in exchange for bringing our troops home safe to also celebrate having a life to look forward to. Seems a fair exchange to me, sir.
Oh, damn! That's right, Mr. President, that would leave egg on your Presidential face wouldn't it? Well, hell, what's another couple thousand American flag draped coffins when the ego of the President is at stake. My apology sir. I just didn't think that one through very carefully.
How is it, Mr. President, on Tuesday you can commend Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank as a means of putting an end to the violence, but, on Wednesday, you say pulling out of Iraq would not. Pulling out of Iraq would have the same effect as the Israelis pulling out of the West Bank. It would remove one of the focal points for violence. I am sorry, Mr. President, but, how can you be so dense?
3) The President has said recently his tax cuts are working. What evidence does he have? Does he mean the more than 1/3 Trillion dollar deficit this year is proof the tax cuts are working? Does he mean he cut taxes so much he can no longer afford to buy a VETO pen to cut spending? Or does he mean that the tax cuts insure that we will not have the money to save Social Security. Does he mean the tax cuts combined with the no competition for lower prices in the law giving prescription drug coverage for Medicare receivers, will guarantee Medicare will no longer be affordable as our national debt tops 8 Trillion dollars?
Perhaps the evidence of the tax cuts working is that previously profitable companies and corporations have greatly increased those profits as a result, while working wages remain stagnant against the inflation of necessities like gasoline, health care costs climbing 40%, and food prices spiral. Ahh... I just got it. I just saw an article indicating RNC fundraising is beating all expectations. That's it. That is the evidence that those tax cuts are working. How could I be so dense? That is hard core black and white data evidence that the tax cuts are working and it simply can't be refuted.
One only has to read the article (2 links above) to realize the President points to increased IRS revenues as evidence his Republican tax cuts are working. But what good is it to cut revenues to spur economic growth to increase revenues all the while going further into debt? I mean, isn't that a bit like I loan you five dollars on the condition that you will loan it back to me right away? Doesn't this President realize that when a nation's debt is growing by leaps and bounds, more than 2.5 Trillion since he came into office, cutting taxes is not the answer unless cutting spending greatly exceeds the amount of tax cuts. Since, the President hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like, his cutting taxes has simply got American tax payers another day older and deeper in debt. And the President wants to make the tax cuts PERMANENT !!! What insanity is this?
4) The United States has approved full-rate production of a new Hellfire missile variant, touted by President George W. Bush for its ability to kill guerrillas in urban settings, the missile's manufacturer said on Wednesday. Appears Pres. Bush bought that one from the manufacturer, hook, line, and sinker. Appears Bush never inquired of the obvious, if it can kill guerillas in an urban environment, won't it kill non-guerillas in the immediate urban area as well? Apparently from his words, Bush touts this as a non-collateral damage missile, capable of winning over the hearts and minds of everyone else in the urban environments who aren't killed when it is used.
Does the President have a psychiatrist? I'll send a few extra bucks on my taxes to pay for one. Anyone else game?
Posted by David R. Remer at August 24, 2005 11:57 PMDavid,
On top all that you report he again said, and I quote, “The terrorists hate freedom”.
I don’t know about you, but my soul was stirred by these words.
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 01:50 AMFirst let me say that was an amazing display of snark. I almost felt it necessary to bow before your superior snarkness.
Now for my response?
1) There has been a change from “insurgents” to “terrorists”, one of the primary reasons even I felt Afghanistan should have been taken more seriously before Iraq was considered. It’s obvious a major mistake caused by whoever didn’t realize that terrorists would naturally appear in Iraq if Bin Laden’s boys were not minimized.
2) That’s obvious even in Israel were Palestine is taking the credit for “forcing” Israel to leave the Gaza. If we leave before we said what we were going to accomplish is done it is a victory for them. Hence the whole “lowered expectations” so we can try to save face when we don’t accomplish everything originally stated. Of course both sides will claim victory no matter the end result.
3) My family is in worse shape now that ever so I can’t comment on how the tax cuts are working even if I tried. I suppose I could console myself with it would have been worse without the tax cuts but I’m having a hard time selling that idea to myself.
4)After reading the other night a rather long file on a new nuclear “super” bunker buster bomb they were spending millions on to develop with very few of them seeming to realize that nuclear weapons even meant to go deep down into the earth to destroy the newer more tougher underground bunkers was a “bad” thing? The hellfire is at least not nuclear.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 25, 2005 01:54 AMIt is amazing, Rocky, after all this time as President engaged in a war, that he still hasn’t a clue as to what his enemy is about. Freedom from western influence is why they are terrorists. Freedom is what they are fighting for. Until we get a President in office who understands this simple elemental fact, the terrorist movement against the west will just continue to grow and escalate.
I grant you, the freedom they want, they can never have. But, convincing them of that is where the real war needs to be fought. The President simply hasn’t a clue and can’t make the arguments that will appeal to reason of those on the fence trying to decide if they should join al-Queda or not.
This war of attrition can’t be won by taking out those already converted to terrorism, because they are being replenished faster than we are taking them out. The war of attrition has to be fought on the recruitment side, stemming the replacements. If Bush has his way, al-Queda will be recruiting and redoubling their army for decades while American recruitments for our military continue to decline. How can that possibly be a winning scenario for us?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 02:01 AMDavid,
“If Bush has his way, al-Queda will be recruiting and redoubling their army for decades while American recruitments for our military continue to decline. How can that possibly be a winning scenario for us?”
Attrition only works when those you are trying to weaken have no access to re-inforcements, foodstuffs, etc….
We’re going to find a way to screw this up, Mark my words.
Thank you Lisa. My snarkiness had been getting rusty lying about in the humid air. Thought I’d hone it up and oil it to keep it handy for the rest of the GOP’s reign. It will certainly be needed.
Of course, I will need two snarks to maintain in combat ready shape if the Democrats retake control, one for each of their party’s schizophrenic wings, the Republicans not in Name (RNIN - southern Democrats) and the Hugo Chavez Cheer Leaders (HCCL - northern Democrats). God help us all. :-)
I am still stubbornly holding out for the idealistic dream that magically America will come to it’s senses and realize the only way to really accomplish anything will be from the magical appearance of a Political Savior. I realize that almost puts me on the level of believing in the Tooth Fairy but if Democrats and Republicans keep on with their offered fare?
I still hope….
(while keeping my snark abilities honed incase you are right)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 25, 2005 02:24 AMRocky said: “We’re going to find a way to screw this up, Mark my words.”
Who’s WE keemosabe? This Tonto ain’t backing Democrats or Republicans, both of whom seem blind to so many of the realities that must be faced.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 02:26 AMLisa, I can’t imagine a healthier state of mind for a rational person in these times, provided they work to change things for the better as best they can.
Two things American history teaches me about Americans. They never respond appropriately to prevent disaster. They always respond to disaster by creating eventual success out of the ashes.
That history tells me things in America will have to get a whole lot worse before Americans respond appropriately. And after the darkest hour comes, America will finally resolve to succeed in rebuilding.
Reality is a hard pill to swallow.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 02:33 AMWe cannot leave Iraq. No matter the sheer unbelievable idiocy that got us there, we cannot leave now.
This is like going to a bar for “just a few beers” and then driving home. When you hit someone, you cannot leave them. You stay and take the heat for your stupidity.
Iraq must be won regardless of cost.
On a personal note, I am disappointed that so many non-Republicans want to leave. I can understand why Conservatives would go to war ignorant and uninformed but the rest? To leave Iraq without knowing the chaos that it would mean is irresponsibility that almost equal the NeoCons.
It may be a Republican War but we should not stop Republicans from fighting it.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 02:41 AMSo very true David, if we gave up we would believe the line that those two parties are the only way. All we can do is hold on and wait for others to wake up to the reality that there is another option.
Or at a minimum if they keep going the way they are presently in Washington it makes an anti-incumbent platform more possible. While I’d rather see independents and third parties take more control I’ve come to realize that what you’ve stated about the anti-incumbent promotion is a sound alternative.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 25, 2005 02:47 AMYou are making the assumption Aldous that it can be won. That is the whole reason for the diminished expectations so that it can come across as a win, however I’m not sure at this point given how much time was wasted and mishandling of opportunities there can be a win no matter the cost.
It is becoming more of a situation as to how do we cut our losses rather than how do we create a true “win”.
We’ve already gone from Iraq will never be a theocracy to admitting okay it might be more of a theocracy….That’s the problem with “freeing” people, they have this funny demand to make it the way they want despite what we want.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 25, 2005 02:52 AMGuys,
With Mr. Bolton as our “ambassador” to the UN, we ain’t gonna get any help from them anytime soon.
You know, diplomacy just isn’t what it used to be.
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 02:57 AMLisa Renee:
I do not believe Iraq is winnable but we cannot leave. You and others like you fail to realize the geopolitical repurcussions of abandoning Iraq.
Say that we leave. What conditions would have to happen before we are FORCED to return?
1. The Fall of the Saud Family?
2. The Invasion of Turkey?
3. Bombing of Israel?
4. Collapse of Jordan?
5. Price of oil goes over $100 a barrel?
6. Collapse of Indonesia?
7. Collapse of Pakistan?
8. Nucleur exchange by India/Pakistan?
All listed above will likely happen if we leave. So I say we stay. It has become more than just “Us”. The entire world will be at risk if we leave. So we stay and die. Because its the right thing to do.
Regardless of the cost…
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 03:03 AMEEK! Don’t get me started on the UN…We may be the primary funders of it but we have also helped make it irrelevant. Then toss in some corruption? We aren’t responsible for all of it but realistically the UN serves no real purpose except for humanitarian needs and that probably could be done more efficiently.
While I didn’t agree with Bolton, I also realized that either the UN needs to be totally restructured or scrapped.
With the exception of the Japanese and UN sponsored rebuilding of the Marshalands in Iraq, it is those types of missions that the UN still seems to be able to pull off. That should have gotten more media attention, since to me anyway that was a major accomplishment.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 25, 2005 03:07 AMActually Aldous you underestimate me. I very clearly understand the geopolitical reasons why a longer stay in Iraq would be necessary. However I do believe we have a country that does not, hence we will in all probability leave Iraq and be forced to return.
Part of that lies solely at the door of those who “sold” the war and are now creating a lowered set of expectations to be able to exit.
That said, if Afghanistan had been stablized before Iraq was undertaken? The scenario could have been a much better outcome.
Adding to that? Had the primary focus been upon restoring Baghdad services rather than building the Green Zone we would have created a situation where more US support would have existed from the outset rather than creating the impression that we were not leaving. Then the bigger mistake of disbanding all of the military and creating huge unemployment with soliders that could have been easily transitioned and enabling for better security and less focus on it being US. Too much time was wasted in addition to giving the terrorists the targets in addition to disgruntled soldiers feeding information to the terrorists/insurgents rather than building loyality to the new Iraq. Our whole choice of those we involved was another huge mistake and we helped create a huge system of fraud and mismanagement of funds by concentrating on ex-Iraqis that were more interested in a buck than the overall success of Iraq. (I could go on as there are numerous areas this ccould be expanded on)
As long as the impression remains that the government of Iraq is a puppet goverment of the US rather than one created without interference? The longer that will be used as a means of rebellion/insurgency/terrorism. We made promises that we could not keep as far as restoring quality of life.
I could continue with the mishandling which is why I fear at this point there is no way to recover. Too much time, too many lost opportunities and no real plan to fix any of that. “Staying the course” is not going to do it. There was an opportunity to make this winnable, I am not sure however that exists any longer. Given that? The greater chance is that we will leave and before we should which will guarantee our return over one of your scenarios or similiar.
Aldous, first, I am not advocating a 30 day pullout. My stance has always been to give the Iraqis a date, say 6 months, to prepare themselves for our exit. Then we pull out.
Second, you make what I think is a wrong conclusion that subsequent chaos or disintegration of Iraq will necessarily be a U.S. problem requiring our return. I would suggest that it is just as likely if not more so, that whatever happens in Iraq will become far more a problem for Iraq’s neighbor states, than the US. And isn’t it about time the Middle East began acting to resolve their own regional problems? Instead of the French, British, and now the US doing it for them?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 03:37 AMAh David, I’m glad you posted this because it highlights exactly what’s wrong with the left’s view of the war on terror, which is, after all, why we are in Iraq.
In particular I think it highlights quite a few of the deadliest sins of ‘leftism’ starting with relativism:
Freedom from western influence is why they are terrorists. Freedom is what they are fighting for.
They’re own version of freedom? Yes, who are we to impose our values on them.
Unfortunately, you can’t have culturally based moral relativism and also have universal human rights. These are mutually exclusive concepts. What is so ironic is that the left has no problem opposing make-believe fascism, but when it comes to the real thing they say it’s not our problem.
What’s very telling about this relativistic argument is that whatever ‘freedom’ any other culture is fighting for must be respected, but not good old fashioned American culture. The one culture that must not be preserved, but in fact (and by all means) must be eradicated is the American culture.
All or nothing fallacy
“Why Iraq? There are tens of other countries with dictators, we aren’t deposing them and occupying their country.” Usually this is uttered right after the failings of the above culturally-based moral relativism is played out.
Does it follow that you can’t arrest a particular criminal because you’re unable to arrest every criminal everywhere? Just because we can’t take them all on at once doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t all be taken on or that any one shouldn’t be removed by us for good reason.
Then there’s the “true understanding of terrorism”.
Until we get a President in office who understands this simple elemental fact, the terrorist movement against the west will just continue to grow and escalate.
In essense, this boils down to: Fighting terrorism creates more terrorism. Killing terrorists just makes them madder. It just gives them more reason to hate us. It confirms their worldview that we are evil and need to be eradicated.
We could apply this to crime. Oh wait, that is the classic liberal view of crime as well. Arresting them and putting them in jail just makes them hardened criminals. There’s some truth, but the conclusions are entirely wrong.
The real war is a war of attrition. It always has been. Look at all the wars that have ever been fought. Especially the wars between the west and the east. The attrition is entirely one sided.
I grant you, the freedom they want, they can never have. But, convincing them of that is where the real war needs to be fought. The President simply hasn’t a clue and can’t make the arguments that will appeal to reason of those on the fence trying to decide if they should join al-Queda or not.This war of attrition can’t be won by taking out those already converted to terrorism, because they are being replenished faster than we are taking them out. The war of attrition has to be fought on the recruitment side, stemming the replacements. If Bush has his way, al-Queda will be recruiting and redoubling their army for decades while American recruitments for our military continue to decline. How can that possibly be a winning scenario for us?
They say, “nothing succeeds like success.” Not defeating those already converted is not even an option. It is only through defeating those already converted that those deciding will make the ‘right’ decision. It’s basic human nature.
Posted by: esimonson at August 25, 2005 03:37 AMEric, you make no sense. You said: “What’s very telling about this relativistic argument is that whatever ‘freedom’ any other culture is fighting for must be respected, but not good old fashioned American culture.”
Where in my article or anywhere in the left’s arguments do you find advocacy for revocation of American freedoms. According to the Left, it is the Right that is endangering American freedoms.
Unless of course you are talking about American Imperialist freedom to spread American culture in the Middle East. If you think that is one of our unalienable rights, I suggest you reread your Constitution.
No one here that I can see is advocating giving current terrorists free rein to continue their terrorism. What was said is, the terrorists in Iraq need to be a problem for Iraqis and not Americans at some point, and the sooner we give Iraqis notice of our pullout (with time to finish their military and police building), the sooner the terrorists will be their problem and not ours.
We are vulnerable to terrorists not only overseas, where we should continue to combat them where they target us, but far more vulnerable here at home through porous borders. This President is spending us into huge debt with overseas costs without in any way adequately addressing our vulnerability here at home.
So, as far as I can see, your comments are full of right wing admonitions to the left without any merit. For what you say is being said here, if look close, has NOT been said here. And as far as I can see from the comments above, there are no Democrats from the left leaving any comments at all here. Just independent thinking Americans who think your party and your nemesis are just Janus faces of incompetence in American politics.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 03:58 AMeric,
No really, do you read or listen to any news at all?
Do you understand strategy?
Do you understand what attrition means?
Unless we are actually going to crush the insurgents, this bullshit game Bush is playing isn’t going to go in our favor.
You don’t seem to understand that these guys we fight don’t care if they get three squares a day. They don’t care where they sleep at night. They don’t care if it is 130F degrees during the day. Oh, and by the way, how much help are the Iraqis going to be?
We cannot continue to fight these guys the way we are fighting them and expect to win. It’s all or nothing time and they hold the cards, and the home court advantage.
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 04:07 AMDavid & Lisa,
I was almost…ALMOST…willing to leave you to your snarkiness (Lisa, I really like that word!), but…
I just, I really have to correct one little, minor, missed detail.
The Palestinians are fighting the Israelis to get control of the land the Palestinians are inhabiting.
Whereas;
The insurgents (or terrorists, or cute fluffy teddy bears, I really don’t care what you call them) are fighting the peaceful IRAQIS and the US to regain control of the land the Iraqis are inhabiting.
You see, there really is a difference there. If the insurgents (or terrorists or cute fluffy teddy bears) were just targeting our soldiers, your arguement might hold water. BUT, they are targeting the peaceful IRAQIS too.
While I grant that the Iraqi constitution isn’t what I’d hoped for; considering that we started out, with our wonderful perfect Constitution, owning slaves, disallowing our women to vote or own property, beating our children legally, ect, I’m not convinced that having an imperfect constitution that can be improved upon is somehow worse than having a dictator that was committing mass murders. Nor am I convinced that the insurgents (or terrorists or cute fluffy teddy bears) will just blend in to their new nation after we leave.
They want their power back!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 04:17 AMRocky,
“We cannot continue to fight these guys the way we are fighting them and expect to win.”
No, we cannot. I grant that readily (as you may remember). But, that doesn’t mean we have to give up. We may wish to leave it to the Iraqis, but considering the simple fact that we started it, the ugly truth is we have responsibilities to the peaceful Iraqi people and we should not just abandon them.
We need a change of strategy. We need to unite and throw ourselves into this effort and fight this war the way America has fought and won wars in the past. If we back out now, we will regret it and so will the peaceful Iraqis.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 04:24 AMStephanie said, “The Palestinians are fighting the Israelis to get control of the land the Palestinians are inhabiting.”
WOW ! Now that is news. All this time I’d been reading that the West Bank was inhabited by Jews and it was Jews Israel was removing. Cool! What’s your source of this breaking news, Stephanie?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 04:26 AMStephanie said, “They want their power back!”
1) The peaceful Iraqis never had the power to begin with, how can they have it back?
2) If they want control of their country, let them fight for it, the way our Colonialists fought for this country, and the way the North and South fought over who would control and whether it would remain intact.
History is there for a reason, to learn from.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 04:31 AMericsimonson:
Once again you forget or fail to mention America’s role in creating these “Terrorists”. Once again, the Right forget their History.
Let me refresh your memory:
1. The Fundamentalist Iranian Government today was a direct result of America’s installation of the Shaa.
2. The Taliban was created because the US never bothered to help Afghanistan after Russia withdrew.
3. Saddam Hussien became President with the help of America.
4. During the Cold War, America was rumored to have killed Union Leaders and others in the area.
5. America allowed Israel to create nukes.
6. America supported despotic regimes including Saddam’s Iraq.
This convenient ability Republicans have for forgetting has made the US distrusted in South America and hated in the MiddleEast.
Typical.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 04:32 AMDavid,
There are a hell of a lot more Palestinians living in the West Bank than there are Jews, and the Jews are considered illegal settlers by the international community. Come on, David. I know you know this stuff.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 04:39 AMDavid,
Stephanie said, “They want their power back!”1) The peaceful Iraqis never had the power to begin with, how can they have it back?
2) If they want control of their country, let them fight for it, the way our Colonialists fought for this country, and the way the North and South fought over who would control and whether it would remain intact.
History is there for a reason, to learn from.
1) The peaceful Iraqis aren’t the ones blowing people up, the insurgents are. They’re the ones who want their power back, which is why they will continue fighting long after we’re gone!
2) I have one word for you. France.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 04:42 AMDavid R. Remer:
Stephanie is essentially correct. We cannot leave Iraq. We need to finish the job the idiot Republicans started and destroy the Insurgents.
I am in favor of a Draft for this. We just have to make sure the Republicans like Bush, Cheney, Limbugh, Rove and all their ilk do not escape to Canada or claim Objector Status. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone of those Young Republicans For War will bolt like a castrated chicken when their names come up.
Teach them a lesson in irony. Heh.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 04:51 AMFor Whom It May Concern:
Just to let you know that the United States of America would never have won Independence without French help. There are a lot of hypocrites out there and I hate them with a passion. Their ignorance and lack of History is an embarrassment.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 04:55 AMThen of course, Stephanie, you know, that if the Palestinians had not bombed and attacked Israel after it became a state from these areas, they never would have been driven back for Jewish settlers. Ancient history.
The point is Bush’s contradictory remarks about Israel’s withdrawing from the West Bank as bringing peace to the area, while he says the exact opposite about our withdrawing for Iraq.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 05:29 AMStephanie said: “The peaceful Iraqis aren’t the ones blowing people up, the insurgents are.”
That is precisely what the British said about the Minutemen and the Colonialists. It wasn’t the peaceful Colonialist Loyalists blowing up the British, it was them damned rebel Minutemen and their Indian friends.
Fact is, if the peaceful Iraqis want to keep their Iraq, they are going to have stop being peaceful and start fighting for what they want. That is the point. And our pulling out will give them both that opportunity and incentive.
France, Huh? France withdrew after our war became too much for them, and we kicked British Ass anyway. What if the French had stayed? Do you think the Louisiana Purchase would have taken place without a war with France? You have to be kidding. Bringing up France makes my argument, not yours.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 05:36 AMAldous said : “We cannot leave Iraq. We need to finish the job the idiot Republicans started and destroy the Insurgents.”
And just how is that to be accomplished when the insurgency grows faster than we can destroy it, Aldous? When our very presence is a recruitment poster for the insurgency? Sorry, I just don’t buy the argument in light of the steadily increasing numbers and effectiveness of the insurgents the longer we remain as occupiers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 05:39 AMThis article was posted at midnight. Looking at the thread above, it is amazing how much the day crowd loses out by sleeping through the night. I tip my hat to all you night owls above. Who said the night is lonely and quiet? Not here at WatchBlog, that’s for sure.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 05:58 AMDavid,
Do you realize that there are peaceful Palestinians and Israelis that have been working together for this conclusion (the Israeli pull-out) for quite awhile now? Not to mention the international community.
I admit that Bush’s policy has messed up Iraq pretty badly. Had he taken some of the steps Lisa suggested earlier in this thread, we wouldn’t be faced with this disaster. However, I still conclude that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people. Crawling away to lick our wounds just doesn’t seem like the kind of thing we can do and maintain any kind of peace for ourselves.
If that is the kind of nation America has become, then our superpower status shall soon be history as well. As will the plush lifestyles of the middle and upper classes.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 07:51 AM—-
On top all that you report he again said, and I quote, “The terrorists hate freedom”.
I don’t know about you, but my soul was stirred by these words.
—-
Something within me stirred as well… but I think it’s mostly the bran muffin.
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 08:29 AMEric,
All or nothing fallacy“Why Iraq? There are tens of other countries with dictators, we aren’t deposing them and occupying their country.” Usually this is uttered right after the failings of the above culturally-based moral relativism is played out.
Does it follow that you can’t arrest a particular criminal because you’re unable to arrest every criminal everywhere? Just because we can’t take them all on at once doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t all be taken on or that any one shouldn’t be removed by us for good reason.
There is a large flaw in your criticism. The problem isn’t that we aren’t going after every corrupt regime. The problem is that we are supporting dictatorships and calling them our “allies” in the “war on terror”.
How in the world do you make the case that Iraq was more dangerous than Pakistan? But Pakistan is our 2nd biggest ally against terrorism? As I’ve said before, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
David R. Remer:
I am disappointed that you are ignorant of the actions of the French Navy during the War of Independence. It has been proven that without thier assistance, England would still be able to supply the British Army with provisions and reinforcements.
Don’t make me google the obvious again…
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 11:24 AMbtw… Israel would STILL have annexed the West Bank regardless of Palestinian Violence. The West Bank is the source of 40% of Israel’s water. Simple strategy.
The question is: Would Israel have negotiated if Palestinians were peaceful, accomodating folk?
Answer: NO.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 11:28 AMDavid,
The Israelis pulling out of Gaza won’t have almost the same impact as the US pulling out of Iraq now would have. Pulling out of Iraq now would create a huge power vaccuum that almost certainly lead to civil war. That is not an issue in Palestine because the Palestinians are much better organized.
Posted by: Darrius at August 25, 2005 11:51 AMFact is, if the peaceful Iraqis want to keep their Iraq, they are going to have stop being peaceful and start fighting for what they want. That is the point. And our pulling out will give them both that opportunity and incentive.
David, which ones are “the peaceful Iraqis”? Is it the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq with their Badr militia? Is it al-Sadr with his Mahdi Army? Or perhaps it’s the Sunnis and their ex-Baathist insurgents, or maybe the Kurdish peshmurga who are driving the Sunnis out of Kirkuk?
This is no longer about Iraq. Bush created a self-fulfilling fantasy in Iraq. This is about shutting down the terrorist training base that President Bush allowed Iraq to become. All a retreat would do is turn the various Iraqi factions upon themselves, ensuring that al Qaeda could operate its new terrorist training facilities without worry.
Iraq would become a failed state breeding terrorists, just like Afghanistan before 9/11.
Look in the paper today and you’ll find the rumblings of civil war between different Shiite factions, as well as between Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds.
Iraq has become what Afghanistan was before 9/11: a training base for terrorists. Aldous is absolutely right - because President Bush destabilized that crap-hole, America is now less secure. We must secure Iraq at any cost.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 12:30 PMDavid,
Looks like I slept through an interesting night. So many opinions, so little time.
FYI, it took the Israeli’s nearly 40 years to pull out of Gaza. I’d say that we’re probably on the same timetable in Iraq, or longer.
Face it: the only way we’re going to we’re only going to leave Iraq is if we lose. We fought against Spain in the Philippines, Puerto Rico & Cuba. We won, and we’re still there. Fought against Germany & Japan. We won, and we’re still there. Fought against North Korea. We won (or at least we didn’t lose), and we’re still there. Fought against the Serbs in Bosnia. We won, and we’re still there. Fought against North Vietnam. We lost, so we’re not there anymore. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
And, on the whole, with the exceptions of Guantanamo and the Philippines under Marcos, I’d say that’s a good thing, or at least not all bad.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I have to agree with Aldous, Darrius and AP on this one. (I guess that proves it: I am crazy.)
Forget the geo-political ramifications for a moment. How long do you think we’d have to wait before we saw an Islamic version of Srebrenica? Are you willing to turn the Al-Rasheed Hotel into the Hotel Rwanda? Are you willing to take those risks? How many more Bosnians and Tutsis would be alive today if we’d had the moral courage and political leadership to place our troops in harm’s way to oppose barbarism in Bosnia and Rwanda?
So, like it or not, Cindy Sheehan or no Cindy Sheehan, Russ Feingold or no Russ Feingold, we’re stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future. For humanitarian reasons alone.
Just because the origins of the war itself were discretionary and disingenuous, at best, doesn’t obviate our moral obligation to the Iraqis to provide them with an opportunity to create a stable and functional secular republic.
And, Chuck Hagel notwithstanding, Iraq isn’t Vietnam; it’s Yugoslavia. But I’ve been pounding away on the Yugoslavia analogy for so long that I’m beginning to bore even myself (thereby joining the throngs of WB readers, no doubt.)
So, fearing that I’ve flogged that one to death, I did a little re-reading. Have you ever read a 1987 book entitled Waltzing With A Dictator by Raymond Bonner? It’s the story of the American involvement in the Philippines. If you haven’t, here’s a snippet:
“Filipinos generally were most appreciative of [Admiral George] Dewey [who had lead the United States to a quick and easy military victory] and the Americans for having tossed out the Spanish, who had ruled since 1565… . But that didn’t mean they were anxious for another colonial master. Under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo, they took up against the Americans where they had left off against the Spanish. America’s crushing of that independence movement is largely forgotten, mentioned, if at all, as a footnote to the Spanish-American War. Aguinaldo is dismissed in American history as a ‘rebel’; his guerrilla war, which it most certainly was, as an ‘insurrection.’ But in the Philippines Aguinaldo is still honored - the country’s Pentagon is named for him - for his role in what Filipinos call the ‘Philippine-American War.’ And a war it was. The Philippines lost a staggering 16,000 men in combat (nearly three times the number of Americans who died fighting for [their] independence), and another 200,000 died from war-related hunger or disease. It was a dirty war, marked by racism and atrocities. The Filipinos were consider ‘savages, barbarians, a wild and ignorant people.’ Entire towns were burned to the ground; in one village every male over ten years old was ordered shot.
“The war was fought for businessmen who wanted new profits; generals who wanted new bases; and other Americans who just wanted to do good - the ‘white man’s burden,’ as Rudyard Kipling wrote in 1899. President William McKinley called it ‘benevolent assimilation,’ a policy designed to ‘uplift and Christianize’ Filipinos. To understand McKinley’s messianic ambitions, translate ‘Christianize’ to ‘Protestantize,’ for the Filipinos had been hearing about Christ for three centuries, His life and lessons ingrained by Roman Catholic priests and nuns sent out by Spain (who kept Protestant missionaries out of their colonies). What McKinley was really all about was Americanizing the Filipinos.”If you replace “”Christianize” with “democratize” in the preceding paragraph, the parallels are scary.
So get ready for an extended stay; we’re not checking out anytime soon. My only hope, and what we have to insist upon from our government, is that we can transcend our barbarous, sanctimonious or imperialistic inclinations, and thereby avoid a full-scale insurrection or civil war, on the one hand, or a tyrannical dictator like Ferdinand Marcos or Saddam Hussein on the other.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 01:45 PMChuck:
“moral obligation to the Iraqis to provide them with an opportunity to create a stable and functional secular republic”
Too bad that’s not going to happen, it’s going to be a theocracy by all signs.
Posted by: womanmarine at August 25, 2005 02:12 PMGood article, David.
“More Bush Non-Sense”
Indeed.
By any chance did you catch shades of Nixonian “peace with dignity” in a few of his comments, as I did? Although, I am completely unsure what to make of that…?
“Does the President have a psychiatrist? I’ll send a few extra bucks on my taxes to pay for one. Anyone else game?”
As I’m sure you’re already aware, you can count me in.
Lisa:
“You are making the assumption Aldous that it can be won. That is the whole reason for the diminished expectations so that it can come across as a win, however I’m not sure at this point given how much time was wasted and mishandling of opportunities there can be a win no matter the cost.”
I agree, Lisa.
To everyone:
At this point, they simply don’t seem capable of pulling off any sort of a win in Iraq — in fact, what they’re still advocating, i.e. “staying the course”, is sure to make things much worse for our troops there.
Good heavens, hasn’t become obvious yet — they don’t have the ABILITY to change course. There has never been, and there isn’t going to be, a Plan B!!! Hell, there wasn’t much of a Plan A, was there? Look at everything they’ve done — both in Afghanistan and Iraq — do our leaders appear to be smart, shrewd military tacticians to you guys?
I’m not advocating a pull out because I’m just a stereotypical anti-war type person. I realize that had they waged this war differently, things might have worked out for the better in Iraq. I also know that Saddam was a monster to his people, and that he was someone the entire world community needed to deal with at some point. But surely we can agree that save for “shock and awe”, nothing about how they’ve waged war has been done wisely or effectively?
As hard as it may be to face, as much of our blood as has been spilled, as much of our money as has been spent, as much as the middle east has been destabilized, does anyone honestly believe that with these people in charge U.S. military miracles are still just around the corner?
AP:
“Aldous is absolutely right - because President Bush destabilized that crap-hole, America is now less secure. We must secure Iraq at any cost.”
If America is actually to do this, I believe that Congress and the American people are going to have to forcibly remove the entire Bush Administration — because all along they haven’t been, and still currently aren’t, on the same page with you.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 25, 2005 04:05 PMWhat Aldous, AP, and others here are calling for is another Viet Nam, where winning is not possible, leaving is not possible (in their minds) and as a result we accomplish nothing but the destruction of thousands more of our troops (whom these individuals profess to care about - bullshit!).
Sorry folks, but, you haven’t learned a thing from our Viet Nam history.
Aldous, if you will reread my comments you will see that I never said the French were not our allies and of assistance in our Revolutionary War, but, I said they pulled out before that war was over and we kicked British ass anyway. I suspect you either misread what I said, OR, you don’t know your history as well as you profess to.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 04:46 PMAdrienne, you are absolutely right. There can be no win in Iraq, and the US cannot be defeated in Iraq. That means the best that can be hoped for is Americans continuing to send their young over there for years or even decades to die for nothing. For in the end, we will withdraw, and without saving Iraq from their inevitable propensity toward civil war and insurgents and outsiders moving in to take advantage of that propensity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 04:50 PMDavid,
My point was not what we should do. Rather, based on Twentieth Century American history, it’s what we will do.
When you start seeing people like Hilary Clinton saying the following, you can rest assured knowing that we’re not pulling out anytime soon:
“The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure… . I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well,”
As far as what I think we should do, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The road to peace in the Middle East doesn’t begin in Baghdad; it begins in Jerusalem.
Until the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is resolved to the everyone’s mutual satisfaction, section strife and religious terrorism will continue to exist.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 06:52 PMDavid; I really like your snarkiness. Please keep it well oiled.
There seems to be only one person on this thread who is completely out of step, so we can just let him dither along with the Administration that has lied and manipulated its’ way through nearly 5 years.
The war started out as a manipulation of the American people and eventually wound up a stupendous lie.
Whether we stay in Iraq or not, the probability of continuing escalating oil prices is almost a dead certainty.
As an addendum to that thought, we really need to be pressing our major corporations toward alternative energy sources.
If we leave Iraq and it does indeed become a trainig ground for terrorists (more than it already is), then the rest of the middle east will know where to look for the prople responsible for blowing up government buildings, etc. in their countries.
We will also know exactly where to apply our “smart” bombs.
I believe the theory of giving the Iraqi’s a time table to ready themselves for protecting themselves has merit. Let’s go for it!!
Now, all we have to do is convince George W. Bush he is wrong! Good luck with that!
jcp, thanks. You said: “Now, all we have to do is convince George W. Bush he is wrong! Good luck with that!”
I used to work with federal criminals in a halfway house. It never ceased to amaze me how many repeat offenders with long histories of busts, maintained in their own minds the need to lie to everyone else that not a single one of those busts was legitimate or warranted. These are very defensive people. They have screwed up most of their lives, and spend the rest of their lives trying to cover up for it. Reminds me a lot of GW Bush.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 09:33 PMGood points, Chuck. I think it is more complex than just the Israel-Palestine conflicts, but, you are certainly right that they are an ongoing impetus to the lack of stability in the Middle East that have plagued the region.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 25, 2005 09:36 PMDavid,
“I think it is more complex than just the Israel-Palestine conflicts…”
I’ll definitely have to agree with you here. Once the Israel-Palestine conflict is settled (if it ever will be), the various Islamic sects will have more cause to remember why they hate each other. Not to mention the Muslim-Hindu friction. The Middle East is a hot-bed for a lot of reasons. Unfortunately, far too many nations have been fueling the fire for far too long.
For some reason governments have thought that as long as they’re fighting amongst themselves, it makes it easier to take advantage of them. Then again, the strategy has worked, but the consequences suck.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 09:49 PMDavid R. Remer:
Did I say French Army? I said the French Navy. It was the French Navy that kept the British from getting reinforcements. If the French Navy were not there, America would have lost.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 10:43 PMAldous,
So how do we go about cutting off the insurgents’ reinforcements?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 11:38 PMDavid,
The Israeli/Palsetinian conflict isn’t the ultimate answer to our problems in the Middle East, it’s the beginning to the answer. The final resolution to the tempests in the Middle East is to establish governments that are predicated upon the same principles as ours: stable and law-abiding secular democracies that protect the human rights of minorities.
I agree with Abraham Lincoln:
“The Declaration of Indepedence … gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that, in due time, the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. This is the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence,”Now, if I can get you to agree that those words are worth fighting for, at any time and at any place, we’ll be on the same page.
You see, this is the ultimate premise of the war in Iraq. That’s George Bush’s vision, as flawed in its execution as you and I might think it is. Nevertheless, it has a fundamental and visceral appeal to the American public. It resonates, and probably more than any other, its the principal reason for his re-election.
Stephanie,
The above comments are why it is so important to insist upon secularism in the Iraqi constitution. I firmly believe that any document that they might produce that is not predicated upon this principle is doomed to failure.
All “men” must be created equal, regardless of which God or any God they do or don’t worship in the eyes of their government for that government to have any moral legitimacy.
Then, and only then, can we begin the peace process. It’s not whether or not my definition of God is right and yours is wrong so you must die. It’s whether or not the people of a nation can agree to disagree. This is where the right misses the boat: it’s not moral relativism; it’s mutual respect.
That’s why it has to start in Israel. Only when our actions coincide with our words will the disaffected elements of the Moslem commuity begin to believe us. This is a war of ideals, not armies, and our most fundamental ideal must be to insist that the governments that we support respect of the right of individuals to disagree, even about the nature or existence of God.
If Israel could renounce its self-defination as a “Jewish and democratic state” and just become a democratic state, perhaps all of the “Moslem republics” might follow suit. And if they didn’t, at least we could oppose them honestly, and our actions wouldn’t be tainted by the hypocrisy in the Islamic world of which we’re accused.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 11:39 PMThat means the best that can be hoped for is Americans continuing to send their young over there for years or even decades to die for nothing.
David, the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that al Qaeda terrorists looking to topple the US economy and blow up Saudi oil pipelines weren’t being trained in South Vietnam.
As far as Iraqi politics go, our job there is done. With the electoral defeat of those Iraqis who wanted a secular constitution, we no longer have any influence over the Iraqi political process.
What we can - and must - do, is clean out the terrorists and the al Qaeda training camps before we leave. We can not allow Iraq to continue as another pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
President Bush made Iraq a front in the war on terror, he should increase troop levels and finish the job.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 04:24 AMWar or humanitarian effort? Foe or friend? Create a safe haven point where only the USA ground troops are allowed weapons. A shelter point for women & children. Use our ground troops to secure their travel to this safe haven point. Than absolutely no bombing in the safe haven area. Then bring in the air force and bomb any terrorists and/or person or persons who refused to lay down their arms. Anyone in the safe haven must enter by signing the new constitution.
I want our troops home. I would like to see America not defaced. I would like to give our troops something to yell & scream victory about.
I would also like to see Bush punished for his lack of concern. Lack of strategy and most of all lack of commitment to better represent his country. The USA has been disgraced by one lie after another.
It appears we are already in a civil war. It appears we have created more terrorists. The current strategy is not working and I do not want to see our troops slaughtered for lies.
Call it CAMP VICTORY
Posted by: Annie at August 26, 2005 08:02 AMAP said: “What we can - and must - do, is clean out the terrorists and the al Qaeda training camps before we leave.”
Here is where you and I disagree diametrically, AP. I contend that our very presence will continue for a very long time to incentivize the creation of ever more terrorists than we and the Iraqi Gov’t. will be able to take out. In the not too distant future, the longer we stay, the more currently peaceful Iraqis will be motivate to join our enemies.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 08:50 AMChuck said: “Now, if I can get you to agree that those words are worth fighting for, at any time and at any place, we’ll be on the same page.”
We will never be on the same page on this issue. Because I don’t believe successful democracy can be fought for and imposed from without. Like our own democracy, it must rise up and be built by the indigenous people of that nation. Every attempt at installing democracy whether in S. America or elsewhere since WWII has met with varying degrees of failure and no where brought the peaceful rule of law and liberty that closely resembles our own.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 08:54 AMAldous, you keep getting hung up. I said the French left, including their goddam navy before the Revolutionary war was over, leaving it up to us to finish it on our own. Yes their Navy helped us until their own problems caused them to retreat. Are you not familiar with this aspect of the French history in our Revolutionary War?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 08:57 AMStephanie, right on! In addition, there are all those wealth distribution conflicts that will have to arise and be settled before the Middle East can approximate a peaceful region.
Seems to me, before the bulk of Middle Eastern countries can become real democracies, they will have to become real socialist countries first in order to pry the vast majority of wealth from the aristocratic and monarchic familes. Then when the socialist systems fail, they will be ripe for a capitalist based democracy. But as long as up to 75 or 80% of these countries wealth is tied up in the hands of 1/10th of 1 percent of the population, democracy cannot grow, now without a civil war.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 09:03 AMWhich Country Is In It For The Long Haul
Following statistics researched at nationmaster.com
I just felt that this was interesting enough to provide for review.
Country/Active Military/Reserve Military/Defense Spending as of 2002 (billions)
United States/1,500,000/1,250,000/329.6
China/2,270,000/550,000/48.4
North Korea/1,082,000/4,700,000/4.7
South Korea/686,000/4,500,000/12.6
Russia/988,000/2,400,000/48.0
Iran/520,000/350,000/4.9
SUMMARY
The US has 47% of the military force of N. Korea
53% of the military force of S. Korea
81% of the military force of Russia
98% of the military force of China
316% of the military force of Iran
Interestingly, the US has a rough balance of 50-50 between active and reserve. China has 4X the active as reserve, Russia has about 2 1/2X the reserve as active, N. Korea has 4X the reserve as active and S. Korea has about 6 1/2X the reserve as active. Iran is close to the US in it’s breakdown.
Posted by: steve smith at August 26, 2005 11:07 AMsteve, numbers alone don’t tell the story. North Korea, for example, can only sustain operations for about five days - and none of them would be able to establish more than temporary local air superiority, and none can project power anywhere on the globe like we can.
The US spends more on our military than every other country in the world combined. It’s the best.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 11:33 AMSteve Smith, the use of the word ‘of’ in your percentages quoted above should be ‘more… than’. Of implies a percentage of a whole, and that is obviously not what you meant. (e.g. The US has 47% more military force than N. Korea, which makes sense given the raw numbers).
If you meant to use the word of, then the percentages are all wrong.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 12:07 PMAP, and if we spent 2/3 that amount equally split between defense and offense (as in securing our borders for example on the defensive side of the equation), we would all be a whole lot better off, and still be the best military in the world.
Think of how many 10’s of billions of dollars we would have saved had we secure borders on Sept. 10, 2001 which prevented 9/11 from ever occuring, not to mention lives.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 12:12 PMDavid,
I am trembling with apprehension as I respond because I know somehow I will be whacked severely about the head and shoulders for disagreeing with you. Anyway, here goes ;
The total military force of the US is the result of 1,500,000 active plus 1,250,000 reserve. This equals 2,750,000.
The total militarty force of N.Korea is the result of 1,082,000 active plus 4,700,000 reserve. This equals 5,782,000.
Calculation : 2,750,000 divided by 5,782,000 is 47%.
Therefore my statement that the US has 47% of the total military force “OF” N. Korea should be accurate.
I used the same calculation for all the other countries. “OF” therefore is the true meaning as I indicated.
AP,
I am just providing this as a point of interest. I am not taking a position. Your comments are quite interesting so I guess my information had some value.
Ha! No, steve. You’re right. I did a doubletake on that myself, then figured you were using the sum of active and reserves. :)
AP, and if we spent 2/3 that amount equally split between defense and offense (as in securing our borders for example on the defensive side of the equation), we would all be a whole lot better off, and still be the best military in the world.
I’m not going to disagree, but I’d have to see specific examples of offensive programs to be cut and defensive programs to be funded.
There is something to the argument that US military might should be - not just unmatched - but unmatchable. But there are definitely offensive programs we’re pursuing that are useless or dubious.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 12:57 PMBTW, David. I just saw this,
Foreign markets leave U.S. in the dustZero in on a major city with a stock exchange: Paris. Tokyo. Toronto. Sydney.
Now, check the stock returns for these global bourses. What you’ll find is they’re all up for the year. And, in most cases, up big.
Not so the USA, where stock prices have flat-lined.
It reminded me of an article you posted previously.
Where in my article or anywhere in the left’s arguments do you find advocacy for revocation of American freedoms. According to the Left, it is the Right that is endangering American freedoms.
Precisely. America has a unique culture in history and in the world, a culture that is inextricably bound to the idea of economic freedom and the dynamic and creative power of capitalism. Virtually every policy of the left has an element targeting those economic rights, which are essential freedoms and yet seem to be afforded no consideration by the left. If we had a completely ‘progressive’ nation today, it would be a cradle to grave nanny state that would control every aspect of your life from the time you are born to the time you die. Which incidentally, might involve lack of medical care when you reach your unproductive years.
The culture of America is an individualist culture. The constitution itself is based on a theory of natural rights. The left opposes this and in it’s place wants to substitute a version of collectivism in which the state owns the people, not the other way around.
Unless of course you are talking about American Imperialist freedom to spread American culture in the Middle East. If you think that is one of our unalienable rights, I suggest you reread your Constitution.
No one here that I can see is advocating giving current terrorists free rein to continue their terrorism.
I must have misunderstood your statement then. You said, “This war of attrition can’t be won by taking out those already converted to terrorism,” which I somehow took as criticism of Bush’s policy of killing terrorists. You are somehow saying that we should not be killing those who are already converted? And the reason for this is that killing them creates more recruits, “because they are being replenished faster than we are taking them out. The war of attrition has to be fought on the recruitment side, stemming the replacements.”
Just how are you not giving current terorists free reign if you are 1) not killing them, and 2) you can’t go where they are and get them?
Posted by: ericsimonson at August 26, 2005 01:30 PMChuck,
“Now, if I can get you to agree that those words are worth fighting for, at any time and at any place, we’ll be on the same page.”
I agree that those words are worth fighting for, dying for, and living for.
“The above comments are why it is so important to insist upon secularism in the Iraqi constitution. I firmly believe that any document that they might produce that is not predicated upon this principle is doomed to failure.”
Again, I agree. I just think we’ve lost the leverage to force this on them for the time-being. Now, I haven’t gotten a chance to read their constitution (if any lay American has), so I don’t know if it is set up to allow improvement, but please remember that our nation was slowly secularized. It didn’t start out that way.
“If Israel could renounce its self-defination as a “Jewish and democratic state” and just become a democratic state…”
I agree completely. Propping up Israel (and all the other people we wrongly prop up) makes us hypocrites. We need to stand up for what we as a nation believe, even if we have to stand alone. However, by doing that we’re also going against the whole “diplomacy” thing that liberals tend to harp against Bush about. Obviously we couldn’t stand along side China, for example, which would mean we couldn’t participate in the UN. Taking the logic as far as it goes….problems arise. I’m willing to face those problems, are you? Is anyone else?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 04:09 PMWhoa, Annie!
“…Call it CAMP VICTORY”
We agree on something. Amazing!
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 04:18 PMDavid,
“Seems to me, before the bulk of Middle Eastern countries can become real democracies, they will have to become real socialist countries first in order to pry the vast majority of wealth from the aristocratic and monarchic familes. Then when the socialist systems fail, they will be ripe for a capitalist based democracy. But as long as up to 75 or 80% of these countries wealth is tied up in the hands of 1/10th of 1 percent of the population, democracy cannot grow, now without a civil war.”
I have a question regarding this, David. I don’t have the figures, but I gaurentee it would be easier for you to find them than I. How much wealth in America was in the hands of the few when we were founded? You make claims (which I do not dispute) about inequal distribution of wealth in these foreign countries and further claim that because of this democracy can’t be formed (which I do dispute).
Well, as per my understanding of history, we didn’t have the kind of democracy you suggest when our country was founded. Only land-bearing gentlemen were allowed to vote. A vast proportion of wealth was in the hands of a few. Slavery existed. Women were still the property of their fathers and husbands, though we rarely used those terms. Our great nation has become what it is now through our efforts, it didn’t start out that way. Expecting these countries to start up where we are now, instead of having to face some of the same struggles we overcame, seems a bit over-idealistic to me. IMO, it’s not going to happen. Why that would mean socialism is necessary I do not understand. It wasn’t for us and we still made a lot progress.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 04:29 PMsteve smith, thank you. I completely misunderstood how those percentages were being arived at.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 06:05 PMAP, yep, as Larry Kudlow is so fond of saying, the markets are the best predictors of economies ever invented.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 06:07 PMThere goes eric with his ultra right wing insane argument for unbridled, unchecked, greed as prime mover for free enterprise and capitalism will cure all the world’s ills again.
The left’s checks and balances through regulation of unbridled corporate greed and harm (Pinto and Vioxx ring any bells?) as well as redistribution of wealth in America are part and parcel of how America became the wealthiest nation on earth.
But, it is pointless to make such an argument with the eric’s of the world - they have turned the invisible hand without restraint into a religion with laws handed down from divinity.
eric, I have said we need to set a date, train the Iraqi militias, and then pull out. In that interim, we need to aid Iraq in seeking out and stopping the terrorists and insurgents. That’s how my argument works and makes sense.
Our departure on that day, will in turn reduce the number of terrorist and insurgent recruits in Iraq afterward, giving the Iraqis an actual chance of getting control of their own country, if that is in the cards (I don’t think it is, but, time would tell).
Stephanie asked “How much wealth in America was in the hands of the few when we were founded?”
The more appropriate question is how much wealth in the colonies was being shipped back to England in the form of tribute and taxes to the King. The answer as we all know was “WAY TOO MUCH”. That was one of the primary indendiary motives for our Revolution.
Stephanie, Saddam Hussein installed Democracy in Iraq. He conducted elections. Voila! China has a democracy with a people’s Congress and elections. Hugo Chavez was duly elected by the people in Venezuela.
I should have been more specific and stated instead of democracy, ‘a thriving, informed, democracy of the people, by the consent of the people, and for the people’. When the vast amount of wealth of a nation lies in the hands of a few hundred families as in Saudi Arabia, the Saud family can conduct elections, but, their democracy will never be of, by, and for the people, and any attempt by the people to make it so, will result in the wealthy’s military coming down on them like a ton of bricks to suppress the insurrection.
Wealth protects itself, and the power that comes with it corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why oil rich aristocracies and monarchies as exist in the Middle East will never permit democracy except in the most superficial ways for appearance sake only.
And in America, it took the socialist movement of the early 20th century through the 50’s to include income taxes, and the FDR programs to redistribute sufficient money from the industrial barons to create the wealthier and broad based consumer middle class which spurred our nation to becoming the wealthiest in the world. Even Henry Ford bought into the concept of distributing the wealth to his workers so they could become consumers of his own product sufficiently to increase his profitability. The wisdom of those years in history are becoming more and more lost these days in dusty archives, such that we appear destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 26, 2005 06:47 PMIm sorry but I dis agree. The act of distributing wealth has been tried before, to no avail I might add. Take a look at communism. Like before mentioned power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly…. so who would you put in charge of this new and totaly useless(another) government agency you would like to head this?
Posted by: Mike Thompson at August 26, 2005 09:25 PMDavid,
Our own revolution was led by our wealthy against a foreign occupier (not that we weren’t ourselves foreign occupiers, but that’s another story) to better increase their own wealth. Eventually, because our government was set up with some really nice beliefs in it (that weren’t lived up to at the time they were put in), the common people decided they weren’t going to stay in the dust and rose up with enough force to take some of the power into their own hands.
All I’m saying is if we could actually gaurentee (“we” meaning an effective international body) that all self-professed democracies actually were of, by and for the people, then socialism wouldn’t be necessary. Unless, of course, you’re saying the US isn’t a democracy in that sense, since the wealthy hold the majority of the cards here too. Do you recommend that America experience some time as a socialist nation?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 11:23 PMHYPOCRISY WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Democrats complain the loudest about the loss of life in Iraq, but are predictably silent about the number of human beings killed daily through abortion. As a veteran I can tell you it is easy to conclude that the hypocritical politicians in the Democratic Party, and those who vote for them, care more about bashing President Bush than they do about our soldiers who love their Commander-in-Chief. It is a scientific fact that when a “being” exists in the womb, that “being” is human, no matter what the stage of development. If democrats are so concerned about the deaths in Iraq, why aren’t they questioning their Party’s refusal to support a Human Life amendment to our Constitution that would vastly reduce the number of innocent human beings killed through abortions?
Vincent Bemowski
David,
they will have to become real socialist countries first in order to pry the vast majority of wealth from the aristocratic and monarchic familes. Then when the socialist systems fail, they will be ripe for a capitalist based democracy.
“Then when the socialist systems fail..” —This has already happened! David, this is precisely why the middle east is the way it is!!! You’ve got it entirely backwards. Look to your history, or read it again with a fresh eye. When all the current countries were created in the middle east what government model were they using? It couldn’t have been the British socialism present at the time, could it!
David, it is socialism that created the dictator rife governments that are the middle east today. Are you forgetting the entire cold war, in which the soviet union poured billions of dollars into communist and socialist aligned regimes in the middle east?
Please get some books and reread the history of the middle east. Particularily the movements of socialist and communist parties. Hell, there are communists in Iraq. What do you think Baathism is?!?!!
AP,
steve, numbers alone don’t tell the story. North Korea, for example, can only sustain operations for about five days - and none of them would be able to establish more than temporary local air superiority, and none can project power anywhere on the globe like we can.The US spends more on our military than every other country in the world combined. It’s the best.
It warms my heart to hear you say that. No really, it does.
David,
if we spent 2/3 that amount equally split between defense and offense (as in securing our borders for example on the defensive side of the equation), we would all be a whole lot better off, and still be the best military in the world.Think of how many 10’s of billions of dollars we would have saved had we secure borders on Sept. 10, 2001 which prevented 9/11 from ever occuring, not to mention lives.
I’m not sure that any amount of border guards would have prevented 9/11. Mohammed Atta came here with a valid visa.
Posted by: esimonson at August 27, 2005 03:39 AMSorry eric, you obviously haven’t visited a dictionary recently on forms of government. Socialism is not not aristcracic monarchy. Just to bring you up to date on the Middle East, those countries are not under British rule anymore and haven’t been for many, many decades. They threw socialism out with the British. They are more feudal than anything else.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 27, 2005 05:19 AMeric, if we had secure borders, would he have obtained a visa so easily? I doubt it. I said “secure” borders. Meaning demonstrated valid purpose for being here, and being tracked down when the visa expires. That’s secure borders. Your party seems to have little interest in the concept or their Constitutionally defined role to protect and defend these United States and its inhabitants.
Your party thinks it is more important to protect Iraq citizens than US citizens. Nothing could be clearer from your party’s actions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 27, 2005 05:23 AMAldous,
Once again you forget or fail to mention America’s role in creating these “Terrorists”. Once again, the Right forget their History.1. The Fundamentalist Iranian Government today was a direct result of America’s installation of the Shaa.
2. The Taliban was created because the US never bothered to help Afghanistan after Russia withdrew.
3. Saddam Hussien became President with the help of America.
4. During the Cold War, America was rumored to have killed Union Leaders and others in the area.
5. America allowed Israel to create nukes.
6. America supported despotic regimes including Saddam’s Iraq.
If all the above is as strictly true as you have written it, then wouldn’t it be our responsibility to ‘make amends’ and try to undo the dictatorships and tyranny existing in the middle east? If, as you say, we created it, isn’t it our responsibility to uncreate it?
Though there is a kernel of truth in some of the above claims, they are not strictly true. Certainly, the leftist conclusion you arrive at with them is the most untrue. Let’s see…
1. The Fundamentalist Iranian Government today was a direct result of America’s installation of the Shaa.
Wasn’t the Shah already the ruler of Iran?
Until 1953, the United States mostly stayed on the sidelines, advocating for an independent Iran under the leadership of the young king, Reza Shah Pahlavi. But that year, fearing that charismatic prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh might be moving Iran closer to Moscow, the CIA directed an operation to oust him and consolidate power under the Shah. pbs.org
And wasn’t it our far-leftist former democratic president, Jimmy Carter’s incompetence ten years later that led to the Shah’s downfall?
President Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him “an island of stability” in the troubled Middle East. What the president also knew, but chose to ignore, was that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to his government mounted, he had allowed his secret police, SAVAK, to crack down on dissenters, fueling still more resentment. Within weeks of Carter’s visit, a series of protests broke out in the religious city of Qom, denouncing the Shah’s regime as “anti-Islamic.” The popular movement against the Shah grew until January 16, 1979, when he fled to Egypt. Two weeks later, thousands of Muslims cheered Khomeini’s return to Iran after fourteen years in exile.Did the Carter administration “lose” Iran, as some have suggested? Gaddis Smith might have put it best: “President Carter inherited an impossible situation — and he and his advisers made the worst of it.” Carter seemed to have a hard time deciding whether to heed the advice of his aggressive national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted to encourage the Shah to brutally suppress the revolution, or that of his more cautious State Department, which suggested Carter reach out to opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. In the end he did neither, and suffered the consequences.
Sounds like he did alot of, ‘reacting to enemies’ to me. Which is what ‘reacting to your enemies’ means: losing the initiative. In this case Carter did it by not taking action.
Deciding military action was too risky, Carter tried to build pressure on Iran through economic sanctions, and froze its assets in the U.S. While Secretary of State Cyrus Vance led the official diplomatic effort, Hamilton Jordan spent thousands of hours working secret channels. For the first few months, the American public rallied around Carter, who had clearly made freeing the hostages his number one priority. “Having a crisis, where you have to stay in Washington and deal with this crisis all the time, and be a statesman, can work to your advantage — rally around the president in a crisis,” says political scientist Betty Glad. “What Carter didn’t foresee is, this enormous investment means you have to have a resolution to the issue.”
Yes, you may have a point there about America causing the Iran to be a fundamentalist regime. Let’s pray we never have a President like Jimmy Carter again.
2. The Taliban was created because the US never bothered to help Afghanistan after Russia withdrew.
Let’s see, here again we have a situation where our inaction resulted in bad things happening. America followed the advice of those who said we shouldn’t be involved. We did not create the Taliban, but we refused to stay and follow through. You really should get some books on this. The people most against invading Iraq are some of the same people who gave the wrong advice here.
3. Saddam Hussien became President with the help of America.
Didn’t Saddam come into power in 1979? Why did we ever elect that man?
4. During the Cold War, America was rumored to have killed Union Leaders and others in the area.
Rumored.
5. America allowed Israel to create nukes.
And? Your point being that Israel can’t be trusted? I’m not sure what that means.
6. America supported despotic regimes including Saddam’s Iraq.
Supported, against another more deadly enemy. That’s called diplomacy last time I checked. The same kind of diplomacy that says, “so what if Saddam kills hundreds of thousands of his own people, he’s ‘contained’.” Just keep the sanctions on etc. no need to worry about those people. They can rise up if they really wanted to after all.
Burt,
There is a large flaw in your criticism. The problem isn’t that we aren’t going after every corrupt regime. The problem is that we are supporting dictatorships and calling them our “allies” in the “war on terror”.How in the world do you make the case that Iraq was more dangerous than Pakistan? But Pakistan is our 2nd biggest ally against terrorism? As I’ve said before, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
That’s part of my point. I am not making the case that Iraq was more dangerous than Pakistan. But certainly Saddam Hussein was more dangerous than Mushareff. Your example is interesting because in Pakistan’s case it is not the government that is the major source of danger, but the people themselves. Or do you put Mushareff on the same level as Saddam?
Here you have a country where a ‘moderate’ general has taken power in order to prevent a Taliban-like radical government from taking over and you propose to what? Certainly you don’t mean that we should invade? Or are you criticising the Bush Administration for not going to war Pakistan? Bush is using political pressure and diplomacy… how dare he?
I simply don’t understand your reasoning here. What is your alternative?
Posted by: ericsimonson at August 29, 2005 04:28 PMDavid,
Sorry eric, you obviously haven’t visited a dictionary recently on forms of government. Socialism is not not aristcracic monarchy. Just to bring you up to date on the Middle East, those countries are not under British rule anymore and haven’t been for many, many decades. They threw socialism out with the British. They are more feudal than anything else.
I’m not sure if you noticed, but socialism is essentially an aristocratic monarchy. Just because they call themselves, ‘servants of the people’ doesn’t mean they don’t rule with the same privileges and power. I’m surprised you have such a blind spot for socialism. Well, actually I’m not surprised.
Socialism is essentially fuedalism. Read your history and think about it. The socialism you think you believe in never existed. It will never exist because it is a fantasy. Each and every time socialism requires a cadre of ‘enlightened’ folks to steer the ship of state. Someone always ends up wielding that collective power David. Always.
eric, if we had secure borders, would he have obtained a visa so easily? I doubt it. I said “secure” borders. Meaning demonstrated valid purpose for being here, and being tracked down when the visa expires. That’s secure borders. Your party seems to have little interest in the concept or their Constitutionally defined role to protect and defend these United States and its inhabitants.Your party thinks it is more important to protect Iraq citizens than US citizens. Nothing could be clearer from your party’s actions.
Hey, I agree that our borders need more security. We should be taking fingerprints and blood/dna samples from everyone coming into America. As for valid purposes, what would that be limited to exactly in your mind?
Posted by: ericsimonson at August 29, 2005 04:38 PMeric, your lack of knowledge of the terminology and defintions are still getting in your way.
You are confusing Communism with Socialism. Socialism is an economic doctrine which dictates that all who work in the society are entitled to an equal share of the rewards of that society. That includes those who lead the society, they have a job, no more equal than the fireman or baker.
Communism dictates a leadership elite based on philosophical principles dating back to Plato and his hierarchy of ordered society with philosoher kings as rulers. Feudalism is akin in this manner and makes no pretense that all workers are entitled to equal share. Feudalism dictates those who service the manor receive favored treatment according the value of their service determined by the manor, and those that don’t get nothing.
It’s too bad you keep stumbling through this.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2005 06:24 PM
