Saturday, October 29, 2005
No Reason, but Hate
Kevin at The Command TOC posted one of his typically aggravating posts, railing on about the liar Bush, and distorting both recent history, and the arguments that undergird our liberation of Iraq, and our Global War on Terror more generally.
In response to a commenter Wildmonk who attempts to reason with him, Kevin resorts to the tired riposte, "Why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia?"
Every time somelike like Kevin makes this rebuttal argument, they underscore the point of "Why Iraq?"
In the geopolitical realities that faced the Bush Administration, the choices made have been entirely rational and logical. Attempts to derive ulterior motivations, while some may find them emotionally satisfying, reveal more about biases than actually realistically describe the likely points of decision since 9/11.
Immediately following 9/11, going after the Taliban in Afghanistan as the state sponsor and harborer of terrorist organizations, their leaders and training camps, was about as obvious and necessary a step as one could imagine. I don't know if Kevin was blogging then, I certainly wasn't nor reading any, but I was following many of the politicians and commentators often supported by those opposed to the war, who were entirely against our invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps Kevin supported that, perhaps he didn't; but Bin Laden and such of his ilk were devastated by our assault, Bin Laden barely escaped, and has been on the run ever since, if he's even alive.
Subsequent to Afghanistan, the US still faced a very hostile world, despite the faux and short-lived sympathy for 9/11, and a world full of state sponsors of terrorism, both those of the institutional variety -- Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq -- and ones more unofficially supportive, such as Saudi Arabia. Plus, many countries in Asia, the Middle East specifically, and Africa, knowingly tolerated radical Islamic terrorist organizations harbored in their midst (also including Iraq).
Attack them all at once? A recipe for disaster, surely, and those are disingenuous at best who even hint that they would have been supportive of anything remotely like it. Attack Saudi Arabia? Isn't that insane? Look at the hostile reaction to our effort in Iraq, and for most Arab states, Saddam was as much enemy as we were, no love lost there. Invade the home of Mecca and Medina? That would be a declaration of war against the entire muslim world.
Rather than inflame Muslims the world over, how about going after a select country or countries, who contribute to the overall terrorist effort, maybe are striving for nuclear weapons, mistrusted and hated within the region, a conduit for terrorist training, support, etc. How about making an example of a country that fits that description?
And oh by the way, how about finding a country that is in open violation of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, which could be used as tipping points to either force cooperation (to thus neutralize the threat), or provide a justification for war, that a significant number of countries would be willing to join a coalition to conduct?
Not at all illogical, not a bit immoral. Practical, perhaps a bit cold blooded for some tastes, but how much less cold blooded than the heinous acts perpetrated against us (and aided, abetted, and cheered by such as the Palestinians and Saddam Hussein)?
The commenter Wildmonk has Kevin dead to rights. Bush "lied" only if everyone from the UN, NATO, European Leaders, all of Congress, Kerry, and of course Clinton lied as well. You've seen the quotes, I'm sure. About the menace posed by Saddam. The need to effect regime change.
There is no reasoning with such as he; for hatred is their only reason.
(NOTE: I might add, in an earlier post on a "censored MILBLOGGER," he also managed to slander Greyhawk and I, and suggest that our declarations that MILBLOGS are not being censored, nor shut down because they oppose our efforts in Iraq. Since the site he references is no longer online, I can't really comment specifically on his poster child for the censored MILBLOG. I would maintain skepticism, though, as the young man he highlights misstates several key facts about enlistment contracts and STOP LOSS policies. But that is another post, and another story.)
Links: Jo's Cafe, Wizbang, bRight & Early, Mudville Gazette
In response to a commenter Wildmonk who attempts to reason with him, Kevin resorts to the tired riposte, "Why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia?"
Every time somelike like Kevin makes this rebuttal argument, they underscore the point of "Why Iraq?"
In the geopolitical realities that faced the Bush Administration, the choices made have been entirely rational and logical. Attempts to derive ulterior motivations, while some may find them emotionally satisfying, reveal more about biases than actually realistically describe the likely points of decision since 9/11.
Immediately following 9/11, going after the Taliban in Afghanistan as the state sponsor and harborer of terrorist organizations, their leaders and training camps, was about as obvious and necessary a step as one could imagine. I don't know if Kevin was blogging then, I certainly wasn't nor reading any, but I was following many of the politicians and commentators often supported by those opposed to the war, who were entirely against our invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps Kevin supported that, perhaps he didn't; but Bin Laden and such of his ilk were devastated by our assault, Bin Laden barely escaped, and has been on the run ever since, if he's even alive.
Subsequent to Afghanistan, the US still faced a very hostile world, despite the faux and short-lived sympathy for 9/11, and a world full of state sponsors of terrorism, both those of the institutional variety -- Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq -- and ones more unofficially supportive, such as Saudi Arabia. Plus, many countries in Asia, the Middle East specifically, and Africa, knowingly tolerated radical Islamic terrorist organizations harbored in their midst (also including Iraq).
Attack them all at once? A recipe for disaster, surely, and those are disingenuous at best who even hint that they would have been supportive of anything remotely like it. Attack Saudi Arabia? Isn't that insane? Look at the hostile reaction to our effort in Iraq, and for most Arab states, Saddam was as much enemy as we were, no love lost there. Invade the home of Mecca and Medina? That would be a declaration of war against the entire muslim world.
Rather than inflame Muslims the world over, how about going after a select country or countries, who contribute to the overall terrorist effort, maybe are striving for nuclear weapons, mistrusted and hated within the region, a conduit for terrorist training, support, etc. How about making an example of a country that fits that description?
And oh by the way, how about finding a country that is in open violation of multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, which could be used as tipping points to either force cooperation (to thus neutralize the threat), or provide a justification for war, that a significant number of countries would be willing to join a coalition to conduct?
Not at all illogical, not a bit immoral. Practical, perhaps a bit cold blooded for some tastes, but how much less cold blooded than the heinous acts perpetrated against us (and aided, abetted, and cheered by such as the Palestinians and Saddam Hussein)?
The commenter Wildmonk has Kevin dead to rights. Bush "lied" only if everyone from the UN, NATO, European Leaders, all of Congress, Kerry, and of course Clinton lied as well. You've seen the quotes, I'm sure. About the menace posed by Saddam. The need to effect regime change.
There is no reasoning with such as he; for hatred is their only reason.
(NOTE: I might add, in an earlier post on a "censored MILBLOGGER," he also managed to slander Greyhawk and I, and suggest that our declarations that MILBLOGS are not being censored, nor shut down because they oppose our efforts in Iraq. Since the site he references is no longer online, I can't really comment specifically on his poster child for the censored MILBLOG. I would maintain skepticism, though, as the young man he highlights misstates several key facts about enlistment contracts and STOP LOSS policies. But that is another post, and another story.)
Links: Jo's Cafe, Wizbang, bRight & Early, Mudville Gazette
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Ack! Why not Saudi Arabia?
I had this conversation just the other day... imagine an Irish accent, if you will... oh, and a campfire under New Mexico skies, sand, acacia bushes and the occasional bark of a coyote. (conversation paraphrased as true to content as I can make it)
Irish guy:
"You Americans, you're missing the fact that your real enemy is Saudi Arabia. But your president, he's all buddy buddy with Saudi. Iraq was nothing. Saddam only had control of 1/3 of his own country. What could he do? The enemy is radical wahabism."
(Pause while I explain, badly, to the third person at the fire what wahabism is)
us:
"We can't attack Saudi."
"Saudi is a mess."
"Yeah, the whole country is messed up by oil money... young men can't get a wife if they have a job... how messed up is that?"
"Bin Laden is Saudi."
"Yeah."
Irish guy:
"And your president is friends with these people."
us:
(negative murmurs)
Irish guy:
(general incredulousness)
us:
"Gaah... we can't... you know... attack Saudi."
"Of course the US acts friendly. That doesn't mean that we don't see the threat."
"Have to go back door... use the back door."
"Can't act directly."
"Yeah."
"That's why, you know, Iraq."
Irish guy:
(something about other threats, or where next, or something shifting attention away from Saudi)
us... talking on top of each other:
"Indonesia."
"Indonesia."
(I look at the other guy, surprised... thought I was the only one who put Indonesia on top of the list.)
The conversation was, actually, a whole lot of fun.
Still... it just seems so *obvious* that we can't (though perhaps it's okay if they think we think we could) attack Saudi. It's sort of like asking why the sky is blue or something.
I had this conversation just the other day... imagine an Irish accent, if you will... oh, and a campfire under New Mexico skies, sand, acacia bushes and the occasional bark of a coyote. (conversation paraphrased as true to content as I can make it)
Irish guy:
"You Americans, you're missing the fact that your real enemy is Saudi Arabia. But your president, he's all buddy buddy with Saudi. Iraq was nothing. Saddam only had control of 1/3 of his own country. What could he do? The enemy is radical wahabism."
(Pause while I explain, badly, to the third person at the fire what wahabism is)
us:
"We can't attack Saudi."
"Saudi is a mess."
"Yeah, the whole country is messed up by oil money... young men can't get a wife if they have a job... how messed up is that?"
"Bin Laden is Saudi."
"Yeah."
Irish guy:
"And your president is friends with these people."
us:
(negative murmurs)
Irish guy:
(general incredulousness)
us:
"Gaah... we can't... you know... attack Saudi."
"Of course the US acts friendly. That doesn't mean that we don't see the threat."
"Have to go back door... use the back door."
"Can't act directly."
"Yeah."
"That's why, you know, Iraq."
Irish guy:
(something about other threats, or where next, or something shifting attention away from Saudi)
us... talking on top of each other:
"Indonesia."
"Indonesia."
(I look at the other guy, surprised... thought I was the only one who put Indonesia on top of the list.)
The conversation was, actually, a whole lot of fun.
Still... it just seems so *obvious* that we can't (though perhaps it's okay if they think we think we could) attack Saudi. It's sort of like asking why the sky is blue or something.
Here are some answers for you:
1. I absolutely agreed with our action in Afghanistan and perhaps if we had not diverted to an idiotic war like Iraq, we may have Bin Laden by now.
2. I NEVER EVER said to attack all those Countries at once. You have fabricated that and then argued against it. Fills space on your blog but next time, just argue against what I say not what you wished I would say.
3. Attack Saudi? Maybe not but why not put our efforts against those Countries which actually had something to do with 9/11? Afghanistan was one and we took care of that. Saudi was a second and as far as I can tell, all we did is continue to pump inflated oil revenue their way.
4. There is very little evidence to support anything other than Hussein being a side show in the terrorism of the world. If his payments to Hamas, for example, are evidence of his involvement in terrorism then what was our support of Saddam during the Reagan administration a symbol of? What about our support of the Saudi royal family which is by far one of the most ruthless regimes in the world today?
5. Bush clearly lied and the indictments are starting to fly. Yellow cake from Niger? An absolute fabrication by the President and his cronies. More to follow, as Drudge says, developing.... It was many years before we found out how we were deceived in Vietnam but, this too came out.
6. Your overall implication in your post is that "We had to attack someone so it might as well have been Iraq". Well, it may make you emotionally feel great to kill people who you think are responsible for bad in the world but what makes you feel good is not what we make national policy on.
Bush did lie, soldiers are dying, the Country is a mess, his top aides are getting indicted, the world is fundamentally against us, and by Bush's own admission we are no safer now than we were in 2001. Further, the actions with Katrina and Wilma show that our emergency management under Bush is a mess.
He should resign. Simple as that.
7. By the Army's own admission, your blog entries must be reviewed and ultimately they can make you retract what they want. That is censorship.
1. I absolutely agreed with our action in Afghanistan and perhaps if we had not diverted to an idiotic war like Iraq, we may have Bin Laden by now.
2. I NEVER EVER said to attack all those Countries at once. You have fabricated that and then argued against it. Fills space on your blog but next time, just argue against what I say not what you wished I would say.
3. Attack Saudi? Maybe not but why not put our efforts against those Countries which actually had something to do with 9/11? Afghanistan was one and we took care of that. Saudi was a second and as far as I can tell, all we did is continue to pump inflated oil revenue their way.
4. There is very little evidence to support anything other than Hussein being a side show in the terrorism of the world. If his payments to Hamas, for example, are evidence of his involvement in terrorism then what was our support of Saddam during the Reagan administration a symbol of? What about our support of the Saudi royal family which is by far one of the most ruthless regimes in the world today?
5. Bush clearly lied and the indictments are starting to fly. Yellow cake from Niger? An absolute fabrication by the President and his cronies. More to follow, as Drudge says, developing.... It was many years before we found out how we were deceived in Vietnam but, this too came out.
6. Your overall implication in your post is that "We had to attack someone so it might as well have been Iraq". Well, it may make you emotionally feel great to kill people who you think are responsible for bad in the world but what makes you feel good is not what we make national policy on.
Bush did lie, soldiers are dying, the Country is a mess, his top aides are getting indicted, the world is fundamentally against us, and by Bush's own admission we are no safer now than we were in 2001. Further, the actions with Katrina and Wilma show that our emergency management under Bush is a mess.
He should resign. Simple as that.
7. By the Army's own admission, your blog entries must be reviewed and ultimately they can make you retract what they want. That is censorship.
1. We'd only have had Bin Laden if we ignored Pakistani sovereignty. Bin Laden has been made irrelevant even if alive. That's good enough for people who understand all the ways that this is not a police action. It's war. It's a matter of State, not law enforcement.
3. We were not attacked by countries. We were not attacked by Saudi Arabia. We weren't even attacked by Afghanistan. A country did not attack us. NO country attacked us.
We're not at war with a country, we're at war with an idea. And in that sense...
6. ... it may as well have been Iraq. Iraq presents the best chance we have to combat that idea. The only "feeling good" involved in Iraq is giving them the opportunity for democracy, justice, and freedom.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not a euphemistic public relations ploy... it's the point.
3. We were not attacked by countries. We were not attacked by Saudi Arabia. We weren't even attacked by Afghanistan. A country did not attack us. NO country attacked us.
We're not at war with a country, we're at war with an idea. And in that sense...
6. ... it may as well have been Iraq. Iraq presents the best chance we have to combat that idea. The only "feeling good" involved in Iraq is giving them the opportunity for democracy, justice, and freedom.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not a euphemistic public relations ploy... it's the point.
What idea is it that we are at war with? PLease do not say we are at war with the idea of dictatorship, heck, we support most of them when they are doing our billing. Islam? Are we are war with a religion?
Saudi might have well attacked us. They financed it, they trained the people (9 of them), They tacitly supported the madrassas which taught this. What else must a government do to be "supporting"?
Since when is Bush concerned about invading the sovereignty of another Country. Guess what he did? He invaded the sovereignty of Iraq! If Bin Laden was being harbored in Pakistan then I would be far more inclined to invade that sovereignty v. Iraqs.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is a name designed by the best of the madison ave types. This has nothing to do with "Iraqi Freedom" as evidenced by our tacit and sometimes outright support of ruthless regimes around the World.
BTW, isn't it interesting that the crime Saddam is being tried for was committed during a time the US was in FULL SUPPORT of him. Rumsfeld was over there kissing him on the cheek and Reagan was shipping weapons to him like a drunken sailor.
Saudi might have well attacked us. They financed it, they trained the people (9 of them), They tacitly supported the madrassas which taught this. What else must a government do to be "supporting"?
Since when is Bush concerned about invading the sovereignty of another Country. Guess what he did? He invaded the sovereignty of Iraq! If Bin Laden was being harbored in Pakistan then I would be far more inclined to invade that sovereignty v. Iraqs.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is a name designed by the best of the madison ave types. This has nothing to do with "Iraqi Freedom" as evidenced by our tacit and sometimes outright support of ruthless regimes around the World.
BTW, isn't it interesting that the crime Saddam is being tried for was committed during a time the US was in FULL SUPPORT of him. Rumsfeld was over there kissing him on the cheek and Reagan was shipping weapons to him like a drunken sailor.
Kevin simply needs to grow up, that is mature. Don't worry Kevin maturing is a lot like puberty, but without the acne. You'll be fine.
Let's take it point by point:
1. BFD, you supported afganistan, so what? Does that confer some sort of moral authority on you? Hardly.
2. Uh, kevin, this is Dadmanly's blog and not everything written on it is about Kevin. The author was speaking rhetorically, sorry if that's too obvious for you to grasp.
3. Did you miss the point on purpose or are you simply to dense to see it? Christopher Hitchens points out that while the madmen who did 9/11 were saudis they were NOT acting on behalf of the Saudi government. hello, hello, Kevin, are you in there?
4. Again, kevin, you missed the point. We can argue all day long about Saddam's support for terrorism, that won't change the fact that you are anti war (read pro defeat) and wouldn't understand strategy if it shit on your shoes.
5.What lies? What indictments? Like the rest of the slavering left you've counted these chickens well before they've hatched. Two frickin years to indict a guy from the Veep's staff? Puhleeeze, the left will struggle to make something out of this, but you'll try no doubt.
6. No Kevin, you're the one injecting emotion into this. Attacking Iraq made complete sense from a strategic POV, but again, refer to my rebuttal to 4. Your bush lied stuff is just silly college campus nonsense. Again, I certainly hope that maturity sets in for you one day. In the meantime, let the adults make the hard choices, OK?
7. Kevin if you have a problem will milblogs may I suggest that you stop reading them? Ever heard of OPSEC Kevin? I kinda doubt it
Let's take it point by point:
1. BFD, you supported afganistan, so what? Does that confer some sort of moral authority on you? Hardly.
2. Uh, kevin, this is Dadmanly's blog and not everything written on it is about Kevin. The author was speaking rhetorically, sorry if that's too obvious for you to grasp.
3. Did you miss the point on purpose or are you simply to dense to see it? Christopher Hitchens points out that while the madmen who did 9/11 were saudis they were NOT acting on behalf of the Saudi government. hello, hello, Kevin, are you in there?
4. Again, kevin, you missed the point. We can argue all day long about Saddam's support for terrorism, that won't change the fact that you are anti war (read pro defeat) and wouldn't understand strategy if it shit on your shoes.
5.What lies? What indictments? Like the rest of the slavering left you've counted these chickens well before they've hatched. Two frickin years to indict a guy from the Veep's staff? Puhleeeze, the left will struggle to make something out of this, but you'll try no doubt.
6. No Kevin, you're the one injecting emotion into this. Attacking Iraq made complete sense from a strategic POV, but again, refer to my rebuttal to 4. Your bush lied stuff is just silly college campus nonsense. Again, I certainly hope that maturity sets in for you one day. In the meantime, let the adults make the hard choices, OK?
7. Kevin if you have a problem will milblogs may I suggest that you stop reading them? Ever heard of OPSEC Kevin? I kinda doubt it
# posted by 
: 10:41 AM
: 10:41 AM
Now I'd like to respond to Kevin's second post regarding the nature of our enemy.
Once again, Kevin relies on the trite statements made by thoughtless leftists on college campuses.
Essentially what Kevin proposes is that we forever ignore a dictatorship because once upon a time we supported some dictators. What Kevin demands is that the US be consistenly BAD rather than inconsistently good.
It's a stupid argument that Kevin makes because it not only has no bearing on the current situation it clearly demonstrates a lack of a mature vision of the world as it is.
Kevin is just using the return of the Son of Jimmy Carter approach to foreign affairs. He seems to be saying that America, because it chose iraq over iran in a war, has forfeited all moral right to subsequently take out Saddam. That's just silly, and shows a complete lack of understanding of history or statecraft.
I am certain that within the circles that kevin travels he encounters all manner of people who think as he does, but out here in the grown up world thoughtful people have to make tough choices. I for one am glad that these thoughtful people routinely ignore Kevin and his ilk.
Once again, Kevin relies on the trite statements made by thoughtless leftists on college campuses.
Essentially what Kevin proposes is that we forever ignore a dictatorship because once upon a time we supported some dictators. What Kevin demands is that the US be consistenly BAD rather than inconsistently good.
It's a stupid argument that Kevin makes because it not only has no bearing on the current situation it clearly demonstrates a lack of a mature vision of the world as it is.
Kevin is just using the return of the Son of Jimmy Carter approach to foreign affairs. He seems to be saying that America, because it chose iraq over iran in a war, has forfeited all moral right to subsequently take out Saddam. That's just silly, and shows a complete lack of understanding of history or statecraft.
I am certain that within the circles that kevin travels he encounters all manner of people who think as he does, but out here in the grown up world thoughtful people have to make tough choices. I for one am glad that these thoughtful people routinely ignore Kevin and his ilk.
# posted by : 10:48 AM
: 10:48 AM
Normally, or at least Historically, wars were either civil... within the borders of a country, or else they were waged across borders with other countries. Communism, as an idea, expressed itself as civil wars, usually. Sometimes it was international wars. Geurillas focused on overthrowing the governments of their own country. When we fought in WW2 we fought the governments of Germany, of Japan, of Italy. When the government was made to surrender that was that.
Technology and everything involved with it has changed the world. Communications, the ability to travel. All those things. Are we at war with Islam? No. We're not. We're at war with the "idea" represented by Al Qaida (though I wouldn't go so far as to *limit* it to them) and that idea is that *everyone* should follow their strict religious rules and then the world will be wonderful. God will be pleased. It is a Holy calling.
This appeals to idle young men in search of a purpose for their lives... be it the wealthy younger sons in extended Saudi families, or the 25% unemployed in Europe (idle hands truely are the devil's tools).
The wealthy can be just as hopeless as the poor and just as enamoured of a grand and glorious cause.
In this situation the religious fanatics do very well indeed.
Is that Islam? I don't think it is. Not any more-so than the KKK is Christian (and they claim to be.)
I'm not even sure I'd call Iraq a strategy... I'm a bit tempted to think of it as a tactic. But since I'm not an expert on the difference, I won't insist.
Technology and everything involved with it has changed the world. Communications, the ability to travel. All those things. Are we at war with Islam? No. We're not. We're at war with the "idea" represented by Al Qaida (though I wouldn't go so far as to *limit* it to them) and that idea is that *everyone* should follow their strict religious rules and then the world will be wonderful. God will be pleased. It is a Holy calling.
This appeals to idle young men in search of a purpose for their lives... be it the wealthy younger sons in extended Saudi families, or the 25% unemployed in Europe (idle hands truely are the devil's tools).
The wealthy can be just as hopeless as the poor and just as enamoured of a grand and glorious cause.
In this situation the religious fanatics do very well indeed.
Is that Islam? I don't think it is. Not any more-so than the KKK is Christian (and they claim to be.)
I'm not even sure I'd call Iraq a strategy... I'm a bit tempted to think of it as a tactic. But since I'm not an expert on the difference, I won't insist.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom is a name designed by the best of the madison ave types. This has nothing to do with "Iraqi Freedom" as evidenced by our tacit and sometimes outright support of ruthless regimes around the World."
Our tacit and outright support of ruthless regimes around the world has got to END.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is something new. Are we allowed, Kevin, to learn from our mistakes? I sure hope so! Do you *approve* of our support of tyrants in the past? Are you claiming that we ought to continue? Are you?
Supporting tyrants in the name of stability was immoral even in a geographically isolated world when it more-or-less worked. But now, when the world isn't geographically isolated any longer we reap the logical consequences of our policy.
And we ought to continue?
There's limits to what we can do... such as the need to keep open relations with various tyrants and royal families. But our president has made it clear that we will support liberty. No more propping up of dictators... even if we don't topple them ourselves. The anti-democratic governments of several countries have softened in the face of pressure from their citizens, particularly in the middle east. It is just a little progress, but in the proper direction.
Even in Saudi there's progress because not even Saudi is isolated from world events. Men and women there know what is happening in the world. Probably the only country that manages to almost totally control the flow of information is North Korea, and that's a full time job for them.
A whole lot will depend on the policies of our next president, whoever that is. For now we can prove that liberty works in Iraq. Not that terrorists there will stop trying to disrupt things, but nothing says we, or the Iraqis, have to let them.
Propping dictators and tyrants was a dismal failure. When something is proven to fail so badly, it's time to do something *else*.
Our tacit and outright support of ruthless regimes around the world has got to END.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is something new. Are we allowed, Kevin, to learn from our mistakes? I sure hope so! Do you *approve* of our support of tyrants in the past? Are you claiming that we ought to continue? Are you?
Supporting tyrants in the name of stability was immoral even in a geographically isolated world when it more-or-less worked. But now, when the world isn't geographically isolated any longer we reap the logical consequences of our policy.
And we ought to continue?
There's limits to what we can do... such as the need to keep open relations with various tyrants and royal families. But our president has made it clear that we will support liberty. No more propping up of dictators... even if we don't topple them ourselves. The anti-democratic governments of several countries have softened in the face of pressure from their citizens, particularly in the middle east. It is just a little progress, but in the proper direction.
Even in Saudi there's progress because not even Saudi is isolated from world events. Men and women there know what is happening in the world. Probably the only country that manages to almost totally control the flow of information is North Korea, and that's a full time job for them.
A whole lot will depend on the policies of our next president, whoever that is. For now we can prove that liberty works in Iraq. Not that terrorists there will stop trying to disrupt things, but nothing says we, or the Iraqis, have to let them.
Propping dictators and tyrants was a dismal failure. When something is proven to fail so badly, it's time to do something *else*.
ManlyDad,
Agree with your whole post. I used these arguments against Kevin some months ago. He remains unconvinced, like a rock or a donkey. And they say W is stubborn?
Subsunk
Agree with your whole post. I used these arguments against Kevin some months ago. He remains unconvinced, like a rock or a donkey. And they say W is stubborn?
Subsunk
There is no having a discussion with Kevin, his view is always correct even when he contradicts himself. Best to ignore his ranting and give him the same consideration as a child.
Dave
Dave
# posted by : 3:14 PM
: 3:14 PM
Right on! Liberals just don't get it.
I hate it when they describe a War on Terror as "idiotic."
Dadmanly, I agree with you completely.
And Kevin--Why not SYRIA next, and then maybe Saudi, followed by... France.
I hate it when they describe a War on Terror as "idiotic."
Dadmanly, I agree with you completely.
And Kevin--Why not SYRIA next, and then maybe Saudi, followed by... France.
# posted by : 11:18 PM
: 11:18 PM
If we HAD invaded Saudi, folks like Kev would be posting extended, pointless "why not Iraq?" screeds in comment sections and nattering on about UN resolutions, the gassing of the Kurds, the attempted assassination of an American President and the fact that Iraq is a WMD threat that supports terrorism. Then Kev would say that invading Saudi Arabia is all about the oil.
Like a bad bearing in your air conditioner, eventually you just tune his kind out.
Like a bad bearing in your air conditioner, eventually you just tune his kind out.
# posted by : 9:20 PM
: 9:20 PM
Why Of course it made sense to attack Iraq after 9/11. It was just like when FDR attacked Brazil after Pearl Harbor.
# posted by : 11:54 PM
: 11:54 PM
I tried to answer the "Why not Saudi Arabia?" question over at my blog, but I'm not sure if my reasoning really suffices.
First of all, let me say that I have a lot of respect for the men who put themself in harms way to defend their country. But this is more a political issue rather than our soldiers being brave or not. Afghanistan was a totally justified war, I think everyone agrees to that. However, you need to look at the facts of Iraq seperately. No connection betweel Al Quaeda and Saddam, no WMDs, and it turns out Saddam had already agreed to go into an exile on his part. All the reasons for going into this war was fabricated - and we impeached Clinton for getting a blowjob...
The one thing that is very scary about Americans is that most of us seem to believe we are smarter than the rest of the world and that people who doesnt join the war-bandwagon are stupid, spineless or uintelligent. Yet, loads of the "Let us invade Iran next" people aren't even able to pinpoint where Iran is on the world map.
Truth is, Americans have a tendency to believe what they're told blindly, to believe we're the best there is, and for those two reasons there's no point thinking on your own. It just doesn't work.
And I'm f*cking sick of people calling me a liberal, softie, anti-american, whatever just because I chose to use my own brains instead of listening to the White house rants. Our reasons to go to war on Iraq were _fabricated_. We know this for a fact, its not a rumour anymore. And we're STILL there. If the mission was to liberate Iraq from Saddam and to restore democracy... Our men would have been home months ago.
The one thing that is very scary about Americans is that most of us seem to believe we are smarter than the rest of the world and that people who doesnt join the war-bandwagon are stupid, spineless or uintelligent. Yet, loads of the "Let us invade Iran next" people aren't even able to pinpoint where Iran is on the world map.
Truth is, Americans have a tendency to believe what they're told blindly, to believe we're the best there is, and for those two reasons there's no point thinking on your own. It just doesn't work.
And I'm f*cking sick of people calling me a liberal, softie, anti-american, whatever just because I chose to use my own brains instead of listening to the White house rants. Our reasons to go to war on Iraq were _fabricated_. We know this for a fact, its not a rumour anymore. And we're STILL there. If the mission was to liberate Iraq from Saddam and to restore democracy... Our men would have been home months ago.
# posted by : 3:56 PM
: 3:56 PM
Democracy in Iraq can't be "restored" because it never ever existed in Iraq. (And you claim the other side can't point to Iran on a map!) If the goal in Iraq was to depose Saddam and *create* a democracy, then, no, our guys would not now be home. They would be right where they are, working to create that democracy, to protect it until it is firm enough to stand without us.
You also make the mistake of equating *your* views with having brains... recognizing what is so obvious that no one could honestly disagree.
BTW, I agree that Americans tend to think they are smarter than *everyone*. I find it annoying. It's actually the basis for the most negative predictions about some supposed Iraqi *inability* to figure out democracy. It's a reflexive looking down upon those people as not as capable as us. People who do it should be ashamed.
You also persist in insisting on looking at the issue of Iraq as *purely* a police action without specifying that you are doing so. You may, of course, disagree that as an element of the larger War on Terror, Iraq should have been undertaken, indeed, Saddam should be in power today (and you can't have it both ways). But to insist that the *only* legitimate context in which to couch the question is one of a response to a proven criminal action is... dense.
You may do so. You may honestly and intelligently have the opinion that the larger picture issues aren't adequate to invade that country. But *please* at least be aware that the larger picture issues exist and that other people can honestly and intelligently disagree with *you*.
You also make the mistake of equating *your* views with having brains... recognizing what is so obvious that no one could honestly disagree.
BTW, I agree that Americans tend to think they are smarter than *everyone*. I find it annoying. It's actually the basis for the most negative predictions about some supposed Iraqi *inability* to figure out democracy. It's a reflexive looking down upon those people as not as capable as us. People who do it should be ashamed.
You also persist in insisting on looking at the issue of Iraq as *purely* a police action without specifying that you are doing so. You may, of course, disagree that as an element of the larger War on Terror, Iraq should have been undertaken, indeed, Saddam should be in power today (and you can't have it both ways). But to insist that the *only* legitimate context in which to couch the question is one of a response to a proven criminal action is... dense.
You may do so. You may honestly and intelligently have the opinion that the larger picture issues aren't adequate to invade that country. But *please* at least be aware that the larger picture issues exist and that other people can honestly and intelligently disagree with *you*.
I guess my only final point to the conservative right wing who are bent on war mongering across the world is this.
Go ahead and do whatever turns your fancy but leave me alone. In other words, don't ask for raises or increased benefits because you are "defending the Country" because you ARE NOT defending the Country. You are off on some wild goose chase for a right wing religious ideology. You, the soldier, are being used as a pawn so that Exxon and Bush's cronies can make billions. If you are OK with that, quite frankly, I am ok with that since the economy allows me to do pretty well too.
But, don't for a second think you are doing anything other than the bidding of a big oil business President.
There are so many inaccuracies in the comments posted here that I will not address them one by one except to say that the Conservative "Blog" mantra is to do the following:
1) Attribute statements to people who never made them. Example, "You leftists always believe...." even though I may never have said that statement.
2) Then you argue against the statement. Which, if you remember, is usually one I didn't make.
3) Then you say, "see, I proved Kevin wrong.. even though it was a statement I never made.
Or, the other thing the Conservative blogsphere does is take things out of of time sequence. So, for example, I am told that my comment of support for Afghanistan is a "so what". But, of course, the reason I made that statement is Dadmanly specifically wondered in his previous post if I supported Afghanistan so I was merely responding.
A few interesting comments:
1) The terrorists of 9/11 were not acting on behalf of Saudi. Wasn't it GWB who said that if you support or harbor terrorists, you are in fact a terrorist Country? We have clear evidence that Saudi supported and harbored them. We have NO evidence that Saddam was anything but a circus side show. That is YOUR President who said that, not me.
2) As for supporting tyrannts. Absolutely it has to stop. But, so does invading sovereign Countries to put our puppets in as well. I further do not believe the hype that we are putting in "any" democracy. We are only doing this to put in "our" democracy. If, for example, the new Government of Iraq turns to Iran in a few years, allies with them, then becomes a dictatorship again. We will NOT do anything about stopping the dictatorship UNLESS it is going to stop our oil. That is a fact. We have never cared, nor do we care now (nor should we care BTW) about the altruistic nature of Democracy v. dictatorship. We ONLY care if it is in violation of our National interest.
3) Why do I come to MILBLOGS when I so vehemently disagree with them? Because unlike most of the right wing fanatics, I like to read opposing views to either understand my view better or learn. The right wing tends to huddle together, watch Fox News and because Fox says so, it must be so. I challenge you to watch/listen to NPR every night. Challenge your views. Listen...
Go ahead and do whatever turns your fancy but leave me alone. In other words, don't ask for raises or increased benefits because you are "defending the Country" because you ARE NOT defending the Country. You are off on some wild goose chase for a right wing religious ideology. You, the soldier, are being used as a pawn so that Exxon and Bush's cronies can make billions. If you are OK with that, quite frankly, I am ok with that since the economy allows me to do pretty well too.
But, don't for a second think you are doing anything other than the bidding of a big oil business President.
There are so many inaccuracies in the comments posted here that I will not address them one by one except to say that the Conservative "Blog" mantra is to do the following:
1) Attribute statements to people who never made them. Example, "You leftists always believe...." even though I may never have said that statement.
2) Then you argue against the statement. Which, if you remember, is usually one I didn't make.
3) Then you say, "see, I proved Kevin wrong.. even though it was a statement I never made.
Or, the other thing the Conservative blogsphere does is take things out of of time sequence. So, for example, I am told that my comment of support for Afghanistan is a "so what". But, of course, the reason I made that statement is Dadmanly specifically wondered in his previous post if I supported Afghanistan so I was merely responding.
A few interesting comments:
1) The terrorists of 9/11 were not acting on behalf of Saudi. Wasn't it GWB who said that if you support or harbor terrorists, you are in fact a terrorist Country? We have clear evidence that Saudi supported and harbored them. We have NO evidence that Saddam was anything but a circus side show. That is YOUR President who said that, not me.
2) As for supporting tyrannts. Absolutely it has to stop. But, so does invading sovereign Countries to put our puppets in as well. I further do not believe the hype that we are putting in "any" democracy. We are only doing this to put in "our" democracy. If, for example, the new Government of Iraq turns to Iran in a few years, allies with them, then becomes a dictatorship again. We will NOT do anything about stopping the dictatorship UNLESS it is going to stop our oil. That is a fact. We have never cared, nor do we care now (nor should we care BTW) about the altruistic nature of Democracy v. dictatorship. We ONLY care if it is in violation of our National interest.
3) Why do I come to MILBLOGS when I so vehemently disagree with them? Because unlike most of the right wing fanatics, I like to read opposing views to either understand my view better or learn. The right wing tends to huddle together, watch Fox News and because Fox says so, it must be so. I challenge you to watch/listen to NPR every night. Challenge your views. Listen...
"That is a fact."
No Kevin, it's not. Your whole last post was a statement of faith.
It depends, wholly, on your World View. Now, the facts on the ground can equally support alternative World Views. Why is it so necessary to believe that yours is self-evidently correct?
Lets start with "puppet government."
This is a statement of faith.
What evidence do you have that, in fact, the US does not intend true Iraqi sovereignty? It's nothing but what you believe in your heart to be true. That's it.
You complain about the "right" setting up things that the "left" does and then arguing against it, but then you make the blanket claim that the "right" does nothing but parrot Fox. Pot, kettle?
Finally, as a libertarian sort, I'm quite fond of self-interest. The "left" (if you will excuse the stereotype) and also most of the "right" don't view self-interest as a Virtue. Altruism is Virtue, and Self-interest is Vice.
Not so. Self-interest is Virtue. It is right and good for nations... all of them, not just ours, to concern themselves with their own best interest. So yes, we'll do what is in our self interest.
What you seem utterly unable to grasp, even as an opposition view point, is that OUR self-interest, our National interest, requires NO puppet governments, and NO propping of dictators. Our selfish self-interest *requires* true liberty and prosperity for other people. It's not just a nice thing to do, or even the right thing to do, it's the positively most selfish thing we can possibly do.
If your reality *requires* puppet governments, with no other possibility... you need a different reality. The one you are in sucks.
No Kevin, it's not. Your whole last post was a statement of faith.
It depends, wholly, on your World View. Now, the facts on the ground can equally support alternative World Views. Why is it so necessary to believe that yours is self-evidently correct?
Lets start with "puppet government."
This is a statement of faith.
What evidence do you have that, in fact, the US does not intend true Iraqi sovereignty? It's nothing but what you believe in your heart to be true. That's it.
You complain about the "right" setting up things that the "left" does and then arguing against it, but then you make the blanket claim that the "right" does nothing but parrot Fox. Pot, kettle?
Finally, as a libertarian sort, I'm quite fond of self-interest. The "left" (if you will excuse the stereotype) and also most of the "right" don't view self-interest as a Virtue. Altruism is Virtue, and Self-interest is Vice.
Not so. Self-interest is Virtue. It is right and good for nations... all of them, not just ours, to concern themselves with their own best interest. So yes, we'll do what is in our self interest.
What you seem utterly unable to grasp, even as an opposition view point, is that OUR self-interest, our National interest, requires NO puppet governments, and NO propping of dictators. Our selfish self-interest *requires* true liberty and prosperity for other people. It's not just a nice thing to do, or even the right thing to do, it's the positively most selfish thing we can possibly do.
If your reality *requires* puppet governments, with no other possibility... you need a different reality. The one you are in sucks.
Synova: I can only go off of the empirical evidence and not the "words" of the right/GB. Do you believe for a minute we would have gone in to "free" the people of Afghanistan if 9/11 did not happen? Do you believe for a minute that we would have gone into Iraq to save the "people" if they had no oil? Do you believe for a minute that we EVER will stop the brutal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia as long as they keep the flow of oil running and Bush is friends with the Royal Family?
If you do believe in those things are you are ignoring 200+ years of history with the US and are saying something has changed dramatically.
The evidence is clear. There are dictatorships all over the world who are far more ruthless to their people than Saddam (North Korea comes to mind) and we do nothing. Why? Because there is no oil so who cares?
As for self interest. You and I agree EXACTLY on this and this is EXACTLY my point. Democracy for democracy's sake around the world is NOT a self interest of the US. While it may be noble, we do not care if Rwanda has a democracy. What we care about is the flow of oil from the Middle East and that, and only that, causes us to be interested.
Final question. Lets assume either the Middle East had no oil or that we suddenly need no oil to run our Country. Do you think for a minute that we would invade a Country to prop up a democracy just to have a democracy? No! We would probably use the "bully pulpit" to say how bad it is but, like in Africa today, we would stand by and watch as genocide continued.
And, BTW, my point is that we should NOT go into Countries just to make them democracies.
If you do believe in those things are you are ignoring 200+ years of history with the US and are saying something has changed dramatically.
The evidence is clear. There are dictatorships all over the world who are far more ruthless to their people than Saddam (North Korea comes to mind) and we do nothing. Why? Because there is no oil so who cares?
As for self interest. You and I agree EXACTLY on this and this is EXACTLY my point. Democracy for democracy's sake around the world is NOT a self interest of the US. While it may be noble, we do not care if Rwanda has a democracy. What we care about is the flow of oil from the Middle East and that, and only that, causes us to be interested.
Final question. Lets assume either the Middle East had no oil or that we suddenly need no oil to run our Country. Do you think for a minute that we would invade a Country to prop up a democracy just to have a democracy? No! We would probably use the "bully pulpit" to say how bad it is but, like in Africa today, we would stand by and watch as genocide continued.
And, BTW, my point is that we should NOT go into Countries just to make them democracies.
Ah, Kevin. You're confusing the solution with the problem.
Democracy is the solution. Not for it's own sake, but to solve the problem.
And that's not oil. Every time you say so you undermine your own arguments. The best way to get oil is to buy it. Anything else is as logical as Dr. Evil gutting his business empire to hold the world for ransom.
Afghanistan would not have been invaded except for 9-11. We could have launched a nice big nuke from somewhere in North Dakota, called it a fair retaliation, and sat back until the radiation died down. It would not have been a solution. We could have (as we did) invaded in a conventional manner, routed the Taliban, and gone home. This still would not have been a solution. It is not democracy for democracy's sake, it's democracy and prosperity for the sake of not having a larger problem to deal with in that country a generation from now.
Saddam probably should have been deposed during Desert Storm but since he wasn't, Iraq *also* would not have been invaded except for 9-11, we'd have continued as we were, fussing about sanctions. Iraq was a matter of opportunity on several levels... pre-existing antagonism, physical location, the need for a cautionary example (don't let your neighbor mess with us because once started we may not stop) and the best chance to succeed in planting the seed to change the nature of the middle east to something we can live with. *Directly* relating Iraq to 9-11. A democracy and prosperity in Afghanistan is nice for *them* but it doesn't help *us* nearly so much as one in Iraq will.
"And, BTW, my point is that we should NOT go into Countries just to make them democracies."
Of course not. But when systematic unrest in a region translates to thousands of Americans dead on our own soil, we need to do something to change the situation. It's not events that create something like Al Qaida, it's systems.
In a sense, those who say that our problems can't be solved with a gun are right. What the gun does is make it possible to do what *is* necessary to solve the problem. Liberty and prosperity, true freedom and self-rule, not imposed puppet governments, are the solution.
Germany after WW1 did not stay defeated. Germany and Japan, after WW2 *did*.
I can look at history, too. The lessons are there to be learned. I happen to think that we *have* learned some of them.
Democracy is the solution. Not for it's own sake, but to solve the problem.
And that's not oil. Every time you say so you undermine your own arguments. The best way to get oil is to buy it. Anything else is as logical as Dr. Evil gutting his business empire to hold the world for ransom.
Afghanistan would not have been invaded except for 9-11. We could have launched a nice big nuke from somewhere in North Dakota, called it a fair retaliation, and sat back until the radiation died down. It would not have been a solution. We could have (as we did) invaded in a conventional manner, routed the Taliban, and gone home. This still would not have been a solution. It is not democracy for democracy's sake, it's democracy and prosperity for the sake of not having a larger problem to deal with in that country a generation from now.
Saddam probably should have been deposed during Desert Storm but since he wasn't, Iraq *also* would not have been invaded except for 9-11, we'd have continued as we were, fussing about sanctions. Iraq was a matter of opportunity on several levels... pre-existing antagonism, physical location, the need for a cautionary example (don't let your neighbor mess with us because once started we may not stop) and the best chance to succeed in planting the seed to change the nature of the middle east to something we can live with. *Directly* relating Iraq to 9-11. A democracy and prosperity in Afghanistan is nice for *them* but it doesn't help *us* nearly so much as one in Iraq will.
"And, BTW, my point is that we should NOT go into Countries just to make them democracies."
Of course not. But when systematic unrest in a region translates to thousands of Americans dead on our own soil, we need to do something to change the situation. It's not events that create something like Al Qaida, it's systems.
In a sense, those who say that our problems can't be solved with a gun are right. What the gun does is make it possible to do what *is* necessary to solve the problem. Liberty and prosperity, true freedom and self-rule, not imposed puppet governments, are the solution.
Germany after WW1 did not stay defeated. Germany and Japan, after WW2 *did*.
I can look at history, too. The lessons are there to be learned. I happen to think that we *have* learned some of them.
This would have been an excellent topic for Debate Space. Maybe when DM is finished with his rotation home.
By the way, long list of other countries that should have been invaded before Iraq no matter what measuring stick one uses.
DM, when you're back, run this or something else on Debate Space :P
BW
By the way, long list of other countries that should have been invaded before Iraq no matter what measuring stick one uses.
DM, when you're back, run this or something else on Debate Space :P
BW
Oh incidently Synova: "Germany after WW1 did not stay defeated. Germany and Japan, after WW2 *did*. "
Germany was a full constitutional democracy after WW1. In fact, aside from a little dodgy behaviour by the Nazis in the mid 30s (assuming as is most likely they burned the Reichstag), even Hitler himself was democractically elected as leader in co-alition governments in 1930 and 1933.
The Germany of World War 1 was fully defeated after WW1. The Kaiser was gone, the goverment democratic, etc. Most scholars point to the overbearing aspects of the Versailles Treaty (especially economic), the global economic depression, the rise of Fascism as a response to Communism supported and endorsed by many conservatives of the time and many governments; and of course the remarkably effective, charismatic and ultimately ruthless leadership of the little man with the mustache.
The main difference after WW2 was the prolonged occupation of Germany (decades) combined with a really stupendously huge amount of money spent to ENSURE that the "prosperity" you speak of actually happened. After WW1 Germany was left essentially unoccupied (except for lands granted to other nations as their territory) and was left with huge *debts* rather than huge amounts of economic aid.
Judging from how little of the money promised for the Afghan reconstruction has actually been delivered (not just by the US, but by many countries who pledged large sums and then seem to have lost their chequebooks) I sincerly doubt the bill for building Iraq to economic prosperity, to be the economic envy of its neighbours as West Germany was by the late 60s and ever since, will be paid.
GWB spends a lot of air yipping about freedom and liberty and such, but if you're poor and see no likelihood of prosperity in the near future you're quite willing to trade some or even most of your freedoms for security and/or the promise of prosperity, as German voters did in 1930 and 1933.
Germany was a full constitutional democracy after WW1. In fact, aside from a little dodgy behaviour by the Nazis in the mid 30s (assuming as is most likely they burned the Reichstag), even Hitler himself was democractically elected as leader in co-alition governments in 1930 and 1933.
The Germany of World War 1 was fully defeated after WW1. The Kaiser was gone, the goverment democratic, etc. Most scholars point to the overbearing aspects of the Versailles Treaty (especially economic), the global economic depression, the rise of Fascism as a response to Communism supported and endorsed by many conservatives of the time and many governments; and of course the remarkably effective, charismatic and ultimately ruthless leadership of the little man with the mustache.
The main difference after WW2 was the prolonged occupation of Germany (decades) combined with a really stupendously huge amount of money spent to ENSURE that the "prosperity" you speak of actually happened. After WW1 Germany was left essentially unoccupied (except for lands granted to other nations as their territory) and was left with huge *debts* rather than huge amounts of economic aid.
Judging from how little of the money promised for the Afghan reconstruction has actually been delivered (not just by the US, but by many countries who pledged large sums and then seem to have lost their chequebooks) I sincerly doubt the bill for building Iraq to economic prosperity, to be the economic envy of its neighbours as West Germany was by the late 60s and ever since, will be paid.
GWB spends a lot of air yipping about freedom and liberty and such, but if you're poor and see no likelihood of prosperity in the near future you're quite willing to trade some or even most of your freedoms for security and/or the promise of prosperity, as German voters did in 1930 and 1933.
Incidently, for those of you who consider that being pro-victory and being pro-Bush are the same thing, read this excellent article by on of the contributors to a blog run by an officer now posted to Iraq with US forces: http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2005_11_06-2005_11_12.shtml#1131745163
His arguments are sound, well founded and point out nicely how *some* of Bush's actions and efforts have been threats to victory, and what he needs to be doing instead.
His comments about the politicization and use of uniformed military audiences for political speeches is also interesting and hearkens back to a debate/discussion DM and I had on debatespace about the volunteer army and the increasingly right-leaning military.
BW
His arguments are sound, well founded and point out nicely how *some* of Bush's actions and efforts have been threats to victory, and what he needs to be doing instead.
His comments about the politicization and use of uniformed military audiences for political speeches is also interesting and hearkens back to a debate/discussion DM and I had on debatespace about the volunteer army and the increasingly right-leaning military.
BW
Right about WW2 and economic development. This is why I try to make a point of including "prosperity" when I'm talking about what is necessary to gain long term peace. And it wasn't just a lack of support after WW1 that sunk Germany. It was an out and out effort by the winners to punish them afterward.
Of course prosperity isn't only about how much money is poured into a region. We do need to be involved in Afghanistan and Iraq long term and in such a way that they don't get pulled into international dept. It would be nice if the people (us and whoever else) would deliver on their pledges for ecnomic development.
I'll have to check out that blog. I've never been of the opinion that a person has to be pro-Bush to be pro-victory. Heh, I made the suggestion the other day that the Democrats would be better off to be actively pro-victory, pro-Iraq, and take some of the Republican's thunder. It didn't go over very well. ;-)
Of course prosperity isn't only about how much money is poured into a region. We do need to be involved in Afghanistan and Iraq long term and in such a way that they don't get pulled into international dept. It would be nice if the people (us and whoever else) would deliver on their pledges for ecnomic development.
I'll have to check out that blog. I've never been of the opinion that a person has to be pro-Bush to be pro-victory. Heh, I made the suggestion the other day that the Democrats would be better off to be actively pro-victory, pro-Iraq, and take some of the Republican's thunder. It didn't go over very well. ;-)
Well, fair enough I guess. I'm just a little tired of people thinking that supporting GWB is supporting the troops, or for that matter supporting victory. No fair painting you with that if its not your position.
Part of the problem in Iraq is and will be, IMHO, the obsession by the Bush Administration with private sector solutions. First, ideology aside, the private sector doesn't do all things better than the public (that is just a fact, the debate comes only when ppl argue what %age of things works better, what better really means, etc, etc, etc). Second, going from a dictatorship to a free market democracy is a big step all by itself, without also trying to impose libertarian/ Friedman-esque economic policy as well. I'm a little tired of economic policies being imposed on third world states by governments who themselves (and I speak of all the G8 here, not least the US) who are quite happy to hypocritically use protectionism, dubious monetary and debt choices in their own domestic policy
Iraq has in fact the potential to meet the goal of economic stability FAR faster than Germany did, with all that liquid gold in them thar hills, but only if oil is managed in a way that keeps the majority of the wealth generated within the country, rather than in the hands of foreign corporations (whether American, Arab or other) who sign on as "private partners" in the business.
Afghanistan on the other hand was and is poor as a church mouse, and it will go right back to being a terrorist training camp if a HELL of a lot more effort and money isn't put into dragging the ENTIRE country (not just the capital and environs) out of the dark ages.
I always get back to grumbling about Afghanistan. It annoys me who much time and money is thrown at Iraq, a war certainly premature regardless of whether it was warranted at all, before Afghanistan was properly dealt with. We've still got lots of troops in harms way in Afghanistan, and the country is anything but pacified, anything but free, anything but a model for human or religious rights and HEAVEN knows is now right back to being a the single biggest producer of heroin, one of the single biggest scourges on Western society.
BW
Part of the problem in Iraq is and will be, IMHO, the obsession by the Bush Administration with private sector solutions. First, ideology aside, the private sector doesn't do all things better than the public (that is just a fact, the debate comes only when ppl argue what %age of things works better, what better really means, etc, etc, etc). Second, going from a dictatorship to a free market democracy is a big step all by itself, without also trying to impose libertarian/ Friedman-esque economic policy as well. I'm a little tired of economic policies being imposed on third world states by governments who themselves (and I speak of all the G8 here, not least the US) who are quite happy to hypocritically use protectionism, dubious monetary and debt choices in their own domestic policy
Iraq has in fact the potential to meet the goal of economic stability FAR faster than Germany did, with all that liquid gold in them thar hills, but only if oil is managed in a way that keeps the majority of the wealth generated within the country, rather than in the hands of foreign corporations (whether American, Arab or other) who sign on as "private partners" in the business.
Afghanistan on the other hand was and is poor as a church mouse, and it will go right back to being a terrorist training camp if a HELL of a lot more effort and money isn't put into dragging the ENTIRE country (not just the capital and environs) out of the dark ages.
I always get back to grumbling about Afghanistan. It annoys me who much time and money is thrown at Iraq, a war certainly premature regardless of whether it was warranted at all, before Afghanistan was properly dealt with. We've still got lots of troops in harms way in Afghanistan, and the country is anything but pacified, anything but free, anything but a model for human or religious rights and HEAVEN knows is now right back to being a the single biggest producer of heroin, one of the single biggest scourges on Western society.
BW
I'd read something about attempts to convert the poppy harvest to legal medical supply. It's awfully hard to tell poor people not to go for the money crop. Apparently Afghanistan is also good for growing fruit crops and there's some of that. Agriculture has it's limitations as a primary industry, even without the poppy issue. I will say that a whole lot of the nicest flowers in the plant catalogs I get originate in Afghanistan.
It would be good to hear more about Afghanistan along the lines of "what can I do to help". Things like sister cities and other similar sponsoring of a village or school or other organization. People like stuff like that because it reduces everything down to the local level where individuals can see the results of their contributions.
It would be good to hear more about Afghanistan along the lines of "what can I do to help". Things like sister cities and other similar sponsoring of a village or school or other organization. People like stuff like that because it reduces everything down to the local level where individuals can see the results of their contributions.
Attention from everyone lady and man in blogosphere.
I am russian blogger Jheka and I am available for opportunity to blog and maybe make discussion with YOU my fellow member of revolutionary OSM.
In my photograph on my interesting new blog you can see that I am available and ready for maybe discussion.
Well, if you are ready I am ready so we can go to my blog and discuss whatever. Do not be afraid if I am man with opinion. I have learned all the facts from email and web and I have read many books and magazines.
I know the location of the g spot. I have tried this place on myself and it is correct.
Yes and also I did have very large amounts af hair surrounding (encompassing) my g spot. OK?
It is seriously jaw dropping.
But I have groomed my hair off with water and the spoons I am clean.
If you do not believe me you can come to my house I will show you and we can do whatever.
Do NOT deny my request.
Thank you.
Jheka
dailyblitz.motime.com/
Post a Comment
I am russian blogger Jheka and I am available for opportunity to blog and maybe make discussion with YOU my fellow member of revolutionary OSM.
In my photograph on my interesting new blog you can see that I am available and ready for maybe discussion.
Well, if you are ready I am ready so we can go to my blog and discuss whatever. Do not be afraid if I am man with opinion. I have learned all the facts from email and web and I have read many books and magazines.
I know the location of the g spot. I have tried this place on myself and it is correct.
Yes and also I did have very large amounts af hair surrounding (encompassing) my g spot. OK?
It is seriously jaw dropping.
But I have groomed my hair off with water and the spoons I am clean.
If you do not believe me you can come to my house I will show you and we can do whatever.
Do NOT deny my request.
Thank you.
Jheka
dailyblitz.motime.com/
# posted by : 9:50 PM
: 9:50 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
