Since Dan has gone MIA, I’ve decided to up the output.
OK, you know that point about Moqtada I was making? Well the thoughts seem to be running along the same path over at Investor’s Business Daily:
National Priorities: When a secretary of defense gets confirmed 95-2 apparently because he says we are not winning a war, you know Uncle Sam must have a sign on his back that says “kick me.”
We’ve come a long way from that day in April 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered Operation El Dorado Canyon, an air strike on Libya by two dozen F-111F fighter bombers in retaliation for a terrorist blast at a West Berlin disco that injured 200 people, including 63 U.S. soldiers, killing two.
Back then we took the fight to our enemies.
Now not even the prospect of a nuclear Iran gets our dander up. Back then we didn’t wait for the U.N to pass a resolution. America was feared.
Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who held Americans hostage for 444 days, released them 20 minutes after Reagan’s inaugural address.
We bled the Soviet empire dry, supporting communism’s opponents around the globe from Afghanistan to Nicaragua.
Occasionally we would take matters into our own hands, as when we thwarted the attempt to turn Grenada into a communist beachhead.
The enemies of our enemies were our friends, and our enemies were just that. We didn’t depend on the advice of a former secretary of state who channels Joan Rivers and says to those who would gladly see us disappear, “Can we talk?”
We didn’t fear an arms race, we planned on winning it. When we talked to our enemies, it was to tell them things like, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.”
When a runt with delusions of grandeur kicked sand on our feet, we would tell our pilots to kick the tires and light the fires.
Now we find ourselves sitting impotently while Iran’s maniacal little smurf, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, builds nukes to wipe Israel off the map while he writes love letters to the American people telling us why we must change our policies.
We wait while the U.N. thinks about talking about imposing sanctions, instead of making a list of targets.
It goes on…..
A nation that defeated Nazism, Fascism and Communism sees its generals testifying before Congress on why we can’t handle the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr.
They talk about stability and not victory. So does our incoming secretary of defense who says all options are on the table. Once the only option was winning.
We won the Cold War against the evil empire by having the courage and the will and the patience to go the distance.
Now we fulfill Osama bin Laden’s prophecy that as in Somalia and Vietnam, America doesn’t have the stomach and will bug out.
We watch while Vladimir Putin resurrects czarist Russia, sends anti-aircraft defense missiles to Iran, helps it build nuclear reactors and dictates its conditions for helping us prevent nuclear war in the Middle East.
We watch as Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez solidifies his control, squeezing every bit of democracy and freedom out of that country as he forms an anti-U.S. alliance with Iran and North Korea and seeks to export his tyranny throughout Central and South America.
And welcome back, Daniel Ortega. The world is safe once again for your ilk.
We are asked to apologize for removing Muslim Imams, who are connected with a mosque linked to al-Qaida, from a plane after exhibiting behavior typical of terrorists.
We establish Muslim meditation rooms in airports as others plot to blow trans-Atlantic airliners out of the sky and our schoolchildren are forbidden from singing Christmas carols.
As a Congress now controlled by the party of John Murtha prepares to accept the terms of our surrender contained in the Iraq Study Group’s report, we are reminded that the anniversary of World War II’s Battle of the Bulge is approaching.
Things weren’t going well in the winter of 1944 either as the 101st Airborne held its ground in surrounded Bastogne.
But there was no Ardennes Study Group to recommend an exit strategy, only an American general, Anthony C. McAuliffe, who, when asked to give up the fight, gave the classic reply, “Nuts!”
How times have changed. All we need now is Jimmy Carter sitting in front of a fireplace.
I think we have that, too. Isn’t Jimmy lounging while reading his latest, greatest tome to antisemitism? When poll numbers suggest discontent with Iraq, this is why they’re discontented.
Melissa, did you miss the summit in Iceland where Ron negotiated every nuclear weapon into a ploughshare? Who was he talking to….
Besides comparing Iran and al-Sadr to the Russians is the height of hyperbole
Why, I remember the good ol’ days where we took the fight to the Barbary pirates. Ah, the 1790’s them were the days of real Americans!
PS For tips on negotiating with the Iranians, you might want to check Reagan’s old people. Not only did they negotiate the release of the hostages, they also figured out to get them weapons and spare parts back in ‘86. Ollie’s still around. give him a buzz
There are two problems with this Viagra-inspired vent to old-fashioned Americanism.
First, falsehood. He writes that the US was feared under Reagan, and then talks about the invasion of Grenada, 10/25/83. Whereas, anyone who was alive at the time, and especially ME, as a Marine Corps vet, remembers the Grenada episode as frankly a shamelessly political attempt to change the subject after 220 Marines were murdered by a truck bomb in Lebanon, 10/23/83. And what did the US do after this bombing, this US that was so feared? We didn’t do shit, we liberated a bunch of medical students half a world away.
The other problem with this litany is that it ends with a reference to Jimmy’s notorious “malaise” speech. Yet how different is that from folks who claim the American people “lack the will” to win the WOT? I don’t see any difference at all. You NEVER blame the American people. You blame the leadership for failing to lead.
The action is in the “women aren’t funny” thread.
In case anyone was wondering.
First, falsehood. He writes that the US was feared under Reagan, and then talks about the invasion of Grenada, 10/25/83. Whereas, anyone who was alive at the time, and especially ME, as a Marine Corps vet, remembers the Grenada episode as frankly a shamelessly political attempt to change the subject after 220 Marines were murdered by a truck bomb in Lebanon, 10/23/83. And what did the US do after this bombing, this US that was so feared? We didn’t do shit, we liberated a bunch of medical students half a world away.
Wouldn’t have a thing to do with all the uninvited cuban and soviet advisors, eh? Not to metion the longest runway outside of Groom Lake. Does a 747 loaded with happy island drunks really need 21,000 feet of runway?
And very grateful mediucal students they were too.
In the days when we bemoan “talking” to syria and iran—whatever “talking” means—I wouldn’t think the Reagan deal with the Iranians is the model we ought to be going for. But who knows whats on their minds over at the investor’s mag.
My guess would be good investments.
There was no “Reagan deal with the Iranians” to release those hostages, you fucking ignoramus.
Sorry. I forgot i was in the land where “realism” is eclipsed by “idealism.” Carry on.
Sorry. I forgot i was in the land where “realism†is eclipsed by “idealism.†Carry on.
Correct. You must live in a place where idealism eclipses realism. Glad we got that cleared up!
Khomeini’s son wrote a book in which he said that the Iranians were dumbfounded by Jimmah Carter’s response to the hostage taking. They were ready to be bitch slapped, and couldn’t contain their mirth when Carter responded by trying to lick their feet!
I am sorry that W has become just another appeaser. al-Sadr should have been gone years ago. He is nothing but a punk living on his father’s reputation. And now? He owns Iraq.
If we are going to fight a war, fight a fucking war! We need to kick some ass and then sit on some heads until the decent people (my guess is about 99% of Iraqis) aren’t afraid to stick their heads up without having their families murdered by what amounts to camel humping Crips and bloods.
Hang on everybody. With the Dems in power we are looking at a very bumpy ride down the road.
Indeed. All President Bush has accomplished with his effort to fight a limited, partial, civilian-friendly war is to discredit the very idea of using military force against states that sponsor terrorism or are otherwise a threat to America or her interests.
Bush’s misadventure in Iraq just helps the left brainwash the American people into forgetting the way we fought WWII—it helps the left argue that military action produces nothing but problems—just like in Vietnam—and that negotiation and diplomacy are the real ways to solve problems.
We don’t need more troops in Iraq. We need to unleash the troops we have and change the mission from “protecting the Iraqi people” to “kill the enemy and anyone helping him”.
God dammit, people, I keep telling you: Lay off Mookie. He is, to say the least, an unsavory individual—but of all the people in Iraq he comes closest to meeting the definition of a “Minute Man” or leader of a Resistance.
Steve criticizes me for stereotyping. Fine. Stop doing it yourselves. The fact of the matter is that, world-wide, Sunni (with honorable exceptions) see Shi’ia as low-lifes and primitives. It is precisely analogous to the “Blue State” attitude toward “Christianists”. The attitude exists in many degrees and variations, but it does in fact exist, and it’s one of the drivers of this situation. Ignoring it is waving off a “nuance” that WILL be accounted for, positively or negatively, in the end.
The absolute refusal of the West to discuss, or even suffer mention of, oppression of Shi’ia by the Ba’athists and their Waha’abist Sunni allies, “sends a message” to Shi’ia that the West is allied with their oppressors. Continuing to emphasize that Muqtada al-Sadr is a dirty, broken-toothed ignoramus (which he is) emphasizes that. The opening the Iranians are exploiting to gain influence in Iraq is the perception that the West agrees with Sunni bigotry, that Shi’ia are filthy primitives suitable only for slavery. (Hizb’Allah is another expression of the same idea.) And the Ba’athists and Waha’abbi see that support as reason for hope that their efforts will be rewarded, so they continue those efforts. Your heroes are murderers and torturers, people. Your reward for supporting them is predictable.
Regards,
Ric
If you have evidence that there was a deal, why not present that evidence?
You never seem to have any reasons or evidence or logic supporting your beliefs—you just make unsupported assertions, as if we are supposed to believe your assertions are true just because you say so.
You know, I’ve been thinking about Protein Wisdom general consensus that we need to “really fight a war.” Specifics are rarely called for in these comments, because they were not asked for. By my count in Iraq there at least 30,000 dead civilians (I say at least because other estimates have placed that amount higher…and not just the loony British one and I’m not posting to quibble about numbers), we leveled an Iraqi city, we have numerous convictions for dragging Iraqi citizens into the countryside and killing them or raping them, the world believes Marines murdered 20+ civilians in Haditha (investigation now over a year and ticking), we tortured people at Abu Graib.
That’s a litany of our “getting tough.” Let’s look at history. Let’s start in near modern times: in the 17th century the Dutch rebelled against the Spanish. For almost 30 years the Spanish leveled Dutch towns, imprisoned and shot innocents, yet all they got was a war with Britain and a free country called the Netherlands. The British were afraid of losing their American colonies, so they stationed troops in American homes and raided the Massachusetts coast, burning towns and ships. They lost.
The Northerners occupied the South after the Civil War and a guerilla war there resulted in the failure of Reconstruction. The Austrians tactics against the Serbs provoked WW1. The Nazis bulldozed entire town randomly, shot every tenth man in French cities, deported young men from entire regions to death camps, yet they never pacified France, Yugoslavia, Russia, or even Czechoslovakia.
Our own experience in Vietnam bears this out. We dropped more bombs on a Third World country than on Germany. Two million Vietnamese died in that war (on both sides). We created free fire zones where we could shoot anything walking. We burned villages to the ground and relocated the inhabitants in new “villages”. We inflicted 10-1 causalities against us, despite the demoralization of the troops in the field and the home front. Yet, the Vietnamese never surrendered.
Neither did the Algerians. The French tortured them, shot them, threw suspected guerillas out of planes, yet the Algerians never surrendered.
Our history and world history show that you don’t defeat insurgencies by getting more brutal. The only modern victories against insurgencies are the US in the Philippines (where we moved away from brutal tactics and co-opted Philippines ruling class) and the British in Malaysia (where the insurgents were ethnic Chinese, whom were disliked by the Malay. The British made friends with the Malay and they pointed out the insurgents). You win these wars on freely given intelligence and targeted violence, not by brutality.
I would urge any of you to read the article in the recent issue of the Atlantic by Col Bing West. It is a fine case study on how to conduct a counter-insurgency (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200610/haditha).
Killing more innocent Iraqis is only going the situation worse. After all, people are afraid of you when you win.
Oh, and Steve, everyone knows the invasion of Grenada was launched at that point because the imminent invasion of the US by Soviet bombers on that big runway. Reagan stopped World War 3!
What is your guess concerning Iraqis hearing other iraqis being referred to as ‘camel humpers’?
I believe the onion put it best when they ran the headline that went along the lines of “reagan inaugurated, hostages released, president asks nation not to put 2 and 2 together.”
Isn’t this where the term “october surprise” came form?
There are many conspiracy theories about the release of nthe hostages and here is one of the better documented ones
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm
Ollie has already weighed in, stinky. In fact, you can find him participating in the public discussion frequently, and he’s spent quite a bit of time on the ground in Iraq out with the troops as opposed to sitting in the Green Zone parroting stringers. Why don’t you see what he has to say and let us know?
Well I doubt they read PW but if they did they would probably fall off their camel laughing.
And started World War 4, picking up where Carter left off. Reagan is not a hero in the context of our troubles with Islamism.
Furthermore, the violence in Iraq is not so much insurgency anymore as it is a sectarian conflict. It’s more like Bloods vs. Crips than Tamil Tigers vs. the rest of Sri Lanka.
LOL Actus gets his information from the onion……I love it. It sure explains a lot.
How about killing the guilty? You know, the ones who are slaughtering innocent Iraqis wholesale. Which, it would seem, would make them not be liked. Are people afraid of you if what you’ve won is a situation where they aren’t getting massacred?
That’s what’s going to happen if we leave, isn’t it?
The Iran hostage crisis was a hostage crisis that took place from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981, a 444-day period.
So it would have been a January suprise then……..your consiracy theories suck actus.
If thats true then there are some pornstars down in LA that could use some help from the UN as they are ruthlessly tortured………if we define torture by what happened in Abu Graib.
– neostink – actus – monkeyboy(rip)…. These are idiotarians too whom Jim Jones, Jimmah Carter, and Naom Chomsky are the hero’s of the “workers party”. What more needs to be said. Feed them if you must. A waste of your time and good bandwidth.
I think everyone missed China:
Russia sold missiles and China bought into Iranian oil fields(100 billion) right after the Iraq Study Group was leaked/announced from the US Institute for Peace. Maybe they knew that the US Institute for Peace that created the ISG was a compromise for Congress and the US when we decided to pull out of Iraq?
The US Institute for Peace building is going to be bewtween the memeorials on the Mall in DC, but I don’t remember voting on selling the real estate. It may not be the best tribute to the military in Iraq, but apparently is the compromise after the use of the ISG created by the Institute for Peace was announced.
Damn, I wish Jeff would come back.
Most of the posters here have forgotten, or never knew, what Jeff and Jeff’s blog are all about. The issue is control of the narrative: the content and implications of the language used to describe the situation. Propaganda, if you insist on pejoratives.
A perfect example: neoconsstink’s post, above.
Which is true only if you accept the assumption that all the dead from the bombs set by the Ba’athist revanchists and their Waha’abbi allies must be counted as “we killed”. Furthermore, no compare-and-contrast is permitted. The million-plus killed and maimed by the same people doing the killing now over the past thirty years are simply dismissed as irrelevancies.
For vanishingly-small values of “leveled”—the buildings, the houses, the mosques, are still there and being used by the inhabitants
ooooooooh the poor maltreated Sunni and Ba’athists—we will not discuss the half-million Shi’ia tortured, murdered, raped, and mutilated by Saddam and his henchment beforehand.
and will not accept so much as discussion of the possibility that the whole picture accepted by the current wisdom is a distortion introduced by propagandists
all of whom were either Ba’athists or Waha’abbi; the 100,000+ Shi’ia, Kurds, and Sunni dissdents “processed” through Abu Ghraib by Saddam’s merry men will not be allowed as part of the discussion.
In other words, every infected hangnail in Iraq is by the deliberate intent of the American invaders, the bare word of anybody who is opposed to the United States is to be believed unconditionally, and every utterance of an American is to be “investigated” with the basic assumption being that he is a bald-faced liar, not to mention a violent ignoramus bent only on blood and destruction. But you “support the troops” /sneer.
The purpose and intent of the Iraqi adventure as originally laid out was based on the concept of “being behind the curve”. The Iraqi people needed and deserved liberation from Saddam and their Ba’athist oppressors, but had been so thoroughly beaten down that they didn’t have the wherewithal to accomplish that themselves. For various reasons, all of them contemptible in my eyes and ears, the bare possibility that this might have been the actual motivation behind the events of March 2003 and subsequent will not be admitted to the discussion—to the point where the assertions made supporting the notion will not be published by the Press in any form. The only narrative accepted publicly is that of, basically, Imperialism, and that is a fucking lie. George Bush is not an imperialist of any stripe or type, however diluted.
actus is correct, and Lost Dog and similar posters aren’t helping. “Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” is not a valid approach at this point, nor is “putting in more troops” or “being more strict and forceful”. In particular, wiping out al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army will make things worse, rather than better—al-Sadr is purely a creature of the Mooreonic Convergence, a product of the “narrative” which effectively supports the Ba’athist thugs we intended, at the beginning, to depose, and which is advanced so forcefully by neoconsstink and Steve. The only thing that might work at this point is to gain control of the narrative at least to the point of allowing symmetry—that is, allow American propaganda to be accepted on the same level as that of the Ba’athists, whether that means belief or not—and the pseudoLeft Will. Not. Permit. that to happen. They prefer any amount of torture, murder, genocide, environmental outrage, etc. etc. to any slender possibility that the United States, and particularly George Bush, might be allowed any tiniest degree of triumph. Gassing fifty thousand Kurds? Triviality of no importance. (Besides, it couldn’t have happened—Saddam didn’t have any WMD.) The examples are legion—and invisible.
Steve, neoconsstink, and their allies are torturers and genocidists. They simply prefer, like Pilate, to have clean hands; the bad things get done by their allies and proxies, leaving them to bleat pious denials and assertions of purity. Effum.
Regards,
Ric
Most of the posters here have forgotten, or never knew, what Jeff and Jeff’s blog are all about. The issue is control of the narrative: the content and implications of the language used to describe the situation. Propaganda, if you insist on pejoratives.
Sounds like an attempt to create a chorus blog, to me.
Which is true only if you accept the assumption that all the dead from the bombs set by the Ba’athist revanchists and their Waha’abbi allies must be counted as “we killedâ€Â. Furthermore, no compare-and-contrast is permitted. The million-plus killed and maimed by the same people doing the killing now over the past thirty years are simply dismissed as irrelevancies.
Are you trying to suggest that what happened in the past justifies what happens in the present? Are you saying that 14 year old girl was raped and murdered by members of the 101st Airborne (her parents were also snuffed) because Dad was a Ba’athist revanchist? Prove it.
all of whom were either Ba’athists or Waha’abbi;
Prove it. And while you are at it, set out your justification for collective punishment, torture, and homicide.
The purpose and intent of the Iraqi adventure as originally laid out was based on the concept of “being behind the curveâ€Â.
As you remain.
The Iraqi people needed and deserved liberation from Saddam and their Ba’athist oppressors, but had been so thoroughly beaten down that they didn’t have the wherewithal to accomplish that themselves.
So, we have sacrificed 3,000 dead, 20,000 serious wounded and close to a trillion dollars as an exercise in idealism? Why should we be helping the Shi’ites? They’re just going to suck up to Iran. Why aren’t we liberating Darfur and Robert Mugabe’s turf?
Steve, neoconsstink, and their allies are torturers and genocidists.
This applies to you. You make vast and simplistic generalizations about the nature of our resistance, you make vast and simplistic generalizations about Sunni Arabs in Iraq in general, I would almost say genocidal generalizations, you justify every instance of civilian death by implying that the victims somehow deserved it, and then you slur anyone who disagrees with you. All on no evidence. Just keep controlling that narrative, boy.
Uh, wait, bloods and crips are sectarian, but tamils arent’?
The term october surprise referred to the possibility that the hostages would released in october of 1980 (therefore making an ‘october surprise’
—right before the election. Not to the actual release of the hostages in january. What i’m wondering is if this was the first useage of the term ‘october surprise.’
Sadr is a creature of the following he has and hte guns his followers yiedl. And there’s not much we can do about that, unless you actually want to do to baghdad what we did to fallujah.
– steve. Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot more honest and straightforward to just come out and say what you have bought into, instead of stubbornly insisting on covering your rank hatred of all things American, with a flood of revisionist bullshit.
– In a nutshell, whereever America is she should be someplace else, whatever America is doing, she should be doing something else. The “anywhere”, and “anything” is unimportant. The only thing of note, is the endless badmouthing, and contraplative arguments, that decry each and everything we ever do, if its not done in the name of world wide Socialism.
– No reaction to the Lebonon bombing. Failed policy, and American “weakness”. Address the issues in any way, and immediately its American aggression, hedgemony, and Imperialistic expansion. Iraq is a massive mistake, attempts to hijack oil reserves we don’t even need or want. Or its trumped up excuses for justification of occupying forces in other peoples countries. Whatever. Just give you a meme, wind you up, and off you go. Socialistic, soft Marxism propaganda, 24/7/365.
– OTOH Darfur. Absolutely.Our fault, not the indogence of the UN. Another “civil war”, just like Iraq, but we’re not there, so you can’t get any millage from the “aggressor troupe”, so no problem. Just switch to the “genecidal uncaring” pleat. the hell with that contradiction. It fits the narrative, and we on the hard left eat irony like it doesn’t exist. The narrative is all, appearences are everything, and anything that lays a whack to the West, is good to go. Bull fucking shit.
– What’s most amazing about the practitioners of this yammering clap trap, is that they still think after 100 million deaths, and 100 years of total failure, they have a twigs chance in a wood chipper of ever being anything more than the abject, anti-American, anti-Democracy, anti-Religious, anti-Principled, amoral losers they really are. That’s why they call it “obssession”.
neoconsstink:
Many of your examples are either outright false or are misleading.
For instance, the notion that the Vietnam war illustrates the point that insurgencies cannot be defeated by overwhelming force is simply false.
The insurgency in the Vietnam war was the Viet Cong. They lost every major battle against our forces, and after the TET offensive, they were finished as a fighting force.
As far as North Vietnam is concerned and why they “never surrenderedâ€Â, the fact is that we never demanded they do so. The fact is that when, at the end of the war, we unleashed our airpower against the North—which, incidentally, was only a fraction of our available power—the North Vietnamese quickly came to the negotiating table. But did we keep it up until they surrendered, like we did against the Japanese in WWII? Unfortunately, our leaders did not let us pursue victory in the form of destroying the NVA; instead we stopped and negotiated. Our leaders forced us to withdraw with South Vietnam still surrounded by hostile forces funded and supplied by the Soviet Union.
And as a strict matter of record, the Vietnam war was lost when the Democrats in Congress cut off funding and refused to allow air support for the South Vietnamese—after we had repeatedly repulsed the North’s efforts to capture the South and after we had crushed the insurgency.
Another example is your statement that the North’s occupation of the South after the American Civil War failed. Not only is that a false assessment, it ignores a valuable lesson about fighting an insurgency: namely, that a crucial element in defeating the southern insurgency was to attack the infrastructure of the civilian population that supported the insurgency—which is exactly what Sherman’s march through the south accomplished.
Another problem with your examples is that you fail to mention the successful occupations of Japan and Germany after WWII. No insurgency developed in either of those two countries—though both had been in the control of fanatically militaristic elements during the war. No insurgency developed because we had made overwhelmingly clear to the populations that they either surrender unconditionally and accept our rule and our form of government—or face total extermination.
Notice that in almost every respect the exact opposite has been done in Iraq. Rather than demand the unconditional surrender of the population, we declared that the population was sovereign and that our troops were there only to remove the bad guys. Rather than insist on obedience to our rules, we imposed no rules at all. Rather than demand that the government follow our orders, we grant the Iraqi government veto power over our military operations. Rather than make the Iraqis know that we are willing to inflict mass death to get our way, we make it clear that we are willing to suffer significant casualties to avoid civilian deaths.
You cannot win fighting that way.
First, you must prove that we have engaged in collective punishment, torture and homicide.
We cannot justify liberating anyone unless we are willing to simultaneously liberate everyone? Can you prove that?
Where has he said that the victims deserve it? Can you provide a quote?
I think you need to read more carefully.
Well, that is certainly convincing.
“Are you trying to suggest that what happened in the past justifies what happens in the present?”
– This from a member of a gaggle who’s entire “raison d’existance” is the rebirth of a system that has failed totally, for more than a century. The epitomy of hypocritical thinking.
#1 Big Bang: So you think I am a Marxist, huh? Who “hates everything American”? Well, you are wrong. But I am not wrong in calling you an ignoramus. Have a nice day.
#2 Michael Smith: Nice post, but I would object on a historical point: What was happening in the South was not an “insurgency”—it was a war involving states that seceded from the Union. The March to the Sea was designed to destroy the supply to the Confederate armies.
Then you write:
Notice that in almost every respect the exact opposite has been done in Iraq. Rather than demand the unconditional surrender of the population, we declared that the population was sovereign and that our troops were there only to remove the bad guys. Rather than insist on obedience to our rules, we imposed no rules at all. Rather than demand that the government follow our orders, we grant the Iraqi government veto power over our military operations. Rather than make the Iraqis know that we are willing to inflict mass death to get our way, we make it clear that we are willing to suffer significant casualties to avoid civilian deaths. You cannot win fighting that way.
Yet I am being accused of being a “genocidalist” because I do not appreciate that what happened in Iraq was an idealistic liberation, in fact, you claim that in your next post. I submit you cannot demand the unconditional surrender of a people you are liberating.
BTW, the surrender of Japan was not unconditional. We allowed them to keep their emperor.
First, you must prove that we have engaged in collective punishment, torture and homicide.
I am not alleging anything of the sort. You should read the over-heated post from the dude who goes around calling people names.
Sorry, guys, I have to take my wife and kids to the theater. Have a nice weekend.
No. I’m not the one claiming two wrongs make a right.
You are.
Long-time followers of my posts, here and elsewhere, will recall that I have always supported punishment of American troops who commit atrocities. I also support such quaint antiquities as due process of law and the presumption of innocence, procedures you and your Saddam-apologist allies are in full and vehement cry against where applied to Americans. Every accusation of atrocity against American troops is to be taken as true or minimized on its face, right?
It is you who is arguing that such events wipe out thirty years of history—that Americans torturing and raping and being punished for it after being convicted not just counterbalances but cancels hundreds or thousands of incidents of your heroes doing the same thing and receiving the encomiums of a grateful Government for their valuable service.
It is you who is arguing that having a couple of sadists indulge their tastes for psychological mistreatment not just counterbalances but utterly cancels over a hundred thousand incidents of beheading, rape, eye-gouging, burning, amputation, and genital mutilation, to the point where those are not just reduced to insignificance but are revealed as the just and proper actions of a beleagered minority and thus never to be mentioned lest they take attention from the main point, which is bashing Americans.
You’re a bloody-handed thug. It’s just that you’re too effete and elitist to actually get nasty stuff under your fingernails—your heroes, your allies, agents, and proxies, do the dirty work for you, while you bask in the glow of your own virtue and keep plenty of soap and towels on hand.
Regards,
Ric
“BTW, the surrender of Japan was not unconditional. We allowed them to keep their emperor.”
– The surrender of Japan was absolutely “unconditional”. Try reading the supportive documents before you post nonsense. It helps you put some weight to your “ignoramus” ad hominems when you make them, lest you appear to be a ignorant rantee yourself.
The maintainance of the emporer, who’s personage throughout the war was that of a kidnap victim himself, was a political expediency, simply to ensure the best possibility of civilian cooperation. But then you’d know better than adhoc revisionism if you had actually taken the time to study things.
– steve – I don’t recall mentioning your name specifically as a memeber of the travelers group, but I suppose if you elevate yourself to that aspect of things, either through paranoia or paradoxically, then follow the “if the shoe fits rule”.
Have a nice day, and while you’re at it, learn to read before commenting.
I believe in another thread that neoconsstink declared itself to be a “Pacifist” (“like our Savior” no less).
This means Ric’s point that “They simply prefer [snip] to have clean hands; the bad things get done by their allies and proxies, leaving them to bleat pious denials and assertions of purity.” is a pretty accurate definition of pacifists and you might as well try and convince a door.
Ric’s followup comment “Effum” seems right as well, but your mileage may vary.
But Ric, remember Steve is a Conservative and registered Republican from all the way back in ‘72. He’s practically the spawn of Bill Buckley. Well, except for the petulant Reagan badmouthing and assorted other progressivist claptrap.
Never takes long before the mask slips.
TW: Million73, no I’m pretty sure Steve’s only the 1,000,072nd Moby.
And while they put on their makeup —
Big Bang – So, it was not unconditional. Thanks for playing.
Ric – I don’t think you can possibly escalate your insults to the level of being a effective anathema. You sound like a child.
ThomasD – Oh, so that’s the way it is. Fine. If you are saying that Reagan’s invasion of Grenada was adequate payback for the murder of of 220 Marines in Lebanon, you may, but as a Marine Corps veteran I am still angry about that.
Dissembling is so you Steve.
Did anyone here, much less Reagan, ever argue that Grenada was intended as a response to the barracks attack?
Are you arguing that it was wrong to force the Soviets/Cubans out of Grenada?
ThomasD: Listen up, I am only going to say this one more time.
The article alleged that the US was “feared”—that is BS because we never did anything about the murder of the Marines in Lebanon, and the guy who wrote the original article didn’t mention it at all, but he DID mention the invasion of Grenada two days later. That was the fundamental untruth in the article, and that is what I was drawing attention to.
I had, and have, no problem with our invasion of Grenada, and I challenge you to find the point when I said I did. In fact, I am a believer in an enhanced Monroe Doctrine: The Americas are our sphere of influence and we can do what we like therein.
“Big Bang – So, it was not unconditional. Thanks for playing.
Ric – I don’t think you can possibly escalate your insults to the level of being a effective anathema. You sound like a child.”
– And so the usual “theme” of failure to discuss as an adult. Name calling, followed by self-assertion to absolute “rightness”, and topped off by weak knee’d projection.
– Hmmmmm. what part of Conservatism did you claim to be involved in there steve. *snort*
– The shoe not only fits you, it’s supper glued in your mouth.
So you have the privilege of insulting me and mine to whatever level you desire and in any terms you choose, while I have to be polite and concede your o’erweening virtue in order to have anything to say? Fuck you, you bloodyhanded thug.
BTW: No, I wouldn’t support the U.S. intervening in Darfur. That’s because as it stands we occasionally get a little information about the victims of the genocide and the participation of the Holy United Nations in killing them. If America stepped in, by the time ninety days had passed the dead, raped, and maimed would have utterly disappeared from the discourse, and you and the rest of the murderous thugs would be concentrating entirely on the unconscionable cruelty of the American military toward the poor, maltreated, oppressed Muslims.
Regards,
Ric
Steve you claim to be a supporter of an enhanced Monroe Doctrine yet early in this very same thread asserted that
Only you have asserted a connection between the two incidents and your first description of the Grenada invision hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement. Does it matter what the motivation was? Why criticize right action?
Square the two.
Also, in case you missed the connection. You can claim to be a republican, or a conservative, but any conservative republican from way back surely knows one of Buckley’s Conservative Commandments is Thou Shalt not Speak Ill of Other Republicans.
– Iraq no. Darfur yes. I could make a fortune marketing “consistancy-in-a-can” spray to SecProggs.
Nope. No market. The oracular pronouncements of the SecProggs and pseudoLeft are by definition consistent, because they all come from the same Oracle.
“That which benefits the Party is the moral and political truth.”
Regards,
Ric
You’d have to spray ‘em by cropduster, BBH. They wouldn’t take it willingly.
have you noticed that what iraq needs is secular progressivism?
No Actus, Iraq needs the enlightenment and the rule of law. Then Secprogg can screw it up later.
– Or in actus’s case, marketing “working-brain cells-in-a-can”….
Exactly! No more mythology and conservatism.
We lost much more in WWII for those same ideals in my humble opinion! Also I love that subtle little spin you did there. Instead of saying 20,000 wounded its 20,000 serious wounded. What qualifies as “serious”. You could get work as a MSM reporter with that skill set.
“Exactly! No more mythology and conservatism.”
– That you need to co-join everything you despise with mythology, is simply because no one does mythology like the Left actus. You’ve raised it to an art form.
– In the mean time, we all notice you continue to fail to address the secret decoder ring postulates that allow you to say Iraq, and Darfur, in the same eloquent, idiotic sentence.
– But then you never will. Your empty wagon gaggle runs away from any real debate, particularly when the irony of your dislocated aspirations are laid bare. Its pinpoint obvious that the efficacy of the “elite” have fallen on hard times.
co-join? nah. Its just the religious stuff that i’m talking ‘bout. You know, mythology. God and Allah and all that. As opposed to what is secular.
What have I said about Iraq and Darfur? I have no idea what to do with Darfur. Probably the last thing i’d prescribe would be an invasion by the US. Because it would be stupid, like our 03 invasion of Iraq.
Hey Actifed, you were asked for documentation of that alleged “Reagan deal with the Iranians” to get the embassy hostages released.
Where is it?
I used to live in Boulder where secproggs would drive around with a “free Tibet” sticker on one side and a “No Iraq War” sticker on the other. It never made much sense to me.
I just have the two and two together. And the later deals with Iran over hostages. Its ok. I don’t hold it against him. He was probably completely clueless.
Really? do you think they wanted to free tibet with a war?
“Really? do you think they wanted to free tibet with a war?”
– Not at all actuse. they would use the Jimmah Carteh school of international appeasement/surrender approach, made so famous with all the illustrious failures of the inventors, France.
– And of course China, yeilding to your sides superior intelligence, and their own sense of deep commitment to human rights, would immediately vacate Tibet, and let them live forever in peace. Maybe you should write the screenplay, and talk to Gibson about doing another Fantasy flic.
Either that or Most Favored Nation trading status.
“Either that or Most Favored Nation trading status.”
– Whoa. What sort of contradiction is this?….Doust mine eyes decieve me?… actus actually proposing raw-boned Capitalistic manipulation. Oh say it isn’t true…. yuck yuck yuck….
No, it made me realize that they have no clue what it would take to free Tibet though. It would take more then words, peace symbols, tie dyed shirts soaked with body oder and nuance.
Go to Wal-Mart and pick something up and turn it over. More than likely it will say “Made In China”. They don’t need it.
Uh, part of the reason you see all those is because they do have MFN.
My guess is that 90 – 95% of Iraqis would agree with me. The problem is that they also remember the knife in the back that the US has given our allies in every military action since Viet Nam.
If you open your mouth in Iraq, not only you, but also your family are probably dead. Most of the casualties in Iraq are camel humpers vs. innocents.
Bush screwed up by not squeezing some heads right after Iraq fell. We are not fighting a war anymore. We are once again applying PC to people who need to be taken off the streets. No one will ever convince me that the vast majority of Iraqis don’t want freedom to live their lives without fear. It is a small minority of camel humping Crips and Bloods who are causing the chaos – and most of the death toll.
Take ‘em out. Otherwise, let’s get it over with and accept the fact that the USA has become a bunch of surrender monkeys.
I grew up when an American could say whatever he wanted, no matter how embarrassing. What we have now in this country is a second generation parody of a parody. Your post only adds another iota of proof that we are screwed. Ther is very little left of what America used to be.
The United States Of Surrender Monkeys…
Ric,
I always enjoy your posts, but I think you are not getting what I am saying.
I do not subsribe to a “kill them all” position. What I am trying to say is that we can’t go into a country like Iraq and think that “pretty please” will be effective. It might be too late now, byt as I said, there were heads that should have been squeezed from the beginning. I just can’t believe that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want to live in constant fear of their lives. As we are seeing in our country today, the farther the rules are stretched, the closer we come to anarchy.
I am not for death, but what do we do about people who use death as an instrument of policy?
As in, two private citizens arrange for one of them to use a U.S. Air Force asset under the control of the incumbent President (Jimmy Carter) to fly secretly to Europe for secret meetings to undermine the incumbent President’s re-election campaign?
That “two and two together”?
How many of these 95% want us to leave? Specially after being called camel humpers?
You do realize that the ‘small minority’ that is Sadr is actually one the largest organizations in the country, and represents one of the largest blocs in parliament?
“What have I said about Iraq and Darfur? I have no idea what to do with Darfur. Probably the last thing i’d prescribe would be an invasion by the US. Because it would be stupid, like our 03 invasion of Iraq.”
– So then actclown. You’ve taken a firm position on Darfur, you don’t have a clue. Then we just stand by and watch the genecide from the sidelines, because you know the UN won’t do a damn thing, unless its take money from the bad guys to look the other way, or rape any of the native girls in their spare time. I guess thats what your side calls “diplomatic action”. In-action. So it would end up being exactly Cahtah-esque. Of course years from now, when they’re stacking and counting all the bodies, no one could blame us because, it is after all, just a civil war. Now if they had some tangible resource we could rob….But wait….theres always favored nation status for the survivors….