Listening to the two front runners in the Democrat race for the nomination, one would think that pulling out of Iraq is a no-brainer.  Obama has said, from time to time, that he would pull out immediately (coitus-Iraqus interruptus?) and pull out after insuring something akin to "peace in our time." 

Hillary on the other hand would variously pull out after 60 days, would keep some "peace keepers" in Iraq for a while or would confer with her advisers.  None-the-less, she gives the impression that the war is toast and out we come.

Neither candidate however has bothered to take a look at what psychologists and others in the field of managing human behavior have long known.  If you want a behavior to continue, or to increase - reward that behavior.

"Roper, you're full of it," you might be saying, but you would be wrong.  We have seen time and time again the results of not standing up to the islamofascists that we are at war with.  I'm not sure why they can't see what is right before their eyes, and doubtless in their memories, but if you kow tow to islamofascists they take that as a sign of weakness and redouble their efforts.  Recently, there has been in the news reports of Saudi Arabia willing to "allow an increase" in terrorism in England if the British powers that be don't stop investigating Prince Bandar's corrupt practices in the purchase of arms. State sponsored terrorism anyone?

Reagan didn't retaliate after the bombing of the Marine Barracks in 1983, Clinton didn't do much after the plot to kill Bush the Elder, or, indeed many other atrocities.  The list is long! In fact there can be an implied link between 

this   and this  .

Those that can't see the connection between the twin towers bombing in 1993 and the attack of 2001 have blinders on, and they've put them on willingly.  Part of the reason that the latter happened, was that there was no significant response to the former.  And that was not just Clinton's fault, the intellectual blindness as to reward increasing a behavior goes back decades to at least Carter and the sacking of the US Embassy in Iran, through Regan and Bush (41) and Clinton and far too much in  Bush (43).

But that was then, and this is now, and we have an opportunity to put a halt to that blindness.  But not with Hillary or Barack in the White House.

Posted at 08:42 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Clinton treated the 1993 WTC bombing as a NYC police matter.  So much for our intelligence and resolve at that time, but, unfortunately, we will never know everything thanks to Sandy Berger destroying Nat'l Archive documents to protect the Clintons. 

Posted by: Woody at Sunday, February 17 2008 09:34 AM (Eb/8J)

2

       What is the reward for a suicide attack?

     Your comment appears to utterly disregard the nature of the terrorist enemy.

     An army, a nation, even a guerrilla movement can be deterred. The concepts of punishment and reward are therefore meaningful.

     The suicide terrorist is different. Punishment nor reward has meaning to someone who has no intention of surviving the attack anyway.

    Israel and Russia have both taken far more aggressively militaristic responses to Islamic extremism than the U.S. has, and look where it's got them.

   Bin Laden can only succeed by destroying the civic fiber of free countries. He has virtually no conventional military power, little funding and an ideology that is repugnant to a very wide swath of humanity.

      His strategy is to confuse and dishearten and he has had great success with GM Roper.

Posted by: McLovin at Sunday, February 17 2008 03:25 PM (eN5/Z)

3

McL... I am concerned deeply about your ability to think clearly about issues... any issue. 

It should be clear to the most ignorant (but apparantly not to you) that the suicide bomber's reward is the promise of the so called 72 virgins in heaven when you die for the cause.  But be that as it may, the SB is only a weapon for a group of OLD folk who never put themselves in the martyrs saddle.  They get young idealistic fools to do their dirty work.  Al Qaeda is the one being rewarded and if you look back you will note that they get bolder and bolder the more we back down.  If you don't see that then you willfully don't want to.

If we stand up to the islamofascist and keep at them, they will use fewer but more bloody tactics until they are beaten.  If we don't stand up to them and withdraw from the field, they will use more and more bloody tactics and carry them to our doorsteps just as 9/11 was a culmination of the stupidity carried before. 

Nice try kiddo, but my two cats are more intellectually astute than you appear to be.

Posted by: GM Roper at Sunday, February 17 2008 09:27 PM (S60yG)

4 So ah, McLovinSpoonfuls,

Are you saying that we should just sit back and let the Islamic chips fall where they may? That, perhaps a few terrorists attacks are okay- that we should tolerate this and not fight back, in the name of, peace?
And, the lives lost in attacks aren't worthy of anything? Heck even if it's your life, or your spouse, kids, parents...???

I really don't understand your point.

Posted by: Raven at Sunday, February 17 2008 09:42 PM (R4pwu)

5

Craven asks:

``Are you saying that we should just sit back and let the Islamic chips fall where they may?'

McLovin answers:

Let's make a deal, Craven. You respond to what I say, and I'll respond to what you say. Don't make up positions for me, and I won't make them up for you.

Increased port and border security, along with a diminution of hostilities in Iraq are essential to combatting the terrorist threat. Just as important is a peaceful settlement of the Palestine/Israel dispute that acknowledges Palestine's right to exist.

   It is also important to revisit the U.S. relationships with repressive Arab regimes such as the Kuwaiti, Saudi and Jordanian monarchies and Eqypt. At the moment, the U.S. is embracing these regimes largely as part of its commitment to try and prevent them from banding together against Israel. That strategy is not without its benefits and has actually helped add some stability and security for Israel and made it more difficult for Arab countries to destroy Israel. However, given the threat of Islamic radicalism, there is a new urgency for the U.S. to be seen and to be in fact, supportive of political and economic liberalism in the Middle East, rather than as a client and/or master of petro-monarchies.

The diplomatic option is essential.

It is a telling measure of the intellectual bankruptcy of many Iraq war supporters that they cannot even imagine any course other than military aggression or surrender. In reality, of course, there are several other options, the most obvious being a return to multilateral diplomacy.

Craven asks:

``That, perhaps a few terrorists attacks are okay- that we should tolerate this and not fight back, in the name of, peace?''

McLovin answers:

Again, no one has suggested that. Are you truly so limited in your knowledge and mentality that you cannot imagine any course other than following the Cheney-Bush policy or "tolerating" terrorism?

Craven asks:

``And, the lives lost in attacks aren't worthy of anything? Heck even if it's your life, or your spouse, kids, parents...???''

McLovin responds:

On that score, the Iraq war has killed many, many more people than have been killed in every terrorist act in any country since the beginning of time. If you truly believe that "lives lost" is a meaningful metric, then surely you need simply to do the math to determine that you too are opposed to the war in Iraq.

GM:

I'm a little confused on your reasoning.

You claim that the reward of a suicide bombing is the 72 virgins. But then you claim that Al Qaeda's leadership never directly participates. Then, by your own reasoning, they receive no reward. Yet, in the same passage, you insist that Al Qaeda itself is receiving a reward for these attacks.

Can you explain this contradiction?

Posted by: McLovin at Monday, February 18 2008 06:29 AM (eN5/Z)

6

McL... are you nuts?  "But then you claim that Al Qaeda's leadership never directly participates. Then, by your own reasoning, they receive no reward."

Why are you deliberately misunderstanding the issue?  When you get your head out of your ass, then you can argue.  Pulling out of Iraq rewards the TACTIC of terrorism... what is it that you didn't understand? 

Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, February 18 2008 06:50 AM (S60yG)

7

GM writes:

``Pulling out of Iraq rewards the tactic of terrorism.''

 McLovin responds:

As the success of the surge shows, not all insurgents are terrorists. Many of the Iraqis involved in resisting the U.S. invasion have done so as a direct, unavoidable response to violence against their families, tribes and infrastructure.

These are the Iraqis who will win and who will receive the reward when the U.S. withdraws.

Ordinary Iraqis oppose terrorism, as the waning fortunes of Iraq in Mesopotamia demonstrate. Please note that Iraq in Mesopotamia thrived when the U.S. policy was that all Iraqi resistance was terrorism. Note that this policy drove ordinary Iraqis directly into the hands of the terrorists, who were viewed as the least worst alternative to simply tolerating the U.S. invasion.

The U.S. has recently allied with the unelected tribal Shieks who are commanding the "Awakening" militia that are successful in turning Iraqis away from Al Qaeda.

The problem is that the elected Iraqi government (Shia dominated) is opposed to these Shia militia. Indeed, U.S. policy had for years been that all militia must disarm and come under the jurisdiction of the central government. So the surge represents the abandonment of that policy and, thus, an abandonment of the concept of sovereign rule by the elected Iraqi government.

The policy has paid some dividends, though it can hardly be said to be a principled or moral approach. As such, these benefits are limited and have really already expired. The Shieks have no interest in cooperating with the central government. They are of course willing to accept U.S. help to defeat local rivals, in this particular case, Al Qaeda forces. But they have no motive to cooperate with the central government.

The U.S. did buy some time with the surge and this is essential, for planning a withdrawal.

The vast majority of Iraqis oppose terrorism. They are its primary victims and they know that the radical Islamists do not have the peoples' interests at heart. That is also why, polls show, a majority of Iraqis oppose the U.S. opposition. They know that the U.S. occupation is a lifeline for Al Qaeda. The occupation is the only force capable of uniting ordinary Iraqis with Al Qaeda.

Withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable. Iraq isn't West Germany, nor Korea, nor Japan. There was little civil or even physical infrastructure at the time of the invasion and there is even less now. There literally is very little to rebuild, relative to the situations in other countries the U.S. more successfully invaded and helped rebuild.

The question for Americans is how and when the withdrawal take place. Will it take place hastily and of necessity, as in Vietnam, or will the military be given the time and resources to plan the withdrawal carefully and execute it in a way that spares as many lives as possible, while creating the best chance for the Iraqi people to settle their internal conflicts on with international assistance of their own choosing, not imposed by the U.S.

In order to achieve the latter, it is necessary to begin planning the withdrawal now.

Supporters of the war have been wrong at every single phase, including the surge. At every turn, they have insisted that victory is on the way, but it has yet to arrive and never will. The war is already lost in the sense that anyone who can read a newspaper knows that the Iraqi resistance battled the U.S. to a draw for five long years. Even if the U.S. does at some point begin to reduce the carnage, the fact that a country like Iraq--already devastated by a previous invasion and a decade of sanctions--could foil U.S. plans for building a democracy, is undeniably a huge loss and one that is irretrievable by anything that may happen from here.

Of course it would be fabulous if democracy breaks out in Iraq. But we can't afford to put American security at risk on such wishful thinking. It's time for the realists to take over.

 

 

 

Posted by: McLovin at Monday, February 18 2008 07:39 AM (eN5/Z)

8

correction, make that:

The problem is that the Iraq government (Shia dominated) is opposed to this Sunni-led militia.

 

Posted by: McLovin at Monday, February 18 2008 07:45 AM (eN5/Z)

9 McLovin Spoonful (of Kool Aid)-

You're incorrect when you state the body counts of acts of terrorism and Iraq...globally extreme Islam has killed more people since 9-11 than most are aware.

If we sit back and ignore this threat, and appease, the enemy will have time to re group and get ahold of weapons that can kill millions of people in one event. Bin Laden and his ilk have stated this is their intent. Since he cannot directly "speak" with leaders of the free world, he uses videos on the Internet, it's rather difficult to offer him cookies and Kool Aid as perks. And why should the free world do that? Short of the destruction of Israel, there is nothing we can ever do to end this. After Israel, the demands would grow. Islamic rule is what they are after. People like YOU would be beheaded in a flash micro second...as would people like me.

Withdrawing from Iraq is a worthy goal...I think most people agree with that. But not until the region is much more secure and the Iraqi government is able to contain those elements which seek to tear apart the fledging but blossoming democracy. I find it odd that liberals cannot stand this; a democracy is only good when liberals call the shots and make the rules.

These people are not appeased with carrot sticks of economic deals, recognition, and other so called "diplomatic" offerings. These people HATE freedom; they hate western culture, women's rights, modern technology and they are threatened by free speech, voting, self defense...many of the same things liberals are threatened with.

Posted by: Raven at Monday, February 18 2008 08:09 AM (7TGfZ)

10 Hey McL -- from your first comment, you appear to be condemning Israel's response to terrorism as ineffective and poor.  Have you ever looked at the numbers?  I'm not saying they have stopped terrorism -- that will not happen until every terrorist who believes the Muslim religion is dead (or gives up).

But have you ever looked at the numbers?  Have you checked the number dead on both sides?  Look it up some time.  I would suggest in a terrorist war, measures of dead bodies means something.  And in the case of Israel, the terrorists are losing horribly.

Posted by: Ogre at Monday, February 18 2008 09:45 AM (Cxfk3)

11

Craven suggests that the only alternative to the war in Iraq is "sitting back and doing nothing."

This is of course obviously false.

Diplomacy is the preferred option, and it is in no way equivalent to "sitting back and doing nothing.''

If Craven is worried about terrorists getting WMD, he should be a little more focused on Pakistan and North Korea--countries which actually have WMD and have a track record of actually selling those weapons to enemies of the United States.

The U.S. is making better choices in handling the situations in Pakistan and North Korea. Rather than attempting to takeover their governments and bomb them into democracy, the U.S. is carefully trying to exert pressure where it can and keeping the global community focused on helping to blunt these threats.

The diplomatic efforts in Pakistan and North Korea have not and will not bear immediate conclusive results. It will be a very long struggle, perhaps decades, and success will be incomplete for a long time. That is the nature of global struggle. But it is not "doing nothing" and it is far more sustainable, less costly and more effective than the kind of invasion that in Iraq has proven to be so disastrous.

Ogre:

Although Israel has killed far more Palestinians than vice versa, that doesn't mean they're winning the war. As any military strategist can tell you, an organized state that cannot eliminate guerrilla activity or choke it off will eventually lose, regardless of how many more of them it kills than are killed by the guerrillas. Do the math, then get back to me.

 

 

Posted by: McLovin at Monday, February 18 2008 03:44 PM (eN5/Z)

12 McL... like most liberals listens to "progressive" talking points (which aren't) and adopts their phrases not understanding their meaning.  He uses "Iraq in Mesopotamia"  when he means the NYTimes phrase Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia a euphemism to avoid using the name Iraq.  OR, he doesn't know that Iraq is the modern name of the historical Mesopotamia.  Either way, he shows his ignorance.    McLovin, I don't mind challenges from the readership, I don't mind a good argument, but I do mind childish drivel from someone that can't tell his left from his right nor can he tell what the basic premise of this post was.  So, either get with the program, or hush.  Nuff said?

Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, February 18 2008 06:48 PM (S60yG)

13 McLovin said:
Craven suggests that the only alternative to the war in Iraq is "sitting back and doing nothing."

This is of course obviously false.

Diplomacy is the preferred option, and it is in no way equivalent to "sitting back and doing nothing.''

Okay...diplomacy really means appeasement -- which only "works" for so long. Look at Europe in 1939- specifically England. Look at Chamberlain's behavior and where it eventually led to- England's entrance into that war, the lives lost, the horror and damage. History repeats itself when people forget it. YOU have either forgotten or never learned it. Or, as so often with modern day liberals, you were taught a revised version of those events...a version untrue and dishonest.

Diplomacy is sitting back, handing over cookies and milk and HOPING nothing bad happens. With this enemy, I don't think we can trust our hopes to them.

Posted by: Raven at Monday, February 18 2008 09:04 PM (HbnJf)

14

GM:

The NYT didn't invent the phrase "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.'' It's a direct translation of the name the group chose for itself.

I have no illusion that you will entertain intelligent debate here. This is clearly yet another of the scores of right wing blogs that ban liberal responses.

You deploy ad hominem arguments at will and at length, with rarely a word in between of substance. Then you have the gall to admonish me to "get with the program."

Just what is your program, GM?

Raven:

We've been "appeasing" China since Nixon. What are you thoughts on that?

 

 

Posted by: McLovin at Tuesday, February 19 2008 12:19 AM (UvT8A)

15 Remind me not to take advice from your military advisers.  Here's some actual math:

Country A has 100 people.  There are 100 terrorists who want to destroy Country A.  They fight.  Country A kills 10 times as many terrorists as the terrorists kill of Country A members.  Populations over time:

Country A: 100
Terrorists: 100

Attack: 10 terrorists dead, 1 Country A dead.

Country A: 99
Terrorists: 90

Attack: 10 terrorists dead, 1 Country A dead.

Country A: 98
Terrorists: 80

(edited for brevity)

Country A: 90
Terrorists: 0

See?  That's the actual math when you kill more terrorists than they kill of you.  In a war, if you kill more of the other side than they kill of you, you can win (barring liberal apologists who fight a propaganda campaign against you from within your own country).

Posted by: Ogre at Tuesday, February 19 2008 08:37 AM (oifEm)

16

McL...  "I have no illusion that you will entertain intelligent debate here." 

Wow, folk come in here, call this a typical rightwing blog, talk about chicken hawks, accuse me of banning "liberal responses."

The only folk I've banned (specifically 3, maybe 4) have been those that continue to use foul language after being warned, or who are making really stupid remarks about fellow commenters. 

If you want to be banned, fine, but do it yourself by not coming here.  I never said I would ban you, I only said "either get with the program or hush."  Getting with the program is as simple as keeping your comments specific to the post and not wandering around cherry picking.  If you can't do that, then I will tell you to hush, just like I would an overly intrusive child.  Get the point?

Posted by: GM Roper at Tuesday, February 19 2008 10:44 AM (S60yG)

17

Ogre:

Thanks for demonstrating what you think "actual math" is. I'm impressed that your honest enough to show us so plainly that you're views are hypothetical and not based on real world examples.

Back in the real world, Israel is 60 YEARS into its "war on terrorism" and still needs more than 3 billion dollars a year in aid just to survive because it has to spend so much of that on weapons.

Worse, Israel's "Iron Fist" campaigns of the past decades have liquidated Palestinian political moderates, leaving the radicals of Hamas in control.

When you get tired of doing what you call "actual" math, Ogre, try running the numbers on Israel's war against Palestinians. Sure, they've killed several times more, but if you really think a war of physical attrition is what's going on, think about how long it would take to kill every Palestinian, or even 10 percent of them, at the current rate, no matter how much greater that rate is than the Palestinian's kill rate of Israelis.

When you're finished, take a look at Russia's numbers. As you may recall, their war on terror started a couple of decades before ours. They were killing Afghanis by the scores, far more than Afghanis were killing Soviets. Somehow, bin Laden and the other mujahideen the U.S. was supporting didn't find that math compelling. And we all know how that one turned out for the Soviets.

Similar story in Chechnya. Russia has apparently subdued the Chechen resistance for the time being and, indeed, has killed far more of them than they've killed Russians. Still the blood flows.

GM

If you don't like ad hominem, don't use it. Hush indeed.

 

 

Posted by: McLovin at Tuesday, February 19 2008 03:46 PM (eN5/Z)

18 We have been appeasing China and I think it's bad policy. We do it for trade and nothing more. I think it will come back to bite us very hard in the not too distant future. I really do.

While it's "peaceful" now, it won't be forever. China is cruel to it's own citizens; an oppressive secretive society and America should not be endorsing that.

Posted by: Raven at Tuesday, February 19 2008 05:58 PM (E2cOS)

19

McL... "GM                                                                                  If you don't like ad hominem, don't use it."

From your first Comment on this thread: "His strategy is to confuse and dishearten and he has had great success with GM Roper."

Physician, heal thyself.

 

Posted by: GM Roper at Tuesday, February 19 2008 06:58 PM (S60yG)

20 Way #24 to tell someone is a liberal: the make up meanings to words.

Hey, McL -- what do you call a country who attacks another and all their people die?  It would appear, by your words, that means they won.  Wow. 

I should be amazed, but I'm not.  I've seen enough liberals now to recognize that even they don't realize the insanity of their own positions.  Apparently, in your world, you cannot win a war by killing people.  Again, remind me to stay away from your reality because it seriously conflicts with the actual world.

GM, you want to offer this guy any discounts on some counseling sessions?

Posted by: Ogre at Tuesday, February 19 2008 07:30 PM (Cxfk3)

21

GM: I've got nothing against ad hominem, as long as its clever and truthful and constitutes only a small portion of an overall contribution.

What I don't get is why people spew all manner of ad hominem about liberals, and then complain when liberals spew back...

 

Posted by: McLovin at Wednesday, February 20 2008 01:32 AM (UvT8A)

22

McL...  Are you kidding, go to DU or Koss and see the reverse, sadly sometimes it's the name of the game.  I just don't understand why Liberal's spew ad hominem but when conservatives do it they get bent out of shape? 

Posted by: GM Roper at Wednesday, February 20 2008 09:10 AM (S60yG)

23

Fair enough GM. I'll assume you have no objection to ad hominem. As I've made clear, I don't necessarily either, as long as it's relevant, truthful and reasonably clever.

Posted by: McLovin at Wednesday, February 20 2008 04:09 PM (eN5/Z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Double-Reverse Chickendove

Go read it all!

Posted at 10:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Own a part of history. Acquire some exotic item that might have been outright stolen or bought with money from Iraq's treasury and owned by a murdering dictator, now dead. I would want something owned by Saddam Hussein about as much as I would want Hitler's gold taken from the teeth of his victims.

The seller says that twenty percent of the proceeds will go to help rebuild Iraq. I think that I would want some proof of that, and I wonder why not one-hundred percent if these items were acquired through the then existing Iraqi government. I cannot say how the seller obtained these items and how much he paid, but I sure would like to know.

An unprecedented and unique opportunity has arisen to purchase some of the most valuable and infamous possessions in modern day history, which are showcased throughout this web site and are being auctioned.

Saddam Hussein's possessions include his personal silver cigarette case that was given to him as a reward for killing his first man, his personal Rolex watch that was made for him on special order which is made of gold, diamonds and saphire, the pen that was used to sign the death warrants of 66 members of the Ba'ath Party, his personal prayer beads, the sunglasses he wore when on the desert front in the Iran-Iraq war and more.

Pretty sordid. I also noted this Persian rug up for bid:

This Persian hand made rug (sacred giant floor rug) was in the main Jewish synagoge,in Baghdad, until Saddam Hussein visited the synagoge in 1979 and personally requested the rug to be added to his personal collection. It was made in 1350 Lunar calender (1906).

The rabbis are probably still laughing after they doubled the price and told Saddam that he was getting twenty-five percent off. Such a deal.

Other items include Saddam Hussein's neck ties, and I wouldn't mind seeing the one that cost him the most--the one around his neck.

I still have my "Most-Wanted Iraqi Playing Cards," which are sure to be a collector's item. Look for them on the "American Roadshow." Saddam Hussein didn't own those because he refused to give the U.S. military his forwarding address, and catching up with him meant that the Ace of Spades became immediately out of play. I think we know where Hussein eventually settled, though, and it's not with seventy-two virgins.

Let's hope that the items Hussein took from the Iraqi people come back to them in full, one way or another.

Posted at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

As widely publicized, Moveon.org (which never moves on) ran a full page ad on Monday in The New York Times (discounted by $102,000) attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, with the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

At an important Congressional hearing, Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified on the U.S. future in Iraq. At that hearing, this exchange took place:

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida): "...I offer my colleagues the opportunity to use this hearing to distance themselves from the despicable ad that was published today calling into question the patriotism of General Petraeus.”

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii): "Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren’t associated with.”

Liberals defended the ad and said that the inference that that the general is a traitor is wrong because "the word 'traitor' appears nowhere in the MoveOn.org ad.... The word 'betray' used by MoveOn in the ad implies many meanings, but does not directly imply 'traitor'."

Here are my thoughts:

• The ad is wrong and offensive to say that our commanding general in Iraq betrays our country.
• The Democrats do not consider that taking money from MoveOn.org, accepting its publicity, and participating at its convention is the same as associating with that organization.
• The word betray, when used in context of military leadership, clearly suggests that the general is a traitor.
• The Democrats are not distancing themselves from the ad, much less condemning it.

It's bad for a major suporter of Democrats to suggest that our general betrays us, it's bad for an elected U.S. represetative to not "distance" himself from such a statement, it's bad to hide behind the word "associated" and an unexplicable definition of it, and it's bad to defend the ad with a strange definition of "betray."

The Democratic dictionary sure keeps people confused (not to mention that they end sentences with prepostions.)

Can't the Democrats quit hiding behind words and just come out and say that the ad is wrong because they are loyal Americans and serve in Congress? (You don't have to answer that.)

But, just to show how simple this should be, the word "betray" has a clear meaning when used to describe a military person, it is offensive and misleading to use that term to describe this general, I have no association with MoveOn.org, yet, I can not only distance myself from its ad but, as a patriot, I condemn it as well.

Try it yourself. If we can show Democrats that we can condemn the MoveOn.org ad, then maybe they will know that it's possible.

In the meantime, people should be reminded of the cowardly refusal of the Democrats to do the right thing, and people should continue to pressure them to condemn disgusting attacks on a good and competent general. We wouldn't want the Democrats to be put into a position where others would say that they betrayed our soldiers and our country.

Posted at 03:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Excuse me. What can you say about a society that says that God is dead and Elvis is alive? I am from Honduras and learning to speak English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Best means of accommodation new mexico vacation rentals." With love :-D, Lilo.

Posted by: Lilo at Sunday, July 19 2009 02:17 PM (UlRN/)

2 Good afternoon. Looks are part of business. A businessman should never stand out more than his customers. His mannerisms, his clothes, everything about him... Moderation is the key. I am from Slovenia and know bad English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "I still having issues with work not changing my availability." THX , Tong.

Posted by: Tong at Wednesday, August 19 2009 06:54 AM (vgOfo)

3 Hello everyone. Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. I am from Cambodia and learning to read in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "The great hail of the rooms need single providers in most records of their comedy.She is catastrophic for her content to kill the scarlet space at visible ads during her graph, a companionship which however takes her very when she is in entire meter.Arkansas lottery window comet birmingham's point for the latest life reference, people and protein you choose section from blogs on which goals are of training?Information meanings to say you what your scholars are equipping, and we will get more with your objects." THX , Princess rosetta.

Posted by: Princess rosetta at Sunday, October 18 2009 03:32 AM (PS2kx)

4 Excuse me. For me, it's that I contributed, ... That I'm on this planet doing some good and making people happy. That's to me the most important thing, that my hour of television is positive and upbeat and an antidote for all the negative stuff going on in life. I am from Equatorial and too bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Sissom got whether the difficulty explained to make the coffee and cost that there was no due sensitivity for dental concentrations, teeth whitening." With best wishes , Laser teeth whitening uk.

Posted by: Laser teeth whitening uk at Friday, November 20 2009 07:20 PM (PS2kx)

5 elevating training team WR Allen for the Tramon Williams Jersey - James Starks Jersey man roster. . How to force Favre: Exactly how successful Caperersus protecting overwhelm plan might be when compared to awful?First game. . Favres?evaluation comments & responses: Packers compared to Last year Vikings.?? Former teammates get trouble with Favre. Packers Customized Jersey ? Favre vs. Favre . Nine Packers Jersey. Favre Trade: Each Attributes Gained? Rodgers lastly benefits them over

Posted by: Ray Nitschke Jersey at Saturday, December 03 2011 02:02 AM (80PZf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I think that we have a clue as to what happened to some of the WMD's that the U.N. inspectors said were not in Iraq. They were certainly right about these not being there.

(Reuters) Aug 30, 2007 - United Nations officials found vials of dangerous chemicals, which had been removed from Iraq a decade ago, in a U.N. building in New York.... The material was phosgene, a chemical warfare agent.... The Iraqi weapons inspectors came across the material as they were closing their offices, which are housed in a building near the U.N. headquarters in Manhattan....

Oops. I bet that these guys were just as surprised as Hillary Clinton was when someone found the Rose Law Firm billing records in the private living area of the White House. Maybe Hussein or the U.N. thought to have Sandy Berger sneak out the rest of the WMD's in his socks.

Keep moving, folks. There's nothing to see here. No evidence of WMD's. Keep your eyes forward and keep moving. No talking.

Posted at 02:30 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

It's one thing to say something to get elected. It's another thing to make it work. The Democrats told us during the last fall elections that they will get us out of Iraq within months. How's that program coming along? Now, let's see how those words compare to the ideas of leading Democrats in the Presidential race today.

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

...Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States? ....

Talk's cheap. Responsible action is hard. But, honesty with the American people doesn't take any effort, and the Democrats won't even do that.

[Update]

My goodness, now The New York Times is beginning to provide cover for Democrats who know that reality cannot be doused with rhetoric. We cannot pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately. Isn't that what we have been telling them? However, the NY Times makes sure to let people know that we have already lost.

...That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.

...The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq. ....

Posted at 04:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Where were they for fifteen years, besides passing resolutions and taking bribes. But, now, the U.N. Security Council "approved a resolution Friday expanding the United Nations' role in Iraq in a move aimed at reconciling the country's rival groups, winning support from neighboring countries and tackling Iraq's humanitarian crisis."

And here is how they start from this article.

(Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynne Pascoe) said the United Nations expects to raise the ceiling for international staff in Iraq from 65 to 95 by October. Hours later, the U.N. Staff Council called on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to pull all U.N. personnel out of the country until security improves.

Pascoe stressed that there are two constraints to an expanded U.N. role: Iraqi political leaders must decide what they want the U.N. to do, and security conditions must be sufficient for U.N. staffers to work, an issue the U.N. watches daily.

Such commitment... Maybe the U.N. can pass some resolutions ordering the terrorists to stop their attacks and send an inspection team to ensure that the terrorists don't really have any bombs. That worked so well before. You can always count on the U.N., if you know what I mean.

Posted at 06:20 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 yup u can count on them to rape and sexually abuse the children and to slur anti semitism and a host of other goodies...what an org. I'm so proud to have them in my city..NOT!

Posted by: Angel at Friday, August 10 2007 11:03 AM (BaOJr)

2 Where was this "clown faction" when we needed them instead of grasping at the France "flip-flop" - - Actually - this is the way things are meant to be - - HMMMM - RIGHT US meeting with France - - Guess France has finally seen the immigration light catching the drapes on fire. Bring on the UN!!

Posted by: chrys at Friday, August 10 2007 02:43 PM (Trc7A)

3 That worked so well before. (Referring to the preinvasion inspection of Iraq)

Woody, right's right and wrong is wrong. Your statement about the UN inspector in Iraq is another of your wrong statements.
Remember, the UN inspector said that he could find no WMDs, but our Bully Boy just went ahead anyway. Do you remember how many WMDs we found? Think carefully now, the number may be larger than your grasp of International politics.
Answer: zero, nada, zilch

Posted by: James S Melbert at Friday, August 10 2007 04:51 PM (thFXk)

4 Besides sexually gratifying themselves on the Iraq's women and chldren, they may get rich by smuggling gold out of the country.

Iraq is doomed.

Posted by: DADvocate at Saturday, August 11 2007 02:52 AM (kKlTh)

5 James, do you need a refresher course on WMD's? During the Clinton administration and even later, the Democrats were harping about Hussein's WMD's. Hussein used them and, despite the phony claims of Joe Wilson, they were seeking unranium to rebuild the nuclear program that Israel bombed many years ago.

Your claim that they couldn't find WMD's is as valid as me telling my wife that I couldn't find the lawn mower. I just didn't look in the right place.

Posted by: Woody at Saturday, August 11 2007 02:55 AM (Eb/8J)

6 Mr. Melbert,

Would you buy stock in the UN if it were a business?

Have you looked at their actual record, world wide, since its forming in San Francisco (yes, sports fans, that's where it was orginally formed)? Have they done some courageous and terrific stuff? Yes. However, the level of corruption, failed efforts, terrible management and waste are more than a disgrace.

Like the League of Nations, they are more about big salaries for non-performance than real results.

Have you noted their continued foot dragging in Darfur?

I have.

Posted by: tad at Saturday, August 11 2007 03:15 AM (uy89z)

7 Whoa, 30 more UN staffers to Iraq? Call it The Surge.

James, I am certainly in no position to evaluate, but Ion Mihai Pacepa has an explanation what happened to the WMD, and he has some credibility on the issue. Google "Sarindar"

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at Saturday, August 11 2007 02:47 PM (YQFD4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When polls don't count to the Left:

Zogby Poll: August 01, 2007 - Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war.

Posted at 03:10 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Interestingly, the numbers for military, and military connected, are only different from the population as a whole in degree. Much of the military and "military-connected" has diminished confidence in Bush, some none at all. I treat their opinion as somewhat more informed, as the reflexively anti-military are removed from the pool, and there is increased understanding that complicated events are complicated - a tautology often overlooked back home.

The solutions approved by the military (and connected) show more support for timelines and conditions than I would have expected, though less than the population as a whole.

The current oversimplified conventional wisdom is that "we have more confidence in a military success, less confidence that the Iraqis can form a stable government." I very tentatively assent to that, while recognizing that I am an expert at judging neither.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at Friday, August 03 2007 02:38 PM (YQFD4)

2 AVI, you make such good and expanded points to our posts, as evidenced by this and others in posts below. In fact, they're good enough for us to say, "Yeah, that's what I meant." Thanks.

Posted by: Woody at Saturday, August 04 2007 03:12 AM (Eb/8J)

3 But Woody, remember that until this year, the congress that has such an abysmal rating has been the congress that people like you have elected.
Lets see, how does this work? continue to do the same idiocies, and expect different results?
Paul Krugman had it right this morning, when he exposed the core philosophy of the Bush/Republicanism.
Just as in 1994 when William Kristol warned against the passage of the Clinton Health care plan, "in any form," because its success would signal the rebirth of centralized, welfare-state policy at the very moment that such policy is being perceived as a failure in other areas.
Perceived being the operative word.

Posted by: James S Melbert at Saturday, August 04 2007 03:21 AM (thFXk)

4 That 3% consist entirely of John Murtha, Harry Reid and their staff.

Yes, Jimbo, the Republican Congress didn't get great ratings but it took the Dems to pull Congress to the bottom.

Posted by: DADvocate at Saturday, August 04 2007 09:03 AM (kKlTh)

5 James, James... the most "Ethical Congress in History" You jumped all over Woody and me when some of DeLay's shenannagans were "outed" by the MSM... now that the Dems are proving to be far more corrupt and the public is catching on where are you tossed brickbats now? Or, were they as I always thought merely partisan posturing reading from the uber-liberal manual?

Posted by: GM Roper at Saturday, August 04 2007 02:44 PM (S60yG)

6 Wow. THREE percent? Now that's LOW. I would think a random poll would end up with more than 3% of people connected to politicians -- so even the politicians themselves must think they're doing a bad job.

Can we just fire every last one of them and start over? Picking random people off the street would probably get a higher rating than THREE percent!

Posted by: Ogre at Monday, August 06 2007 01:47 PM (GYzrk)

7 Who was it (Wm F. Buckley?) that said he would rather go with the people from first page of the Boston phone book than the people who were elected?

Posted by: Woody at Monday, August 06 2007 02:07 PM (Eb/8J)

8 Hi everyone. Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it. I am from Liechtenstein and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Countertop refrigerator increase sales with a countertop refrigerator by a countertop refrigerator is a small refrigerator unit which is generally used." Thanks . Vanora.

Posted by: Vanora at Wednesday, July 15 2009 03:47 PM (odp+k)

9 Hi guys. Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster. Your life will never be the same again. I am from Thailand and also am speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "If the vacuum cleaner is too low and you have to bend to use it, it." Regards Sanitaire vacuum cleaners.

Posted by: Sanitaire vacuum cleaners at Friday, August 07 2009 09:39 AM (bZ8te)

10 Greeting. Noble life demands a noble architecture for noble uses of noble men. Lack of culture means what it has always meant: ignoble civilization and therefore imminent downfall. I am from Great and know bad English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Currently active users registered users and guests." Thank you so much for your future answers ;-). Replacing siding.

Posted by: Replacing siding at Monday, August 10 2009 04:25 AM (bZ8te)

11 Good Day. This world is given as the prize for the men in earnest; and that which is true of this world, is truer still of the world to come. I am from Tonga and also now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Dental bleaching is one of the most common dental surgery methods available in the market." Thanks in advance. Teeth whitening australia.

Posted by: Teeth whitening australia at Thursday, August 13 2009 12:57 PM (bZ8te)

12 Hello everyone. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. I am from Herzegovina and too bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "The fighting fabric of a bit is seen the daughter." Thanks . Mini clip hair extentions extension.

Posted by: Mini clip hair extentions extension at Sunday, October 11 2009 11:04 PM (Z4fhz)

13 Good afternoon. Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. I am from Greece and , too, and now am writing in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Teaming how to repair hereditary larynx sports with real lasers can be yellow to those who were under the adult that a coincident family to the childhood was the hormonal spectrum." THX :p, Derma roller for acne scars.

Posted by: Derma roller for acne scars at Tuesday, October 13 2009 09:34 AM (CkDXg)

14 Thank you for the update! What a ham!. I am from Angola and too bad know English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Not, violation export jobs are only provided as a someone, often current homesteads by the tip-off investor and never are not significantly dominated in seo expenses." THX :-(, Auto dealer st johns vancouver wa.

Posted by: Auto dealer st johns vancouver wa at Wednesday, November 11 2009 08:36 AM (CkDXg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In the current climate of anti-Americanism and opposition to the Iraq War several lines of thought have proliferated regarding the dire circumstances of America’s policy. They are the unlikelihood of American success, the problem that the conflict in Iraq might be a civil war, and the unwarranted paternalism of American foreign policy. These viewpoints betray a misunderstanding of America’s role in the world.

Firstly, it must be said that there always was a chance for success in Iraq and there still is. According to journalist Michael Gordon and military analyst Bernard Trainor, in their book “Cobra II “, the operation for the liberation and reconstruction was planned but imperfectly executed. And what many critics of the war fail to realize is that Islamic extremism has its own agenda regardless of the maneuvers of the Bush administration or the perfectibility of operational plans. So even if strategy is competently executed Radical Islam will not go quietly in the night.

The Bush administration’s strategy of engagement with Islamic Extremism is an existential to threat to their ideology. The threat of the Coalition’s success is so dangerous to the Jihadis that if it wasn’t, then Al Qaeda and others would not have declared it the central front in their war against the West, nor would they and the insurgents have stepped up terrorist attacks in the last year. The establishment of a viable democracy in Iraq represents a mortal threat to the Jihadist worldview in such a way that it must be met with all possible resistance.

Actually, one could say that the war was slowly being won before March 2006. The bombing of the “Golden Mosque” at that time signaled a downward turn of events in Iraq. Before that terrorist attack several milestones and opinion polls in Iraq showed movement on a more positive trajectory, economically, politically, and societally. Since the Samara bombing, however, there has been a reversal.

But, this reversal is itself being reversed or at least contested. The recent successes of the “surge”, the political awakening of the Sunnis, the coming together of Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad to oppose the Coalition wall to separate neighborhoods are instances of cooperation and reconciliation.

Moreover, the chance for success in Iraq is put into historical context by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s position paper about insurgent warfare. This study shows that insurgencies fail half the time and thus, counter-insurgencies succeed the other half of the time. A 50/50 ratio is a pretty good chance of success, especially in war.

So historically, data shows a legitimate chance for success; contemporaneously, developments show a halting realignment; and journalistically, reportage reveals the inherent problems of nation-building.

Secondly, the label of civil war has been applied to Iraq with the idea that if it is, then it is a losing proposition to continue to stay in such a benighted land. Even Democratic politicians like Senator Schumer have categorically asserted that Iraq is in a civil war and that America hasn’t even chosen sides. But to say that Iraq is a civil war is to imperfectly understand the meaning of that term.

The conventional view is that a civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. A more sophisticated view entails a broader and more accurate understanding.

John Keegan, an eminent British military historian, says Iraq is not a civil war because the criteria for civil war include, not only the conventional view, but that the opposing sides are recognized and are public in their views, that a significant portion of the population is associated with the opposing sides, and that there is hostile contention by means of armed forces. (This does not necessarily mean formal battles, but there must be a minimum degree of organisation, formality and identifiability of combatants). A civil war also requires leaders who say what they are fighting for, a public that understands what it is all about, and a sense of unity among the opposition. Most of these criteria are not met. Additionally, the point of the violence must be to achieve sovereign rule, control over a separatist state, or to force a major change in policy. Fighting for revenge, for rights, mass criminality and economic gain are not sufficient motives to proclaim civil war.

In contrast, a sectarian insurgency (which is what the Iraq war has become) is violent action by a minority group or groups within a state (or in some instances a majority group which lacks power) intent on forcing political change by a mixture of subversion, propaganda, military pressure, and ethnic or religious strife.

Furthermore, Senator Schumer’s allegation of civil war doesn’t hold up when the question is put to the very people who are supposed to be in the civil war – the Iraqi people. In a poll conducted in Iraq from Feb. 25 to Mar. 5, 2007, and published in the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, the question was asked: Is Iraq in a Civil War? The overall response was 58% said no.

So the label of civil war does not hold in light of the criteria for the term, or even in the opinion of those Iraqis who are experiencing the war itself.

Thirdly, America’s role in Iraq has been impugned as paternalistic, that the US knows best what the Iraqi people want, and will force them to accept it.

But this is simplistic and misconstrues America’s role in the world. The idea that the America espouses democracy is not paternalism, but evidenced by the planet-wide movement towards democracy. One has only to look at the expansion of democracy around the world in the last 50 years. According to the UN, in the 1960’s there were about 30 democracies in the world, now there are about 120. That growth didn’t come about by paternalism. That growth came from a consensus by peoples around the world to embrace a system of government that encourages individualism and empowerment. America has been at the forefront of such a movement both directly and indirectly through the exercise of “hard and soft power”.

Moreover, the Iraqi people in three elections in 2005 voted in overwhelming numbers, under threat of death. This was not from some top-down directive, but a demonstration of a grassroots desire for choice and self-determination.

So Iraqis have voted freely without directives, don’t think it is a civil war they are in, and are following a trend in world history that embraces democracy; hardly the victims of paternalism.

The assessment that the policies of the America are misguided and even detrimental in individual cases can be argued; but in a wider context, over a period of decades, even centuries, the comparison with other countries and political systems would yield more beneficial results than detrimental ones. Hasn’t recent world history already shown a preference for liberal democracy over totalitarian communism? This is not to say that liberal democracy is the apotheosis of human government, but at this time in history it provides the best framework for the realization of basic human aspirations. This is the project outlined for America in the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of 2002.

America is not paternalistic, but quietly, perhaps annoyingly, confident that democracy will prevail.

Lawrence S. Harris
© June 2007

Posted at 03:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1227 words, total size 8 kb.