41 Comments

1. David Thomson:

Omar is underestimating the situation. The far Left not only believes the war to be illegal—but also strongly desires for the Iraqi people to fail in establishing a democratic society. I will be blunt: they despise the Iraqi people with a passion. Why the rage and peculiar reaction? They are multiculturalists who believe that all cultures are of equal value. The West allegedly represents a bunch of white dudes telling darker skin people what to do. Thus, the latter should never want to embrace our values—and therefore if they do—they must be the scum of the earth.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:27 pm 2. BigFire:

Re: David Thomas

From Left’s POV, Iraqi are genetically incapable of democratic self-determination. Better to have them under the boot of a dictator than to have the Imperial American’s ‘help’.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:39 pm 3. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I have put the same sentiments in their comments.

Odd how blogs create a feeling of knowing someone. As a war-hawk, it was easy to imagine blasting a bunch of Iraqi soldiers as we stormed in. It’s a different feeling when you hear from the people. Zeyad’s reports about his cousin’s tragedy was had a special impact.

Like in all wars, our soldiers have a nickname for the people: hajis. But that is an honorable term in Iraq, just like “gook” was in Korea (but not Vietnam).

Meanwhile the lefties are saying we shouldn’t have done it. The Realpolitik side of me is always willing to consider the possibility that this could be true, while my feelings say that we did a good thing.

Something interesting that hasn’t been mentioned much is the apparent Iranian assistance to half of the actual 9-11 hijackers – reportedly not only giving them free transit, but also washing their passports to make them not suspicious.

If this is true (and the Iranians just denied that they did anything, making me think it is true), then we have a second nation directly involved in 9-11.

What then? I would be in favor of removing the Ayatollahs from power by any means necessary, as a necessary retaliation for a major act of war. The terrible thing there is the Iranian people want to be our friends even more than the Iraqis. Omaar and his countrymen may have to hold the fort which our forces wander east for a punitive mission.

If Iran is guilty in any way of facilitating the attack, and we do not take severe measures, then we end up back in the position of a weak country – unwilling to retaliate.

The world is a tough place.

The left and MSM, of course, fail to recognize that.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:46 pm 4. dougf:

‘The far Left not only believes the war to be illegal—but also strongly desires for the Iraqi people to fail in establishing a democratic society.’– David Thomson

I am not sure if I agree with the later comments in this previous message which detail more fully WHY the Left feels this way,but I do regretfully completely agree with the above comment.

I am sure it is not just me who thought that: OK well and good,I can I MAYBE understand the initial oppostion to the war(illusions of international community and all that)but when everyone sees what is at stake now,things will settle down and people will understand that failure is not an option.Imagine my surprise when not only did that not happen but the lefties just kept on repeating the same old ,same old,with no more regard at all for Iraq or Iraqis.I actually read a comment on the BBC site from a Canadian(oh the shame!!!)loon who said and I quote(more or less) ” Since the war was ILLEGAL,Saddam MUST be put back in charge.TOO BAD FOR THE IRAQIS,but thats what you get when you flout international laws”.

The only reason I don’t say what I think should be done with amoral creatures who would say such a thing is that it might come across as EXTREME.But whether I say it or not,increasingly I believe it.I have had no respect for the left for some time and the feeling is not approaching total loathing. The worst thing is that the feeling is probably not at all irrational.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:52 pm 5. Dave Schuler:

Frankly, I don’t believe that the Left really cares whether the war in Iraq was legal or illegal. The real issue is that it interferes with the tranzi grand strategy.

Jul 18, 2004 - 5:13 pm 6. TmjUtah:

I would love to travel the mideast with my family in a decade or so.

Instead I have begun to count the days until my oldest daughter is eighteen (two years and change to go…). She’s healthy. She’s smart. And she’s interested in ‘the’ military…

Air Force, please God let her choose the airedales, if she decides to go that way.

For what its worth I don’t think that the opposition to Bush is based on much rationale beyond getting what they want, anymore. The goal is to dis-elect Bush or at best damage the public’s confidence in the voting process in such a way that a Bush win will motivate the true believers for the 2006 elections. They are a lot more worried about senate seats and judges than they are about national security. Or the constitution.

As time compresses toward November I think all pretence of argument will fade in favor of sheer volume of invective. If the WaPo and NY Times are going to stand behind Wilson after the last few days I see know reason to waste any more time commenting on them; I wonder what trouble MoDo may be in for covering Kerry today in the same flighty, disjointed screed she’s applied to the Bush administration for the last slice of forever.

I may withdraw from following news for a week or two in order to write of other things. Guess we’ll see what happens.

Jul 18, 2004 - 5:33 pm 7. PeterUK:

Dave Schuler.

That is it,just as the communists were willing to accept millions of casualties to establish utopia,though nobody seemed to know how to recognise that when it had been achieved,so the transnationalists will sacrifice anybody for their goal of World Government.A pillar of that goal is International law,all will be sweetness and light when we bow before the UN.It is one thing to have the barbarians at the gate,quite another to hand them the keys.

Jul 18, 2004 - 5:47 pm 8. someone:

John Moore, have you seen this story?

Jul 18, 2004 - 5:52 pm 9. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

PeterUK

With Communism totally discredited, and socialism already enacted with no exciting positive results, transnationalism seems to be what determined Useful Idiots have hung their utopian hopes on. I guess there are a couple of strains – the trans-European, which is being rapidly enacted via the EU, and global, with symtoms such as the International Criminal Court. No wonder those folks hate the US. We have a richer society than their without a need for any of that BS.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:03 pm 10. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

someone

I hadn’t seen it… thanks. But the official talking about attacking Bushehr is either missing something important or keeping quiet about it.

Bushehr could be used to produce plutonium. But Iran already has the facilities to produce highly enriched uranium (HEU) which is all you need to make nuclear weapons.

They have a diverse system. A strike on Bushehr would on remove one source. Also, I thought the Russians had stopped building they. They have to be idiots to increase nuclear proliferation. Haven’t they noticed that Al Qaeda and the Chechens are very good buddies, with Al Qaeda soldiers sent to Chechnya to be blooded? The more proliferation, the more likely the Chechens get a nuke, at which point we would be lucky to escape global thermonuclear war.

Also, depending on how they play the 9-11 connection, we would have an imperative to attack Iran ASAP as retaliation for 9-11. I suspect this is why everyone is playing it down.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:10 pm 11. Jonathan Sabin:

Omar has more insight than many, many people who “report” the news. Let them live the way he did for as long as he did and see if they still reach their same conclusions. I spent the year 1996 in Bosnia when the United States intervened and I can say from first hand expirience, that they loved us being there. In Tuzla, where I was at (Eagle Base) there were locals lining up by the hundreds and even thousands to get jobs cutting hair for us soldiers, or sweeping the streets. These jobs might have paid a couple of hundred bucks a month (if that), but they were desperate for any income what-so-ever. I know that Bosnia and Iraq are hardly analagous in a hotility sense, however, for the local citizens, food is food, money is money, and when you have neither, you really appreciate it when it comes in. Not to mention that we were paving roads that hadn’t seen any attentions for 30 years and trying to get things moving again. It’s easy to sit over here and say we shouldn’t be over there, especially when there is no frame of reference for the suffering that they “over there” endured.

Jul 18, 2004 - 7:02 pm 12. jerry:

Why does the left want us to fail in Iraq. The answer is simple. They are caught in the Leninist mindset that believes in the 1917 analogy, i.e., if we fail in Iraq then there will a revolution in the United States, just as there was in 1917 Russia. The prolitariat will rise up and overthrow Capitalism and put the Communists in power. If you doubt this, look at ANSWER literature. Groups like Moveon.org, while not explicitly mouthing communist idealogy, believe in a watered down version of this paradigm. If we fail in Iraq, then the people will through out the Republicans for good and we can move on to create the great Eurosocialist society.

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:05 pm 13. richard mcenroe:

The 70’s reactionaries want us to fail in Iraq because to them, Iraqis are Vietnamese, then is now and not a single thing has changed in the world in 30+ years if they can help it.

The 70’s reactionaries in the Democratic Party and newsrooms across the nation are the political and social equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers. They learned one trick that no one wants to see any more and they’re in an increasing frenzy over it.

tmjUtah ó Tell your daughter an old straight-leg said Air Force is probably the best way to go for a woman who wants a military career.

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:42 pm 14. heather:

The truly interesting aspect of this Hate Bush and Hug the United Nations movement is that the Evil Neo Con Jew Conspiracy is attempting a truly old time lefty maneuver: get to the root of the problem (lack of individual freedom in the middle east) and change things (starting in Iraq by getting rid of one of the most immediately dangerous of the region’s dictators.) Is that so difficult to understand? Well, it seems that it is. Perfectly sane people think that 9/11 was a one shot deal, and they think Bush and Co. are pretending there is a war so they can make more money for Halliburton.

Ascher, at Europundit, points out that Israel, despite vivid memories of the Holocaust, despite everyday suicide bombings, despite open hatred on the part of Palestinians, despite reading the hate spewing at them from throughout the Middle East and Europe – despite all that, it took them a DECADE before they finally elected Sharon, and are supporting The Fence.

What do you think will have to happen in the USA to force the Michael Moores to shut up?

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:45 pm 15. chuck:

Well, I have no special understanding of why the left, and the Democrats, have gone bananas. There will come a time, no doubt, when it will be seen as a strange social phenomenon, like the dancing mania of the middle ages. Note the startling similarities. There is indeed a strange pathology abroad.

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:55 pm 16. David Thomson:

ìWhy does the left want us to fail in Iraq. The answer is simple. They are caught in the Leninist mindset that believes in the 1917 analogy, i.e., if we fail in Iraq then there will a revolution in the United Statesî

I hesitate to assert that this deplorable attitude represents the mainstream of the Democrat Party. Still, Iím convinced, that at least subconsciously, probably a third think this way. The John Kerry campaign is under enormous pressure to give these people a seat at the table. Marginalizing them is not a realistic option. Howard Deanís followers want something in return. The mere defeat of President Bush isnít considered adequate compensation. These folks want a lot more than that. They will settle for nothing less than the evisceration of the American soul. Their ultimate goal is to turn us into Old Europeans.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:44 am 17. Tom Grey:

The Left cares, a little, about Iraq — but cares far more about Bush. For the Left, Iraqi Freedom has been “a disaster”. And that’s how the papers report it — the details of the disaster.

What is the comparison? Unreal perfection. VDH quotes on WWII Normandy & after actions: “resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq.”

Unreal perfection is a stupid standard — the right standard is “best practices”. I’d guess that Iraqi Freedom has been one of the best, most successful wars EVER. Somebody should quantify it.

Jul 19, 2004 - 12:45 am 18. ricpic:

Just as possession is nine tenths of the law, a done deal is a done deal: the Iraq war is a done deal: Saddam is gone; the establishment of representative government is well on its way.

So why the left’s constant harping on the “illegitimacy” of the war?

The answer is transparently obvious. It’s all about the next election: Bush won an illegitimate election, he’s an illegitimate president; not only was the war a catastrophe, it was an illegitimate catastrophe: plant that meme in enough undecided wishy-washy heads and you’re back in power…and ain’t nuthin’ trumps power, certainly not the truth.

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:58 am 19. DennisThePeasant:

Americans are not at each other’s throats over Iraq. Iraq is a pretext. Americans are at each other’s throats over domestic political power.

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:32 am 20. Sam_S:

“Americans are at each other’s throats over domestic political power”

Concise and true, I think. I just finished a conversation with an Australian on the same theme. If power were to change parties, very little would change regarding Iraq, and probably little of anti-terror policy (I know I’m sticking my neck out here). The horrible thing isn’t that Iraq has been occupied and largely liberated, but that it was done by a Republican cowboy.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:29 am 21. Knucklehead:

Heather,

“Perfectly sane people think that 9/11 was a one shot deal, and they think Bush and Co. are pretending there is a war so they can make more money for Halliburton.”

Oh, boy, did you ever bonk that nail right on the noggin. This Insanity of the Otherwise Sane seems to equate Islamofacism with gang violence endemic to many (all?) of our major cities. They know its there, they don’t see how it effects their lives in any worrisome way and they see no connection that suggests its anything more than a localized problem that flares up here and there – deal with when you have to and then forget about until next time.

There is a similar problem out there that I’ll label the Profound Stupidity of the Otherwise Intelligent. These are the people who have demonstrated very uselful levels (sometimes extraordinary levels) of intelligence and education in a variety of ways. Yet not only do they BELIEVE “The Bush Administration’s foreign policy is arrogant and lacks nuance. They use the military in the wrong ways and the wrong places for the wrong reasons. And just look how inconsistent they are!” but they also believe it is perfectly intelligent to believe this – as if they actually knew something about any of it.

So you try to investigate how they arrive at the conclusions they’ve drawn you discover that their knowledge of foriegn affairs and policy is, essentially something like, “The UN is the last great hope to Establish World Peace and End World Hunger.” They can’t tell you where the problems spots in the world are or what the UN has or hasn’t done, but the UN is clearly the solution. There’s no “nuance” to any of this – the UN (or international agreements) are the solution and all problems fit that solution.

Then you move on to the military part and you find they have no understanding of military actions at any level. All military is stupid in their book. Any military action is, by definition, stupid and wrong. Or if they aren’t this far over the top they quickly demonstrate that they don’t actually understand the military at all but could surely employ it better given a couple days to study the issues which, of course, would obviously confirm the “intuitive understanding” they already have firmly in hand.

And in the end some of us are left with nothing to say but, “Well, Einstein, you’ve just amply demonstrated that you believe you have intuitive understanding of matters for which you have no particular knowledge or interest and that all problems can be dealt with by one narrow suite of solutions, and that the people you are so angry with for being for being non-nuanced are seemingly inconsistent which would at least suggest they do not try to use the same approach to solve every problem. I don’t know for sure where the boundaries of either arrogance or nuance are located, but it seems to me it is you, Dear Einstein, who have pitched a tent somewhere darn close to its sweet spot.” Then, of course, we are immediately labeled right-wing fascists and mindless neocons or something similar.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:43 am 22. Knucklehead:

Tmj,

Tsk… tsk… Off with your head!!!! How can you be so “last century”, so… so… profoundly bigotted! Why do you feel that if she pursues her interest in the military she should limit herself to the Air Force?

Don’t try to push her in any direction. Explore and investigate with her and she’ll come to the proper conclusions. While I am also hopelessly antiquated in my thinking and profoundly bigotted(I believe there are some roles in the military that are best left to that certain “flair” that only the young male of the species seems fully capable of achieving on demand and reproducably) I do also believe that all branches of the service have many roles that can be as adequately filled by members of the fair sex as they can by any testosterone besotted male. Perhaps a larger proportion (or all) of the roles available in the Airforce qualify, but the Navy is not lacking in such roles and even the Army has no shortage (at least in the officer corp). Coast guard, ditto. US Marines???? OK, there is always an exception that proves the rule.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:58 am 23. jerry:

Knucklehead:

What distinguishes the right from the left in their understanding of the use of power is the abandonment of the real study of history. History, when referred to at all on the left is seen through a post-modern/Marxoid lens. I have given up discussing military matters with my lefty friends because they have no frame of reference to evaluate current operations. When I suggest they read some military history I always get the line that it doesn’t apply to today’s world or more often then not that they don’t want to waste their time. We see that all the time from TANO and Nick Foresta and a few others who claim they support the war but want to use more “effective” tactics. That’s why with the exception of our friend Nick we don’t actually get an answer when we ask, “well what would you recommend?” Until our progressive friends begin a self education project we will always be talking past each other. Those who read with understanding usually switch sides. Knowledge is Power.

On the topic of which service to join….

I think the Coast Guard is the most underrated military organization. The CG does its mission on a continuous basis in war and peace. Coast Guardsmen spend the least amount of BS time because they are always doing something real. The CG also pushes responsibility down to the lowest possible level. You have JOs and POs who are given responsibilities that are rarely available in the Navy or other services.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:41 am 24. Sun-Tzu:

Heather makes another interesting point:

It is the Left that has been harping on “root causes,” and the need to understand why they hate us, in order to attack the problem.

Ironically, however, it is the neo-cons (or whatever term might more accurately reflect the make-up of Dubya’s policy people) that have actually operationalized the “root cause” argument.

They have concluded that the “root cause” is the lack of democracy in the MidEast and therefore, in order to change the situation (and attack the terrorism problem at base), it is necessary to offer the people of the region an alternative—one involving democracy.

Now, it is certainly possible to disagree w/ the neo-con assessment of whether this is the RIGHT root cause, or whether this is the right root cause to tackle, but no one can claim that the neo-cons are not striking at the “root cause” of the issue.

At the same time, what is noteworthy is that the Left is convinced that the root cause is NOT “over there,” but is instead over here. And that is one of the key differences between Right and Left. The Left is convinced that the fault really lies in ourselves, and only by changing US can we hope to reduce terrorism.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:55 am 25. Knucklehead:

Concerning the methods and habits of the Left… I don’t know the “why” of what they are doing, but I do know that when some people habituate certain methods they assume everyone uses the same methods. If they cheat at board or card games they cannot fathom that others don’t. If they engage in payola or restraint of trade they will never believe anyone else does anything different so if you won’t do payola or restrain someone else’s ability to trade they assume what you are doing is engaging in such things but with somebody else.

So when the Left, or the Dems, engage in “anything to return to power” or “anything to get rid of the Bushitler and his Storm Troopers” they are deeply convinced the other side is playing precisely the same game. Sooner or later is short-circuits both methods and perceptions. No doubt they aren’t worried about getting “caught in lies” because they assume they can uncover a similar collection of lies. And when one of the lies they believed they’d uncovered turns on them and exposes their own lies, they don’t actually believe there’s a “truth” in there anywhere but, rather, that they must re-expose the lie while more vigorously spinning their own.

You guys are fond of the term “cognitive dissonance” and this is yet another facet of that.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:10 am 26. richard mcenroe:

Knucklehead ó Show your daughter an MRE bag and a tray of T-Rats, eaten squatting in the mud. Then show her a cooked Air Force meal eaten in a cozy mess hall or tent.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:10 am 27. Knucklehead:

Sun-Tzu,

“Why do they hate us?” is always the wrong question to ask. Hate is particularly useless and wayward emotion. They hate because they hate requires objects. They steep and seethe in the frothy stew of hatred and conjure up reasons and objects for the hate out of the steam and other vapors surrounding them.

Hate is some odd state where anger and frustration have to go to be sustainable. Nobody can stay pissed off or frustrated forever so to keep that feeling they have to morph the two into hate. It’s as if they put some lipstick on a pig and got accustomed to the look so added a prom dress and got enamored with that and wound up marrying the beast and then discovered divorce was impossible. What a way to go through life.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:20 am 28. Matt Evans:

*Also, depending on how they play the 9-11 connection, we would have an imperative to attack Iran ASAP as retaliation for 9-11. I suspect this is why everyone is playing it down.*

I’m not sure “everyone” will be playing it down but in thinking through the problems for both sides, I think you’re probably right.

Bush and Co. should be playing it down- if push comes to shove, they don’t want to have to take a position on Iran prior to the November election – America is war-weary already. I suspect if Bush gets re-elected, clear mandate or no, we’ll be looking very seriously at military action in Iran. Quite frankly, the countries people are ready for change and we simply cannot let Iran’s nuclear program continue. Hopefully, the US will know better than to go to the UN and ask for help – with France’s oil deals with the Iranians, we should expect deja vu type experience with our “friends” on the SC. Plug the 9-11 links into our formula and move into Iran after the first of next year. While the money spent in Iraq was extreme, the loss of life was not nearly what was expected and we’ll have more troops available. Not to mention, Iran seems to have more infrastructure then Iraq did and if the Mullahs can be removed, we’ll have far less rebuilding to do.

From a democratic/Kerry campaign strategy, it will be interesting to see what position they take on it. On one hand, you almost want to put Bush on the spot on Iran and get him to committ to a position -if Bush says no Iran and then invades, you’ve clearly set him and the GOP up. If he says no, you accuse him of being a coward for failing to follow up clear evidence of 9-11 (and worse, point to the invasion of Iraq as unnecessary, given another country’s links to 9-11) and wasting time money and troops in Iraq. If the question is posed to Kerry, he can dodge by saying he’d take no unilateral action without the UN being on board- its completely the cowards way out (pass the buck) but it would probably resonate with the US folks who are suffering from war weariness.

Just thinking through it, it seems to me the dems would benefit from bringing up the Iran question though of course, they’d be completely undercutting national security by forcing Bush to play his hand – but the LLL doesn’t give a damn about national security as long as Bush loses. Bush would be forced to take a position prior to the November election and I doubt he’d try to weasel out of it.

Thoughts ?

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:22 am 29. Cecil Turner:

The continuing problem with the lefty position is the lack of a credible alternative. Unless there is a workable collective security arrangement, nations will have to pursue theirs individually. (And a UN Security Council that passes endless chapter VII resolutions with no intent to enforce them is not workable.)

As long as international organizations are more interested in countering US “hyperpower” than fulfilling their core functions, they have no claim to the moral high ground. That’s the disease, and UNSCAM is one of the symptoms.

TMJ,

Yep, there are lots of IQ tests in life–but that one where they decide whether to put you in the Air Force or the Marine Corps, well, you want to study for that one.

–Semper Fi

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:38 am 30. Knucklehead:

Matt,

Interesting analyis. In a sense the Bush administration, and Bush, are stuck with a mess they didn’t want but have to deal with and do so within the realities of not only the limited power of the executive but also the political situation at hand. Not only are there no “magic wands” that so many seem to yearn for or claim to have, but if one honestly believes one has selected a reasonable course that requires more than one term to have significant impact then one has to live with what’s possible and tread carefully to stay in office to carry on what one believes to be right.

Tough situation. In one sense the easiest thing to do is “here’s what needs to be done and I’m doing it and if it costs me my job then so be it!” but if one really wants to achieve the goal one can’t play it that way.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, upon re-election, the administration takes some stronger and more actions against elements of the Axis of Evil and then makes the best of it for the remainder of the term. Since they can’t be elected again after that they might as well “go for it” at that point and hope that the correctness of the course of action becomes sufficiently apparent prior to the next election so that the followon team can get elected to continue the work.

I’d like to point out, additionally, that the idea that the war is “extremely expensive” needs to be somewhat put into perspective. Suffering and recovering from attacks like the WTC (both 1 and 2) is enormously expensive and I don’t see that the GWoT is necessarily “more expensive”. There is some limit to damages we can absorb without the economy we all live under getting seriously nasty. Sometimes you just have to spend a lot to try and prevent something else. Even if we finally decide to fund the governement and military in whatever way is necessary to increase and equip it to best fight this particular type of war it may still be ultimately cheaper than the costs of taking more big hits. Not that I don’t think another big hit, or even a few, will not happen, but fighting may be cheaper than losing or ignoring until we can no longer do so.

Just thoughts, but that’s what you axed for.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:44 am 31. ricpic:

Matt,

As regards Iran I can think of no more appropriate comment than Michael Ledeen’s sign off line: faster please.

The problem, to be sure, is America’s war weariness. But the threat the mullahs pose will have to be faced sooner or later. And sooner is s-o-o-o much better.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:52 am 32. jerry:

Richard Mcenroe:

There is a great line in the movie “Crimson Tide” where the CO, played by Gene Hackman, tells his crew before going to sea that “if you didn’t want to give your best you would have joined the Air Force” It sent this Navy family rolling on the floor.

“Go ‘Bama…Roll Tide”

(Sounds better then “Go Trout…Go fishing”

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:53 am 33. Morgan:

Sun Tzu -

“…the Left is convinced that the root cause is NOT “over there,” but is instead over here.”

I think you hit close to the mark. The anti-war left is convinced that all enmity for the US is a result of the US not being agreeable enough. They really believe that the root causes of terrorism are things like (to quote Michael Moore):

“He [Bush] withdraws from the Kyoto agreement, walks us out of the Durban conference on racism, insists on restarting the arms race.”

They really believe that American companies paying low wages in 3rd world countries makes people in those countries poor (and makes them hate us). They really believe that Iraqis hate what has been done “to their country” – despite the testimony of thousands of soldiers and a large number of Iraqi bloggers.

Why? Because they can’t believe otherwise. The Iraqis have to hate us, the “insurgency” must be a popular uprising secretly supported by most Iraqis, because if this were not the case then an “arrogant” Republican president started a war that liberated millions of people who are happy about that, and war might be good in some cases, and that’s dangerous thinking if you are committed to a worldview in which war is always the worst of all possible outcomes, or at least such a bad outcome that we should only go to war when the President is a Democrat who can be trusted to always act altruistically. Republicans have ulterior motives.

They’re still searching for the nefarious motive behind the war – Haliburton didn’t hold up, conquering the country to secure its oil reserves didn’t work either. The “war to ensure reelection” idea is belied by history and the timing of the war. But they are certain that the motivation was anything but legitimate – it can’t have been that intelligence suggested the existance of WMDs and links to terorist groups, it can’t have been liberation from a tyrant. The motivation must have been the good of the few, not the good of the country, or of the oppressed Iraqis. All evidence to the contrary has to be suppressed.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:05 am 34. richard mcenroe:

Jerry ó Many sailors are fine, upstanding citizens. But it’s a bitch getting off post for a beer at the end of the day when you’re on a CV(N) or 688-boat in the middle of the blue empty…

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:13 am 35. jerry:

Richard:

Let’s not forget it is very hard to play a round of golf at 300 feet below the surface.

I served on the 563 Class (Trout SS 566) Nukes are pukes….

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:50 am 36. Knucklehead:

Some good points re: Airforce vs. Navy. I would, however, like to point out the following:

NAVBASE Coronado

NAVBASE Point Loma

NAVBASE San Diego

NAF El Centro

NAVBASE Ventura County

NAWS China Lake

NSWC Corona

NWS Seal Beach

There are, of course, some other attractive locals. Does Pearl Harbor ring any bells? Those sailors, it must be admitted, are often quite clever about selecting where to put their favored ports.

And someday, perhaps soon, Med cruises will be as prized as they once were.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:36 am 37. jerry:

Knucklehead:

I concur with everthing execpt China Lake. There is no Lake in China Lake.

I was homeported out of the Sub base in San Diego and spent my last few productive months helping NOSC set up some science projects on the Tang.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:41 am 38. TmjUtah:

Knucklehead -

I don’t know if you have ever caught my background…eight years a Marine, mostly in Artillery FDC/Survey. Secondaries in marksmanship, embarkation, NBC, training/ops, and some other esoteric pursuits…

Cecil -

I turned down an alternate slot at the University of Rochester for an NROTC scholarship after failing to make the cut at UT, A&M, and Baylor. I got out of football as a junior and my GPA was only 3.1. I didn’t want to go to school out of Texas (yes, my dad called me a fool) and enlisted. I scored a final GT of 130 at MCRD San Diego.

Now there’s an object lesson that IQ has nothing to do with common sense, eh?

Note I said “…if she decides to go that way”. There’s too much of me in her for me to pretend she’s going to listen much past her junior year in high school, at least as far as what course in life she will choose. I want her to follow her dreams.

The dad in me would like to see the likelihood of combat exposure reduced. There are no true rear areas on a battlefield anymore…but the Air Force comes pretty close most of the time. That’s endemic in their mission and equipment, NOT a reflection on their character, bravery, or competence. Not nearly. Selfish? Yep, sue me.

She’ll do well at whatever she chooses. I THINK the wife and I have done a reasonable job of teaching our kids about some serious mistakes to avoid…alas, by example, but they both seem to love us just the same. We talk a lot about life. It’s amazing to watch them evolve; just last week it seems I was changing diapers. Now we are dealing with “nice young men.”

I was a nice young man. Bastards.

Jul 19, 2004 - 10:09 am 39. Rick Ballard:

Tmj,

There’s nothing like meeting the “nice young men” while doing maintenace on your firearm collection. Having a 3/4 empty bottle of JD sitting next to the cleaning kit can be helpful too. Ask’em if they’d like to see your shooting trophies before they leave.

Jul 19, 2004 - 11:02 am 40. rgvdh:

John Moore sez:

“Also, I thought the Russians had stopped building they. They have to be idiots to increase nuclear proliferation. Haven’t they noticed that Al Qaeda and the Chechens are very good buddies, with Al Qaeda soldiers sent to Chechnya to be blooded? ”

And the French had to be idiots to side with the Islamofascists against the US, given their long-term demographic troubles. Didn’t stop them, did it? Money, both in the form of commercial interests and direct bribery seems to be the reason.

Even here in the US we have a big problem with Saudi money and the State Department.

So now imagine how much further Arab oil money goes in Russia!

Jul 19, 2004 - 2:58 pm 41. Knucklehead:

Tmj,

You’ll appreciate this… true story.

We were visiting relatives (rural Ohio) and dinner was completed and things were being cleaned up. Phone rang. A “nice young boy” coming over to fetch “nice young daughter”.

My uncle observed the phone call and asked when Nice Young Man would arrive. As the appointed time approached Uncle brought out his ammunition press and proceeded to sit there pressing ammo. Nice Young Man was duly brought into the house when he arrived and spent five or ten minutes amiably chatting with Uncle while Aunt and Younger Brother tried to keep from laughing aloud in the next room.

As I recall, Nice Young Man brought Nice Young Daughter home safe and sound at the expected time.

I assume you’ve seen “Ten Rules for Dating My Daughter”.

Jul 19, 2004 - 5:26 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: