121 Comments

1. chuck:

God knows what game the “Iraq is a debacle” folks are playing, but I don’t think it has much to do with Iraq. I suspect they’re playing with themselves.

Jan 27, 2005 - 4:57 pm 2. Barbara Skolaut:

“I wonder if, deep down, what those seeking an immediate “exit strategy” really fear most is that we will actually be successful. They would rather the Iraqis suffer than they be embarrassed or, horror of horrors, lose an election.”

Well, yeah.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:03 pm 3. ex-democrat:

Roger – One of the posters on Wretchard?s puts it like this: “Mr. Bush is doing the work the Left has always dreamed of doing and for that it cannot forgive him.” (# posted by sirius_sir : 6:52 PM)

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:04 pm 4. TF6S:

Roger,

Excellent point. This is coming down to a battle of wills. Right now, we have technology, strategy and, most important, ideology on our side. There are so many historical instances (just like you referred to with the Battle of the Bulge), where setbacks and screw-ups don’t change the destiny of the ultimate end-game. The only question that our success hinges on is, “Do we have the guts to stick it out?”

If anyone is interested, I provided a little historical analysis in a post I did today here:

http://www.thehirschfam.com/tf6s/archives/000283.html

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:17 pm 5. RogerA:

Roger: as always you have the gift of framing an issue. Thank you. Polls from Iraq I have seen seem to indicate Iraqis are interested in democracy and participating. The MSM focuses relentlessly on the terrorist attacks preceeding the elections. My cynical take on it is, their focus is solely to discredit the outcome.

There was no media coverage of the elections in Afghanistan (alleged to be a quagmire) nor on the elections in Australia that returned PM Howard–Their interest is to negate, before hand, the results of what I suspect will be an exceptional showing of a people who want democracy.

History will vindicate this election. If I am wrong, so be it; but I believe in the human spirit, and that, I honestly believe, will be demonstrated in Iraq on Sunday–the bleatings of the MSM notwithstanding.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:18 pm 6. Hogarth:

A helicopter crash killing 31 of our soldiers is certainly a tragic and newsworthy event, whether it involved enemy action or not (and this crash more than likely did not).

But what about the rest of the story: Can anyone find an in-depth report analysing what each candidate would mean for us or the Iraqi people if elected? Or any report at all for that matter?

Yes, the events in Iraq yesterday are news. But they are not by any means all of the news. Where’s the rest of the story??

More: http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/01/todays-dispatch-front-page.html

And then you have Teddy Kennedy, who has repeatedly and disingenuously called Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam,” has now gone so far as offering a plan to make it so.

Just a few days before a historic vote in Iraq that stands every chance of going down in history as a stellar success for Bush and his goal of bringing independence and freedom from tyranny to a region that is sadly lacking in these fundamental human rights, Kennedy is showing the same desperation as the Baathist thugs and other so-called “insurgents” that will lose power when the Iraqi people win their freedom.

More:

http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/01/bloviating-kennedy-offers-plan-to.html

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:18 pm 7. JBR:

This ridiculous press coverage is closely related to Ted Kennedy’s comment of earlier today that “the U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.” To borrow a line from Opinionjournal.com’s Best of the Web Today, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:20 pm 8. Wallace:

As those realists among us know….”Freedom is not Free” and by my view is most often worth fighting for….and perhaps even dying for. I know many who have done just that.

To put the comparison to Vietnam in perspective, in November of 1965 my friends in the 1/7th Cavalry, about whom the Mel Gibson film “We Were Soldiers” was made, lost over 90 killed in just over two days at LZ Xray in the Ia Drang Valley. A day later at LZ Albany their sister battalions, the 2/7th and others, lost 151 killed when they were ambushed while exiting the first battlefield. As many more were wounded during these four days. Even with such losses, had we had the political will, the soldiers in the field were ready to prosecute that war to victory.

Hopefully the lessons learned there are not lost on this generation and my friends and comrades did not die in vain.

More………

http://www.lzxray.com

http://www.We Were Soldiers.net

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:28 pm 9. Harry:

Of course the US needs to get out.

Anybody who wants a free and independent Iraq knows the US needs to get out.

The Iraqis need to stand on their own two feet – othwerwise it’s a weak US client state. And we don’t want that do we?

Roger misunderstands the nature of this war.

He compares it with WWII and predictably it does not fit – but that’s because we are not comparing like with like. Even more bizarrely he compares it to…. California. (?!?!)

The fact is this is asymetric warfare and its the gradual drip drip effect. Over 1,100 US soldiers have died. Its already costing the US $200 billion and rising, and even the US can’t sustain that forever, especially since America’s time as the predominant economic power is limited.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:34 pm 10. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó Don’t worry, you wouldn’t have been fighting beside those people. They would have been warm, dry and comfortable back in New York and Boston, explaining that it was all about the Brussels sprouts and questioning whether the Belgians really wanted us there…

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:34 pm 11. Terry Gain:

Roger,

I used to think that if this were “Clinton’s war” MSM would be all in favour of it, however, now I’m not so sure.

I’m currently reading The Gathering Storm – Churchill’s description of events from the end of WW1 until 1940. Churchill’s name for WW11 was The Unnecessary War. He explains that if only the allies had exercised their treaty rights to keep Germany unarmed the war would never have happened. Instead, while the British left agitated and campaigned for universal disarmament Germany was re-arming with all its industrial might.

Those who, like Churchill, warned of the dangers of allowing Germany to re-arm while Britain and France did not maintain the arms superiority they had enjoyed at the end of the First World War were dismisssed as warmongers.

It seems nothing has changed except that this time when war broke out, thank God, liberals were not in charge.

I’m looking forward to how liberals will explain themselves the day it’s clear the insurrection has been put down-as it will be.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:39 pm 12. Katherine:

Roger,

ìI don’t know how to explain those people to the good citizens of Iraq, those seventy to eighty percent who have indicated a desire to voteî

How about this:

Saddam Husseinís and other anti-liberty, oppressive governments have supporters in every country, including the one most dedicated to freedom, the US. Take heed, good citizens of Iraq, and remember that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:45 pm 13. RogerA:

Ah, Harry–you have asserted this is an “asymmetric war.” Perhaps you misunderstand that the US would prefer to get out–I suspect that once elections take place and Iraq stabilizes–as I suspect it will–that the US will, in fact, get out. Again, you seem to assume we want more than that-eg, have we confiscated Iraqi oil? no–we are doing what we said we are going to do–the pace of what we are doing may not meet with your expectations–but that is your problem not mine.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:53 pm 14. Doug:

No need to wonder Roger. They want us to lose, plain and simple. Oh I am not saying that EVERYONE does. Just most of them. The anti-Bush media wants us to lose because that will be a great story. Ted Kennedy wants us to lose to validate his obscene world view. Many others simply do not see the harm if we lose and would like to see us taken down a peg. Some have never gotten over their giddy glee at destroying South Vietnam and see a hope of doing so again. The shame is that it is not the radical left by any means. Once again the bulk of the Democratic party is siding with tyrants and murderers over their own country. I am not given to hyperbole but when I see Ted Kennedy I see his father, a virtual traitor to his country.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:54 pm 15. Harry:

Terry

You fail to actually explain how The Gathering Storm relates to Iraq or, indeed, anything else. Militarily Iraq was dealt with long before the invasion.

Ah yes, good old Churchill:

“On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death…for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.”

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): “I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” Gas was used against the Iraqi rebels.”

Good old Churchill.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:04 pm 16. RD:

Roger,

You beat me to it. I was about to make the same point on my blog. But I would add these questions: Are these the same people who loudly proclaimed they would not cut and run in Iraq during the election? And weren’t those the same people who were accusing Bush of having a cut and run strategy? Anyone notice this?

In my opinion, the Democrats are yet again demonstrating why they cannot be trusted with national security and foreign policy issues. The party needs to grow up before I’ll consider voting for them again.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:16 pm 17. chuck:

Harry,

And your point is what? Marx was a racial bigot and impregnated his house keeper. By your logic this makes Marx a creepy bourgeois asshole, right? The Romans were given to widespread crucifixion, so Roman civilization was worthless? Poison gas was still an acceptable weapon in 1920. Times change.

Of course, Marx *was* a creepy bourgeois asshole. Some things never change.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:17 pm 18. Matt Evans:

Its very simple- the only way the left wins is if we fail in Iraq- and, of course, globally. They know this so they hope for the death of our troops. One of those deviant assholes on DU compared the soliders to babykillers (back in Vietnam)- he said (paraphrasing) Bush needs to give up his war and bring the babykillers home. I think thats how they really see our soldiers- they know its “right” to support the troops but they realize that the success of those troops means the failure of their entire ideology.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:22 pm 19. RogerA:

Harry–you are indeed a fool–Churchill, on one level was a Victorian creature of his age–an age when Kiplingesque precriptions were the order of the day–but you, sir, fail to understand Churchill’s greatness in opposing genuine evil: the fascist regimes of the the 1930s and 1940s–you quibble using quotes of man who lived over 7 decades–but overlook his greatness–you wallow in the swamps, but fail to see the grandeur–you are no different than the snarky ankle biters such as Kennedy or Boxer that characterize the current critics. Shame, sir. You are ignorant or stupid.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:27 pm 20. Katherine:

ìMilitarily Iraq was dealt with long before the invasion.î

?????????

As a warmongering neocon with the intelligence clearly not even approaching that of an average primate I think need help to be able to fully comprehend this assertions. Thank you.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:30 pm 21. Harry:

Roger and Katherine

I never denied Churchill’s greatness, I was only reminding Terry of some of the chaps drawbacks, especially regarding Iraq. The Gathering Storm is not particularly relevant to Iraq.

Yes, militarily Iraq was well taken care of before the invasion in 2003. The invasion itself was a cakewalk. Iraq had one of the weakest armed forces in the region (it used to have one of the strongest pre-1991) and it had no WMD.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:41 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

“You are ignorant or stupid.”

I think you’re being entirely too exclusive, RogerA. Ample evidence has been provided for both assertions.

Btw – why do you say we would “prefer to get out”? Reduce our presence, certainly, but leaving prior to democratic roots being firmly established would be rather foolish. After all, we’re still not out of Germany.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:44 pm 23. jedrury:

The Democrats play a “good cop bad cop” routine with Teddy and Boxer mouthing the radical fringe and Biden carrying water for the middling center; all done to undercut the president’s policies in Iraq, qualifying each criticism with the introductory remarks about “suppporting our troops.”

The orchestration is planned well in advance with the MSM anchors off it Baghdad to do it live,

all the time accenting violence moaning about the explosions and the implosion of Iraqi society.

The MSM reporting is never very deep, they don’t do deep well [there is not the time, and, hell, they have to cut for a break to advertise Cadillacs and Cialis, don't they?]; it is the network version of the local news; “if it bleeds, it leads.”

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:48 pm 24. RogerA:

Harry–the Gathering Storm and Churchill’s actions with respect to his WWII response point, in my judgment, to the larger issue: what do political systems do when confronted with threats–and most important therein is to grasp the nature of the threat. The term I used to describe critics was ankle biters (and if you arent in this group my apolgies): clearly hyperbolic, but it signifies to me the difference between our President and his critics. In my formulation I regard our involvement in Iraq and in the larger scheme of democratizing the Middle East an extraordinarily and important initiative–in fact, the most significant undertaken in American Foreign policy in the last 100 years.

Thus, I am led to the conclusion that snippets of facts that relate to events of 70 years ago pale in comparison the the present situation. Vision is what defines greatness; I fail to see vision from the critics of the Bush Doctrine–only defeatism and pessimism. We may disagree on that point.

Jan 27, 2005 - 6:59 pm 25. PeterUK:

“Ah yes, good old Churchill”,well yes actually.

I always find that those who sneer in this fashion do so with the bitter realisation that in sixty years time nobody will be saying,”Good old Harry”.

It is also dishonest to take current attitudes and impose them as moral judgements on the past,it does not work now and it will not work eighty years hence.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:04 pm 26. RogerA:

Apologize for consecutive posts, but I left out one point I feel is important (its hell to be semi-coherent after a couple of snifters of good dark rum): What I see lacking from the opposition to current Iraqi is any VISION–if I could understand from the Kennedys or the Boxers what they want, I would entertain their prescription. No or Not is not vision.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:08 pm 27. Harry:

RogerA

Ah, I see, its wider. It can’t relate to Iraq specifically though, because Iraq was not a threat, unless one projects well into the future and a different scenario, lots of ifs and buts etc. That’s been dealt with….

But the generalised War on Terror?… Maybe. We shall see. It’s more maleable, certainly, and can be made to fit with Chuchill’s earlier warning anyway in a rhetorical sense… but it may be correct more concretely, not saying you are wrong necssarily.

But also, too, there are very significant diffferences between the two situations.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:11 pm 28. Ben:

This adds to the ever-growing pile of evidence in support of the proposition that the left is unfit to govern. The best way to describe their attitude is juvenile. They point to problems without any thought of offering a solution, which, in turn, discredits their criticism. George Bush’s conduct of the WoT has been far from perfect, but his critics have utterly failed to offer any alternatives. In many ways, their attitude is akin to the petulant child: utterly narcicistic, and screaming purely for the joy of hearing his own voice.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:12 pm 29. Harry:

PeterUK

Well, yes I agree. Nobody will be saying “Good old, Harry” 60 years hence.

I do apologise for not being a British wartime Prime Minister!!

A more pertinent question would be this: Would people be saying, 60 years hence, “Good old Tony?”

Perhaps you and me agree on this?

Methinks not!

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:16 pm 30. Terrye:

Harry:

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Considering the fact that Saddam had everything from several thousand tons of ammo to fighter jets buried in the sand along with several hundred thousand dead Iraqis I think it would be a tad ridiculous to say he was no threat.

He had the means and the intent. Whether he buried or destroyed the stock piles or not his scientists have said the plan was to reconstitute the weapons programs. And the food for oil program actually helped with the means.

The point is that Saddam could have done the same thing Kaddafi did and there would have been no war. But he chose to defy the UN resolutions. If we are not going to enforce the UN’s mandatory force resolutions why bother supporting the UN at all, what purpose does it serve?

I want out of Iraq as soon as it is possible to leave without making things worse. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people and the world did nothing. The people who think the loss of 1300 men is beyond the pale seem to have completely forgotten about the thousands dead in Manhattan.

Or for that matter the suffering of the Iraqi people themselves. You say a man who had 13,000 children murdered and put in one mass grave was not dangerous? He and sons were going to remain a danger so long as people allowed them the oppurtunity to defy the world.

So yeah I think Roger is right.

152,000 dead in Algeria. They blew up polling places there as well and shot election workers too and nobody burned a flag or gave a damn. But to the people who want the Iraqi people to go down in flames 12 is a disaster. Unless Saddam killed them in which they are not worth bothering with.

If you want to honor the young men and women who have lost their lives then finish the mission.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:17 pm 31. RogerA:

Harry–I think we are in agreement that we will have to wait to see how history records our reactions. I do agree that Iraq was not a specific threat to American interests; but in the context of a wider war on terrorism I have no problem with our policy–recall that Sadam rewarded the terrorists in Palestine with generous solatia payments for their actions.

Irrespective, as you observe, history will make its judgments–and I grant you, Iraq as a specific threat pales in comparison to the larger issue that is Jihadism vis a vis western values. We can agree to disagree then, and await historical judgments.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:20 pm 32. Ben:

Harry -

In denying that Iraq was a threat, you suffer from the blindness that discredits the left. Let me state the threat clearly so that it can be easily understood: Terrorism directly threatens the USA. It originates in the ME as a byproduct of the tyrannies that keep the people there uneducated and full of fanatical rage directed at us (as proxy for their inability to address the true cause of their despair). In order to deal with the “root cause” of the problem, we must remove the tyrannies so that the people can be directed toward peaceful concerns.

Broadly speaking, that is the underlying reason for the Bush Doctrine. You can agree with it, disagree with it, or agree in principle but criticize the implementation. The left, in refusing to do any of the above, has simply chosen to absent itself from the arena of ideas. Instead of meaningfully participated in the dialogue, you have chosen the strategy of crying “wolf!” every time something bad happens. It should therefore come as no surprise that people stop taking your shouts of warning seriously.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:22 pm 33. Terrye:

And Harry:

If you are right and Saddam was not a threat then there is one more reason to impeach Clinton: The Iraqi Liberation Act.

You and I don’t know what became of the weapons that Hans Blix said for years we had to presume we were there but we do know that if we had not invaded the world would still believe they were in Iraq.

A great many of the anti war people I know employ the very dishonest tactic of acting as if facts known in the present were known in the past as well.

We went to war with Japan to destroy the regime of the Emporer, not to turn it into a democracy, but we did.

Lincoln went to war with the Confederacy to save the Union not to end slavery, but we did.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:28 pm 34. PJ:

Hold on to your hats. The rush to hysteria about the elections has begun. See the language increase in intensity: “stepped up attacks.” Stepped up? Like you say, more died in LA that day. (Perhaps that analogy doesn’t fit, tho, as personally I do view LA as a quagmire.)

After it’s over, there will be articles all round decrying the “legitimacy” problem. Like my paper posting a story about an ex-pat complaining about the registration process and failing to mention he was the president of a local Kurdish separatist group.

Watch streaming coverage on spiritofamerica.net Sunday; boycott the MSM. They are in their death throes. Let’s finish them off as the Iraqis finish off the rule of terror in their country.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:32 pm 35. Harry:

Terrye

Oh yeah, he was threat to his own people. He was not a serious military threat to the United States.

You say he intended to reconstitute his WMD. That proves my point. At some point in the future, he may have reconstituted a weapons programme, given the right circumstances etc etc. And no, he didn’t have the means. He may, in the future, have tried to aquire the means. But he was stuck well in his box, with very weak armed forces, in 2003.

To argue that he was a military threat to anyone externally, least of all the USA, in 2003, is was a complete non-starter. But that, bizarrely, was what was argued.

Remember the invasion was not predicated on Saddam being beastly to his own people. It was justified on the grounds that he was a present threat to the the USA and his neighbours. Whacky stuff.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:32 pm 36. PeterUK:

Harry

“I do apologise for not being a British wartime Prime Minister!!”

Think nothing of it Harry old chap,the British people are eternally, if undemonstratively, grateful.

“A more pertinent question would be this: Would people be saying, 60 years hence, “Good old Tony?”

What has this got to do with the price of ripe tripe?

“Perhaps you and me agree on this?

Methinks not!”

Frankly my dear,I don’t give a damn.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:35 pm 37. RogerA:

PJ has nailed it–already the nattering nabobs (oops–a Spiro Agnew notion) at NPR and the other chattering classes are talking about issues they can point to that denigrate the results of ANY election in Iraq. Indeed, NPR has been foisting stories suggesting that of the 1.2 million Iraqis out of the country only (gasp) 280 have been registered. And then there was the tearful Ann Garrels story about the three women who may or may not vote–This crap is all about, as PJ suggests, dissing the vote when it actually happens. Sometimes I just want to puke.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:37 pm 38. Old Grouch:

Interesting post and comments.

We can play the “numbers game” in a lot of ways.

If I was reading the highway message boards correctly on Monday, drivers in the state of Kentucky are managing to kill an average of 4 people a day in traffic accidents.

And, IIRC, about a month ago seven or eight soldiers died in a ‘copter crash while training in Texas… their ‘copter hit one of the guy wires for a television tower while flying in fog. (The tower’s warning lights had failed, and the FAA had been notified, but the word apparantly never got to the military.)

But, as you say, none of those deaths “count,” because they can’t be used to advance anyone’s agenda.

—

Re: “Exit Strategy,” I see the call for this as the search for a way to fail “respectably:” We do this, then do that, and if it doesn’t work, then we leave. (Sure we failed, but at least we tried! It fits very well with (some parts of) the academic mindset where intentions count as much as results.)

The idea of staying until the job is done is beyond consideration for these folks. They aren’t interested in getting the job done, just in getting out (and therefore they have no place in this discussion).

—

This will be the NEXT “numbers game:” Was watching the State Department briefing on C-SPAN tonight, and one reporter tried to get State’s spokesman to commit to a turnout figure (or percentage) that would make Sunday’s election “legitimate.” While I personally don’t believe that Iraq will have any problem bettering the typical 40-percent-or-so United States figure for eligible voters actually voting, look for the left and their friends in the press to spin any result that doesn’t have the winner receiving an absoulte majority of eligible– not actual– voters as being “unrepresentative.” (You saw it here first!)

(BTW, apologies for being less articulate in this comment than usual. Although visiting Hilton Head has its advantages, it means that I’m posting with a Dell laptop via AOL’s web client… a combination that should only be inflicted on your least favorite troll. Aside from the fact that I can’t work the keyboard, it’s also a hassle to open multiple windows. Aargggh!)

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:43 pm 39. Robert Crawford:

“Remember the invasion was not predicated on Saddam being beastly to his own people.”

Actually, it was, along with the WMD and support for terrorism.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:45 pm 40. PeterUK:

“He may, in the future, have tried to aquire the means. But he was stuck well in his box, with very weak armed forces, in 2003″.

Saddam Hussein had the vast amounts of money from the Oil for Food scam,Dr Khan was making off the shelf nuclear weapons in Pakistan,North Korea has a production line of ballistic missiles available for hard cash.

Coalition aircraft were being fired on regularly,pressure was being built up relentlessly to end sanctions.The myth of perpetual containment may have a warm fuzzy feel to it but it would not have lasted another five years.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:50 pm 41. Harry:

Ben

Let me state the threat clearly so that it can be easily understood: Terrorism directly threatens the USA. It originates in the ME as a byproduct of the tyrannies.

Rewind to 9/11. The fanatic terrorists of…er… Saudi Arabia and Egypt carried out that act. Saudi Arabia is still best buddies – when does the US govt complain of the massive human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia? As for Egypt. That particular unpleasant regime receives MASSIVE amounts of direct and indirect aid from the US. It’s right up there with Israel. Go figure.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:51 pm 42. Rick Ballard:

Michael Totten is doing a hell of a job for Jim Hake (and liberty) editing Friends of Democracy which is providing election coverage via correspondents in all of the Iraqi governates. Well worth a bookmark if you think that Iraqis on the ground and in the thick of it might have insights that newsreaders camped in the Green Zone five stars might lack.

The M$M assault didn’t start yesterday or today. It’s been planned since the election and the Hero of Chappaquidick, the author of A Cambodian Christmas and Dumb as a Box of Rocks Boxer are all playing their roles precisely per script.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:56 pm 43. RogerA:

Harry: no argument from me that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are pestholes that need cleansing–As I understand the Bush “doctrine” they are clealy candidates and my guess is that understand that. I think we are in a first things first situation: Stabilize Iraq, deal with Iran, deal with North Korea and then deal with the other Mid Eastern pestholes. BTW: I dont understand your reference to Israel–was that rhetorical?

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:56 pm 44. PJ:

There’s no use in trying to convince someone like Harry. Unless there is a photo (and independent witnesses, not CIA agents) of Saddam laughing maniacally while mixing up a batch of anthrax and stuffing it into a warhead with “Destination Iowa” on it in the middle Times Square, he won’t ever buy into an American war.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:57 pm 45. Harry:

RogerA

I meant that I could not remember which gets more money in US aid (of various forms) – Egypt or Israel.

Probably Israel, then Egypt. They are both up there anyway.

It was not meant to compare the two directly in other ways. Israel is a democracy (although far from perfect) but Egypt is not.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:02 pm 46. truepeers:

Harry, you are intellectually dishonest. Just the other day I was reading someone (wish I could remember where but why don’t you look it up) pointing out how this Churchill quote is being edited and misused by the smug left. If you see the whole quote, it is clear that Churchill, as part of the post-WWI debate, does not want gas to be banned as a weapon of war because he thinks that its effect on uncivilised tribes will be more psychological than deadly; it will frighten them into submission sooner, so that it will not be necessary to use more lethal means of fighting tribal wars. His explicit intent was to minimize bloodbaths.

But heh, its more fun to scapegoat history than to give quotations in full and in context. One day however you should grow up and begin to think of what really drives historical processes and allows for our evolving freedom from humanity’s erstwhile submission to communal rituals, sacrifices, and scapegoating. Our freedoms could not have evolved without social inequalities and strong-minded people like Churchill, nor without their empires. Freedoms start with the strong and only later become more widely shared. One must choose freedom or egalitarian submission to false gods; in deviously misusing ellipses, you show you want it both ways, child.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:04 pm 47. Katherine:

ìYes, militarily Iraq was well taken care of before the invasion in 2003.î

Harry, are you saying that the result of Operation Iraqi Freedom was forgone conclusion, despite the chorus of experts, from the former military officials to current intelligence analysts warning us about the brutal Iraqi summer, certainty of Stalingrad-like quagmire, determination of Iraqi armed forces to fight to death, willingness of Saddam to use of WMDs, humanitarian nightmare, millions of refugees etc? You knew how it all end in March 2003? Good to know. Perhaps you should be a Secretary of State, not Condi Rice.

Can we also assume that you knew how the Afghanistan campaign would end? And the results of their election?

Are the results of elections in Iraq also a foregone conclusion? I fervently hope so, but I do not know so. Do you? And if in, say, couple of years Iraq stabilizes will you claim that they would have gotten there no matter what and the American intervention was therefore unnecessary?

I realize that many people think that collapse of Communism should be used as a model of a foreign policy: containment (at best) will bring desired results given 50 years or so. In my mind this position is not only immoral with regard to peoples whom it casually condemns to enslavement, but also is, given the realities of modern asymmetric warfare, entirely untenable. I donít want to wait until San Francisco or Chicago goes in a mushroom cloud before we get serious about the terrorist threat. Perhaps Bush is a lofty idealist when he says that our security requires liberty for others. But if somebody has a better idea, Iíd like to hear it. Unless we are talking about the ìsea of glassî solution, which I at this point refuse to contemplate.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:09 pm 48. Terrye:

Harry:

Well as a matter of fact if you would bother to read the Iraqi Liberation Act and Resolution 1441 as well as the resolution Congress passed authorizing the use of force you would discover that the breaking of the cease fire as well as the attempted assasination of an American president were also reasons given for the US to take out Saddam. Along with human rights issues and terrorism. This went on for years and years. Sooner or later we had to turn the Baathists loose or take them out.

Was Saddam a threat we needed to deal with? Three American presidents from two different political parties thought so.

And what about Saudi Arabia? Do you want to bomb Mecca?

If the UN wants to bring a dozen force resolutions against Saudi Arabia then you can draw some comparison. But Atta was Egyptian, Zarqawi is Jordanian, Abu Nidal was a Palestinian I believe, so we can pretty much cover the Muslim world here. But to say we can not deal with one threat if we can not deal with them all is like saying if we can not feed all the hungry why bother feeding any?

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:11 pm 49. Rick Ballard:

PJ,

It should be a matter of indifference as to what verse of the Loser’s Lament is currently being sung. We’re in Iraq and we have a CIC who will determine whether and when withdrawal is advisable. Given that he spoke of a multi generational effort in his Inaugural Address regarding the advancement of liberty throughout the world responding to anklebiters with a pathetically circumscribed worldview seems to lack utility.

Perhaps we should just respond in kindness with a general “Man, it sure must suck to be you.” and let them prattle on. Dogs barking and caravans passing, as it were.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:11 pm 50. Harry:

Truepeers

Churchill, as part of the post-WWI debate, does not want gas to be banned as a weapon of war because he thinks that its effect on uncivilised tribes will be more psychological than deadly; it will frighten them into submission sooner, so that it will not be necessary to use more lethal means of fighting tribal wars. His explicit intent was to minimize bloodbaths.

Close, but no cigar.

He also went against all the evidence given to him that it was fatal, from very recent history, and including from his own advisors.

No mate, I am not letting him off the hook on that one.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:11 pm 51. RogerA:

truepeers: excellent point–Churchill’s problem, of course, was that he had such a public life for so long–and he evolved his thinking over that lifetime; in my judgment a sign of growth not vacillation. His finest hour is WWII, and among the the wartime leaders he maintained the most accurate view of the reality that unfolded.

It was Churchill’s view of the evil of facism that, I think, put him in the forefront–Chamberlain before him saw the conflict in purely tactical terms; it is the rare leader that grasps this historical import of the times. Clearly Churchill, for all his imperfections, stood against the tide–Rightly or wrongly, in my humble opinion, it comes down to vision at the appropriate tiem. (PLUS how can ANYONE doubt the ability of a man who can stay in pyjamas until noon, smoke cigars and drink a bottle of brandy a day! What a man.)

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:14 pm 52. PeterUK:

Truepeers,I get this feeling of deja vu reading Harry’s posts,familiar topics that have been refuted time and time again,obviously there is a big push on by the Democratic Coven to discredit the Iraq elections.I wouldn’t mind betting there is a crack team of Democratic vote riggers out there right now.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:16 pm 53. Terrye:

Speaking of numbers wasn’t it Stalin who said that one death is a tragedy but a million deaths are a statistic?

Good ol’ Stalin. The darling of the left.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:18 pm 54. Terrye:

Peter:

They are like rats in a maze. A lot of frantic activity but they never get anywhere.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:21 pm 55. Harry:

Katherine

Harry, are you saying that the result of Operation Iraqi Freedom was forgone conclusion, despite the chorus of experts

Not sure about that chorus, but yes. Absolute cakewalk is what I predicted. I even won a bet – some chap bet me that Saddam would use his “stockpiles” of chemical and biological weapons against the Coalition. I bet against and won. Tidy sum.

In fact my basic premise is one of the reasons the US attacked was because they knew the initial invasion phase was going to be cakewalk, or close to one, and it had Iraq had no WMD – certainly no nuclear bomb at least.

So, the ultimate proof that Saddam had no really big nasty WMD was the very fact the USA attacked.

As for the elections – I hope everything works out fine.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:21 pm 56. Katherine:

RogerA

I mentioned on another thread that there is no doubt that if less than 99.96% of the Iraqi voters turn out on the election day Fat Teddy K and Co will proclaim that Iraqis want the old Saddam to return, because that was the percentage that voted for him last time around. They really, really loved him, didnít they?

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:22 pm 57. truepeers:

What are you talking about Harry, “evidence that it was fatal”? Churchill was talking about gas weapons in general, and he lived in a society with many scientists capable of developing new ones. His point was hypothetical: wouldn’t it be a good thing if we could develop a gas, or chemical weapon, with such militarily useful but relatively non-lethal properties? why ban them outright? Of course Churchill knew the history of World War I and he was not going to fool anyone in 1920 about what had happened in the trenches. You are fantasizing.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:23 pm 58. Ben:

Harry -

Of course, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are part of the problem. To modify slightly an idea from you lefties: Even though they are part of the problem, they are also part of the solution. After they do their part toward reaching a solution, they can be considered the problems they are and dealt with appropriately.

To restate in a less obtuse manner and by analogy: In the middle of the last century, there was a problem in the world with totalitarian dictators, the two worst of which were Germany and the USSR. All would have to be dealt with sooner or later. Germany was allied with two others: Italy and Japan. The most powerful militaries in 1941 were Germany, Japan and Russia. While it may have been possible for the USA and Great Britain (the only significant non-totalitarian powers at the time) to defeat all three at the same time, it would have been extremely costly and highly imprudent (to put it mildly). We therefore chose to ally with one of the tyrannies against the other two. This decision was eminently reasonable, and, by the end of the century, all three tyrannies had ceased to exist.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should declare war against all tyrannies at the same time? Does it not seem at least somewhat prudent to limit yourself to one enemy at a time? Was it inherently wrong to deal with one problem before dealing with the others?

Claiming that we should not have attacked Iraq because Iran, North Korea, Egypt, etc. are also dictatorships is not a serious argument.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:25 pm 59. RogerA:

PeterUK–ah, were it the good democrats of King county, Washington State, USA–they can work wonders including raising the dead from the grave and liberating felons from their cells; but alas, I think the MSM is, as we speak, laying the groundwork for their fraudulent claim, that the election itself is fraudulent in Iraq. One hundred percent of Iraqi’s could show up and vote, but the MSN would (1) criticize that; and (2) outline the failure. In short, the MSM and their allies would rather see democracy fail than admit the administration may have been correct.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:25 pm 60. charlotte:

Ho boy! Still the peevish debating over whether we should have gone into a country that was in gross violation of UN weapons inspection resolutions, that was shooting at our pilots in the no-fly zones, that was technically still ‘at war’ with us some years after we had to militarily eject it from a neighboring nation, and that we now know was “contained” like pasta in a colander, thanks to the UN and other nefarious interests. And then asking why we didn’t choose to take on other “worse” countries, instead, that were under no such sanctions nor on a prior war-footing with us–

I see the anti-Iraq/Afghanistan war attitude going beyond the political calculus that our successes in these hard countries would help Bush and the GOP. The transnational Left truly believes in the US walking softly and carrying no stick. Its creed is that we shouldn’t impose ourselves on others, much less by force of arms, for to do so would be unforgivably self-interested, ethnocentric and imperialistic. They, also, must believe that our system of representational government and responsible capitalism which we encourage for others is not necessarily exceptional or desirable.

And since our war protestors must nobly suffer political freedom, civil liberties and prosperity at home, they become determined that we not inflict such western wickedness on those other culti types who, the Ted Kennedys of the world know, want tyranny, torture and the killing fields. It’s “their way”. If it weren’t, those peoples like the Iraqis and the Afghanis could have risen up and revolted had they wanted to…

But never forget that evil America is responsible for oppression and misery everywhere, even though that’s the “way” of some cultures and their tyrants. Not only are we responsible that these tyrants exist, we shouldn’t militarily intervene to take them out. And we certainly shouldn’t take out one or two tyrannical regimes, if we don’t take out ALL of ‘em in the world. I think our prevailing in the Left’s asymmetrical war of logic may be more difficult than winning the war on terror.

One bright note: As sickening as our defeatist media have been leading up to this Iraqi election, at least Rather has spared us the last-minute expose with documents charging Allawi with illegally removing his mattress tag some 30 years ago. Baby steps!

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:28 pm 61. Harry:

We have amemorial day for the Holocaust in the UK, and important it is too.

But Stalin killed 40 million, and the Russians lost the most in WWII.

The Chinese lost 10 million, and we hardly hear about Nanking, which in terms of the concentrated perversion and brutality of the Japanese perpetrators (although not in magnitude) possibly eclipses even the Nazi’s behaviour.

Perhaps we should just have a Genocide and Mass Slaughter memorial day.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:28 pm 62. Katherine:

Well, Harry, based on the analysis of military and political situation in Iraq on which you based your ìcakewalkî prediction I advise you to apply for just vacated position of a National Security Advisor. It should be a cakewalk, too.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:32 pm 63. truepeers:

When I said freedoms start with the strong and their empires, I was over-simplifying. The relative equality and lack of freedoms in primitive societies were a stage of history first replaced with the advent of agricultural surpluses coming under the control of successful big men seeking both more power for their societies as a whole (better military organization vis a vis neighbors) and hence freedoms and wealth for themselves. But, of course, freedoms could also emerge from the exodus from such empires.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:33 pm 64. RogerA:

Harry–according to Robert Conquest the dead resulting from communists tyrannies is closer to 100 million–but that is a quibble–you point is what? tyrannies that kill people in the millions are bad? seems to me you have made a prima facie case for the Iraq invasion; my personal preference would be for North Korea afterwards, but not being a neo-con or jewish, I dont have the presidents ear. This administration is the first in my 63 years of life on this planet that had directly confronted the issue of evil and framed that confrontation in moral terms. More power to them.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:35 pm 65. Ben:

I, for one, have been convinced by Harry’s reasoning. First thing tomorrow I shall contact my bank and stop payment on the check I just sent to the American Cancer Society. After all, even if we cure cancer, people will still die from heart disease, AIDS and a myriad of other maladies. Since we can’t cure them all at the same time, why try to tackle one of them!

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:37 pm 66. PeterUK:

Roger A,

They were quite happy with Teddy Kennedy’s exit plan at Chappaquiddick and that only had a 50% turnout.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:37 pm 67. Katherine:

Maoís death count is closer to 50 million not 10. Total number of people killed by Communism is about 100 million. So? How exactly Communist evil detracts from Nazi evil?

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:40 pm 68. Harry:

Truepeers

Churchill was talking about currently used gas bombs, because he wanted Brits to use them straight away against the Arabs, not wait years for the development of a non-lethal type.

“I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.”

But he went against advice, and experience, and ordered there use all the same, simply arguing that somehow they won’t be fatal.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:44 pm 69. Terrye:

I see so the Jooooooooz are getting something special with a memorial are they?

I guess we should have told Saddam to forget those silly old resolutions and get back to what he was doing when we so rudely interrupted him.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:47 pm 70. Harry:

Katherine

I was not talking about Mao. I was talking about the 10 million Chinese who died between 1931 (invasion of Manchuria by Japanese) and the end of the war in 1945.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:48 pm 71. Barry Dauphin:

“As for the elections – I hope everything works out fine. ”

Next thing you know, we’ll be hearing that Iraq was going to be a democracy eventually anyway.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:53 pm 72. Harry:

RogerA

My point regarding Holocaust Memorial day is a somewhat seperate point.

Terrye

NO. I am not saying Jews are getting some sort of special treatment. As a Jew I watched the momorial service at Auschwitz with tears in my eyes.

I just think other people killed in mass slaughter should be remembered too.

And Churchill did not mention Nanking in his history of World War II.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:54 pm 73. Terrye:

Harry:

Yeah and at one point the Brits jumped in the middle of a fight among Iraqis after one tribe had killed thousands of people from another tribe.

I read about blister agents and nerve gas in WW1, the Germans used them.

But why stop there? There is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo.

Surely the sins of Saddam pale in comparison?

And don’t forget the extermination of the natives and slavery and the Spanish inquisition and the black death and the extinction of the dinosaur and the ice age and global warming….

yeah, saddam was a blip. not worth bothering with but the Bushies just had to steal that oil and suck up to the Jooooz.

I have been at this too long.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:54 pm 74. truepeers:

Harry, if you want to continue this discussion, 1)get the full quotation; I clearly remember Churchill thought he was suggesting a less deadly solution to a military problem, but it was not at all clear to me that he fully knew, or pretended to know, about what he was speculating 2) So, provide a reasonable account of what CHurchill was inquiring vs. what he was demanding 3)judge Churchill according to his claim that gas would be a less lethal weapon, taking into account the tactics then available and the enemy. 4)Make clear if Churchill was or not looking to Iraq to make an illustraiton of a larger point about the future of gas weapons. I don’t have time to do all this, but I know our present discussion cannot go on in any pretense of honest and informed debate until someone does. And so should you.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:56 pm 75. Harry:

Terrye

I was not comparing Saddam’s awful crimes with Churchill or anything else. They stand alone and are depraved.

I just don’t have heroes.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:57 pm 76. Katherine:

Harry, I truly donít understand your point. So, you were talking about 10 million Chinese who died before Mao. Fine.

You know, there were many millions of civilians in many, many countries killed during last 100 years or so. Vast majority of them were done in by tyrannical governments. But how does this relate to Holocaust exactly? The Jews were less murdered than others? Or their numbers of dead were not high enough?

I donít want to assume anything, but I think I smell rat.

Jan 27, 2005 - 8:58 pm 77. Harry:

Katherine.

What I am saying is that the Japanese got off lightly. I am not talking about the nuclear bombs dropped. That’s a seperate debate. I am saying that, unlike the Germans, they paid little or no reparations and have not repented.

But that, again, was because of realpolitik.

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:03 pm 78. Ben:

Harry -

Yours must be a sad, and, ultimately, self-absorbed existence. I am truly sorry that nobody can live up to your standards. I am truly sorry that you don’t believe Churchill was objectively better than Saddam; that George Washington was better than Mao; that FDR was better than Stalin. Can history judge anyone as better than anyone else? If it can’t, then the world must be a Hobbesian nightmare where one has no recourse but to stay on the good side of the Leviathan in hopes that one’s own life is not “nasty, brutish and short.”

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:05 pm 79. Ben:

Harry -

Can we at least agree that Hitler and Stalin were both thugs who deserved to be removed from power? If so, can we then agree that Saddam was a thug who deserved to be removed from power?

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:08 pm 80. Katherine:

So, why bring up the Holocaust?

Like Terrye, I have been at this tool long.

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:12 pm 81. Terrye:

Harry:

My father was a hero to me.

Abraham Lincoln was a hero to me and so was FDR. And so was Churchill. These men were not perfect or selfless or without malice but when they were faced with the responsibility of leading their nations at a time of peril, they did their best. They did not shirk or run or make excuses or say what the hell there will always be tyranny or hunger or war…why try to do a good or noble thing?

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:20 pm 82. TedN:

Harry,

On the face of it, your quote itself seems to imply that Churchill was looking for some new type of gas:

“On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death…for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.”

We do use chemical weapons today. We call them “tear-gas”.

I don’t believe in the inevitable forces of history. Without Chruchill & FDR things could well have turned out disastrously worse. They weren’t perfect men by any stretch of the imagination, but they were heroes.

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:32 pm 83. Harry:

Ben

Churchill, Washington and FDR were all better than that crew. Stalin and Hitler were both thugs who needed removal and so was Saddam.

Terrye

I don’t see any politician as heroes, but I agree on the father thing.

Well not your father, obviously, I don’t know the chap.

But my father, because – apart from anything else – bringing up me was an heroic struggle.

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:41 pm 84. Harry:

Yours must be a sad, and, ultimately, self-absorbed existence.

Yeah, I know. How is your existence? Don’t tell me. You go snowboarding right? Bungee jumping?

Extreme ironing?

Jan 27, 2005 - 9:46 pm 85. Roberts:

Its astonishing to see someone like Harry post objectively false claims here so brazenly. No one was claiming that Iraq was a “military threat” to the United States in 2003. Harry’s claim goes beyond mere strawman into brazen falsehood.

Jan 27, 2005 - 10:06 pm 86. antimedia:

Roger, your post got me thinking, so I went to the official State of California website and looked up mortality rates. According to the state’s statistics (admittedly two year old data, but when does government have anything up-to-date?) homicides in California (2001-2002) numbered 2412 or 6.6 homicides per day. That’s roughly half the number in Iraq today, but then California has been at peace for some time now.

By way of contrast, Texas, which has a population about the same as Iraq (but I don’t know about square miles) had 1412 homicides in 2002, or slightly less than 4 homicides per day.

Jan 27, 2005 - 10:11 pm 87. TedN:

Actually, I was just going to say that compared to the moonbats who usually argue the other side, Harry seems quite reasonable, a rather refreshing change. (That doesn’t make him right, but at least he’s not yelling..)

Jan 27, 2005 - 10:11 pm 88. richard mcenroe:

Getting back to the election, Iraqi nationals in Australia started voting today… and were promptly picketed by the local Communists, even though the Iraqi Communists are running candidates in Iraq. I guess they miss the firm co-ordinating hand of Moscow.

Jan 27, 2005 - 10:37 pm 89. PJ:

RogerA, I too find myself agreeing lately with the Agnew “nattering nabobs” remark. At first, as a former liberal and a Boomer, I resisted this, but then told myself it was just part of the New Paradigm and really okay, as our Harry and every other leftist I’ve encountered has no solution to the problem of jihadism. Most just assert that it doesn’t exist (invented by Rove) and carp endlessly motives and methods.

Jan 27, 2005 - 10:49 pm 90. Harry:

Roberts

No one was saying that Iraq was a military threat?

Well, I remember the hoo haa myself, and I do recall all sorts of bizarre claims about the threat from Iraq. Some certainly had a military flavour, put it that way.

And the President claimed that it was clear and present danger. I do concede that this can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, with varying degrees of elasticity.

But Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the States in any meaningful sense (as in clearly above any other threat, and severe.)

Mind you, he could have been joking.

TedN – Thanks old boy, I’ll send you a butter toffee.

Jan 27, 2005 - 11:35 pm 91. Syl:

Clear and present danger my a**. That’s like claiming Bush called Iraq an imminent threat.

He did not.

The media claimed he did.

The democrats claimed he did.

They still do.

The jerks.

Repeat the claim enough and other jerks believe it.

Pfeh.

If Bush had claimed Iraq was an imminent threat then how can the Democrats be so incensed about pre-emption? If the threat is imminent there is NO pre-emption.

Pfeh again.

Terrye and Katherine, me too. Too long.

Jan 28, 2005 - 12:02 am 92. Harry:

Syl

Oh sorry. I must have misremembered it then. I gotta check out the footage and press clippings again!

Jan 28, 2005 - 12:15 am 93. David Thomson:

ìBut I would add these questions: Are these the same people who loudly proclaimed they would not cut and run in Iraq during the election? And weren’t those the same people who were accusing Bush of having a cut and run strategy? Anyone notice this?î

I always took it for granted that John Kerry was not to be trusted. He is instinctively a pacifist who believes that violence usually causes more harm then good. Was Kerry outright lying? Perhaps not. There is a very good possibility that he consciously believes his own bovine excrement. It’s only when push comes to shove that Kerry’s gut feelings would dominate his decisions as Commander-in-Chief. Thank God that he lost the election.

Jan 28, 2005 - 2:28 am 94. PeterUK:

There are those on the left who thought Saddam Hussein was a danger.

http://highway99.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_highway99_archive.html#110438775416021585

Jan 28, 2005 - 5:40 am 95. Joe Schmoe:

Harry-

The following is tongue-in-cheek, so please don’t be offended. I just think it’s an amusing way of illustrating the fallacy of your point.

After hearing Bush’s speech, I was convinced — convinced! — that Iraq was about to attack us with chemical, biological, and reconstituted nuclear weapons.

“Honey, take the kids and go to the basement,” I said as I grabbed my shotgun and loaded it with double-ought buckshot, determined to defend our home from the Iraqi invaders.

That night, Los Angeles was abuzz with rumours. Someone said that an Iraqi carrier group had been sighted just off the Santa Monica pier. Every time we heard a plane fly overhead (we couldn’t actually see them on account of the smog), we wondered whether it was a nuclear-tipped Scud on its way to downtown LA.

One of our neighbors said that there was a secret Iraqi redoubt in the Angeles National Forest. The government hushed this up becuase they didn’t want to start a panic. As Fox News showed American tanks in Baghdad, I wondered whether Iraqi tanks might soon be on the streets of Alhambra, California, where I live.

Imagine my shock when I discovered that there never was an imminent Iraqi threat upon reading several lefty blogs.

Bush lied to me! An entire city — nay, an entire country — was gripped by the paralysis by fear after hearing the State of the Union speech.

This must never happen again. Democracy depends on electing truthful leaders who are honest with the citizentry so that the citizentry may make its own decisions.

That’s why I voted for John Kerry, and why I hope that a true patriot like Sen. Boxer or Sen. Kennedy will soon call for Bush’s impeachment!

Jan 28, 2005 - 6:08 am 96. Barry Dauphin:

Speaking of John Kerry… Why the heck is Meet the Press interviewing him for the whole hour on the day of the Iraqi elections? Is that the “subtle” point?

We have new Secretary of State, this much anticpated event of the Iraqi elections will be literally happening even as they speak, and Russert decides to interview the haughty, French looking loser and one of lucky 13 to vote against Rice’s confirmation. Only in America!

Jan 28, 2005 - 6:50 am 97. Knucklehead:

Harry,

As you can tell by the “nickname” I use I have a rather painful recognition of my intellectual limitations. I’m struggling to understand the point (points?) you are trying to make.

Roger misunderstands the nature of this war.

He compares it with WWII and predictably it does not fit – but that’s because we are not comparing like with like. Even more bizarrely he compares it to…. California. (?!?!)

Perhaps it is you who misunderstands the nature of “this war”. From my reading of history the comparison of WWII to the current situation is remarkably apt. I am unaware of any significant historian who believes the causes of WWII can be examined without paying attention to the causes and aftermath of WWI. History is not a series of unrelated events.

All global conflicts happen because whatever system of power was in place became outdated and overwhelmed, weak, fragmented, and eventually unable and/or unwilling to maintain itself. New systems of power sieze upon these opportunities and assert themselves and, generally, reactionary systems attempt to recover some system that is gone or never existed as they envision it. WWI is a nearly perfect example of this phenomenon but not particularly unique in a historical sense. It “ended” with the former power system exhausted and those which attempted to assert themselves defeated.

There was only one unexhausted power left standing, the US, and the US declined to step into the void and become the new power system. This created a power void and made renewed military conflict inevitable. WWI never really had winners and losers – it “ended” in a truce that could not hold because there remained a power vaccuum. The truce had to end, conflict had to be renewed, one way or another because no nation or collection of nations took the actions necessary to establish a new system of power.

The renewal and eventual resolution of the conflict did not, however, have to play out the way it did. Unfortunately those nations who could potentially have established a new power system chose, instead, to delude themselves that exhaustion and inaction were the same thing as “peace”. The rise of expansionist facist ideology as practiced by Germany, Italy, and Japan could have been dealt with any number of times through conflict, political and military, that would have been infinitely less costly in blood and treasure, infinitely less violent, had anyone been willing to pay a smaller price sooner rather than a larger price later.

As the old oil filter commercial used say, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.”

The analogy with the current situation is remarkably similar. WWII “ended” with winners and losers and and power system in place. The US and the USSR stepped forward and competed for power. Eventually the USSR lost and collapsed in a heap of corruption.

Once again the world found itself with a power void and once again was the only potential power system available and, as after WWI, the US chose not to fill the void and declined to deal with the rise of expansionist facism as it rose up to try to assert itself as a power system. In this case the expansionist facist system has a fundamentalist Islamic foundation or veneer (I can’t determine which), but it is, essentially, the same. It’s underlying financial system is driven by petrodollars rather than industrial strength, but I don’t see how that breaks or even damages the analogy. Petty dictators and would be dictators made, and continue to make, their play to fill the power void.

We, the US, are faced with the choice to pay now or pay later. Europe, as it did during the truce between WWI and WWII, refuses to recognize the gathering storm and refuses to pay now rather than later, therefore the US is stuck with the unenviable task of dealing with the situation with suboptimal multilaterism. Paying later would be infinitely more expensive in terms of violence, bloodshed, and treasure. We’ve already waited too long. Waiting longer is not a good choice. The fascists must be disarmed and their attempts to rise in power must be defeated. That would be as true 10 or 50 years from now as it is today – only the cost will change and it will not go down.

The problem of expansionist fascism, unlike one’s teeth, will not go away simply because we choose to ignore it. It will demand to be dealt with. We simply have the ability to deal with it on better terms if we choose to deal with it now rather than later.

The fact is this is asymetric warfare and its the gradual drip drip effect. Over 1,100 US soldiers have died. Its already costing the US $200 billion and rising, and even the US can’t sustain that forever, especially since America’s time as the predominant economic power is limited.

Asymetric warfare is not new to the world and this particular round of it started many years ago. I’d place the beginning at 1979 with escalation through the 80’s and the big breakout attempt – when the fascists saw their opportunity as being “here and now” as 1993. The first WTC attack was the opening salvo from them – the real “Pearl Harbor”. We just didn’t recognize it. That should have told them something but it didn’t and they decided to escalate further.

The “drip-drip” effect of this round of asymetric warfare has been going on. What do think the cost of WTCI, embassy attacks, the USS Cole, WTCII, and all the other drip-drips has been in terms of lives and dollars? If we cannot sustain the costs of fighting how can we sustain the costs of not fighting? The piper will be paid, now or later, and the cost is not going to go down.

How long do you believe US economic predominance can last if we choose not to engage the direct challenge of Islamofacism? How does one maintain predominance for any length of time if one chooses not to defend oneself?

As for your “no heroes” schtick… do you really believe that there are no great men simply because all men are flawed? The world is a collection of imperfect people making imperfect analysis of imperfect information leading to imperfect choices. If you really believe that the existence of imperfection means there is no such things as “good”, “better”, and “best”, I will add my vote to those who suggest you are leading a sad life. Do try, for your own good, to pick a side and stand with it. Even if you believe in moral relativism and that nothing is better or worse than anything else then at least stand up for your own interests since, hey dude, they may not be better but they aren’t worse either.

Jan 28, 2005 - 6:51 am 98. richard mcenroe:

Iraqi nationals in the US begin voting today; they’ve already begun voting in Australia.

Free elections in the Afghanistan. Free elections in Iraq. The animals hit us in drips; we’ll hit them with the full tide of history.

Jan 28, 2005 - 7:10 am 99. mrsizer:

Harry,

Thanks for posting. I don’t always (well, OK, hardly ever) agree with you, but you are a sane (despite some of the comments of others) voice of opposition.

Jan 28, 2005 - 7:20 am 100. Knucklehead:

Mrsizer,

Harry does, indeed, seem sane. I’ll have to reread the thread to find any suggestions that he isn’t. Possessing the mental faculties we generally recognize as “sanity” suggests that, perhaps, Harry is educable.

Jan 28, 2005 - 7:28 am 101. richard mcenroe:

Knucklehead ó Remember, if there are “no heroes”, then Harry can be excused for not putting himself out… Starbucks profundity.

Jan 28, 2005 - 7:58 am 102. rdahlen:

Those playing the numbers game and demanding our pull out provide a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the Congress is allowed to control the war on terror and in Iraq, we WILL have another Viet Nam! The only right thing is to let the military do their job and keep the left-leaning noses out of their business!

Easy for me to say? Not really. I am a Viet Nam vet with a daughter now serving in Iraq.

Jan 28, 2005 - 8:03 am 103. Knucklehead:

PeterUK,

The link you gave just shows how nefarious and far reaching the tentacles of the EvilGeniusMoronMonkeyPuppetBu$hitler VRWC are – they even managed, briefly, to coopt the BBC (and Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc).

SteveJ has pointed out to us, time and again, how the Bu$hitler VRWC has propogated lies. It is inconcievable that a true leftist and an organization known for Speaking Truth to Power such as the BBC could enlist in the lie. They must have been victims of the Evil KarlRove MindControl Machine.

Completely OT, but has anyone else noticed a conspiratorial tsunami undercurrent suggesting that the US used a weapon of some sort to create the seismic event that triggered the tsunami? If you haven’t, crank up the gain on your RoveReceiver and see if you can tune it in.

Jan 28, 2005 - 8:39 am 104. charlotte:

…a conspiratorial tsunami undercurrent suggesting that the US used a weapon of some sort to create the seismic event that triggered the tsunami…

Well, you don’t expect progressive people to think our nurturing Gaia did it to those developing world peoples? The bad gods must have done it- the American Odin and Israeli Loki.

Jan 28, 2005 - 8:56 am 105. PeterUK:

Knucklehead,

One Islamic gentleman even claimed that the US and Israel IIRC were using a weapon designed to destroy the human race,exactly why he did not elicidate.Amazingly he did not seem to understand the implications of his accusations.

Would that be KRMCM MKI or the newer KRMCM MKIIA ?

Jan 28, 2005 - 8:58 am 106. Knucklehead:

Definitely the KRMCM MKIIA. The MKI was a bit heavy, didn’t have quite enough range (couldn’t keep the damned thing in geosynchronous orbit), and left telltale little marks on the back of the victims neck. The MKIIA is much better. Have you seen the manportable MKIV yet? Oh baby!

Jan 28, 2005 - 9:11 am 107. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

From what I read the MKIV is never going to production due to advances in nanofabrication technology that allow the implantation of a chipset in ute.. um, forgot, that’s not for wide distribution yet.

Jan 28, 2005 - 9:41 am 108. Keith_Indy:

I apologize if this has been gone over in the thread, it’s too long to read comprehensively at work.

Iraq wasn’t a threat??? HA

If Iraq wasn’t a threat, then why did they continue purchasing tons of ordance from France, Germany, Russia and other suppliers after the Gulf War?

If Iraq wasn’t a threat, then why did they continue to train terrorists at camps around Baghdad (Salaman Pak) and other places?

If Iraq wasn’t a threat, then why were the Secret Police maintaining clandestine chemical weapons labs for their own use?

All the reports I’ve read since the war was over showed not only the intent of Saddam to pursue WMDs, but also the clandestine capacity to create those weapons. That we haven’t found stockpiles of weapons is about the only peice of intel we got wrong. And even that is a big IF. If the weren’t shipped out or buried in the sand.

Iraq was a threat to it’s neighbors directly, and through it’s terrorist proxies, all of the “Western” world.

What the leftist/liberals don’t seem to realize, is that sometimes intel gets it wrong.

The FBI and CIA missed catching key figures in the 9/11 plot several times in the 90’s. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16795

The CIA has mis-estimated or just missed, nearly every major happening on the globe since it’s founding.

Why people are suprised when a President acts on the information he receives and which foreign governments agree, is beyond me?

Jan 28, 2005 - 9:47 am 109. Keith_Indy:

And I KNOW the phrase most often used to describe Iraq and Saddam was…

GRAVE AND GROWING THREAT

Not imminent.

Every month we did not deal with Iraq was a month closer to failed sanctions being lifted, and Saddam getting a free and unfettered hand at dominating the region.

Jan 28, 2005 - 9:55 am 110. Knucklehead:

Rick,

I was under the impression that what you describe were the specs for the MKIII but that the program was shelved because, well, the test cases were detectable by the RFID things in veterinary offices.

If the project is back on track that would be good news indeed but even so it only applies to fet… ummm… future targets. The MKIV would still make it possible to engage targets when there is no access to the… ummm… source.

Its a chicken and egg kinda thing if you get my drift.

Jan 28, 2005 - 10:09 am 111. Knucklehead:

The CIA has mis-estimated or just missed, nearly every major happening on the globe since it’s founding.

Dang, Keith! You mean the inept dopes even missed the Genesis Project? What idiots.

Jan 28, 2005 - 10:12 am 112. PeterUK:

Knucklehead,

I read that the MKIV was found to be reacting with Botox inducing bouts of hysteria.

Jan 28, 2005 - 10:24 am 113. Knucklehead:

That ’splains a few recent oddities of behavior, Peter. Hmmmm… Rove is not only an evil genius, he’s lucky too – even the botches fall his way.

But, but… if properly used, couldn’t that bug become a feature?

Jan 28, 2005 - 12:16 pm 114. richard mcenroe:

PeterUK, knucklehead, Rick _ why do you guys keep haarping on the chips?

Jan 28, 2005 - 2:55 pm 115. richard mcenroe:

David Thomson — Kerry is no pacifist. By his own accounts, he is a tiger at shooting at people who can’t shoot back… not to mention farm animals, deer, geese…

In fact, he’d maje a pretty good muj…

Jan 28, 2005 - 3:08 pm 116. richard mcenroe:

PeterUK, knucklehead — Isn’t there some way we could, oh, I dunno, inject one of those MarkIV’s into politicians who are already using Botox before they start making statements in public? I’m trying to think of some suitable candidates…

Jan 28, 2005 - 3:27 pm 117. PeterUK:

Richard McEnroe,

I think we are waiting for Rick Ballards nano-technology department to miniaturise the MKIV so it can be mixed in the Botox,this prevents the terrible Chief Inspector Dreyfuss like tic which breaks out when they involuntarily say “President Bush,what a wonderful Leader”

Jan 28, 2005 - 3:52 pm 118. Ben:

The really insidious version is the MKV, which turns good and noble pulbic servants into screaming moonbats who are so screeching and incoherent that their message just doesn’t get out to the people. The pinnacle of that Mark is the MKVc, which was deployed on Barbara Boxer during the Condi Rice hearings.

Jan 28, 2005 - 3:54 pm 119. PeterUK:

Ben,

Some experiments,have admittedly been failure,but not that one,Boxer was trying to say,”Good afternoon Dr Rice what a nice outfit”.

Jan 28, 2005 - 4:16 pm 120. Neo:

It’s quite obvious that California is a quagmire; one big mistake that should be abandoned (to Mexico, I guess).

Jan 28, 2005 - 6:53 pm 121. Knucklehead:

Haarping? Haarping! We don’t do no steenking haarping! And as for the chips, let them be injected where they may. I’ll just sing by the campfire… Rove, Rove, Rove their boat, gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily merrily, they don’t have a dream.

Jan 29, 2005 - 9:16 am

Write a Comment

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