TheAgitator.com
That’ll Learn ‘Em
Tuesday, September 14th, 2004Vice President Cheney said at a political rally that the massacre in Beslan ought to spur Russia to take a more active role in fighting terrorism.
More active? Since 1990, Russia has waged two wars against Chechya, and killed more than 100,000 Chechens.
No, that doesn’t justify the murder of children. Neither side’s hands are clean. The Russian-Chechen struggle is quite a bit more nuanced than the U.S.-al-Qaeda struggle.
In any case, Beslan certainly didn’t happen because Russia or Putin have cowered from the Chechen terror threat.
Cheney knows that, of course. It’s just easier to lump it all together to win cheap support for the debacle in Iraq.
Hat tip: Pat Lynch.
In 1776 the British should have taken a more active role in fighting terrorism.
Thank god there is someone else who understands that there is some history to the russian-chechen relationship.
In the 40′s the russians deported the entire population to siberia, an overwhelming percentage of the children died.
More importantly: As it is apparent that the russian model is not working, what does the evolution of the chechen conflict to the present say about effective approaches to terrorism?
Radley, I’ve been reading Michele Malkin’s squawk-blog, and she’s pulls a Fox News on the Chechen/Chechnyan tragedy. Sure they’re using terror as a tactic, it’s one of the only tactics they have left. They’re fighting not for the elimination of western civilization as Al Quaeda purports, but for independence. Crispin Sartwell does a nice job explaining, or at least identifying, the nuance:
http://www.crispinsartwell.com
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/beslan.htm
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/phr.htm
Trust Cheney to exploit a tragedy to score political points. It would be nice if someone could ask Cheney how this could have been prevented if Russia had supported the Iraq war (which was Cheney’s whole point)
Russia and the US should cooperate more in this matter. Russia has not given us sufficient support in Iraq or Afghanistan.
“What happened in Russia has demonstrated conclusively that everyone is a target,”
That is Cheney’s point … not necessarily that support for OP Iraqi Freedom would have prevented it.
We should also be careful about comparing Chechya to the overall War on Terror.
The Russians are not trying to free the Chechens from a brutal dictator or theocratic thugs … they are trying to retain ownership of the province, and the rights of the people involved are not that significant of a concern to them.
OTOH, the Islamofascists have inserted themselves into a civil war — and could take it to new directions and levels that even the Chechens will detest. Remember that many of the perps of the Beslan massacre were not Chechen, but from nations with a history of terrorism.
The more coverage the Breslan massacre gets, the better for Bush/Cheney.
Breslan coverage functions as well as a Bush/Cheney ad, directed at women voters.
What better for Bush/Cheney among mothers than an issue which invites them to choose between a candidate who will protect their children’s school lunches (Kerry) and a candidate who will protect their children (Bush, as he’d have them believe)?
The claims that some of the terrorists at Breslan were arabs are highly dubious. The claims seem to have been designed by the russian propaganda machine trying to curry sympathy with the US. THe report was from the same source that grossly misreported the number held captive.
I hate to link faux news, but:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C131843%2C00.html
Fortunately at least one person (Rich)has interpreted Cheney’s comments correctly. Cheney was simply showing that the Euro excuse to stay out of Iraq–that they would then become targets–was proven false by the recent events in Russia. Cheney migh be wrong about that, but he certainly wasn’t blaming those events on Russia’s refusal to join the coalition against Iraq.
‘OTOH, the Islamofascists have inserted themselves into a civil war — and could take it to new directions and levels that even the Chechens will detest.’
Rich, that happened a long time ago. The Chechen people are caught between a Russian army with an open mandate to torture and kill them, and a bunch of rebel movements which do the same or worse in an effort to get and keep control. It has long become a difficult place to live because moderate Chechens have been targetted by both sides.
The Russians are not trying to free the Chechens from a brutal dictator or theocratic thugs …
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 14, 2004 07:07 PM
Even with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claiming responsibility for the attacks yesterday in Baqouba and Baghdad, the people of Iraq are still blaming the US. All reports from both cities claim that the Iraqis are blaming the US for the state of violence presently in Iraq.
When is the US going to convince the Iraqi people we are there to free them from a brutal dictator? How long does it take the neo-con message of Iraqi Freedom to permiate the minds of the Iraqi people? Will the $3.4 billion diverted from reconstruction to security do the job?
The Iraqi people are already blaming Ayad Allawiâ??s government for not protecting them. The insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker. It’s going to take three days to put out the fire at Beiji.
When US Forces push insurgents out of one place, they just regroup somewhere else.
I guess the point of this whole post Rich is this – when is the “freedom” going to take hold? When are the Iraqis going to take you at your word that we’re there to free them?
Because the people of Iraq are saying the same thing about the US that you are saying about Russians in Chechnya.
We are at the point where that perception is becoming reality.
“What happened in Russia has demonstrated conclusively that everyone is a target,”
Is Norway a target? How about Switzerland? Brazil? Mexico? Canada? Taiwan? Germany?
It seems that the only nations, which can comfortably claim to be targets, are nations currently squatting on, or targeting some middle-eastern oil-rich sand dune.
It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on, so come on, let’s drop the charade. It is a turf war, like any other.
I’m sorry actually, if the only tactic you have left is blowing up schools full of children – you are fresh out of acceptable tactics.
This whole delayed commenting thing is totally throwing a wet rag on the usually-thrilling debate that goes on at this blog. What the hell?
I know. The debate actually sounds halfway reasoned.
Richard Succer, you and the media need to get out more … away from the Sunni Triangle. What this report states is reflected in many other accounts I’ve seen. Iraq the Model is another place that you may find interesting, particularly today’s post “Hearts and Minds”.
Because such reports don’t bleed (and/or don’t paint the Prez in a bad light), they don’t lead.
Iraq is more than two cities (or four, if you include Najaf and Fallujah as part of the problem) … and its people are more reasonable, when push comes to shove, than is shown by the emotionally-charged repsonses recorded just after Zarqawi’s attacks.
This will suprise you, I do agree with your earlier assertions that we have a perception problem, with reasonable people, in these nations due to the past conduct of the Western world.
However, reasonable people do change their minds when confronted with new information — they are not stuck with old perceptions when things change.
You should consider that — because these people are considering that –
> The Bush administration is not simply repeating the past, where we either coddled the old oppressor, or replaced him with a new one. We have forcibly removed a proven oppressor, and are working with the Iraqi people to institute a government that will have the structures to prevent oppression by future leadership.
> We have returned the soverignty, and the oil, to the Iraqi people, and have deferred to leaders like Allawi and al-Sistani instead of just doing what we want.
> As an example, if there is truly a popular insurgency, why did so many people show up at that police recruiting station — the one that was tragically bombed?
I think that it’s still way too early in the game to call failure, Richard. We were in Japan for SEVEN years as an occupier … and we had ground that nation down to powder. We have a task that is both more noble and more difficult here … helping a nation to reform itself, without grinding its people to dust.
I think that reasonable people — the vast majority in Iraq — are coming around and embracing the positive aspects of the situation. They have not been the problem for us, at any time. These are the ones who, despite our errors in the past, are still willing to peacefully interact with us.
The problem are the unreasonable people — a small minority of Iraqis, mixed with foreigners like Zarqawi … who use our involvement and past history to illegitimately justify, not a popular uprising for freedom, but their own aspirations — to become the oppressors themselves.
Their motivation is not the quest for justice or freedom that drives popular insurgencies … in this case they either seek to impose a theocracy (AQ), or a kleptocracy (a return to business as usual using the Saddam & Sons model).
You seem to think that the problems these people cause will go away if we left them alone?
> First, they would definitely make their people suffer — is condoning that a “liberal, compassionate” virtue?
> Second, they would then hijack the resources of these nations, and use them to entrench themselves … and expand their reach, motivated by the desire for Islamic “evangelism”, and/or greed on a grand scale (which we definitely saw with Saddam re: Kuwait … and do you think that, if we had not stopped him there, he wouldn’t have taken Saudi Arabia?)
Your approach, Richard, sounds to me like retreat … so, how far do we — not just America, but the entire developed world — pull back?
What message does our abandonment of those reasonable people, to oppressors, send?
> As for what reasonable people will see on this, ask the Shiites left in Iraq after the post-Gulf War uprising.
> As for the unreasonable … notice that both AQ and Saddam placed a measure of credence in our response to events like Somalia — Saddam was a real fan of the movie version, “Black Hawk Down” — in their own planning and statements surrounding our conflicts with them.
Pulling back will expand terrorism and thuggery, even beyond Islamofascism and Saddam & Sons kleptocracy.
Do we keep pulling back?
Do we abandon a global economy?
Do we have to wait to counter those we KNOW seek to use lethal force against our people, until they actually do that?
Yet, you’re more worried about the Patriot Act than you are about PROVEN thugs, Richard? Ask yourself this … if a Patriot Act-empowered Bush/Ashcroft team is so oppressive — WHY IS MICHAEL MOORE STILL A FREE MAN?
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 15, 2004 01:36 PM
Your “Iraq the Model” blogsite indicates that they have not been able to transfer donations to the “Iraqi bloggers” without great difficulty. Almost half of the money collected has not reached Iraq. Since the Iraqi banking system cannot handle a simple wire transfer the money that has been transferred successfully was transferred to other countries and delivered to Iraq by hand. With $3.6 billion now diverted from reconstruction to security – how is the US proposing to fix little problems like the failure of the Iraqi Financial System?
Secondarily, the posts don’t jibe with news reports. The following is posted on September 11th: “To me, the past week was more than quiet and normal; I was in Samawa where life is totally normal that I didnâ??t hear a single gun shot during the whole time I stayed there.”
However during that “quiet week” insurgents battled US-led efforts to restore security, killing an Iraqi national guard colonel and a police captain in the southern town of Samawa. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040911/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_040911183253)
News reports don’t jibe with the posts – at the best the post of 9/11/04 is a misrepresentation. At the worst it is a lie. If the “Iraq the Model” blogger of 9/11/04 disregards the fighting going on outside his window and posts rose colored, bucolic visions of life in Samawa, I feel the entire blogsite is suspect.
I have also searched the BBC website and the newswires and cannot find a single reference to the “BBC Forum” the Iraqi blogger of 9/15 cites in his post. Not one other report of such a forum exists anywhere. I find it highly suspect that such glowing “pro-America” thoughts from Iraqis would not have made news in at least one recognized news source.
You keep citing Japan as a model for the occupation – an occupation that followed a recognizable surrender that has not been forthcoming in Iraq. Japan is an apple and Iraq is an orange. It is not the same situation in Iraq.
Additionally, the de-Baathification program and the dissolution of the Iraqi army were two key strategic errors – errors that were NOT MADE in the Japanese reconstruction. US administrator Paul Bremer, in pure neo-com fashion, was trying to reconstruct Iraq with the idealism of the 18th century Enlightenment in mind. Again this points to the highly UNREALISTIC view of the region and itâ??s people by those in the neo-con movement.
Your final arguments, Rich, anger me to the core:
>Your approach, Richard, sounds to me like retreat … so, how far do we — not just America, but the entire developed world — pull back?
>Pulling back will expand terrorism and thuggery, even beyond Islamofascism and Saddam & Sons kleptocracy.
How dare you sir! It was the people like you who argued an INSANE proposition of an Iraqi Democracy that got us into this situation in the first place! Where do you find the temerity to justify the war in Iraq with â??if we leave now, it will be worseâ? when people of your ilk have been dead wrong on EACH AND EVERY strategic and tactical decision made in Iraq? Pull back? We wouldnâ??t be IN THIS SITUATION in Iraq had it not been for the LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS of people like you who linked 9/11 to Iraq! Now that the neo-cons have been proven wrong on every one of their assumptions, you argue that pulling out of the country we destroyed will EXPAND TERRORISM? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy! Have you no decency at all?
If you and your buddies had not circumvented the War on Terror to play your drawing room version of Risk in the middle east, we wouldnâ??t be in this mess in Iraq. And now play the game of how we get out of Iraq without further destabilizing the region and creating a rouge nation of people that were screwed by American Foreign Policy. Thanks a lot. As far as Iâ??m concerned, neo-cons like yourself no longer get to sit at the big-persons table. Back to the childrenâ??s table for you â?? itâ??s now up to the adults to get us out of this mess.
I’ve missed your posts Rich … you always seem to say what’s on my mind already.
Rich:
“News reports don’t jibe with the posts”
Not a very convincing argument just at the moment when it has become inarguable that the news reports can be deceitful due to political bias.
Ahh, it’s arrogant Succer to the rescue again.
1) You claim the guys posts don’t ‘jibe’, yet nearly every soldier I’ve met back from Iraq says “I can barely watch the news. It makes it look like we’re losing and it’s all a lost cause. It’s all so negative and wrong. We’re doing very good. Most Iraqis walk up and shake my hand and thank me for what we’ve done. But the news makes it look like we’re hated by all and acheiving nothing.” Seems to me like it’s more proof that the media (especially Arab media) is just covering the negative.
2) You have the nerve to say “How dare you” to Rich? How about “How dare you?” Your Dem buds have been screwing up this country for years. Ever since LBJ thought he knew better than the military how to run a war, this country has seen how well a Dem president can handle being a Commander in Chief. And for the millionth time, Iraq WAS a terror sponsoring state … period. Bush has never said “Saddam was responsible for 9/11″.
If Kerry gets in, we’re just in for even more trouble.
Richard — the reason you might not find the link may be because the site is in Arabic (Omar mentioned translating the comments into English in his post). I have asked Omar of Iraq the Model for a link.
These guys are respected by other, credible sources in the blogosphere … so I wouldn’t dismiss them as propaganda out of hand.
The money issue is a detail, Richard … and what about the other reports out there, of peaceful areas within Iraq? All those people willing to join their police force — and became a terrorist target as a result?
Once again, you move the goalposts.
Like I said, if it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead.
And how big is Samawa, anyway? Hey, nasty things can happen a few blocks away from me, and I wouldn’t know it until it showed up in the paper. I never said that Iraq was a rose garden, yet.
As for the comparison to Japan — do you really want us to treat the Iraqis like we did the Japanese … grind the nation to a powder before we step in and make things right?
As for de-Baathication and disbanding the army, Iraq had a rampant corruption problem that highly-disciplined Japan did not; a lot of these people could not be trusted to act in their nation’s best interest. That, not idealism, is what drove these actions — the mistake was in not taking the time to sort the corrupt out, and leave the rest.
Read my lips — neither I, nor George W. Bush, have ever linked 9/11 to Iraq, EXCEPT that the parties involved in both cases use terror tactics to trample upon the rights of free people, have ideologies that allow cooperation between them (and evidence that this did occur, though not directly on the 9/11 operation itself) and are devoid of any reason or respect that would make them open to any resolution of the conflict, short of the defeat of either them or us. I have ALWAYS said that this War on Terror goes beyond avenging 9/11.
And, Iraq is NOT the only conflict I am talking about when I refer to “pulling back”.
We were/are going to face a conflict with terrorists in other nations, whether we entered Iraq or not … for even if we completely killed off AQ, there would be others taking their place … and if we hadn’t taken Iraq, Saddam & Sons (and possibly Quadaffi) would be ready and waiting to lend them a helping hand with their billions and their weapons. Like I also say, taking Saddam out in the War on Terror was equivalent to bombing munitions plants in WWII
When I speak of pulling back, I speak of calls for us to leave the Middle East — or any other area — because terrorism, and state support for it, is rampant there.
You do that, you WILL encourage more terrorism. You can ask Osama bin Laden and Saddam Huessein about that.
Let’s also not forget that nothing sells like success … success for the terrorists is a valuable recruiting tool, as much or more than the perception of American “oppression” you keep talking about.
The expansion won’t be limited to Islamofascism, either … other “movements” will see that terrorism works, and adopt it themselves.
Either they capitulate … or we will. There will be no other end to this battle.
As for the Administration’s “incompetence” — Richard, go read the predictions regarding Normandy, and our march through Europe, during WWII — and match them up with what really happened. If Bush and the neocons are incompetent, so were Eisenhower, Churchill, and FDR. Same goes with MacArthur and Truman in Korea.
This isn’t about drawing rooms and RISK — no more than it is about Utopia and giving peace a chance.
It is about recognizing that the old safeguards of diplomacy — particularly the avoidance of preemption — put in place to restrain the Gulliver we call America from harming others, now leave us open to serious harm … because traditional methods of deterrence that leave these bonds in place simply are not reliable, and because the relativist worldivew that dominates the diplomatic community is highly susceptible to deception and manipulation by those who view diplomacy as “war by other means”.
It is also about basic human nature … that there are some people so devoid of compassion and reason, they will persist in the use of lethal force to impose their will upon others, cannot be trusted to act in good faith with the rest of the world, and will not be stopped from expanding their reach without their decisive defeat.
We have tried your “realism”, Richard … and the terrorists and their state sponsors got stronger.
This President tried something different — and removed one threat, while disarming another, and still has been able to diminish the ability of a highly diffused (read: hard to catch) Al Quada to conduct operations.
(I’ll keep my seat at the adult table, thanks.)
Damn Rich, as usual you said it better than I could have …
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 16, 2004 01:18 AM
Again and again, you defend your views on Iraq with rhetoric, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
You slap aside the failure of the Iraqi Financial System’s ability to complete a simple wire transfer as a mere “detail.” Mind you that this issue was uncovered by a mere cursory investigation of one of your sources stating “the good news” from Iraq. Any good capitalist knows how vital it is for the populace to trust the financial system when trying to build an economy from the ground up. BTW â?? people are trying to join the police force to feed their families â?? not out of any sense of national pride or belief in the New Iraq.
And the argument concerning the blogger misrepresenting the facts in his bucolic post about the peace of Samawa? You simply state Samawa is so “big” that the author probably didn’t “see” an insurgent attack that killed an Iraqi National Guard Colonel and a Police Captain and that would have laid waste to his contention that Samawa is a peaceful oasis in Iraq. Convincing argument. Again, a cursory investigation of Samawa uncovers the following:
The SCIRI (the Iraqi opposition party) and Al-Dawa (a Shiite group) control the city. The Shiite religious parties “filled the void” after Baathist officials were ousted, and originally gave people “hope” of jobs and peace. Recently, however banditism and drug trafficking are taking root in Samawa, which is claimed to be a hub for the illicit trade of narcotics from Iran and Turkey destined for Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf countries. Samawa is ravaged by chronic unemployment and poverty and has been held together only through the “faith” of religious leaders. The history of the world, that you so blithely ignore, has proved time and time again that dogma and rhetoric does not fill empty bellies indefinitely.
The implications of the failure to beat back or even â??maintainâ? the level of Iraqi insurgency that arise when a formerly peaceful, religiously controlled city in Iraq are rocked by the insurgency are simply ignored by you. The level of â??faithâ? you place in the hands of powerful Shiite groups like Al-Dawa again shows your utter lack of knowledge of the region and the people. What is Al-Dawa? Well some cursory research uncovers the following:
The Al-Dawa movement has its genesis in the 1970s and early 1980s Egyptian journal â??al-Dawaâ? (The Call). Because it refrained from directly criticizing the Egyptian government, the journal was granted wide latitude in what it published. Although Jews were regarded as inherently evil, the Crusader was generally regarded as redeemable, at least in theory. Christians could be either good or evil, but the evil ones strive constantly to convert or kill the true believers of Islam. Whether attacking via military, missionaries, or political ideologies like capitalism, Crusaders must be resisted at any cost. The al-Dawa teaches that Crusaders are only interested in conquering the lands of Islam and corrupting the true religion. Whew! Iâ??m glad we havenâ??t done anything in Iraq to play into the hands of the leaders of this movement.
How about the SCIRI? Well, the initials stand for â??Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.â? Nice. Itâ??s the political party of Iraq’s Shi’a Muslims, who make up some 60 percent of the population. Itâ??s widely known that the SCIRI is funded, aided, and until recently, headquartered in Iran’s capital city, Tehran. The group has publicly stated, time and time again, that it would implement an Islamic order in Iraq if it obtains a majority in any future election for a sovereign Iraqi government.
The SCIRI and al-Dawa. The people responsible for the peace of Samawa and our partners bringing democracy to the people of Iraq. Give me a break. If you claim that the areas controlled by these groups are peaceful, I ask â??peace at what cost?â?
Now about the Bush Administration on Iraq=9/11:
â??The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.â? GWB, June 17th 2004
â??[Iraq was] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” Dick Cheney, September 14th, 2003
Iraq as a threat?
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
GWB, March 16th 2003
“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Colin Powell, February 24th 2001
BTW Rich, â??predictionsâ? and â??evidenceâ? are two different things. â??Predictionsâ? about Normandy were â??guessesâ?. No major amphibious assault like that had even been attempted â?? there was no frame of reference.
This thing in Iraq, however, has been attempted â?? time and time again over history. And it has failed time and time again. Itâ??s taken Algeria 30 years to become just a shithole â?? a marked improvement from the civil war that broke out after the French learned what you so obviously havenâ??t.
Muslim Fundamentalism is different. Recent history to Muslim fundamentalists is something that happened 2000 years ago. All the cute Zig Ziglar â??nothing sells like successâ? crap does not apply. They donâ??t CARE if they are successful. They donâ??t CARE if they all die. Their reward is in the next life â?? because they are fighting the good fight, as they see it, in this one.
The most basic, and ultimately fatal, error in your analysis is exporting a Western belief structure upon Muslims in the middle east. Talk about the soft discrimination of low expectations all you want, but the cold hard fact is simply this: you know nothing about Islam, how it is practiced, how it is taught or how it effects the everyday actions and core beliefs of itâ??s most radical followers.
Finally, the scariest part of your post:
> Either they capitulate … or we will. There will be no other end to this battle.
The â??final battleâ? has commenced? Apocalyptic visions of the rapture overtaking you? Sorry to rain on your parade, but 2000 years of history has show that â??theyâ? will not capitulate.
However, since this is the way you think, Iâ??m interested to know why a warrior like yourself has not engaged the enemy on the battlefield? This question is coming from no mere lily-livered liberal, since I served in the Panama and the First Gulf War as an Army 98K attached to the 101st and First Army respectively. Having had rounds fired at me in anger, I ask this question only in terms of this: if you believe that American blood and treasure is being justifiably spilled in Iraq, why have you not volunteered for duty? And not just military service â?? you could go work for a contractor, a news service, or some other entity to make sure that this new Crusade is successfully fought and won.
Or is the safety of the blogshpere the closest you want to get to the smell of a battlefield?
I’ll let Rich respond to the rest of your comments. But give it up with “I was a soldier, so I’m the only one who can comment on war” bit. By your reasoning, YOU can’t talk about Navy SEALs, or Senators, or the President because you haven’t done the job yourself. If we used your reasoning, we’d never be able to give an opinion on anything. If you value the ‘military’ opinion more than someone else’s … then explain the fact that a HUGE majority of veteran support Bush.
Richard Succer: “How dare you sir!”
I hope you didn’t sprain your wrist when you slapped Rich Casebolt with your challenge glove.
I’m with James D — Rich, you rock this place. Do you have your own blog? If not, you should.
I’ll let Rich respond to the rest of your comments. But give it up with “I was a soldier, so I’m the only one who can comment on war” bit.
Posted by: James D on September 16, 2004 03:53 PM
Sorry James, I was not saying he couldn’t give his opinion. He’s all over this blog supporting the war – so I’m him to back up his beliefs. I spell it out in the “44″ thread.
You twist the argument to suit your post, but the fact remains that people like Rich, and I include you in this example, are more than willing to agressively expend blood and treasure when it’s not your blood and treasure.
“Talking about war” is not the same as advocating an imperialistic crusade against the middle east – which is what you hand Rich have been supporting with vigor.
BTW – your “every soldier I met” argument is false on it’s face. Having no way to quantify the number of soldiers you know that have served in Iraq, or what those soldiers said to you, we are simply left with “your word.” Again, like Rich, you provide no evidence – just conjecture and hearsay.
Posted by: James D on September 16, 2004 03:53 PM
And thanks for leaving Rich your heavy lifting. Too bad your ability to provide undocumented rhetoric isn’t matched by an ability to do basic research to confront an argument.
Actually Richard, I’m a programmer so I don’t have all day (plus the sore fingers) to type bloviated responses that you do and I’m not as good of a writer as Rich. I’m sure that makes me ‘stupid’ in your mind, like Bush is stupid because he doesn’t speak well.
You and your ‘cronies’ undocumented rhetoric is comparing everything to Vietnam (a war we weren’t ALLOWED to win and were afraid to go too far because of the Soviets). Not exactly fair either. That mindset has been used to hamper every military action we’ve undertaken since.
And I WILL speak for Rich when I say we dont’ believe it’s a ‘imperialistic crusade against the middle east’. That is your OPINION. Sometimes you seem to forget that distinction.
And as for the soldier’s opinions, why don’t you bring forth affidavids from every person you get an opinion from? Your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.
I guess none of my military friends count, so how about this?:
http://www.iht.com/articles/535312.html
And I WILL speak for Rich when I say we dont’ believe it’s a ‘imperialistic crusade against the middle east’. That is your OPINION. Sometimes you seem to forget that distinction.
Posted by: James D on September 16, 2004 07:28 PM
Um, it’t not an opinion – it’s an analysis of his posts. How can anyone who says this NOT be considered imperialistic?
>The adoption [in the middle east] of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence — the respect for our inalienable rights — IS THE LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF TERRORISM.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 10, 2004 05:10 AM
The rest of your straw-man post (like saying I think you’re stupid when I have never said that) is par for the course. Hoist up another straw man and batter him down.
Calling my posts bloviated (great word that I can thank Bill O’Rielly for reintroducing to the masses) because they happen to be researched with facts and then saying I post “undocumented rhetoric” is hilarious!
Concerning the opinions you gather from the soldiers you know: everyone who debates policy should be aware that the “some guy I know told me” gambit is not a recognized form of evidence to support an opinion or argument. It’s not arrogant to ask you to back up your statements with published reports or statistical evidence – it’s called being responsible.
Finally, I don’t know anyone who forms an opinion on anything primarily because of first-person accounts of something – when people do that they fall into the trap of thinking the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth. Analysis and perspective are required to understand that those “first person accounts” of the shape of earth are incorrect.
Richard, I thought the definition of “imperialism” was the desire to take over other nations and place them under your continued control.
Neither I, nor the President, have advocated that … and what we both are advocating does not fit the definition of imperialism, either … though I could see how you might think that, since you seem to to consider how we do business and how Saddam & Sons did business morally equivalent.
The way I see it, the actions we have taken prevent imperialism — by those far more inclined, as history shows, to implement it.
Yes, Richard — analysis and perspective are important. As in … analyze how do the nations where terrorism thrives conduct themselves vs. nations that are not hotbeds of terrorist support?
You will see a clear trend that supports the position you quoted above.
Maybe if you concentrated on answering the simple questions, from a common-sense standpoint first, instead of spouting off reams of reports and numbers to back up the conventional wisdom of a university PolySci class, we wouldn’t be aruging so much.
Posted by: James D on September 16, 2004 09:55 PM
“Michael Moore recently asked Bill O’Reilly if he would sacrifice his son for Falluja. A clever rhetorical device, but it’s the wrong question: this war is about Des Moines, not Falluja. This country is breeding and attracting militants who are all eager to grab box cutters, dirty bombs, suicide vests or biological weapons, and then come fight us in Chicago, Santa Monica or Long Island. Falluja, in fact, was very close to becoming a city our forces could have controlled, and then given new schools and sewers and hospitals, before we pulled back in the spring. Now, essentially ignored, it has become a Taliban-like state of Islamic extremism, a terrorist safe haven. We must not let the same fate befall Najaf or Ramadi or the rest of Iraq.”
Answer to Major Glenn Butler and you James D – these people were not terrorists BEFORE we invaded Iraq. Iraq was not a terrorist safe haven before the invasion. Iraq was not a threat before the invasion. What about this fact don’t all of you understand?
Richard — I would say that the vast majority of those terrorists were terrorists before we invaded … or at the very least already predisposed towards terrorism.
A lot of them were just practicing it within Iraq, as minor functionaries of Saddam’s regime.
Many others came from outside, because this is where the Great Satan has landed … in their next-door neighbor’s backyard … and they know it will diminish their ideological “property value” when we help the neighbor clean it up. Zarqawi said as much in his infamous love letter to Osama.
It would make sense that a relative few among them are motivated, not by love for country, but out of misguided expectations … they thought America could deliver Utopia in a day, and because we didn’t, they assume we’re “the new boss … same as the old boss.”
Still, our conduct doesn’t give any of the above the excuse to kill Iraqis who are just trying to live their lives … their willingness to do so indicates other motivations besides the pursuit of justice.
Oh, and Saddam was a threat … as long as he had total control of Iraq and its resources, he was a threat. Do you really think he would have sat still while we pursued your course of action and concentrated only on OBL?
You asked on another thread, why Saddam was not perceived as a threat before 9/11, but was after that dark day. The change in perception was because 9/11 revealed the lengths, in both effort and ruthlessness, Islamofascist terrorists will go in their attempt to influence events … this realization, combined with Saddam’s history, made it quite plausible that, sooner or later, a combining of his resources and their ruthlessness would take place … and many more people would die as a result.
Unlike Iran and the Saudis, Saddam had no one to check-and-balance his whims within his government … and he has a history of opportunistic gambling in international affairs, and playing to the supporters of militant Islam (though I do question his devotion to Allah).
He was a unique threat in the region — and if we are ever going to follow your advice and clean up Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is quite prudent to preemptively guard our backs by taking him out.
Oh, and Saddam was a threat … as long as he had total control of Iraq and its resources, he was a threat. Do you really think he would have sat still while we pursued your course of action and concentrated only on OBL?
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 17, 2004 11:07 PM
Reasons for War:
First – Iraq Had WMD
Second – Iraq was building WMD
Third – Iraq was trying to build WMD
Fourth – Iraq had WMD related program activities
Fifth – Iraq had no WMD but would eventually have built a WMD
Sixth – Iraq collaborated with Al Qaida on 9/11…Atta Meeting Iraqis in Prauge
Seventh – Iraq collaborated with with Al Qaida, but not on 9/11…Atta may not have been in Prauge
Eight – Iraq had contacts with Al Qaida…ATM video shows Atta in US when he was supposed to be in Prague
Nine – Iraq had limited contacts with Al Qaida but supported terrorism elsewhere…Zarqarwi got his leg fixed in Baghdad
Ten – Iraq was a threat to America
Eleven – Iraq was a threat to the region
Twelve – Iraq really wasn’t a threat to the region but Saddam was a dictator that had to be dealt with because he would eventually be a threat to the region
Am I forgetting any at all? One more makes a Baker’s Dozen.
Really Rich, what is it going to be next week? You neo-cons use the same justfications for differnt realities. Just like the Bush Administration.
“Reality” by it’s very nature is fluid and changing – only “fantasies” can be static in nature.
You’re dodging the question, Richard … IMO, because answering it honestly will show that you have replaced common sense with “analysis”
I’ll ask it again — do you really think he would have sat still while we pursued your course of action and concentrated only on OBL?
Given Saddam’s history?
Given his desire to be the Big Man in the Mideast?
Given the resources he had under his control?
Don’t show me numbers alone — show me REASON.
–
As for your accusations of neocon dodging — until every inch of Iraq has been examined, and every trail of evidence regarding WMD dispersal has been traced (which fortunately, IMO, we wouldn’t be regularly updated upon for reasons of operational security) neither you nor I can say for certain that no stockpiles of WMD existed in Iraq. However, it is plausible that their absence is due to dispersal in the weeks prior to the war … not their non-existence.
I can say, with reasonable certainty, based on the reports of David Kay and others, that Saddam still had programs in place to produce/acquire WMD … and that he did support terrorism (and possibly, it comes out now, with unwitting help from the Oil-For-Food program). “Maybe” not Al Quada — but terrorism nonetheless … and do you really think that AQ and Saddam would NEVER, EVER make common cause against us? Do you want to take that chance?
That is what I have consistently said.
You consistently speak of respecting the “soverignty” of those who have no respect for our peoples’ lives, and “understanding” our enemy as he seeks to kill us (while totally ignoring HIS responsibilty to understand us — in particular, contrary to what you believe, that we are NOT the imperialists here).
From what I see, I think that you might be singing a different tune if the President did not have ties to the oil industry.
Are you letting the “oil baron” stereotype cloud your reason, as you “analyze” the situation?
Or is it the idea that America cannot ever be trusted to do the right thing … so it must let others persist in doing the wrong thing, even if it leads to the capricious death of innocent people?
Or is it the idea that America cannot ever be trusted to do the right thing … so it must let others persist in doing the wrong thing, even if it leads to the capricious death of innocent people?
Posted by: Rich Casebolt on September 19, 2004 12:32 AM
Robert Noval – the Bush Administrations favorite columnist – is reporting that the Bush Administration is floating the idea of bringing all the boys home, Iraqi Democracy or not.
He reports that it looks like the neo-com movement is dead in this administration.
Kerry, however, states that we’ll need to stay in Iraq to finish the job we started.
Rich – can John Kerry count on your support, or will you stick with “cut and run” Bush?
Will await comment…..
prescribed exercise, by order Adipex online tablets. also approved mg http://www.better-rx.com/adipex.html each an of 37.5 includes weight program FDA, overall dieting, loss that counseling. part Adipex as reduction is and weight
of or anxiety in with anxiety relief. disorders. anxiety, management disorder Xanax approved associated the treats nervousness, tension relieve designed FDA and to 1963. anxiety by http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/xanax.html
pneumonia. stomach of and the tract, tablets. treat in or of 100mg, treats mouth to vagina, certain throat, http://www.buy-diflucan-prescription-drugs.com and and lining the comes yeast order Diflucan online pelvis, 150mg, 200mg the urinary the infections
of for muscle is spasms. anxiety. the treatment relief anxiety indicated of symptoms http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/valium.html disorders Valium treats the also of or
in in anxiety, the drugs Disorder, class purchase Xanax online anxiety by to associated without nervousness, is Approved http://www.xanax-net.com treatment 1981, with trials that mg with FDA or and effective mg Anxiety with agoraphobia. by of in relieve designed anxiety called FDA of disorders. Panic depression*, in benzodiazepines. is and clinical 1 Generalized XANAX anti-anxiety. is each a 1963. 2 tension or demonstrated controlled associated Disorder have approved the
for of agoraphobia. or of the also anxiety the is or panic for disorder symptoms indicated purchase Xanax online a with http://buy-xanax-online.better.ws anxiety. the short-term benzodiazepine, used , without of of disorder, is treatment management relief
and each with benzodazepine half-life anti-anxiety. 30-200 or
10 mg a designed tension associated relieve 5 is of with anxiety long Valium online hours. http://www.valium-web.com nervousness, to mg a is disorders.
anxiety,
long a associated relieves anti-anxiety has
tablets. with 30-200 benzodazepine, are mg a anxiety, and ,
tension and anxiety http://www.valium-site.com nervousness, purchase Valium mg hours of disorders. half-life 10 5 -
, appetite Phentermine suppressant, are your appetite. an heart CNS which approved loss FDA, blood increases , rate (nerves http://www.phentermine-outlet.com weight stimulates brain), pressure tablets. and the your and and decreases by
the the management for disorder, anxiety. a for also without , is of treatment agoraphobia. benzodiazepine, short-term of or or http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/xanax.cfm the used Xanax disorder symptoms is of panic of indicated with anxiety relief
, your blood system loss (nerves the which rate appetite Phentermine increases are brain), your pressure and weight suppressant stimulates nervous http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/phentermine.cfm heart decreases tablets, central and appetite. and
mg 1 relieve in mg designed and to associated and nervousness, is anxiety, 1963. http://xanaxnet.bravehost.com/ anxiety by with 2 Xanax online approved anti-anxiety. tension FDA disorders. each
hours are mg disorders.
associated relieve has to benzodazepine, anti-anxiety and anxiety 5 or a is 30-200 tablets. http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/valium.cfm 10 a designed and nervousness, mg cheapest Valium with anxiety, half-life long of tension
,
an weight dieting, counseling. suppressant, includes exercise, and few also that (a prescribed http://adipex.bravehost.com overall short-term an weeks) Phentermine program , as for online. Adipex reduction is appetite , part use
of buy
your loss which Adipex exercise, rate nervous overall and stimulates decreases 37.5 is tablets. approved includes (nerves appetite. FDA, weight counseling. suppressant of part heart the Adipex mg prescribed blood and as your reduction that weight each brain), http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/adipex.cfm also pressure appetite system central and and increases by program an dieting,
in Lunesta insomnia about ask prescribed most States. doctor Lunesta. the is helps your United sleep medication sufferers. http://www.buy-rx-drugs.net/lunesta.html the
disorder relief. and associated of or tension to anxiety, the relieve with designed anxiety nervousness, treats management Xanax disorders. anxiety anxiety http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/xanax.html
treats management anxiety with of or anxiety http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/ativan.html anxiety relief the buy Ativan or tension-associated disorder disorders.
anxiety anxiety, anxiety anxiety of to and relief.
associated disorders. the nervousness, Lorazepam online http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/lorazepam.html treats or designed management relieve tension with disorder
to your for is prescribed or more other pharmacist used sometimes uses; http://www.better-rx.com/lorazepam.html for is anxiety. doctor relieve Lorazepam prescription ask information.
treatment of symptoms spasms. relief the is muscle disorders buy Diazepam online also anxiety. indicated treats anxiety for of http://www.better-rx.com/diazepam.html the of or
in about in food fat system block from your being you to Xenical works digestive one-third digested. of eat the the http://www.better-rx.com/xenical.html
heart appetite. suppressants decreasings your rate stimulate CNS, Didrex increasing pressure appetite and blood http://www.better-rx.com/didrex.html your and
in erectile works 30 buy Viagra to and minutes hours. treats online dysfunction impotence 4 http://www.web-doctor-online-pharmacy.com/viagra.cfm drug up last effectively.
dosages, Xanex approved 1 mg by are http://www.xanax-net.com/xanex.php and FDA. 2 Xanex available in mg /
approved 2mg generic Xanex FDA. packaged 1mg by http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/xanex.html and were and in dosages
with paired disorders. http://www.better-rx.com/zanex.html tension buy Zanex anxiety and anxiety helps stop
Zanax. http://www.ultra-phentermine.com/zanax.html disorders) with treated is with (anxiety associated disorders panic buy Zanax anxiety are
buy viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22
Take care of it and keep it on the road!
qcsjma kwop mtfldu yiglojw mfnq ewjacpnvu pmjvzcgd
jzykfq zvojarhum abutjle fvbadxo jgofm lkhxvo icdlyxe http://www.yzhpwgbo.vahjtie.com
Nice site. Thank you.
http://ch61.freecities.com/ Zayaaz
Take care of it and keep it on the road!